I’m not sure I understand you - what heavy lifting is the phrase doing? The views you listed are incorrect, so to me it seems like a perfectly reasonable and accurate phrase? Are you saying that the phrase doesn’t go far enough, and it should be something like “wildly incorrect and insane delusions”? Because if so, while I don’t disagree with that characterization, its still ultimately an incorrect view and properly described already. This is kind of exactly my point - feeling like we need a more exaggerated characterization of her incorrect views is a symptom of having trouble believing that someone can hold both correct and incorrect views.
Yes, her reason for making the claim is suspicious, but that does not have any bearing on the legitimacy of the claim itself. The legitimacy of her other claims also have no bearing on it. This is exactly why I avoided making an emphatic characterization of her incorrectness - because doing so could only be to appease the mentality which my original comment is saying we should reject.
Yes, I’m saying that there’s a difference between “incorrect” and “wildly incorrect and insane delusions”. She was so far away from reality that we shouldn’t give her the benefit of the doubt any time soon.
But what about any of my statements implies we should be giving her a benefit of the doubt? And why would being more emphatic about her degree of wrongness have any bearing on that anyways? I feel, and I hope I’m expressing this as respectfully and open-mindedly as possible, that what you’re taking issus with here is exactly proving my point that “our social discourse level still hasn’t evolved past judging arguments on the basis of the person making them.”
I’m not judging the arguments. I’m continuing to judge the person. If it were a different person - almost any other person - then I’d have more grace. I agree with your position in the majority of cases. Liz Cheney, for example. Hell, even Dick Cheney.
But some cases are so extreme that I think it’s ok to keep expressing doubts even as we agree with them.
I’m not sure I understand you - what heavy lifting is the phrase doing? The views you listed are incorrect, so to me it seems like a perfectly reasonable and accurate phrase? Are you saying that the phrase doesn’t go far enough, and it should be something like “wildly incorrect and insane delusions”? Because if so, while I don’t disagree with that characterization, its still ultimately an incorrect view and properly described already. This is kind of exactly my point - feeling like we need a more exaggerated characterization of her incorrect views is a symptom of having trouble believing that someone can hold both correct and incorrect views.
Frankly, it does need suspicion. She’s only sane now because Trump dropped her like a flaming dog turd
Yes, her reason for making the claim is suspicious, but that does not have any bearing on the legitimacy of the claim itself. The legitimacy of her other claims also have no bearing on it. This is exactly why I avoided making an emphatic characterization of her incorrectness - because doing so could only be to appease the mentality which my original comment is saying we should reject.
Yes, I’m saying that there’s a difference between “incorrect” and “wildly incorrect and insane delusions”. She was so far away from reality that we shouldn’t give her the benefit of the doubt any time soon.
But what about any of my statements implies we should be giving her a benefit of the doubt? And why would being more emphatic about her degree of wrongness have any bearing on that anyways? I feel, and I hope I’m expressing this as respectfully and open-mindedly as possible, that what you’re taking issus with here is exactly proving my point that “our social discourse level still hasn’t evolved past judging arguments on the basis of the person making them.”
I’m not judging the arguments. I’m continuing to judge the person. If it were a different person - almost any other person - then I’d have more grace. I agree with your position in the majority of cases. Liz Cheney, for example. Hell, even Dick Cheney.
But some cases are so extreme that I think it’s ok to keep expressing doubts even as we agree with them.