Lurker > legendary_zell

I think he represented many many of the worst elements of politics. Short of being a fascist, my least favorite type.

How can you have a compromise that results in peace and friendship when one side is explicitly against those concepts and desires political/economic/cultural dominance, combined with your oppression or nonexistence.

The absence of fighting does not always mean peace, it can mean the most terrible oppression is taking place.

Everyone "getting along" can mean the people with an issue with the way things are are not around anymore or have absolutely no political power.

You know what that reminds me of? The Antebellum South. That's always characterized by confederates and their defenders as a time of peace and friendship. That's the type of "peace and friendship" conservatives always seem to want. And I say fuck nah.

I mean, this is very good, but are you counting on this happening in November? On what basis? This hasn't even happened in other surprise Democratic special election wins since Dobbs. It's hopefully a strong signal that Republicans will continue to reap the whirlwind on abortion, but this doesn't mean polling is dead and blue wave is coming.

I don't know how some of you don't understand this central point after 4 years, if not 8:

The more it's a debate between two bad options, the closer Trump gets to the Whitehouse. If we're spending time talking about who is more senile, that's a disaster.

It's true that Trump is falling off a cliff, but by focusing on this, you will get stuck in debates where both sides are trading clips of senior moments. That's terrain that Trump can win on.

The focus needs to be on abortion, economics, criminality, democracy. Not on this stuff, as true as it is. You have to think about what type of conversation what you're saying will actually lead to and whether it could actually convince someone to either vote for Biden or against Trump.

It's telling that one of our major """left""" media outlets did something like this in the first place. All of our news and especially cable news is corporate media and they simply offer different flavors of corporate media. At the end of the day, their goal is money and protecting the current political and economic order. They'll do anything that fits within that no matter how heinous and won't do anything that conflicts with that, no matter how necessary.

I don't know why people lump Cosmo Canyon and Gongaga together. Yes, Gongaga was a cramped, confusing hellhole. I'll probably never replay the game from the beginning because of that area alone. But Cosmo Canyon didn't feel nearly as bad, probably because it was much more open and the gimmick was more fun.

It's funny how things start moving the moment the US puts some real pressure on Israel or even just stops blocking everything...it's almost like the people saying Biden and the US couldn't possibly do anything to influence Israel were full of shit.

I'm glad some Christians are doing what they're supposed to do. Don't let them indoctrinate you into any weird stuff though just because they got you at a low point. That's not to say you should reject it if you're into it either.

Striking would be supreme. Or maybe even just western wrestling.

It's a very bad thing for society that someone could get so rich by doing something so harmful, then use those ill gotten gains to launder their reputation by doing something like this. It's still letting the people who wrecked everything knowingly direct absurd amounts of economic resources and make/influence political decisions.

That's not to say I hope it fails, but this is still a symptom of the same disease, even if it has genuinely positive results. In a different system, decisions about power production and usage could have been made in a scientifically informed and democratic way, this guy wouldn't have polluted in the first place, and wouldn't have had the resources to do this or the opposite of this.

These people want ABSOLUTE power for capital. And anyone higher up in a hierarchy than others in general.

They take the idea that there should be limits on the power of social/economic betters or that people lower on the totem pole should have rights as an affront and an abomination that needs to be corrected by force.

It's clear as day and they've gotta be stopped.

Dune Part 2 was great. Different doesn't mean bad. A one to one adaptation was never possible or even a good idea.

This is horrible and will lead to more horrible things due to either fascist government overreaction or this being a false flag to justify targeting whoever Putin wants to target.

Prismsblade posted...

Im currently living said dream now but even before I was crawling myself up from the bottom I thought that was the most defeatist crap Ive ever heard in my life.

I'm living it too, that doesn't mean it's a real thing that most people can attain through "effort" or making good choices. Any little thing could have derailed me. Despite all the effort I put in, if I lost my job today and couldn't find another one within 3 months, I'd be just as screwed as anyone else.

Structural things determine your access to the "Dream" far more than anything any individual does. The global geopolitical economic system, union strength in your country, laws, the labor market, interest rates, infrastructure, the education system, economic class, social class, who your parents are and how they fit into all this, all of that could have swept you off your feet before you even got started. And it does to most people. Let's be realistic here, you say you crawled up from the bottom? What was more likely, you being where you are, or you staying at the bottom?
.

People, this is why you remember user names or at least tag people. You can't be blatantly led around by the nose by every troll here. But many of you will immediately believe anything that lets you dunk on bleeding heart leftists or homeless people apparently.

Anyway, murder is bad.

TheMikh posted...

you're missing my point

i'm referring to being sold the ideal of neoliberalism; the national treasury looted by transnational capital; commodification of formerly state./user.php?db=.0.user=social institutions by private interests; currency devaluation; entire industries falling into the hands of individuals that leverage significant political and economic power and live in their own bubbles isolated from the ground situation; collapse of industrial base; socioeconomic malaise incl. rising real poverty, unemployment, drug abuse, alcoholism, decreasing life expectancy, general air of hopelessness despite believing in some abstract idea of liberal democracy; rising criminality - organized and unorganized - with impunity; state bureaucracies being run like crime syndicates; diminished geopolitical leverage; political fragmentation; ...

While most of this is true, especially the parts related to neoliberalism, we're nowhere near as abject as they were on most of these metrics. Their society damn near disintegrated and many people wished for the Soviet Union back.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking this. I hope she's like the Madame M of this game and she appears in the next one too.

These are the unusual patterns in thought caused by a lack of antitrust enforcement. When it doesn't happen when it clearly should, people start making up their own reasons and conspiracies.

That reaction got me, lmao.

It's the same group doing it this time as the most famous other time.

As far as I can tell, their entire schtick is covered by actual occupational and physical therapists with proven track records and actual science behind them. Anything positive they due is coincidence, placebo, or folk medicine and could easily be replicated by a real therapist.

This is the most hopeful news I've heard in a while. Maybe their incompetence will save us after all.

I hate to see all the Boomer takes on this and the lack of nuance.

Yes, social media can be very harmful, especially to kids, teens, and young adults.

Yes, social media is often full of conspiracies, disinfo, and misinfo.

Yes social media has been a bomb dropped on society without testing or awareness of the wide range of effects it would have.

Yes, it can also be an incredibly powerful tool to spread information in a way that bypasses siloes, regulation, and suppression.

Yes, TikTok Zuccs up people's info in a creepy and potentially dystopian way.

Yes, it's functionally owned by an authoritarian foreign government.

Yes, a government could hypothetically have an interest in wanting to regulate social media to reduce its most harmful effects.

Yes, the government is shamelessly ignoring the harm that domestic social media does and the spying they do, likely because they benefit from it.

Yes, the government shows little interest in reducing the harm from social media and just wants to hurt a geopolitical enemy and take the data for themselves.

Yes, this could have serious free speech implications and is partially a culture war issue to prevent young people from becoming less bigoted.

Yes, this is something that would only happen to something young people use and never to something older people use.

No, all social media is not going to be banned.

I hope he doesn't try to directly defuse the age thing himself by joking about it, I don't think that'll work. I think it'd be better to focus on the other stuff he focused on. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

But it should be fairly clear that him directly addressing it from the beginning shows that it's not a manufactured issue and shouldn't be dismissed as one. If the Dems lost an election because they decided concerns about the guy that will START his second term at 82 were fake/ginned up/a conspiracy, I'll never ever forgive or trust them again.

Basically, I think the best strategy is promising the sun, moon, and stars when it comes to popular, short and medium term wins that are even slightly realistic, and minimizing focus on the open wounds (age, Gaza, border).

asdf8562 posted...

No one here questioned why the website exists. You aren't explaining something nobody didn't know. Biased websites giving biased rating systems exist to no one's surprise.

It's existence doesn't change not everyone agrees with its rating system, including the people who want a ceasefire.

You just don't like people rejecting the website as you literally questioned how could anyone possibly have an issue with the website

You're either being intentionally disingenuous or you can't read if that's how you're interpreting my very clear posts in this topic. Either way, you're not worth responding to on this.

Anyway, all political organizations are biased by definition, accusations of bias alone are pointless then. As always, it comes down to the substance of what the organization is about and whether that makes sense or not. Let's all talk about what the proper response to the crisis in Gaza is for lawmakers rather than the vague concept of bias.

asdf8562 posted...

At this point you are playing dumb.

This isn't about being unaware of the concept you speak of. The concept is irrelevant to not everyone agrees on said concept. For reasons others in this topic have already explained.

So going around proudly displaying some website that you think has a solid rating system that others should admire and respect is only valuable to those who value andor approve said rating system. That includes as you pointed out, a website geared towards specific activists who you believe should all agree with the website..., but in actuality not even all activists for a specific cause are a monolith. Especially on something as complex as the issue between Israel and Palestine.

So when you come here questioning why everyone here isn't gushing support over that websites rating system, that is exactly what I'm talking about with your post translating to, "I value this websites rating system, you should too."

You place this website on a pedestal because for one reason or another you approve of it, and question why does anyone reject the website you approve of.

I never at any point gushed about, praised, or even displayed the website. You're going off on some alternate reality version of my posts in this topic. It's really weird.

I simply explained why it exists, what it's for, and why it focuses on Democrats. Everything else is something you made up so you could have something to say. It's impossible to have a conversation when you substitute what I actually say with some fanciful version. You think you understand my position and that it's unreasonable so you just imagine I said something unreasonable so you can avoid engaging on the substance.

asdf8562 posted...

I did. You are literally dissatisfied people aren't agreeing with a site you apparently approve of.

I never said I approved of this site. I've never even heard of it, and have based zero of my opinions on its ratings. I'm simply explaining a concept people were willfully misunderstanding. I don't even necessarily want people to agree, I just want them to stop playing dumb.

Ninjaluver posted...

Oh, I'm familiar. Being familiar with the concept does not mean taking it seriously.

And yes, I would categorically reject ratings from NARAL, EFF, and Planned Parenthood for the same reason.

Taking ratings from a biased organization is worthless.

That's fine, but your position is less common than you'd think. Many people take ratings from orgs like these as a valuable service or something to be wary of. People win and lose elections based on ratings like this. They're not targeted towards bastions of objectivity like yourself, they're targeted at activists, particularly motivated voters, and the lawmakers who are rated. They're far from worthless for those purposes.

asdf8562 posted...

"I approve of this websites rating system, you should too!"

This has nothing to do with anything I said. I'm sure you prefer I said something this basic so that you could respond with this quip, but I didn't. Respond to what I actually say or don't respond at all.

Are the people who have an issue with this site unfamiliar with the concept of political rating organizations? They're all biased by definition, because bias often comes with interest and expertise or a stake in a specific issue. I doubt you'd categorically reject a NARAL or EFF or Planned Parenthood or Center for American Progress rating.

All Republicans obviously get an F and can't be pressured. Democrats can get anything from an F to an A, which makes rating them worthwhile, and they can improve or get worse.

This stuff is obvious, you are choosing to pretend not to understand it to deflect from criticism concerning the Israel Palestine conflict.

So discriminatory, ineffective populism is good because leftists don't like it?

Doom_Art posted...

Whether it makes them morally or intellectually superior isn't relevant.

It makes them winners. It gets them power to implement their policies.

Learn a thing or two

You do understand that it's far easier to win while advocating for the status quo than it is to win while advocating for something new right? You get more resources, more backing, fewer attacks, etc, the playing field isn't level at all. Status quo ideas don't necessarily win because they're better, they win because they're the status quo. You can't learn to simply be the status quo when you're not the status quo. The things they can learn are from the people who managed to overcome the status quo.

All I want is a media cycle of him doing great. As much as I've criticized him over the last few days he MUST win.

LightningThief posted...

You are only piling onto my point here.....

Never the cluster circus of everyone not even agrees on the meaning of the slogan. We dont even need to debate what the slogan was really supposed to mean depending on who you asked. The fact that its a fucking circus to those that genuinely support fixing the police what that slogan means is exactly why its a horrible slogan. You can twist into a pretzel as much as you want to defend it. Not everyone was on the same page about your beloved slogan who genuinely supported fixing the police. Being deep with it is not helping. Having to debate or explain your deeper meaning of a slogan is counterintuitive to actually addressing the real issue which is your supposed deep meaning.

Lastly, I didn't say people didn't twist BLM. Read the post. I said twisting it made way less sense compared to Defund and abolish the police. Defund and abolish have actual definitions. They don't mean the deep meanings you want the slogan to mean. Especially during a time when crime was a hot topic. "Defund/abolish the police" while a flash theft was perceived to be a hot issue is just dumb.

We see this in such fundamentally different ways, I don't think it's worth it to continue talking about this in a topic on a different subject. I'd just urge you to read something written by someone who advocates defunding or abolition at some point in the future. It could be helpful, even if all you want to do is combat their ideas.

Back on topic, she did nothing wrong, very few people care about this, and she'll continue to be popular unless there's a campaign waged against her to brand her as not a true Democrat. That'd be a tragedy because I feel like she's the best compromise between the left and moderates that I know of in the party.

LightningThief posted...

I'd give your entire post a serious, but I know you and your history.

So my post is now to anyone who compares the "Defund the police" slogan with "BLM." The 2 slogans do not compare. One tries to be deep with the word "defund" with some even going so far to argue "abolish" the police..... to mean some deeper meaning of reforming the police. Instead of just saying that cant be twisted like "Fix the Police" or "Reform the Police." The words "defund" and "abolish" does not mean reform or fix.

That doesn't compare to BLM which is much harder to twist the literal words which is simply, "black lives matter" as police were going around killing black lives. One has to intentionally twist it to mean only black lives matter.

This is completely ahistorical. As I already explained, defund does not mean reform, it's the abandonment of reform. You are trying to equate them because the concept of defunding or abolishing the police does not compute to you. But they meant defund or abolish not "fix" and they said so.

Additionally, people did twist the hell out of both reforming police and the meaning of BLM. The pre-2020 arguments were about reform and the battlelines were already drawn. Police were already refusing to police over calls for reform. Republicans were already saying Dems hate cops and want anarchy over calls for reform.

BLM was hated and equated to a radical or hate group in huge swaths of the country, pre-2020. There were vicious arguments over whether BLM was a black supremacist group/slogan on this very board. People called BLM terrorists after every riot. People created Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter in response. People suggested that the slogan be changed to Black Lives Matter Too to appease racists who didn't like a focus on black people. Your take is straight up revisionist.

SunburnCostanza posted...

Biden might be right though. The solution to shit cops killing people isn't less money. It's better training, better hiring (requires better pay as well). They should probably be funded more.

See, as always, it's not actually about the wording. You have a different and fundamentally incompatible political position than them. That is and has always been the issue, it's not marketing, phrasing, or any of that. You are simply to the right of them on policing and don't want their desired policy outcomes.

Same with the BLM issue. They just didn't want those specific pro-black and anti-police policies, and didn't consider police to be a fundamentally racist institutions or think issues of policing were connected to economics.

Sandalorn posted...

In every other aspect of life, using variables and situations to help you increase your chances at winning is smart and wise. In Politics - it's rigging.

It's telling that you have to be this vague and abstract about what actually happened here. Funding your opponent to screw over your primary obstacle is well within what most people would call rigging and shady as hell in any context.

Do you seriously think the average person is okay with or likes things like that, or do you think that kind of BS is exactly the problem with politics and is why things suck?

kelemvor posted...

Exactly. This is why we can't help in Haiti as well. If we step foot there we become dirty colonialists that are only trying to improve their living conditions so we can resume raping their economy or something something whatever.

......Maybe that has something to do with that being true damn near everytime before now? That history doesn't just go away, people aren't going to just trust blindly, and open colonialism and cloak and dagger stuff has lasting consequences.

Would you say that the history of the US in the Caribbean or South America or Asia or Africa is one worthy of trust?

SunburnCostanza posted...

Yes. Literally every normal person I know thought Defund the police was stupid. They vote for the left pretty much every election. I know maybe 2 progressives that supported it and even they admitted the framing was pretty bad and could have been better.

I was talking about the issue with Porter, not defunding the police. Maybe that was unclear.

I don't dispute that most people weren't on board with defunding the police because they were essentially hearing the idea for the first time, out of context, heard it refracted through hostile sources, and were unfamiliar with all the ideological underpinnings of the idea. You'd see a similar pattern with any radical idea.

Shadow_Don posted...

As leftists stalk aoc in the streets because they don't like the way in which she's repeatedly called for ceasefires

This is a total non sequiter, it has nothing to do with anything anyone has said in this topic.

They are also not criticizing her for how she's called for a ceasefire, they're criticizing her for how she's shied away from calling a genocide a genocide and other related issues. This is an disingenuous twisting of words to avoid engaging on the actual substance of their complaint and to instead refocus on just how unreasonable they're being when she's doing what they want. She's not or they wouldn't be complaining. They're not saying anything to Tlaib or Bush, maybe reflect on why that is instead of creating alternate accounts of what they did.

uwnim posted...

Israel is doing that yes. However that does not mean that this whatever the US is doing is for the same purpose.

Agreed, and wasn't this a much simpler way to say that, if that's what he meant?

Shadow_Don posted...

Because they learned about settler colonialism and Noam chomsky 5 months ago so now everything is colonialism and occupation.

Is what's happening in Israel NOT settler colonialism and occupation? If you want to make that argument, make it, the condescension is unnecessary and immature.

Shadow_Don posted...

There is literally no cost in her having used better wording.

There was nothing wrong with her wording. Only a small clique of extremely establishment focused liberals have a problem with it. Far more people want to hear this language than are offput by it. It's one of the few things agreed upon almost across all political cleavages.

CE and Twitter just have an oddly high concentration of these types of people. It'd be far more useful for all of you to sell Schiff and Biden to undecideds, independents, young voters, and leftists than the weird sniping and word policing that's only ever targeted towards the left.

aarrgus posted...

It's possibly over the top, but if the point is to not undermine all faith in the institutions of Democracy, then maybe find a better way of saying there are problems than "RIGGED!" which has become a loaded word.

Some things need to be undermined because they aren't working well. The role of money in politics is high on that list and we've known that for decades. There will never be anything wrong with acknowledging that just because bad faith actors misuse the word in a different context.

You seem highly concerned with the cost of using that word in any context. But I strongly believe the cost of not using it when appropriate is even higher because it presents the impression that the Democrats are fine with a money soaker and corrupt system and have no intention of changing anything. That impression is death for a left leaning party trying to win over a rightfully cynical and distrustful population.