|
I read a tweet claiming that TV producers had politics indistinguishable from Ronald Reagan. This seems totally wrong to me, but I want to see what the best arguments there are that elites don't lean democratic. It seems obvious to me that they do, is this a controversial opinion? More specifically, on any issue where most republicans believe something and journalists say its disinformation, bigoted, or dangerous to democracy, the opinion of political and economic elites is far closer to that of democrats that republicans. I'm not that interested in arguing about whether they're right (or perhaps should be even harder on the republicans), at least until its established that they do in fact lean democratic. . I intuitively accept the whole Trumpist narrative that big tech is biased against conservatives, that intelligence agencies targeted Trump because he was outside the neoliberal consensus, and that the media and local governments have covered for Antifa violence against Trump supporters. It honestly has shocked me to hear people claim that social media companies are biased for conservatives because their algorithms boost them or that CRT bans show that conservatives are more intolerant of dissenting opinions, that James Comey was biased against Hillary Clinton, or that BLM protestors were treated more harshly than Jan. 6 protestors. But I know there are arguments for these positions and I can't prove them wrong. Proving bias is tough because no two situations are identical. But are there any counter arguments to the claim that elites lean democratic regardless of whether this represents bias or not. What elites are there besides the rich, donors, corporations, the media, the professional-managerial class, and government agencies? Of these overlapping groups, I think the rich are a wash and the rest lean democratic. Thomas Piketty's Capital and Ideology has an interesting graph on page 813 (figure 15.5 here. It shows that in 1980 less than 20% of voters in the top 5% and 1% of income who voted for one of the two major parties voted democrat. In 2000 it was around 30%. But in 2016, 60% of voters in the top 10%, 5%, and 1% of income voted democrat. This contrats with the figures in this article which say that voters making over $200,000 (the top 7-10%) were about evenly split in 2016 and 2020. Piketty's next graph shows that Republicans still had a 4% advantage among the wealthiest 10% in 2016, but this advantage was down from over 20% in 2000. According to opensecrets, Biden raised $1,044,187,828 to Trump's $773,954,550 and Trump got 49% from small donors, while Biden got 39% from small donors. Clinton did even better among donors, raising almost twice as much. Corporations seemed to unanimously come out in favor of the Black lives Matter movement, which 87% of republicans oppose and which has as much support as opposition among the general population. They've also come out against Trump's election claims, republican voting rights legislation, and republican legislation on LGBT issues. Commentary on this phenomenon usually points out that this is new behavior for corporations and they usually don't like to comments on contentious political issues outside of economic policies narrowly relevant to their industry. This suggests they see these issues as apolitical matters of decency, implying that disagreement is illegitimate. Also, a bunch of corporations cancelled Trump right at the beginning of his campaign in 2015. The media seems to have obviously been anti Trump and pro BLM. Lots of political commentary seems to take for granted that the PMC leans left. Employees of government agencies seem to be heavily democratic considering D.C. went around 94% for Biden and there were all those narratives about agency employees "resisting" Trump. What are the counter arguments?
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
It is an impossible question to answer, because your interlocutor can change the definition of "elite" whenever it suits them. First you need to separate "elite" from the "population at large". Is the difference between how the voters in the top part of the income distribution that much different than how "everyone" votes? Are the 2020/2016 presidential elections even particularly good for determining Republican/Democratic leaning, given how much they focused on the specific candidates themselves?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
The whole argument is predicated on the idea that a Ronald Reagan perspective is best represented by the Republican Party in 2022. Putting aside the two evergreen right-wing touchstones of gun rights and low taxes, that's just not really the case. If you take a step back for a second, these are just two issues amongst many. For a true Reagan Ideologue, the Democrats might simply offer a platform more representative of their views as a whole. The less polite way of saying this is that the GoP has become a populist mess incapable of driving the country in any real direction. The two party system being what it is, conservative-leaning people supporting the Democrats is not exactly surprising. edit: toterunner posted:It honestly has shocked me to hear people claim that [...] that BLM protestors were treated more harshly than Jan. 6 protestors. This is a basic, demonstrable, fact. Made "contentious" only because of straight-up propaganda. That you think this supports your position in any way, shape, or form is evidence that you are approaching this from a distorted perspective in the first place. Aramis fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 05:02
|
|
|
The old Bush/Obama era divide was between Big Tech and Big Oil. TBH I don't know how much that still stands up. Is Big Oil politically relevant?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 05:19
|
|
|
Aramis posted:This is a basic, demonstrable, fact. Can you demonstrate it? I think that extremely destructive riots were allowed to go on which police could have suppressed, and that Ashley Babbitt was shot when she clearly didn't meet the standard for an imminent threat that cops are supposed to go by. Do you really think there was as much of an effort to track down people who had rioted over the summer than on Jan.6? I said it was an example of something I believe but couldn't prove, not something that supports my point. I do take it as undeniable that elites overwhelmingly supported the cause of BLM and opposed the cause of overturning the election results. Also that the rioting on Jan.6 was directed at extremely powerful people and that the rioting over the summer was directed at regular people. This doesn't itself prove that the Jan. 6 rioting was treated more harshly. The counter arguments I'm aware of are that some of the Jan. 6 trespassers were allowed in by the police and that in some cases BLM protests were declared illegal assemblies and the police used tear gas and other heavy handed tactics to break them up. I doubt you'll make an argument that demonstrates your opinion anymore than I'll make one that demonstrates mine, because the two situations are resistant to apples to apples comparisons. It just seems to me like the failure of the police to suppress riots represented new norms which were a result of the overwhelming elite support for the cause the rioters were supporting. I heard a lot about how violence shouldn't be used to protect property. Aren't there a lot of socialists on this forum? Would they say that this has been an established norm in capitalist America? Conversely, the idea that being approached by a mob that's trespassing gives you the right to start shooting didn't seem to be in play in the summer of 2020. It does seem undeniable that the media was very biased against Jan.6 protestors, with lots of highly publicized claims that turned out to be false, like the trespassers coming with guns or zip ties or killing Sicknick with a fire extinguisher. Conversely, stuff like "mostly peaceful" becoming the standard way to say "not peaceful" suggests a strong bias in favor of BLM protests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 06:18
|
|
|
OP has just taken for granted that breaking into a government building to overturn an election openly stated their plan was to take senators hostage is equivalent to protests and riots against police brutality.quote:
 Zero chance you’re here in good faith but let’s pretend here’s a “trespasser” with zip ties Butter Activities fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 06:23
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:OP has just taken for granted that breaking into a government building to overturn an election openly stated their plan was to take senators hostage is equivalent to protests and riots against police brutality. Riots over the summer of 2020 involved burning down police stations, sustained attacks on federal buildings, and establishing autonomous zones. So the Jan. 6 riot was distinguished by an attempt to take over a more important government building. Maybe that justified a more serious crackdown, but its hard to disentangle from "targeted more elite people." You also imply that the cause of the jan.6 rioters was less justified than the cause of the previous summer's rioters, so the two reasons you give for why the Jan. 6 riot was worse seem pretty close to the two reasons I gave for why I'd expect a harsher elite response (it targeted elites and elites overwhelmingly supported the cause). If you're conceding that the Jan. 6 crackdown was harsher but it was justified because the riot was worse, that goes with what I was saying about the two situations being resistant to apples to apples comparisons. SMEGMA_MAIL posted:
He didn't come in with them. He took them from the police who were using them to block doorways. This article claims that his prosecutor conceded this. quote:But on January 21, the “zip-tie man’s” own prosecutors admitted none of that was true. He did not take zip-ties with him from home or carry them into the Capitol. Instead, he found them on a table, and took them to prevent their use by the police: toterunner fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 06:51
|
|
|
Ignoring that “he stole them from the police” therefore somehow BLM was ~more violent~ than Jan 6 people let’s pretend that makes sense and do this one 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:08
|
|
|
This is turning into quite the derail, but since it's OP's derail, I'll indulge a bit.toterunner posted:He didn't come in with them. He took them from the police who were using them to block doorways. This article claims that his prosecutor conceded this. The court filing paints a rather different picture than "He took them from the police who were using them to block doorways." The actual court filing, and not Greenwald posted:At one point, MUNCHEL spots plastic handcuffs on a table inside a hallway in the Capitol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:11
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Ignoring that “he stole them from the police” therefore somehow BLM was ~more violent~ than Jan 6 people let’s pretend that makes sense and do this one Okay. quote:(A second man whose photo with zip-ties later surfaced similarly told Ronan Farrow that he found them on the floor, and the FBI has acknowledged it has no evidence to the contrary).
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:15
|
|
|
There’s so much bullshit packed into OPs posts like pretending “CRT bans” not being anything other than race baiting or just the entire premise of this being made up. Billionaires who were willing to say who they voted for voted Trump over Biden at 10 points. That is who I would call “elites.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasew...sh=531f26782bb7 So I guess we can close the thread?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:20
|
|
|
toterunner posted:Okay. To take hostages, circling back to the *lie in your post I pointed out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
Aramis posted:The court filing paints a rather different picture than "He took them from the police who were using them to block doorways." Ok. He took them from the police who were using them to block doorways and said "I got to get me some of them motherfuckers." Are you implying that because he pointedly and enthusiastically picked them up that he was planning to use them to kidnap people? Does it matter that, as far as I know, no evidence of any plot to harm politicians has emerged and nobody has been prosecuted for anything like that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:25
|
|
|
The source you just posted 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:27
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:There’s so much bullshit packed into OPs posts like pretending “CRT bans” not being anything other than race baiting or just the entire premise of this being made up. Say what? quote:A recent Gallup poll shows that 28% of Americans identify as Republicans, 27% identify as Democrats and 42% identify as independents. Our billionaire cohort skewed farther right: 43% Republicans, 24% Democrats and 33% independents. Yet they’re swaying blue. Nearly half, or 48%, say they’re casting a ballot for Biden, compared to 40% for Trump. That tracks with the larger population, which favors Biden to Trump 51-42
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:27
|
|
|
Correction to they voted Republican over Democrat. So your core thesis is wrong either way, regardless of my typo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:29
|
|
|
Also curious how chanting “hang mike pence” while kicking in the door of the Capitol building with him inside isn’t sufficient for OP as evidence Just because they’re absolutely incompetent at planning and execution I guess they get a pass lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:38
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:The source you just posted It just says a prosecutor accused him of that, and that he was released (and charged with misdemeanors). Is that what they'd do with someone who was definitely planning to take senators hostage? I couldn't find information about his ultimate fate from quick googling but that would be interesting. quote:In wielding the restraints, Larry Brock "means to take hostages. He means to kidnap, restrain, perhaps try, perhaps execute members of the U.S. government," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Jay Weimer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:42
|
|
|
toterunner posted:I read a tweet claiming that TV producers had politics indistinguishable from Ronald Reagan. You read a tweet by some guy, so you registered a brand new account on an entirely different website to ramble about how the "elites" have it out for Trump because they're supposedly in the tank for antifa and BLM. Why not post on your main account?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:46
|
|
|
OP define “elites” thanks in advance
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:50
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:You read a tweet by some guy, so you registered a brand new account on an entirely different website to ramble about how the "elites" have it out for Trump because they're supposedly in the tank for antifa and BLM. Is OP talking about elites or (((elites))) because he really dances around that despite that being the first point someone made
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 07:56
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Correction to they voted Republican over Democrat. My correct claims are lies, your bias confirming errors are typos. I gotta say, I don't think that billionaires mainly identifying as Republicans (I couldn't find the part that says they are voting Republican over Democrat. Another typo?) while voting for and donating to Biden disproves my core thesis. I pointed out that the rich used to be highly republican but this has changed in the age of Trump. If you think its more correct to say that elites don't like Trump and support democrats over a Trumpist republican party than to say they lean democratic, whatever. I think the salient issue is that elites are against the right wing populism that animates one of the major parties, and that this is what's salient to the common narrative from republicans that they face double standards from a hostile establishment that is trying to suppress them. Not that the fact that elites are anti-Trump itself proves this whole narrative. quote:Also curious how chanting “hang mike pence” while kicking in the door of the Capitol building with him inside isn’t sufficient for OP as evidence You're really curious why I don't think someone (who? how many people?) chanting about doing something violent isn't evidence of a plot to do it? Is someone rioting in the Leftover Crack "Kill cops" shirt planning to kill police?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 08:05
|
|
|
Anyway setting aside the fact that the OP is an obvious rereg, he's making a bunch of unrelated claims and tying them all together as a bundle to prove that a nebulous group of elites all favor Democrats and disfavor Republicans. A non-exhaustive list of claims made:
The bulk of these claims are specious gish gallop nonsense. Some of them are not even clear enough to be intelligible. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 08:22
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Is OP talking about elites or (((elites))) because he really dances around that despite that being the first point someone made That person said I could retroactively change the definition of elite to suit my argument. I challenge anyone to offer a definition of elite whereby they don't support Biden and Clinton over Trump. I've been aware that some people seem to still have a narrative that elites are right wing, which I took as stubborn clinging to outdated ideas, and that tweet was just an example of that narrative I saw today and I wanted to see if there were any good arguments in support of it. My conclusion now is that nobody is seriously going to argue that elites aren't anti-Trump but they're arguably right wing in a Reganite sense. Perhaps that's more salient to leftists who espouse that narrative, where elites being anti-Trump is salient to people like me (and most republicans) who believe that elites delegitimize the existing, Trumpist republican base.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 08:24
|
|
|
toterunner posted:That person said I could retroactively change the definition of elite to suit my argument. I challenge anyone to offer a definition of elite whereby they don't support Biden and Clinton over Trump. You keep retroactively changing your definitions even now. You have variously claimed that groups are all pro-Democratic because they were nominally opposed to some view that you hold as essentially Trumpian, be it supporting Republicans financially, being part of a shadowy conspiracy to cover up the supposed malfeasance of Black Lives Matter and antifa, or simply making bland corporate statements in favor of civil rights. But that doesn't mean that someone is essentially pro-Democratic at all; for example, just recently you have the case of the whole Disney mess, where the issue was that Disney was saying on one hand that they supported gay people while financially supporting the Republicans passing anti-LGBT laws. Does that mealy-mouthed corporate message make Disney "pro-Democratic" on the whole? Is a Republican who simply finds Trump to be too vulgar "pro-Democratic"? Is a leftist who despises both parties as captured by capital "pro-Democratic"? All you've noticed is that Trump is largely unpopular, and you've built up a whole Democratic-BLM-antifa conspiracy web to explain it. (Or, honestly, you've simply internalized the Fox/Newsmax/OANN narrative of that web, judging by some of the things you're claiming as obviously true.) You seem to have divided the world into two camps, the "right wing" that agrees with Trump on all factors or at least does not vocally disagree with him, and the "pro-Democrats", which includes everyone who has ever wronged Trump or expressed an opinion in support of groups that Trump considers his opponents. Your thinking does not seem to include the idea that "elites" can be right-wingers and still oppose Trump, or make mealy-mouthed statements in support of civil rights, or simply point out that BLM-antifa conspiracy theories are nonsense. Trump's entire campaign has been based on describing anyone he wanted to demonize as in league with the shadowy group of "elites" arrayed against him. Nobody can reason you out of that sort of conspiratorial thinking, so long as you subscribe to it for unreasonable reasons. This is the sort of thing you see on any random conservative Facebook account or #maga twitter hashtag, though. The only outlier is the PMC stuff, which isn't typical Fox News uncle stuff. Where'd you come by that? And how did you end up here, I wonder? Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 08:31
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Anyway setting aside the fact that the OP is an obvious rereg, he's making a bunch of unrelated claims and tying them all together as a bundle to prove that a nebulous group of elites all favor Democrats and disfavor Republicans. I'm not saying that journalists delegitimize the main issues held closely by republicans, but that when there is an opinion held by republicans that journalists delegitimize, elites overwhelmingly side with the journalists over the republicans. These are also the issues relevant to the common republican narratives about double stan.dards and suppression. I could quibble a little about some of your other representations of my points, but overall I'm flattered about how it presents me making a bunch of clear, related claims that all point in the same direction and that would be easy for someone to pick out and criticize. I'll address some of the implicit criticisms you made. -Social media algorithms aren't discriminating on the basis of political ideology. They're promoting content that gets a lot of engagement or has the qualities they expect to get engagement. Apparently, this is disproportionately conservative content. This doesn't prove anything about their content moderation policies, which is what the Trumpist narrative is about. -More elite employees of federal government agencies are more likely to live in Washington D.C. , but yeah, that was probably a bad argument. But do you really think that all the narratives about the federal bureacracy clashing with Trump compared to other presidents are wrong? -How have you not heard about companies boycotting states because of legislation they passed on gay and trans issues in large enough number to get them to change it, lots of major corporations signing on to statements pressuring facebook to make its content moderation policies stricter, condemning Georgia's voter laws, and condemning Trump's election claims? -A number of corporations severed ties with Trump over comments he made when he began his campaign. A number of the things you list are things I said I can't prove but believe intuitively. Basically, I believe the whole right wing narrative intuitively and wanted to see if there was some some chunk of it that could be proven/nobody would disupute (I think its clear there is but maybe I should've phrased it differently as being about Trump/certain culture war issues rather than about republican/democratic lean). If I could refine my claim, it would be that big donors and corporations oppose Trump and oppose conservatives on those issues which feature in conservative narratives about cancel culture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 09:00
|
|
|
I hate split-quotes, but this is gish-gallop posting, so the only way to interrogate it is point by point.toterunner posted:I'm not saying that journalists delegitimize the main issues held closely by republicans, but that when there is an opinion held by republicans that journalists delegitimize, elites overwhelmingly side with the journalists over the republicans. This is not a commentary on "elites" so much as it is a commentary on Republicans' lack of credibility outside of their own propaganda fever swamp. The people who think Trump is the hero of a war against the elites all working together against him are a minority of a minority. You are noticing that most people disagree with you, which is true, and reading into that a conspiracy. You are doing this because Republicans have, for decades now, claimed that anyone who reported on their falsehoods was only doing so because they were biased against Republicans rather than being biased against falsehood. It's self-serving propaganda. toterunner posted:Social media algorithms aren't discriminating on the basis of political ideology. They're promoting content that gets a lot of engagement or has the qualities they expect to get engagement. Apparently, this is disproportionately conservative content. This doesn't prove anything about their content moderation policies, which is what the Trumpist narrative is about. Why it is disproportionately conservative "content" is meaningful, though. One hypothesis: hysterical lies are very good at driving engagement, possibly the best strategy of doing so, and Republican propaganda is largely based on hysterical lies. For example, hysterical lies like "the media and local governments have covered for Antifa violence against Trump supporters" or "intelligence agencies targeted Trump because he was outside the neoliberal consensus." "Engagement" is entirely a metric created by social media sites. When they found out it mostly measured the effectiveness of hoaxes and hate, why didn't they change it? (PS: it's because powerful conservative interests complained.) toterunner posted:More elite employees of federal government agencies are more likely to live in Washington D.C. , but yeah, that was probably a bad argument. But do you really think that all the narratives about the federal bureacracy clashing with Trump compared to other presidents are wrong? I think they are widely exaggerated, as much by liberal wishful thinking as by conservative conspiracy-mongering. But I also think there are obvious reasons why Trump, who largely dismantled bureaucracy even when it meant that the government ceased to function correctly, might be opposed by bureaucrats other than bureaucrats being "pro-Democratic". And characterizing government employees as "elites" is ridiculous. It's just repurposing similar "deep state" conspiracies. toterunner posted:How have you not heard about companies boycotting states because of legislation they passed on gay and trans issues in large enough number to get them to change it I think it's telling on yourself that you describe boycotts caused by anti-LGBT legislation as "anti-Trump". How do you feel about LGBT people, OP? toterunner posted:lots of major corporations signing on to statements pressuring facebook to make its content moderation policies stricter, I don't know what you're referring to here. What major corporations were doing this? toterunner posted:condemning Georgia's voter laws, This is similar to the anti-LGBT legislation. Georgia's voter laws were blatantly racist voter suppression. Is blatantly racist voter suppression a core part of Trumpism? Does opposition to blatant racism make you no longer right-leaning? toterunner posted:and condemning Trump's election claims? Which corporations did this? A number of press reports did report on the fact that these were lies, but I don't recall major corporations commenting on this. toterunner posted:-A number of corporations severed ties with Trump over comments he made when he began his campaign. I think it would make your argument a lot clearer if you were more specific about what comments. Because the only thing that fits the bill that I can recall is a few corporate social media comments mocking his vulgar misogyny. toterunner posted:A number of the things you list are things I said I can't prove but believe intuitively. Basically, I believe the whole right wing narrative intuitively and wanted to see if there was some some chunk of it that could be proven/nobody would disupute (I think its clear there is but maybe I should've phrased it differently as being about Trump/certain culture war issues rather than about republican/democratic lean). Corporations largely want to have uncontroversial, inclusive images, and Trump is a vulgar and noisy bigot. Making vague statements of inclusivity doesn't mean those corporations are "pro-Democratic" or "anti-Trump", but merely want to score some cheap good PR. But corporate PR departments aren't "elites", and generally do not reflect the personal politics of the (largely conservative) people who own those corporations, or have actual power in them. Are PR departments "elite"? For that matter, why did you bring up "the PMC"? How are salaried middle managers and people with professional jobs "elite"? Do you feel like adjunct professors, tax accountants, and pharmacists have some sort of elite status in American society? You are stewing in a fever swamp of propaganda of people telling you that all of the elites hate you for supporting Trump, and that everyone who dislikes anything Trump wants is an elite. The vast majority of your specific factual claims are either blatantly false or simply not provable. How did you end up on Something Awful, OP?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 09:26
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This is the sort of thing you see on any random conservative Facebook account or #maga twitter hashtag, though. That's kind of the point I'm struggling to articulate. There is a common Trumpist narrative about elite bias, that's definitely not about how elites hate Romneyism, and that at least they are definitely right about where elites side with on the relevant issues. I don't think I changed my definitions, I think you're confusing that with me readily conceding that I may have wrongly framed the issue about democrat/republican preference when its really about Biden and Clinton vs. Trump, or stances on specific issues which in the population as a whole break down along partisan lines. I think a truth brought out by this thread is that being an anti-Trump republican is common among corporate elites and billionaires, but uncommon among the general population. While I find it unpleasant to be called an idiot, liar, or acting in bad faith, and I think claims about unclear statements are almost always inconsistent pedantry, I'm glad to have my views clarified which was my point in making this thread. There are certain issues where the media (and probably academia and left liberal opinion generally) says Trump is a threat to democracy and that the republican position is bigoted or misinformation. These issues are the ones that animate the conservative narrative about a hostile elite, and they are ones where big donors and corporations have opinions far closer to democrats than republicans. That's my claim now. I'm not very interested in how much elites agree with the positions that characterized the republican party before Trump. Apparently, many of the people who think right wing underdog narratives are silly are interested in this. It makes sense, and its reassuring to see that stubborn delusions play less of a role in political discourse than I had thought. There may be good criticisms of my general narrative that aren't about how I'm not defining my terms clearly or how my initial partisan framing was misleading, like how elites that support Biden over Trump still support republican politicians who support Trump and play to populism while retaining Romneyist tendencies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 09:45
|
|
|
Let's take one example from OP's sort of rambling list of stuff: Delta CEO Ed Bastian, who issued a public memo to Delta employees that Georgia's voter suppression law was "unacceptable and does not match Delta’s values". Since 2013, he has donated about $37K to Republican candidates, $0 to Trump, and $2500 to Democratic candidates. Of that $2500, $1500 went to Kyrsten Sinema, the right-leaning Democrat in a state where he doesn't live. (He did, however, choose not to meet with Trump in a meeting about international trade law and national airline subsidies in other countries, in favor of going on vacation.) Is this someone fairly described as "pro-Democratic"? toterunner posted:There are certain issues where the media (and probably academia and left liberal opinion generally) says [...] that the republican position is bigoted or misinformation. These issues are the ones that animate the conservative narrative about a hostile elite It's possible that this is because the media and academics are all biased against Republicans, or it could be because Republican positions are bigoted and based on misinformation. The fact that Republican positions are bigoted and based on misinformation might even be a reason why people whose jobs are based on telling the truth and being taken seriously are largely biased against Republicans. Do you think professors and reporters hold an "elite" status in American society? If so, where did you come by that idea? quote:the media (and probably academia and left liberal opinion generally) says Trump is a threat to democracy OP, do you think Trump lost the election in 2020? One of the big reasons people hold that Trump is a threat to democracy is because he's refused to accept the results of the election. That's one of the places where he largely breaks from the politicians who preceded him, even those politicians who had a much stronger claim to dispute the way the election was resolved. quote:Apparently, many of the people who think right wing underdog narratives are silly are interested in this. The idea that right wing narratives are "underdog" is propaganda, OP. It's why Trump presents himself as under siege from "elites", to make you think he's fighting for the little guy (you) rather than lining the pockets of his billionaire self and people like him. Who's more elite: the billionaire real estate mogul with the open-ended line of credit from international banks, or street-fighting leftists? quote:Romneyist What are the chief differences between "Trumpism" and "Romneyism"? Because I've never heard of "Romneyism", even in fever swamp commentary. Also, how did you end up on Something Awful, OP? I can't help but notice you keep not answering that question. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 09:46
|
|
|
Your original post loses coherency of point within its structure after sentence 1 of paragraph 2. I can tell you have conspiracy-level amounts of this information on this, but I'm sorry, it just reads like you're brachiating aimlessly on a loose topic of conspiracy while straining to squeeze out a fart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 10:37
|
|
|
Once again asking OP to define elites and explain why “all billionaires” doesn’t count
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 11:06
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I don't know what you're referring to here. What major corporations were doing this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Facebook_ad_boycotts quote:Which corporations did this? A number of press reports did report on the fact that these were lies, but I don't recall major corporations commenting on this. Major, republican leaning industry associations did so in extremely harsh terms. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/business-groups-condemn-trump-led-insurrection-election-fraud-claims quote:I think it would make your argument a lot clearer if you were more specific about what comments. Because the only thing that fits the bill that I can recall is a few corporate social media comments mocking his vulgar misogyny. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/companies-dumped-donald-trump/story?id=32162703 quote:Corporations largely want to have uncontroversial, inclusive images, and Trump is a vulgar and noisy bigot. Making vague statements of inclusivity doesn't mean those corporations are "pro-Democratic" or "anti-Trump", but merely want to score some cheap good PR. But corporate PR departments aren't "elites", and generally do not reflect the personal politics of the (largely conservative) people who own those corporations, or have actual power in them. Are PR departments "elite"? I don't think delegitimizing the views of 45% of the population is the key to an uncontroversial image. Rather than PR departments making vague statements, the CEOs of these companies have made unequivocal denunciations of views held by this portion of the population and offered unequivocal support for a movement that has as much opposition as support in the general population. Corporations wanting to be uncontroversial supports my claim that they have usually tried to avoid taking public stances on contentious issues, and that its a big deal for them to do so. You accuse me of gish gallop, but I feel I'm making a few key points that are hard to dispute -big donors strongly favored Clinton and Biden over Trump -many large corporations have said or implied that positions held by a large majority of republicans are illegitimate ("unacceptable" in the words of the CEO you quoted) -Trump and the aforesaid positions are the basis of the common conservative narrative about elite hostility -This narrative is right about where elites stand -This doesn't prove that elites are actually biased, but I personally believe they are although I'm not confident in my ability to prove it (I'm pretty confident you couldn't prove that republican narratives are hysterical lies, though) Also, while I've backed away from the claim that elites are pro-democratic rather than just anti-Trump, Piketty's graph shows that the trend for the rich to become more democratic predates Trump. In 1948, 1964, 1976, and 1980, the richest 1% went about 20% for democrats. In 2000 it was 30%, about 35% in 2004, and about 45% in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
Have you considered that the people who you consider "elite" might become and stay elite by, among other things, having the barest modicum of simple human decency, making modern conservatism anathema to them? I think there might be something to that, myself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
toterunner posted:many large corporations have said or implied that positions held by a large majority of republicans are illegitimate ("unacceptable" in the words of the CEO you quoted do you think "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" is an acceptable sentiment, OP? do you think it's acceptable to a large majority of republicans? if yes to either, do you think the shrinking popularity of trump might be related to that sort of blatant racism? my counterfactual is that trump's strictly minority appeal is chiefly caused by the vulgarity of his bigotry, not "elites" ganging up on him. many of the groups you've identified are definitely not elites, like leftist demonstrators (BLM-antifa! in fever swamp parlance) and middle managers (the PMC, which i guess you picked up from the post-left somewhere? you never did tell me). whether the vulgarity or the bigotry is more important (and whether the objections are principled or simply practical politics) depends on the particular political inclinations of the varied groups who dislike trump but also dislike each other, many of which rarely make much common cause on anything else. quote:I'm pretty confident you couldn't prove that republican narratives are hysterical lies, though sure, here's a handy list of specific factual claims you've made that are hysterical lies.
also, how did you end up on SA, OP? Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
The Elites like both parties since both parties are their role in government is to protect corporations and free markets. People lean democratic for PR as can be seen herePT6A posted:Have you considered that the people who you consider "elite" might become and stay elite by, among other things, having the barest modicum of simple human decency, making modern conservatism anathema to them? You publicly show that you're a prodem rich person then you want PR and being a "good person" and a prorepub rich person then you want money. And in practice you support both parties who work together while pretending to fight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that elites vote for both parties, because both serve their interests, op.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:
What's something as egregious as the Hunter Biden laptop censorship that went the other way? quote:Social media companies' algorithms boost conservatives, but social media companies are nonetheless biased against conservatives somehow despite this. I already covered this. Its the difference between disparate impact and discrimination. quote:Intelligence agencies targeted Trump. A number of high ranking politicians and former intelligence officials said that the intelligence community would get back at Trump for dissing them. Chuck Schumer said they had "six ways from Sunday" for getting back at him. and then Russiagate happened. quote:There is antifa violence against Trump supporters (presumably because they are Trump supporters, and not because they're Proud Boys or some other white supremacist gang). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_4_Trump If your counter argument is that this Trump rally full of regular Trump supporters was attacked because there were a few Proud Boys there, remember that I just said Antifa attacked Trump supporters. I obviously wasn't excluding cases like this just because you "presumed" something I didn't say. quote:The media is covering up this violence. Media reports on Antifa violence routinely claim that its unclear which side started it. Even though Antifa and their supporters make sure to clarify that they believe in using violence to deplatform fascists, always claim that the people they fight are fascists, and every fight I've seen that has a clear instigation captured on video is always started by Antifa. I've seen reporters on twitter apologize for covering Antifa because people claimed it would expose them to harassment. I can show three incidents where the mainstream media didn't retract demonstrably wrong claims that favored Antifa, though one of these incidents involves the Proud Boys and one involves actual white supremacists. quote:Local governments are covering up this violence. Portland police had a policy of letting people fight it out and not intervene, because leftists had complained that they had previously been too heavy handed in breaking up political fights. quote:Jan. 6 protestors have been treated more harshly than BLM protestors. I've already addressed this. quote:The rich, donors, corporations, the media, the professional-managerial class, and government agencies are all biased in favor of Democrats. I started out saying that the rich were a wash in terms of partisan split, and I quickly shifted from claiming that elites were pro-democrat to saying they favored democrats over Trump. All those other groups are demonstrably democratic or anti-Trump on net, and its hard to believe that people being biased in favor of their side is a "hysterical lie." quote:A bunch of corporations cancelled Trump right at the beginning of his campaign in 2015. (It's unclear what "cancelled" would even mean in this context.) I just addressed this. If your response to my points is that maybe right wingers started those fights with Antifa, or the portland police policy benefitted the right, or that Russiagate was legitimate, remember that I said from the start that I believed these takes on intuition and couldn't prove them. I also said that you couldn't prove they were hysterical lies, which you wouldn't do by saying its unclear who started those fights etc. toterunner fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
toterunner posted:What's something as egregious as the Hunter Biden laptop censorship that went the other way? I'm getting disappointed in the conspiracy theorists of today. Just a bunch of warmed over propaganda from the Republican party. Open an actual book for once. I recommend "poisoner in chief" or "The Jakarta method" to get an actual understanding of the agencies that control the US and are primarily controlled through it's elite due to nothing more than basic classism, all of the three letter agencies are full of the rich because whoops, the only people the presidents knew to recruit for them were other rich people. In short, the people in power don't lean towards either political party. The political parties are for poor idiots like us to argue over so we can't figure out how to fight back. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
toterunner posted:I think that extremely destructive riots were allowed to go on which police could have suppressed Oh really? Where? There's tons of examples of police responding to peaceful protests with violence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
The OP seems to be assuming two things: 1. That because Trump's uncouth, erratic, and quite blatantly self-serving personality isn't what most "elites" desire in a President, this must mean Trump is some sort of hero of the toiling masses. 2. That because large segments of "the elite" proclaim support for all sorts of causes associated with "the left" (broadly defined) such as gay rights, this is evidence such causes are ipso facto bad and anyone who supports said causes is automatically doing the bidding of "the elites." The second point forms the basis for a lot of reactionary conspiracy theories about how the billionaire [Illuminati/Freemasons/Marxists/Satanists/Jews] are trying to subjugate [Americans/white people/Christians] via the promotion of "degeneracy." That's always a risk when one's analysis is restricted to opposing a nebulous "elite" on conservative grounds. Enver Zogha fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Apr 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 00:38
|
|
