And I never implied any of that. Just that it’s silly to call someone a thing with a literal meaning as though words don’t matter. And yes he’s not any better off, just different.
brevity, especially in explicitly political messages, matters. nuance WILL be lost, communication has two sides, and sometimes you cannot convey perfect truth, you need to lose a little fidelity. so “JD vance is an incel” is true enough for literal government work.
Ugh yeah I don’t agree that defying definitions of words makes something “poetic”. The fact is that this entire thread indicates the issue, and the upvotes I got indicate I’m not alone
And I never implied any of that. Just that it’s silly to call someone a thing with a literal meaning as though words don’t matter. And yes he’s not any better off, just different.
brevity, especially in explicitly political messages, matters. nuance WILL be lost, communication has two sides, and sometimes you cannot convey perfect truth, you need to lose a little fidelity. so “JD vance is an incel” is true enough for literal government work.
“JD Vance is a misogynist”
Brief and accurate. Less confusing. Didn’t need to make up anything untrue or stretch any definitions to something they aren’t.
incel is more poetic and gives more a sense of scale. ‘misogynist’ without elaboration feels smaller, less accurate.
its a compression issue, dear. sorry.
Ugh yeah I don’t agree that defying definitions of words makes something “poetic”. The fact is that this entire thread indicates the issue, and the upvotes I got indicate I’m not alone
I agree, to me “he’s an incel” is weak because to the not-terminally-online vast majority of people it’s easily proven false.
He’s married and has kids, he’s not any more “involuntarily celibate” than Trump is.
Thank you!