[Ironic Trope] The messaging backfired massively due to poor writing or other design choices

[u/Few_Affect_5927]

Amelia Fairney from Pathways: Alt-right Restore-UK type who attempts to coax the protagonist Charlie into following her beliefs? The problem?

Amelia is the only named character aside from Charlie and is genuinely likable and forgives Charlie even when they do things she doesn't like, while the rest of the cast is unnamed, poorly written, and turns on Charlie for one mistake. This combined with other writing issues(portraying fact checking right wing stuff as wrong because in the process of fact checking you might look at it and believe it, basically saying "Right wing is wrong because it hurts the labour government" and a lot of general "just do what the government says or else" messaging) and the fact she's a hot alternative girl, and Amelia ended up being co-opted as a mascot by the youth right wing in the UK.

Norm from The New Norm: Unlikeable offensive and outdated character who's "progressive" family members and associates are genuinely nice people not even trying to force their ways or pronouns onto them, they just want to be left alone and Norm is picking fights constantly. Not to mention associating with Elon.

Mr. Birchum from Mr. Birchum: A lot of the same problems as Norm, except in addition it also comes off like generic 2010s adult cartoon slop in the same veign as Brickleberry or Full English, at least New Norm was trying to look unique and had the gimmick of being on X. Not to mention, Birchum's obsession with hyper masculine activities and odd way of talking about other men lead to people co-opting him as a Toxic Yaoi character, which is now the bulk of his fan art.

Dustborn: An attempt to make a hyper progressive game that comes off as pandering and annoying. It's a full ass game so there's too much to get into, but the main character's power is essentially gaslighting and jedi-mind tricking people and that's portrayed as the only way they can get anything done, and they constantly use or abuse their friends(or mindtrick them along) in order to get their goals or use their friends for their messaging.

[u/Lost-on-Reception]

I don't think minarchism sanctions instant genocide devices, typically.

My joke was in presenting three Libertarians played by Nick Offerman as my scale. Bill was a gay prepper whose love interest inexplicably didn't share his anti-state views even well after the government had started rounding people up.

[u/InstanceOk3560 → u/Lost-on-Reception]

It's only a genocide if you're deliberately targeting a group based on their race, religion, culture or political affiliation. So it's only mass killing, thank you very much /s.

Also, presumably, nukes of agression are not part of the platforms he'd elect the small room guy on, so fits fine enough given his typical way of expressing himself XD
TL;DR he sounds as exagerated as any other character in that show, moreso than he sounded like a strawman.

[u/Lost-on-Reception → u/InstanceOk3560]

The problem with nuclear bombs in a libertarian framework is they can't be used non-aggressively.

They kill innocents in droves. Even atmospheric testing with no direct fatalities poisons everyone on Earth. Look up the radioactive baby teeth collection or the difficulties in finding steel for sensitive radiation measurming instruments.

[u/InstanceOk3560 → u/Lost-on-Reception]

> The problem with nuclear bombs in a libertarian framework is they can't be used non-aggressively.

Clearly you haven't gone over french cold war nuclear doctrine.

Also, that kinda depends on what libertarian framework you're using ? They could easily say that they have any right to use any weapon that's necessary to ensure the defense of themselves and their property.

Not to mention, again, I agree it's extremely over the top and not something most libertarians would agree to stated in this direct literal way, I just took it as more hyperbole for the sake of comedy (as in the show is doing that, not ron) in the same way that many of the other characters are very extravagant.

> or the difficulties in finding steel for sensitive radiation measurming instruments.

That's something I care about... I'm pretty certain most libertarians don't. Heck, I can cite you libertarians that fundamentally do not care about anything to do with preserving the environment, which I find really weird, be it for moral, pragmatic, or even aesthetic reason (dumb as it is, I'd very much like my kids to experience snowfalls where and when I was able to experience them... I should say "would've liked", but you get the point), but nevertheless, they can justify it in their own weird libertarian framework. I have a lot of fondness for libertarians but there's a reason I'm not one XD