|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 25 2024 04:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 04:01 oBlade wrote:
I remain deeply concerned by the normalization of a nominee for president calling their opponent Hitler while he gets shot at, and of her allies doing the same thing, despite your desire to whitewash it when you yourself brought it up. I find it to be intimately intertwined with the question of why calling people a fascist, and Hitler, isn't as dissuasive as you expect it should be, or wish it were.
Would you care to go on record disavowing Johnny Kelly's comments, or Kamabla's, or both? Case in point: I'm going to ignore your terrible attempt at baiting me for a second time  I appreciate you letting me practice with you <3
Direct questions are not bait.
Your initial whole analysis and question is predicated on a false assumption. The reason Drumpf voters would not be convinced by Kelly or Kamala calling him Hitler is not that they are the wrong person. Not that Kelly simply isn't influential enough, even though he isn't. It's that the content is wrong and people know it. You don't need to find the right person to call him Hitler to sway a huge mass of what you believe are immovable cult members. You can get the super most influential person, and if they say something as daft as Drumpf is Hitler all they do is tank their own reputation with his voters because the content is equally nonsense no matter who said it.
You need better ideas before worrying about messengers. If you continue not to disavow the content of the comments, you'll continue to mistakenly believe you just need to put a different face to them. That's only part of how people decide things. Mainly they look at ideas. As you and Gorsameth and others are keen to remind everyone, his own running mate called him Hitler - and then changed his mind, a memo that has apparently eluded the eyes of Gorsameth. The level of person and level of clout you need to sway people is inversely correlated to the quality of the idea itself. If you have an amazing idea, it will spread like wildfire no matter who says it. If you have a shitty idea, you need very influential people indeed for it to get any traction. This is the issue your simplistic question missed. The fact that you are now searching, apparently in vain, for someone who could possibly have enough influence to get this shitty idea rolling with Drumpf voters to turn them away from him - speaks to the fact that there simply is no message of value. "Maybe Joe Rogan? Maybe The Pope? Who hasn't called him fascist yet that we could exploit?"
|
On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this.
They Cant Help Themselves
It's not just here, it's like this all over US politics all the way up to Trump and Harris. You'll note the trans person TL had contributing to this thread didn't feel "defended" by libs persistent self-congratulatory engagement with transphobic (or whatever other MAGA) nonsense either.
|
On October 25 2024 03:02 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 01:06 Razyda wrote:On October 25 2024 00:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 00:36 Razyda wrote:On October 24 2024 12:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:John Kelly, one of Trump's chiefs of staff during his presidency, recently called Trump an authoritarian and a person who meets the definition of fascist. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/john-kelly-says-donald-trump-meets-definition-fascist-rcna176706 I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion. That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else? At this point I think only person being able to do it, is Trump himself by doing something monumentally stupid (we talking being caught on video being sh...ed by Putin, or promising to bring back slavery) other than that, Trump dying, or Kamala getting 9.5 billion votes, he is going to be president. I do agree with you that Trump would essentially be his own worst enemy in a hypothetical case of who could damage Trump the most. On the other hand, while Harris could obviously hurt her own chances too, I think there are a bunch of other public figures who have been rallying for her - such as Barack and Michelle Obama - who could also hypothetically harm Harris's chances if they suddenly did a 180 on supporting her. I'm having trouble figuring out who is analogous to the Obamas and their support of Harris on the Trump side. I dont think their situation is similar. Trump is running on being Trump, so he doesnt rely so much on support (as in people dont vote for him because he is Republican). Kamala runs (beside not being Trump) as Democrat candidate more than being Kamala, so if notable Democrats turned away from her, she would suffer. So you're saying the Republican party has turned into a cult of personality. I obviously agree, I'm just surprised to hear a Republican sympathizer say so.
I feel like many MAGA supporters fit the concept/definition of being in a cult of personality around Trump, even if the label is something that they're scared to identify with. They certainly worship the ground he walks on, assume he's infallible, and believes that only he can save America. They might not believe they're in a cult, but they certainly have the merchandise and clothing and religious dogma that would indicate otherwise.
|
On October 25 2024 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this. They Cant Help ThemselvesIt's not just here, it's like this all over US politics all the way up to Trump and Harris. You'll note the trans person TL had contributing to this thread didn't feel "defended" by libs persistent self-congratulatory engagement with transphobic nonsense either.
I remember reading that post you linked... "Complimenting" me on my typical kabuki might just be the nicest thing you've ever said to me!
+ Show Spoiler +I don't know if it's truly appropriate to make comments on how that trans poster felt; iirc they were worried more about irl issues and less about TL dialogue.
|
Northern Ireland27456 Posts
On October 25 2024 04:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 04:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 04:01 oBlade wrote:
I remain deeply concerned by the normalization of a nominee for president calling their opponent Hitler while he gets shot at, and of her allies doing the same thing, despite your desire to whitewash it when you yourself brought it up. I find it to be intimately intertwined with the question of why calling people a fascist, and Hitler, isn't as dissuasive as you expect it should be, or wish it were.
Would you care to go on record disavowing Johnny Kelly's comments, or Kamabla's, or both? Case in point: I'm going to ignore your terrible attempt at baiting me for a second time I appreciate you letting me practice with you <3 Direct questions are not bait. Your initial whole analysis and question is predicated on a false assumption. The reason Drumpf voters would not be convinced by Kelly or Kamala calling him Hitler is not that they are the wrong person. Not that Kelly simply isn't influential enough, even though he isn't. It's that the content is wrong and people know it. You don't need to find the right person to call him Hitler to sway a huge mass of what you believe are immovable cult members. You can get the super most influential person, and if they say something as daft as Drumpf is Hitler all they do is tank their own reputation with his voters because the content is equally nonsense no matter who said it. You need better ideas before worrying about messengers. If you continue not to disavow the content of the comments, you'll continue to mistakenly believe you just need to put a different face to them. That's only part of how people decide things. Mainly they look at ideas. As you and Gorsameth and others are keen to remind everyone, his own running mate called him Hitler - and then changed his mind, a memo that has apparently eluded the eyes of Gorsameth. The level of person and level of clout you need to sway people is inversely correlated to the quality of the idea itself. If you have an amazing idea, it will spread like wildfire no matter who says it. If you have a shitty idea, you need very influential people indeed for it to get any traction. This is the issue your simplistic question missed. The fact that you are now searching, apparently in vain, for someone who could possibly have enough influence to get this shitty idea rolling with Drumpf voters to turn them away from him - speaks to the fact that there simply is no message of value. "Maybe Joe Rogan? Maybe The Pope? Who hasn't called him fascist yet that we could exploit?"
I’m not sure this is at all reflected by political/cultural discourse and the general direction of travel in the last 10/15 years
|
Good lord, I was 30 pages behind a few days ago and just binged to catch up hoping I’d find something of substance. Man was I sorely mistaken. DPB and Introvert’s discussion was OK, and I think Uldridge tried his best like 10 pages ago with a particularly good question, but I can’t even remember what it was anymore because it’s been drowned in a quagmire of bullshit and bad faith discussions. Bless your heart DPB but if your intent is substantive discussions with people like the avatar of the outrage machine and a guy cosplaying as a lib normie radicalizer, you’re wasting your time.
ChristianS, farv, how much do you guys charge per 1k+ word insightful post? Is it hourly? PM me rates. I wish there was a conservative IgnE for people to engage with in good faith. Introvert is alright but I understand it’s exhausting for one person. DPB deserves better.
|
On October 25 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this. They Cant Help ThemselvesIt's not just here, it's like this all over US politics all the way up to Trump and Harris. You'll note the trans person TL had contributing to this thread didn't feel "defended" by libs persistent self-congratulatory engagement with transphobic nonsense either. I remember reading that post you linked... "Complimenting" me on my typical kabuki might just be the nicest thing you've ever said to me! + Show Spoiler +I don't know if it's truly appropriate to make comments on how that trans poster felt; iirc they were worried more about irl issues and less about TL dialogue.
Yeah, it's the same game oBlade is running on you, just feels classier to engage in.
As far as said poster, as I said, it's not just them and here. It's oppressed peoples here and abroad that feel this way about libs and their self-congratulatory lip service "defenses" (online and offline) while ultimately facilitating right wing fascists oppressing us and ripping away our rights/lives.
I had thought the embarrassment/shame of proving me right over and over again might be enough to stop people from doing it, but alas, I was wrong.
|
On October 25 2024 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this. They Cant Help ThemselvesIt's not just here, it's like this all over US politics all the way up to Trump and Harris. You'll note the trans person TL had contributing to this thread didn't feel "defended" by libs persistent self-congratulatory engagement with transphobic nonsense either. I remember reading that post you linked... "Complimenting" me on my typical kabuki might just be the nicest thing you've ever said to me! + Show Spoiler +I don't know if it's truly appropriate to make comments on how that trans poster felt; iirc they were worried more about irl issues and less about TL dialogue. Yeah, it's the same game oBlade is running on you, just feels classier to engage in.
I answered as many of Introvert's questions as I could, and I feel like Introvert answered most of mine too. It was a learning experience (at least, for me), and it felt good being able to engage in a good-faith discussion with someone in this thread who I generally disagree with. It felt refreshing, especially as we spend some portion of this thread engaging in toxic posting and then another portion venting about said toxic posting.
I think there's a huge contrast between Introvert's budget conversation and what oBlade is now doing - replying to my questions + Show Spoiler +"Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?"
|
On October 25 2024 05:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this. They Cant Help ThemselvesIt's not just here, it's like this all over US politics all the way up to Trump and Harris. You'll note the trans person TL had contributing to this thread didn't feel "defended" by libs persistent self-congratulatory engagement with transphobic nonsense either. I remember reading that post you linked... "Complimenting" me on my typical kabuki might just be the nicest thing you've ever said to me! + Show Spoiler +I don't know if it's truly appropriate to make comments on how that trans poster felt; iirc they were worried more about irl issues and less about TL dialogue. Yeah, it's the same game oBlade is running on you, just feels classier to engage in. As far as said poster, as I said, it's not just them and here. It's oppressed peoples here and abroad that feel this way about libs and their self-congratulatory lip service "defenses" (online and offline) while ultimately facilitating right wing fascists oppressing us and ripping away our rights/lives. I had thought the embarrassment/shame of proving me right over and over again might be enough to stop people from doing it, but alas, I was wrong. I answered as many of Introvert's questions as I could, and I feel like Introvert answered most of mine too. It was a learning experience (at least, for me), and it felt good being able to engage in a good-faith discussion with someone in this thread who I generally disagree with. It felt refreshing, especially as we spend some portion of this thread engaging in toxic posting and then another portion venting about said toxic posting. I think there's a huge contrast between Introvert's budget conversation and what oBlade is now doing - replying to my questions + Show Spoiler +"Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?" with a montage about "Hitler" and "Kamabla" and so much more nonsense. That's why I appreciate the responses I received from other people, with either other public figures' names or the insight that Trump is mostly a one-man show, and that he's not as likely to be taken down by someone else rejecting him (as opposed to how a decent amount of Harris's popularity comes from her enjoying a community of support by like-minded individuals). Maybe oBlade would be interested in engaging in a future post/topic of mine, but this one seems like a miss. It's all good though.
Yeah, same game, but you feel classier about it.
While I recognize your spin on it, the dynamic of endorsements or anti-endorsements is somewhat interesting.
To answer your question, If Melania and Ivanka came out with a "come to Jesus" video detailing why white women shouldn't vote for him he'd probably lose the white woman vote for the first time.
|
On October 25 2024 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 05:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this. They Cant Help ThemselvesIt's not just here, it's like this all over US politics all the way up to Trump and Harris. You'll note the trans person TL had contributing to this thread didn't feel "defended" by libs persistent self-congratulatory engagement with transphobic nonsense either. I remember reading that post you linked... "Complimenting" me on my typical kabuki might just be the nicest thing you've ever said to me! + Show Spoiler +I don't know if it's truly appropriate to make comments on how that trans poster felt; iirc they were worried more about irl issues and less about TL dialogue. Yeah, it's the same game oBlade is running on you, just feels classier to engage in. As far as said poster, as I said, it's not just them and here. It's oppressed peoples here and abroad that feel this way about libs and their self-congratulatory lip service "defenses" (online and offline) while ultimately facilitating right wing fascists oppressing us and ripping away our rights/lives. I had thought the embarrassment/shame of proving me right over and over again might be enough to stop people from doing it, but alas, I was wrong. I answered as many of Introvert's questions as I could, and I feel like Introvert answered most of mine too. It was a learning experience (at least, for me), and it felt good being able to engage in a good-faith discussion with someone in this thread who I generally disagree with. It felt refreshing, especially as we spend some portion of this thread engaging in toxic posting and then another portion venting about said toxic posting. I think there's a huge contrast between Introvert's budget conversation and what oBlade is now doing - replying to my questions + Show Spoiler +"Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?" with a montage about "Hitler" and "Kamabla" and so much more nonsense. That's why I appreciate the responses I received from other people, with either other public figures' names or the insight that Trump is mostly a one-man show, and that he's not as likely to be taken down by someone else rejecting him (as opposed to how a decent amount of Harris's popularity comes from her enjoying a community of support by like-minded individuals). Maybe oBlade would be interested in engaging in a future post/topic of mine, but this one seems like a miss. It's all good though. Yeah, same game, but you feel classier about it. While I recognize your spin on it, the dynamic of endorsements or anti-endorsements is somewhat interesting. To answer your question, If Melania and Ivanka came out with a "come to Jesus" video detailing why white women shouldn't vote for him he'd probably lose the white woman vote for the first time.
I appreciate you answering my question too! I had forgotten about Ivanka.
|
On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this.
What's the alternative? I'm not willing to just let transphobic speech stand uncontested, nor do I think that it would be correct to do so. It's the same as what was done to/for a lot of us to weed homophobic language out of our normal lexicon.
Also suggesting there are 0 transphobic people among 'the left' is as fair as suggesting there are 0 racists.
|
On October 25 2024 05:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 05:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this. They Cant Help ThemselvesIt's not just here, it's like this all over US politics all the way up to Trump and Harris. You'll note the trans person TL had contributing to this thread didn't feel "defended" by libs persistent self-congratulatory engagement with transphobic nonsense either. I remember reading that post you linked... "Complimenting" me on my typical kabuki might just be the nicest thing you've ever said to me! + Show Spoiler +I don't know if it's truly appropriate to make comments on how that trans poster felt; iirc they were worried more about irl issues and less about TL dialogue. Yeah, it's the same game oBlade is running on you, just feels classier to engage in. As far as said poster, as I said, it's not just them and here. It's oppressed peoples here and abroad that feel this way about libs and their self-congratulatory lip service "defenses" (online and offline) while ultimately facilitating right wing fascists oppressing us and ripping away our rights/lives. I had thought the embarrassment/shame of proving me right over and over again might be enough to stop people from doing it, but alas, I was wrong. I answered as many of Introvert's questions as I could, and I feel like Introvert answered most of mine too. It was a learning experience (at least, for me), and it felt good being able to engage in a good-faith discussion with someone in this thread who I generally disagree with. It felt refreshing, especially as we spend some portion of this thread engaging in toxic posting and then another portion venting about said toxic posting. I think there's a huge contrast between Introvert's budget conversation and what oBlade is now doing - replying to my questions + Show Spoiler +"Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?" with a montage about "Hitler" and "Kamabla" and so much more nonsense. That's why I appreciate the responses I received from other people, with either other public figures' names or the insight that Trump is mostly a one-man show, and that he's not as likely to be taken down by someone else rejecting him (as opposed to how a decent amount of Harris's popularity comes from her enjoying a community of support by like-minded individuals). Maybe oBlade would be interested in engaging in a future post/topic of mine, but this one seems like a miss. It's all good though. Yeah, same game, but you feel classier about it. While I recognize your spin on it, the dynamic of endorsements or anti-endorsements is somewhat interesting. To answer your question, If Melania and Ivanka came out with a "come to Jesus" video detailing why white women shouldn't vote for him he'd probably lose the white woman vote for the first time. I appreciate you answering my question too! I had forgotten about Ivanka.
No problem. Yeah, besides the laundry list of things they could probably say about their experiences with him, white women are probably his most easily peelable reluctant supporters.
It's one reason why Democrats were supposed to focus on reproductive rights and why Democrats falling for the constant derailments by Trump and his ilk has been so devastating for Democrats. Part of the reason the derailments are so tempting though is because Democrats don't actually have anything of substance for people at the presidential level on reproductive rights.
The only thing they've really got is that she could veto a national abortion ban, but that would remind people Democrats are going to lose the Senate and she's going to pass Republican legislation or nothing at all.
|
On October 25 2024 05:00 Ryzel wrote:
Good lord, I was 30 pages behind a few days ago and just binged to catch up hoping I’d find something of substance. Man was I sorely mistaken. DPB and Introvert’s discussion was OK, and I think Uldridge tried his best like 10 pages ago with a particularly good question, but I can’t even remember what it was anymore because it’s been drowned in a quagmire of bullshit and bad faith discussions. Bless your heart DPB but if your intent is substantive discussions with people like the avatar of the outrage machine and a guy cosplaying as a lib normie radicalizer, you’re wasting your time.
ChristianS, farv, how much do you guys charge per 1k+ word insightful post? Is it hourly? PM me rates. I wish there was a conservative IgnE for people to engage with in good faith. Introvert is alright but I understand it’s exhausting for one person. DPB deserves better.
My desire to post declined dramatically when I started getting paid to argue back at the end of 2017 or so. I still read everything in this thread but yeah, I just don’t have the motivation like I once did. Kudos to those still bearing the torch.
|
Northern Ireland27456 Posts
On October 25 2024 06:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 05:00 Ryzel wrote:
Good lord, I was 30 pages behind a few days ago and just binged to catch up hoping I’d find something of substance. Man was I sorely mistaken. DPB and Introvert’s discussion was OK, and I think Uldridge tried his best like 10 pages ago with a particularly good question, but I can’t even remember what it was anymore because it’s been drowned in a quagmire of bullshit and bad faith discussions. Bless your heart DPB but if your intent is substantive discussions with people like the avatar of the outrage machine and a guy cosplaying as a lib normie radicalizer, you’re wasting your time.
ChristianS, farv, how much do you guys charge per 1k+ word insightful post? Is it hourly? PM me rates. I wish there was a conservative IgnE for people to engage with in good faith. Introvert is alright but I understand it’s exhausting for one person. DPB deserves better. My desire to post declined dramatically when I started getting paid to argue back at the end of 2017 or so. I still read everything in this thread but yeah, I just don’t have the motivation like I once did. Kudos to those still bearing the torch.
You can get paid to argue? Man I’ve been underselling myself greatly for the last 20 years
|
On October 25 2024 05:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this. They Cant Help ThemselvesIt's not just here, it's like this all over US politics all the way up to Trump and Harris. You'll note the trans person TL had contributing to this thread didn't feel "defended" by libs persistent self-congratulatory engagement with transphobic nonsense either. I remember reading that post you linked... "Complimenting" me on my typical kabuki might just be the nicest thing you've ever said to me! + Show Spoiler +I don't know if it's truly appropriate to make comments on how that trans poster felt; iirc they were worried more about irl issues and less about TL dialogue. Yeah, it's the same game oBlade is running on you, just feels classier to engage in. I answered as many of Introvert's questions as I could, and I feel like Introvert answered most of mine too. It was a learning experience (at least, for me), and it felt good being able to engage in a good-faith discussion with someone in this thread who I generally disagree with. It felt refreshing, especially as we spend some portion of this thread engaging in toxic posting and then another portion venting about said toxic posting. I think there's a huge contrast between Introvert's budget conversation and what oBlade is now doing - replying to my questions [spoiler]"Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?" with a montage about "Hitler" and "Kamabla" and so much more nonsense. That's why I appreciate the responses I received from other people, with either other public figures' names or the insight that Trump is mostly a one-man show, and that he's not as likely to be taken down by someone else rejecting him ( as opposed to how a decent amount of Harris's popularity comes from her enjoying a community of support by like-minded individuals). Maybe oBlade would be interested in engaging in a future post/topic of mine, but this one seems like a miss. It's all good though.
Bolded - I think you misunderstood oBlade and the fact that he essentially agreed with you, although for different reasons (also beginning of your post and article you linked may have overshadow your actual question). His point was that after accusing Trump of being Hitler for x years, if 2 weeks before election Democrats repeat the accusation and add some other ones, people just going to roll their eyes and it doesnt really matter whose words they gonna cite as source. I think bolded is essentially his answer to your question.
italic - What a way to turn critique into compliement .
|
On October 25 2024 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2024 05:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 05:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 25 2024 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this. They Cant Help ThemselvesIt's not just here, it's like this all over US politics all the way up to Trump and Harris. You'll note the trans person TL had contributing to this thread didn't feel "defended" by libs persistent self-congratulatory engagement with transphobic nonsense either. I remember reading that post you linked... "Complimenting" me on my typical kabuki might just be the nicest thing you've ever said to me! + Show Spoiler +I don't know if it's truly appropriate to make comments on how that trans poster felt; iirc they were worried more about irl issues and less about TL dialogue. Yeah, it's the same game oBlade is running on you, just feels classier to engage in. As far as said poster, as I said, it's not just them and here. It's oppressed peoples here and abroad that feel this way about libs and their self-congratulatory lip service "defenses" (online and offline) while ultimately facilitating right wing fascists oppressing us and ripping away our rights/lives. I had thought the embarrassment/shame of proving me right over and over again might be enough to stop people from doing it, but alas, I was wrong. I answered as many of Introvert's questions as I could, and I feel like Introvert answered most of mine too. It was a learning experience (at least, for me), and it felt good being able to engage in a good-faith discussion with someone in this thread who I generally disagree with. It felt refreshing, especially as we spend some portion of this thread engaging in toxic posting and then another portion venting about said toxic posting. I think there's a huge contrast between Introvert's budget conversation and what oBlade is now doing - replying to my questions + Show Spoiler +"Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?" with a montage about "Hitler" and "Kamabla" and so much more nonsense. That's why I appreciate the responses I received from other people, with either other public figures' names or the insight that Trump is mostly a one-man show, and that he's not as likely to be taken down by someone else rejecting him (as opposed to how a decent amount of Harris's popularity comes from her enjoying a community of support by like-minded individuals). Maybe oBlade would be interested in engaging in a future post/topic of mine, but this one seems like a miss. It's all good though. Yeah, same game, but you feel classier about it. While I recognize your spin on it, the dynamic of endorsements or anti-endorsements is somewhat interesting. To answer your question, If Melania and Ivanka came out with a "come to Jesus" video detailing why white women shouldn't vote for him he'd probably lose the white woman vote for the first time. I appreciate you answering my question too! I had forgotten about Ivanka. No problem. Yeah, besides the laundry list of things they could probably say about their experiences with him, white women are probably his most easily peelable reluctant supporters. It's one reason why Democrats were supposed to focus on reproductive rights and why Democrats falling for the constant derailments by Trump and his ilk has been so devastating for Democrats. Part of the reason the derailments are so tempting though is because Democrats don't actually have anything of substance for people at the presidential level on reproductive rights. The only thing they've really got is that she could veto a national abortion ban, but that would remind people Democrats are going to lose the Senate and she's going to pass Republican legislation or nothing at all.
I think Harris has done a decent job of consistently bringing up the importance of reproductive rights during her rallies and interviews, including how she'd like to codify Roe v. Wade, even going so far as to eliminate the filibuster to enshrine abortion rights into federal law ( https://www.axios.com/2024/09/24/harris-filibuster-abortion-trump-2024 ). Of course, Harris can't unilaterally restore all American women's right to bodily autonomy, and the Senate is going to probably be a problem, as you already mentioned. Congressional support is going to be crucial no matter what - and we won't know what happens until the election and the next presidential term - but I think it's smart of Harris to keep bringing up the topic.
|
Ok wild take, but I think Trump is making a mistake with Joe Rogan. He does well in hostile interviews, but I can easily see him relax and saying bunch of stupid shit in what is more of a friendly chat, than interview. Imo risk he didnt need to take.
|
United Kingdom10005 Posts
On October 25 2024 07:44 Razyda wrote:
Ok wild take, but I think Trump is making a mistake with Joe Rogan. He does well in hostile interviews, but I can easily see him relax and saying bunch of stupid shit in what is more of a friendly chat, than interview. Imo risk he didnt need to take.
Since when did Trump saying a bunch of stupid shit do anything except drive his polling numbers way up?
Democrats make this mistake alot.
They think the average American voter who isn't already a Dem cares one bit about the things Trump says. They don't. They care about their own perception of how their life felt when Trump was in charge vs Biden.
|
United States24802 Posts
I legitimately can't think of anything Trump could say publicly that would lead me to believe he would soon take a hit in his polling numbers. We've reached a point in time where he seems immune.
|
On October 25 2024 07:44 Razyda wrote:
Ok wild take, but I think Trump is making a mistake with Joe Rogan. He does well in hostile interviews, but I can easily see him relax and saying bunch of stupid shit in what is more of a friendly chat, than interview. Imo risk he didnt need to take.
I'm not so sure that Trump getting too comfortable and casually saying inappropriate things will really damage him though; he's pretty much said every ridiculous and stupid thing already. He's demonized pretty much every demographic and has bragged about doing plenty of unethical things already. What do you think might be something he could accidentally say that could bite him in the ass?
Joe Rogan has an enormous viewer base, so while I'm not personally a huge fan of him, I think that level of exposure will likely be a net benefit for Trump, even if he says something unconscionable. I don't think it's super risky for Trump.
Edit: Ninja'd x2 lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
