this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
596 points (97.9% liked)
Political Humor
1982 readers
967 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
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
The fact that people still feel this way about MTG saying something correct really just goes to show that our social discourse level still hasn't evolved past judging arguments on the basis of the person making them. Its getting better enough that we can at least say "MTG is right about this" but it still makes people uncomfortable and feel like they need to explain "oh but so stupid and evil and stupid and dumb otherwise of course". The disclaimer is not necessary. The fact that one person can hold a variety of correct and incorrect views should not be this surprising anymore
We should be vigilant about the root ideology behind the correct view though. MTG doesn't like Israel because the supremacist state they're building happens to claim it's for Jewish people. Leftists should argue against Israel from a broader principle against supremacist states in general. We can try to leverage the fact that MTG (and Tucker Carlson) are able to break the mainstream narrative of unconditional support for Israel, but we should never give credibility to anyone who comes to that view out of anti-semitism.
For sure. I guess to me the idea of "people can have a correct conclusion for wrong reasons" is gonna be a harder social sell than "people can have both correct and incorrect ideas". I'm trying to start small 😭
I think the phrase "incorrect view" is about to hurt its back with how much heavy lifting it's doing in this case.
It's one thing to disagree about how the government should be run or to hold outdated views on social issues.
It's another thing to claim that the California forest fires were started by Jewish space lasers, or that the US government controls the weather, or that a school shooting that claimed the lives of 20 first graders was a false flag.
Her taking a stance on the Epstein files is commendable, but isn't it kind of mitigated by the time she said that anyone who voted to confirm Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is "pro-pedophile"?
I'm not saying she should be silenced or dismissed, at least not while she's on the right side of history, but let's not pretend this is just any old Republican suddenly spouting reasonable takes.
I'm not sure I understand you - what heavy lifting is the phrase doing? The views you listed are incorrect, so to me it seems like a perfectly reasonable and accurate phrase? Are you saying that the phrase doesn't go far enough, and it should be something like "wildly incorrect and insane delusions"? Because if so, while I don't disagree with that characterization, its still ultimately an incorrect view and properly described already. This is kind of exactly my point - feeling like we need a more exaggerated characterization of her incorrect views is a symptom of having trouble believing that someone can hold both correct and incorrect views.
Yes, I'm saying that there's a difference between "incorrect" and "wildly incorrect and insane delusions". She was so far away from reality that we shouldn't give her the benefit of the doubt any time soon.
But what about any of my statements implies we should be giving her a benefit of the doubt? And why would being more emphatic about her degree of wrongness have any bearing on that anyways? I feel, and I hope I'm expressing this as respectfully and open-mindedly as possible, that what you're taking issus with here is exactly proving my point that "our social discourse level still hasn’t evolved past judging arguments on the basis of the person making them."
I'm not judging the arguments. I'm continuing to judge the person. If it were a different person - almost any other person - then I'd have more grace. I agree with your position in the majority of cases. Liz Cheney, for example. Hell, even Dick Cheney.
But some cases are so extreme that I think it's ok to keep expressing doubts even as we agree with them.
Frankly, it does need suspicion. She's only sane now because Trump dropped her like a flaming dog turd
Yes, her reason for making the claim is suspicious, but that does not have any bearing on the legitimacy of the claim itself. The legitimacy of her other claims also have no bearing on it. This is exactly why I avoided making an emphatic characterization of her incorrectness - because doing so could only be to appease the mentality which my original comment is saying we should reject.