aebletrae

Between them E, T, A, O, I, and N hold the majority of letters in texts. These are the upper class.

Throwing in the S, H, R, D, and L bourgeoisie accounts for more than three quarters.

This leaves C, U, M, W, F, G, Y, P, B, V, K, X, J, Q, and Z to share less than one quarter of the written letters in English.

I'm not sure that the obvious word of the proletariat needs to be used more, though.

How about syzygy?

Well that's perhaps a failure on my part because I really wasn't trying to be: I was trying to ease your mind on this one particular point and offer something beyond what you'd received from the other commenters who appear to disagree with you, since they didn't appear to have convinced you that it's okay to let this one thing go and save your energy for other fights.

If it isn't too upsetting, since "refrain[ing] from principled argument [...] is one type of liberalism", I will give one more explanation of my thinking and then leave it at that.

When describing things that are knowable and positive, scale is described upward and outward: "greatness"; "grandeur"; etc. By contrast, depth is typically used to describe attributes that are unknown or negative: "deep feelings/belief/faith/conviction"; "depth of their depravity". And "sheer" is often coupled with "hubris".

If America's unusual greatness is intended, then "the sheer depth of American exceptionalism" is indeed striking, since its form implies the opposite. If the writer means the sheer depth of faith in American exceptionalism, though, then the form is instead quite mundane. I find that mundane usually explains more than striking.

However, I do agree with what you write about deniability: this construction does allow readers who genuinely believe in exceptionalism to carry on unchallenged. But regardless of what you or I think journalists should do, that is the actual job of The New York Times, isn't it?

You seem to be treating "American exceptionalism" literally, but even Wikipedia defines it as a belief in the lead sentence:—

American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is either distinctive, unique, or exemplary compared to other nations.

Sure, the article could have said:—

Unfortunately, the sheer depth of belief in American exceptionalism is such that this country’s political, media and economic elites have a difficult time believing that anything can fundamentally change for the worse.

but that would be a clunky tautology.

You might be right about everything else, but it seems difficult to read this particular sentence in the way you suggest.

This obvious stupidity is why their attempts to wind people up just leaves me saying "Carry on". A handful of rich idiots are not going to birth themselves out of a minority. They can't. Wealth is by definition a minority. And the more children they have, the more their wealth will be split. Aristocracies of the past showed what happens then. Political affiliation isn't all that hereditary either, so if that's the goal, that's also bound to fail. If it's a race thing—they claim it's not, but...—they need to support other white people, but their ideas just... don't. These people are cosplayers.

AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID

... because whoever's left won't have paid it.

"Horse whisperer" is a common mis-hearing of the real term "horse hasbara", sometimes also called horsebara. It predates the more-recent propagandisation of the word, and is just someone who explains things to horses.

I particularly like the admission that campaign contributions are bribes. Because they couldn't possibly accept the money, do something good with it, and then refuse lobbyists meetings, as if it were a "donation". No it's much better to send it back to the bad billionaires to do bad things with. How very ethical of them.

No, absolutely not. Someone else suggested meeting people in the middle. I am not. Never accept the liberal smears that right wingers are the stupid ones. The most clueless people in politics call themselves 'centrists'.

I quite specifically limited my approach to "people who could be won over". Obviously the fascists cannot be won over. But propaganda exists, and people who are capable of being better people are influenced by it. None of us are immune. So we need to counter that, and telling everyone who isn't already on our side that they will forever be our enemy is incredibly counter productive.

What I am saying is that Pacman Theory is not a thing. You cannot push people away and expect them to pop up behind you and have your back. If you tell someone that they are right wing while others are telling them it's good to be right wing, you are not going to change their mind.

Now maybe you think that's not a problem, that we can just get rid of them. Bad news: the numbers are not on our side. We need numbers, and the only source is terrible. That sucks, no argument. But it is also reality, I'm afraid.

We absolutely should not coddle liberals. We should insist that their ideas are stupid and dangerous, that they should get better ones, and—hey, wouldn't you just know it—I have some that I can give you, for the low, low cost of being the better person you know you want to be.

We should not welcome them with open arms until they can be better people. But we really, really shouldn't push them into the open arms of the right, because that's how you actually enable fascism.

"Coddle my feelings so I might give a fuck about your human rights and stop enabling fascism"

I used exactly the same approach in my original comment: you are correct; the tactical ideas should be changed.

Did you feel coddled?

GTFOH

Probably not.

It is not enough to be correct. You also have to be smart. And telling people who could be won over that actually, no, you're not on our side, you're one of them—"you are Right Wing"—is a monumentally stupid opening move.

Stop telling people they are right wing. A lot of people—especially those most susceptible to right-wing rhetoric—think that who they are is fixed. Instead, insist that they are people who want the best for others (even if you don't think that's true enough yet). Tell them that they're dragging around the anchors of right wing ideology, and that if they want things to be better, those ideas—which harm most people for the benefit of an unscrupulous few—should and can be left behind.

You're still not going to win very often, but at least you aren't throwing the game immediately.

If you feel better about yourself, and aren't mistreating others, take the win.

No one is immune to propaganda. We all have some stupid ideas because of it. At least you care enough to try to negate that.

Don't discount the psychological benefits of exercise either. It can improve mood long before physical changes become noticeable. And other people respond positively to confidence as well as appearance.

Yeah, the artificial scarcity of homes and their use as investment vehicles are the core problems. came_apart_at_Kmart's comments describe how taxes and the rhetoric about them help disguise that (and other problems besides).

Telling people "if you're poor, you should just go somewhere else" is not a particularly compassionate response. It's literally the rhetoric of ghouls.

And why should cheaper countries—which are cheaper because of historical (and ongoing) exploitation—be required to solve the problems of richer nations (yet again)?

Beyond that, moving anywhere—let alone another country—is an impossible task for anyone with necessary family/social connections or particular healthcare needs, all situations more likely to be true among older people.

Rising house prices has in many ways been a trick to distract people from stagnating wages. It is a trick because the extra "value" of their house is only realised in exchange, which isn't actually possible much of the time, and in any case is usually only possible in a market where all other alternatives have also increased in price, negating much of the benefit.

For a brief period, it was possible for ordinary working class people to buy a home. This is a good thing. And while some of them will have contributed to the changes that leave us in the situation today, many of them did not and, in spite of having their own home, continue to face difficulties.

In your comment you appear to be conflating these people with richer folk, and you also don't appear to know how much elder care actually costs.

I'm not especially sympathetic to most of the anti-tax whining either, since it usually comes from the resentful rather than the struggling, but older homeowners are not a monolith.