|
Donkwich posted:
"Ho".
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
Prav posted:english is written left-to-right. to go right is to go forward in the text. Yeah but when you arent inside that context, when youre in the realm of symbolism rather than text, then you are in an area dominated by the idea that up is forward and when your icon looks like a road sign and isnt part of text that doesnt really hold up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
The idea that the MAGA hat is bad design and the H is good is some bizzaro world poo poo the MAGA hat looks like americana, like literally every gas station across america sells those types of shoddy hats and it actually owns. It's incredibly easy to understand and an aggressive visible symbol, so much so that students have been banned from wearing it The H is so laughably bad and as someone who works in an extremely visual field this is the most palpable out-of-touch-coastal-elite story I've read yet
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Modest Mao posted:The idea that the MAGA hat is bad design and the H is good is some bizzaro world poo poo Its a pretty good encapsulation of the election and the problems and strengths with both campaigns. Hillary called in a secret collaboration of the very best designers to come up with a perfectly calculated corporate logo and stuck with it despite widespread criticism. Everything was tightly controlled down to the loving font name to present a message, and yet she somehow forgot about *yard signs*. Hillary made a perfect corporate logo and had strong messaging but couldn't remember to add any personal touches or cater to the common person. Trump, on the other hand, probably let some guy in a factory slap some text he'd stolen off Reagan on a red baseball cap and then spent millions putting them on the heads of millions of voters to have as an everyday reminder of his campaign message. And then he cheaped out on design and got the Trump/Pence logo loving itself, but immediately changed it in response to criticism and everyone forgot about it after a week or two. Trump is stupid in many, many ways, but he does understand the power of branding and he carefully constructed his appearance as an everyman despite being a goddamn New York billionaire and it loving worked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Never noticed this before but: Ah gently caress
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Modest Mao posted:The idea that the MAGA hat is bad design and the H is good is some bizzaro world poo poo Like everything about 2016 Hillary, the logo is a worse version of Obama's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Thread question. Why do I notice Hillary supporters unwilling to admit that maybe they had a bad candidate? Let me clarify that. I don't mean people that voted for her. I mean the sort of people that go and blame "bernie", "racism", etc rather than admitting that Hillary's campaign was a very flawed one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yeah but when you arent inside that context, when youre in the realm of symbolism rather than text, then you are in an area dominated by the idea that up is forward and when your icon looks like a road sign and isnt part of text that doesnt really hold up. logikv9 posted:Holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Its a pretty good encapsulation of the election and the problems and strengths with both campaigns. Hillary called in a secret collaboration of the very best designers to come up with a perfectly calculated corporate logo and stuck with it despite widespread criticism. Everything was tightly controlled down to the loving font name to present a message, and yet she somehow forgot about *yard signs*. Hillary made a perfect corporate logo and had strong messaging but couldn't remember to add any personal touches or cater to the common person. Trump, on the other hand, probably let some guy in a factory slap some text he'd stolen off Reagan on a red baseball cap and then spent millions putting them on the heads of millions of voters to have as an everyday reminder of his campaign message. And then he cheaped out on design and got the Trump/Pence logo loving itself, but immediately changed it in response to criticism and everyone forgot about it after a week or two. i didn't even know he had a logo. i think i saw it at some point but i must've assumed it was a shop. yeah that was pretty bad and it goes to show you that thinking too much with a design team leads you to forget what you're actually trying to do in the real world the hillary logo was just obnoxious, it's almost shaped like it thinks its better than you, and then they put it everywhere in the most off-putting places and it's just annoying. the MAGA hat on the other hand was executed in such a way that everyone takes a second look at /any/ red hat, like, ohshit is that neighbor of mine a Trump fan? wait nm that's just a Toyota hat
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Thread question. You know the kinds of people who just can't admit that a game is bad? It can be slammed from all sides by all types, be technically incompetent and badly written and have bad mechanics and be basically a huge laughing stock, but they just can't bring themselves to say "yeah, this isn't good." They'll talk about how the reviewers are unfair or how you have to excuse bugs and how they're having fun with it, everyone else just has messed up standards. You know, those people? You know the kinds of people who just won't admit a movie was bad? It can be a total failure in all respects, be a national punchline, have lines that people can't not laugh at and edits that are so dang funny everyone keeps pointing them out, have a story conceit so awful that people make fun of it endlessly, but they still love it. They'll say the director has a different vision, they'll read art into incompetence, they'll claim they're just smarter and the movie speaks to them but no one else. You know, those guys? They're people who've internalized the success and failure of those things and their goodness and reception of goodness as their goodness. If the thing succeeds, they're a good person for being part of its success. If it fails, it has to have failed because of a bewildering array of betrayals and enemies who conspired against it, not because it just wasn't good. Because if it was bad, that means they're bad, because they have let it become a big part of them. That's Hillary's hangers on. I don't understand why it happens, but anyone still defending the Hillary campaign in the post-election where everyone can see the hubris, laziness, and all-around badness of the campaign can't be doing it because they think it's worth defending on its merits. They're doing it cause its personal to them, and the only way they can defend it is by saying everyone who criticizes its now glaring failures is a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:They're people who've internalized the success and failure of those things and their goodness and reception of goodness as their goodness. If the thing succeeds, they're a good person for being part of its success. If it fails, it has to have failed because of a bewildering array of betrayals and enemies who conspired against it, not because it just wasn't good. Because if it was bad, that means they're bad, because they have let it become a big part of them. Often times I would see them respond to criticism such as "hey you know...she should be trying to reach "x" group of people" with a great amount of bizarre anger and arrogance. It feels very rarely that people coming from the left we'e doing it in a manner to sabotage her campaign. In fact, it feels like quite the opposite. None of them wanted Trump. None of them wanted a GOP presidency They were kinda playing the role of Canary in the coal mine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Thread question. Hilary and the folks around her cultivated an aura of inevitability that was gleefully adopted by most of her core supporters. Admitting that she was a really terrible candidate and that she lost a winnable election would be a tacit admission of their own bad judgement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Hilary and the folks around her cultivated an aura of inevitability that was gleefully adopted by most of her core supporters. Admitting that she was a really terrible candidate and that she lost a winnable election would be a tacit admission of their own bad judgement. Neither Hillary, her campaign, nor her primary voters were wrong. It must have been the evil (Russians, Bernie Bros, Racists, Misogynists, etc) that are to blame for her losing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Thread question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYAuR5bkIlQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Hilary and the folks around her cultivated an aura of inevitability that was gleefully adopted by most of her core supporters. Admitting that she was a really terrible candidate and that she lost a winnable election would be a tacit admission of their own bad judgement. I would be empathetic, and understanding if the reaction after the loss was: "She was qualified, She probably would have won had she actually campaigned in the "firewall" states, chose a different VP, and fully endorsed what bernie brought to the table. The people running her campaign though were really stupid and employed some real stupid strategies though". That's fine. I can understand that. But you just can't keep blaming it on outside forces that would have been minimized had she just done some basic things to appease the base and ensure that people were excited to vote for her. I mean wikileaks apparently claimed that Al Franken, Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren could have been potential VP candidates. I really believe had she done something even as "basic" as that, the claimed "Russian" influence and "Bernie Bro" narrative would have been a zero-factor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
I'll still defend the Kaine choice. Hillary made a fuckton of bad decisions in her campaign, but I don't think Kaine was one of them. I would have been more annoyed had Hillary picked a younger, fresher face of the party's old guard as her heir apparent. When she locked the nomination, I was hoping it'd either be him or Vilsack. Had Hillary won, an incumbent centrist VP who was younger and more popular would have been a bigger drag on the party in 2020 or 2024. The left would've had a fighting chance against Kaine. Granted, Hillary lost... so it doesn't matter anymore. I kind of feel like a lot of the anger at the left from Hillary's staunchest partisans is entirely from posturing. The Democratic Party is divided. Centrist neoliberal liberals still want to be on top, and have a hard time conceding that maybe they're not right about a lot of things. Like, they like the "idea" of progress, but felt threatened by the idea of fighting for progress not on their terms. I wanted Bernie to get the nomination. But I'd like to think in the bizarro universe where he got the nomination but lost to Trump, I would at least least be open-minded enough to consider whether Hillary would've won. But who knows. All we know it what actually happened. Democrats imploded in the midwest. Trump made a strong bid "to bring back jobs" even though he was lying. Hillary lost the general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
The reality of the matter is that Clinton's loss was informed by a ton of factors, as something as big and complicated as a Presidential campaign is, and people love simple narratives. Clinton's diehards and the people who campaigned for her are choosing the simple narrative which is most flattering to them and to their worldview, just like everybody else does. In reality all that stuff mattered at least a little bit - Sanders's campaign, Russian propaganda (including whatever game Julian Assange has been playing), sexism, Trump's bizarro media circus, the right-wing belief that Clinton is literally Satan - but she still would've won if she'd run a more strategic and less self-assured campaign. You can never unpack the exact degree of influence that Wikileaks or the latent sexism of voters had on the election, but what you can do - easily - is avoid treating the campaign trail like a victory lap in the future. It's not that they're stupid, or even that they're wrong about the things they think mattered, they're just favoring the part of the story that keeps them from having to be introspective and consider the possibility that they made a mistake by nominating her and then in how they campaigned for her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
While sexism is something she undoubtedly had to face, even a majority of white women voted for Trump... not even a close plurality but like a cold hard 53% outright bid for the pussy grabber
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Modest Mao posted:While sexism is something she undoubtedly had to face, even a majority of white women voted for Trump... not even a close plurality but like a cold hard 53% outright bid for the pussy grabber i don't know why that can't just be ascribed to she wasn't likeable as opposed to sexism. cause there's evidence it was just that she was unlikeable despite her gender.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Thread question. The rats who are too blind to flee a sinking ship will naturally be the most fanatical
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i don't know why that can't just be ascribed to she wasn't likeable as opposed to sexism. cause there's evidence it was just that she was unlikeable despite her gender. "Brenda King" is such a good name for a female Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Modest Mao posted:The idea that the MAGA hat is bad design and the H is good is some bizzaro world poo poo Ah but what of the navy blue America is Already Great hat with its sensible centrist font
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
wizard on a water slide posted:The reality of the matter is that Clinton's loss was informed by a ton of factors, as something as big and complicated as a Presidential campaign is, and people love simple narratives. Clinton's diehards and the people who campaigned for her are choosing the simple narrative which is most flattering to them and to their worldview, just like everybody else does. What worries me is their hostility towards the idea that ongoing economic problems for many in the flyover states and Hillary's unwillingness to even give the appearance of a poo poo towards them contributed towards a lot of Obama voters just not voting for her. The attempts to portray economic reasons for not supporting Hillary as racism, especially all the think pieces on "economic anxiety" as a dogwhistle, make me think that a large portion of the new left thinks that class issues are no longer relevant to the Democratic party. By dismissing economic concerns as being motivated by racism and sexism, they make the act of even attempting to address economic issues as supporting racism and sexism. If they admit Hillary ran a lovely campaign, they might be forced to admit in what respects her campaign was lovely, and that's dangerously close to admitting real problems with the ideology that they want to become leftism in this country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:What worries me is their hostility towards the idea that ongoing economic problems for many in the flyover states and Hillary's unwillingness to even give the appearance of a poo poo towards them contributed towards a lot of Obama voters just not voting for her. The attempts to portray economic reasons for not supporting Hillary as racism, especially all the think pieces on "economic anxiety" as a dogwhistle, make me think that a large portion of the new left thinks that class issues are no longer relevant to the Democratic party. By dismissing economic concerns as being motivated by racism and sexism, they make the act of even attempting to address economic issues as supporting racism and sexism. If they admit Hillary ran a lovely campaign, they might be forced to admit in what respects her campaign was lovely, and that's dangerously close to admitting real problems with the ideology that they want to become leftism in this country. its kinda crazy that someone invented a dog whistle for white poors that neolibs dont want to touch because they're icky
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
But now that I think about it, and maybe I'm missing something, but Her Opponent makes it seem like Trump supporters and sexist against women and Hillary supporters were sexist against men. Yes I know I shouldn't generalize from that tiny sample but still.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
"Hey you know the thing Russia does where they gaurantee the establishment candidate will win by making sure he runs against someone so awful their desired candidate looks a lot better by comparison? We're doing that this year."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:What worries me is their hostility towards the idea that ongoing economic problems for many in the flyover states and Hillary's unwillingness to even give the appearance of a poo poo towards them contributed towards a lot of Obama voters just not voting for her. The attempts to portray economic reasons for not supporting Hillary as racism, especially all the think pieces on "economic anxiety" as a dogwhistle, make me think that a large portion of the new left thinks that class issues are no longer relevant to the Democratic party. By dismissing economic concerns as being motivated by racism and sexism, they make the act of even attempting to address economic issues as supporting racism and sexism. If they admit Hillary ran a lovely campaign, they might be forced to admit in what respects her campaign was lovely, and that's dangerously close to admitting real problems with the ideology that they want to become leftism in this country. That as well is a concern to me. I've seen "liberals" get angry and insist that having single payer healthcare, or improved economic, justice system wouldn't have prevented Trump. "That wouldn't have stopped racism.". Except...I think that it could be argued that if the Clinton, Obama presidencies had indeed been a 1-2 punch in those regards? HRC probably has little problem holding the rust belt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:That as well is a concern to me. That would also imply that clinton/obama/and HRC were completely different people, supporting completely different policies then they actually do. But yes, if HRC wasn't complete trash from a long line of Dem Trash, then yes, she would have won.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
anime was right posted:its kinda crazy that someone invented a dog whistle for white poors that neolibs dont want to touch because they're icky It's because the people pushing it as a racist dog whistle have a vision of the future that's pretty much the status quo with a more diverse cast of characters loving everyone else over. Actually considering economic justice makes them uncomfortable because they might just be on the wrong side, but by linking it to racism they make themselves feel righteous again while protecting the status quo. The problem with the plan is that there are a lot more people suffering the growing divide between rich and poor than living off trust funds in New York and L.A.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
what subset of the electorate does this speech appeal to except the most diehard clinton supporters given the context that clinton was being criticized as a pro wall-street candidate? this speech only makes people dislike her more and people make fun of her for it to this day. hillary was a terrible candidate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.51fc249989ed quote:"Not everything is about an economic theory, right?" Clinton asked her audience of a few hundred activists, most of them wearing T-shirts from the unions that had promoted the rally. "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will, if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:"Hey you know the thing Russia does where they gaurantee the establishment candidate will win by making sure he runs against someone so awful their desired candidate looks a lot better by comparison? We're doing that this year." last time i brought this up, people called me a conspiracy theorist. i mean we have emails from her campaign talking about helping trump out to weaken jeb, or better yet, have a run against trump in the general. she's one of the people more responsible for him and yet she gets the greatest pass for his ascendancy to the presidency
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
There should only be one suck zone
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:There should only be one suck zone
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Ah but what of the navy blue America is Already Great hat with its sensible centrist font there's so much to unpack about how incredibly misguided making that hat was
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
wizard on a water slide posted:The reality of the matter is that Clinton's loss was informed by a ton of factors, as something as big and complicated as a Presidential campaign is, and people love simple narratives. Clinton's diehards and the people who campaigned for her are choosing the simple narrative which is most flattering to them and to their worldview, just like everybody else does. Clinton's loss was informed solely by the fact that she sucks
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Modest Mao posted:there's so much to unpack about how incredibly misguided making that hat was what about trump yourself dot com
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Modest Mao posted:there's so much to unpack about how incredibly misguided making that hat was aaaaaaaa Ferrinus posted:what about trump yourself dot com AAAAAAAAAAA
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
i don't know who made pokemon go, but i'm trying to get them to make pokemon go to the polls
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Like everything about 2016 Hillary, the logo is a worse version of Obama's. Isn't hilarious how our Abuela try to out do everything from Obama's campaign, more big data and even better focus group tested logos! End result was losing to the most under qualified presidential canidate in US history. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:22
|
|
