I'm not sure what you're on about except your usual nonsensical argument to play devil's advocate in order to placate your desire to appear philosophical in light of blatantly obvious bullshit.
Is there something wrong with calling stupid things what they are?
I believe conservatives have a brain defect. It isn't really a defect, it is just a reliance to react to fear with low level but high speed reasoning. Conservatives have irrational fears and an inability to objectively assess risk. They are first to the top of the trees when something tawny or is spotted slinking through the bushes. They are the first out of the frying pan but often land in the fire. It's an excellent survival strategy for the Pleistocene. Liberals, in turn, find this behavior terrifying and the absence of what they can do, suppress fear long enough to evaluate risk, means that sometimes they are the first to be eaten but the last to leap our of a cold pan into a nearby fire. When conservatives try to make liberals react irrationally, the reaction is to call them stupid. But it isn't stupid when you survive and watch liberals get eaten. So my objection to dank is that the identification of conservatives as stupid is stupid even though they act in ways we call stupid because doing that is why liberals have a hard time winning elections. When conservatives hear a liberal message they say to themselves, who is going to listen to somebody so stupid they will stand around and get eaten. Liberals need to get off that stupid horse and start to realize they need to tailor a message that takes into account conservative fears and the innate survival value of their reactions. Calling people stupid is a kind of arrogance. Don't call people who are fearful stupid, that their fears are ridiculous. Acknowledge their inner wisdom, the world is dangerous, and call your message the fastest way to the top of the tree. Then make sure it is.
Facebook
Twitter