I can understand and even sympathise a lot of positions conservatives and Republicans have but this type of shit baffles me.
Part of me figures it's nice PR to cover over that it's just a power play but then again, Hanlon's Razor[1] makes me wonder if they genuinely think net neutrality is bad
[1]: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
I often wonder about these dynamics. I've been genuinely befuddled to learn that some people believe political arguments that I perceived to be so stupid that they had to be part of a cynical political narrative. But lo and behold, some people who I otherwise knew to be reasonable still believed them.
My suspicion is that it only takes a very small minority of a political group to understand the landscape of an issue, initiate a narrative around a power play and have it spread like wildfire within the group.
In short, I think both of your explanations can be correct at the same time. A small subset initiates, the rest of the group genuinely adopts.
The logic is simple. Obama talked about net neutrality. And Obama wanted to take our guns away. So net neutrality is bad. Q.E.D.
No really, after reading the article a second time, I still can't come up with a better explanation for their motives. If you think you have a better explanation, please reply. This truly baffles me and it bothers me that I can't understand how some of my fellow Americans think.
It's funny to note that the reason he couldn't be presented with his rifle at the event is because the Conservative Political Action Conference is a gun-free zone.
6 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 30.1 ms ] threadI’m just having visions of every facepalm ascii, pic and gif I’ve ever seen.
Part of me figures it's nice PR to cover over that it's just a power play but then again, Hanlon's Razor[1] makes me wonder if they genuinely think net neutrality is bad
[1]: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
My suspicion is that it only takes a very small minority of a political group to understand the landscape of an issue, initiate a narrative around a power play and have it spread like wildfire within the group.
In short, I think both of your explanations can be correct at the same time. A small subset initiates, the rest of the group genuinely adopts.
Heinlein’s Razor.
No really, after reading the article a second time, I still can't come up with a better explanation for their motives. If you think you have a better explanation, please reply. This truly baffles me and it bothers me that I can't understand how some of my fellow Americans think.