Elites lean Democratic, right?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Elites lean Democratic, right?

«‹›3 »

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

"Elites" are the "toxins" of political conspiracy. Even when it's not a thinly veiled (((elites)))

# ? Apr 26, 2022 01:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 14:24

Butter Activities: May 4, 2018

Also since this is the debate nerd gotcha forum I�d like to point out the title of the thread is begging the gently caress out the question and OP admits the original premise is entirely full of poo poo.

For the fourth time who are elites OP?

# ? Apr 26, 2022 22:57

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013; I REFUSE TO BAN GENOCIDE DENIAL IN MY SUBFORUM BECAUSE I BELIEVE PEOPLE SHOULD DEBATE THE GENOCIDE DENIERS INSTEAD

I ALSO REPORTED MY TITLE FOR SAYING I IGNORE PMS, VIOLATING D&D RULE II.2.B AS I DIDN'T CITE A SOURCE, THEN DID NOT PAY MONEY TO REWRITE IT BECAUSE I AM UNDER PROTECTION OF THE ADMINS AND I DO NOT IGNORE PMS

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE FORUMS BY PURCHASING AVATARS FOR ME

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.

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aware that some people seem to still have a narrative that elites are right wing, which I took as stubborn clinging to outdated ideas, and that tweet was just an example of that narrative I saw today and I wanted to see if there were any good arguments in support of it.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.

So if I understand this correctly, the reason you haven't provided a specific definition of elites is because you believe your thesis is true no matter what definition is used?

I think it would still be better and demonstrate good faith to choose a precise definition. You could just use one of the income brackets from the OP, presumably. But having agreed-upon terms is very important to good debate.

# ? Apr 26, 2022 23:11

Tnega: Oct 26, 2010; Pillbug

toterunner posted:

That person said I could retroactively change the definition of elite to suit my argument.

Tnega posted:

It is an impossible question to answer, because your interlocutor can change the definition of "elite" whenever it suits them.

I explicitly stated that *your* interlocutor (which, by definition cannot be yourself) could change the definition, not that *you* would.

For example in the original post you stated:

toterunner posted:

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.

Whereas I personally disagree that "corporations, the media and government agencies" are elites, as they are not sentient beings in and of themselves. It can be *useful*, for instance to *say* that the ACLU believes in defending and preserving the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. However, I do not believe that to be *correct*, the *correct* phrase would be that the ACLU consists on individuals collecting their resources (time, effort, and money) toward the goal of defending and preserving the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States in an organizational capacity. However, even typing the whole sentence out sounds really loving weird, and makes me sound like a pedantic rear end in a top hat, so instead we *say* that x organization believes *y*, despite presumably *meaning* that the individuals that compose it believe *y* generally.

# ? Apr 27, 2022 04:44

Ograbme: Jul 26, 2003; D--n it, how he nicks 'em

Jrod?

If the elites are overwhelmingly pro BLM, then why haven't any of BLM's goals been addressed?

toterunner posted:

Can you demonstrate it? I think that extremely destructive riots were allowed to go on which police could have suppressed,

Most of the destructive rioting was done by the police.

Ograbme fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Apr 27, 2022

# ? Apr 27, 2022 15:44

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

OP you coming back?

# ? Apr 27, 2022 16:12

Butter Activities: May 4, 2018

hi jrod

# ? Apr 27, 2022 17:08

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

wasn't posting enough libertarian stuff to be easily recognized as jrod. if this is him our boy has succumbed to media ecosystem pressure and become indistinguishable from a generic Trump supporter.

Disappointing if so, jrod was at least an interesting flavor of weirdo.

# ? Apr 27, 2022 18:02

Fritz the Horse: Dec 26, 2019; ... of course!

The OP does not appear to be a rereg of anyone active recently. Reports and speculation itt about them being a rereg are not necessary. They don't seem to be.

# ? Apr 27, 2022 18:17

toterunner: Apr 25, 2022; I AM ALMOST CERTAINLY "DAVID SMOLINSKI" COMING FRESH OFF MY BAN FROM THE ARS TECHNICA FORUMS TO SPEW MORE NONSENSE

Ograbme posted:

If the elites are overwhelmingly pro BLM, then why haven't any of BLM's goals been addressed?

Like what? A common criticism of BLM is that they don't make concrete demands. The two responses to this I see are that they are making the clear demand to stop killing black people, or provision of lists of hundreds of demands, neither of which is helpful.

It seems plausible that policy demands associated with BLM are unpopular with the electorate (defunding the police polls terribly but I've heard its substance isn't so unpopular when phrased differently) and its also plausible that accomodating BLM leads to increases in crime since both eruptions of the movement happened concurrently with spikes in the murder rate. Its also plausible that police officers who kill black people are more likely to be charged that they were a few years ago and that there have been changes in how police operate (there are studies claiming that police have become more passive to avoid situations where they'd have to defend themselves). So I doubt there is any evidence from supposed lack of response to BLM's demands that proves elites aren't overhwlmingly pro BLM.

If elites are just paying lip service to BLM, then why are they doing this despite the movement not being particularly popular and the narrative being really easy to criticize?

What I mean by the narrative being really easy to criticize is that black people account for less than 30% of fatal police shooting victims, but around 40% of cop killers and violent criminals in general. These numbers don't prove that police shootings are racially unbiased (I've seen a number of arguments about why this is, some better than others) but its suspicious that they're rarely mentioned, given that Trumpists are accused of being disinformers. Perhaps more importantly, well over 90% of police shooting victims whose names become well known are black. I've heard a number of explanations for this and the only one that isn't obviously flawed or doesn't involve a conscious attempt to amplify stories of black victims is that whites are more likely to be shot by police in rural areas. Why do mainstream media and corporate takes on BLM act like the narrative is obviously true, and never point out that media coverage wildly overrepresents the portion of victims who are black?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

toterunner fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Apr 28, 2022

# ? Apr 28, 2022 02:25

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

I want to be on the ground floor of the own the libs megathread.

op if elites lean democratic, why is it the racists are on the Republican side?

# ? Apr 28, 2022 02:43

Omobono: Feb 19, 2013; That's it! No more hiding in tomato crates! It's time to show that idiota Germany how a real nation fights!

For pasta~! CHARGE!

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

I want to be on the ground floor of the own the libs megathread.

op if elites lean democratic, why is it the racists are on the Republican side?

Oh, oh, I know this one. Pick me teacher, I know this one.

*ahem*
Lincoln was Republican, Democrats are the party of KKK, dems are the true racists, it's not racism it's race realism yadda yadda yadda.

Why do I know the answer :suicide:

# ? Apr 28, 2022 04:37

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

toterunner posted:

Like what? A common criticism of BLM is that they don't make concrete demands. The two responses to this I see are that they are making the clear demand to stop killing black people, or provision of lists of hundreds of demands, neither of which is helpful.

It seems plausible that policy demands associated with BLM are unpopular with the electorate (defunding the police polls terribly but I've heard its substance isn't so unpopular when phrased differently) and its also plausible that accomodating BLM leads to increases in crime since both eruptions of the movement happened concurrently with spikes in the murder rate. Its also plausible that police officers who kill black people are more likely to be charged that they were a few years ago and that there have been changes in how police operate (there are studies claiming that police have become more passive to avoid situations where they'd have to defend themselves). So I doubt there is any evidence from supposed lack of response to BLM's demands that proves elites aren't overhwlmingly pro BLM.

If elites are just paying lip service to BLM, then why are they doing this despite the movement not being particularly popular and the narrative being really easy to criticize?

What I mean by the narrative being really easy to criticize is that black people account for less than 30% of fatal police shooting victims, but around 40% of cop killers and violent criminals in general. These numbers don't prove that police shootings are racially unbiased (I've seen a number of arguments about why this is, some better than others) but its suspicious that they're rarely mentioned, given that Trumpists are accused of being disinformers. Perhaps more importantly, well over 90% of police shooting victims whose names become well known are black. I've heard a number of explanations for this and the only one that isn't obviously flawed or doesn't involve a conscious attempt to amplify stories of black victims is that whites are more likely to be shot by police in rural areas. Why do mainstream media and corporate takes on BLM act like the narrative is obviously true, and never point out that media coverage wildly overrepresents the portion of victims who are black?

An individual black person is twice as likely to be killed by police. You're understanding those stats a little backwards and also letting them just kind of hang out there in the air without much context or understanding. First, there's less black people in America so the proportional share of people killed by the police of higher for them than white people. And you're missing context. Ok 40% of violent criminals are black. Why? Without any attempt to say why you're just giving us a number.

However, I think you are absolutely noticing something with the media and public support of BLM. There is no one BLM group. There is no one set of demands or asks. You have Democrats who were making noises about defunding the police two years ago and now talking about how the police actually need more money and covering it all in supporting BLM and the police will use the money to finally learn how not to kill. And the news absolutely avoids talking about the police killing white people in the same way even though they do. Poor white people with mental health problems are often targets for the police but the majority of stories are of the police taking extreme pitty on white people. But I think what you have backwards here is the why. It's not out of some love of the Democrats. It's because it needs to be a fully racial issue to keep people divided. That's why you see these institutions and people who are very interested in the status quo latching into BLM and other movements. It makes them look good, defangs those movements, and keeps the conversation on race and actively attacking any class conversation which surprise, ends up driving away people like you who could be allies. It's to create false divisions.

Honestly I think if you are noticing this and are asking questions you can figure this out but you need to stop seeing it as a racial issue or a Democrats vs. Republicans issue. There are few actual conspiracies out there. There are however many instances of humans who want the same things working in tandem because well, they want the same thing. There isn't some grand plan, they're just copying each other like the great apes we are. What you're seeing is just a bunch of people who are currently really successful being invested in the status quo wanting to keep things the way they are because, well, they're really successful. And because they have that interest they make similar decisions and share ideas and use their influence to change the world around them like anyone else would. They just have a lot of influence because again, they're currently really successful. Mind you, success doesn't mean anything but luck. You know, the reason it seems like everyone in the media talks and thinks the same is because the only people who can afford to go to school and then take those jobs are the kids of the rich. They have the connections that give them the way in and you and I, regardless of skin color, will not be allowed in. We are denied.

Also, to try to answer the original question, eh, not really. They are just a bunch of people who rule the world because they have a lot of money and the way things currently work having a lot of money let's you rule the world. They lean each way based on what they think will continue their success, improve it, and keep you from succeeding because they are successful in a world where only many people can win. Both parties and the upper class are all playing defense.

# ? Apr 28, 2022 04:44

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

toterunner posted:

Like what? A common criticism of BLM is that they don't make concrete demands. The two responses to this I see are that they are making the clear demand to stop killing black people, or provision of lists of hundreds of demands, neither of which is helpful.

It seems plausible that policy demands associated with BLM are unpopular with the electorate (defunding the police polls terribly but I've heard its substance isn't so unpopular when phrased differently) and its also plausible that accomodating BLM leads to increases in crime since both eruptions of the movement happened concurrently with spikes in the murder rate. Its also plausible that police officers who kill black people are more likely to be charged that they were a few years ago and that there have been changes in how police operate (there are studies claiming that police have become more passive to avoid situations where they'd have to defend themselves). So I doubt there is any evidence from supposed lack of response to BLM's demands that proves elites aren't overhwlmingly pro BLM.

If elites are just paying lip service to BLM, then why are they doing this despite the movement not being particularly popular and the narrative being really easy to criticize?

What I mean by the narrative being really easy to criticize is that black people account for less than 30% of fatal police shooting victims, but around 40% of cop killers and violent criminals in general. These numbers don't prove that police shootings are racially unbiased (I've seen a number of arguments about why this is, some better than others) but its suspicious that they're rarely mentioned, given that Trumpists are accused of being disinformers. Perhaps more importantly, well over 90% of police shooting victims whose names become well known are black. I've heard a number of explanations for this and the only one that isn't obviously flawed or doesn't involve a conscious attempt to amplify stories of black victims is that whites are more likely to be shot by police in rural areas. Why do mainstream media and corporate takes on BLM act like the narrative is obviously true, and never point out that media coverage wildly overrepresents the portion of victims who are black?

mate are you allergic to clearly defining your premises? like cmon, just define "elite" in a concise, coherent manner

# ? Apr 28, 2022 05:41

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

This is ops version of elites is the happy merchant. He can't exactly post the photo but he can describe the merchants outline and hope you are "a true believer" enough to know what shape his description makes.

# ? Apr 28, 2022 05:48

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

toterunner posted:

Like what? A common criticism of BLM is that they don't make concrete demands. The two responses to this I see are that they are making the clear demand to stop killing black people, or provision of lists of hundreds of demands, neither of which is helpful.

It seems plausible that policy demands associated with BLM are unpopular with the electorate (defunding the police polls terribly but I've heard its substance isn't so unpopular when phrased differently) and its also plausible that accomodating BLM leads to increases in crime since both eruptions of the movement happened concurrently with spikes in the murder rate. Its also plausible that police officers who kill black people are more likely to be charged that they were a few years ago and that there have been changes in how police operate (there are studies claiming that police have become more passive to avoid situations where they'd have to defend themselves). So I doubt there is any evidence from supposed lack of response to BLM's demands that proves elites aren't overhwlmingly pro BLM.

If elites are just paying lip service to BLM, then why are they doing this despite the movement not being particularly popular and the narrative being really easy to criticize?

What I mean by the narrative being really easy to criticize is that black people account for less than 30% of fatal police shooting victims, but around 40% of cop killers and violent criminals in general. These numbers don't prove that police shootings are racially unbiased (I've seen a number of arguments about why this is, some better than others) but its suspicious that they're rarely mentioned, given that Trumpists are accused of being disinformers. Perhaps more importantly, well over 90% of police shooting victims whose names become well known are black. I've heard a number of explanations for this and the only one that isn't obviously flawed or doesn't involve a conscious attempt to amplify stories of black victims is that whites are more likely to be shot by police in rural areas. Why do mainstream media and corporate takes on BLM act like the narrative is obviously true, and never point out that media coverage wildly overrepresents the portion of victims who are black?

Its neat that you posted numbers but no sources

# ? Apr 28, 2022 07:35

lllllllllllllllllll: Feb 28, 2010; Now the scene's lighting is perfect!

Their very democratic and they do everything they can to make our society more democratic (thanks, by the way, if you read this).

# ? Apr 28, 2022 08:36

Staluigi: Jun 22, 2021; thermodynamics cheated

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

This is ops version of elites is the happy merchant. He can't exactly post the photo but he can describe the merchants outline and hope you are "a true believer" enough to know what shape his description makes.

You can't cut ahead in the plot. This has to play out!

# ? Apr 28, 2022 09:06

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

Most of the original BLM leaders were found from two gunshots to the back of the head in cars coated with accelerants and set on fire, which the police declared to be suicides.

# ? Apr 28, 2022 09:59

toterunner: Apr 25, 2022; I AM ALMOST CERTAINLY "DAVID SMOLINSKI" COMING FRESH OFF MY BAN FROM THE ARS TECHNICA FORUMS TO SPEW MORE NONSENSE

Jaxyon posted:

Its neat that you posted numbers but no sources

This shows that 1595/5950 ~ 27% of police shooting victims between 2015 and 2022 were black. This says that 224/563 ~ 40% of cop killers from 2005-2014 were black (afaik this is the last time this data were published) and this says that 36.4 % of violent criminals in 2019 were black.

# ? Apr 28, 2022 11:19

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

Those statistics certainly show what the police report.

# ? Apr 28, 2022 12:09

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

toterunner posted:

This shows that 1595/5950 ~ 27% of police shooting victims between 2015 and 2022 were black. This says that 224/563 ~ 40% of cop killers from 2005-2014 were black (afaik this is the last time this data were published) and this says that 36.4 % of violent criminals in 2019 were black.

Could you explain to the class what those numbers mean to you?

# ? Apr 28, 2022 13:40

Ograbme: Jul 26, 2003; D--n it, how he nicks 'em

OP do you believe that the police are part of the elites?

toterunner posted:

[and its also plausible that accomodating BLM leads to increases in crime

In what way have the elites accommodated BLM?

quote:

If elites are just paying lip service to BLM, then why are they doing this despite the movement not being particularly popular and the narrative being really easy to criticize?

They pay lip service to BLM because it makes them look and feel good. They don't actually do anything for BLM because it runs counter to their interests.

quote:

black crime statistics

At least 40% of police are violent criminals. Does this mean that they aren't allowed to complain when a black cop killer strangles them to death in a parking lot?

# ? Apr 28, 2022 13:50

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

It doesn't matter which of the two parties the wealthy support more. What matters is they only support these two parties and, through this and media ownership, manipulate the entire political landscape to their whims.

# ? Apr 28, 2022 14:15

Lib and let die: Aug 26, 2004

op the elites (the people behind corporations, their board, their c-suite ghouls, whatever) lean democratic because the democrats pose no threat to ROI. they get to get social score++ points for telegraphing that, i don't know, let's say Lockheed Martin "welcomes and encourages all [minority] group jobseekers to apply with us!" because having a trans drone maintenance team isn't going to somehow make pro-war democrats less war-hawky.

# ? Apr 28, 2022 14:35

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

I want to be on the ground floor of the own the libs megathread.

op if elites lean democratic, why is it the racists are on the Republican side?

systemic racism is systemic, "the" racists are everywhere.

# ? Apr 28, 2022 14:38

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Op I have information that shows the elites are constantly going to Israel. Would you like to know more?

# ? Apr 28, 2022 16:01

Butter Activities: May 4, 2018

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Op I have information that shows the elites are constantly going to Israel. Would you like to know more?

No those are the good ones unlike the rootless elites that OP cannot define

# ? Apr 28, 2022 18:48

mastershakeman: Oct 28, 2008; by vyelkin

re: the op; yes

# ? Apr 28, 2022 19:30

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Where did the op go?? Hoping we can open the discussion up to phrenology so we can find the elites he can't seem to identify

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Apr 28, 2022 20:56

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Where did the op go?? Hoping we can open the discussion up to phrenology so we can find the elites he can't seem to identify

Mods are afraid of his truth

# ? Apr 28, 2022 22:20

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Koos Group posted:

So if I understand this correctly, the reason you haven't provided a specific definition of elites is because you believe your thesis is true no matter what definition is used?

I think it would still be better and demonstrate good faith to choose a precise definition. You could just use one of the income brackets from the OP, presumably. But having agreed-upon terms is very important to good debate.

Elites are people who have a gold or silver dragon around their nameplate. They usually have better drops than normal people.

# ? Apr 29, 2022 06:21

Rob Filter: Jan 19, 2009

Whenever someone in a political space argues for a fact or philosophy that has no direct ties to electoral politics, its reasonable to assume their going to smuggle in some kind of directly electoral argument alongside it, usually an argument that is too outside the space's overton window to get screentime. e.g. I've seen people argue for "incrementalism" when what they actually want to argue is opposing measures to abolish poverty.

I did not expect that "Elites lean democrat" to be smuggling in racist BLM conspiracy theories couched behind weasel words and hypotheticals - my first guess was lowering the minimum wage. Is this the usual argument hiding alongside "THE ELITES!", or does the right just use "THE ELITES!" to argue any old reactionary thing?

edit:

toterunner posted:

Corporations seemed to unanimously come out in favor of the Black lives Matter movement (snip). They've also come out against Trump's election claims, republican voting rights legislation, and republican legislation on LGBT issues.

NVM I think the OP has already answered my question - its just any old reactionary thing.

Also I laughed at the bolded, that's hands down the most disingenuous way I've ever heard anyone say "voter suppression." Usually its "voting security" or "voting integrity" or something, but just the outright reversal here has some big "right to work" rhetorical energy.

Rob Filter fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Apr 29, 2022

# ? Apr 29, 2022 06:42

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

empty whippet box posted:

Elites are people who have a gold or silver dragon around their nameplate. They usually have better drops than normal people.

I thought Silver simply meant rare mobs! Oh no!

# ? Apr 29, 2022 07:04

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Rob Filter posted:

Whenever someone in a political space argues for a fact or philosophy that has no direct ties to electoral politics, its reasonable to assume their going to smuggle in some kind of directly electoral argument alongside it, usually an argument that is too outside the space's overton window to get screentime. e.g. I've seen people argue for "incrementalism" when what they actually want to argue is opposing measures to abolish poverty.

I did not expect that "Elites lean democrat" to be smuggling in racist BLM conspiracy theories couched behind weasel words and hypotheticals - my first guess was lowering the minimum wage. Is this the usual argument hiding alongside "THE ELITES!", or does the right just use "THE ELITES!" to argue any old reactionary thing?

in fairness, THE ELITES can be used to argue for pretty much everything except a few flavors of technocracy. the existence of powerful people who don't have your best interests at heart is pretty uncontroversial across the political spectrum at the moment, and the term THE ELITES is vague enough to always encompass everyone who opposes you, while not including anyone who supports you.

as an example, THE ELITES are what killed Build Back Better, THE ELITES are what brought the Supreme Court to 6/3, THE ELITES are what ruined the NFL catch rules, and THE ELITES are the reason America has given up on trying to fight coronavirus. none of that is a wrong statement, but it's also nowhere near useful.

# ? Apr 29, 2022 07:04

Rob Filter: Jan 19, 2009

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

in fairness, THE ELITES can be used to argue for pretty much everything except a few flavors of technocracy. the existence of powerful people who don't have your best interests at heart is pretty uncontroversial across the political spectrum at the moment, and the term THE ELITES is vague enough to always encompass everyone who opposes you, while not including anyone who supports you.

as an example, THE ELITES are what killed Build Back Better, THE ELITES are what brought the Supreme Court to 6/3, THE ELITES are what ruined the NFL catch rules, and THE ELITES are the reason America has given up on trying to fight coronavirus. none of that is a wrong statement, but it's also nowhere near useful.

That's a really interesting point! "THE ELITES" as synonym for "People with power over you", with who exactly has power left as a vague exercise for the reader. Meaning that each person viewing your argument can come to their own separate-perhaps-contradictory version of who "THE ELITES" are.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

THE ELITES are what ruined the NFL catch rules

That line made me laugh out loud.

# ? Apr 29, 2022 07:19

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

The Elites are obviously the La Li Lu Le Lo!

# ? Apr 29, 2022 20:18

Enver Zogha: Nov 12, 2008; The modern revisionists and reactionaries call us Stalinists, thinking that they insult us and, in fact, that is what they have in mind. But, on the contrary, they glorify us with this epithet; it is an honor for us to be Stalinists.

Rob Filter posted:

That's a really interesting point! "THE ELITES" as synonym for "People with power over you", with who exactly has power left as a vague exercise for the reader. Meaning that each person viewing your argument can come to their own separate-perhaps-contradictory version of who "THE ELITES" are.

I think another factor to consider is that if you assume that capitalism is glorious, you can't really critically analyze it. So, naturally, you need to figure out who the bad individual capitalists are that ruin capitalism for the rest of us.

Conservatives, as ostensible defenders of the cultural status quo, have to explain why things same-sex marriage end up triumphing despite conservative resistance. As a result, conservatives are more likely to fixate on "elites" not just among particular "bad" capitalists, but also academia and pop culture. It's how you can see conservative pundits be like "argh these Hollywood weirdos like Sean Penn live in mansions and think they can talk down to us God-fearing all-American patriots," and that public schools are quietly rearing a generation of transgender communist revolutionaries in accordance with the dastardly theories of Antonio Gramsci or whatever.

So a typical liberal will be like "argh [insert particular capitalists] donate money to the Republican Party to get richer, not caring about democracy or the environment" and argue the solution is to vote Democrat. Whereas a typical conservative is more likely to espouse culture-based conspiracy theories about how "liberal elite" career politicians, journalists, and professors want to emasculate men in order to set up a socialist dictatorship which will be ruled by Marxist-infiltrated Big Tech in alliance with blue-haired feminists, or some variation of the theme. The presence of "bad" capitalists isn't usually absent in conservative narratives, but it's generally a specific group of "globalists" or other "un-Americans" and the capitalists in question are accused of being communists and/or seeking to promote "degeneracy."

Enver Zogha fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Apr 30, 2022

# ? Apr 29, 2022 22:15

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

It's funny how the New York Times just published a feature on Tucker Carlson. Among other things, Carlson's list of "elites" and their interests mirrors the OP's almost exactly.

THE ELITES is just standard us-versus-them with the implication that "us" is the underdog, and it shows up in pretty much all American political rhetoric. The specific takes and topics are striking, though.

I still wonder how someone ended up registering for the Something Awful forums in 2022 just to post bog-standard Fox News stuff though.

# ? May 1, 2022 08:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 14:24

Butter Activities: May 4, 2018

Weird that oil or defense/intel contractor influence aren't part of THE ELITE

I guess they're not jewi- uh coastal, yeah coastal elites unlike the media and "big tech" elite. That doesn't include Peter Thiel or Musk for some reason. Or the Murdochs.

# ? May 1, 2022 13:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Elites lean Democratic, right?

«‹›3 »