While the gendered association has largely gone away (especially as the generations pass), the word ‘hysterical’ is still used more often to describe women than men. It’s literally where the word came from, from the Latin to refer to the womb (same root as hysterectomy), and hysteria was originally considered a disease that only affected women.
That said, these days, I wouldn’t jump straight to misogyny if I saw it used, especially in a context where gender was not known or if anybody under the age of 40 or 50 were involved
Oh, for fuck’s sake. You are acting all offended because he’s shitting on MAGA for their continued support of one Donald J. Trump and trying to stop the Epstein files from being fully disclosed.
To be blunt, for sure the bulk of the population is far more concerned about “OMG ‘PEDOS’ EVERYHERE!” than they are about “OMG LIZARD PEOPLE!!”… but that’s a damn low threshold to beat.
The majority of the electorate AND of the ruling classes are NOT “pedos” even though that conduct is overrepresented among the power-abuser class just because they are power-abusers.
I mean, if you want to admit that you find it personally impossible to both be cognizant of the lawlessness and inhumanity of MAGA and the current administration without being bizarrely obsessed with the idea that most of the population are or support paedophiles, feel free.
Personally, I find it possible to do the former, without doing the latter.
YMMV but I’m not sure it’s something I’d want to admit if I were you.
If I understand what you’re saying, I have to disagree. The fact that a parliamentary government includes Party X or Party Y as a minority faction is insufficient as a basis for saying the entire government is X-ist or Y-ist, unless and until such a party manages to seize control through a temporary coalition as the Nazis did. At various points in the later 20th century both France’s and Italy’s legislative bodies have included Communist party members, but it would have been ludicrous to say those countries or their governments were Communist.
The Weimar Republic was much more than a multiparty parliamentary democracy with the nazis as a minority party with some influence on the conservatives.
It had rightwing antidemocratic sentiment embedded into it - iirc the judge who gave Hitler a slap on the wrist for the beer hall putsch was an antimdemocracy monarchist and there were plenty of cases where leftwing paramilitaries faced harsher crackdowns than rightwing ones.
However it was still clearly better than Nazi Germany. Anyone with the glib mentality that Nazi takeover was going to happen eventually so whovteally cares if the left refused to work with the center-left to keep the Nazis out of power is a fucking moron. Actual people live in the ttime when “eventually” hasn’t happened yet.
I wonder if the OP is critical of democrats who refused to endorse Mamdani, or who say that DSA candidates who are doing so well in primaries “don’t represent the party” or aren’t real Democrats?
The energy and popularity is swinging to the progressive left, but does loyalty / “lesser evil” logic only apply when it’s for corporate Dems?