Running with Nihilism
November 6, 2024 1:35 PM Subscribe
Appearances, however, can be deceptive. And what is now true about the culture wars I have spent much of my career describing (and rebuking) is that beneath the apparent polarization, beneath our seemingly incommensurable differences, we increasingly inhabit a common culture. Yet this common culture is not constructive. It is not a culture rooted in a shared positive vision of what America is, should be, can be. Exactly the opposite. Our emerging common culture is chillingly nihilistic. from Culture Wars: The Endgame [The Hedgehog Review]
I don’t think the author is saying both sides are “as bad”. Later on in the article, they say “ This is not an argument for the moral equivalence of left and right. Nihilism does not manifest itself in the same ways on the left and the right. Nor do the authoritarian tendencies find the same expression on both ends of the spectrum.” However, I do think the argument is that growing nihilism on both sides is unproductive to collective good.
posted by thebots at 2:06 PM on November 6 [10 favorites]
posted by thebots at 2:06 PM on November 6 [10 favorites]
Nope, both-siderism right out the gate. Fuggedaboutit.
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 2:13 PM on November 6 [15 favorites]
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 2:13 PM on November 6 [15 favorites]
Nihilism is what we have in Louisiana, it is true, 36% turnout
That does enable fascists, not the libs
posted by eustatic at 2:15 PM on November 6 [9 favorites]
That does enable fascists, not the libs
posted by eustatic at 2:15 PM on November 6 [9 favorites]
Stunning new entry in the "why can't we all just get along?" genre of don't-thinkpiece, in which the author bravely asserts that it is in fact our division which most unites us.
Will readers (or weblog editors) never tire of this ahistorical Sunday school pablum?
posted by jy4m at 2:17 PM on November 6 [14 favorites]
Will readers (or weblog editors) never tire of this ahistorical Sunday school pablum?
posted by jy4m at 2:17 PM on November 6 [14 favorites]
Little Miss Sunshine is a "cult film?"
posted by Pedantzilla at 2:52 PM on November 6 [5 favorites]
posted by Pedantzilla at 2:52 PM on November 6 [5 favorites]
The evidence for this? Consider the pervasive negativity, demonization, and fearmongering of political campaigns. Or the effective attempts of both right and left to cancel those they deem ideologically impure. Or leaders no longer feeling the need to negotiate with the other side, or justify their platforms to their opponents,
There's a certain kind of intellectual that has their mind made up about a thing so smugly that they are completely deaf to how idiotic they sound. This is a fine example of the type.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 2:55 PM on November 6 [14 favorites]
There's a certain kind of intellectual that has their mind made up about a thing so smugly that they are completely deaf to how idiotic they sound. This is a fine example of the type.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 2:55 PM on November 6 [14 favorites]
Little Miss Sunshine is a "cult film?"
That's a more concise way of expressing that it's a mostly forgotten indie comedy from 18 years ago. True Detective S1, a cult series, is 10 years old. Some real up to date examples.
posted by betweenthebars at 3:01 PM on November 6 [3 favorites]
That's a more concise way of expressing that it's a mostly forgotten indie comedy from 18 years ago. True Detective S1, a cult series, is 10 years old. Some real up to date examples.
posted by betweenthebars at 3:01 PM on November 6 [3 favorites]
I think there is a pervasive nihilism nowadays, some of which is ambient and some of which is directly promoted by people who need to taste Walter Sobchak's bowling ball, but this article isn't really getting it at all.
posted by irrelephant at 3:01 PM on November 6 [6 favorites]
posted by irrelephant at 3:01 PM on November 6 [6 favorites]
This seems to neatly sidestep the reason we call progressives by that name, in favor of maintaining the neatness of the argument. There's certainly nihilism around, but I'd be tempted to look in the direction the death cult for its origins. Is it less-than-perfectly-ideal to close certain topics of conversation/people down because cancellation? Sure. But it's a helluva leap to make comparisons to the pretty much literal planetary destruction espoused/threatened/beloved by the alternative.
posted by aesop at 3:03 PM on November 6 [9 favorites]
posted by aesop at 3:03 PM on November 6 [9 favorites]
I don't know if I agree, fully, with the author's take on what "nihilism" meant to Nietzsche.
But the big picture is worth considering. We express a kind of nihilism when we stop fighting. We grapple with whether our beliefs are self-evident or just arbitrary.
There's a contrarian way of looking at giving up the fight -- that you don't do so because you believe the enemy's so strong, but rather because you have lost faith.
Maudmarie Clark writes that Nietzsche rejects "metaphysics" in favor of what is immediate. Seen this way, "nihilism" is a stepping-stone to a better life.
We lose, politically, when we attempt to mirror a "heavenly" or aspirational code in the material world.
I think a post-nihilism (the kind, I think, Nietzsche hoped we'd uncover) -- a lived and pragmatic approach -- is exactly the right counter to authoritarian creep. And I welcome the interrogation of how nihilism, and reaction to nihilism, has come to dominate public discourse, whether right or left coded.
posted by mathjus at 3:50 PM on November 6 [5 favorites]
But the big picture is worth considering. We express a kind of nihilism when we stop fighting. We grapple with whether our beliefs are self-evident or just arbitrary.
There's a contrarian way of looking at giving up the fight -- that you don't do so because you believe the enemy's so strong, but rather because you have lost faith.
Maudmarie Clark writes that Nietzsche rejects "metaphysics" in favor of what is immediate. Seen this way, "nihilism" is a stepping-stone to a better life.
We lose, politically, when we attempt to mirror a "heavenly" or aspirational code in the material world.
I think a post-nihilism (the kind, I think, Nietzsche hoped we'd uncover) -- a lived and pragmatic approach -- is exactly the right counter to authoritarian creep. And I welcome the interrogation of how nihilism, and reaction to nihilism, has come to dominate public discourse, whether right or left coded.
posted by mathjus at 3:50 PM on November 6 [5 favorites]
I was nihilistic in the 90s, back when it was cool and underground
posted by turbowombat at 3:53 PM on November 6 [13 favorites]
posted by turbowombat at 3:53 PM on November 6 [13 favorites]
Another worthless and sophomoric article from The Hedgehog Review. You could make a Bingo card for their articles: free space, BSAB; vague but not explicit conservative religious plea (Nietszche needs to go back to God!); obscure "learned" reference to an old American document; litcrit terms like resentimment; pointless pop culture references.
The author knows there is no eliminationist rhetoric against "rust belt racists". This whole article is in appalling bad faith.
posted by Vegiemon at 4:11 PM on November 6 [10 favorites]
The author knows there is no eliminationist rhetoric against "rust belt racists". This whole article is in appalling bad faith.
posted by Vegiemon at 4:11 PM on November 6 [10 favorites]
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
posted by AlSweigart at 9:25 PM on November 6 [6 favorites]
posted by AlSweigart at 9:25 PM on November 6 [6 favorites]
Ugh, haven't we got GenAI to the point where the refutation of this stuff is a bingo card of slogans?
I wrote the following bingo cards:
"both sides-ism"
"making anything in a civilised society about power is and end to civility because it justifies a return to violence"
"arguing over this stuff is like wrestling a pig, yo both get covered in mud and you eventually realise the pig likes it"
"it's fine to talk philosophically about wielding power when you're not on the receiving end of violence"
"bullied people become bullies" / "end intergenerational trauma"
posted by k3ninho at 4:08 AM on November 7 [5 favorites]
I wrote the following bingo cards:
"both sides-ism"
"making anything in a civilised society about power is and end to civility because it justifies a return to violence"
"arguing over this stuff is like wrestling a pig, yo both get covered in mud and you eventually realise the pig likes it"
"it's fine to talk philosophically about wielding power when you're not on the receiving end of violence"
"bullied people become bullies" / "end intergenerational trauma"
posted by k3ninho at 4:08 AM on November 7 [5 favorites]
Prompt: In the style of a typical article in the Atlantic or the New Yorker can you write an article based on the premise that despite appearances America has a common culture of nihilism as illustrated by the left and right both saying the other side is bad? Try to use statements from Trump, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris to back up your thesis.
Output:
In the United States, the discourse is fueled by a strikingly paradoxical energy: we see ourselves as divided to the point of fracture, yet a shared, subtle nihilism binds us. Beneath the cacophony of slogans, accusations, and ideologies, there's a peculiar uniformity in the rhetoric: both the political left and right characterize the other as existential threats, framing the other side’s very existence as proof of societal rot. We are united, ironically, by our mutual declarations that things, and especially the opposition, are unfixably terrible.
Consider the statements of prominent American leaders. In recent years, Donald Trump has often described his opponents with an ominous blend of disdain and fatalism. “The radical left,” Trump once declared, “is destroying the fabric of our country.” It’s an assertion that’s more than mere criticism; it’s an expression of despair. It’s a sweeping statement that concedes not just a political conflict, but a cultural disintegration—a nihilistic cry that there’s something irreparably broken in the country’s character, and that the other side is to blame.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton’s notorious “basket of deplorables” comment offered a left-wing mirror image. This phrase wasn’t just an indictment of a subset of voters; it was an indictment of a broader cultural defect, a shorthand for a strain of America seen as morally, if not entirely, beyond redemption. Like Trump, Clinton’s statement frames a sector of the American population as evidence of something permanently wrong with the national soul.
In both cases, the leaders could have called for reform, even compromise. Instead, their language is steeped in a kind of moral fatalism—a tone that has become a hallmark of American discourse. The opposition is not simply incorrect; it is depraved. To suggest that things can be better is almost naive, and to hint at reconciliation can even come across as treasonous. It’s as though our very political language has been subsumed by an implicit assumption: the world, and especially America, is in decline, and our enemies are the ultimate evidence of it.
Kamala Harris, too, has offered statements that are starkly reflective of this underlying cultural pessimism. In speeches where she addresses systemic injustices, Harris often describes a system so entrenched in malfeasance that it becomes hard to see hope on the horizon. “The very institutions of our democracy are under attack,” she has said, a line that seems to resonate more as an accusation than a rallying cry. Where past political leaders might have pointed to American resilience, Harris’s words join the chorus of fatalism that sees American institutions as nearly irretrievable.
These statements from all sides, both in leadership and among the public, reflect something deeper than mere political disagreement; they indicate a consensus that we’re in an era of decline. The right paints the left as culture-destroying “radicals,” while the left views the right as fundamentally “deplorable” and democracy-damaging. The result is a culture where pessimism isn’t just prevalent—it’s the only common ground we seem to share.
This bleak outlook is relatively new in American history. Despite cycles of intense political conflict, previous eras saw political adversaries who, while divided, shared a certain optimism in the potential for redemption. The pervasive sense of doom on both sides today marks a shift towards something profoundly nihilistic. Unlike previous political moments in American history, there is little faith, if any, in a shared ideal of America worth redeeming.
So, what is the implication of this shared culture of nihilism? For one, it feeds into a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy. If we all agree, albeit tacitly, that our institutions are beyond repair, we may be less inclined to participate in democracy as engaged citizens. Why vote, protest, or advocate for change in a system you fundamentally believe to be ruined? This apathy, stemming from a bipartisan hopelessness, has begun to seep into civic life itself, with steadily declining trust in institutions, from government to media to education.
It’s not that Americans have simply grown cynical; cynicism, after all, suggests a skeptical view of something that might still have value. Nihilism, by contrast, implies that the system itself is worthless. Our current political discourse, framed by figures on both the left and right, promotes this message: not only are we divided, but we also seem to share a conviction that America’s problems are insoluble.
As long as we continue to echo this shared narrative of doom, we will remain paralyzed, united only in our isolation. Until American leaders—and the public at large—can break free from this cycle of fatalistic rhetoric, our political landscape will remain more than polarized; it will be frozen in a shared belief that we are, in the words of our own discourse, too “deplorable” to change. This nihilism is now a defining aspect of American identity. And perhaps the most disturbing part of it all? We hardly even realize that this is the one thing we hold in common.
My conclusion: I think we can replace the columnist with ChatGPT.
posted by sotonohito at 4:32 AM on November 7 [8 favorites]
Output:
In the United States, the discourse is fueled by a strikingly paradoxical energy: we see ourselves as divided to the point of fracture, yet a shared, subtle nihilism binds us. Beneath the cacophony of slogans, accusations, and ideologies, there's a peculiar uniformity in the rhetoric: both the political left and right characterize the other as existential threats, framing the other side’s very existence as proof of societal rot. We are united, ironically, by our mutual declarations that things, and especially the opposition, are unfixably terrible.
Consider the statements of prominent American leaders. In recent years, Donald Trump has often described his opponents with an ominous blend of disdain and fatalism. “The radical left,” Trump once declared, “is destroying the fabric of our country.” It’s an assertion that’s more than mere criticism; it’s an expression of despair. It’s a sweeping statement that concedes not just a political conflict, but a cultural disintegration—a nihilistic cry that there’s something irreparably broken in the country’s character, and that the other side is to blame.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton’s notorious “basket of deplorables” comment offered a left-wing mirror image. This phrase wasn’t just an indictment of a subset of voters; it was an indictment of a broader cultural defect, a shorthand for a strain of America seen as morally, if not entirely, beyond redemption. Like Trump, Clinton’s statement frames a sector of the American population as evidence of something permanently wrong with the national soul.
In both cases, the leaders could have called for reform, even compromise. Instead, their language is steeped in a kind of moral fatalism—a tone that has become a hallmark of American discourse. The opposition is not simply incorrect; it is depraved. To suggest that things can be better is almost naive, and to hint at reconciliation can even come across as treasonous. It’s as though our very political language has been subsumed by an implicit assumption: the world, and especially America, is in decline, and our enemies are the ultimate evidence of it.
Kamala Harris, too, has offered statements that are starkly reflective of this underlying cultural pessimism. In speeches where she addresses systemic injustices, Harris often describes a system so entrenched in malfeasance that it becomes hard to see hope on the horizon. “The very institutions of our democracy are under attack,” she has said, a line that seems to resonate more as an accusation than a rallying cry. Where past political leaders might have pointed to American resilience, Harris’s words join the chorus of fatalism that sees American institutions as nearly irretrievable.
These statements from all sides, both in leadership and among the public, reflect something deeper than mere political disagreement; they indicate a consensus that we’re in an era of decline. The right paints the left as culture-destroying “radicals,” while the left views the right as fundamentally “deplorable” and democracy-damaging. The result is a culture where pessimism isn’t just prevalent—it’s the only common ground we seem to share.
This bleak outlook is relatively new in American history. Despite cycles of intense political conflict, previous eras saw political adversaries who, while divided, shared a certain optimism in the potential for redemption. The pervasive sense of doom on both sides today marks a shift towards something profoundly nihilistic. Unlike previous political moments in American history, there is little faith, if any, in a shared ideal of America worth redeeming.
So, what is the implication of this shared culture of nihilism? For one, it feeds into a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy. If we all agree, albeit tacitly, that our institutions are beyond repair, we may be less inclined to participate in democracy as engaged citizens. Why vote, protest, or advocate for change in a system you fundamentally believe to be ruined? This apathy, stemming from a bipartisan hopelessness, has begun to seep into civic life itself, with steadily declining trust in institutions, from government to media to education.
It’s not that Americans have simply grown cynical; cynicism, after all, suggests a skeptical view of something that might still have value. Nihilism, by contrast, implies that the system itself is worthless. Our current political discourse, framed by figures on both the left and right, promotes this message: not only are we divided, but we also seem to share a conviction that America’s problems are insoluble.
As long as we continue to echo this shared narrative of doom, we will remain paralyzed, united only in our isolation. Until American leaders—and the public at large—can break free from this cycle of fatalistic rhetoric, our political landscape will remain more than polarized; it will be frozen in a shared belief that we are, in the words of our own discourse, too “deplorable” to change. This nihilism is now a defining aspect of American identity. And perhaps the most disturbing part of it all? We hardly even realize that this is the one thing we hold in common.
My conclusion: I think we can replace the columnist with ChatGPT.
posted by sotonohito at 4:32 AM on November 7 [8 favorites]
I actually would like to read an intelligent essay about how some of Nietzsche's ideas are reflected in contemporary American politics. I can almost see one vaguely peeking through the crud here.
posted by ovvl at 6:01 AM on November 7 [3 favorites]
posted by ovvl at 6:01 AM on November 7 [3 favorites]
"Here there is no 'why?' " Just cartoon animals singing.
posted by graywyvern at 7:21 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]
posted by graywyvern at 7:21 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]
These articles are written by people who think that politics as the system of former Student Council Presidents and Debate Club winners playing chess with each other while sipping cocktails at Washington country Clubs is the height of civilization. Decrying the loss of civility in this context is the same as decrying the loss of four channel television.
The idea that a nation currently being hijacked by people spurred onto action by crazed preachers on the grift feeding people into a gristle mill of ideological cul de sacs with more media to siphon their money and attention in service of making them scared, paranoid, and easily pliable to blame the working poor for their deteriorating lifestyle not an ever shrinking number of monopolies sucking the economy dry needs *more* god is laughable on its face.
The fact is there is a huge tumor on American Christianity replacing charity and grace with a D&D campaign where they get to be a warrior in the army of god and the rest of the nation are the demonic hordes ready to be struck down. Like the idea that people should line up to be martyrs in the name of civility against that sheer insanity is ludicrous. We're in this place because these type of people want to be comfortable and don't want to admit that they're losing because they aren't offering anything better than obedience to an imagined norm as opposed to demagogues promising to make people special.
posted by finalbroadcast at 9:22 AM on November 7 [6 favorites]
The idea that a nation currently being hijacked by people spurred onto action by crazed preachers on the grift feeding people into a gristle mill of ideological cul de sacs with more media to siphon their money and attention in service of making them scared, paranoid, and easily pliable to blame the working poor for their deteriorating lifestyle not an ever shrinking number of monopolies sucking the economy dry needs *more* god is laughable on its face.
The fact is there is a huge tumor on American Christianity replacing charity and grace with a D&D campaign where they get to be a warrior in the army of god and the rest of the nation are the demonic hordes ready to be struck down. Like the idea that people should line up to be martyrs in the name of civility against that sheer insanity is ludicrous. We're in this place because these type of people want to be comfortable and don't want to admit that they're losing because they aren't offering anything better than obedience to an imagined norm as opposed to demagogues promising to make people special.
posted by finalbroadcast at 9:22 AM on November 7 [6 favorites]
Maybe I'm just a complete idiot who can't see all the painfully obvious reasons why this article is garbage, like everyone else in this thread. But my takeaway from the article was not at all "both sides equally bad." My takeaway from the article was that increasingly, people in society cannot see a way through to a better future for themselves and the people they care about that does not necessitate the destruction, metaphorical but also increasingly real, of some other group of people.
And this does, in fact, feel true to me. There's the obvious example of, well, conservatives literally trying to destroy entire groups of minorities. Their world view literally leaves no room for entire swaths of people to exist. But I think also, on the left, there's this increasing concern--basically alarm bells now, and for a while already--that in order to stave off disaster, progressive forces must somehow win every single election from now on, and if we ever LOSE an election, we're done for: conservatives will change the game, free and fair elections will no longer be on the table, we're all fucked. For the most part, no one really talks about what the solution to this should be, beyond the obviously impossible "win every election from here on out," but even that result is essentially a denial of the public sphere to a group of people who stand in opposition. Aside from conversations I've seen about how to stem the rise of toxic masculinity that leads to results like these, which talks about how to engage children in a meaningful way that can counter the conservative, misogynist, racist worldviews that will also be pushed their way, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of a productive conversation. And I don't mean to say that the left should do better on this front; maybe the answer is there IS no way. But then if that's true, where does that lead us?
In casual conversation it's common to hear people say that it's pointless trying to reach out to people on the other side because they are already convinced that we need to be out of power, or to cease to exist entirely, and how do you break bread with those people? And I understand and even agree on an emotional level. But that doesn't change the conclusion that ultimately, if you follow all this stuff to its logical conclusion, progress requires that the opposition vanish: they are converted to our cause through force, they are made irrelevant politically, or... well. This is true even if you agree that the cause is just and worthy. I don't know what to do about this, but it seems obvious to me that in the long term, this is untenable.
posted by chrominance at 10:29 AM on November 7 [7 favorites]
And this does, in fact, feel true to me. There's the obvious example of, well, conservatives literally trying to destroy entire groups of minorities. Their world view literally leaves no room for entire swaths of people to exist. But I think also, on the left, there's this increasing concern--basically alarm bells now, and for a while already--that in order to stave off disaster, progressive forces must somehow win every single election from now on, and if we ever LOSE an election, we're done for: conservatives will change the game, free and fair elections will no longer be on the table, we're all fucked. For the most part, no one really talks about what the solution to this should be, beyond the obviously impossible "win every election from here on out," but even that result is essentially a denial of the public sphere to a group of people who stand in opposition. Aside from conversations I've seen about how to stem the rise of toxic masculinity that leads to results like these, which talks about how to engage children in a meaningful way that can counter the conservative, misogynist, racist worldviews that will also be pushed their way, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of a productive conversation. And I don't mean to say that the left should do better on this front; maybe the answer is there IS no way. But then if that's true, where does that lead us?
In casual conversation it's common to hear people say that it's pointless trying to reach out to people on the other side because they are already convinced that we need to be out of power, or to cease to exist entirely, and how do you break bread with those people? And I understand and even agree on an emotional level. But that doesn't change the conclusion that ultimately, if you follow all this stuff to its logical conclusion, progress requires that the opposition vanish: they are converted to our cause through force, they are made irrelevant politically, or... well. This is true even if you agree that the cause is just and worthy. I don't know what to do about this, but it seems obvious to me that in the long term, this is untenable.
posted by chrominance at 10:29 AM on November 7 [7 favorites]
(and to be clear, this can be the case BECAUSE one side has essentially delivered an ultimatum that says "we rule and you can get out of the way or you can die." I'm not trying to both-sides here either.)
posted by chrominance at 10:33 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]
posted by chrominance at 10:33 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]
I think you're 100% correct in that BothSides(tm) say the other side must be defeated.
The only middle ground that exists is the middle ground of giving the forces of oppression some of what they want and them taking it for now then demanding more later.
I'm sure Trump et al would be delighted to find "middle ground" in which America abandons the idea of trans people having real equality, rights, and justice and instead meets the Republicans halfway by only oppressing trans people a bit. See middle ground! And all it took was completely abandoning the people involved!
Some cultures are better than other cultures, liberals really hate to hear that but it's true.
The plantation and slavery culture of the Old South was a bad culture and it needed to be eradicated.
Now, the hitch in that particular getalong is that eradicating a culture while not also eradicating the people in that culture is not exactly easy. And I'm not proposing genocide or rounding up all the MAGA and putting them in camps (though I'm sure they'd love to put us in a camp).
But we do have to be honest and admit that yes, we really are out to destroy their culture.
The critical difference is that a) they're wrong and we're right, and b) they ARE willing (eager even) to win via blood and genocide.
posted by sotonohito at 11:46 AM on November 7 [2 favorites]
The only middle ground that exists is the middle ground of giving the forces of oppression some of what they want and them taking it for now then demanding more later.
I'm sure Trump et al would be delighted to find "middle ground" in which America abandons the idea of trans people having real equality, rights, and justice and instead meets the Republicans halfway by only oppressing trans people a bit. See middle ground! And all it took was completely abandoning the people involved!
Some cultures are better than other cultures, liberals really hate to hear that but it's true.
The plantation and slavery culture of the Old South was a bad culture and it needed to be eradicated.
Now, the hitch in that particular getalong is that eradicating a culture while not also eradicating the people in that culture is not exactly easy. And I'm not proposing genocide or rounding up all the MAGA and putting them in camps (though I'm sure they'd love to put us in a camp).
But we do have to be honest and admit that yes, we really are out to destroy their culture.
The critical difference is that a) they're wrong and we're right, and b) they ARE willing (eager even) to win via blood and genocide.
posted by sotonohito at 11:46 AM on November 7 [2 favorites]
Part of the gag in Lebowski was that Walter (he who does not roll on Shabbos) elevated Nazis above the nihilists because 'at least it's an ethos.'
That bit was lost on this author.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:24 PM on November 7 [2 favorites]
That bit was lost on this author.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:24 PM on November 7 [2 favorites]
Nietzsche was better as a critic than a philosopher and one of the greatest observations he made was rather simple: “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”
posted by Brian B. at 9:24 AM on November 10 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 9:24 AM on November 10 [1 favorite]
« Older ⛤ | Kamala Harris Newer »
So, both of those things are just as bad? I would be unreceptive to "both sides" BS on the best of days, and today is not the best of days.
It's not "demonization" to call out fascists being fascists.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 1:49 PM on November 6 [58 favorites]