this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2025
1390 points (99.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
9419 readers
1370 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is one of the biggest aha moments for me regarding MAGA (and many groups like them). It's all a form of theater to them, similar to pro wrestling. They use words as shorthand.
Instead of looking at someone's behavior and deciding what words are fit to describe them, they do the opposite. They take the words* already associated with that person and use that to assume their behavior. That makes it very easy to foster their collective tribalism and also makes it very easy to fit yourself into their movement when you know the right words to use to describe yourself (making it an incredibly ripe environment for conmen and corruption).
There are elements of this way of thinking on the left but it is not nearly as promenent, I believe because to be on the left you have to be open to nuance and willing/able to consider complicated ideas in order to be able to seriously consider leftist positions.
*It must be noted also depends on their understanding of the word as well, but the point still stands - they make assumptions based on their understanding of the noun. It's real mushy-brained behavior.
This is why they hate science as well. Instead of using evidence to come to a conclusion, they start with the conclusion and twist evidence to fit the presumed conclusion.
Cant tell if sarcasm or you deal with bad science. You dont define success before the study/evidence is gathered?
You do define success of an experiment by forming a hypothesis, yes.
What we're observing here is starting with a conclusion or desired outcome, willfully ignoring everything but the pieces that support it, then telling everyone that something is true because of that. Meanwhile, the validity or statistical significance of those cherry-picked supporting pieces is also ignored.
Accepting a failed hypothesis in light of disproving evidence is what science is. It has no stakes in anything else but verifiable truth, even if it hurts, is politically inconvenient, or downright ugly.