Thread by @SilentAmuse, Let's talk about Purity Tests.I see a lot of debate over what [...]

Let's talk about Purity Tests.

I see a lot of debate over what is and is not a "purity test."

Usually along the lines of "It's not a purity test because it's IMPORTANT TO ME" or "It's not a purity test, it's a CHARACTER FLAW."

That isn't how purity tests work.

1/

Pls RT

I'll use an analogy based on a classic cult film, "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death."

This 1989 film stars Bill Maher, Shannon Tweed, and Adrienne Barbeau.

I highly recommend NOT watching it, but you should know about it, you know, to be culturally literate.

2/

Basically some anthropologists go to an island to study two tribes of cannibal women - the Pyranha women and the Barracuda women - who've been at war with each other forever.

There's also a tribe of enslaved men call "the Donahues" and that's who they eat.

Very 80's.

3/

The punchline is at the end, when you find out the tribes hate each other because one side likes to eat men with a side of guacamole, but the other side likes to eat men with a side of clam juice.

Each side finds the other UNACCEPTABLE.

Oops, forgot the "spoiler alert"

4/

I can already hear steam coming out of your ears because I've likened your bottom line issue- socialized medicine or guns or reproductive rights- to bar food.

It's a METAPHOR, people. I didn't choose it to be trivial, I chose it to be value-neutral.

So just bear with me.

5/

So for this exercise, the Cannibal women bury the hatchet and form a democracy with a 100-woman Senate.

Let's say a majority of 55 like guac and a minority of 45 like clam juice.

Remember the two camps fought a war over this. It's their most deeply-held belief.

6/

The guac people, and their voters, think clam juice is yucky. The clam people think the guac people are rubes.

But if the clam people want anything done, they have to work with their worst enemies, the guac people. And they have to convince guac people to work with them.

7/

If clam people want a bill requiring men to bathe first, they have to find guac people who care about hygiene and work with them.

If clam people want to build a wall in case the cilantro people invade, they have to work with guac people who fear cilantro as much as they do.

8/

None of this is about forcing their voters to eat guac. It's not about conceding guac is better than clam. It's not even saying guac is good. It's not about guac at all.

The common ground is that men are gross and so is cilantro.

That's some pretty low-hanging fruit.

9/

Say some health-conscious guac women think the island should cut down on corn chip consumption. Most clam women agree.

That's a coalition.

The clam side has leverage if they work with anti-corn women, even if those women still hate clam.

Because it's not about clam.

10/

A purity test is saying:

"Sure I want to eat clean men, but not with dirty guac women."

"Sure I fear the Caribbean Cilantro Caravan, but not as much as I fear force-fed guac/clam."

"Sure I'd like to take down Big Nacho but I'm not eating potato chips with clam women."

11/

There are other factors.

Each district has some mix of guac women, clam women, pro-bath women, anti-cilantro women, and women who make a living growing corn.

Some who grow corn might be willing to go sell insurance, but most like their paycheck more than they hate guac.

12/

Some guac districts are 95% guac and some are 51% guac

The former has the luxury of caring about purity.

But the latter is 1% away from losing over any number of other issues.

Their guac voters don't care about performative gestures if it means they get a pro-clam rep.

13/

If the 95% group holds the 51% group to a guac purity test, they end up with fewer Guac Senators.

If there are only 52 Guac Senators instead of 59, they have far less leverage in the overall appetizer debate.

And they gain nothing of any value.

14/

And maybe 35 Guac women actually prefer salsa and only tolerate guac because they hate clam so much, and 24 guac-hating Clam women love salsa.

If they can get one more Salsa woman elected, it'll be majority Salsa women vs. non-Salsa women, and guac-only women are fucked.

15/

So in this scenario, the most important thing for guac-only women is to protect the salsa-hating Clam Senators from salsa-loving Clam primary opponents.

That's is actually the pro-guac position if you REALLY care about guac.

But it fails the Guac purity test. See?

16/

If these issues were popular with all Americans, there would be no controversy.

We care because there's a dire, ever-present threat of losing.

Guac might be all you care about, but there's a near-equal number who feel just as strongly that guac is icky.

They vote too.

17/

Bullying or shaming guac people doesn't change anything.

Refusing to work with clam people on dip policy or anything else doesn't change anything.

Their voters like what they like, and that's who they answer to. They don't care what anyone else thinks.

18/

A purity test means doing nothing and continuing to force your voters to eat nasty, unshowered men.

At best, it does nothing to advance the cause of clam juice supremacy.

At worst, it makes everything harder for clam women. And they still have to eat dirty men.

19/

So saying Biden shouldn't work with Senators from other coastal states like SC on issues affecting the Atlantic seaboard, or that your rep shouldn't cosponsor a banking reform bill if the sponsor isn't pro-choice, that's a purity test.

You're only hurting your own side.

20/20

Okay.

Come at me with your worst, but I assure you there's no angle I haven't considered, even if my imperfect metaphor doesn't apply.

And no, there are zero Senators who hate clam so much they defy or trick their guac-loving voters. They wouldn't be there long.

I'd think long and hard before weighing in on the ACTUAL relative merits of avocado vs shellfish, or quibbling with my math, or WhAtABoUtThEfiLiBuStEr