“F you, Taylor Swift!” shouted Megyn Kelly, “and f all of the people who want to see these children have body parts chopped off.”
For those not fluent in Republican crazy-speak, Kelly’s meltdown was triggered by Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris the night before, barely one hour after Trump all but face-planted on the debate stage. Kelly was especially triggered by Swift highlighting her appreciation for vice presidential nominee Tim Walz’s support of LGBTQ+ rights.
…
Other right-wing commentators, like Ben Shapiro, took another approach: making fun of Swifties. “Note: if you vote for a particular candidate because your favorite singer is doing so, please don’t vote. You are too stupid to vote,” wrote Shapiro on X. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, the richest man on the planet, threatened to impregnate her.
Wait what? I can’t tell if you’re serious, but if so, I’d love to see research on the first part of your comment. If you were joking please feel free to ignore me.
No, just experience.
“Normal” people lie and bend morals so naturally that they don’t see it. The discourse in their social bubble is more important than reality for them. They can say and believe absolutely contradictory things, which just have to be accepted as true by their social environment.
How can there be any research on this? It’s literally normal. It’s how political agitation works.
About autistic people not doing this - autistic people take discourses even more radically, but that kinda helps, because you have to check yourself for your perceptions to work with the real world at all. Also due to the effort needed to switch between various discourses, which happens naturally for normals, autistic people notice the fact that they switch.
Normals don’t need that and thus can live all their life in common dreams.
I think I could find something more scientific to read on these things, but why would I really, it’s obvious.
One of my favorite pass times is asking ChatGPT my hypotheses with prompts to search the web for academic sources (the free version is limited, but it works for a good few prompts over a few hours and let’s you know when the cool down period is over).
Any time we make claims, it’s very likely at this stage of human technology that there’s research on it you can access and hone ideas around. Anecdotes can be really powerful in driving our interests and pursuit of knowledge, but I think we should always check in and be aware we’re biased, fallible, sometimes hypocritical creatures.
I’m not sure if you are reinforcing the request for a source or agreeing with me, ha-ha.
I’ll try. But my own experience with using those chatbots to find sources is not satisfactory, but then I was trying to find sources on very specific things.
I was reinforcing the request. I did a couple general prompts with your claim and think there’s some research to support it, though it’s not much; and, as with anything, there’s nuance.