USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »

KillHour: Oct 28, 2007

SirFozzie posted:

Simply not true.

https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1726370025098137671

I'm the 20% of registered voters who aren't sure how to feel about Hamas.

Edit: that group is also probably bad at math so it still works

KillHour fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Nov 20, 2023

# ? Nov 20, 2023 05:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 13:49

Kavros: May 18, 2011; sleep sleep sleep
fly fly post post
sleep sleep sleep

Queering Wheel posted:

I feel like if Trump is defeated in 2024 and the Dems do pretty well downballot, we might finally be able to crawl out of the danger zone. After Trump, who else is there? I know that 2-4 years is a lifetime in politics and anyone could emerge, but it's hard to see who. The GOP has no one else even close to Trump's appeal and charisma, and their policies are not getting any more popular. 2026 will be two more years of the GOP base dying and more young people entering the electorate. Then 2028, then 2030, etc. If fascism is averted next year, the GOP is either going to have to change their policies to win more elections, or just continue to rule over the reddest of states and little else.

I can tentatively agree with the "crawl out" idea, because the gop � and american conservatives in general � cannibalized most of its own institutional competencies as a political party and propped the pillaged benefits and materials around donald trump as a figurehead. The second trump becomes nonviable and/or goes protest independent, it's not even just a matter of that the GOP have a charisma and figurehead vacuum slamming into them at full speed (even though, yeah, that's already pretty bad), it's that the entire institution of conservatism here went all-in on trump, to the extent that everything just falls apart without him.

Because trumpism thoroughly captured the party, the only people left calling the shots are dysfunctional radical ideologues who control the party apparatus and have lost almost any way to competently run it on their own. The whole ecosystem of think tanks and strategic alliances that ran things is stripped bare, and the "old guard" that had strategic competency (or the intent on governing a republic) are just shoveled off into irrelevance.

What have they earned for the trouble? Profoundly demographically alienating themselves to every generational cohort younger than boomers, increasing in severity with every step down to zennials. Commitment to absolute political poison, like pro-life forced birtherism, anti-vaccine hysteria, climate change denialism, and thoroughly deranged elimination of firearms regulation in an age of constant school and mass shootings. This is the stuff that sticks to them over decades

Though, as usual, the real test of it is if the structure of the republic can survive the systems they moved forward as hard as they could to permanently enshrine them as minority rulership.

If we CAN, then there are several state-level GOP organizations which act as an early model of how badly things can fall apart for them.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 06:11

Bodyholes: Jun 30, 2005

Willo567 posted:

So reading about all the Project 2025 poo poo, will we be able to survive under another term of Trump?

Oh my no. Just think... you could have not looked at the news at all for several more months and enjoyed your life for several more months, but now you're here with us, staring at the abyss. Not like you can do anything except wait at this point so it's just pointless additional anxiety to deal with now.

I AM GRANDO posted:

I'm not yet entirely convinced we survived the first Trump administration. I think it's one of those situations where we're not going to know for another 15 years whether that was a threshold that, once passed, started a series of knock-on effects that will continue to unfold to some pretty bad outcomes, potentially including a second Trump administration.

This is the way it looks to me too. We have a gauntlet to get through where we're waiting for demographic changes to purge the world of enough boomers so we can make major reforms but we have to hang on until then and the far right is just probing for an opportunity to lock down the mechanisms of democracy before their demographic issue becomes terminal to their ideology.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 08:33

the_steve: Nov 9, 2005; We're always hiring!

Bodyholes posted:

Oh my no. Just think... you could have not looked at the news at all for several more months and enjoyed your life for several more months, but now you're here with us, staring at the abyss. Not like you can do anything except wait at this point so it's just pointless additional anxiety to deal with now.

This is the way it looks to me too. We have a gauntlet to get through where we're waiting for demographic changes to purge the world of enough boomers so we can make major reforms but we have to hang on until then and the far right is just probing for an opportunity to lock down the mechanisms of democracy before their demographic issue becomes terminal to their ideology.

I've said "Ok, boomer" my share of times as a terminally online person, but in all actuality, boomers aren't some unique evil. They inherited a hell of a leg up and made sure to pull the ladder up behind them every chance they got, but them dying off isn't going to solve as much of the problem as you may hope. There are going to be plenty of failchildren who are just as lovely and entitled who will be ready to take the boomer's place. Hell, you already see it with opportunistic craven pieces of poo poo like Sinema who will easily throw anyone under the bus if they think it'll benefit them or their grift. "Self made" millionaires who turned their $300 paycheck into a cool million with nothing more than hard work and a $999,700 loan from their parents and absolutely never needed any help and neither should you. And hell, unfortunate souls who just couldn't get away from their lovely upbringing and end up becoming equally lovely in turn.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 09:21

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

the_steve posted:

I've said "Ok, boomer" my share of times as a terminally online person, but in all actuality, boomers aren't some unique evil. They inherited a hell of a leg up and made sure to pull the ladder up behind them every chance they got, but them dying off isn't going to solve as much of the problem as you may hope. There are going to be plenty of failchildren who are just as lovely and entitled who will be ready to take the boomer's place. Hell, you already see it with opportunistic craven pieces of poo poo like Sinema who will easily throw anyone under the bus if they think it'll benefit them or their grift. "Self made" millionaires who turned their $300 paycheck into a cool million with nothing more than hard work and a $999,700 loan from their parents and absolutely never needed any help and neither should you. And hell, unfortunate souls who just couldn't get away from their lovely upbringing and end up becoming equally lovely in turn.

Eh, we've already got an immense body of evidence that each subsequent generation is less sympathetic to right-wing ideology and more progressive, to the point where zoomers have a more positive view of socialism than capitalism. If you take the view that political beliefs are largely set in young adulthood, then it's already too late for anything like the current right to sustain itself nationally under democracy beyond maybe 2030. And if you take the view that it is the gaining of personal wealth that shifts people rightward - that you grow conservative because you have something to conserve - well, the right loses there too. The jobs market is hosed, housing is worse, and an extraordinary quantity of wealth which would be passed along in inheritance is instead being spent on exorbitantly priced elder care to the point kids won't be inheriting the houses that might otherwise drive them rightward.

Also I am always beating this drum but if indeed boomers dying will change the results of elections and policies, this is only something we're going to start seeing in the coming decade. The first boomers are about 77 years old this year, so just shy of the life expectancy. But the youngest boomers are almost 20 years younger and only hitting 60 next year. At SOME point in the next 20-odd years the demographic effects will start having a major effect but when, and to what extent, is a very hard thing to predict. Though I would say thanks to the quirks of the EC system it's got the potential to matter as soon as next year, I'd expect 2030 to be when it really starts to make itself known.

By no meansis any kind of political shift a fait accompli. In fact regarding demographics as destiny and assuming nothing else is needed would be the surest way to undo any such process. It does however open a very powerful route to stamping out the political power of, at least, the far right. And hopefully the right more generally. If we do dodge the fascist bullet next year the right will still have a lot of power and a lot of ways to gently caress with democracy, but I do see some merit in the idea that it's their last gasp at national power under current circumstances. Trump defeated again and old as all gently caress in '28 would neuter him and the right have indeed cored themselves out pretty badly in the last decade (and hosed themselves to an impressive degree with abortion, there's no way out of that corner they painted themselves into; pushing abortion bans loses so badly they can't even gerrymander their way out of the hole, but retreating gets them branded RINOs and traitors.), but fascists have never needed a majority and it's always possible someone else will emerge, or other unforseen events could occur.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 11:02

the moose: Nov 7, 2009; Type: Electric Swing

Queering Wheel posted:

I feel like if Trump is defeated in 2024 and the Dems do pretty well downballot, we might finally be able to crawl out of the danger zone. After Trump, who else is there? I know that 2-4 years is a lifetime in politics and anyone could emerge, but it's hard to see who. The GOP has no one else even close to Trump's appeal and charisma, and their policies are not getting any more popular. 2026 will be two more years of the GOP base dying and more young people entering the electorate. Then 2028, then 2030, etc. If fascism is averted next year, the GOP is either going to have to change their policies to win more elections, or just continue to rule over the reddest of states and little else.

Won't trump just keep running until he dies? Like there is nothing to stop him from trying again in 2028 except old age.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 15:14

Bodyholes: Jun 30, 2005

As funny as that would be to see, I think his legal problems will be a lot more concrete for him if he loses in 2024.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 15:26

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

The Top G posted:

Incorrect

That's a poll from 2003, not 2023. Don't you see how that might be a touch outdated and misleading?

# ? Nov 20, 2023 15:43

Misunderstood: Jan 19, 2023; by Fluffdaddy

Kchama posted:

That's a poll from 2003, not 2023. Don't you see how that might be a touch outdated and misleading?

Hey, the poster he quoted said never and 2003 happened, buddy. :colbert:

Obviously there are periods when foreign policy takes on a primacy in the American mind and it has huge political consequences. But in those cases - Vietnam, World War II - the foreign issues were having a direct and massive impact on domestic life. Even in the post-9/11 period those numbers are from were driven by fears of terrorists attacking "the homeland," a weird and kinda gross word that popped up over night.

As tragic as it is, this war is absolutely not that kind of event. Unless someone knows people in Israel or its oppressed territories personally - which, to be fair, is a fair amount of people, but compared to a massive military draft? - then as horrifying this is, it's probably not going to affect their perspective enough to change their vote.

Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Nov 20, 2023

# ? Nov 20, 2023 15:44

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

B B posted:

Here's Joe Biden a year after the invasion, when many of his colleagues had already started turning against the war:

I agree with you that he basically voted to give Bush a blank check, was "shocked" when he used it, and tried to distance himself from it but the speech you quoted is him making the literal opposite of the point you claim he is making.

I'm assuming you knew that because you literally cut off the next sentence that clarifies the point.

quote:

But the fact is, that we are in Iraq, and I voted for us to go there. But, first, principles have to be understood. We cannot want freedom for the Iraqi people more than they do, just as we could not want democracy for Vietnam more than they wanted it.

The rest of the speech is basically him saying "We're here in Iraq now, whether we like it or not, and here's what we should do to make the best of it..." and not defending the the war overall.

quote:

You are receiving your degrees in a time of extraordinary confusion and emerging self-doubt in American history. A time when the world is beginning to wonder who we are and who we stand for. We sent 135,000 American troops to Iraq as liberators, and I voted to do that, and now we are seen as occupiers. We were told that we didn�t need a large force and now there is talk of reinstating the draft, a prospect that neither you nor your parents want to face.

quote:

Just as the Kennedy�s administration �best and the brightest� made the decisions that escalated our involvement in Vietnam, so today the neo-conservative intellectuals, bright, patriotic, honorable men and women, the best and the brightest of this administration, made decisions to not take certain actions once we got to Iraq.

So, too, must you ask, the best and the brightest among you, to distinguish between the threat of rogue states like Iraq and international terror and the use of weapons of mass destruction. The irony is, that a man of my generation foretold the dynamics that are being played out in your generation.

I urge you to look out the window. I urge you to learn as much as you can about the situation in the world and what America�s strategic responsibilities are. You will have to determine the real threats of terrorism from the false threats, just as we had to distinguish the real threats from communism from the false threats.

quote:

Iraq needs to be secured in order for there to be free elections in December of 2005 and, right now, American forces, alone, lack the legitimacy that is needed to be able to cooperate with this new Iraqi government.

quote:

We need to free, as the President is now doing, the bulk of the 8,000 prisoners being held at Abu Ghraib prison, and tear it to the ground.

And after we salt the ground on which they stood with a new edifice of a school or a hospital or a university, we have to hold those accountable who are responsible for the policy. Some people say that this would be too stark a departure, and, tantamount to us admitting to our mistakes, that it would be too costly politically.

But I would say to them, the war in Iraq and getting it right is bigger than either John Kerry or George Bush and I believe the President understands this. We live in Delaware. We know better than anyone else, when those giant transport planes, those C-5's fly from the Middle East at night, they�re carrying the dead, the dead American soldiers, who gave every measure of themselves for this nation. It�s about that last journey home, to the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, about 45 minutes here.

It�s about those brave Americans, doing everything in their power to get it right, and we owe them no less than to get it right, for them, in Iraq.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 16:05

B B: Dec 1, 2005

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

I agree with you that he basically voted to give Bush a blank check, was "shocked" when he used it, and tried to distance himself from it but the speech you quoted is him making the literal opposite of the point you claim he is making.

I'm assuming you knew that because you literally cut off the next sentence that clarifies the point.

The rest of the speech is basically him saying "We're here in Iraq now, whether we like it or not, and here's what we should do to make the best of it..." and not defending the the war overall.

The original claim was that he was misled by the intelligence, which is not true. Everyone with at least half a brain (which Joe Biden had at the time) knew the intelligence was bullshit.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 17:32

Aztec Galactus: Sep 12, 2002

B B posted:

The original claim was that he was misled by the intelligence, which is not true. Everyone with at least half a brain (which Joe Biden had at the time) knew the intelligence was bullshit.

This is exactly what he has done with intelligence coming from Israel so clearly he hasn't learned much

# ? Nov 20, 2023 17:58

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

B B posted:

The original claim was that he was misled by the intelligence, which is not true. Everyone with at least half a brain (which Joe Biden had at the time) knew the intelligence was bullshit.

Yes, I think your overall point about him shifting his story is correct. But, it just undermines the point when you pick a speech where he didn't actually say that and were implying he said a different wrong and bad thing. He has said similar things in public many times (the CNN article you linked had several examples), so there were plenty to choose from.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 19:05

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

Kavros posted:

Because trumpism thoroughly captured the party, the only people left calling the shots are dysfunctional radical ideologues who control the party apparatus and have lost almost any way to competently run it on their own. The whole ecosystem of think tanks and strategic alliances that ran things is stripped bare, and the "old guard" that had strategic competency (or the intent on governing a republic) are just shoveled off into irrelevance.

What have they earned for the trouble? Profoundly demographically alienating themselves to every generational cohort younger than boomers, increasing in severity with every step down to zennials. Commitment to absolute political poison, like pro-life forced birtherism, anti-vaccine hysteria, climate change denialism, and thoroughly deranged elimination of firearms regulation in an age of constant school and mass shootings. This is the stuff that sticks to them over decades

Though, as usual, the real test of it is if the structure of the republic can survive the systems they moved forward as hard as they could to permanently enshrine them as minority rulership.

If we CAN, then there are several state-level GOP organizations which act as an early model of how badly things can fall apart for them.

So how would you rate the efficacy of the Heritage Foundation on a scale of 1-10?

# ? Nov 20, 2023 20:47

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Article about divisions in America between friends and family caused by Israel/Hamas war

They include perspectives from people on all sides (ideologically) of the conflict, and I'm not interested in whether people think this person is right or wrong; what I'm struck by is how many of these relationship-terminating disagreements arise purely because of social media. Almost every story is about someone getting mad at or pissing someone off online. This isn't the first Israel v Palestine conflict where we've seen fighting on the internet, but it is easily the most divisive and I wonder how much of that has to do with the expansion of social media, the disinformation attendant to it, and the dynamics of the media encouraging engagement farming through outrage clicks. Since it's the main online news aggregator for western news, I wonder to what degree the lack of moderation and content control on Twitter is enflaming the rhetoric, or if it would even make a difference.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 20:51

Misunderstood: Jan 19, 2023; by Fluffdaddy

Grouchio posted:

So how would you rate the efficacy of the Heritage Foundation on a scale of 1-10?

I�d say that historically the Heritage foundation has been incredibly successful in helping to advance conservative goals.

However!

We have also gotten ourselves in the �dog caught the car� post-Dobbs scenario. Republicans have the least popular policy goals of any party in the last hundred years, to the point where it is starting to cost them elections against otherwise beatable opponents. And abandoning those positions is nearly impossible, largely because NGOs like Heritage have helped make their base so reactionary.

All the GOP has left to run on in general elections is global anti-incumbent sentiment and issues where the public reports �trusting� them more (like �the economy�) but in a way that isn�t linked to any particular policy positions. In that context, Heritage�s continued rightward pushes may play a role in the party losing too much popularity and ultimately collapsing.

So, really, it depends on future events, and the time scale you�re looking at. Right now they look like a 9 or 10. In fifty years they might be a glaring example of the kind of organization that ended the reign of Reaganite conservatism.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 21:02

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

zoux posted:

Article about divisions in America between friends and family caused by Israel/Hamas war

They include perspectives from people on all sides (ideologically) of the conflict, and I'm not interested in whether people think this person is right or wrong; what I'm struck by is how many of these relationship-terminating disagreements arise purely because of social media. Almost every story is about someone getting mad at or pissing someone off online. This isn't the first Israel v Palestine conflict where we've seen fighting on the internet, but it is easily the most divisive and I wonder how much of that has to do with the expansion of social media, the disinformation attendant to it, and the dynamics of the media encouraging engagement farming through outrage clicks. Since it's the main online news aggregator for western news, I wonder to what degree the lack of moderation and content control on Twitter is enflaming the rhetoric, or if it would even make a difference.

yeah. most of the people irl i know have the opinion of "this is all around awful, hamas sucks and did bad thing, but israel shouldnt level gaza and do war crimes/etc" stuff and maybe debates on stuff, but its never really hated. mind you i am not irl friends with anyone who is from or has family in the region. I do think alot of its just how twitter has just imploded. my cousin works in that digital security field, so ill try to pick her brain about it this week.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 21:09

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

zoux posted:

Article about divisions in America between friends and family caused by Israel/Hamas war

They include perspectives from people on all sides (ideologically) of the conflict, and I'm not interested in whether people think this person is right or wrong; what I'm struck by is how many of these relationship-terminating disagreements arise purely because of social media. Almost every story is about someone getting mad at or pissing someone off online. This isn't the first Israel v Palestine conflict where we've seen fighting on the internet, but it is easily the most divisive and I wonder how much of that has to do with the expansion of social media, the disinformation attendant to it, and the dynamics of the media encouraging engagement farming through outrage clicks. Since it's the main online news aggregator for western news, I wonder to what degree the lack of moderation and content control on Twitter is enflaming the rhetoric, or if it would even make a difference.

I do think it's very easy online to express something in a horribly dumb way that you wouldn't have the guts to do in real life.

I don't know if this is a played-out example, but Amber Sherman saying "you love to see it" about what Hamas did on October 6 is pretty horrid and I don't think she does that in real life. Or maybe she does? I don't know her.

Anyway, our social media apparatus is fantastic at letting us post without thinking and then everything getting chopped up and regurgitated out of context to keep the anger fires ever-raging.

I don't know if it's a cowardly thing to admit, but I just don't talk about it online because I don't want to deal with how little you can convey nuance or complex thoughts online without some massive blowback.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 21:30

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Eric Cantonese posted:

I do think it's very easy online to express something in a horribly dumb way that you wouldn't have the guts to do in real life.

I don't know if this is a played-out example, but Amber Sherman saying "you love to see it" about what Hamas did on October 6 is pretty horrid and I don't think she does that in real life. Or maybe she does? I don't know her.

Anyway, our social media apparatus is fantastic at letting us post without thinking and then everything getting chopped up and regurgitated out of context to keep the anger fires ever-raging.

I don't know if it's a cowardly thing to admit, but I just don't talk about it online because I don't want to deal with how little you can convey nuance or complex thoughts online without some massive blowback.

An important mechanic here - looking specifically at the post you screenshotted - is that early in the morning of Oct 7, it wasn't yet clear that Hamas had killed/was killing a ton of civilians. At first it was only clear that some Palestinians had escaped from Gaza and that they had disabled an IDF tank, it's not horrid to celebrate that.

Here's the experience of learning the news as described by a rabbi I know, who went from "love to see it" to "disgusted to see it":

quote:

When I heard the initial reports of Hamas� attacks on Israel this past Saturday, I will be completely honest � my first reaction was �good for them.� Israel had been collectively punishing Palestinians in Gaza for years with a crushing blockade with little to no care from the rest of the world. Now, amazingly, Palestinians had broken free from this seemingly impenetrable open-air prison. With power and ingenuity, they were resisting their oppression, reminding Israel � and the world at large � that they were still here. That they would not submit.

Inevitably, as the news of the attacks trickled in during the course of the day, my emotions turned to shock and grief. Along with the rest of the world, I learned about the sheer scale of violence committed by Hamas militants against Israeli civilians: the largest single day massacre in Israeli history. At last count, at least 1,200 Israelis have been killed and it is estimated that 150 have been abducted and taken hostage into Gaza. Everyone in Israel and many Jews throughout the world, know people � or know of people � who were killed, injured or taken hostage. Like so many in the Jewish community, my social media feed has been filled with heartbreaking pictures and stories of Israelis who have been slain or are still unaccounted for.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Nov 20, 2023

# ? Nov 20, 2023 21:42

Madkal: Feb 11, 2008; Fallen Rib

Civilized Fishbot posted:

An important mechanic here - looking specifically at the post you screenshotted - is that early in the morning of Oct 7, it wasn't yet clear that Hamas had killed/was killing a ton of civilians. At first it was only clear that some Palestinians had escaped from Gaza and that they had disabled an IDF tank, it's not horrid to celebrate that.

Here's the experience of learning the news as described by a rabbi I know, who went from "love to see it" to "disgusted to see it":

In this case people can be quick to post hot takes without waiting for any other context to come through. It is pretty much the dril tweet about "not having to hand it to Isis"

# ? Nov 20, 2023 21:48

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Online also sets a hard expectation for immediate response and engagement with whatever is going on, so you�re already primed to fire a hot take as fast as possible. Teenagers I work with (high school + college) tell me part of what makes the social media experience so miserable for people in high school is the expectation that you will post to make your position clear and that not posting within a certain window signals that you�re choosing not to care about whatever is going on, all of which affects friendships and relationships about as seriously as one�s actions when you�re socializing in person. It sounds absolutely wretched.

# ? Nov 20, 2023 21:49

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

I think we're too quick to post and then you can't undo it and it takes on a life of it's own.

So anyway, I guess I agree with zoux that somehow, Israel/Palestine has become an even more divisive issue than it was before because of how social media has totally affected our ability to talk to each other.