The problem with subtext is that I can’t tell if they’re talking about Israel, or if they’re a neocon ghoul who wants to nuke Iran. Or the US? Or Russia? The political content is completely lost in the subtext
The subtext does make it clear enough that it’s Israel because there is no other country that is acting as a rabid dog that belongs to someone else.
Yes, but some decide to live in bizzzaro world instead for some reason.
“Iran-backed rebels” though
call me when Iran-backed rebels bite childrenThey haven’t but what if some American imagined that they did? All I am saying is that overton window on this topic is wild enough in the west that the subtext leaves room for doubt.
The twitter user in the image has been on chapo, he’s talking about Israel.
To be fair “rabid dog” doesn’t narrow it down much in the US
sometimes the dog is a beloved pet and the owner would rather annihilate the neighborhood than magdump into the feral beast
Sometimes the owner is also a rabid dog, tbh. And sometimes the owner’s family is just a bunch of deeply inbred, rabid dogs.
It’s rabid dogs all the way down. The community will have to take out all the rabid dogs, not just the smallest and stinkiest of the bunch, otherwise the rabid dogs will just keep inbreeding and further inbreeding…
I mean, I’d pick Cujo over about 80% of my neighbors. Call the lawn police on this, motherfuckers!
This is Dogphobic actually
If subtext is for cowards, what is cop-talk passive language?
The negation of the negation is distinct from the original phenomenon, so the negation of text being subtext and the negation of subtext being cop passive language implies that it is actually “domtext”
…Damn! Y’know you on some quantum shit right now
