Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What does “internalized” even mean? That’s a word like “impactful.”
|
It means that sometimes you pretend you are just describing what Trump says, but you also make clear that you believe it. For example, you repeatedly said Judge Berman Jackson was "supposed to" avoid saying the sorts of things judges commonly say after convictions about the perpetrator's crimes. Let's be totally clear: There is no law, ethical standard, rule or any other precedent that says that Judge Berman Jackson shouldn't have said what she said. What you really mean is, by saying something that Trump would object to in a public way, she was going to become the target of criticism by him and his followers. "Supposed to" is not descriptive language -- it's normative. You said "supposed to" because you don't just describe his shit, you sometimes believe it. You have internalized it. But you also are not one of Trump's supporters, so when you're pushed on it you back away from what you've said, and pretend that you're just a dispassionate observer, describing the follies of the age but not getting caught up in believing any of it.
Quote:
|
Look, dude, you’re done here. You’ve been done. You’re arguing right and wrong in game that has nothing to do with that. It’s like arguing the Sixers are more honorable than the Celtics. My only point is to critique the moves.
|
The idea that politics is an amoral game with no rules is Trumpian. It's what people like Judge Berman Jackson oppose. If you believe this, then you're in the bag for Trump, just not self-aware enough to own it.
We're all lawyers, and we all get how the law is like a game. The idea that it's *just* a game is the sort of thing that is exciting to teenagers, but that most people grow out of. And you obviously don't believe it, for example when you talk about criminal justice reform. You just like the cynical pose.
