[mindslight]

It's called adding context to keep the directionality correct. "Biden had problems unrightfully covered up" - I do agree with that.

But one of the pillars of Grumpism/destructionism is taking valid factual criticisms, but presenting them in a way that leads to a conclusion of normalization/nihilism/etc. For example, yes from when it was made Idiocracy has been a satire of the very real anti-intellectualism that has been everpresent in American society. But that doesn't justify dismissing its application to the current situation, as you started off your original comment doing.

[Vektorceraptor]

I was referring to the author, not American politics in general. I added "then this should be called out as well." I thought this made it obvious.

[mindslight]

No, it doesn't make it obvious - I don't see much difference between your first comment and one that goes on to conclude something something "both sides".

There is plenty of criticism to go around when analyzing how we got to Grump, but keeping it in the right context is key.

[Vektorceraptor]

To me is lying about the obvious more "idiotic", than acting in a "bad manner". Again - I don't see a point in arguing here. If I show you the color "red" and you claim "it's blue", for political reasons or what ever, that is already idiocracy. I don't know what you are defending or what you are attacking or what you are even talking about. I wont change my mind or change my comment. It is what it is - learn to deal with it.

[mindslight]

It's not a "bad manner", but rather a question of what larger point a criticism is ultimately making.

Keep on at it if you're fine effectively supporting the current idiots. But don't be surprised when people call you out for it.