They think they are portraying the subject as ‘weak’. It’s for their racist base to feel like ‘right on, we made a weak black leftist woman cry, like they all deserve’'.
It was never about making her less sympathetic, but a celebration of hurting the ‘correct’ people to get hurt.
For anyone pondering joining such actions, these would be leaders.
If you’re thinking of joining, and the leaders look “weak”, it might not inspire much faith. You might decide to hold back.
The truth is, she looked calm and collected, confident in her decisions and actions. She looks like a leader. She looks like someone worth following. That type of imagery is dangerous if you’re trying to suppress action.
So, in short, it’s an attempt at active suppression, not just a “treat” for thier own. It’s the modern equivalent of going on about how short Napoleon is. It’s an attempt to diminish those they’re afraid of to try and keep others from following them.
It’s also meant to say “look see we can make them regret it” as well as to draw into the paternal metaphor they keep using. Those weird comments they keep making about “daddy” being home to punish dissenters, feels very in line with this. The idea being that they’re trying to depict themselves as tough but necessary, and opposition as the same as a child misbehaving because of unenforced boundaries. In this regard they’re depicting her as crying to treat her like a child who has been spanked, and as such (in their eyes) one who will in the future respect their authority and eventually thank them for it.
They need to maintain the narrative that the protesters to contain both hardened rebels, and primarily be ordinary people who just don’t understand discipline and the need to enforce the rules.
Now he’s hurting the people he needs to be hurting! I still cannot afford jack squat, and don’t have a job or health care, but at least he’s punching down, thank goodness!
They think they are portraying the subject as ‘weak’. It’s for their racist base to feel like ‘right on, we made a weak black leftist woman cry, like they all deserve’'.
It was never about making her less sympathetic, but a celebration of hurting the ‘correct’ people to get hurt.
It’s not JUST for thier base.
For anyone pondering joining such actions, these would be leaders.
If you’re thinking of joining, and the leaders look “weak”, it might not inspire much faith. You might decide to hold back.
The truth is, she looked calm and collected, confident in her decisions and actions. She looks like a leader. She looks like someone worth following. That type of imagery is dangerous if you’re trying to suppress action.
So, in short, it’s an attempt at active suppression, not just a “treat” for thier own. It’s the modern equivalent of going on about how short Napoleon is. It’s an attempt to diminish those they’re afraid of to try and keep others from following them.
This comment deserves to be its own post.
It’s also meant to say “look see we can make them regret it” as well as to draw into the paternal metaphor they keep using. Those weird comments they keep making about “daddy” being home to punish dissenters, feels very in line with this. The idea being that they’re trying to depict themselves as tough but necessary, and opposition as the same as a child misbehaving because of unenforced boundaries. In this regard they’re depicting her as crying to treat her like a child who has been spanked, and as such (in their eyes) one who will in the future respect their authority and eventually thank them for it.
They need to maintain the narrative that the protesters to contain both hardened rebels, and primarily be ordinary people who just don’t understand discipline and the need to enforce the rules.
Now he’s hurting the people he needs to be hurting! I still cannot afford jack squat, and don’t have a job or health care, but at least he’s punching down, thank goodness!