Or the definitions of what it means to be conservative or liberal have changed, and that’s altered the conscious and subconscious calculus for people.
I would also add the ratcheting up of political identity as personal identity, and an intensification of tribalism.
Then again, that’s all tied up in my own confirmation bias.
Being loud and given attention, they can be the only example of “leftists” some people knowingly interact with.
Another way of thinking about it:
Numbers offer a sense of scale. As numbers go further left from the decimal, they get bigger and bigger. Likewise, as they go right from the decimal, they get smaller and smaller.
If I’m looking with just my eyes, I can see big things without issue, but as things get smaller and smaller, it becomes more and more difficult. Eventually, I can’t see the next smallest thing at all.
But we know that smaller thing is there— I can use a magnifying glass and see things slightly smaller than I can unaided. With a microscope, I can see smaller still.
So I can see the entirety of a leaf, know where it begins and ends, even though I can’t, unaided, see the details of all its cells. Likewise, you can see the entirety of the line you drew, it’s just that you lack precise enough tools to measure it with perfect accuracy.
I’m wondering if the degree of believability of the image has, or should have any bearing on the answer here. Like, if a third party who was unaware of the image’s provenance came across it, might they be likely to believe the image is authentic or authorized?
For another angle, we allow protections on the usage of fictional characters/their images. Is it so wild to think that a real person might be worthy of the same protections?
Ultimately, people are going to be privately freaky how they’re gonna be privately freaky. It mostly only ever becomes a problem when it stops being private. I shouldn’t have to see that a bunch of strangers made porn to look like me, and neither should Taylor. And mine are unlikely to make it into tabloids.
Eh, there’s also a decent chunk of non-native English speakers who might have a harder time with written sarcasm, and Poe’s law, I don’t doubt, accounts for more.
I don’t have their numbers, but this isn’t the first place I’ve seen similar quoted. First one I found through some friends’ discussion was this, which puts us, at a quick glance, at around a third of last year’s total(still plenty bad).
People broadly seem willing to see through statements the administration makes about Taiwan, but not about Israel. Then again, a lot of critical thought and nuance tends to go out the window when Israel is brought up.
so I just feel like I should be able to live my life and not have to worry about all this. Why can’t I?
Are you seeking permission or explanation?
I would say that’s still a manageable temp to go vote in, if you’re spending little time out of doors, rather going house-to-car-to-building. Any significant requirement of time spent outside, particularly idling in line; changes that.
That answer is also changed depending on the state of the ground/roads. Is there a significant amount of ice about? In neighbouring Wisconsin there is.
Also, a lot of voters, particularly conservative ones, are older, and the perils of the ice and deep cold are greater for them, and likely considered as such.
So… yeah. I can see weather dampening turnout at this quite a bit.
That. That, the scorched earth policy toward anyone not on board, and the nazification of everyone in any degree of opposition.
The horseshoe feels like a circle sometimes.
Not a fan of them, but I am inclined to agree with you on this one. Appearance of corruption for sitting out and letting the decision default, or much stronger appearance of corruption by sitting for it.
Unless sitting for arguments and abstaining from submitting or signing on to an opinion is an option… but even then, sitting for the arguments of a case you’re a defendant of is a bad, bad look, comes with no guarantee that you actually will abstain from opinion, and might not even be a valid way around quorum rules.
People who make their politics their personality appear at both ends of the spectrum.