I did in fact see it was a different person I was responding to. I tried to make my language target neutral. I settled on "rebuttal," as it felt like it restarted the attribution to responding to my post, not your OP, though I suppose using "double down" probably did the opposite. Regardless, I did recognize it was a different person.

But let's be clear. Bald faced prejudice is not rhetorical exaggeration. It's not rhetorical exaggeration to say "black people are usually criminals." Are some black people criminals? Sure. But to pretend that it is therefore somehow intrinsic to that community isn't innocent point making. It's racism.

And sure, that guy was joking. But let's say someone says something racist, I call out the racism, and then someone makes a racist joke in response. I don't think it's "not understanding humor," to call it out when I've already established the problem is the racism.

Prejudice and tribalism isn't a good thing. Even when it's against people you don't like. Perhaps especially then.

I don't know that doubling down on your own ignorance and prejudices is exactly the snappy rebuttal you seem to think it is.

This stereotype is exactly as true as the idea that, in California, there are parents cutting penises off of their babies because they want to force them to be transgender. And it comes from the same place of tribalism and ignorance.

I'm not saying Alabama doesn't have problems. Obviously it does. But this weird, "hurr-durr they marry their sisters," thing is stupid and offensive.

True and fair. But, on the flip side, I don't remember the last time I saw a private jet plow through a crowd of protestors. So, like, there are trade-offs I guess.

As opposed to cars, which have famously few consequences when things go wrong.

• Ronald Reagan

While I 1000% agree that people should have access to gender affirming care, I don't know that this argument is as much of a slam dunk as it's presenting itself to be.

While there's certainly a contingent of people who want to ban or restrict access to gender affirming care to adults, a plurality of the debate is around access for minors. And minors aren't allowed to get full body tattoos, even with parental consent.

And second, one big distinction is that your insurance company isn't going to pay for you to get a full body tattoo. That's coming out of your own pocket. My understanding is that most of the checks like getting therapist notes are to prove that it's a "medically necessary" procedure. Not defending insurance companies, but when a third party is paying for something there should be some expectation of increased scrutiny on it.

Again, none of that should be interpreted as me saying anything close to "gender affirming care bad." I think people should have access to the care that they need. I'm just pointing out the argument in the OP is a a bit of a straw man.

Is your definition of neoliberal "anyone who doesn't agree with me on 100% of issues?"

If not, can you give examples of issues that someone could disagree with you on which would not get them branded as a "neoliberal"?

I stopped taking this review super seriously with:

But this, sadly, is closer to his notorious fey-Hitler fantasy Jojo Rabbit – misjudged and self-admiring.

Jojo Rabbit is an absolute masterpiece. It was nominated for best picture for a reason, lol. I've yet to meet a single person who's seen it and not absolutely loved it.

I was flipping through old comments looking for something else and I saw this and got curious.

Now that Mitch McConnell is back in the Senate actively working, do you agree with me that it was just conspiracy theory nonsense all along?

But there is no un-hated group. Heck, there's still a not insignificant portion of the population who hate the Irish/Catholics still. There is no group that isn't hated by someone.

Hell, there are a not insignificant number of people who hate white people. Does that make it okay for them to be "proud of being white" just because some people hate them for it?

I don't disagree that there will always be people who hate gay people. But I do think there are plenty of countries though where the percentage of the population that do is low. At least as low as those who hate whites/Catholics/etc.

That makes sense, but I do have follow-on questions. Genuinely asking, not trying to be antagonistic.

Would you then say that gay pride is ridiculous in a nation that doesn't have issues with hating gay people? Like, in a well run country where homophobia/transphobia is marginalized out, should gay pride be viewed the same as having Irish pride?

The argument against that in my mind would be that it's honoring the work of the people who came before who had to deal with historical bigotry. But I feel like the counter to that would be the Irish, in that they also had to deal with systematic bigotry in this country. We're not so far gone from "No Irish Need Apply," and people having to change their names to hide their Irish ancestry to find jobs.