#Cherry-Pick Fallacy

[mindfulldsliving]

Unveiling the Deceptive Critique of Prophet Joseph Smith's Teachings

The post at Life After Ministries attempts to critique Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), by comparing his actions with those of Old Testament prophets.

Joseph Smith Preaching – Teacher of God’s Truth Introduction The question of whether Joseph Smith bore the infirmities of others is one that appears to bare significant amount of misrepresentation from a critic of the LDS faith. This recent example comes from Michelle, an active contributor at the Life After Ministries blog, who published a post concerning a quote taken from the “Discourses of…

[critical-skeptic]

Beneath the Halo: Unraveling the Misguided Quest for the Root Causes of Human Behavior

It's a cosmic joke that we humans are so spectacularly bad at diagnosing the root causes of behavior. We’re like amateur mechanics poking under the hood of a car, confident that the strange noise is due to one easily identifiable part. Take, for example, a conversation I overheard between people of two different ethnicities, each complaining about their grandfathers' crassness and bigotry. They recognized that their grandpas had more in common than their distinct ethnic backgrounds would suggest. However, they still couldn't nail down the root cause. Why? Because the glaring variable here is age and generational influence, not ethnicity.

But let's throw another wrench into this cognitive mess—enter the 'halo effect.' Society loves to paint certain groups, like children or the elderly, with broad, forgiving strokes. We attribute virtues to them—innocence to children, wisdom to the elderly—sometimes neglecting the fact that kids can be manipulative and grandparents can be bigots. This psychological phenomenon veers us off course, directing us to look for explanations for their flaws that won't shatter our idyllic perceptions. It's like refusing to accept that the 'check engine' light in your car might mean a serious problem; instead, you convince yourself it's just a faulty sensor.

We love to ignore the complex tapestry of variables that actually shape a person—age, upbringing, socioeconomic background, education, and a host of other factors—because it’s easier to blame or credit the low-hanging fruit like ethnicity or cuteness. It's intellectual laziness wrapped in the illusion of rational thought. Our brains prefer the simplest explanation that keeps our worldview intact, even if it’s spectacularly wrong.

But it's high time to get over this mental hurdle. We need to push past the emotional biases of the 'halo effect' and other such psychological shortcuts to find the real variables—the common denominators—that actually shape character and behavior. Otherwise, we're tilting at windmills, bashing imaginary foes while the real culprits chuckle from the sidelines.

So, before you blindly attribute your cousin's greed or your grandma's passive-aggressiveness to convenient yet superficial variables, take a step back. There's a good chance that you're being guided by a halo effect that masks a more complex reality. The sooner we recognize and confront this irrational bias, the closer we'll get to understanding the root causes that truly shape human behavior. In a world awash with oversimplification and snap judgments, that level of intellectual rigor is not just welcome; it's desperately needed.

[sweaterkittensahoy]

Come here.

Sit down.

Look me in the face.

I am going to tell you one thing you can do right now and for the next four years, okay? Listen.

Fucking listen.

Do not. DO NOT. DO FUCKING NOT TAKE ANYTHING HE SAYS OUT OF CONTEXT.

Nothing. Not one thing.

Do NOT let one quote convince you he said whatever someone says he said. DO NOT. Read the whole goddamn thing. READ IT. KNOW THE EXACT CONTEXT HE WAS SPEAKING IN.

Because you know what I saw the first time? I saw SO MANY LEFTISTS using cherry-picked quotes and making claims that WERE NOT TRUE. And you know what that did? It helped the fucker and others like him because people on that side went, "Oh, but I actually know the context of the quote, and you are wrong."

And the response from the left was to literally REFUSE to agree they were wrong. They doubled down. They tripled down. They did all the logical fallacy shit in the world because they were so determined to prove his awfulness through moral superiority alone rather than actually take apart what he said and why he said it.

You know what's powerful? Actually knowing what the fuck is going on. Actually saying, "Yes, I know the full context of his remarks, and here is why I still don't agree with him."

Do not. DO NOT let ragebait get you. Do NOT let people who just want clicks get you. Do NOT let the moral superiority wankfucks get you.

Because the people on the other side, they will know EXACTLY what he said and EXACTLY in what context and EXACTLY to which audience, and they will dismiss ANY negative comments you have if you fall for that shit.

Do your fucking homework. Know your fucking enemy. Because when you can look someone in the eye and say, "I know exactly what he said, and here is my rebuttal" or you say, "Hey, I don't know the full context and want to look it up for myself," the reactionary types who want you to not think, only argue (on both sides) can't get a foothold.

DO NOT FUCKING GIVE THEM A GODDAMN FOOTHOLD.

[transmascpetewentz]

One Challenge For People Who Deny Transandrophobia

I have one challenge for anyone and everyone who denies transandrophobia for any reason that has to do with transmasc advocacy allegedly harming trans women. Seeing as you all are very adamant in your stance against trans men demanding basic respect in queer spaces, this should not be difficult for you to do if you have thought about your reasoning for holding such opinions.

My challenge for all of you is to answer this one question:

What is one way that transmasc activism harms trans women directly, or is transmisogynistic in some way?

Now, because I know that some people will put together words that don't make sense to avoid answering the question but sound intellectual, here are some logical fallacies that your answer must avoid for me to consider it completing the challenge:

You must not include any criticism of the word transandrophobia that does not meaningfully engage with the activism and discussions that trans men have been having.

No comparisons to any sort of hate groups (MRAs, TERFs, etc). Point out the specific ideas that you disagree with instead of saying "this is just like [x]."

You cannot cherry-pick the concept of intersectionality or cite any particular white woman's interpretation of the ideas proposed by Kimberle Crenshaw to discredit transmasc advocacy without engaging with the new ideas we have put forth.

No whataboutisms; do not base your argument around the idea that trans women should be centered in trans men's spaces and discussions.

Avoid making use of a strawman. Try to think of the most compelling argument you've seen for the existence of transandrophobia and refute that instead of trying to attack the weakest possible argument (that probably hasn't been made in good faith).

Acknowledge the fact that closeted, non-passing, and passing trans men exist, and do not treat non-passing trans men as having a less legitimate male or trans experience than those who pass. Don't bring up passing trans men to say that all trans men have male privilege, because just like trans women, trans men who pass still face transphobia.

No projection of cisgender dynamics of gender and sexuality onto trans spaces, as while those aren't totally irrelevant, they are irrelevant to whether or not transandrophobia is a thing that exists.

Acknowledge that trans men are oppressed by misogyny, just like trans women and transfems are. Also, acknowledge the existence of intersex trans men and trans men of color.

Don't bring up individual trans men who have done certain bad things that do not implicate the entire area of transmasc activism or transandrophobia theory.

Do not mention Israel or Palestine, or bring up other irrelevant issues that you may disagree with me or other prominent trans men in these spaces on.

As stated, all that I am looking for is one (1) argument. I have searched through a lot of posts, a lot of articles about this subject, yet I have not found one coherent argument that avoids basic logical fallacies and doesn't just throw words together to sound like it's refuting anything. I can and will respond to all of the arguments that I get that fit this criteria. You can send them to me in asks or in the notes of this post.

[a-polite-melody]

I love how you can make a post that basically boils down to “there’s a large portion of opposition to transandrophobia which is nothing but rhetorical fallacies, circular logic, and cherry picking to portray all of it as transmisogynistic when it is not and they cannot do anything besides the above strategy when asked how there is inherent transmisogyny to the theory because there isn’t anything inherently transmisogynistic going on they just want us to shut up and accept that the rhetorical fallacies, circular logic, and cherry picking actually prove inherent transmisogyny so we stop talking, else there’d be something other than these things to point at when we ask how we could fix the transmisogyny problem inherent to the discussion so we can formulate better theory on transmasculine issues”

And someone can come along and say, “yes you’re right, we do cherry pick and that should prove to you the inherent transmisogyny, because of the circular logic we use of ‘any theory under transandrophobia is transmisogynistic so anyone who then talks about that theory is inherently transmisogynistic so even if they make theory that isn’t transmisogynistic it still actually is because it was made by an inherent transmisogynist so the theory they make is inherently transmisogynistic’”

And think it’s worth having block evaded to have said that.

[radfemsiren]

I know that it's a sacrosanct among radical feminists, but I don't think that witch hunts were intentional persecutions of women.

There were a lot of men burned as witches. In Salem 1/3 of victims were male, in Europe generally around 20% were, and in the East majority of witches burned were male.

This seems like too much male victims for allegedly misogynistic campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I see that even per my words women were harmed more, and yes, it's because of misogyny. But it wasn't the prime reason for witch hunts themselves - they started because of paranoia and religious hatred (it was the time of Wars of Religion and also christianity in 16-17 centuries in all forms was strengthening its chokehold on society). And what is actually almost universal to all victims is that they were considered undesirable by their communities. And yes, since misogyny was commonplace, women were spared less empathy, especially elderly women.

And also the narrative of connection between women and magic of any kind, including healing one, emerged during witch hunts. Before them magic and healing practices were viewed as mostly male thing, and in some parts of my country they still are.

Once again, witch hunts are undeniably a testimony of misogyny of Early Modern Europe, but they weren't some kind of purposefully misogynistic conspiracy. Moids of all groups and ideologies always think of women as morally inferior in their way (fascists think that all womens are commies, atheists think that women are superstitial, christoids think that women are godless, I bet you know this), but saying that all of their political or cultural movements are therefore covers for misogyny is delusional. But the narrative of witch hunts as a campaign against folk healers or some unproven witch cult are IMO pointless because they paint Middle Ages as some feminist utopia (no fucking they weren't, though they weren't a trad dream either), and also operate on comic book logic of some shadowy evil men crafting misogyny in 16th century instead of pointing out how they highlight actual gruesome misogyny of the time.

And also I genuinely doubt that midwives medics of the time were beneficial for women, but accounts of harmful practices that I read were from 19th century, so one can argue that actual knowledge was lost during witch hunts

I feel like that’s what feminists are saying though no? Like the characteristic of the witch-hunts were that it was fanatic mobs persecuting hated groups: and women were the biggest oppressed, hated group. When it comes to the church being threatened by women gaining power and learning medicine, I can’t speak on that because I’ve never researched this topic.

I will say though that the idea of “well all men are misogynistic so calling out specific cultures for misogyny is pointless” is an excuse I really hate. Religious people come to me everyday with examples of specific atheist men that are misogynistic as an attempt at a “gotcha” and its such a logical fallacy. It doesn’t sway me in the belief that a theocracy will always be a thousand times worse for women than a secular government: the overall function and practice of an ideology are what’s important, not cherry picking parts you like or dislike.

There are dogmas that incite hatred and misogyny and punish critical thinking and individual thought: the mechanism of organized religion is one of these. Authority must always be obeyed, and obedience to man and god is the priority. You can sprinkle nice little anecdotes of Jesus being nice to prostitutes (Muslims have similar stories too, like of the prostitute that gave a dog water and Allah forgave all her sins) and still the foundation of Christianity and Islam are clearly antithetical to women’s liberation.

[somesaintiam]

maybe already been said and maybe most of you already know this but if you ever find yourself doubting byler..

as someone who has been to a class where logic fallacies and how to debate/argue is the main subject taught, m*levins always use super common fallacies (like cherry picking, hasty generalization, etc..) in their arguments that m*levin will be canon and these arguments usually have little to no support and sometimes just plain false information (ex: I've seen a lot of m*levins say that will is confirmed not to be in love with mike which is just plain false if you are in the ST community you would know that simple info)-

so not only are their arguments unsupported, but their arguments are also simply almost never sound or valid and to be honest using fallacies and inductive reasoning to reach their conclusions is quite literally the only way they can try to convince people and themselves that m*levin will be endgame because there is no actual way to prove m*levin will most likely be endgame while still using support and conclusions based off film and without using logic fallacies/faulty logic. another thing because they can't convince people of m*levin endgame they always resort to leakers, who are unreliable sources 99% of the time

so yeah that's why m*levins arguments are always really easy or simple to rebut

also I'm not saying bylers have never used fallacies obviously some have but overall byler is MUCH more supported than m*levin which is why I 110% believe byler will be endgame

(NO HATE TO M*LEVINS don't go attacking them just because they attack us sometimes, it doesn't make us any better than them)

[charles-leclerc-official]

hello! can I ask if you have any list of accounts you trust when it comes to f1 data? i noticed there are accounts who come to different conclusions with things like race pace data, and i guess it's their methodologies that differ... i don't want to be misled if somehow there's bias.

So I have a few.

First I want to say that no account is perfect and sometimes mistakes are made etc. So always keep that in mind.

I really like @/F1telemetrydata they do good work and just process the numbers and I think their graphs are also presented in a way that's a good representation of the data.

But yes this is an issue I see in Twitter data accounts all the time. Bias can be present in data accounts, even if it looks like it's just numbers. Very often they cherry pick data and present things in bad faith to make one driver look significantly better than another. I think it's usually pretty obvious when they are doing this.

And this is also a broader issue in statistics as well. Choosing the data to sample and how to present it can be a big issue and can easily be used to mislead people who do not know how the math works and how data should be presented.

If you are really wanting to combat bias I highly suggest looking at the raw data. Does it confirm what people are saying? Things like race pace and speed are pretty easy to pick up just by looking at the raw lap times. Processing it into graphs is nice and makes it easier to see the differences but the raw data does tell the truth.

Raw data sources F1 tempo Pitwall

Also be aware of what is helpful to compare. Sometimes we can compare stats but are they good things to compare? Do they tell us anything useful that a team might care about?

I also want to say that sometimes people and even analysts get terms wrong. I see people swap terms like race pace and speed all the time and those are different things. They are connected but they are different.

Speed would be single lap time Race pace is average lap time

You can get one really good flying lap in a race but then be slower than your teammate the rest and have severe drop offs in speed due to poor tyre management.

Also data really is only one part of the story of a race. Context always matters. Saying X was faster than X without mentioning that one driver had damage beyond their control is a bad faith comparison. The raw data would show a driver being faster, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

So a big thing is to pay attention to who tries to put things into context and who does not. When I put things into context myself and do comparisons I try to always pick a driver's best performance during a race etc. It usually helps make my point either way. For example any reporter or data analyst who did a comparison of Charles' pace to Carlos or any other driver from Bahrain and did not mention Charles serious mechanical issue with the brakes I do not trust. That is a case where even doing that comparison isn't really useful because a mechanical issue means the data is flawed. A lot of accounts and reporters just did a raw comparison without taking that into account and anyone who watched the race can tell that is in bad faith.

It is a fallacy to believe that the data tells 100% of the story. It doesn't. If someone looked at just the data from a race they would probably make very different judgements and assumptions than someone who did.

For example in Miami someone just looking at the data would go "Oh Oscar really lost a lot of pace on his second stint. He needs to work on his hard tyre pace." But someone who watched the race would know that Oscar's slower pace in the second half of the race was due to the fact he was battling with Carlos and then took damage. They'd know that his pace after that is not fully reflective of what his pace would be without damage, as well as the overall quality of his driving.

Again remember no one is perfect. I am not perfect and make mistakes/overlook something/fail to catch something altogether. A lot of data accounts are just one fan who loves the sport and wants to do math.

I prefer accounts that just process the raw data without editorializing(ex pointing out one driver against another) just show me the graphs etc, that's a very neutral way to do it.

You have brought up a broader issue in statistics. Like different ways of processing data, what to include vs exclude etc That is a big thing in all stats. And some people know how to massage numbers to fit an agenda. This happens all the time(especially in any kind of political data presentation)

I think the best thing is to be aware of bias, learn how to spot it, and then take it into account alongside the information someone is telling you. That's simple on paper but sometimes it's tricky in practice.

I realize this post has turned into a mini lecture on stats fallacies etc and I probably didn't need to say all of that, but hopefully it's educational to someone.

Numbers don't lie, but they sure do like to do loopty loops with the truth sometimes.

[writingpuddle]

back in the early 20-teens i watched this delightful movie, Shelter (2007) which is a gay surfing romance which is very cute and heartwrenching and concludes with our protag and his new boyfriend essentially adopting protags nephew. first of all this post is just a plug to get you to go watch Shelter (2007) because its very sweet and i love it very much. but actually this post is about headcanons.

see, i really quite liked this movie, but this was before i got into fandom, so the sum total of my engagement (other than watching the movie over and over again) was looking up online reviews, and one in particular stuck with me.

the argument this reviewer (anonymous rando on imdb or similar site) made was that actually, the happily ever after depicted in the movie was doomed. first of all, the romance was a rebound relationship. plus the whole adoption of the five year old nephew. protags sister would eventually want her son back! their cute little family would be broken! and thats not to mention the stress that the relationship was financially unequal.

now, in hindsight, most of the analysis in this review was probably bad faith, thinly veiled homophobia. but what stuck with me was the way this person phrased these things as absolute proof. Rebound + Wayward Sister + Money = Inevitable Breakup. as if people can really be broken down into some linear equation with only one possible outcome. because no rebound relationship has ever lasted, because no family has ever survived complicated questions of custody, because money always destroys relationships.

its pretty obvious, from a distance, to see they were cherry-picking all the details that supported their foregone conclusion. i could cherry-pick my own to counter them, but thats not even the point i want to make.

what i drew from this review, and reflecting on it, was how supremely arrogant it was to assume you could predict someones future based on only a handful of data points. a good fictional character, like a real person, is a complex, multi-faceted creation containing contradictions and moods and conflicts that are constantly in flux. its why in fandom you get ongoing arguments about what one would consider the very base characteristics of a character. its why you can have long and involved conversations about whether an action was in-character or not, and whether thats even a relevant question. what trait is actually immutable? what characteristic cannot be violated, if the situation is right?

i think most people understand this implicitly, if not consciously, and engage with headcanons in this way. 'hey' the fan says, 'if i take these datapoints from canon, i can point in this direction! isnt that a cool idea?' and the rest of us may nod or shake our heads, but we understand that there are probably multiple plausible paths. we can comment on whether a particular path is more or less plausible, but its exceedingly rare, and in my personal experience often pretty contrived, to find a question that has only one conclusive answer.

people are weird. a good fictional character should have enough meat on their bones that one should be able to build plausible and contradictory headcanons. (and thats not even to speak of headcanons which are of other types, the 'wouldnt it be fun if' or the 'what if important thing was different' or the many other categories of headcanon).

which is why its always jarring to see people take one data point from canon and extrapolate a huge, inevitable conclusion and then, rather than happily sitting on their little universe like one might expect, instead defending to the death that they must be correct. this is no longer a game to them. they are willing to throw down about it without a hint of irony or comedy to temper their words. and once theyre taking it too seriously i feel i am allowed to criticise their logical processes and point out the fallacies of judgement. the base assumption that humans are comprehensible and predictable beings. the utter and profound lack of real data.

in summary, my response is:

[legallyacceptibleurl]

Transcript: “When there's a- When something is popular on the internet, you will find that there are a wealth of varying opinions, and not all of those are in good faith. And I think that there's this, like, pseudo-strawman argument, because in a strawman it's like, "no one's making that argument" is usually the logical fallacy. But on the internet, you can find anyone technically making the argument. And then you can cherry-pick the things that you respond to in order to create this perception that you are being... victimized or targeted, or that you are a victim or you're being unfairly criticized, when the reality of the situation is that most people are down for the aesthetics. Or most people are criticizing a completely different thing, …”

Sad Boyz

[meatcrimes]

there is a lot of very important criticism of the “other people have it worse than you so be grateful for your pain” fallacy in the form of “just because someone else’s pain is worse doesn’t mean mine isn’t real” but another insidious thing about it is how fucking hurtful and dehumanizing it is to be labeled as the person who “has it worse”

it comes in two major forms: “they have it a lot worse than you and you don’t see them complaining so if they aren’t outwardly suffering what’s your excuse?” and “their life ACTUALLY sucks, unlike yours. their whole existence must be missry. be grateful you aren’t them.”

the former is a fallacy of “if i can’t see it it isn’t real”, and ignores the fact that disabled people often hide their pain for fear of ridicule, accusations of hypochondria, or accusations of munchausens. the latter is projecting fears, and those fears are fueled by inaccurate stereotypes and beliefs as well as being more prone to cherry-picking cognitive dissonance favoring the most severe cases

[landboundstar]

Media Literacy and Propaganda

No, no -don't click away. Hear me out. I just want to do a quick kind of cheat sheet for this, and some of the ways that I practice this for people who are new to this skill or have not had a chance to learn it. Okay. Well, first of all you are not immune to propaganda. Something has influenced you at some point. Oh, and you have a bias - you have an opinion or viewpoint you lean towards and are likely to agree with people who agree with you. It's okay - we all have opinions. We all have biases. There is the spoken message, or written message, or the video - however it is being delivered. But then, there is subtext. Yes, body language matters. When I did public speaking, there were colors they would suggest us wear or not wear - because we are influenced by what we see. Age, or how it is perceived matters - there are studies in social psychology with how people view attractive or younger looking people versus less attractive or older looking people. How many times specific words are repeated. Something I will do with ads and speeches and videos is I will pull up tabs that have lists of common logical fallacies and lists of common rhetorical devices. These get used a lot in propaganda - and I will start looking for specific fallacies and devices. It kind of becomes a weird game of bingo or one of those "Take A Drink When...." games.

For example, just off of the top of my head. So lately, with ads - without going back and rewatching the approximately 5.9 billion political ads I have been bombarded with recently.... There was an ad I heard that used Ronald Reagan's voice - appeal to nostalgia - people can be heavily influenced by things they feel nostalgia towards. A lot of other ads are showing split screens of two candidates comparing them and contrasting them - which yes, the point of voting is to choose one. But they are also using a bogus dilemma in a lot of these that "You can have this" - whichever candidate that ad is making look flattering. "Or you can have this." - and whatever candidate is looking less flattering. Let's be honest - we are going to have one candidate that looks better to us and one candidate that looks worse. But the person probably doesn't look the way they do in the worst clips all of the time or the way they do in the best clips all of the time. There is middle ground - where bogus dilemma comes in. The ad hominem attacks - the personal attacks against a specific person. Cherry picking - specific statistics, specific clips to prove a point. Non sequitirs - giving an unrelated answer. When I am feeling overwhelmed and irritated, I will use this strategy to help me look at what I am being told and see what some of the messages behind what is being said are. Or I will walk away from what I am watching, turn off my computer and tablet and eat an entire chocolate bar. It depends on the day. You are going to see these devices or fallacies all the time. It is how we talk. It is how we write. It is how people influence other people. Like the person or dislike them, but the ads will use some of these strategies. The speeches will use some of the strategies. But hopefully this can help you have one way to analyze propaganda so you can have a better idea of what decision you are making and why you are making it.

[addieieieie]

@addieieieie sends herself hate mail and accuses people that she has beef with of sending it to her. She’ll then take some cherry picked unrelated image as confirmation of her accusation being true because purposely invoked fallacy are totes valid logic! I’d be wary such a cunt who is using Palestinians as a shield from people pointing out her lies!

Here’s real hate mail, you dumb slag and I never use anonymous but you’re stupid self with take it as “confirmation” so you can scapegoat your own actions

anyway everyone remember to do your daily clicks for palestine

[raitobie]

Hot take: Light not only loved his family before DN, he never actually subverted this love at all. All analyses that say he stopped loving them are surface-level at best and cherry picking at worst. Light is an awful person and that quality doesn’t even make his actions good, but it still exists and all reasoning that it doesn’t boils to One Single Proof fallacy where all the evidence for is ignored in favor of solely “yeah well he considered murdering Sayu” and “yeah well he allowed his dad to take the eyes/forgot his name in the warehouse” which was answered already in the multiple readings of Light who loves his family as well. I guess people will rather subscribe to Light who doesn’t murder Sayu on spot immediately because “hm well he is a genius duh his plan here was obvious *proceeds to not explain*”. Whatever

Yeah, I mean…I don’t even want to call this a hot take, it’s just common sense when the author says explicitly that such is the case, and the evidence in the story doesn’t contradict it but rather supports it. Light has personal thoughts to coincide with his actions that express care and love for his family. He doesn’t have to fit into this neat little box for this to be true.

It’s a fair question to ask in the context of Death Note if Light loves his family, but debating and arguing about it after it’s been answered and confirmed to be “absolutely yes” is just…I’ve been leaning towards the idea that the anon who has been pressing this idea is a troll trying to get a rise out of people lol but I could be wrong. They just won’t actually tell me or address the arguments I and other people have made directly. I dunno why.

[kerosene-in-a-blender]

Your premises are flawed, you evidence is cherry-picked, your conclusions are deeply fallacious, you, sir, are a poor media analyst

[spurgie-cousin]

I wrote an entire paper last semester on those old tv shows depicting the values that Jill wants to get back to so badly. All of those values never existed at the same time together, it was people in the 50s and 60s making tv shows that cherry picked the best, happiest, nostalgic parts of the decades that came before because people at that time were experiencing worldwide and home-front changes and felt the need for escapism from all of it.

Ex: the 50s women should be staying home to be housewives, the home being the safe haven from the cruel outside world is an ideal from the Victorian era. But it was only achievable by the families (upper class) who could afford to keep their women home and keep their children from having to work in factories and mines, and the nostalgia factor also neglects to mention how the upper class families usually had housekeeping help from women and girls who couldn’t afford to stay in their own homes with their own children.

Tldr nostalgia can be a harmless thing (like “oh man I’m missing senior year of high school right now with all of these graduations, I wish I knew back then how good I had it lol”) but 90% of the time, it’s a trap and Jill fell right into it and I followed her there with this tangent🤣

I think the only “old time family values” tv show I’d be willing to give a pass to is Little House on the Prairie because it’s based on Laura Wilder’s own experiences

(this one is from a while ago i apologize, the context is that in instagram Jill Rodrigues was watching some old TV show and saying she wished everything was like it was in the "old days").

Oh 100%, it's a complete fallacy that the 50s or 60s as a whole were anything like the TV shows conservatives love so much. But Jill has the critical thinking skills of a banana and the history education of a kindergartener so it doesn't surprise me that she falls for even the stupidest conservative propaganda out there.

Like truly Trumpers can tell her anything and she'll just believe it without any analysis.