Interesting how these types of people seem to have a set of phrases with their own fixed meanings that don’t necessarily correspond to the literal meanings of the words that make them up. “Can’t trust the government” in this context really means “can’t trust liberals/progressives”. You can see that in her response if you watch the video. She’s not stumped when the reporter points out the apparent contradiction. She expect everyone to make the same mental substitution, under which there is no contradiction.
Another good example is a 5 minute youtube video about homelessness from a fake university with an orange logo. They cite an example of a bridge between Los Angeles and Culver City that has a major homeless encampment on one side, but not the other, due to different laws in the two cities. To quote directly:
the Los Angeles side is full of tents and the Culver City side is empty.
Why?
Because the two cities have different public policies.
Los Angeles has effectively decriminalized public camping and drug consumption while Culver City enforces the law.
If Los Angeles has no law against homelessness, then what law is it supposedly failing to enforce? This seems like a contradiction, until you realize that “Culver City enforces the law” has nothing to do with actual laws, but with the “law” of the moral framework that the authors are trying to propagandize.
Interesting how these types of people seem to have a set of phrases with their own fixed meanings that don’t necessarily correspond to the literal meanings of the words that make them up. “Can’t trust the government” in this context really means “can’t trust liberals/progressives”. You can see that in her response if you watch the video. She’s not stumped when the reporter points out the apparent contradiction. She expect everyone to make the same mental substitution, under which there is no contradiction.
Another good example is a 5 minute youtube video about homelessness from a fake university with an orange logo. They cite an example of a bridge between Los Angeles and Culver City that has a major homeless encampment on one side, but not the other, due to different laws in the two cities. To quote directly:
If Los Angeles has no law against homelessness, then what law is it supposedly failing to enforce? This seems like a contradiction, until you realize that “Culver City enforces the law” has nothing to do with actual laws, but with the “law” of the moral framework that the authors are trying to propagandize.