|
Rigel posted:This black swan event is going to completely swamp these assumptions. People ARE NOT going to react by throwing up their hands and going "I quit, there's no point in voting." Dem turnout is going to be immense. Hopefully they take actions to energize people. If this isn't going to get them serious about packing the court I'm not sure what will.
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
Rigel posted:The Republican party does not have a problem getting their religious anti-choice voters to vote. Increased enthusiasm doesn't matter much for the side that already votes reliably. The Dem voter apathy problem and the struggle to get people on the left to vote is extremely well-known and documented. The GOP is outnumbered, when Democrats vote they win. I'm not sure that's true. Trump picked up another 12 million votes between 2016 and 2020. It seems that there actually were way more unreliable Republican voters than anyone thought because before 2020 we heard the same thing about how Republicans are always at max turnout and ooops they weren't. Republicans also picked up 10 million more votes in the 2018 midterms compared to their wave in 2014 and 6 million more than their wave in 2010. So we don't actually know how many more are out there or what a huge win like finally overturning Roe might do to Republican enthusiasm. Now you could believe that the 12 million people Trump turned out weren't religious anti-choice voters, it was other unreliable people (although this does not match well with the explanation for horrible Democratic performance with Hispanics being that they're all Catholic anti-choicers who voted on social issues). Or you could say that 2018 and 2020 were probably the real maximum Republican turnout and we were just wrong before about what the maximum was, and that since Democrats still won both elections then high enthusiasm is all they need to win in 2022 (although Democrats still lost seats in the 2018 Senate class...) because Republicans are already at their max. But those are just kinda gut feelings, you don't know any of that really. Or really what effect Dobbs will have on Democratic turnout. Maybe all the single-issue women's-bodies voters are all voting already, and everyone else is too concerned about wages, cost of living, covid, and the economy to get all amped up over an abortion decision.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
If we apply our criticism of those poor beleaguered democrats to ourselves, we find that we simply need to do more to prove we care. Tell everybody you know about climate activists self immolating, about firebombing anti-choice offices. People with power shouldn't be expected to make such sacrifices! Their hands are tied because we can't afford to upset the world we've built, that so successfully grinds souls into profit, destroys our only home, and conditions people to be unable to imagine anything better or even substantially different. All it costs is the future of everything good left in this world!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
My overall sentiment is that such a belief smacks of a reheated demographics-as-destiny appeal. It is beyond foolish for democrats to assume that they will be the overall beneficiary of such a "black swan" event, especially if they do not make meaningful changes to their electoral strategy in order to exploit this new enthusiasm
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
As long as continue we vote for the democrats I think eventually they will have our interests in mind
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 01:24
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This is about to occur. In my opinion there is absolutely no conceivable event that anyone here could imagine or dream up whatsoever that would fundamentally shift things towards the Democrats more than Roe v Wade getting struck down. This gets lost in the whole discussion and I feel like this can't be emphasized enough. I don't think the argument that nothing will fundamentally change (which obviously isn't even true anyway), because abortion was already legal in some states and de-facto illegal in others is going to matter to people in the slightest. People's perception/feelings tend to motivate them more than technical reality. Abortion is a big deal in the public consciousness, it's one of the issues that represents social progress and it's been legal for 50 years. You really can't underestimate the broad psychological impact of having something like that suddenly snatched away. It feels very much like being transported back to the dark ages. This is a seriously untenable situation. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 01:37 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
Here's a thread from a Florida teen that is a plaintiff in the don't say gay suit https://twitter.com/zandermoricz/status/1523800052837195776 It really does feel like we're reigniting the culture wars of the 90s and aughts.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
The assistant head of a prison in Alabama who broke out a serial murderer and escaped with him two weeks ago has finally been caught in Indiana. Looks like they fled from U.S. Marshals and exchanged gunfire. Updates are happening now Still have no idea what the endgame where they live happily ever after she was imagining was. No info on why they went to Indiana or where they were trying to ultimately go. Or how the Marshals found them. They apparently abandoned a car in Tennessee and that clued them in that they were heading north. https://twitter.com/CJHoytNews/status/1523781429989191684 https://twitter.com/BrittanyHarryTV/status/1523784073613053953 quote:“This escape was obviously well-planned and calculated. A lot of preparation went into this. They had plenty of resources, had tags, had vehicles. They had everything they needed to pull this off,” Singleton said during a Monday evening press conference.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:It really does feel like we're reigniting the culture wars of the 90s and aughts. Abortion, however, is clearly going to end up as a GOP victory barring some kind of miraculous turn of events, or Dems growing a spine. I don't see a lot of scenarios now where we aren't just going back to pre-1970s status quo on abortion and probably also contraception.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
Lemming posted:This would be a more compelling argument to me if they weren't also spending time on their messaging that the protests are potentially dangerous I’m starting to think that the Democrats don’t want there to be a backlash against Roe being overturned.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:11
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1523783786252894209 if this from a white house official represents the actual democratic strategy going forward I am PROFOUNDLY skeptical of any 'no really the dems can harness pro-abortion sentiment going forward' arguments ideally, of course, Neera is just trying to find a way to look like she's doing something
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:19
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:I’m starting to think that the Democrats don’t want there to be a backlash against Roe being overturned. Yeah it's kind of weird to be told that the massive pro-choice backlash is going to sweep Democrats into office in November, but anytime anyone starts to backlash there the Dems are scolding them to be more polite (and sending DHS to beat them up)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:
Incredibly, totally and astonishingly. It's truly something to witness not being able to be a better leader and a president than Donald loving Trump.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Incredibly, totally and astonishingly. Like what is this lady talking about? This is who we expect to fight for us? Just useless! https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1523812812434329602?s=21&t=snJgsaIH65jgKvepz90nrQ
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
Yeah, while on paper they potentially had rocket fuel for the polls, they are asleep at the starter pistol and are doing everything possible to fumble their messaging and tactics so far.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:54
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:This gets lost in the whole discussion and I feel like this can't be emphasized enough. I don't think the argument that nothing will fundamentally change (which obviously isn't even true anyway), because abortion was already legal in some states and de-facto illegal in others is going to matter to people in the slightest. People's perception/feelings tend to motivate them more than technical reality. Abortion is a big deal in the public consciousness, it's one of the issues that represents social progress and it's been legal for 50 years. You really can't underestimate the broad psychological impact of having something like that suddenly snatched away. It feels very much like being transported back to the dark ages. Agreed--the GOP's base will be massively motivated by this victory.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:24
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Agreed--the GOP's base will be massively motivated by this victory. So this time when they vote, they will be smiling, instead of just having a normal nondescript expression on their face when they voted in the past? Anti-choice religious extremists are the most reliable voters in the GOP base. You don't get an extra vote for being enthusiastic.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:41
|
|
|
Rigel posted:So this time when they vote, they will be smiling, instead of just having a normal nondescript expression on their face when they voted in the past? How do you know this (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
I’m glad Pelosi clarified after farting out wanting a strong Republican Party in the past. I am unsure how much of the Republican Party ever was how she remembers them.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah it's kind of weird to be told that the massive pro-choice backlash is going to sweep Democrats into office in November, but anytime anyone starts to backlash there the Dems are scolding them to be more polite (and sending DHS to beat them up) The Senate was able to transfer their police protection over to the families of the SCOTUS immediately. This was one of the fastest unanimous votes the Senate has done all year. They’re protecting this illegitimate court’s decision and the Democratic Party officials are going to stand by and continue to scold those among them trying to initiate any kind of opposition. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 03:56 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:53
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Whatever, you Ciprian Maricon posted:Don't you see, this only happens to stoke divisions on the left, if these drat lefties just shut the gently caress up, this wouldn't be happening. It's all there in the tweet, please apply some media literacy about it. The Sean posted:But I've been paying off my Fritz the Horse posted:holy poo poo knock off the low content shitposting and sniping, thanks Can you please explain how 2 of these are probe worthy but the first isn't? I'm struggling to understand the difference in the content of these posts.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:01
|
|
assholes can stay home, I'll be there
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:How do you know this In the last 15 years they've become increasingly over-represented in elections.  It is happening at the expense of the non-religious:  Lest there be any question who they're voting for:  And where they stand on abortion specifically. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:In the last 15 years they've become increasingly over-represented in elections. That's great. Which part of it proves that the evangelical vote is capped
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
hooman posted:Can you please explain how 2 of these are probe worthy but the first isn't? The Sean's post was after my warning when I was able to start keeping an eye on the thread. There were a whole bunch of low-content posts prior to my warning, I didn't have time to comb through all of them so just issued that blanket statement. There are close to 30 reports today just from this thread and they haven't all been processed, this thread generates a huge volume of reports. The Mellow Seas post you quote is actionable, yes, and there's a report for it buried in a dozen or so other unresolved ones. So the short answer to your question is the first is certainly probe worthy but the forums janitors haven't gotten around to it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
Yeah Trump racking up another 12 million votes that no one expected over his 2016 total suggests that the MAGA vote was not actually capped at 2016 numbers despite what everyone thought.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
Yeah 2020 particularly suggests that overall "opinion" of the country isn't that different from the voting electorate. There's not some great silent majority out there secretly outraged by the GOP.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:That's great. Which part of it proves that the evangelical vote is capped That needs one more chart.  In 2016, when over 60% of people voted, Evangelicals were over-represented by upward of 50%. (2018 pushed their representation up further, but turnout significantly drops in midterms even with old white people). Even when you account for how they skew the average in themselves, pushes them pretty close to a cap. Enough that it certainly can't explain Trump's numeric vote gain in 2020. And lack of major shifts in polling on abortion in that time frame suggests the new voters he drove weren't the ones driven one way or the other by killing Roe. What evidence I saw last said some of the dramatic shifts were the rich, people vocally terrified by "communism," and those who saw direct benefit from the wall building. I get the internet tradition of demanding formal proof that water is wet, but evangelicals and ardent pro-lifers are already politically active people who take voting religiously in both a literal and figurative sense. It's one of their defining characteristics in the modern era! I haven't seen anyone directly dispute that. If you want to, feel free. Directly. Straight up. "Who knows how far it could keep going?" isn't disputing it since they can't break 100% turnout. Not even with the ever-hilarious cases of right-wingers arrested for voting multiple times because Facebook says the illegals do and they've gotta keep up. Even if they have headroom to eke out some more votes, who do you think has more? And why would people materially affected by reproductive rights not turn out while people who aren't affected either way but want a victory lap over owning the libs keep going up up up in perpetuity?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:Yeah, while on paper they potentially had rocket fuel for the polls, they are asleep at the starter pistol and are doing everything possible to fumble their messaging and tactics so far.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 05:10
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Yeah 2020 particularly suggests that overall "opinion" of the country isn't that different from the voting electorate. There's not some great silent majority out there secretly outraged by the GOP. I don’t have any figures, but 2020 always seemed to me like the electorate was saying “boo we hate Trump!… but we also hate democrats too!” Hence why some of the most repugnant GOP Senators were able to keep their offices despite some of the polling and sentiment going in. The “silent majority” is just the people who want their milquetoast, moderate status quo with a hint of “Democrats are evil.”
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 05:22
|
|
|
hooman posted:Can you please explain how 2 of these are probe worthy but the first isn't? Just as a thought experiment... what if you wanted to ruin actual discussion on this forum as a moderator? What would be effective? Like if you completely want to push some Karl Rove ops to gish gallop and tie people up from expressing leftist/liberal/progressive thought from taking hold, what would you do? Probably some of this poo poo: * allow dishonesty. Mods have admitted openly to letting threadbanned people to come back and be all "oops, forgot to tell y'all" They've also admitted themselves to shitpost in bad faith. I also called out a bad faith troll and mods said they knew about it but probed anyone who pointed out they were a troll. *enable toxic optimism "please totally discuss and debate but also you can only say these things." Create false pretenses to stop discussion of one type as a promotion of the other. Anything other than stating a pre-approved opinion is "being too negative" and somehow "not discussion." * arbitrary moderation make it clear that punishments are completely subjective and don't need to follow any logic. (I got a probe for koos not liking my AV for instance.) * assert authority as justification for punishing noncomformity "we don't have to justify our actions as moderators, just do as we say" * when called out, just pretend bureaucracy got in the way like "oops, we couldn't probate the first person because we were too busy probating other later posts because we were too busy not caring until someone called us out." * constantly cycle in new mods that do the exact same things as a troll this is pretty good because it does the dem thing of "hey, new leadership; same problems. But give 'em a chance!" Until its obvious the new person is clearly just as lovely. And you bring in someone as equally as lovely. * when meaningful but "off topic" (despite being on topic, and productive) discussion happens, insist that it gets less visibility by confining it to a less popular thread to dilute discussion and also dole out probes immediately * insist that any negative feedback isn't out in the open, and shame people for doing otherwise, like using the anonymous report function or having PM conversations or QCS threads that go nowhere pretty good strategy since not only does that keep the feedback and ensuing conversation from being openly viewed by others but reinforces the idea that you can't question the authority out in the open. It was pretty cool one time when a mod told someone to discuss a topic In a closed thread. I mean If I wanted to crush discussion as a mod, these are clearly good strategies i would employ. Most importantly, reduce the feeling of community. For anyone who (honestly) disagrees with me what would you do to completely crush actual discussion? The Sean fucked around with this message at 06:22 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 05:57
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Just as a thought experiment... what if you wanted to ruin actual discussion on this forum as a moderator? What would be effective? Like if you completely want to push some Karl Rove ops to gish gallop and tie people up from expressing leftist/liberal/progressive thought from taking hold, what would you do? Probably some of this poo poo: I got probed today in the Supreme Court thread for pointing out one poster was clearly trolling when he asked, “oh, the Supreme Court justices aren’t legitimate? why not?” And I called him a debate Andy. The mod I’ve never heard of gave me a sixer because quote “seems mean”. The poster who was trolling? Nothing. But this is why I generally stay out of D&D in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
The moderation of this thread has been particularly garbage lately, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 06:10
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:I got probed today in the Supreme Court thread for pointing out one poster was clearly trolling when he asked, “oh, the Supreme Court justices aren’t legitimate? why not?” And I called him a debate Andy. The mod I’ve never heard of gave me a sixer because quote “seems mean”. The poster who was trolling? Nothing. Why don't you take it to PMs? Pretty rude to say in public. If you go to PMs or QCS they can tell you they don't care and don't have to answer to you in a semi-private manner and avoid consequences. Also they do this unpaid!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 06:12
|
|
|
Lets not forget it's apparently OK to post both transphobia and racism as long as you're doing it good faith. Also the mods have no idea what the rules are when they tell you what the rules are. Particularly around racism. But yeah the "Hey remember how we don't enforce threadbans in some cases? Actually that's OK" is pretty bad. Especially when you say "this transphobe is threadbanned" to show how on the ball you are. I hope somebody notices! And "don't discuss moderation in public" is more or less "employees can be fired for discussing wages".
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 06:23
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:I got probed today in the Supreme Court thread for pointing out one poster was clearly trolling when he asked, “oh, the Supreme Court justices aren’t legitimate? why not?” And I called him a debate Andy. The mod I’ve never heard of gave me a sixer because quote “seems mean”. The poster who was trolling? Nothing. Because this is useful when discussing the Supreme Court: LionArcher posted:Love posters thinking protesting is a bridge too far. If they pass this the justices should be afraid. So should everyone in the media demanding decorum.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 06:29
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Just as a thought experiment... what if you wanted to ruin actual discussion on this forum as a moderator? What would be effective? Like if you completely want to push some Karl Rove ops to gish gallop and tie people up from expressing leftist/liberal/progressive thought from taking hold, what would you do? Probably some of this poo poo: A great and highly underappreciated way to ruin discussion is to loudly demand to speak to the manager every single time something you disagree with happens, and insist that it be done in public so that everyone else is forced to watch as you make a big show out of dramatically accusing the employees of being out to ruin the entire place on purpose. Few things are more disruptive than Karen energy. LionArcher posted:I got probed today in the Supreme Court thread for pointing out one poster was clearly trolling when he asked, “oh, the Supreme Court justices aren’t legitimate? why not?” And I called him a debate Andy. The mod I’ve never heard of gave me a sixer because quote “seems mean”. The poster who was trolling? Nothing. The idea that the Supreme Court is illegitimate is not a common or widely-held belief, nor is it particularly obvious or self-explanatory. It's completely reasonable for someone to ask why you think that, and responding by accusing them of trolling does in fact sound pretty mean.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 06:41
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Because this is useful when discussing the Supreme Court: Yes it is. If you think the Supreme Court passing (or soon to pass) a law that will kill thousands of women a year isn’t an act of violence that should be met with at the very least intimidation, you’re not playing a serious game.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 06:48
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Yes it is. If you think the Supreme Court passing (or soon to pass) a law that will kill thousands of women a year isn’t an act of violence that should be met with at the very least intimidation, you’re not playing a serious game. So the only real difference between you and the 1/6 guys are the issues you feel are important. Since you think that intimidation is the least the court should be met with, what do you think is the most it should be met with?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 06:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:A great and highly underappreciated way to ruin discussion is to loudly demand to speak to the manager every single time something you disagree with happens, and insist that it be done in public so that everyone else is forced to watch as you make a big show out of dramatically accusing the employees of being out to ruin the entire place on purpose. Few things are more disruptive than Karen energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s not common belief. Furthermore, it’s very obvious they are illegitimate. We have one justice that is only there by one simple trick, a rapist, and a cult member who’s unqualified.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
LionArcher posted:It doesn’t matter if it’s not common belief. Furthermore, it’s very obvious they are illegitimate. We have one justice that is only there by one simple trick, a rapist, and a cult member who’s unqualified. I'm probably risking a probe here, but we have a president who has a charge of rape against him that is as credible as the charge against Kavanaugh. Does that make Biden illegitimate? From https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20does%20not%20specify,been%20trained%20in%20the%20law. website posted:The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 06:52
|
|