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.
I'm just not impressed at you gatekeeping "context." People buy Creed t-shirts and wear them at places other than Creed concerts. Yankees hats are also worn in football season. Your standards of normalcy that they are supposed to remain in their designated compartments doesn't seem the same as western free expression. As long as more people get randomly attacked for wearing red hats than anything else, I'm on the don't jump to conclusions demonizing clothes side.
You see more MAGA hats than Build Back Better hats now because winning is stylish, and also "MAGA" is aesthetically more stylish. (Similar to why Newsom and leftists can't help but copy and imitate Trump, or do Trump impressions.) I absolutely see Love Trumps Hate, He Will Not Divide Us, #RESIST. I saw plenty of Hope and Change and Yes We Can t-shirts. Saw many more people watch Obama be inaugurated. These are not irrational behaviors. You're allowed to just like people and things. If you're Australian you might get only a partial seep of US culture and think red hats are the only merch that circulate, I don't know.
Cmon, you can't be that obtuse unintentionally. An inauguration is a specifically political event, as are political rallies, protests, CPAC etc. Would be perfectly normal for people to show up in political merchandise there, in large numbers.
Showing up anywhere with logos of sports teams, fashion labels, bands etc also normal and common.
Showing up en mass in political merchandise to normal everyday things like sporting events was very much not the norm (again excepting very close to elections).
I'm not doing the gatekeeping, these are not my standards. It's an observation of how people have behaved.
I'm not imposing my opinion of where I think certain expressions of political allegiance are appropriate. Just pointing out a change in the norms of this behaviour that seems to have occurred.
What I am supposing, is that the change where people are wearing political merchandise, implies a change in the roles/importance of politics, or political allegiance in their lives.
On March 14 2026 01:54 LightSpectra wrote: Has literally any Democrat in this thread ever said at any point "voting is totally sufficient by itself, don't even bother with protests, canvassing, union activity, civil disobedience," etc.?
All you guys do here is mock and gawk Sartres while waiting to spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" because you believe that is the most effective way to preserve your "pretty tolerable lives" regardless of who has to lose their life as a consequence.
This isn't even opinion/prognostication at this point, it's demonstrable fact that several of you have expressed/exemplified pretty openly.
Two shout-outs in a single GH post? Oh my! I'm sorry, but I'm a married man!
I'm just not impressed at you gatekeeping "context." People buy Creed t-shirts and wear them at places other than Creed concerts. Yankees hats are also worn in football season. Your standards of normalcy that they are supposed to remain in their designated compartments doesn't seem the same as western free expression. As long as more people get randomly attacked for wearing red hats than anything else, I'm on the don't jump to conclusions demonizing clothes side.
You see more MAGA hats than Build Back Better hats now because winning is stylish, and also "MAGA" is aesthetically more stylish. (Similar to why Newsom and leftists can't help but copy and imitate Trump, or do Trump impressions.) I absolutely see Love Trumps Hate, He Will Not Divide Us, #RESIST. I saw plenty of Hope and Change and Yes We Can t-shirts. Saw many more people watch Obama be inaugurated. These are not irrational behaviors. You're allowed to just like people and things. If you're Australian you might get only a partial seep of US culture and think red hats are the only merch that circulate, I don't know.
Cmon, you can't be that obtuse unintentionally. + Show Spoiler +
An inauguration is a specifically political event, as are political rallies, protests, CPAC etc. Would be perfectly normal for people to show up in political merchandise there.
Showing up anywhere with logos of sports teams, fashion labels, bands etc also normal and common.
Showing up en mass in political merchandise to normal everyday things like sporting events was very much not the norm (again excepting very close to elections).
I'm not doing the gatekeeping, these are not my standards. It's an observation of how people have behaved.
I'm not imposing my opinion of where I think certain expressions of political allegiance are appropriate. Just pointing out a change in the norms of this behaviour that seems to have occurred.
Everyone here knows/believes oBlade is doing this on purpose to lol at them for engaging with it instead of figuring out how to stop the fascism and they've known oBlade (and other Sartres) have been doing this for years.
Kudos to those of you that have the self-awareness/dignity to have stopped, looking forward to the next steps.
On March 14 2026 01:54 LightSpectra wrote: Has literally any Democrat in this thread ever said at any point "voting is totally sufficient by itself, don't even bother with protests, canvassing, union activity, civil disobedience," etc.?
All you guys do here is mock and gawk Sartres while waiting to spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" because you believe that is the most effective way to preserve your "pretty tolerable lives" regardless of who has to lose their life as a consequence.
This isn't even opinion/prognostication at this point, it's demonstrable fact that several of you have expressed/exemplified pretty openly.
Two shout-outs in a single GH post? Oh my! I'm sorry, but I'm a married man!
You ever work on how to identify who is sufficiently resisting Trump or have you been working on that shitpost the whole time?
On March 14 2026 01:54 LightSpectra wrote: Has literally any Democrat in this thread ever said at any point "voting is totally sufficient by itself, don't even bother with protests, canvassing, union activity, civil disobedience," etc.?
All you guys do here is mock and gawk Sartres while waiting to spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" because you believe that is the most effective way to preserve your "pretty tolerable lives" regardless of who has to lose their life as a consequence.
This isn't even opinion/prognostication at this point, it's demonstrable fact that several of you have expressed/exemplified pretty openly.
Two shout-outs in a single GH post? Oh my! I'm sorry, but I'm a married man!
You ever work on how to identify who is sufficiently resisting Trump or have you been working on that shitpost the whole time?
If I had a dollar for every time you quoted me, I wouldn't have to live rent-free inside your head <3
On March 14 2026 01:54 LightSpectra wrote: Has literally any Democrat in this thread ever said at any point "voting is totally sufficient by itself, don't even bother with protests, canvassing, union activity, civil disobedience," etc.?
All you guys do here is mock and gawk Sartres while waiting to spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" because you believe that is the most effective way to preserve your "pretty tolerable lives" regardless of who has to lose their life as a consequence.
This isn't even opinion/prognostication at this point, it's demonstrable fact that several of you have expressed/exemplified pretty openly.
Two shout-outs in a single GH post? Oh my! I'm sorry, but I'm a married man!
You ever work on how to identify who is sufficiently resisting Trump or have you been working on that shitpost the whole time?
If I had a dollar for every time you quoted me, I wouldn't have to live rent-free in your head <3
Your self-aggrandizing shitposting aside, those examples that include you are merely demonstrative of the objectively observable pattern here highlighted by referencing those posts that happen to be yours.
I'm just not impressed at you gatekeeping "context." People buy Creed t-shirts and wear them at places other than Creed concerts. Yankees hats are also worn in football season. Your standards of normalcy that they are supposed to remain in their designated compartments doesn't seem the same as western free expression. As long as more people get randomly attacked for wearing red hats than anything else, I'm on the don't jump to conclusions demonizing clothes side.
You see more MAGA hats than Build Back Better hats now because winning is stylish, and also "MAGA" is aesthetically more stylish. (Similar to why Newsom and leftists can't help but copy and imitate Trump, or do Trump impressions.) I absolutely see Love Trumps Hate, He Will Not Divide Us, #RESIST. I saw plenty of Hope and Change and Yes We Can t-shirts. Saw many more people watch Obama be inaugurated. These are not irrational behaviors. You're allowed to just like people and things. If you're Australian you might get only a partial seep of US culture and think red hats are the only merch that circulate, I don't know.
Cmon, you can't be that obtuse unintentionally. An inauguration is a specifically political event, as are political rallies, protests, CPAC etc. Would be perfectly normal for people to show up in political merchandise there, in large numbers.
Showing up anywhere with logos of sports teams, fashion labels, bands etc also normal and common.
Showing up en mass in political merchandise to normal everyday things like sporting events was very much not the norm (again excepting very close to elections).
I'm not doing the gatekeeping, these are not my standards. It's an observation of how people have behaved.
I'm not imposing my opinion of where I think certain expressions of political allegiance are appropriate. Just pointing out a change in the norms of this behaviour that seems to have occurred.
What I am supposing, is that the change where people are wearing political merchandise, implies a change in the roles/importance of politics, or political allegiance in their lives.
I think you've shot all the way past cult membership and arrived at the circular logic of normative things being normative. This is quite literally gatekeeping: we know similar behaviors are not cultish because they are common and normative, but this particular behavior is cultish because it does not abide by my standards of behavior. Ccommon enough to bestow cult status, but obviously not common enough to be like sports teams, bands. I don't buy that as an explanation or a defense.
I'll obviously call it weird and obsessive if that's the only hat somebody wears out in public, but I'm quite willing to say the same about sports fandom. If we're going with a very broad definition of cultish, then you're going to sweep up "In this house we believe" and pride-flag/pride displays. There's some element of agreeing with the message that tilts things here. I don't think any of those qualify and I like standards that don't have to shift on viewpoint.
The cultish behavior is around, and it's manifested in instances like someone that hates foreign wars but likes Trumps', hates any rise in taxes and is smart enough to know about tariffs but supports the tariffs, switched their view on birthright citizenship the second Trump attacked it, doesn't believe conspiracy theories except the one that malign actors stole the 2020 election, knows about the very public instances of Trump/Trump admin corruption but will never condemn it.
On March 14 2026 01:54 LightSpectra wrote: Has literally any Democrat in this thread ever said at any point "voting is totally sufficient by itself, don't even bother with protests, canvassing, union activity, civil disobedience," etc.?
All you guys do here is mock and gawk Sartres while waiting to spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" because you believe that is the most effective way to preserve your "pretty tolerable lives" regardless of who has to lose their life as a consequence.
This isn't even opinion/prognostication at this point, it's demonstrable fact that several of you have expressed/exemplified pretty openly.
Two shout-outs in a single GH post? Oh my! I'm sorry, but I'm a married man!
You ever work on how to identify who is sufficiently resisting Trump or have you been working on that shitpost the whole time?
If I had a dollar for every time you quoted me, I wouldn't have to live rent-free in your head <3
Your self-aggrandizing shitposting aside, those examples that include you are merely demonstrative of the objectively observable pattern here highlighted by referencing those posts that happen to be yours.
The first 5 or so times that you reposted the same links and quotes of mine, I took them seriously. I'm past that now. Maybe mocking a shitposter makes me one too, but maybe you would receive less criticism if you got some new material and weren't so predictable. I appreciate you bringing me up though, even when I'm not part of the conversation!
Other people might have different answers, but personally, I don't call out fascist lies because I expect fascists to suddenly change their mind and realize their folly, but rather because I don't want fascists to take over this thread and any unwitting passerbys to read it and get radicalized by it.
Other people might have different answers, but personally, I don't call out fascist lies because I expect fascists to suddenly change their mind and realize their folly, but rather because I don't want fascists to take over this thread and any unwitting passerbys to read it and get radicalized by it.
Yeah I think that's generally a good approach / perspective for forums or debates where others might be watching: you probably won't change the mind of your interlocutor, but you can hopefully model a relatively better argument or justification for neutral parties / fence sitters to witness, judge, and hopefully be persuaded by.
On March 14 2026 01:54 LightSpectra wrote: Has literally any Democrat in this thread ever said at any point "voting is totally sufficient by itself, don't even bother with protests, canvassing, union activity, civil disobedience," etc.?
All you guys do here is mock and gawk Sartres while waiting to spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" because you believe that is the most effective way to preserve your "pretty tolerable lives" regardless of who has to lose their life as a consequence.
This isn't even opinion/prognostication at this point, it's demonstrable fact that several of you have expressed/exemplified pretty openly.
Two shout-outs in a single GH post? Oh my! I'm sorry, but I'm a married man!
You ever work on how to identify who is sufficiently resisting Trump or have you been working on that shitpost the whole time?
If I had a dollar for every time you quoted me, I wouldn't have to live rent-free in your head <3
Your self-aggrandizing shitposting aside, those examples that include you are merely demonstrative of the objectively observable pattern here highlighted by referencing those posts that happen to be yours.
The first 5 or so times that you reposted the same links and quotes of mine, I took them seriously. I'm past that now. Maybe mocking a shitposter makes me one too, but maybe you would receive less criticism if you got some new material and weren't so predictable. I appreciate you bringing me up though, even when I'm not part of the conversation!
I just use that link so that you guys can't reasonably pretend like you don't know what I'm talking about so I have to explain it again.
Random people getting radicalized by Internet forums is mythical (let's not talk about 4chan). Instead of worrying about them, we should come up with a plan to save the Democratic Party, because the highest-level advisors to the DNC if not the executive leadership themselves are definitely reading this thread.
Other people might have different answers, but personally, I don't call out fascist lies because I expect fascists to suddenly change their mind and realize their folly, but rather because I don't want fascists to take over this thread and any unwitting passerbys to read it and get radicalized by it.
Yeah I think that's generally a good approach / perspective for forums or debates where others might be watching: you probably won't change the mind of your interlocutor, but you can hopefully model a relatively better argument or justification for neutral parties / fence sitters to witness, judge, and hopefully be persuaded by.
Yeah I don’t argue with my de facto brother in law to convince him, but because his unwell and long-term unemployed father will go down his rabbitholes rather than mine given he spends a lot of time online.
Which my partner, despite being sick of me arguing politics all the time does concede is semi-successful
Like for my money it ain’t about who you’re talking to in this day and age, but who might be listening
On March 14 2026 01:54 LightSpectra wrote: Has literally any Democrat in this thread ever said at any point "voting is totally sufficient by itself, don't even bother with protests, canvassing, union activity, civil disobedience," etc.?
All you guys do here is mock and gawk Sartres while waiting to spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" because you believe that is the most effective way to preserve your "pretty tolerable lives" regardless of who has to lose their life as a consequence.
This isn't even opinion/prognostication at this point, it's demonstrable fact that several of you have expressed/exemplified pretty openly.
Two shout-outs in a single GH post? Oh my! I'm sorry, but I'm a married man!
You ever work on how to identify who is sufficiently resisting Trump or have you been working on that shitpost the whole time?
If I had a dollar for every time you quoted me, I wouldn't have to live rent-free in your head <3
Your self-aggrandizing shitposting aside, those examples that include you are merely demonstrative of the objectively observable pattern here highlighted by referencing those posts that happen to be yours.
The first 5 or so times that you reposted the same links and quotes of mine, I took them seriously. I'm past that now. Maybe mocking a shitposter makes me one too, but maybe you would receive less criticism if you got some new material and weren't so predictable. I appreciate you bringing me up though, even when I'm not part of the conversation!
I just use that link so that you guys can't reasonably pretend like you don't know what I'm talking about so I have to explain it again.
Random people getting radicalized by Internet forums is mythical (let's not talk about 4chan). Instead of worrying about them, we should come up with a plan to save the Democratic Party, because the highest-level advisors to the DNC if not the executive leadership themselves are definitely reading this thread.
I know you can't help but set up strawmen and then shitpost celebrating your victory over your strawmen, but even you have to know that even the DNC leadership says it has to start from the bottom up silly.
The TL.net US Politics Mega-thread is simultaneously so unimportant that nobody could ever get radicalized by the fascists posting in it, but somehow also the grassroots backbone that could very well constitute the very future of the Democratic Party itself.
I like to imagine a world where GH held himself to the same standard he admonishes everyone else to. It wouldn’t change the world but it would make the thread much more tolerable.
That or everyone just ignored him because he says nothing interesting and is a just a pretentious insecure dick trying to make himself feel better by talking down to others.
Oh, random people getting radicalized online happens all the time, a lot of the mass shootings over the last 10 years has been a direct result of online radicalization, from incels, alt-righters, ethno-nationalists, radical Islamists all the way to NVE category where some of the recent trans shooters fall in:
I personally like to think that providing relatively reasonable spaces for people to talk to, giving good advice and being part of online communities can be a good thing, it doesn't happen a whole lot online, most of the communication is shit, and a lot of time people are driven to nihilistic doomer parts of the internet designed to be echo chambers which very often turn violent.
Good podcast covering specifically incel and "looksmaxxing" culture:
On March 14 2026 02:46 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On March 14 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:
I'm just not impressed at you gatekeeping "context." People buy Creed t-shirts and wear them at places other than Creed concerts. Yankees hats are also worn in football season. Your standards of normalcy that they are supposed to remain in their designated compartments doesn't seem the same as western free expression. As long as more people get randomly attacked for wearing red hats than anything else, I'm on the don't jump to conclusions demonizing clothes side.
You see more MAGA hats than Build Back Better hats now because winning is stylish, and also "MAGA" is aesthetically more stylish. (Similar to why Newsom and leftists can't help but copy and imitate Trump, or do Trump impressions.) I absolutely see Love Trumps Hate, He Will Not Divide Us, #RESIST. I saw plenty of Hope and Change and Yes We Can t-shirts. Saw many more people watch Obama be inaugurated. These are not irrational behaviors. You're allowed to just like people and things. If you're Australian you might get only a partial seep of US culture and think red hats are the only merch that circulate, I don't know.
Cmon, you can't be that obtuse unintentionally. An inauguration is a specifically political event, as are political rallies, protests, CPAC etc. Would be perfectly normal for people to show up in political merchandise there, in large numbers.
Showing up anywhere with logos of sports teams, fashion labels, bands etc also normal and common.
Showing up en mass in political merchandise to normal everyday things like sporting events was very much not the norm (again excepting very close to elections).
I'm not doing the gatekeeping, these are not my standards. It's an observation of how people have behaved.
I'm not imposing my opinion of where I think certain expressions of political allegiance are appropriate. Just pointing out a change in the norms of this behaviour that seems to have occurred.
What I am supposing, is that the change where people are wearing political merchandise, implies a change in the roles/importance of politics, or political allegiance in their lives.
I think you've shot all the way past cult membership and arrived at the circular logic of normative things being normative. This is quite literally gatekeeping: we know similar behaviors are not cultish because they are common and normative, but this particular behavior is cultish because it does not abide by my standards of behavior. Ccommon enough to bestow cult status, but obviously not common enough to be like sports teams, bands. I don't buy that as an explanation or a defense.
I'll obviously call it weird and obsessive if that's the only hat somebody wears out in public, but I'm quite willing to say the same about sports fandom. If we're going with a very broad definition of cultish, then you're going to sweep up "In this house we believe" and pride-flag/pride displays. There's some element of agreeing with the message that tilts things here. I don't think any of those qualify and I like standards that don't have to shift on viewpoint.
The cultish behavior is around, and it's manifested in instances like someone that hates foreign wars but likes Trumps', hates any rise in taxes and is smart enough to know about tariffs but supports the tariffs, switched their view on birthright citizenship the second Trump attacked it, doesn't believe conspiracy theories except the one that malign actors stole the 2020 election, knows about the very public instances of Trump/Trump admin corruption but will never condemn it.
Is there a normal culture of political display outside of MAGA/Trump?
I can think of things like confederate flags or, as you mention, rainbow flags that have certain connections to political ideas, but I can't think of as many that are direct result of a single person. Did people wear tan suits after whatever happened with Obama?
The thing with sports hats is that people commune over their love of sports and competition. It doesn't seem unreasonable to see that happening with politics hats and think that's a bit culty and odd (and I'm very glad there's not an aggressive equivalent in Bernie Sanders or something on the other side. That would be worse, not better.)
On March 14 2026 01:54 LightSpectra wrote: Has literally any Democrat in this thread ever said at any point "voting is totally sufficient by itself, don't even bother with protests, canvassing, union activity, civil disobedience," etc.?
All you guys do here is mock and gawk Sartres while waiting to spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" because you believe that is the most effective way to preserve your "pretty tolerable lives" regardless of who has to lose their life as a consequence.
This isn't even opinion/prognostication at this point, it's demonstrable fact that several of you have expressed/exemplified pretty openly.
Two shout-outs in a single GH post? Oh my! I'm sorry, but I'm a married man!
You ever work on how to identify who is sufficiently resisting Trump or have you been working on that shitpost the whole time?
If I had a dollar for every time you quoted me, I wouldn't have to live rent-free in your head <3
Your self-aggrandizing shitposting aside, those examples that include you are merely demonstrative of the objectively observable pattern here highlighted by referencing those posts that happen to be yours.
The first 5 or so times that you reposted the same links and quotes of mine, I took them seriously. I'm past that now. Maybe mocking a shitposter makes me one too, but maybe you would receive less criticism if you got some new material and weren't so predictable. I appreciate you bringing me up though, even when I'm not part of the conversation!
I just use that link so that you guys can't reasonably pretend like you don't know what I'm talking about so I have to explain it again.
Random people getting radicalized by Internet forums is mythical (let's not talk about 4chan). Instead of worrying about them, we should come up with a plan to save the Democratic Party, because the highest-level advisors to the DNC if not the executive leadership themselves are definitely reading this thread.
I know you can't help but set up strawmen and then shitpost celebrating your victory over your strawmen, but even you have to know that even the DNC leadership says it has to start from the bottom up silly.
What bottom? Where is up?
Seems to me the average American is generally to the right of most Western Europe or Anzac equivalents.
If that’s your bottom up starting point what’s realistic there?
EPT
![[image loading]](https://scontent.fscl18-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/585365274_1276099877878123_790897656658444379_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=7b2446&_nc_eui2=AeH0b1IbrrNuKh126z0ER8uzdYq9re0KA6x1ir2t7QoDrICGLnG37JuR9asqPe97Gh0&_nc_ohc=kyJR26d2TQ0Q7kNvwFZqSdq&_nc_oc=AdmGXg1aBUvaYecj4MA03BjDWHVtmm48m3ggliO6Jc3JisI0y1ZjcOpfS_env8id980&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.fscl18-1.fna&_nc_gid=WX9NAzNis7mudR5HKFdWvg&_nc_ss=8&oh=00_Afw8ED_z9bZID6hw6MYdgtHF4V2_Zvx6MCEacgN4pbaFrQ&oe=69BA24D2)
