|
On March 25 2026 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Democrats just flipped Trump's Mar-a-Lago Florida district, which he had won by 11 points during the last presidential election: "Democrat Emily Gregory won a special election Tuesday for the Florida state House district that includes President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, flipping the seat from Republican control, The Associated Press projects. Gregory beat Republican Jon Maples, whom Trump endorsed ... Gregory had 51% of the vote to 49% for Maples with all precincts reporting. Democrats have performed well in special elections during Trump’s second term, with the party pointing to those results as a sign of strength ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Florida’s 87th District is the 10th GOP-held state legislative seat Democrats have flipped around the country since Trump took office again last year. Republicans have not flipped any Democratic state legislative seats during that time. Trump carried this Florida legislative district by about 11 percentage points in 2024" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrat-flips-republican-florida-house-seat-includes-trump-mar-lago-rcna264660
On March 27 2026 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Interesting divide among Democrats about how to handle the rapid expansion of environmentally spurious AI data centers. Show nested quote +Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said on Wednesday at Axios' AI+DC Summit that placing a moratorium on the construction of AI data centers would be "idiocy," adding that it would grant China an edge in the race to dominate artificial intelligence.
Why it matters: Warner's comments come the same day that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) unveiled legislation to pause all new data center construction nationwide until AI safeguards are in place.
"That would be idiocy," Warner said when asked about the idea of a moratorium to ease the transition to AI.
"A data center moratorium simply means China is going to move quicker," he added.
Their bill would impose a national moratorium on new AI data center construction until "strong national safeguards" are in place, per a press release. www.axios.com
On March 27 2026 01:10 LightSpectra wrote:So here's a controversial topic, Democratic primary in Maine for the U.S. Senate, the winner will run against Collins in November. The two leading candidates are current governor Janet Mills, moderate endorsed by Chuck Schumer, 79 years old, and Graham Platner, left-wing endorsed by Bernie Sanders, 42 years old. In normal circumstances I would say Platner is the obvious choice, BUT, he also had a Totenkopf tattoo (he claims he didn't know what it meant when he got it and said he would laser it off in October of last year). He's also an ex-mercenary for private military company Blackwater, even after their role in the Nisour Square massacre was made public knowledge. So there's a real worry that he's simply faking being left-wing and will go full John Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema after he's elected. I don't live in Maine so this isn't my problem, but it's an interesting dilemma for progressives there.
This isn't specifically a complaint, rather it is documenting my observation that the libs/Dems/ilk in the thread are demonstrably chronically incapable of maintaining a US politics discussion among themselves that isn't in the mock and gawk vein
Just look at those 10 pages. Even when they clearly disagree with each other, they still seemingly can't actually discuss it with each other. As opposed to how they can consistently have these very long incessant and perpetual shit flinging contests with people the libs/Dems/ilk themselves say they should ignore.
As one example, Some think voting Platner in the primary is the better choice, others voting for Mills, none of them actually discussed it with each other. As another, some people think the progressive AI proposal is sensible, others agree with the centrists and think it is stupid. No one was interested in discussing DPB's post about the Democrat that won in Trump's Mar-a-Lago district. Like how they won, or how that might be or not be used to beat Trump elsewhere as some examples.
Honestly, any of you that think you might fall in the "libs/Dems/ilk" grouping, I welcome you to show me the last time any of you have had a comparably lengthy exchange about a political disagreement within the libs/Dems/ilk "in-group" and show me how wrong I am.
|
United States24801 Posts
With the gap between the major political parties so big, it's not surprising that people of somewhat similar ideologies don't focus much on differences among themselves while all three branches of government are held by the other party. And yea, the need to argue with perceived bad-faith opponents is frustrating to see.
|
On March 29 2026 02:21 micronesia wrote:
With the gap between the major political parties so big, it's not surprising that people of somewhat similar ideologies don't focus much on differences among themselves while all three branches of government are held by the other party. And yea, the need to argue with perceived bad-faith opponents is frustrating to see.
I could see how that would frustrating. I feel no pity though for someone who is waste deep in the mud.
|
On March 29 2026 02:21 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2026 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2026 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Democrats just flipped Trump's Mar-a-Lago Florida district, which he had won by 11 points during the last presidential election: "Democrat Emily Gregory won a special election Tuesday for the Florida state House district that includes President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, flipping the seat from Republican control, The Associated Press projects. Gregory beat Republican Jon Maples, whom Trump endorsed ... Gregory had 51% of the vote to 49% for Maples with all precincts reporting. Democrats have performed well in special elections during Trump’s second term, with the party pointing to those results as a sign of strength ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Florida’s 87th District is the 10th GOP-held state legislative seat Democrats have flipped around the country since Trump took office again last year. Republicans have not flipped any Democratic state legislative seats during that time. Trump carried this Florida legislative district by about 11 percentage points in 2024" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrat-flips-republican-florida-house-seat-includes-trump-mar-lago-rcna264660 On March 27 2026 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Interesting divide among Democrats about how to handle the rapid expansion of environmentally spurious AI data centers. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said on Wednesday at Axios' AI+DC Summit that placing a moratorium on the construction of AI data centers would be "idiocy," adding that it would grant China an edge in the race to dominate artificial intelligence.
Why it matters: Warner's comments come the same day that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) unveiled legislation to pause all new data center construction nationwide until AI safeguards are in place.
"That would be idiocy," Warner said when asked about the idea of a moratorium to ease the transition to AI.
"A data center moratorium simply means China is going to move quicker," he added.
Their bill would impose a national moratorium on new AI data center construction until "strong national safeguards" are in place, per a press release. www.axios.com On March 27 2026 01:10 LightSpectra wrote:So here's a controversial topic, Democratic primary in Maine for the U.S. Senate, the winner will run against Collins in November. The two leading candidates are current governor Janet Mills, moderate endorsed by Chuck Schumer, 79 years old, and Graham Platner, left-wing endorsed by Bernie Sanders, 42 years old. In normal circumstances I would say Platner is the obvious choice, BUT, he also had a Totenkopf tattoo (he claims he didn't know what it meant when he got it and said he would laser it off in October of last year). He's also an ex-mercenary for private military company Blackwater, even after their role in the Nisour Square massacre was made public knowledge. So there's a real worry that he's simply faking being left-wing and will go full John Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema after he's elected. I don't live in Maine so this isn't my problem, but it's an interesting dilemma for progressives there. This isn't specifically a complaint, rather it is documenting my observation that the libs/Dems/ilk in the thread are demonstrably chronically incapable of maintaining a US politics discussion among themselves that isn't in the mock and gawk vein Just look at those 10 pages. Even when they clearly disagree with each other, they still seemingly can't actually discuss it with each other. As opposed to how they can consistently have these very long incessant and perpetual shit flinging contests with people the libs/Dems/ilk themselves say they should ignore. As one example, Some think voting Platner in the primary is the better choice, others voting for Mills, none of them actually discussed it with each other. As another, some people think the progressive AI proposal is sensible, others agree with the centrists and think it is stupid. No one was interested in discussing DPB's post about the Democrat that won in Trump's Mar-a-Lago district. Like how they won, or how that might be or not be used to beat Trump elsewhere as some examples. Honestly, any of you that think you might fall in the "libs/Dems/ilk" grouping, I welcome you to show me the last time any of you have had a comparably lengthy exchange about a political disagreement within the libs/Dems/ilk "in-group" and show me how wrong I am. With the gap between the major political parties so big, it's not surprising that people of somewhat similar ideologies don't focus much on differences among themselves while all three branches of government are held by the other party. And yea, the need to argue with perceived bad-faith opponents is frustrating to see.
"focus much" would be one thing, I'm pointing out that they're evidently/seemingly/functionally incapable, evidenced further by there not being any counterexamples to be seen. If it was rare compared to the incessant engaging with perceived bad-faith opponents, that might be regrettable, but still understandable. That it is practically nonexistent, speaks to a fascination beyond the politics for me.
This phenomena, while indisputable since Republicans took power (and I've started documenting it), was certainly happening before that too. Anyone would struggle to find a high-quality counterexample going back for ~a decade at this point.
|
Ender would be the proof that you are wrong, he is doing 1000x times then our pretend revolutionist who can't stop making passive aggressive digs at currently lightspectra, DarkPlasmaBall and Sermolka. Hell you even make posts just being a dick to those guys well Ender is having actual interesting conversations with people.
Hell you starting this is completely unrelated to the purpose of the thread, you are just so desperate to get the people you are fighting with. You have you blog where if you ACTUALLY wanted discussion to happen you could do it there, moderating to your hearts desire.
There is a reason that poll went 12-1 with the 1 side being people who thought you were not either completely void of self awareness or purposefully harassing people.
|
On March 29 2026 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2026 02:21 micronesia wrote:On March 29 2026 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2026 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Democrats just flipped Trump's Mar-a-Lago Florida district, which he had won by 11 points during the last presidential election: "Democrat Emily Gregory won a special election Tuesday for the Florida state House district that includes President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, flipping the seat from Republican control, The Associated Press projects. Gregory beat Republican Jon Maples, whom Trump endorsed ... Gregory had 51% of the vote to 49% for Maples with all precincts reporting. Democrats have performed well in special elections during Trump’s second term, with the party pointing to those results as a sign of strength ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Florida’s 87th District is the 10th GOP-held state legislative seat Democrats have flipped around the country since Trump took office again last year. Republicans have not flipped any Democratic state legislative seats during that time. Trump carried this Florida legislative district by about 11 percentage points in 2024" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrat-flips-republican-florida-house-seat-includes-trump-mar-lago-rcna264660 On March 27 2026 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Interesting divide among Democrats about how to handle the rapid expansion of environmentally spurious AI data centers. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said on Wednesday at Axios' AI+DC Summit that placing a moratorium on the construction of AI data centers would be "idiocy," adding that it would grant China an edge in the race to dominate artificial intelligence.
Why it matters: Warner's comments come the same day that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) unveiled legislation to pause all new data center construction nationwide until AI safeguards are in place.
"That would be idiocy," Warner said when asked about the idea of a moratorium to ease the transition to AI.
"A data center moratorium simply means China is going to move quicker," he added.
Their bill would impose a national moratorium on new AI data center construction until "strong national safeguards" are in place, per a press release. www.axios.com On March 27 2026 01:10 LightSpectra wrote:So here's a controversial topic, Democratic primary in Maine for the U.S. Senate, the winner will run against Collins in November. The two leading candidates are current governor Janet Mills, moderate endorsed by Chuck Schumer, 79 years old, and Graham Platner, left-wing endorsed by Bernie Sanders, 42 years old. In normal circumstances I would say Platner is the obvious choice, BUT, he also had a Totenkopf tattoo (he claims he didn't know what it meant when he got it and said he would laser it off in October of last year). He's also an ex-mercenary for private military company Blackwater, even after their role in the Nisour Square massacre was made public knowledge. So there's a real worry that he's simply faking being left-wing and will go full John Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema after he's elected. I don't live in Maine so this isn't my problem, but it's an interesting dilemma for progressives there. This isn't specifically a complaint, rather it is documenting my observation that the libs/Dems/ilk in the thread are demonstrably chronically incapable of maintaining a US politics discussion among themselves that isn't in the mock and gawk vein Just look at those 10 pages. Even when they clearly disagree with each other, they still seemingly can't actually discuss it with each other. As opposed to how they can consistently have these very long incessant and perpetual shit flinging contests with people the libs/Dems/ilk themselves say they should ignore. As one example, Some think voting Platner in the primary is the better choice, others voting for Mills, none of them actually discussed it with each other. As another, some people think the progressive AI proposal is sensible, others agree with the centrists and think it is stupid. No one was interested in discussing DPB's post about the Democrat that won in Trump's Mar-a-Lago district. Like how they won, or how that might be or not be used to beat Trump elsewhere as some examples. Honestly, any of you that think you might fall in the "libs/Dems/ilk" grouping, I welcome you to show me the last time any of you have had a comparably lengthy exchange about a political disagreement within the libs/Dems/ilk "in-group" and show me how wrong I am. With the gap between the major political parties so big, it's not surprising that people of somewhat similar ideologies don't focus much on differences among themselves while all three branches of government are held by the other party. And yea, the need to argue with perceived bad-faith opponents is frustrating to see. "focus much" would be one thing, I'm pointing out that they're evidently/seemingly/functionally incapable, evidenced further by there not being any counterexamples to be seen. If it was rare compared to the incessant engaging with perceived bad-faith opponents, that might be regrettable, but still understandable. That it is practically nonexistent, speaks to a fascination beyond the politics for me. This phenomena, while indisputable since Republicans took power (and I've started documenting it), was certainly happening before that too. Anyone would struggle to find a high-quality counterexample going back for ~a decade at this point.
Acceptance that politics is something that doesn't include us and which we can't have influence over in any way, but without the usual disinterest in politics that comes with that acceptance.
|
Hyrule19259 Posts
On March 26 2026 15:25 Acrofales wrote:
Did you actually use your report button? I'm fairly confident Xeno would be banned thrice over if his posts actually reached Tofucake. But you should know by now that nobody of the moderation team is going anywhere near the uspol thread unless a reported post falls in their lap.
y'all suck at like..basic observational skills. I gave up on moderating the politics thread. You all clearly want to be angry, racist, uncompromising assholes so I left you to it. If you want me to go back to moderating I'll be happy to ban all of you, lock the thread, and continue on with my life.
|
They can run an esports team or multiple esports teams, but not a politics thread. Don't worry, it's a joke. Esports is much easier.
I only want to see the TL history book from the moderator point of view. Previous healthy thread(s), slow departure of reasonable posters, the attempt to introduce new subjective standards to fix the problem, and the ultimate abandonment of literally everything in that post setting out the new subjective standards. To quote a portion:
Over time, a posting culture has developed that stands in stark contrast to the values we value as a site.
The moderation team and wider staff came to a consensus that things need to change in this thread so that it aligns closer to the values of the rest of TLnet. We’re going to introduce more subjective moderation in the thread. What this means is that if we feel that your posting in this thread is to the detriment of the thread then we’re going to slap you with a thread ban (temporary or permanent). On this April Fool's day, let's remember that holding to the ideals set forth in the first post would "ban all of you, lock the thread."
|
United States44340 Posts
I genuinely think the heart of GH's issue with the current topic is that he's not the guy with the stupidest takes right now. He's grown used to the naked contempt his posts are normally able to generate and right now he's being forced to share.
It's tough, he looks at the contempt oblade is earning and thinks "that should be mine, why to they keep responding to that idiot, what does he have that I don't".
|
On April 02 2026 04:26 KwarK wrote:
I genuinely think the heart of GH's issue with the current topic is that he's not the guy with the stupidest takes right now. He's grown used to the naked contempt his posts are normally able to generate and right now he's being forced to share.
It's tough, he looks at the contempt oblade is earning and thinks "that should be mine, why to they keep responding to that idiot, what does he have that I don't".
I've repeatedly stressed that I specifically would appreciate people ignoring anyone else they think unworthy and demonstrate a capacity to maintain a discussion about US politics among themselves that isn't centered around their petulant and incessant need to mock and gawk to self-soothe.
Thus far (I dunno, like ~a decade?), they've demonstrated they lack that capacity. I've seen enough little things change over the years to hold out hope that we'll get there one day though.
|
On April 02 2026 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2026 04:26 KwarK wrote:
I genuinely think the heart of GH's issue with the current topic is that he's not the guy with the stupidest takes right now. He's grown used to the naked contempt his posts are normally able to generate and right now he's being forced to share.
It's tough, he looks at the contempt oblade is earning and thinks "that should be mine, why to they keep responding to that idiot, what does he have that I don't". I've repeatedly stressed that I specifically would appreciate people ignoring anyone else they think unworthy and demonstrate a capacity to maintain a discussion about US politics among themselves that isn't centered around their petulant and incessant need to mock and gawk to self-soothe. Thus far (I dunno, like ~a decade?), they've demonstrated they lack that capacity. I've seen enough little things change over the years to hold out hope that we'll get there one day though.
You are the they, people fight with you because you are a cunt to them. Either passive aggressively, by either responding to someone else’s post with a dig to them. Or just being really condescending. Or once in a while the mask comes off and you go straight for it.
People are not arguing that the discussion couldn’t be better, it could. The issue people have with you, is you are the number one offender for making the conversation worse, because you have been doing it forever.
This you making great discussion?
I think it is a skill issue. You'd probably have better luck copy pasting it into an AI and having it explain it to you.
No one is mean to you for any other reason than they think you deserve it based on how you treat them.
|
On April 14 2026 09:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here. To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile.
I mean I suppose we could dig up the posts of Kwark saying he's a conservative and a member of the Republican party but they don't really feel necessary for this to be clearly crossing a line?
EDIT: I should note this could be considered "Defamation per se"
|
United States44340 Posts
On April 14 2026 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 09:55 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here. To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile. I mean I suppose we could dig up the posts of Kwark saying he's a conservative and a member of the Republican party but they don't really feel necessary for this to be clearly crossing a line?
I'm literally not a conservative and I joined the Republican Party because I'm an actual political activist who engages in direct subversive action rather than just pretending to be a revolutionary on the internet like you.
But you know these things already, you just thought that it'd be funny to engage in name calling. And now you're here crying because I chose to demonstrate the absurdity of your chosen line of attack by returning it to sender with a little added spice. It's a dumb game, but it's a game that you decided you wanted to play.
But sure, if you want to pretend that we actually believe what we're accusing each other of then by all means let's do that. You keep calling me a conservative and I'll keep reminding people of that time you were literally convicted of sexual abuse of a child.
|
On April 14 2026 10:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:55 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here. To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile. I mean I suppose we could dig up the posts of Kwark saying he's a conservative and a member of the Republican party but they don't really feel necessary for this to be clearly crossing a line? I'm literally not a conservative and I joined the Republican Party because I'm an actual political activist who engages in direct subversive action + Show Spoiler +rather than just pretending to be a revolutionary on the internet like you.
But you know these things already, you just thought that it'd be funny to engage in name calling. And now you're here crying because I chose to demonstrate the absurdity of your chosen line of attack by returning it to sender with a little added spice. It's a dumb game, but it's a game that you decided you wanted to play.
But sure, if you want to pretend that we actually believe what we're accusing each other of then by all means let's do that. You keep calling me a conservative and I'll keep reminding people of that time you were literally convicted of sexual abuse of a child.
Meh, I just expect better from multiple people in a variety of ways. You could try making this same point, but with something I actually said, like I did with yours as one example.
I'll accept your assertion that you are (were?) a member of the Republican party as "subversive action" (how's that going?), but the "conservative" thing came from you saying you were a conservative in the UK and Democrat in the US because Republicans are what they are.
How do you self-identify politically? For future reference/clarity?
|
United States44340 Posts
On April 14 2026 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 10:08 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:55 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here. To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile. I mean I suppose we could dig up the posts of Kwark saying he's a conservative and a member of the Republican party but they don't really feel necessary for this to be clearly crossing a line? I'm literally not a conservative and I joined the Republican Party because I'm an actual political activist who engages in direct subversive action + Show Spoiler +rather than just pretending to be a revolutionary on the internet like you.
But you know these things already, you just thought that it'd be funny to engage in name calling. And now you're here crying because I chose to demonstrate the absurdity of your chosen line of attack by returning it to sender with a little added spice. It's a dumb game, but it's a game that you decided you wanted to play.
But sure, if you want to pretend that we actually believe what we're accusing each other of then by all means let's do that. You keep calling me a conservative and I'll keep reminding people of that time you were literally convicted of sexual abuse of a child. Meh, I just expect better from multiple people in a variety of ways. You could try making this same point, but with something I actually said, like I did with yours as one example. I'll accept your assertion that you are (were?) a member of the Republican party as "subversive action" (how's that going?), but the "conservative" thing came from you saying you were a conservative in the UK and Democrat in the US because Republicans are what they are. How do you self-identify politically? For future reference/clarity?
It's going okay. I don't want to give any legally ambiguous examples of things I've done but I can give others.
One simple example is I'm on the board of a fairly major legal aid nonprofit that does an awful lot of good work for vulnerable people (indigenous, undocumented, incarcerated etc.). It's an extremely woke organization, so woke it's almost beyond parody, which can be problematic when trying to get rich people to open their wallets. One of the ways in which I provide value, beyond direct financial support and my services as a CPA, is as a token "Republican" serving as the Treasurer. They can parade me when they need to show how bipartisan they are in the current climate and I just find it funny.
I'll give you another example. I keep serving my community as an Election Judge on behalf of the Republican Party. I run the voter center election after election and I make damn sure that every person with the right to vote gets to vote. That homeless guy who is just here because it's cold out? I'll process his same day enrollment myself. If he doesn't have the documents on hand I'm familiar with the minimum requirements to get them in the system and will happily walk him through where he can get what from. And when the conspiracy theorists show up and see the Dominion machines I'm on 'their side' as I explain to them the various safeguards.
Obviously there's other ways you can damage Republican causes from the inside too.
I identify as a revolutionary socialist but I'm not an anarchist and I'm not a psychopath. We live in a world in which the majority of people are fed by spreadsheets and it would be morally abhorrent to destroy the status quo without having a plan for feeding a billion children during the time required to make the new system. Good intentions cannot excuse manmade famines. Direct action is not in conflict with incrementalism and the revolution can be made up of millions of people individually doing their part.
|
On April 14 2026 10:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 10:08 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:55 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here. To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile. I mean I suppose we could dig up the posts of Kwark saying he's a conservative and a member of the Republican party but they don't really feel necessary for this to be clearly crossing a line? I'm literally not a conservative and I joined the Republican Party because I'm an actual political activist who engages in direct subversive action + Show Spoiler +rather than just pretending to be a revolutionary on the internet like you.
But you know these things already, you just thought that it'd be funny to engage in name calling. And now you're here crying because I chose to demonstrate the absurdity of your chosen line of attack by returning it to sender with a little added spice. It's a dumb game, but it's a game that you decided you wanted to play.
But sure, if you want to pretend that we actually believe what we're accusing each other of then by all means let's do that. You keep calling me a conservative and I'll keep reminding people of that time you were literally convicted of sexual abuse of a child. Meh, I just expect better from multiple people in a variety of ways. You could try making this same point, but with something I actually said, like I did with yours as one example. I'll accept your assertion that you are (were?) a member of the Republican party as "subversive action" (how's that going?), but the "conservative" thing came from you saying you were a conservative in the UK and Democrat in the US because Republicans are what they are. How do you self-identify politically? For future reference/clarity? It's going okay. I don't want to give any legally ambiguous examples of things I've done + Show Spoiler +but I can give others.
One simple example is I'm on the board of a fairly major legal aid nonprofit that does an awful lot of good work for vulnerable people (indigenous, undocumented, incarcerated etc.). It's an extremely woke organization, so woke it's almost beyond parody, which can be problematic when trying to get rich people to open their wallets. One of the ways in which I provide value, beyond direct financial support and my services as a CPA, is as a token "Republican" serving as the Treasurer. They can parade me when they need to show how bipartisan they are in the current climate and I just find it funny.
I'll give you another example. I keep serving my community as an Election Judge on behalf of the Republican Party. I run the voter center election after election and I make damn sure that every person with the right to vote gets to vote. That homeless guy who is just here because it's cold out? I'll process his same day enrollment myself. If he doesn't have the documents on hand I'm familiar with the minimum requirements to get them in the system and will happily walk him through where he can get what from. And when the conspiracy theorists show up and see the Dominion machines I'm on 'their side' as I explain to them the various safeguards.
Obviously there's other ways you can damage Republican causes from the inside too.
Had a feeling you understood that concept.
I identify as a revolutionary socialist + Show Spoiler +but I'm not an anarchist and I'm not a psychopath. We live in a world in which the majority of people are fed by spreadsheets and it would be morally abhorrent to destroy the status quo without having a plan for feeding a billion children during the time required to make the new system. Good intentions cannot excuse manmade famines.
Direct action is not in conflict with incrementalism.
But incrementalism can be in conflict with direct action. It frequently acts as a substitute for people (like it seems most of the thread is) far less politically engaged than you or myself.
|
United States44340 Posts
On April 14 2026 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
far less politically engaged than you or myself.
We're not the same.
|
On April 14 2026 10:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 10:46 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 10:08 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:55 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That’s literally what went wrong.
2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.”
2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here. To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile. I mean I suppose we could dig up the posts of Kwark saying he's a conservative and a member of the Republican party but they don't really feel necessary for this to be clearly crossing a line? I'm literally not a conservative and I joined the Republican Party because I'm an actual political activist who engages in direct subversive action + Show Spoiler +rather than just pretending to be a revolutionary on the internet like you.
But you know these things already, you just thought that it'd be funny to engage in name calling. And now you're here crying because I chose to demonstrate the absurdity of your chosen line of attack by returning it to sender with a little added spice. It's a dumb game, but it's a game that you decided you wanted to play.
But sure, if you want to pretend that we actually believe what we're accusing each other of then by all means let's do that. You keep calling me a conservative and I'll keep reminding people of that time you were literally convicted of sexual abuse of a child. Meh, I just expect better from multiple people in a variety of ways. You could try making this same point, but with something I actually said, like I did with yours as one example. I'll accept your assertion that you are (were?) a member of the Republican party as "subversive action" (how's that going?), but the "conservative" thing came from you saying you were a conservative in the UK and Democrat in the US because Republicans are what they are. How do you self-identify politically? For future reference/clarity? It's going okay. I don't want to give any legally ambiguous examples of things I've done + Show Spoiler +but I can give others.
One simple example is I'm on the board of a fairly major legal aid nonprofit that does an awful lot of good work for vulnerable people (indigenous, undocumented, incarcerated etc.). It's an extremely woke organization, so woke it's almost beyond parody, which can be problematic when trying to get rich people to open their wallets. One of the ways in which I provide value, beyond direct financial support and my services as a CPA, is as a token "Republican" serving as the Treasurer. They can parade me when they need to show how bipartisan they are in the current climate and I just find it funny.
I'll give you another example. I keep serving my community as an Election Judge on behalf of the Republican Party. I run the voter center election after election and I make damn sure that every person with the right to vote gets to vote. That homeless guy who is just here because it's cold out? I'll process his same day enrollment myself. If he doesn't have the documents on hand I'm familiar with the minimum requirements to get them in the system and will happily walk him through where he can get what from. And when the conspiracy theorists show up and see the Dominion machines I'm on 'their side' as I explain to them the various safeguards.
Obviously there's other ways you can damage Republican causes from the inside too.
Had a feeling you understood that concept. I identify as a revolutionary socialist + Show Spoiler +but I'm not an anarchist and I'm not a psychopath. We live in a world in which the majority of people are fed by spreadsheets and it would be morally abhorrent to destroy the status quo without having a plan for feeding a billion children during the time required to make the new system. Good intentions cannot excuse manmade famines. Sounds like you mean that sincerely? Direct action is not in conflict with incrementalism. But incrementalism can be in conflict with direct action. It frequently acts as a substitute for people (like it seems most of the thread is) far less politically engaged than you or myself. We're not the same.
I didn't say we were.
|
In the spirit of respecting the rules, I decided to post this here instead of the USPMT:
I know we have a user ban list for this thread, at this moment I really, really wish we had a "topic of discussion" ban list, or at least a sensible "off topic" rule.
I understand this is tangentially connected to politics, but I honestly believe this has gone too far and for too long and basically completely derailed the thread and made it about gender.
Like I did last time this occurred, I would encourage folks who want to have this in depth discussion to create a new thread and hash it out, because this is honestly getting ridiculous.
|
On September 10 2026 02:47 Jankisa wrote:
In the spirit of respecting the rules, I decided to post this here instead of the USPMT:
I know we have a user ban list for this thread, at this moment I really, really wish we had a "topic of discussion" ban list, or at least a sensible "off topic" rule.
I understand this is tangentially connected to politics, but I honestly believe this has gone too far and for too long and basically completely derailed the thread and made it about gender.
Like I did last time this occurred, I would encourage folks who want to have this in depth discussion to create a new thread and hash it out, because this is honestly getting ridiculous.
Yeah, it is pretty annoying at this point. Especially considering that we have had the same fucking discussion multiple times now, and nothing new is ever being added. At this point, you basically know that the second someone mentions "what is a man" or something similar even as a joke, the thread is just gone for the next 5-10 pages. Every single time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
