Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Trying to have a conversation here? I feel you.
I recognize that the discourse in this country is degraded, or perhaps that it was never that hot to begin with. Stupid people can say stupid things, and other stupid people will believe them, and my trying to say something to change this is like pissing in the wind. I don't need you to tell me that -- I already have Facebook.
But this little place, this haven of erudite and witty people and also PLF, this happy band of formerly greedy associates, this is different. When someone on Facebook refers to shrill liberals, I let it pass like water off a duck's back, or more likely I don't even notice because I only go there to see Atticus's kids' bon mots about zoning and to use Messenger to talk to my friend in Sydney. But when you refer to shrill liberals here, I think, here is my chance to change the world just a small bit, to help Sebby see that when he says that he sounds like a cliche, like a mark, like a dope.
And I did! You get it. So thank you for that -- my faith in this place is redeemed.
|
I get that Krugman is not shrill. I don't think Hillary is shrill. But there's a lot of shrill liberals, and shrill conservatives, out there. And from a linguistic perspective, the word remains a perfect little hand grenade. You can call me a troll for using it. That's fair. Or you can call me a mark, or a dope. That's not fair, or accurate. But if those words have disproportionate negative impact (enhanced "bite")... well, in Booker's words, "bring it."
