Yeah, I hear ya.
But it's a given-- that people will view the world in archetypes.
So... which gambit is better... to defy the stereotypes (like MLK or Farrakhan telling their followers to exude respectability/ not act like trashy blacks)
OR
to refuse to be shamed-- by those who will not judge you fairly, no matter how hard you try to please them (like all the defiant flashy funky pimp-lookin' anti-heroes at the BET Awards) ?
I don't know if one strategy is consistently better. maybe it takes both.
But... in the case of jews... that question has been on my mind recently, watching the jewish pro-abortion protesters who said "my religion" and "my culture" were being infringed... if they can't have abortions.
I thought, "ok, but... you know... the people who hate you-- have been saying for 1,000 years-- that you sacrifice babies, right?"
I don't know if they've selected a clever or foolish strategy. I can't predict if it will succeed or backfire.
the venue in Minneapolis is called "TARGET CENTER" named after the store BLM burned down.
Dudes name is mohammed 100%
Naw... Mohammed ain't putting no gay pride flag on a grave to tweet his support for Abortion Sluts.
That dude's name is Venkat Kamalagina and he definitely hangs around yoga classes and wears a canvas shopping bag like a purse.
He smells like old lady lotion and his favorite sex position is getting a blowjob on his back with his legs in the air like a baby being changed.
He only interacts with his mother and grandmother, to mooch money. He tells them is girlfriend is Hindu and a virgin. He avoids dad, brothers, and uncles-- because they would all kick his ass.
The 2nd chart is from fivethirtyeight. They became well known by lumping-together many-other polls... on the assumption that 'all' polls together-- are more-accurate than any-one-poll.
This is kinda of like pouring-together all the barbecue sauces... to make a Super Sauce. If that metaphor sounds screwy... don't blame me. I got it from them.
However... they exclude the 1st chart (CIVIQS) from their Super Sauce.
These are their actual words on the subject:
"Polls like Civiqs ... are produced using MRP (short for “multilevel regression with poststratification”), a modeling technique... While this is a valid technique for understanding public opinion data, we exclude them because we consider them more like models than individual polls. (As an analogy, we think of this as using someone else’s barbecue sauce as an ingredient in your own barbecue sauce.)"
But, like I said, fivethirtyeight's ENTIRE PRODUCT is a mix of other polls' sauce.
So their metaphor says more than they intended it to.
And it explains why their BBQ SAUCE bottle isn't 100% full.
I always think about Hunter S. Thompson's words, decades ago...
He said there's 20% of people in the middle-- whose party-loyalty is not solid.
Then there's 40% firmly on the Republican side... and and 40% firmly on the Dem side. And... if a scandal is bad-enough, a certain number of them will stop supporting 'their guy'.
But inside that number-- are a group so mindlessly devoted to their team-- that they would still support their guy... even-if he were exposed for EATING BABIES.
Biden is down in BABY EATER territory.
I wonder if that grey "neither approve nor disapprove" line will go-higher than his Approval line.
Some of those grey-line people DO approve of him, but they're too ashamed to say it.
That's why the grey goes up in perfect symmetry, when the Approval line goes down.
Naomi Wolf is a feminist. I don't agree with all her views, but she's trying to repair the insanity of feminism. She wrote a solid substack: https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/on-losing-roe
"Where there is indeed a gender gap, it‘s the opposite of what you’d expect from the feminist narrative of oppressive men: far more women than men are pro-life: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion
...
"America has changed too since 1973 in terms of who holds political power. In state legislatures, women are a substantial plurality. In the top ten states for female representation in the legislature, over forty per cent of the state legislators are women. In Nevada, women lawmakers are the majority. [https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/levels-office/state-legislature/women-state-legislatures-2022].
And even where women are not the majority of state lawmakers, they are nationally the majority of voters.
So, paradoxically, sending decisions about abortion access back to the States is actually, in my reading, a truly feminist outcome.
While liberal feminists may have liked Roe as a metaphor — it felt poetically and existentially right to have the Supreme Court affirm a Constitutional right to an abortion, even if the language was not really there in the Constitution — the fact is that returning the argument to the states means putting the issue of abortion in the hands of — women. Because in election after election, more women turn out to vote than men. [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/]
Thanks for informative reply!