Today (or maybe yesterday evening?) I responded to someone on Discord that had made an interesting comment.

They said something along the lines of their friends having criticized Donald Trump’s “DEI Ban,” and saying that he just wants straight white men in the federal government. Something to that effect. He then said that that’s ridiculous, and he wishes his friends did more research (he was more condescending in his phrasing).

Now, I’m not American, nor a policy expert, nor had I heard about this DEI ban, but I have my notions about Donald Trump, and so I went to look it up, and read what was written about it on the White House website.

I wrote a relatively short message detailing why I thought that, in a way, it did seem like Donald Trump just wants straight white men in the federal government. I was much more nuanced than this.

I didn’t get a response because, almost immediately, a mod sent a warning about how there should be no political discussions on the server. Now, I don’t think that’s a great idea, but I get it and I respect it. However, I did notice that, while the warning was wagered against both of us, it was only enacted upon my response. That is to say, had i just ignored that comment, there would’ve been no warning. Somehow, the comment wasn’t considered “political” enough to be worthy of a smite.

Here’s my issue: that comment was very much a political statement. The implications that they agreed with the DEI ban were clear and obvious. I also know this because the person that made those comments has made other similar, though unrelated, remarks that made their position on certain issues rather clear. For example, recently, they denied that what Elon Musk did was a Nazi salute. They’ve said other things too.

I guess this whole post is just me venting my frustration that lies fly and truth crawls. It’s so easy to just say anything, just make an implication, an insinuation, and just move on.

“Oh my friends are so silly to think that Trump is racist and sexist! They don’t even understand the DEI ban! These terms just get thrown around like nothing these days…”

But to make a point in retort I have to actually say something of significance. Otherwise, it’s just slinging shit. “Actually, he is racist and sexist” “Huh, you’re just like them! Name one time he was racist and sexist? You can’t!” And then I have to do the work. I have to cite. And then they can just say “that doesn’t count” “you’re misinterpreting” “that was a ROMAN salute!”

It’s ridiculous.

Isn’t this also what dog-whistles are? Plausible deniability, basically. Say whatever you want, except what you mean.

See, I don’t mind political discussion. I have been turned away from some opinions by discussion, I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong; I welcome corrections, I want to improve. My issue isn’t that someone disagrees with me, not even that they may be wrong or misinformed themselves, it’s that they’re either too cowardly to say it, or too daft to defend it and too attached to renounce it.

This reminds me of Ben Shapiro. Debating college students with his machine-gun mouth like it proves anything other than the fact having a bunch of prepared points against randos and talking over people gets internet points.

Pricks.