She seems to be putting a lot of hope into that "we." Seems like loads of people can tolerate it just fine when it's not their kids and the bodies aren't physically strewn about where they have to see them when going about their day.
It would be way more fun changing that first "I" into "we" and using the royal plural. Make it sound so insufferably smug that the folk whose blood pressure spikes when they read anything she says already start having aneurysms.
most people start their understanding of politics using a liberal lens; it's only the ones that can effectively shake off enough of the global north's propaganda can start to see the basic contradictions like these.
8 Comments
Abyssian@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 32d
She seems to be putting a lot of hope into that "we." Seems like loads of people can tolerate it just fine when it's not their kids and the bodies aren't physically strewn about where they have to see them when going about their day.
reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net · 12 pts · 31d
I think it’s the same aspirational ‘we’ we use to try to get kids to behave. “We don’t hit when we’re angry, we use our words.”
Abyssian@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 31d
It would be way more fun changing that first "I" into "we" and using the royal plural. Make it sound so insufferably smug that the folk whose blood pressure spikes when they read anything she says already start having aneurysms.
LSNLDN@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 31d
One can tolerate backlash
Abyssian@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 31d
Really? I'll take your word for it, I'm a filthy peasant.
egsaqmojz@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 31d
the royal "we"
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · -10 pts · 32d
I dunno. She's sounding a lot like those both-sides people like last time.
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 32d
most people start their understanding of politics using a liberal lens; it's only the ones that can effectively shake off enough of the global north's propaganda can start to see the basic contradictions like these.