‘symbolically monstrous’ is another way of pointing and using appearance against someone, that is to say, the thing being normalized. I doubt we’d look at it quite the same way if it was somebody calling out Hillary Clinton’s symbolically monstrous looks. Which is not to say that people can’t call out Clinton morally! Just that its a lot easier to stop the whole practice than try to find some special person that uniquely deserves being targeted and does not resemble loads of people who do not deserve it.
America has not had a great history with female politicians. They are traditionally scrutinized much more on appearance than male candidates or elected officials. It’s a problem. Using appearance as the preferred means of criticizing a monstrous female candidate (and we all agree MTG is, like, the worst) just perpetuates the problem. It’s not that criticizing MTG is out of bounds, but the style of criticism is cringey.
Have we already forgot about AOC’s/boyfriend’s/feet kerfuffle on the twitters? I assumed this recent MTG thing was riffing on that. But apparently I’m wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
CraigM
12562
no absolutely was something I remember.
Timex
12563
I have no problem calling Trump a fat sack of shit, or Mitch McConnell a gross turtle lich.
After deeper consideration, I think this inclination to only do “good” criticism actually weakens the Democrats (or really, any opponent of these people) because there is some subset of the population who don’t respond to your academic, intellectual criticisms, but WILL respond to juvenile attacks on appearance.
And honestly, those people aren’t going to avoid such insults even if you do.
Matt_W
12564
I think you may have never seen Samantha Bee. Or Trevor Noah. Or John Stewart. Or really any left-leaning comedian.
Sharpe
12565
I feel like every time a person uses a superficial attack it makes it seem like that person lacks a more substantive attack. It’s a weak form of argument.
There’s an old adage in law practice that goes:
"If the facts are against you, pound on the law.
If the law is against you, pound on the facts.
If both are against you, pound on the table."
So in a legal case when I see someone pounding on the table, it makes me immediately feel their actual legal and/or factual case is crap. Likewise when someone’s argument is “your feet look funny!!!”. If you have a good argument, go with that.
There are SO MANY good reasons to criticize someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Trump etc. Using superficial attacks is just… weak. And IMO ineffective.
Sure, but are you saying that’s what’s going on here? It’s my experience that this thread and those of us posting in it have used Magic Taylor Gathering’s policies and positions as our “preferred” means of criticizing her, as you call it. That she makes funny faces and has feet like a troll doll have been, if anything, ancillary means of criticizing her. I don’t get the sense that it’s detracted in any way from criticizing or making fun of her policies [sic] and political positions.
Why do these have to be attacks measured by their efficacy and not just jokes passed around like all the other jokes on this forum? Aren’t so many member of the GOP ripe for all kinds of ridicule, and can’t we enjoy that ridicule while also criticizing their positions? It’s not a zero sum game.
-Tom
KevinC
12567
Right? We’re a bunch of regular (or irregular, in the case of JMJ) folks chatting, we’re not on a debate stage or publicly trying to sway opinions with the mockery.
Menzo
12568
It does disappoint me from time to time that we’ve got a core group of posters here who have known each other for 10-15 years, and yet we still get people tut-tutting the tone and manner of our posts.
Certainly we can all cross the line from time to time, but people who are this familiar with each other should be able to discuss topics without having to caveat every single thing.
Sharpe
12569
I’m a litigator - I tend to view all legal and political discussions from the standpoint of the strength of the arguments. In other words my brain is a hammer and all I see are nails.
Not saying this the right way to think; it’s just how I roll.
I’m with @Tortilla and @Sharpe here. What does it add to the discussion to say “…And she’s UGLY too, haha!”? The only person that reflects on is the commenter. Luckily, I know better with most of y’all.
Houngan
12571
It adds nothing, but I will say that there is a very different take based on gender. If we’re going to be good, then we should be good comprehensively. There’s no tutting when someone mocks a conservative male’s appearance, and that belittles the morally superior (in my opinion) social stance of the left. Be consistent if you’re going to be good, if you’re going to be bad, then be consistent too.
Nothing, which is why no one has done that. Instead, I like to thing folks around here at least bring some wit to the mockery! But as soon as it devolves into Beavis-and-Buttheadery like “hurr hurr she’s ugly”, I will wholeheartedly agree with you.
-Tom
Depending on how it’s said it can add a chuckle. Saying MTG is ugly doesn’t add anything but saying she has feet like a troll doll makes me smile.
Seeing McConnell called the turtle makes me smile because damned if he doesn’t sort of look like a turtle!
That’s a lot of posts to say it’s just locker room talk.
Houngan
12576
Ouch, this nails it. The talk is the talk, and the justifications for it are pretty much universal. Better to not ride on that bandwagon regardless of how you can justify it.
Counterpoint:
We have evolved to recognize these danger signals. I don’t think it’s fair to ask us to gaslight ourselves into pretending that this clay-faced Attack on Titan reject does not want to eat our children.
RichVR
12578
I firmly believe that there are people debased enough, twisted enough, willfully wrong enough… that they deserve anything that one would say of them. They get no pass. They deserve no gatekeeping. Have at them. And damn the gatekeepers.
