Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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."
|
When you (you, Sebby -- not you in the sense of someone) say "shrill liberals," could be referring to those liberals who are shrill just as you refer to those conservatives who are shrill, in the same sense that you could refer to Justice Merrick Garland just as you refer to Justice Neil Gorsuch. But you aren't because we live in a world in which the people who are dismissed categorically as shrill are liberals, not conservatives, a world in which you, Sebby, have never ever referred to shrill conservatives until you started pretending that you might in this thread.
I would call you a troll for using it, except that trolling is a choice, and you used the phrase without thinking about it, because in your own brain you tune out liberals as shrill. You weren't throwing a hand grenade. You were mindlessly repeating a stale cliche.
But you see that now, so problem solved, and it's time for the drum circle.
