|
PhazonLink posted:listening to afternoon npr, and they're talking about some new herbal supplement notdrug call Kratom, never heard of it, but im a lame straightedge nerd. also i dont live in FL. (the guest journalist are in FL) People were doing kratom when I was in college and my aunt sold it in Florida years ago. Its main claim to fame has always been that its legal (or quasi legal), its weird to suddenly see it in the news. Im guessing this in response to exactly that uptick in stores selling it as a legal alternative that she was a part of? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jan 31, 2024 |
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
Because intelligence is not the main determinator for this type of poo poo? Our society massively rewards dumb people all the time, I dont know why the idea is shocking to you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 23:26
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:i.e. the old problem where people with hugely extreme views, but a few of them are on the left and a few are on the right ("I want to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry and build the wall.") consider themselves moderate rather than the "traditional" idea of what a moderate is and get mixed together with other "moderates" who actually have hugely different views. Wait, is that... not the traditional definition of moderate? Edit: Maybe I'm thinking of independent, I forgot those were different
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:It's not immaterial because the reason for this fork in the discussion is that someone introduced it as a whataboutism in the context of a discussion on age-related cognitive impairment, but you can't seem to see any further than this straw man "point" you have built up in your head. Your original defense was to state that it was correct and not mindboggling stupid. That you have since retreated from one point to another hoping to eventually settle on one that sticks while refusing to acknowledge your previous failed arguments is what I'd say is most material here. Your original counterclaim was effectively debunked, and this attempt to move the goalposts without admitting as such is simply exhausting and makes you seem dishonest, so, you know. Par for the course for people defending Trumps idiocy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2024 23:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:He was responding to someone else originally who was saying Trump didn't know what day it was or how magnets works because of his mental decline. sure, but his actual defense was that Trump wasnt actually being dumb about magnets but had a point, not that he's always been stupid. His counterclaim can be wrong even if hes responding to a claim that is also wrong. I am just sick of people bending over backwards to talk about how Trump is technically, or broadly, or vaguely correct when hes just not, especially in a conversation where Biden is getting criticized for something where that rhetoric would actually make sense but you never see it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 00:04
|
|
|
Raiad posted:I think that if one of the things that we're wanting that we can't always get is "at least the lesser evil isn't contributing to a genocide," it might be time to admit that there are no actual depths to what we're supposed to be willing to compromise. This is always what its about in the end, isnt it? Its not about trying to do good, or make things better - its about what is being "compromised" - your pride, your ego, your self image - and who and how badly you are willing to hurt innocent people on order to keep those intact. Unless there is something else the word could mean, here? I dont think there is, and think you just slipped up. Well, yall are right that pointing out your motivations is bad rhetoric. Its unlikely to get you on my side or to do what I think you should... but I dont think anything actually can, and "convincing people to vote the way we want" isnt actually the point of this thread - which you know, of course, because god knows none of you have any interest in doing that. FistEnergy posted:This is an incorrect, sneering, and just awful post. You're not going to convince anyone to do anything in this manner. It is 100% correct, and it is worth pointing out the truth even when it wont convince the people who would prefer to believe bullshit. This thread is not a political campaign populated by your perceived enemies, it is individuals trying to have a discussion about reality in regards to US politics, and there's nothing wrong with his claim even if you find it personally unconvincing. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 14:44
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:The genocide in Gaza is not hurting innocent people? It is. Are you trying to make a point?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 15:18
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Yes. My point is, that you are making the same trade-off. How? Where? By what method is my vote hurting people in gaza? How is my vote part of the cause of the undesirable effect? And if it were, how would it absolve you of the same or limit the impact of my criticism? The relevant question isnt whether people get hurt, its whether more people get hurt, surely? Mormon Star Wars posted:You are also making a determination of what innocent people you are willing to hurt in order to keep your values intact. What on earth is this sentence supposed to mean? I am genuinely puzzled as to what you are trying to communicate, and expect whatever it is that lead you to write this in the belief I would be able to derive some meaning from it might be part of the disconnect, because I dont even have a guess. Even if I agreed with your factual assertion, which is itself incomplete and I dont, and shared your values assumption (I assure you I do not, but Im trying to operate within a frame where conversation is possible so lets pretend I do) it feels like this is the bit thats supposed to make those things into some sort of point and it comes across as actual nonsense to me. edit: okay, I think I have narrowed down the troublesome bit. "Values". What do you mean by that? I am not familiar with a definition where "intact" is a modifier that can be applied to them. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 15:51
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Again, going back to your post: You are conflating a lot of different things here and basically, in doing so, admitting that my criticism is correct... which I don't even think you realize, because I am not sure that you actually know what values are, the way you phrase this? Someone's desire to see themselves as a good person is, itself, a moral failing. It is the thing you fall back on to appeal to instead when you've realized someone lacks any real sense of morality and values based arguments will not work but you still want them to do a thing. Whether is genuine or not is irrelevant - I did not accuse anyone of cynicism, I accused them of basing their argument on pride rather than values, and you are... affirming that that is in fact what they are doing? quote:Let's assume that they are making a legitimate moral calculus, here. You just spent an entire paragraph explaining why we should assume these people, presumably including you, are not, and arguably are not even capable of, making a legitimate moral calculus. quote:They are weighing up what they think the results will be of their vote quote:they are including the furtherence of genocide in their calculus, and they are giving it a very large weight, such that they think that it outweighs the other potential harms that might come. In your post, you portray this calculus as "Being willing to hurt innocent people" in order to keep those things intact. "Those things" being their self image? I'm having trouble following what you are ttrying to say quote:However, everyone discussing who to vote for is doing the exact same type of moral calculus. This statement is wildly incompatible with all the available evidence, and even the arguments you made earlier in this same post. quote:Even in your post, you say that their vote or non-vote will badly hurt innocent people - in other words, you are weighing what you think the outcome will be and deciding that if they vote third party or don't vote to follow their self-image, it will result in morally bad outcome. quote:The difference is where we are drawing the line, and that difference appears to be this: That some people include voting for a person committing a genocide as worthy as being included in the calculus, and others don't. Yes! Exactly! This is exactly my criticism, and I guess after all that your point is that you think I'm... correct? But you very much appear to have a problem with me pointing it out. quote:Again, the people including the genocide in their decision are not just prideful people who are too hung up on morality. They are engaging in the same kind of moral reasoning as you. The difference here is not pride or self-image or weak moral character or whatever: It's how much weight you give to the genocide, or if you include it in your decision at all. As much as you have argued that they are leading to "badly hurting innocents" by weighing the genocide more than local problems (whatever they may be - you don't specify which in the post) - they can equally point out that you are also weighing some innocents more than others, just in the opposite direction. They can not, by definition, be engaging in the same kind of moral reasoning, and you already expressly explained not just that they aren't but why they aren't? Also, I never, ever, EVER did anything remotely loving close to accusing people of being "too hung up on morality", if anything I did the exact opposite, so you're clearly misunderstanding something I'm saying, which might explain how you you wrote an entire post supporting my original accusation and thinking it somehow contradicts it. But seriously, you just spent an entire post by repeatedly claiming that we are making moral calculus in the same way... by explaining how we are not. That my criticism is incorrect... by explicitly agreeing with it. And that I am.... guilty of something? I'm not even sure what exactly. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:You can't actually know if they are operating 'without any real sense of morality'. Trying to make the discussion that you are operating from actual morality, and the people that disagree with you "lack any real sense of morality" is obfuscating the actual disagreement, which is the amount of weight the genocide should have on your vote. Arrrgh. I am also refusing to do that thing, so why does it matter if I can or can't know? Mormon Star Wars posted:That their moral calculus is purely based on self-image and not on actual morality. Again, this is something you can't actually know - you are just projecting it on people who are making a legitimate moral calculus that has different priorities than yours with regard to the genocide. I do not know if they have some underlying morality. I can not engage with on individuals. I can only engage with their actual arguments, and it is those arguments that I am criticising, and yes, I can know what arguments they are making. And the arguments I am responding to are specifically the arguments whose foundational assumption become clear the more they clarify them - arguments that only make sense if read as an ego argument. I am assuming they intend their arguments to make sense, so yes, there is an assumption there, and maybe I am wrong and they do not. But so far you have provided zero evidence they are making any "legitimate moral calculus", merely argued that I should assume they are, and have actually done the opposite, providing several reasons why we should think they aren't and that its okay if they aren't, which is just.... ??? Mormon Star Wars posted:The assumption that people that care about the genocide are only doing it out of their self-image I care about the genocide. Do you think I'm "assuming" that I only care about it out of my self-image? Do you even realize that your argument here is based on me not caring? You have to, right? Mormon Star Wars posted:Others don't agree and think that voting, or threatening votes, can actually affect change If this is the argument they wanted to make, this is the argument they would be making, but it's not. I already explicitly said my criticism would not apply to such arguments. Other criticisms might, but the arguments I'm responding to are not making that sort of claim. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:You aren't refusing to do the thing, you are doing it. What are you actually accusing me of doing? I thought you were accusing me of doing the thing I described in the quote, which I... very obviously am not, so it's gotta be something else. Mormon Star Wars posted:What, in this post, indicates that it isn't coming from a real morality and instead just from ego? "If we compromise on genocide and let it slide, where do we draw the line?" is a very pertinent moral question when the discussion is "we can compromise on the genocide since it's going to happen no matter what." I explained the indication in my original post. The word "compromise" only makes sense in that context if you're making an image argument, and not a moral argument. I am pointing out that it is an image argument. You are now attempting to frame even its opposition as an imahe argument, but it is not, and your attempt to reframe it as such as recognized. Image arguments are not "very pertinent moral question"s. They are only tangentially related to moral questions at all. "we can compromise on the genocide since it's going to happen no matter what." is not an actual argument anyone has raised made except you, because the people you are disagreeing with are making moral arguments, and that is an image argument. Unless there's a meaning of compromise you're moving here that fits but I am not familiar with. quote:Him saying that letting the genocide slide makes him think he won't actually be protecting other vulnerable groups if the line is dissolved isn't an argument from ego quote:it's an argument about the consequences (the implication here is that if they won't draw the line on genocide, it makes him think they won't actually draw the line on anything else.) Mormon Star Wars posted:edit: I have been very clear that this is about how much weight the issue is given in terms of voting. You may care about it - again, I can't know your heart, like you can't know the heart of the people you think only care about their ego based on the fact that they factor the issue into their voting decision, so i'll give you that - but whether you personally care about it, you are excluding it as a factor in voting, which is what the discussion has been about. You have been clear about absolutely nothing, and no? I suspect you are using a definition of "excluding it is a factor" that also means something different from what is obvious, since you've already explained twice at this point that my argument includes it as a factor and describes how it does so. So by whatever definition you are using here, can you explain (from a moral, not image based, foundation) why it should be/is "included as a factor" in the way you seem to think?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 18:49
|
|
|
Well one of the easy ways to tell is that they love to go after and attack people who actually do things to improve the state of the world, bit generally they make it pretty clear in what they say and how they act (and how they refuse to act) Its not some magical, impossible task, nor is it worthless to do. Should we just ignore people who seek to actively harm the cause because they claim themselves allies? Let them do what they wish, turn our friends into enemies, attack and demotivate people doing good work for the cause? That seems to be what youre arguing, that we should enslave ourselves to the desires of any narcassistic asshat who would like our subservience, because we are soooo incapable of executing even basic judgement in all areas of our lives? gently caress that. Also conflating it with "the deserving poor" is hosed, no one is talking about who deserves anything and it has nothing to do with anyone being poor. Literally at no point in your post do you even argue he is wrong... its just a series of excuses as to why we should ignore him being right, which is some dumb poo poo. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 15:15
|
|
|
The sorry truth is that almost no one on this planet is actually driven, politicallt, by material concerns in any real way, nor have they ever been, and the idea itself is sort of ludicrous if you've ever had to actually deal with people. The ones who are are the rich and powerful folks who you really would rather weren't (and even for them the material concerns are actually surprisingly secondary often enough) It has pretty much never been anything but a fig leaf.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The French and Russian Revolutions were pretty explicitly about material concerns… The only real "material concern" to play a major role in the American Revolution was opposition to the abolition of slavery, which along with your other examples just supports my point that the people making political decisions for material concern reasons tend to be the last ones you'd want doing it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 05:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Those are all material factors leading up to the war, though. They are not. There was no material impact of most of that on the people who agitated for and eventually convinced the colonies to revolt, or on the individuals who fought the war. Even then, the cry wasn't "No taxation!", it was "No taxation without representation!" - That is not a material conditions warcry, that is a political representation warcry. That is jockeying for power and influence, it has nothing to do with people needing to feed their families or hoping for better material conditions as a result. They hated the tax because it was insulting and disempowering far more than they hated it costing them money (although they certainly weren't happy about that). Majorian posted:I was responding to your claim here: Yes, perhaps you should read the whole paragraph where I said the few people are driven by material concerns and the ones who are tend to be the wealthy and powerful? But even then, they don't convince the rank and file to die for them on basic material concerns, they use shame and status and nationalism and religion and especially spite, a whole lot of spite, and all sorts of things that the common folk actually care about. When have they ever sold a war on "and when we conquer this territory, you'll all be a lot richer!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 05:50
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:For what it’s worth, you’re fundamentally misunderstanding how “no taxation without representation” was understood in its day. It was intended and understood to be an argument that the Crown had no legal authority to tax the colonies, not a rhetorical basis to gain representation. I do actually understand that representation wasnt actually the goal of anyone involved.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 06:30
|
|
|
Thank you for making all of my arguments significantly better than I ever could, hah.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:This is all tl;dr for "do material conditions motivate political and movement behavior?" is an interesting enough question but Im not sure why working with bad people towards a good end is inherently bad, the way you seem to feel it is? That is something literally anyone who improved things politicially has done. I can understand the important of limiting how much you empower their ability to so unrelated bad stuff, and why intelligence sharing could be a problem, but productive effort towards mutual good goals should be the goal, since you're never gonna get anything done by limiting yourself to working with people you agree with on everything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:There's a massive gap between "people I agree with on everything" and the poo poo that APP advocates for. I think we all have a threshold for what's tolerable disagreement Sure, of course, but I'm never going to accomplish anything if there are ever only single digits percentages of the population I can work with. Progress is always going to be mean working with people who are literal monsters unless you yourself are so monstrous that most of the population is better than you. I don't need to actually find someone tolerable to work with them towards shared goals. The danger of working with most conservative groups in particular is that they are often straight up lying about their goals and you risk getting played quite badly by giving them the benefit of the doubt, so the extent of beneficial collaboration often looks like "I wrote this bill and you claim to want this sort of thing so why don't you vote for it?" If you have to give them additional stuff you don't want to get them on board, then the original premise (that you were both working towards the same good goal, that there was ANYTHING you agreed on) was clearly false. It's an entirely different situation. Working together with a group of bigots to write and pass actual antitrust legislation is necessary Working together with a group of bigots to write anti-trans legislation that pretends to be about sticking it to big tech is something else entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
It's honestly great to see the FTC caring about more than just consumer prices and not relying on companies pinky promising to lower prices.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 20:25
|
|
|
What actually changed that has rendered teachers so powerless? Like how did this happen across the country in seemingly every single school so quickly?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
It sounds like the real solution is to cut class sizes and give teachers more administrative support for enforcement. Shame no one is ever going to be interested in doing that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
Every time I see the spending breakdown in US education, I just... I genuinely can't make sense of where all that cash is actually going. It doesn't ever seem to add up. "It's all just going to the rich schools" that would explain some of it, but there still seems to be a lot left, too, and it just doesn't make any sense. I'd really love if someone actually did like a specific school districts total breakdown, one thats having trouble despite on paper getting enough money, and tracked every dollar and where and how it was spent, a genuine deep dive, because something definitely seems to be wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:But we know where that money is going at least. Nobody is making a profit on public education like drug companies, insurance companies, etc are with healthcare. For healthcare, at least, a very surprisingly large amount of that money isn't going towards profits, either - a lot of it is spent on needless paperwork and other "control systems" that involve vastly increasing the amount of effort needed to do what should be simple tasks. I wouldn't be super surprised if education was facing a similar secret moneysink, where it's basically competition between two different groups trying to maximize their personal benefit in a mutually destructive way due to systemic issues. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Feb 27, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2024 20:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Teachers are the biggest expense, followed by operations, followed by "other," then teacher's aides or special education, and finally administration. It says "instruction" is the biggest expense, but that doesn't necessarily mean teachers, does it? And even when it does, it might not even mean teaching. I would hope that would be the biggest, though. This is a good reminder that I really wanted to get involved in the local school system now that I have my own house, I should get on that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2024 20:35
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I found the document they use to code all expenses here: https://rfa.sc.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Expenditure%20Categories%20for%20Dashboard%20FY22.pdf It actually is a really cool breakdown, and thanks a ton Hieronymous Alloy for posting it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2024 21:53
|
|
|
Eh, I'd argue plenty of voters are irrational, in that their votes absolutely don't line up with their values and knowledge, although they're irrational in the normal human "Using lovely heuristics in place of thinking things through because they don't like to actually think about things like that and have other poo poo going on in their life" and "saying and doing things in ways that they vibe with emotionally without any real thought as to what the consequences are likely to be" ways.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 15:57
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:If hating minorities more than liking security is rational, then the word rational doesn't mean anything. If what you're trying to say is they rationally pursue irrational goals, then sure. "Rationality" can only apply, by definition, to intermediate goals. All ultimate goals are irrational. Every single one of them. There isn't any way to rationally arrive at ultimate goals, that's just... how life works. The definition of rationality you are trying to use here is, I think, incoherent. How would one go about setting ultimate goals and underlying values to be "rational" to begin with? Rationality can only be determined in relation to those things. That said, a lot of voters are irrational specifically because they set intermediate goals that do not make a lick of sense in relation to their ultimate goals and values, for a whole host of reasons, but that's a different issue entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/peterhvideo/status/1765553068823675048 Did I miss something? Why is this happening?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Can someone explain to me what the supposed rationale is for banning tiktok but not FB or twitter? (I'm asking earnestly, I don't know much about the topic) Who owns it and runs it and has access to its data, it's why the bill allows for its continued existence and use if that stuff changes rather than just banning it outright. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:So straight up "the internet should be owned and controlled by the US" ? No? No one said that. Potato Salad posted:The fig leaf is domestic ownership of mass media. There's potentially cause there, but all anyone has been able to put forward substantively is Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Re:Your Children Are Being Controlled By Vampires In Their Cellphone Honestly I thought this whole thing was dumb on the part of Congress, but the response I've been seeing from many folks, including you, has straight up convinced me they are right to do so, and probably should have outright banned it. So you might want to reconsider the effectiveness of your rhetorical approach. It sounds like Congress actually had the same response, the more feedback they got the more convinced it was the right course of action. Arguing for your side badly can cause far, far more damage to your cause than someone arguing against you ever could.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 16:50
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yes and Facebook/Meta has been found to do all sorts of shady poo poo with their algorithms but at no point have they been punished for any of it There have been multiple attempts, there's a reason Zuckerberg is in front of Congress so often. Potato Salad posted:a great platform for allowing people to share the uncut realities of the American experience with each other Jesus loving Christ. Seriously, ban it all. Ban it all now. If this is the sort of zombie it creates, it needs to die yesterday. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Forums excluded, of course At least they came for the forums, and there was no one left to speak for me, so instead I spoke for myself and said "Thank god, I'm free at last."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
marshmonkey posted:So by the same logic we won't be having conversations about anything that looks bad for China? This makes me wonder, is China still doing it's genocide, or did they finish?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 17:24
|
|
|
hooman posted:I don't think that other countries should be passing laws forcing American divestment of meta and google Does America have investment in meta and google? Not that there aren't serious security concerns for many American corporations in regards to the American government, and it would absolutely be reasonable to pass laws to limit that susceptibility in widespread, widely used apps, just that the government doesn't actually own or sit on the board of the companies or anything to my knowledge, so "divestment" probably isn't the right word.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2024 13:23
|
|
|
DNA is a fine forensic tool and not junk science, cops are just... not, overall, good at their jobs, and that ends up reflected in how they use their tools.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
Trump has made it abundantly clear for his entire life that there is no such thing as justice in this country, but I gotta say - I am somehow still shocked every time it happens. Not just the monetary reduction, but the elimination of the other provision that prevented him from doing business in New York, I really am just... I don't know, not quite surprised.
GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Mar 25, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2024 21:31
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:They should build two bridges side by side. Then next time this happens, there will be one bridge left standing while the other is rebuilt. Isn't this actually how many bridges are built? I wouldn't be surprised if failures were part of the reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2024 15:05
|
|
|
The Democrats have forgotten how to sell a "rural Culture where it makes sense to vote Democrat" in vast swathes of the country. I love in one of the few areas where that culture still exists and is, relatively, strong, but it gets no media support, no political support, and lots and lots of open disdain and dismissal from supposedly Democratic allies to an extent that it has become unappealing in lots of ways. This wasn't always the case and doesn't need to be the case but I havent seen anyone, anywhere, doing even the smallest amount of effort that would be required to fix it - and with right wing media having been working exactly that angle for the last thirty years, a hell of a lot of work is required But really, can you imagine someone saying "I am a proud rural democratic voter, who likes [things that are both distinctly democratic and distinctly rural]"? I mean, I can and I know people who do say that, but they are all very old and can remember when that was a thing. I dont know a single younger person who could fit something into that phrase and believe it, and for most people politics is about identity. If there's no alternative, a lot of those folks are gonna end up turning to the right just because being a shithead is better than being an outsider, even if they'd prefer to be neither. (this is actually a big problem for dems even addressing other groups, and is one of the things conservatives have actually excelled at, probably because they are all grifters and grifters are good at that kind of poo poo specifically)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2024 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Care to give some examples? For "distinctly rural AND democrat", the ones I know talk about stuff like ensuring sustainable hunting, public access to ATV and dirtbike trails and lake beaches and areas to hunt in, keeping out the big chains to preserve local businesses, "responsible gun ownership" (as opposed to those lovely republicans who are cavlier with their guns, although the "responsible" gun owner who associated it with being a Democrat did still have a gun rack on his truck, again I don't know the details), running social services like shipping food out to old people stuck in their homes, one of them was big on unionization and "rural solidarity", loving with people who dumped trash and especially chemicals, and punishing people who broke the rules because "you're hurting all of us with your selfishesness", and being "pro-veteran" and taking care of military soldiers, taking care of the community, and being willing to invite someone who looks hungry over for dinner, and liking specific wrestlers more than other ones. Not that none of this were actually policy stuff, this was stuff they associated with themselves, individually, as a rural Democrat, things they did or tried to do, and not things they expected politicians to do for them, but rather doing those things meant that of course they were gonna vote for the Dem because that was just another part of that culture. It meant things like putting some of their land under conservation or at least letting hikers access it (opposing themselves against the sort of folks who post NO TRESPASSING signs everyhwere). It also wasn't universal, but there was quite a bit of overlap. I have no idea how representative these people are - it's only three people (one owns a roofing company, one was a fisherman, and I think the last one was in some sort of trade before he retired?) but that's the sense I got. I also have no idea how to create a modern version of that sort of culture. Discendo Vox posted:No. The "sell" is not the same as addressing needs. It has already been demonstrated that the Democrats do in fact address needs for this demographic. Do not conflate the performance of fear and hate with actual policy. What do you think the "needs" are for this demographic, exactly/ GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Apr 6, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2024 23:50
|
|