Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, nicely done. I admit that Paul Krugman wrote a column in 2005 in which he referred to the 2000 election.
Did you read what I linked to? Do you see that your recollection of when and why he was called "shrill" was off?
|
I did, and I understand it. It differs from my definition.
You can vote Trump out. You can impeach him out. You can’t scream him out.
You can speak truth to power. But it rarely goes anywhere. Repeating yourself and becoming more and more incensed doesn’t work. It’s cathartic at best, and when it becomes extreme and repetitive, it’s shrill.
If you think shrill commentary gets out voters, then the ends here justify the means. But on it’s own, it’s just bleating.
I can’t find the quote, but Buckley once warned about wielding too hot a pen, as it desensitized even readers who agreed with you. Through history, shrill has rarely won. Except in 2016. Trump is the definition of shrill. Perhaps fighting fire with fire works. But I suspect a boots on the ground voter turnout is much better effort. And turning up the shrillness more is counterproductive, as it could depress turnout and enhance opposition turnout.
