EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 329
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On August 13 2025 17:45 BlackJack wrote: Don't get me wrong, my objection is not because I want to defend Kwark from being misrepresented. I don't really care. My objection to this level of discourse is that it's just stupid social justice warrioring that should be left for the comment fields on tiktok/twitter/reddit. Is that something you also observe from the people who are opposed to progressives/left-wingers? I'm asking because my own observation is that it's not just one side. I think oBlade, Introvert, Razyda and others are heavily engaged in their own version of social justice warrioring, by claiming that left-wing policies are actively harmful to entire demographics, when in reality this is often a complete misrepresentation of what the policies are doing. At the most absurd level it turns into bathroom stall debates and cat eating immigrants. Introvert claims he reads right-leaning outlets, then names three of them, so I look up the outlets and it turns out all three of them are far-right propaganda. Introvert hasn't said a peep in response. When we have far-right propaganda being spread on TL.net, I think it's fair to point out that the social justice warrioring is "balanced out" by far right crazy talk. So this kind of discourse here is not built on radical left-wing viewpoints. It's a mix of left and right. Some of the right-wing points are very far out there, occasionally leading to absolutely idiotic statements that deserve nothing but mockery. And this has spiralled out of control under Trump. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27459 Posts
On August 13 2025 09:26 Billyboy wrote: Then do some research and get back to me. Might find out I'm correct, or you might find some great counter points. GH holds liberals in contempt, clearly. In part because he expects them to be better, and frequently says so expectations he does not really hold for MAGA zealots or whatever. Who, I don’t especially see him agreeing with or being too pally with in the first place. Another reason why he’s not too chummy with some liberals here is quite a simple one, many are actively hostile to him as well. Not always without merit by any means, but it is absolutely the case. I’d also add that GH is one poster, and far from the only far-left poster on these boards. For this observation to stick in a more general sense wouldn’t others be doing the same things? On August 13 2025 16:14 Jockmcplop wrote: Are people's brains really so tiny they have to pretend that people who believe in opposite principles about 90% of the time are the same just so they can group people into 'good/bad' more easily? Horseshoe theory is for absolute fucking morons with very shitty intentions. It’s a useful framing for those people, absolutely. Equally I don’t think that holds overall. For many it’s that they genuinely think ‘clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you’ is the way to be. I think for some it’s a defence mechanism. Hey I’m justified advocating for not throwing the left a bone, I mean the far left is just as bad as the far right right? I just think it’s a ridiculous framework personally, but it’s not always invoked out of malice. Any framework where you have to morph and swap out constituent parts to then try and draw parallels, and ignore things that don’t fit is just a fundamentally broken model (see also - ‘Social Justice is a religion). Hey I’m a healthy weight, anorexic people and obese people to either side of me are not, ergo those two cohorts are the same right? | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On August 13 2025 20:39 Magic Powers wrote: Is that something you also observe from the people who are opposed to progressives/left-wingers? I'm asking because my own observation is that it's not just one side. I think oBlade, Introvert, Razyda and others are heavily engaged in their own version of social justice warrioring, by claiming that left-wing policies are actively harmful to entire demographics, when in reality this is often a complete misrepresentation of what the policies are doing. At the most absurd level it turns into bathroom stall debates and cat eating immigrants. Introvert claims he reads right-leaning outlets, then names three of them, so I look up the outlets and it turns out all three of them are far-right propaganda. Introvert hasn't said a peep in response. When we have far-right propaganda being spread on TL.net, I think it's fair to point out that the social justice warrioring is "balanced out" by far right crazy talk. So this kind of discourse here is not built on radical left-wing viewpoints. It's a mix of left and right. Some of the right-wing points are very far out there, occasionally leading to absolutely idiotic statements that deserve nothing but mockery. And this has spiralled out of control under Trump. The problem with this post is the same as whatever (quite frankly silly) source you used to claim those places were "far-right propaganda". For the most part I have fairly mainstream American conservative views as do places like National Review. I don’t know what you mean by social justice warrioring unless you just mean disagree. Although for the record about 95% or more of the links I post are from NYT/WP/Politico/WSJ. I would be curious for an example of me "social justice warrioring" whatever it is that you mean by that. It's kind of odd you are complaining about this imo as I feel like you occasionally have a problem related to the one I identified the other day and that a lot of lefty people have the internet: the ability to have most conversations take place within a particular political milieu leads to a distorted view of the opposition. This is probably especially the case for Europeans, because the American right, while not totally dissimilar to the European one, is distinct enough that you can't substitute the latter for the for the former. I don't read the Palestine or Ukraine thread so I'm sure there is context missing. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12559 Posts
On August 13 2025 13:53 Introvert wrote: We already know KwarK is annoyed with how "liberalism" is used in the US, and that could probably apply to US conservatism too which is distinct from its European counterparts in many ways. Using the adjective "conservative" when discussing Alex Jones is evidence the understanding is not exactly the same. I am also annoyed with how liberalism is used in the US but this worked neither in the US nor in Europe | ||
KwarK
United States44353 Posts
On August 13 2025 22:58 Nebuchad wrote: I am also annoyed with how liberalism is used in the US but this worked neither in the US nor in Europe If it helps I was using the capital L Liberalism to refer to that ideology. I understand that it was unclear as it was the first word of the sentence. Neoliberalism falls under the umbrella of Liberal politics for me. As the dominant postwar western ideology it was the enemy that both far left revolutionaries and far right reactionaries sought to destroy. That's all I was saying, that they both hate Neoliberalism, and more or less for the same reasons. They disagree with what to do when it has been destroyed, of course, but they agree on why it should be. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
Media Bias Fact Check has a very high accuracy in determining the political bias and factuality of online outlets. I posted this on June 27 in response to your claim of three (effectively two) "right of center publications". You ignored the response, and now you want to claim that MBFC is "silly"? In posting that comment you outed yourself as a consumer of far right propaganda. On August 13 2025 22:33 Introvert wrote: The problem with this post is the same as whatever (quite frankly silly) source you used to claim those places were "far-right propaganda". For the most part I have fairly mainstream American conservative views as do places like National Review. I don’t know what you mean by social justice warrioring unless you just mean disagree. Although for the record about 95% or more of the links I post are from NYT/WP/Politico/WSJ. I would be curious for an example of me "social justice warrioring" whatever it is that you mean by that. It's kind of odd you are complaining about this imo as I feel like you occasionally have a problem related to the one I identified the other day and that a lot of lefty people have the internet: the ability to have most conversations take place within a particular political milieu leads to a distorted view of the opposition. This is probably especially the case for Europeans, because the American right, while not totally dissimilar to the European one, is distinct enough that you can't substitute the latter for the for the former. I don't read the Palestine or Ukraine thread so I'm sure there is context missing. On June 27 2025 16:07 Magic Powers wrote: I just had to quote-mine this. No worries though, there's no missing context. These are apparently "right of center publications". Can I safely assume Introvert views himself as moderate despite consuming far-right content? ![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/83dbf0e68b395d5da50855786a2e6ca7.png) ![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/58da46c102b749808b22de7a46ef7d66.png) ![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/16ca3affd84717a94a3ca314624c3493.png) | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On August 13 2025 23:24 Magic Powers wrote: @Introvert Media Bias Fact Check has a very high accuracy in determining the political bias and factuality of online outlets. I posted this on June 27 in response to your claim of three (effectively two) "right of center publications". You ignored the response, and now you want to claim that MBFC is "silly"? In posting that comment you outed yourself as a consumer of far right propaganda. I don't know anything about "Media Bias Fact Check" but from what I'm gathering so far is A) a potential lack of familiarity with the American right (fine, if acknowledged) and B) a fixation on me as a social justice warriror for my own side based on...something. All you are doing is reinforcing my main point. If you have an example of my bad behavior (or social justice warrioring as you call it), rather than a second hand opinion, I'd like to hear it. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10006 Posts
On August 13 2025 21:41 WombaT wrote: It’s a useful framing for those people, absolutely. Equally I don’t think that holds overall. For many it’s that they genuinely think ‘clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you’ is the way to be. I think for some it’s a defence mechanism. Hey I’m justified advocating for not throwing the left a bone, I mean the far left is just as bad as the far right right? I just think it’s a ridiculous framework personally, but it’s not always invoked out of malice. Any framework where you have to morph and swap out constituent parts to then try and draw parallels, and ignore things that don’t fit is just a fundamentally broken model (see also - ‘Social Justice is a religion). Hey I’m a healthy weight, anorexic people and obese people to either side of me are not, ergo those two cohorts are the same right? Fair enough, its not always out of malice. Sometimes its out of stupidity. If you literally can't tell the difference between a tankie and nazi you need serious, severe help with your ability to learn and assess information. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44353 Posts
On August 13 2025 23:55 Jockmcplop wrote: Fair enough, its not always out of malice. Sometimes its out of stupidity. If you literally can't tell the difference between a tankie and nazi you need serious, severe help with your ability to learn and assess information. Let's say Neoliberalism is like Germany in 1945. Obviously there's a huge difference between the Soviet Union and the United States of America in 1945. They're not the same. They're not remotely the same. But from the perspective of a German soldier they're both firing at you and their bullets feel pretty much the same when they hit. Sure, after the destruction of Germany they have very different visions for what comes next. But that's down the line, in the here and now they're still working together to smash it. GH has been very vocal and very clear that the Democrats and neoliberalism must first be fought before turning to the real enemy. I agree with you that they're very, very different and that the "they're all the same" people don't know anything. But for right now they're both shooting at the same target. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24369 Posts
On August 14 2025 00:02 KwarK wrote: + Show Spoiler + Let's say Neoliberalism is like Germany in 1945. Obviously there's a huge difference between the Soviet Union and the United States of America in 1945. They're not the same. They're not remotely the same. But from the perspective of a German soldier they're both firing at you and their bullets feel pretty much the same when they hit. Sure, after the destruction of Germany they have very different visions for what comes next. But that's down the line, in the here and now they're still working together to smash it. GH has been very vocal and very clear that the Democrats and neoliberalism must first be fought before turning to the real enemy. + Show Spoiler + I agree with you that they're very, very different and that the "they're all the same" people don't know anything. But for right now they're both shooting at the same target. I'm saying people are hostages of neoliberalism (it's essentially how you all describe it yourselves) and they need to escape so they can fight the fascists. People are being faced with a choice between whether they're going to be more like Richard Wadani or Wernher von Braun (being generous). Most people have spent their lives assuming they'd be be a Wadani type and now they are realizing/rationalizing being a von Braun type. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44353 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On August 13 2025 23:51 Introvert wrote: I don't know anything about "Media Bias Fact Check" but from what I'm gathering so far is A) a potential lack of familiarity with the American right (fine, if acknowledged) and B) a fixation on me as a social justice warriror for my own side based on...something. All you are doing is reinforcing my main point. If you have an example of my bad behavior (or social justice warrioring as you call it), rather than a second hand opinion, I'd like to hear it. I didn't call you a social justice warrior. The right-wing equivalent I'm referring to is crazy talk about absurd non-issues, such as cat eating migrants. That is the social justice warrior equivalent of the right-wing. And you've engaged in that kind of behavior, for example when Mamdani was accused of faking his ethnic background, when in reality he just didn't know which boxes he should check and went with whatever felt right to him. You participated in that, remember? A pointless several pages long discussion about something that is entirely irrelevant and deserves mockery for even being brought up. That's the behavior I'm talking about. You right-wingers are no different, you just have different grievances than left-wingers. You can get equally absurd. And MBFC is highly credible. If you reject them, you could just as well reject all online sources, including your own. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12559 Posts
On August 14 2025 01:23 KwarK wrote: Voters just don’t like you GH. They’re not being held against their will, they’re not hostages, they know about your party, they got the invite, they laughed at you and then they threw it in the trash. This hostages idea is pure cope to somehow reconcile your idea of self with the fact that nobody showed up. As anecdotal as it is, I've never had interactions that led me to believe that this is true. Even among people who consider themselves liberal, there are way more leftists than liberals. I'd wager that is why we hear so often about how liberals are the lesser of two evils, rather than how they are, you know, good. | ||
|
Billyboy
2463 Posts
On August 13 2025 16:14 Jockmcplop wrote: Are people's brains really so tiny they have to pretend that people who believe in opposite principles about 90% of the time are the same just so they can group people into 'good/bad' more easily? Horseshoe theory is for absolute fucking morons with very shitty intentions. I don't think anyone's brain is actually that tiny, because no one has said what you are saying. Perhaps you need some basic reading comprehension lessons or some more emotional control because this and really most of your low (no) content one liners miss the mark by a mile. I wouldn't go calling others morons when you miss the point this bad and this consistently. Also, this is the exact BS post that needs to be eliminated from TL, it adds no value and is just an angry man lashing out because he does not want the trouble of thinking. On August 13 2025 21:41 WombaT wrote: GH holds liberals in contempt, clearly. In part because he expects them to be better, and frequently says so expectations he does not really hold for MAGA zealots or whatever. Who, I don’t especially see him agreeing with or being too pally with in the first place. Another reason why he’s not too chummy with some liberals here is quite a simple one, many are actively hostile to him as well. Not always without merit by any means, but it is absolutely the case. I’d also add that GH is one poster, and far from the only far-left poster on these boards. For this observation to stick in a more general sense wouldn’t others be doing the same things? It’s a useful framing for those people, absolutely. Equally I don’t think that holds overall. For many it’s that they genuinely think ‘clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you’ is the way to be. I think for some it’s a defence mechanism. Hey I’m justified advocating for not throwing the left a bone, I mean the far left is just as bad as the far right right? I just think it’s a ridiculous framework personally, but it’s not always invoked out of malice. Any framework where you have to morph and swap out constituent parts to then try and draw parallels, and ignore things that don’t fit is just a fundamentally broken model (see also - ‘Social Justice is a religion). Hey I’m a healthy weight, anorexic people and obese people to either side of me are not, ergo those two cohorts are the same right? Everyone is different is obviously true, I think a lot of people here who identify as far left would not be considered far left by GH. Someone can avoid most of the stuff targeting them if they critically think about it and check the sources of where it came from, but sadly we are all being influenced by propaganda/marketing there is plenty of studies that it works with enough repetition even if we know it is BS, there is a reason companies spend so much on advertizing and "influencers". I do not think anyone thinks the bold part, and if you think I've written that somewhere I'd love to see the post. On August 13 2025 23:55 Jockmcplop wrote: Fair enough, its not always out of malice. Sometimes its out of stupidity. If you literally can't tell the difference between a tankie and nazi you need serious, severe help with your ability to learn and assess information. Everyone can, only people who are scared of self analyzing and want to be mad at made up evil people instead of real people would say such a thing. But could Nazi's and Tankies be allys or agree on anything? No way that would ever happen in the real world.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact On August 14 2025 01:41 Nebuchad wrote: As anecdotal as it is, I've never had interactions that led me to believe that this is true. Even among people who consider themselves liberal, there are way more leftists than liberals. I'd wager that is why we hear so often about how liberals are the lesser of two evils, rather than how they are, you know, good. I think this is true. I believe the issue is that the super far loud leftists purity test everyone out of the group instead of building a large enough one. If anything the non tankie leftist's who don't believe Russia is actually good, China is perfect other than capitalist propaganda, Maduro is a real Socialist and not a drug lord, and so on, need to stand up to the the people that call themselves far left but are actually more into feeling special by shitting on people then building some real political movement and momentum. It would actually be pretty interesting if the left people in the threads starting arguing with the left stuff and the right started arguing with right. Might calm things down. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44353 Posts
On August 14 2025 01:41 Nebuchad wrote: As anecdotal as it is, I've never had interactions that led me to believe that this is true. Even among people who consider themselves liberal, there are way more leftists than liberals. I'd wager that is why we hear so often about how liberals are the lesser of two evils, rather than how they are, you know, good. I also don't spend much time with the kind of people who vote for Trump or who cheer when he promises to hurt people etc. I think that kind of anecdotal experience is why Democrats were so fucking complacent about Trump, even after he won in 2016. They're too invested in the idea of an aspirational America, they want to believe that Americans are fundamentally good people who want things like cheap anti AIDS medication provided to pregnant mothers with AIDS in Africa so that the newborns aren't born with AIDS. The problem is that the American voting public are, by and large, not good people. Trump is, more than any political figure before him, a basic test of what your moral values are. America failed. It's commendable that you don't associate with them. I don't either. But they're out there. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On August 13 2025 20:39 Magic Powers wrote: Is that something you also observe from the people who are opposed to progressives/left-wingers? I'm asking because my own observation is that it's not just one side. I think oBlade, Introvert, Razyda and others are heavily engaged in their own version of social justice warrioring, by claiming that left-wing policies are actively harmful to entire demographics, when in reality this is often a complete misrepresentation of what the policies are doing. You're saying that the equivalent of claiming Kwark supports killing Palestinian children is introvert/oblade/rayzda airing some grievance about left wing policies being harmful? The two are not even remotely similar. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On August 14 2025 01:34 Magic Powers wrote: I didn't call you a social justice warrior. The right-wing equivalent I'm referring to is crazy talk about absurd non-issues, such as cat eating migrants. That is the social justice warrior equivalent of the right-wing. And you've engaged in that kind of behavior, for example when Mamdani was accused of faking his ethnic background, when in reality he just didn't know which boxes he should check and went with whatever felt right to him. You participated in that, remember? A pointless several pages long discussion about something that is entirely irrelevant and deserves mockery for even being brought up. That's the behavior I'm talking about. You right-wingers are no different, you just have different grievances than left-wingers. You can get equally absurd. And MBFC is highly credible. If you reject them, you could just as well reject all online sources, including your own. Well you said i was someone engaged in my own version of "social justice warrioring" (taken from BJ) but it appears now that we don't have the same definition. To me it doesn't mean "talking about something I don't want to talk about". I dont really think that's what we're talking about here. I don't even think it was a right-winger who brought up Mamdani. But certainly it's a valid thing to discuss even if its importance is debatable. Again to me this just seems like an unwillingness to know actually know anything about those who might disagree. In your example you've just assumed every fact to be seen as you see it and then dismissed disagreement. Like I said i know nothing about MBFC but I am generally suspicious of both the precision and accuracy of attempts to give bias scores for political outlets. Edit: of course people on the right can be equally absurd, dont think I've ever said or intimated otherwise. But what you consider absurd might not be universally shared. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12559 Posts
On August 14 2025 02:55 Billyboy wrote: I think this is true. I believe the issue is that the super far loud leftists purity test everyone out of the group instead of building a large enough one. If anything the non tankie leftist's who don't believe Russia is actually good, China is perfect other than capitalist propaganda, Maduro is a real Socialist and not a drug lord, and so on, need to stand up to the the people that call themselves far left but are actually more into feeling special by shitting on people then building some real political movement and momentum. It would actually be pretty interesting if the left people in the threads starting arguing with the left stuff and the right started arguing with right. Might calm things down. As usual, this analysis doesn't work because it misattributes power. You're presenting a situation in which, in a party where most people are leftists and most policies are liberal, the issue is that leftists complain too much. No, it isn't. If all those premises are true, the issue is that there is a disconnect between what the voters of the party want and what the party offers. The people who have power in the party, the moderate liberals, should stop purity testing us and let us have the party we want, as we are mostly leftists. We can immediately see the issue with your analysis in that, omg those leftists complain too much, and then... what? What happens because they complain too much? They don't have power. They can't do anything, except making you feel bad by pointing out that your understanding of politics doesn't work. Now the people with power, what happens when they do purity testing? Large political donations only to "moderate" candidates, media campaigns to explain how tanks will march into DC if Bernie wins the primary, secondary runs as independants if they lose their primary... Now that's purity testing with a punch in it. But of course you don't care, because you're not the one whose purity is being questioned. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12559 Posts
On August 14 2025 03:10 KwarK wrote: I also don't spend much time with the kind of people who vote for Trump or who cheer when he promises to hurt people etc. I think that kind of anecdotal experience is why Democrats were so fucking complacent about Trump, even after he won in 2016. They're too invested in the idea of an aspirational America, they want to believe that Americans are fundamentally good people who want things like cheap anti AIDS medication provided to pregnant mothers with AIDS in Africa so that the newborns aren't born with AIDS. The problem is that the American voting public are, by and large, not good people. Trump is, more than any political figure before him, a basic test of what your moral values are. America failed. It's commendable that you don't associate with them. I don't either. But they're out there. If the issue was that the american public is evil, they would always vote for the evil party, as it is the one that brings out the evil. They don't, they keep voting for the party that isn't in power every four years. This should tell you that they aren't satisfied with either option available to them. It is by far the most logical conclusion from the facts presented at you. | ||
| ||
