|
Woolie Wool posted:
Not claiming that there are no fascists in Germany, but Pegida is really not a significant movement. They are already dead again and they only ever were remotely successful in one single city in the entire country. Yet the media talked all the time about it because it was such an unusual occurrence.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
Is it possible that human beings are deeply flawed, that an intelligent, objective and rational electorate is impossible past a certain size because of the inherent emotional and irrational nature of human beings, and that the best that can be hoped for is to continue to hold back the tide on social and economic issues until climate change forces the fundamental reevaluation of society that accelerationism claims is the end goal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:It is a blow out while 40% of the country agrees with them instead of 51%. Honestly I am not seeing how that will lead to a round of soul searching and coming to the conclusion that they are on the fringe of American society. Do you believe previous parties did soul searching and concluded they were on the fringe of society? If so, which time period do you believe they realized this, and how much did they lose an election by? What it sounds like is that you believe real change will only happen when 80+% of the nation voted against a party, but that's basically never happened. So either parties never change, or that's not a prerequisite for change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Do you believe previous parties did soul searching and concluded they were on the fringe of society? If so, which time period do you believe they realized this, and how much did they lose an election by? Change and coming to the realization that you are considering a loon by the population at large would seem to be very different things. Full Disclosure: I'm not American, so maybe there is something fundamental to the American psyche that makes those equivalent.  Let's turn this around: What margin does Trump need to lose the general by that would make a current Trump supporter go "Hmmm, maybe the problem is me"? My point is that there is no realistically achievable number that will accomplish that, due to the dual problem of who you are talking about and the non-problematic members of Red Team voting. If you think I am wrong, let's see a number instead of inferring baffling rationales for my post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
If they get their man in the general and he loses it's going to radicalize them even more, and that's the whole point. They're already expressing disillusionment with the GOP for not being enough purestrain movement conservatism for them, cf Paul Ryan and the budget deal. If they lose in 2016 they will absolutely pin it on their candidate and their party failing conservatism, rather than the other way around. That's what they always do. The more they see the Republican party as failing conservatism, the better, since it means they won't bother to vote for the GOP or anybody else. We don't need them to see the light or whatever, we need them to find it hard to get representation in government. You seem to be conflating the GOP collectively doing the soul searching and changing, with individual GOP voters doing the soul searching. They are not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Let's turn this around: What margin does Trump need to lose the general by that would make a current Trump supporter go "Hmmm, maybe the problem is me"? You're assuming that people (in general) think "if the world's against me, I must be the problem". If that were true, then leftists would've given up a long time ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:It is a blow out while 40% of the country agrees with them instead of 51%. Honestly I am not seeing how that will lead to a round of soul searching and coming to the conclusion that they are on the fringe of American society. The electoral college causes a 60-40 popular vote victor to sweep the board and win nearly every state, because most states are winner take all. Take a look at 1988 election. George HW Bush got only 53% of the popular vote, but 79% of the electoral votes. And when Americans think about politics, they think about that map, even if the red areas are filled with more livestock than people. It's not necessarily the Trump supporters themselves that will do the soul searching, but the establishment that has spent the past 40 years appealing to Trump supporters and reaping the benefits against a then rising Democratic party. They'll have to figure something out to actually lock the presidency and not be constrained by the veto pen. e: Actually, the 1984 election is literally the 60-40 scenario: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
foobardog posted:The electoral college causes a 60-40 popular vote victor to sweep the board and win nearly every state, because most states are winner take all. Take a look at 1988 election. George HW Bush got only 53% of the popular vote, but 79% of the electoral votes. And when Americans think about politics, they think about that map, even if the red areas are filled with more livestock than people. I forgot Dukakis's PV numbers were identical to McCain's
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Zas posted:I forgot Dukakis's PV numbers were identical to McCain's Yeah, and McCain ended up doing much better than him, but that's because of the electoral college's bias towards red states. A 60-40 Democractic candidate would still only do as well as 1996 Clinton, but that election was considered a serious victory for him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
If there's one thing we can learn from analyzing electoral college results, it's that the electoral college must be destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:If there's one thing we can learn from analyzing electoral college results, it's that the electoral college must be destroyed. The only real issues with the electoral college is that it's winner take all, and (maybe) that it's not granular enough. Otherwise it's more or less a cultural oddity like the Governor General in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The only real issues with the electoral college is that it's winner take all, and (maybe) that it's not granular enough. Otherwise it's more or less a cultural oddity like the Governor General in Canada. true, but it's a cultural oddity responsible for isis
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Zas posted:true, but it's a cultural oddity responsible for isis No, that's the cultural oddity of wanting to drink beer with the president.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, that's the cultural oddity of wanting to drink beer with the president. that too
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
I would only drink beer with the president if it were a competition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Nah. 40% is Reagan-Mondale stuff. It's a blowout. They'll be thinking of that map filled with blue states for the rest of their lives, before they head to a poll on Election Day. Or rather before they think about heading to a poll and then find a better use for their time (cf cousins, above). And the fact that they will lose to Hillary loving Clinton will magnify that 100-fold. It's not enough to defeat the Republicans, we need to demoralize their base such that the party has to find a new one, and heal itself. It's no good to have one party in the US even remotely capable of governing. I think there are a bunch of naive assumptions in this post about the current state of the Republican Party and the current times we live in. It won't be like the Democratic Party reshuffling itself until it becomes more moderate and appealing to a general population (like under Clinton). There's little or no interest in the political center anymore, which explains a lot of what is going on right now on both sides of the electorate. Trump supporters don't want to just win, they want to exert their ideology on the other 60% of the population until they feel it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Blood for the blood god. Skulls for the skull throne.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Socialism admits that it requires a new type of man, but its dreary utilitarian calculus has never produced a single one. Only the cause of a nation can elevate man and swell his heart to glory. Neither leftt nor right, but forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Blood for the blood god. Skulls for the skull throne. Slanesh is a better choice. They'd implement that Presidential drinking contest you were proposing. You'll still get deaths, you'll just have some debauchery mixed in. I feel like that will be easier to get past the voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Socialism admits that it requires a new type of man, but its dreary utilitarian calculus has never produced a single one. Only the cause of a nation can elevate man and swell his heart to glory. Neither leftt nor right, but forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_1IMZmJe-U No blood no stain all we need is one worldwide vision
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Change and coming to the realization that you are considering a loon by the population at large would seem to be very different things. Full Disclosure: I'm not American, so maybe there is something fundamental to the American psyche that makes those equivalent. The hypothesis is fatally flawed anyway, because if Trump loses, they'll conclude that some sort of vote-fixing or other political manipulation was performed by the winner to steal the election from Trump. Don't underestimate people's ability to rationalize.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
I don't think posters realize how volatile this country is at the moment. Just look at what a single, open attack by ISIS could do to our population.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Slanesh is a better choice. They'd implement that Presidential drinking contest you were proposing. You'll still get deaths, you'll just have some debauchery mixed in. I feel like that will be easier to get past the voters. We're talking about a US presidential election here; the better choice is never a real option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:I don't think posters realize how volatile this country is at the moment. Just look at what a single, open attack by ISIS could do to our population. Continue to blame it on the other and don't ban guns because I need them to protect me? I don't think it'd change as much as you're implying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
McDowell posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_1IMZmJe-U Didn't stop them from breaking the cultural embargo on apartheid South Africa. I admire their message but their practice left a lot to be desired.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Didn't stop them from breaking the cultural embargo on apartheid South Africa. Adam Sandler says artists involved with BDS make him sick
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Name one time accelerationism has worked anywhere. People fail to realize there is no bottoming out to rebuild, just deeper suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:You are advocating giving up in a manner that allows you to continue stroking your ego, making you a fool and a coward. Whatever this loving thread was, this post is pretty much the end of it. Accelerationism makes three very grave assumptions 1) poo poo has to be bad enough that all society will realize there's a problem... 2) ...then it will unite together to stop it... 3) ...and poo poo will still have the chance to be unfucked in a reasonable time frame.  if you think that people can stop fooling themselves and face reality for 1 to happen. if you think there's a limit to human greed for 2 to happen.  if you think that in the EXTREMELY unlikely event 1 and 2 happen we can still make 3 happen.Lemme ask you this, what makes you think that society as it is right now is not the nadir you're looking for? Is it because we're not sending Bruce Willis into space? Because this is basically what is happening with social issues right now. Why don't you try to do something about issues now rather than building castles in the sky? And when you inevitable say "it's no use!" Or some variation thereof, how are you not being a whiny little bitch? How is your approach better?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:If there's one thing we can learn from analyzing electoral college results, it's that the electoral college must be destroyed. Do you one better: rework the concept of states and congressional districts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Whatever this loving thread was, this post is pretty much the end of it. Don't tell me that actively wishing death and misery on billions is immoral!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
The main problem with accelerationism is that people assume that whatever rises out of the ashes is "better". When its more like to be worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
People can unite around a threat - if they agree on it. In the case of some general political collapse they won't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:Don't tell me that actively wishing death and misery on billions is immoral! Which billions? I mean, you would need the political equivalent of Maxwell's Daemon, but it is theoretically doable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Yeah the actual point in time you have a chance to change the system is the moment when things get slightly better and people have a bit more time to contemplate. Increasing the misery through accelerationism just makes everyone even more irrational.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
Things are actually pretty good, overall, and are getting better. I like this trend and we should accelerate it, i m o
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Accelerationism makes three very grave assumptions Accelerationism does not assume this. quote:2) ...then it will unite together to stop it... Accelerationism does not assume this. quote:3) ...and poo poo will still have the chance to be unfucked in a reasonable time frame. Accelerationism does not require this. Control Volume posted:Things are actually pretty good, overall, and are getting better. I like this trend and we should accelerate it, i m o This is actually really close.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Accelerationism does not mean "actively make things worse, then Full Communism Now, naturally, of course". It assumes only that a capitalistic economic organization trends toward a crisis point where hegemonic order breaks down into its constituent parts, and that meaningful opposition in a contemporary period is futile conflict for conflict's sake that at best destroys lots for no gain. Recognizing those two facts, Accelerationism then proposes that the only way capital-C Capital will be broken down (note: not destroyed) is to allow Capital to run freely to that crisis point and allow history to proceed. At no point is any presupposition made regarding what modes of government will reign after the decisive moment. At no point does anyone claim after a civic and economic collapse that there are no rich people and poor people and that we the living will all realize Marxist thought is the poo poo. It is no more or less than "This is coming anyway, let's do the dew" artist's rendition. It's pessimistic as gently caress and not hugely academic, but since when the gently caress has political academia mattered a second squirt of piss to anything IRL? Besides: it's fun. It's fun to confront leftists with the reality of their loser failure ideology which decisively and utterly and irretrievably lost the Cold War. It's fun to see liberals attempt to quickly improvise as they realize in the moment that for all their veneration of progress as an end in and of itself, they haven't put much thought into what specifically is being progressed toward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Accelerationism does not assume this. Er, yes it does. Many accelerationists are accelerationists because they figure people will only snap to reality when they are up to their shoulders in water due to climate change and/or think change is only possible if the old order is completely done away in the style of the French Revolution/Russian Revolution/WWI/WWII.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
The OP's quoted post's premise is that the Presidency is a very big deal in that whoever fills the role has a lot of power and determines the direction of the country; however this is not really the case. Even if Trump became an idiot President he is still beholden to congress and the senate as well as the judiciary, who wield much more power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:22 |
|
Willie Tomg posted:Accelerationism does not mean "actively make things worse, then Full Communism Now, naturally, of course". It assumes only that a capitalistic economic organization trends toward a crisis point where hegemonic order breaks down into its constituent parts, and that meaningful opposition in a contemporary period is futile conflict for conflict's sake that at best destroys lots for no gain. Recognizing those two facts, Accelerationism then proposes that the only way capital-C Capital will be broken down (note: not destroyed) is to allow Capital to run freely to that crisis point and allow history to proceed. I guess that when you've tied yourself to Major Depression: The Political Ideology you have to take your fun where you can get it.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:24
|
|