Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 402: This Election Sucks and is Now About Trains

(+) Yeah! (+)

masterplum posted...

Also you aren't allowed to post on this board at all while warned.

oh yeah, i forgot about that.

The mods just do whatever they feel like in that day.

A certain someone had 3 accounts banned over a 2 day period for having ACAB in the signature, they're not exactly a leftist cabal.

I got warned for posting a picture of RBG at a wedding. Compared to that, Plums warning is more than fair, lol.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

The nods just do whatever they feel like in that day.

A certain someone had 3 accounts banned over a 2 day period for having ACAB in the signature, they're not exactly a leftist cabal.

Speaking of, I was pretty close to that camp until I watched the body cam footage of the cops going in after the shooter that recently came out.

You could tell they were scared but were being heroic to try to save the kids.

Good cop moment. Worth a watch if you can stomach watching a school shooter get gunned down

It was a step up from the response at Uvalde, at the very least!

Thorn posted...

I'm really wracking my brain here for people getting genuinely cancelled (permanently, and not just rebounding after a brief period of bad PR) for expressing opinions on the right of the spectrum. ...Kanye? And only after he went completely batshit that one day?

Al Franken, for the grotesque act of taking a dumb photo

Katie Hill, for the unthinkable action of taking nudes

Meanwhile literal sex criminals like Matt Gaetz continue to somehow not be behind bars for the Republicans. Having standards is obviously good, but you're not living in reality if you don't realize our side needs to fucking chill sometimes with this kind of stuff.

If those examples aren't "cancelling," I don't really know what is.

Anyway there are about 100 things more important than this issue, and of course the right are complete fucking hypocrites who practice their own form of "cancel culture" in canceling anything a gay person has ever been involved in. (And refusing to "cancel" like uhhhh pedophiles and sex traffickers because they're insane)

But I guess on the optics of cancelling individual people, I could see how they might look rational to the major swath of America that doesn't really pay attention to politics

But those examples are more people on the left getting "cancelled"?

Like that was my point - any example I can think of of someone actually facing consequences that lasted more than a few weeks is someone on the left.

Thorn posted...

But those examples are more people on the left getting "cancelled"?

Like that was my point - any example I can think of of someone actually facing consequences that lasted more than a few weeks is someone on the left.

Yeah...this is what I'm talking about and have been this whole conversation

No, cancel culture one hundred percent does not exist the right and never has. As I point out later in that post, they won't cancel actual pedophiles and sex traffickers

Thorn posted...

But those examples are more people on the left getting "cancelled"?

Like that was my point - any example I can think of of someone actually facing consequences that lasted more than a few weeks is someone on the left.

That's the point entirely. Leftists cancelling other leftists. Conservatives don't care. They only want to own the liberals

The problem of course being that it becomes an Us vs Them where you are slowly whittling off the Us because people aren't passing your rigorous purity test of what is an appropriate opinion.

The inevitable conclusion of this is you are going to get a group of people who think that if you aren't a vegan etc. you are immoral and those people are going to be shocked when suddenly their group starts getting stomped on by the band of deplorables which now includes everyone they shunned

If you don't embrace alternative opinions bad things can happen

Then I guess I didn't understand the conversation?

It sounded like it was being suggested the left should "tone it down" because people were believing the right that it had gone out of control. But the examples the right use to claim that are their own (not actually) "cancellations" which: a. usually aren't actually cancelled, b. usually the result of them doing some egregious to trigger the backlash. The narrative of "cancel culture" the right has pushed into the public space has nothing to do with Kaepernick, Franken, etc. Hell if you ask them about it they'll say that wasn't cancel culture at all and celebrate those instances.

It just struck me as capitulating to the fake reality the right is trying to construct out of fear that more apathetic people will side with the right on it. IDK I'm probably not articulating this very well but it seemed like appeasement and connecting events that - if you buy into the theory being professed here - aren't actually connected according to the bad-faith actors you're appeasing.

...Also it took me some thinking but I finally came up with someone on the right who may have been "cancelled" - the Dilbert guy. Maybe. We'll see. We're still early into the process here and I know some right-wing people were already offering him platforms.

I'm also completely pushing back on the idea this is some purity test thing because in most instances it's some black and white shit that is being reacted to and the right fucking loves purity tests too so it's not like this is some leftist problem. The GOP basically purged anyone who didn't swear fealty to Trump and they "won" in 2016 and came disturbingly close in 2020.

Thorn posted...

Then I guess I didn't understand the conversation?

It sounded like it was being suggested the left should "tone it down" because people were believing the right that it had gone out of control. But the examples the right use to claim that are their own (not actually) "cancellations" which: a. usually aren't actually cancelled, b. usually the result of them doing some egregious to trigger the backlash. The narrative of "cancel culture" the right has pushed into the public space has nothing to do with Kaepernick, Franken, etc. Hell if you ask them about it they'll say that wasn't cancel culture at all and celebrate those instances.

It just struck me as capitulating to the fake reality the right is trying to construct out of fear that more apathetic people will side with the right on it. IDK I'm probably not articulating this very well but it seemed like appeasement and connecting events that - if you buy into the theory being professed here - aren't actually connected according to the bad-faith actors you're appeasing.

...Also it took me some thinking but I finally came up with someone on the right who may have been "cancelled" - the Dilbert guy. Maybe. We'll see. We're still early into the process here and I know some right-wing people were already offering him platforms.

The problem is the goal posts are moving. It was in San Fransisco where it was ordered that Washington High needed to change their name because George Washington owned slaves right?

Leftists are turning it into a situation where if you have ever in your entire life had one single opinion that is considered vulgar or wrong you are instantly thrown into the same bucket as neo nazis.

If memory serves me right, James Gunn was fired because of a bad tweet he had as a teenager right? We are treating these people identically if they said something inappropriate by accident or if they are a complete neo nazi

Wasn't Gunn the target of a bad faith "whataboutism" "cancel" spearheaded by the right because something had just come out about their own and they wanted "revenge"?

I have to admit I didn't pay too much attention to it all.

Wasn't Gunn fired by Disney, after a campaign from right-wingers? "We" did not do that in any meaningful sense (unless I'm mixing up two different situations).

Thorn posted...

The GOP basically purged anyone who didn't swear fealty to Trump and they "won" in 2016 and came disturbingly close in 2020.

Would you say that all those GOP pols (Cheney, Kinzinger, etc.) who wouldn't swear fealty are essentially cancelled?

That was my recollection, but I'm not really the person to ask. (to Kenri)

Seanchan posted...

Would you say that all those GOP pols (Cheney, Kinzinger, etc.) who wouldn't swear fealty are essentially cancelled?

...touche

Okay, yeah, I'll grant that. But it would also be my position that the right - generally being the party of corporation and money - always was the main group responsible for cancelling. They only got mad when social media democratized the process somewhat and all of a sudden they weren't the sole arbiters of that.

Thorn posted...

Wasn't Gunn the target of a bad faith "whataboutism" "cancel" spearheaded by the right because something had just come out about their own and they wanted "revenge"?

I have to admit I didn't pay too much attention to it all.

This is correct. I'm sure some left-wingers were purity testing as well, but it was largely the right doing...what's the opposite of astroturfing?

masterplum posted...

The problem is the goal posts are moving. It was in San Fransisco where it was ordered that Washington High needed to change their name because George Washington owned slaves right?

Leftists are turning it into a situation where if you have ever in your entire life had one single opinion that is considered vulgar or wrong you are instantly thrown into the same bucket as neo nazis.

If memory serves me right, James Gunn was fired because of a bad tweet he had as a teenager right? We are treating these people identically if they said something inappropriate by accident or if they are a complete neo nazi

I'd like to know the leftist that does this.

I don't know Plum I've known you for a long time but I think if you treated political statements like you treated people who you were trying to determine their alignment in mafia you'd be a lot more on the left than you are right now because most of your talking points about 'leftists' are mostly made up.

Like I'd consider myself a pretty average leftist. Nothing super special about me. I'm a leftist, Plum. Hello. lol

SirChris posted...

I'd like to know the leftist that does this.

I don't know Plum I've known you for a long time but I think if you treated political statements like you treated people who you were trying to determine their alignment in mafia you'd be a lot more on the left than you are right now because most of your talking points about 'leftists' are mostly made up.

Like I'd consider myself a pretty average leftist. Nothing super special about me. I'm a leftist, Plum. Hello. lol

The tricky part is leftist can mean a lot of different things right? Leftists in California and Oregon have made some absolutely absurd decisions. Is that representative of leftists in general? No, but the same thing is true of the religious right.

If I see one more post about how abortion restrictions is entirely about controlling women and nobody actually caresabout unborn children I'm going to scream because I've literally talked to hundreds of them.

It's hard to talk about problematic sects inside of larger groups without spending pages defining your terms first

masterplum posted...

If I see one more post about how abortion restrictions is entirely about controlling women and nobody actually caresabout unborn children I'm going to scream because I've literally talked to hundreds of them.

This may not be universally true for all pro-life voters, but it is universally true for pro-life politicians.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

This may not be universally true for all pro-life voters, but it is universally true for pro-life politicians.

Entirely agree

But people don't make that distinction

masterplum posted...

The tricky part is leftist can mean a lot of different things right? Leftists in California and Oregon have made some absolutely absurd decisions. Is that representative of leftists in general? No, but the same thing is true of the religious right.

If I see one more post about how abortion restrictions is entirely about controlling women and nobody actually caresabout unborn children I'm going to scream because I've literally talked to hundreds of them.

It's hard to talk about problematic sects inside of larger groups without spending pages defining your terms first

Well, what decisions were made that you thought were absurd?

Also the statement I see a lot and I think is very accurate is the people enacting these laws don't care about unborn children. For all of the proof that you need for this look at anti-abortion laws vs funding for social safety nets that help children. It is pretty evident that if they cared about unborn children, and cared about children, they would be much more consistent with making sure kids could do things like say... have school meals. Or that government programs for children in poverty were better funded. That child-care would be free so parents can more easily work to support their child.

Just very common sense things. You confuse your own concern with the concerns of those pushing agendas, which is an error.

Sorry to make you scream but it's probably true of 99% of pro-life voters too no matter how vehemently they'd deny it, and frankly they don't even hide it well.

masterplum posted...

Entirely agree

But people don't make that distinction

Well yeah, but people are tired and angry and their rights are being taken away. Surely we can give people who are sick and beaten down a little grace if their anger is misplaced since it is their rights being taken away? I like to think so.

Kenri posted...

Sorry to make you scream but it's probably true of 99% of pro-life voters too no matter how vehemently they'd deny it, and frankly they don't even hide it well.

it's really an easy two part question

"Are you anti abortion? Okay, do you support a robust social safety net?"

If they answer both yes I can buy they are genuine enough, even if its still an issue.

SirChris posted...

If they answer both yes I can buy they are genuine enough, even if its still an issue.

I'd add another question about if they're in favor of easily accessible sex ed and contraception but yeah basically

It doesn't help that historically evangelicals actually supported abortion up until the 70s and 80s when Reagan start mobilizing them as a political bloc (and a lot of it was tied up in opposition to desegregation too)

The only real major religious bloc opposed to abortion rights in the US before the 70s was basically the Catholic Church. The Southern Baptist Convention officially called for the loosening of abortion restrictions in 1971 and 1974 (after Roe).

So it definitely raises an eyebrow wrt sincerity when you see these groups abruptly flipped on the issue 50 years ago. You can make a case that people younger than that were then raised in that environment but given the average age of politicians...

Thorn posted...

Wasn't Gunn the target of a bad faith "whataboutism" "cancel" spearheaded by the right because something had just come out about their own and they wanted "revenge"?

I have to admit I didn't pay too much attention to it all.

Yes, specifically by Mike Cernovich

Kenri posted...

I'd add another question about if they're in favor of easily accessible sex ed and contraception but yeah basically

true true

SirChris posted...

it's really an easy two part question

"Are you anti abortion? Okay, do you support a robust social safety net?"

If they answer both yes I can buy they are genuine enough, even if its still an issue.

I just want to comment on this that I still wouldn't necessarily trust someone to be arguing in good faith if they answered yes to both of these. The statement "I want to break/eliminate X, and fix it with Y" sounds reasonable, until you realize that it's very easy to get rid of X, and a much more complicated process to fix it with Y...one that might not ever occur to make up for the removal of X. It's like how the GOP LOVED to say they'd repeal and replace the ACA, which SOUNDS reasonable; get rid of something bad and replace it with something better. But then you realize they had no plan beyond the "repeal" portion of that statement.

Inviso posted...

I just want to comment on this that I still wouldn't necessarily trust someone to be arguing in good faith if they answered yes to both of these. The statement "I want to break/eliminate X, and fix it with Y" sounds reasonable, until you realize that it's very easy to get rid of X, and a much more complicated process to fix it with Y...one that might not ever occur to make up for the removal of X. It's like how the GOP LOVED to say they'd repeal and replace the ACA, which SOUNDS reasonable; get rid of something bad and replace it with something better. But then you realize they had no plan beyond the "repeal" portion of that statement.

Politicians said repeal and replace largely. Never trust right wing politicians is a rule.

But I just mean every day people, and tbh most bad faith actors will gladly tell on themselves with 'we shouldn't pay for kids lunches' so lmao

I get your point but yeah most people just tell on themselves.

Thorn posted...

It doesn't help that historically evangelicals actually supported abortion up until the 70s and 80s when Reagan start mobilizing them as a political bloc (and a lot of it was tied up in opposition to desegregation too)

The only real major religious bloc opposed to abortion rights in the US before the 70s was basically the Catholic Church. The Southern Baptist Convention officially called for the loosening of abortion restrictions in 1971 and 1974 (after Roe).

So it definitely raises an eyebrow wrt sincerity when you see these groups abruptly flipped on the issue 50 years ago. You can make a case that people younger than that were then raised in that environment but given the average age of politicians...

Yup. Conversations like these can be significantly shortened when you realize most people, especially conservatives, don't have opinions of their own. They just regurgitate what the news tell them to feel. If Fox News declared that the government should help fund kids' lunches, the change would be drastic amongst its followers. That's why I don't find much value in trying to figure out the exact nuances of how anti-abortion people feel, because their feelings didn't stem from their own thoughts to begin with.

So, like I was saying, lets break up the big news corporations and try to make it less dominated by big business interests. There is absolutely a need for public and independent news services.

Trump indicted by the NY Grand Jury

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/30/nyregion/trump-indictment-news/the-unprecedented-case-against-trump-will-have-wide-ranging-implications

Very excited for trucker convoy part 2

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1641547928304009221

I love that it's a grand jury indicting Trump too. I mean not that it will, but it should debunk the "politicization of the Justice Department" bullshit the GOP is running with.

Trump's lawyers are saying he will surrender to the Manhattan DA "next week"

seems kinda bullshit he is allowed to just hang out for the weekend but whatever

Thorn posted...

Trump's lawyers are saying he will surrender to the Manhattan DA "next week"

seems kinda bullshit he is allowed to just hang out for the weekend but whatever

he's a rich old white guy, the "rules" the rest of us plebs have to follow don't apply to him

which is also why he's never going to prison but it's fun to pretend

Even if he wasn't the president I imagine a rich white guy could plea this charge down to probation if it even got that far.

Which is why this is absolutely politically motivated. Is it morally correct to do it anyways? Yes, but it is absolutely politically motivated. My guess if this was Elon musk doing the same thing it never would have gotten this far.

masterplum posted...

Which is why this is absolutely politically motivated. Is it morally correct to do it anyways? Yes, but it is absolutely politically motivated. My guess if this was Elon musk doing the same thing it never would have gotten this far.

And if it was someone who wasn't a millionaire, they'd probably be in jail already.

masterplum posted...

My guess if this was Elon musk doing the same thing it never would have gotten this far.

let me dream

https://twitter.com/PaulaReidCNN/status/1641581182562213889

Allegedly 34 counts related to falsifying business records

Sounds like they may have a bit more than just the hush money? But idk maybe there were a lot of documents involved with that.

masterplum posted...

Even if he wasn't the president I imagine a rich white guy could plea this charge down to probation if it even got that far.

Which is why this is absolutely politically motivated. Is it morally correct to do it anyways? Yes, but it is absolutely politically motivated. My guess if this was Elon musk doing the same thing it never would have gotten this far.

lmao Trump very likely broke dozens of laws. Rich white men do go to jail sometimes, although less often than they should.

Man, so many people out here with this very stupid "Trump getting indicted is going to win him the presidency" take

Call me crazy, but I think that being indicted typically is more likely to hurt than help one's election chances!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Man, so many people out here with this very stupid "Trump getting indicted is going to win him the presidency" take

Call me crazy, but I think that being indicted typically is more likely to hurt than help one's election chances!

Matt Taibbi just came out with the galaxy brain take to end all galaxy brain takes there ever were

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1641647161996722176

autocracies are born when the head of state isn't above the law, because only THEN will they work to install themselves above the law!

not like he already tried to incite a coup or anything

LordoftheMorons posted...

Call me crazy, but I think that being indicted typically is more likely to hurt than help one's election chances!

As someone who had his local house representative be indicted on felony insider trading charges months before his election and still won relatively easily, I'd say it is a net zero at worst. Republicans just don't care.

Oh and btw my rep was charged and went to prison and in the special election that had to be held to replace him we voted in another republican because why not.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Man, so many people out here with this very stupid "Trump getting indicted is going to win him the presidency" take

Call me crazy, but I think that being indicted typically is more likely to hurt than help one's election chances!

Yeah I dont buy this at all.

I expect it to hurt a bit but mostly from a logistical standpoint. You dont want to be spending energy figuring out where you can go that wont get you arrested etc.

in terms of votes I doubt this changes anything

Am I the only one who feels like Republicans tend to accuse Democrats of the kind of actions that sound more like their wheelhouse?