Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 12 2023 09:13 JimmiC wrote: [quote] I doubt it’s positive when it spills into two of the most prominent members fighting publicly with one calling the other bitch. Behind closed doors with a united front would be healthy, not this, this was yet another embarrassment.
But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in.
If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is.
Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly.
Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure.
If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals.
Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too.
I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +
I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
I mean sure, it was never really a secret that getting 6 seats on SCOTUS would be extremely effective and difficult to undo. You’ll recall this often being cited as one of the more important reasons everybody should still vote Hillary despite their reservations. But Trump won, seats captured, we’re here now.
But what’s your point? Knowing you I’d guess you want to argue in a direction like “If Democrats can’t undo overturning Roe, then why should people bother voting for them?” But if you actually cared about pro-choice, and you were now looking at two parties, one of which would like to keep abortion legal, and the other can and will ban it anywhere they get the chance (including federally), why the fuck would your response be “oh, I guess elections don’t matter any more”?
I think I’ve said before that I see voting for Democrats more as damage limitation than as The Path To Fixing Everything. That, I think, would take quite a bit more than just filling out a ballot every couple years. But damage limitation still has a pretty enormous effect on the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted on actual humans.
But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in.
If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is.
Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly.
Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure.
If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals.
Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too.
I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +
I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
I mean sure, it was never really a secret that getting 6 seats on SCOTUS would be extremely effective and difficult to undo. You’ll recall this often being cited as one of the more important reasons everybody should still vote Hillary despite their reservations. But Trump won, seats captured, we’re here now.
But what’s your point? Knowing you I’d guess you want to argue in a direction like “If Democrats can’t undo overturning Roe, then why should people bother voting for them?” But if you actually cared about pro-choice, and you were now looking at two parties, one of which would like to keep abortion legal, and the other can and will ban it anywhere they get the chance (including federally), why the fuck would your response be “oh, I guess elections don’t matter any more”?
I think I’ve said before that I see voting for Democrats more as damage limitation than as The Path To Fixing Everything. That, I think, would take quite a bit more than just filling out a ballot every couple years. But damage limitation still has a pretty enormous effect on the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted on actual humans.
What do you think would be the ideal / best / fastest path to fixing everything?
On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote: [quote] Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly.
Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure.
If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals.
Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too.
I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +
I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
I mean sure, it was never really a secret that getting 6 seats on SCOTUS would be extremely effective and difficult to undo. You’ll recall this often being cited as one of the more important reasons everybody should still vote Hillary despite their reservations. But Trump won, seats captured, we’re here now.
But what’s your point? Knowing you I’d guess you want to argue in a direction like “If Democrats can’t undo overturning Roe, then why should people bother voting for them?” But if you actually cared about pro-choice, and you were now looking at two parties, one of which would like to keep abortion legal, and the other can and will ban it anywhere they get the chance (including federally), why the fuck would your response be “oh, I guess elections don’t matter any more”?
I think I’ve said before that I see voting for Democrats more as damage limitation than as The Path To Fixing Everything. That, I think, would take quite a bit more than just filling out a ballot every couple years. But damage limitation still has a pretty enormous effect on the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted on actual humans.
What do you think would be the ideal / best / fastest path to fixing everything?
The fastest path to fixing everything is for stuff to go tits up leading to a paradigm shift in US politics. The fastest way to accomplish that is for Trump to get re-elected and Reps to get a majority on both chambers+supreme court and just have at it.
If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals.
Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too.
I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +
I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
I mean sure, it was never really a secret that getting 6 seats on SCOTUS would be extremely effective and difficult to undo. You’ll recall this often being cited as one of the more important reasons everybody should still vote Hillary despite their reservations. But Trump won, seats captured, we’re here now.
But what’s your point? Knowing you I’d guess you want to argue in a direction like “If Democrats can’t undo overturning Roe, then why should people bother voting for them?” But if you actually cared about pro-choice, and you were now looking at two parties, one of which would like to keep abortion legal, and the other can and will ban it anywhere they get the chance (including federally), why the fuck would your response be “oh, I guess elections don’t matter any more”?
I think I’ve said before that I see voting for Democrats more as damage limitation than as The Path To Fixing Everything. That, I think, would take quite a bit more than just filling out a ballot every couple years. But damage limitation still has a pretty enormous effect on the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted on actual humans.
What do you think would be the ideal / best / fastest path to fixing everything?
The fastest path to fixing everything is for stuff to go tits up leading to a paradigm shift in US politics. The fastest way to accomplish that is for Trump to get re-elected and Reps to get a majority on both chambers+supreme court and just have at it.
While I agree with you that things getting worse might be the reality check needed for things to get better, it's also possible for things to end up so far gone that they're unrecoverable.
Sure, 100% agree that that would not be ideal or best. It would be the fastest way to instigate change though. People need to get burned before they stop sticking their hand in the fire -- it's human nature. It'd be better if calmly explaining that sticking a hand in the fire will result in a burned hand would lead to behavioural change, but logic and facts do not seem to work all that well when alternative facts and feelings are so much easier to come by.
On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote: [quote] Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly.
Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure.
If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals.
Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too.
I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +
I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
I mean sure, it was never really a secret that getting 6 seats on SCOTUS would be extremely effective and difficult to undo. You’ll recall this often being cited as one of the more important reasons everybody should still vote Hillary despite their reservations. But Trump won, seats captured, we’re here now.
But what’s your point? Knowing you I’d guess you want to argue in a direction like “If Democrats can’t undo overturning Roe, then why should people bother voting for them?” But if you actually cared about pro-choice, and you were now looking at two parties, one of which would like to keep abortion legal, and the other can and will ban it anywhere they get the chance (including federally), why the fuck would your response be “oh, I guess elections don’t matter any more”?
I think I’ve said before that I see voting for Democrats more as damage limitation than as The Path To Fixing Everything. That, I think, would take quite a bit more than just filling out a ballot every couple years. But damage limitation still has a pretty enormous effect on the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted on actual humans.
What do you think would be the ideal / best / fastest path to fixing everything?
I really have no idea. I know for GH the answer is “revolutionary socialism” but I’m pretty unconvinced that Lenin has the answers for us. I tend to look at non-governmental solutions (stuff like unions and mutual aid) as promising alternative routes, although I admit for a lot of problems the government is a necessary component of any complete solution.
I do think there’s a lot of transformative potential in clear, concise analysis. If you can describe the causes of a problem, its stakes, and the simplest solutions, in terms anybody can understand, it can get pretty hard to oppose you. In a few years even a lot of Republicans will be shouting your slogans.
Unfortunately a lot of problems are complex, as are their consequences and solutions; even if you can find good answers, communicating them is almost impossible. But still, something GH and I might agree on is that long-term mass political education is a necessary component of transformative change. We’re not gonna bamboozle people into it with marketing and slogans; the average level of political understanding about the nature of our problems, and of power in general, is going to have to increase.
If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals.
Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too.
I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +
I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
I mean sure, it was never really a secret that getting 6 seats on SCOTUS would be extremely effective and difficult to undo. You’ll recall this often being cited as one of the more important reasons everybody should still vote Hillary despite their reservations. But Trump won, seats captured, we’re here now.
But what’s your point? Knowing you I’d guess you want to argue in a direction like “If Democrats can’t undo overturning Roe, then why should people bother voting for them?” But if you actually cared about pro-choice, and you were now looking at two parties, one of which would like to keep abortion legal, and the other can and will ban it anywhere they get the chance (including federally), why the fuck would your response be “oh, I guess elections don’t matter any more”?
I think I’ve said before that I see voting for Democrats more as damage limitation than as The Path To Fixing Everything. That, I think, would take quite a bit more than just filling out a ballot every couple years. But damage limitation still has a pretty enormous effect on the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted on actual humans.
What do you think would be the ideal / best / fastest path to fixing everything?
The fastest path to fixing everything is for stuff to go tits up leading to a paradigm shift in US politics. The fastest way to accomplish that is for Trump to get re-elected and Reps to get a majority on both chambers+supreme court and just have at it.
You do realize that this sort of accelerationism accepts as necessary the harm that will befall folks incident to things going “tits up”? Not to say that’s an untenable view, but there are good moral reasons to view that sort of trade off as unacceptable
On July 12 2023 11:26 ChristianS wrote: [quote] Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too.
I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +
I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
I mean sure, it was never really a secret that getting 6 seats on SCOTUS would be extremely effective and difficult to undo. You’ll recall this often being cited as one of the more important reasons everybody should still vote Hillary despite their reservations. But Trump won, seats captured, we’re here now.
But what’s your point? Knowing you I’d guess you want to argue in a direction like “If Democrats can’t undo overturning Roe, then why should people bother voting for them?” But if you actually cared about pro-choice, and you were now looking at two parties, one of which would like to keep abortion legal, and the other can and will ban it anywhere they get the chance (including federally), why the fuck would your response be “oh, I guess elections don’t matter any more”?
I think I’ve said before that I see voting for Democrats more as damage limitation than as The Path To Fixing Everything. That, I think, would take quite a bit more than just filling out a ballot every couple years. But damage limitation still has a pretty enormous effect on the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted on actual humans.
What do you think would be the ideal / best / fastest path to fixing everything?
The fastest path to fixing everything is for stuff to go tits up leading to a paradigm shift in US politics. The fastest way to accomplish that is for Trump to get re-elected and Reps to get a majority on both chambers+supreme court and just have at it.
You do realize that this sort of accelerationism accepts as necessary the harm that will befall folks incident to things going “tits up”? Not to say that’s an untenable view, but there are good moral reasons to view that sort of trade off as unacceptable
Its the necessary harm with no idea of what you get at the end is actually an improvement in any way that I have the most trouble with.
Are there any historical examples where accelerationism worked for the betterment of all? I myself don't really believe in it, and I think it's just a convenient excuse for bored people who just want to watch the world burn. You think Hodor would've made things better if he just opened the door and let the wights through? I mean he very well could have just to spare us the last two seasons of GoT (and that would be considered a good thing), but I digress.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +
I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
I mean sure, it was never really a secret that getting 6 seats on SCOTUS would be extremely effective and difficult to undo. You’ll recall this often being cited as one of the more important reasons everybody should still vote Hillary despite their reservations. But Trump won, seats captured, we’re here now.
But what’s your point? Knowing you I’d guess you want to argue in a direction like “If Democrats can’t undo overturning Roe, then why should people bother voting for them?” But if you actually cared about pro-choice, and you were now looking at two parties, one of which would like to keep abortion legal, and the other can and will ban it anywhere they get the chance (including federally), why the fuck would your response be “oh, I guess elections don’t matter any more”?
I think I’ve said before that I see voting for Democrats more as damage limitation than as The Path To Fixing Everything. That, I think, would take quite a bit more than just filling out a ballot every couple years. But damage limitation still has a pretty enormous effect on the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted on actual humans.
What do you think would be the ideal / best / fastest path to fixing everything?
The fastest path to fixing everything is for stuff to go tits up leading to a paradigm shift in US politics. The fastest way to accomplish that is for Trump to get re-elected and Reps to get a majority on both chambers+supreme court and just have at it.
You do realize that this sort of accelerationism accepts as necessary the harm that will befall folks incident to things going “tits up”? Not to say that’s an untenable view, but there are good moral reasons to view that sort of trade off as unacceptable
Its the necessary harm with no idea of what you get at the end is actually an improvement in any way that I have the most trouble with.
Indeed, the uncertainty you point out here (as jimmi did too) is another complicating factor.
But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in.
If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is.
Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly.
Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure.
If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals.
Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too.
I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +
I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
I mean sure, it was never really a secret that getting 6 seats on SCOTUS would be extremely effective and difficult to undo. You’ll recall this often being cited as one of the more important reasons everybody should still vote Hillary despite their reservations. But Trump won, seats captured, we’re here now.
But what’s your point? Knowing you I’d guess you want to argue in a direction like “If Democrats can’t undo overturning Roe, then why should people bother voting for them?” But if you actually cared about pro-choice, and you were now looking at two parties, one of which would like to keep abortion legal, and the other can and will ban it anywhere they get the chance (including federally), why the fuck would your response be “oh, I guess elections don’t matter any more”?
I think I’ve said before that I see voting for Democrats more as damage limitation than as The Path To Fixing Everything. That, I think, would take quite a bit more than just filling out a ballot every couple years. But damage limitation still has a pretty enormous effect on the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted on actual humans.
I suppose there's a few.
People have convinced themselves for/by one reason or another that the US isn't the dystopian police state plasmid mentioned because it hasn't set its sights on them...yet (or it's not literally 1940's Nazi Germany). So they insist the only rational action for the groups of people they are actively coming for is to keep listening to the perpetual Democrat hold music and mindlessly voting Democrat. Oh and don't dare say Biden/Democrats piss poor performance isn't good enough, we gotta be obsequiously thankful and boisterously supportive (despite actually losing rights) or else their persistent incompetence/incapacity/unwillingness to act is blamed on us for "selfishly" demanding rights and doing so in ways that Democrats insist aren't "pragmatic" (while Democrats "paternalistically believe they can set the timetable for other peoples' freedom").
and
it does make me concerned about even the "best case scenario" where Democrats win the house, senate, and presidency and the Republican party implodes as a national party.
They aren't going to be replaced with a more moderate party, and Democrats will enthusiastically welcome an even more ghoulish opposition to run against to lower the expectations for themselves rather than lift up a party to their left and displace the Republican party. Then it's just a matter of time before you get someone with all the ghoulish intentions combined with just the right seemingly innocuous rhetoric/charisma (Trump demonstrates it's actually a pretty wide runway to hit) to mask them enough for centrists to turn a blind eye, and that's all she wrote.
As it sits it'll probably be a coinflip on whether Trump is the next president (how do you still pretend you live in a "nation of laws" after that really?) and Trump's party might just take power and never let it go.
Another point would be that by Democrat supporters own reasoning voting for Democrats isn't a viable solution but a (counterproductive imo) salve for their own conscience.
Lenin is certainly an important reference for What is to be Done but as Mohdoo pointed out earlier, Fanon and others have built on those ideas, and I believe we'll need all their work and then some. EDIT:
Christians: I tend to look at non-governmental solutions (stuff like unions and mutual aid) as promising alternative routes
Revolutionary socialists are supporters of unions and mutual aid orgs, also they have some important insight into how they've developed over the 100 or so years they've been working together.
On July 12 2023 13:35 Fleetfeet wrote: Lemme give you my perspective, then.
I know a lot of trans people on the internet. I'm friends with all of them, they're great people in their own right and it's easy for me when I'm not confronted with their actual physicality and the discomfort that might bring me to just accept them as who they are without having anything attached. In this way, I've experienced my own 'transphobia' and it's something I'm just not that experienced with. More and more, I take time out of my (actual, in-person) day to recognize people who don't seem to identify within 'normal' gender confines and make an effort to overcome my own implicit bias and greet / interact with them as I would any other normal person. I've spoken to plenty of people that have been marginalized for other reasons, and a typical chorus is that feeling of being 'invisible' except for in negative ways. It's something I can actively do in my regular day-to-day (I live in a big enough city to actually encounter gender non-binary etc) to help other humans feel human.
I think you are transphobic and sexist. I think 90% of people are, on some level, transphobic. Encountering an 'obviously trans' person really isn't that common, and like someone encountering an openly gay or openly german or anything 'odd' for the first time, there's bound to be some level of xenophobia or discomfort at the unknown. That's pretty natural. In my eyes, being casually sexist or german-ist is forgivable, as it's just borne of ignorance and inexperience. What isn't okay is when it is intentional. Sometimes that is people's way of 'keeping power' in a situation - introduce any man to the concept of sexism and the idea that genders are imbalanced in favour of men, and the initial reaction will basically always be to fight against that idea - accepting it requires accepting the loss of power on the path toward balance.
With that as context, I wouldn't put much weight on the word "Transphobic". It isn't or shouldn't be used as a condemnation, and typically shouldn't be taken as one. Even here, where you'd think we take ourselves as bastions of Trans rights, took like one page to get to "But what do women think tho" about the bathroom question, and afaik like 10+ pages for it to hit "Hey, should we ask trans people what they think?". We're all imperfect. The 'left' side of it is just trying to let as many people be themselves as possible, without having to put them into neat boxes we already understand.
To address the second paragraph - there is some level of natural bias, but there's also hundreds of years of societal bias. "Natural bias" has historically been used to justify all kinds of atrocities, I'd be careful swinging that one around.
(E - To follow on Drone - I've seen dozens of guys in fistfights and never seen a full-on catfight. I've never been in a fistfight but been goaded towards one plenty of times. Violence is definitely something I associate as a male trait and not something I've seen as often in women. I don't have data to back it up, but what Drone says fits my life experience so far.)
I’ll add the caveat that, well I don’t really care, it doesn’t particularly influence me whatsoever in my base position that trans people having their identity respected is just the right course. Just addressing this tangent.
Being a person who could probably name his local bar as his legal domicile, anecdotally I’d say women’s propensity towards violence is extremely underrated. It doesn’t tend to escalate because it can’t. If some feud emerges and men exist in either the internal group the feud is occurring in, or within the external groups feuding it trends to get defused by their presence.
As a crude aside my kid may be unbelievably pissed off at me, he can’t fight me. In the playground he may be unbelievably pissed at one of his peers, the teacher supervising had to pop the bathroom and then you might see a fight
You don’t tend to see cat fights because for them to properly spiral you need no dudes to be around to defuse.
On average, we menfolk are so much stronger in such a scenario it’s genuinely unreal.
The mother of my child was physically abused by someone I knew, the weediest little fucking prick I’ve ever encountered and I asked her once why didn’t you just fight back, he’s a chicken wearing a man suit? She said you really don’t get how much stronger men are, look I’ll come at you you subdue me if you’re skeptical.
Wasn’t remotely difficult, to a level that has stuck with me since. She was a regular gym bunny, me a sedentary alcoholic and still the disparity was fucking massive. Really gave me a much better insight into quite how intimidating I can be as a dude in all sorts of scenarios and I’ve taken that with me.
I’m just unsure what point Clutz was making, as I said this was a side point of mine. Women are plenty aggressive it just frequently manifests differently
But what, trans women are going to go around with the combo of (suppressed) male aggression and start a bunch of bar fights because people can’t rein them in? Bollocks as far as I’m concerned
On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote: [quote] Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly.
Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure.
If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals.
Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too.
I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +
I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
I mean sure, it was never really a secret that getting 6 seats on SCOTUS would be extremely effective and difficult to undo. You’ll recall this often being cited as one of the more important reasons everybody should still vote Hillary despite their reservations. But Trump won, seats captured, we’re here now.
But what’s your point? Knowing you I’d guess you want to argue in a direction like “If Democrats can’t undo overturning Roe, then why should people bother voting for them?” But if you actually cared about pro-choice, and you were now looking at two parties, one of which would like to keep abortion legal, and the other can and will ban it anywhere they get the chance (including federally), why the fuck would your response be “oh, I guess elections don’t matter any more”?
I think I’ve said before that I see voting for Democrats more as damage limitation than as The Path To Fixing Everything. That, I think, would take quite a bit more than just filling out a ballot every couple years. But damage limitation still has a pretty enormous effect on the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted on actual humans.
People have convinced themselves for/by one reason or another that the US isn't the dystopian police state plasmid mentioned because it hasn't set its sights on them...yet (or it's not literally 1940's Nazi Germany). So they insist the only rational action for the groups of people they are actively coming for is to keep listening to the perpetual Democrat hold music and mindlessly voting Democrat. Oh and don't dare say Biden/Democrats piss poor performance isn't good enough, we gotta be obsequiously thankful and boisterously supportive (despite actually losing rights) or else their persistent incompetence/incapacity/unwillingness to act is blamed on us for "selfishly" demanding rights and doing so in ways that Democrats insist aren't "pragmatic" (while Democrats "paternalistically believe they can set the timetable for other peoples' freedom").
it does make me concerned about even the "best case scenario" where Democrats win the house, senate, and presidency and the Republican party implodes as a national party.
They aren't going to be replaced with a more moderate party, and Democrats will enthusiastically welcome an even more ghoulish opposition to run against to lower the expectations for themselves rather than lift up a party to their left and displace the Republican party. Then it's just a matter of time before you get someone with all the ghoulish intentions combined with just the right seemingly innocuous rhetoric/charisma (Trump demonstrates it's actually a pretty wide runway to hit) to mask them enough for centrists to turn a blind eye, and that's all she wrote.
As it sits it'll probably be a coinflip on whether Trump is the next president (how do you still pretend you live in a "nation of laws" after that really?) and Trump's party might just take power and never let it go.
Another point would be that by Democrat supporters own reasoning voting for Democrats isn't a viable solution but a (counterproductive imo) salve for their own conscience.
Lenin is certainly an important reference for What is to be Done but as Mohdoo pointed out earlier, Fanon and others have built on those ideas, and I believe we'll need all their work and then some. EDIT:
Christians: I tend to look at non-governmental solutions (stuff like unions and mutual aid) as promising alternative routes
Revolutionary socialists are supporters of unions and mutual aid orgs, also they have some important insight into how they've developed over the 100 or so years they've been working together.
You won’t catch me telling anyone they have to be obsequiously grateful or boisterously supportive of Democrats. If there’s something good they could be doing, yell at them to do it. If they’re doing something bad, yell at them to stop. If they ever did something good I guess you could praise them but I can’t think of an elected Democrat that could use a bigger ego, so maybe just leave off.
But I still think people should vote for them, because there’s a lot of extremely bad, extremely predictable outcomes if Republicans get elected (including all those bad SCOTUS decisions!). It’s not a salve for my conscience, I don’t fill out ballots for therapeutic reasons, and I can hate myself just as much after voting for Gavin Newsom or whoever as I did before.
I don’t have a ton of optimism for the “best case [electoral] scenario” either, I think for some similar reasons. I mean, thinking about Obamacare, for instance: the Democrats managed to put together a perfect storm of unusual electoral circumstances to get the presidency, a filibuster-proof Senate majority, and huge margins in the house. That’s once-in-a-lifetime amounts of political capital. But even then, the only way you *can* get majorities like that is by winning a lot of purple and light-red seats, and the only way you can win those is by running pretty moderate Dem candidates. So even though you’ve got a lot of representatives with (D) next to their name, as soon as you try to make any big changes, you’re beset with infighting in the ranks. So you whip and cajole and compromise, and you eventually get a watered-down package your own people will pass, but by then it’s a byzantine administrative framework that only does a fraction of what you set out to do. Meanwhile there’s a very good chance some city somewhere will invent an interpretation of the Constitution your new package runs afoul of, which you could never have even hoped to comply with because it didn’t exist when you wrote the thing, and then it’ll be a near-run thing whether the whole thing gets thrown out. But of course, that process takes years to play out, and you’ll have long since lost your huge majorities by then, because any time you win big like that it’s virtually guaranteed a huge reversion to the mean is coming.
It’s weird trying to diagnose our system, because on the one hand, there’s enormous hurdles required to enact any kind of meaningful change. But meanwhile checks and balances on government power are continuously eroded. So is the problem that government has too much power, or too little? I think the answer is actually “both,” which seems like a contradiction, but maybe the clearer way to put it is that while the government’s explicit *restrictions* are continuously diminishing, its *capabilities* are too. With today’s government we could never create a system like Medicare, or create a national highway system, or establish a regulatory framework around medicine like the FDA. It’s not just that we couldn’t get the votes in Congress (although that too); those things required a coordinated societal effort involving building new things in cutting-edge spaces, planned and directed by top minds and supported by the government, but also society as a whole. That’s just unfashionable today.
So the government has quite a lot of unchecked power to, say, kill anybody around the globe (even senior leadership of foreign states!), with no checks or balances of any kind. But it’s still got almost no ability to look at a problem like climate change and say “Okay, we’re going to need a coordinated society-wide effort on this, with top minds of many different fields figuring out the best course and everybody working together to follow it.” It just can’t be done.
So yeah, I think no realistic amount of electing Democrats is gonna change that stuff. It requires a transformational change, but I’m not gonna act like I know what everybody else should be doing to achieve it.
Since the FDA is wildly inadequate, corrupt, and dangerous, I hope for something that does what the FDA claims to do, while actually doing it.
I don't feel like listing everything out, but I have deep experience with environmental toxicology within my career and I can think of numerous examples of the FDA flatly declining to impose extremely necessary standards, long after science has been shown to be conclusively true. They do the absolute bare minimum they can and are criminally under performing. I hate the FDA.
Many companies internally impose standards on themselves despite the FDA giving no reason to do so, because it is blatantly necessary and will only bite them in the ass down the road. Hard to put into words how inadequate the FDA and EPA are.
On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote: [quote] Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly.
Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure.
If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals.
Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too.
I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +
I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
I mean sure, it was never really a secret that getting 6 seats on SCOTUS would be extremely effective and difficult to undo. You’ll recall this often being cited as one of the more important reasons everybody should still vote Hillary despite their reservations. But Trump won, seats captured, we’re here now.
But what’s your point? Knowing you I’d guess you want to argue in a direction like “If Democrats can’t undo overturning Roe, then why should people bother voting for them?” But if you actually cared about pro-choice, and you were now looking at two parties, one of which would like to keep abortion legal, and the other can and will ban it anywhere they get the chance (including federally), why the fuck would your response be “oh, I guess elections don’t matter any more”?
I think I’ve said before that I see voting for Democrats more as damage limitation than as The Path To Fixing Everything. That, I think, would take quite a bit more than just filling out a ballot every couple years. But damage limitation still has a pretty enormous effect on the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted on actual humans.
People have convinced themselves for/by one reason or another that the US isn't the dystopian police state plasmid mentioned because it hasn't set its sights on them...yet (or it's not literally 1940's Nazi Germany). So they insist the only rational action for the groups of people they are actively coming for is to keep listening to the perpetual Democrat hold music and mindlessly voting Democrat. Oh and don't dare say Biden/Democrats piss poor performance isn't good enough, we gotta be obsequiously thankful and boisterously supportive (despite actually losing rights) or else their persistent incompetence/incapacity/unwillingness to act is blamed on us for "selfishly" demanding rights and doing so in ways that Democrats insist aren't "pragmatic" (while Democrats "paternalistically believe they can set the timetable for other peoples' freedom").
it does make me concerned about even the "best case scenario" where Democrats win the house, senate, and presidency and the Republican party implodes as a national party.
They aren't going to be replaced with a more moderate party, and Democrats will enthusiastically welcome an even more ghoulish opposition to run against to lower the expectations for themselves rather than lift up a party to their left and displace the Republican party. Then it's just a matter of time before you get someone with all the ghoulish intentions combined with just the right seemingly innocuous rhetoric/charisma (Trump demonstrates it's actually a pretty wide runway to hit) to mask them enough for centrists to turn a blind eye, and that's all she wrote.
As it sits it'll probably be a coinflip on whether Trump is the next president (how do you still pretend you live in a "nation of laws" after that really?) and Trump's party might just take power and never let it go.
Another point would be that by Democrat supporters own reasoning voting for Democrats isn't a viable solution but a (counterproductive imo) salve for their own conscience.
Lenin is certainly an important reference for What is to be Done but as Mohdoo pointed out earlier, Fanon and others have built on those ideas, and I believe we'll need all their work and then some. EDIT:
Christians: I tend to look at non-governmental solutions (stuff like unions and mutual aid) as promising alternative routes
Revolutionary socialists are supporters of unions and mutual aid orgs, also they have some important insight into how they've developed over the 100 or so years they've been working together.
What does "the US is a dystopian police-state" even mean? How do you define police state? Best I can tell the laws are barely being enforced where I live. You can go out on the street and deal drugs or shoot up and nobody cares. You can walk into a store and fill your arms with product and walk out and nobody will stop you. Hell, I've stopped obeying some red lights at traffic intersections if I've determined it's safe to proceed. Why should I follow the rules if nobody else is going to?
Is this what a police state looks like to you
Just casually using a blowtorch in daylight hours on a busy street to break into locked product then filling up your bags and walking out of the store? Although I'll give you the "dystopian" part for sure. The fact that stores have taken it upon themselves to lock up entire aisles of shampoo and shaving cream to prevent shoplifting because our laws are so poorly enforced definitely counts as dystopian in my book. Unfortunately this is happening most in progressive cities like Portland, New York, San Francisco, etc. so I think the scenario where everything goes tits up leading to a revolution is not going to be in the direction you're hoping for.
If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals.
Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too.
I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +
I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
I mean sure, it was never really a secret that getting 6 seats on SCOTUS would be extremely effective and difficult to undo. You’ll recall this often being cited as one of the more important reasons everybody should still vote Hillary despite their reservations. But Trump won, seats captured, we’re here now.
But what’s your point? Knowing you I’d guess you want to argue in a direction like “If Democrats can’t undo overturning Roe, then why should people bother voting for them?” But if you actually cared about pro-choice, and you were now looking at two parties, one of which would like to keep abortion legal, and the other can and will ban it anywhere they get the chance (including federally), why the fuck would your response be “oh, I guess elections don’t matter any more”?
I think I’ve said before that I see voting for Democrats more as damage limitation than as The Path To Fixing Everything. That, I think, would take quite a bit more than just filling out a ballot every couple years. But damage limitation still has a pretty enormous effect on the amount of unnecessary suffering inflicted on actual humans.
I suppose there's a few.
People have convinced themselves for/by one reason or another that the US isn't the dystopian police state plasmid mentioned because it hasn't set its sights on them...yet (or it's not literally 1940's Nazi Germany). So they insist the only rational action for the groups of people they are actively coming for is to keep listening to the perpetual Democrat hold music and mindlessly voting Democrat. Oh and don't dare say Biden/Democrats piss poor performance isn't good enough, we gotta be obsequiously thankful and boisterously supportive (despite actually losing rights) or else their persistent incompetence/incapacity/unwillingness to act is blamed on us for "selfishly" demanding rights and doing so in ways that Democrats insist aren't "pragmatic" (while Democrats "paternalistically believe they can set the timetable for other peoples' freedom").
and
it does make me concerned about even the "best case scenario" where Democrats win the house, senate, and presidency and the Republican party implodes as a national party.
They aren't going to be replaced with a more moderate party, and Democrats will enthusiastically welcome an even more ghoulish opposition to run against to lower the expectations for themselves rather than lift up a party to their left and displace the Republican party. Then it's just a matter of time before you get someone with all the ghoulish intentions combined with just the right seemingly innocuous rhetoric/charisma (Trump demonstrates it's actually a pretty wide runway to hit) to mask them enough for centrists to turn a blind eye, and that's all she wrote.
As it sits it'll probably be a coinflip on whether Trump is the next president (how do you still pretend you live in a "nation of laws" after that really?) and Trump's party might just take power and never let it go.
Another point would be that by Democrat supporters own reasoning voting for Democrats isn't a viable solution but a (counterproductive imo) salve for their own conscience.
Lenin is certainly an important reference for What is to be Done but as Mohdoo pointed out earlier, Fanon and others have built on those ideas, and I believe we'll need all their work and then some. EDIT:
Christians: I tend to look at non-governmental solutions (stuff like unions and mutual aid) as promising alternative routes
Revolutionary socialists are supporters of unions and mutual aid orgs, also they have some important insight into how they've developed over the 100 or so years they've been working together.
You won’t catch me telling anyone they have to be obsequiously grateful or boisterously supportive of Democrats. If there’s something good they could be doing, yell at them to do it. If they’re doing something bad, yell at them to stop. If they ever did something good I guess you could praise them but I can’t think of an elected Democrat that could use a bigger ego, so maybe just leave off.
Maybe not you personally, but you will in the next breath inevitably insist that oppressed groups tolerate the increasing deprivation of their rights indefinitely (there isn't even a plan to get potentially pregnant people's bodily autonomy back in the typical fertility range of someone whose first vote was for Hillary) and vote for those politicians utilizing the same threat that it'll get more bad more fast if they don't fall in line (undermining any hope for accountability).
But I still think people should vote for them, because there’s a lot of extremely bad, extremely predictable outcomes if Republicans get elected (including all those bad SCOTUS decisions!)...
It’s not a salve for my conscience, I don’t fill out ballots for therapeutic reasons, and I can hate myself just as much after voting for Gavin Newsom or whoever as I did before.
I don’t have a ton of optimism for the “best case [electoral] scenario” either, I think for some similar reasons. I mean, thinking about Obamacare, for instance: the Democrats managed to put together a perfect storm of unusual electoral circumstances to get the presidency, a filibuster-proof Senate majority, and huge margins in the house. That’s once-in-a-lifetime amounts of political capital. But even then, the only way you *can* get majorities like that is by winning a lot of purple and light-red seats, and the only way you can win those is by running pretty moderate Dem candidates. So even though you’ve got a lot of representatives with (D) next to their name, as soon as you try to make any big changes, you’re beset with infighting in the ranks. So you whip and cajole and compromise, and you eventually get a watered-down package your own people will pass, but by then it’s a byzantine administrative framework that only does a fraction of what you set out to do. Meanwhile there’s a very good chance some city somewhere will invent an interpretation of the Constitution your new package runs afoul of, which you could never have even hoped to comply with because it didn’t exist when you wrote the thing, and then it’ll be a near-run thing whether the whole thing gets thrown out. But of course, that process takes years to play out, and you’ll have long since lost your huge majorities by then, because any time you win big like that it’s virtually guaranteed a huge reversion to the mean is coming.
It’s weird trying to diagnose our system, because on the one hand, there’s enormous hurdles required to enact any kind of meaningful change. But meanwhile checks and balances on government power are continuously eroded. So is the problem that government has too much power, or too little? I think the answer is actually “both,” which seems like a contradiction, but maybe the clearer way to put it is that while the government’s explicit *restrictions* are continuously diminishing, its *capabilities* are too. With today’s government we could never create a system like Medicare, or create a national highway system, or establish a regulatory framework around medicine like the FDA. It’s not just that we couldn’t get the votes in Congress (although that too); those things required a coordinated societal effort involving building new things in cutting-edge spaces, planned and directed by top minds and supported by the government, but also society as a whole. That’s just unfashionable today.
So the government has quite a lot of unchecked power to, say, kill anybody around the globe (even senior leadership of foreign states!), with no checks or balances of any kind. But it’s still got almost no ability to look at a problem like climate change and say “Okay, we’re going to need a coordinated society-wide effort on this, with top minds of many different fields figuring out the best course and everybody working together to follow it.” It just can’t be done.
How/why people rationalize it is less important to me than them reaching the following conclusion.
So yeah, I think no realistic amount of electing Democrats is gonna change that stuff. It requires a transformational change
As for this:
but I’m not gonna act like I know what everybody else should be doing to achieve it.
Contrary to what people may perceive, (and to the displeasure of many) neither am I. What I will say is I did some looking around after reaching the conclusion you did (and hopefully more are) and it turns out there's a lot of people that have put a lot of time, effort, and thought into what that might be after reaching that conclusion long before either of us. I believe they have a lot to teach us if we're willing to learn with an open mind.
While I have obviously developed preferences for revolutionary socialism, I think discussions about alternative ways to bring about that fundamentally necessary transformational change and how/why it's critical to differentiate counterproductive palliative reformism from non-reformist reform while vigorously pursuing the latter/shunning the former would be unfathomably more interesting/productive than endless pages of "look at this stupid/threatening thing Republicans said/did/believe" that dominates this space.
But I think it's clear that's not what Democrats and their supporters want us to do. They always demand that we reach the conclusion that we must vote for the person with the D next to their name to mitigate (not stop or remediate) our oppression and never find an alternative that leads to a conclusion that isn't vote for the person with a D next to their name.
@Mohdoo: I mean, I’ve got my complaints about the FDA myself. But my point was more about the idea of *creating* a regulatory framework in the first place, going back to like 1906. That was something where as a government it was possible to look at an unregulated market like drugs, with a lot of cutting edge scientific questions around what a regulatory framework would even mean, and go ahead and build one anyway. It’s unfathomable to me that we could do something like that today (e.g. with unregulated markets like social media or AI).
That the existing regulatory frameworks are becoming increasingly inadequate too is only further evidence of the institutional decay I’m trying to describe.
@GH: Come on now, I’m not insisting that anyone “tolerate the increasing deprivation of their rights indefinitely.” If you or anybody else has a plan to get those rights back I’m eager to hear it. Saying “letting Republicans get elected will demonstrably make this problem worse, not better” is not explicitly or implicitly saying that anybody should tolerate it a second longer than they have to.
If you’ve got a way that *not* voting for the person with a D by their name would give those rights back, I’m very interested to hear how that works. Otherwise, filling out a ballot only takes part of a day every couple years. Why can’t we spend the other 364 days working on non-electoral solutions, without ceding control of government to fascists?
EPT
but as Mohdoo pointed out earlier, Fanon and others have built on those ideas, and I believe we'll need all their work and then some. 
