Random political thought thread.

[Lark]

Remember when everyone's biggest political gripe was that Biden wasn't doing enough Student Loan Debt forgiveness? We were such sweet summer children back then...

I don't understand how that wasn't more popular -- That was New Deal levels of change that did materially benefit regular people. I know enough people didn't get it and the Republicans did everything they could to block it, but there were some people that did receive it and that is huge.

I just don't understand this phenomenon of how Republicans can very publicly be against any and everything that actually benefits regular people, yet evade any sense of electoral repudiation for it. It's baffling, really.

It's this strange dichotomy where voters say "either you give us radical economic change right now, today, or we'll vote for the Republicans who offer none of it whatsoever!" and even if you do give us some change, we still may vote for team Red because Red is just a cooler color.

I just don't see how the $25k down payment assistance for first time home buyers, $6,000 child tax credit and $50,000 small business tax credits don't resonate more -- I saw a video a few days ago of some young woman who looked to be in her mid twenties, saying she voted for Trump because she wants to buy a house one day. I just don't get it.

Yeah, I definitely get that, there was a good book about this from a while back called Rebel Sell about how the radical message "sold" real well but ultimately was not as good in the working out, ie perpetual opposition, to any of the things achieved by dull, mundane pragmatism.

I see the same thing with every other issue too, like Palestine, the vitriol about Biden and co. and Israel has been amped away, away up, comparing them to nazi germany or appeasement britain but no one better imagine Trump will be any different or better for the Palestinians.

The old liberal tropes of underdogs elevated to centre stage is a version of this too, if the public arent going to love, love, love these liberal preoccupations imagining the public can therefore take a hike wont achieve anything.

I figure that the militant tendencies on the right might have a few moments like this one day, eventually every populist promises too much, delivers too little or differently to hoped, but the right I think is even more of true believer material than the left.

Its why I think that both left and right need change, they need to shake the mental illnesses once and for all.

 

[The Cat]

Modern American Politics 2024​

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Remember when everyone's biggest political gripe was that Biden wasn't doing enough Student Loan Debt forgiveness? We were such sweet summer children back then...

I don't understand how that wasn't more popular -- That was New Deal levels of change that did materially benefit regular people. I know enough people didn't get it and the Republicans did everything they could to block it, but there were some people that did receive it and that is huge.

I just don't understand this phenomenon of how Republicans can very publicly be against any and everything that actually benefits regular people, yet evade any sense of electoral repudiation for it. It's baffling, really.

It's this strange dichotomy where voters say "either you give us radical economic change right now, today, or we'll vote for the Republicans who offer none of it whatsoever!" and even if you do give us some change, we still may vote for team Red because Red is just a cooler color.

I just don't see how the $25k down payment assistance for first time home buyers, $6,000 child tax credit and $50,000 small business tax credits don't resonate more -- I saw a video a few days ago of some young woman who looked to be in her mid twenties, saying she voted for Trump because she wants to buy a house one day. I just don't get it.

People aren't very smart. I also think it doesn't help that Democras tend to center their campaigns around appealing to moderate Republicans who never show up. Perhaps in the process people come to see the Democratic party as the party of the status quo.

With student loan debt relief, I appreciated that Biden was trying. He was very persistent about that, which I liked.

 

[The Cat]

People aren't very smart. I also think it doesn't help that Democras tend to center their campaigns around appealing to moderate Republicans who never show up. Perhaps in the process people come to see the Democratic party as the party of the status quo.

With student loan debt relief, I appreciated that Biden was trying. He was very persistent about that, which I liked.

It's zoo psychosis and brainwashing from multiple angles. They're fried, frayed, and fucked in the head by the relentless onslaught of too much data and not enough time or breath to process or learn. People are programmed to literally go through the motions of living.
And it affects us all in one way shape or form. Them. You. Me. All of us. Ironically its the one things we all have in common with our neighbors...They're trapped here too.
Welcome to the world of tomorrow.
We need to relearn how to live together or we will most assuredly all die alone... together.

Because mark my words, once the rich get the robots and ai like they want it...what do they need the likes of us for if not for food or sport? I suppose there will always be some jobs they don't want to waste an expensive robot on, but by then they'll have plenty of serf stock to choose from.

And this time Slim Whitman won't be able to save humanity.​

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You know, I don't blame some women for swearing off men entirely after this.

 

[Coriolis]

I heard that liberal anti-religious trope before, discounting it compared to your own favourite traits and topes is fine, whatever gets you through I guess. I dont think its more fundamental or tangible, or for that matter valuable, utilitarian or valid.

The thing about all the arguments for equality of minorities is that its seldom the case, I'm absolutely fine with equality as I believe most people are, however, that's not what I see, the fierce female erasure enacted to placate toxic male transexuality for instance, there's nothing equal there, the pariah status ascribed to Rowling, a champion of homosexual rights who made a number of her characters homosexual and encouraged her fans not to think it was an issue, there's nothing equal there.

Now, if your aim is to promote particular groups, ascribe special status to them as "canaries in the mine", which they never had before, increase their visibility and demand public attention is focused in on them, that's fine, its not equality though.

Its not even proportionate, and to be clear, its not what a lot of members of the same niche communities themselves may want, did they ask for the hyper visibility? Is it any different a democrat weaponizing your private life, preferences and choices or a republican?

I'm not assuming any of the things you so readily attirbute to me, though nothing new about that, same old same old there, but I'd have hoped with a wee bit of time you'd maybe see how that type of script and sticking so fast to it does nothing but harm your cause and the constituency who're meant to represented by it. There was that election result lately and all. Those kind of results will have an impact far beyond the minorities you reckon are and should be the focus for the future.

Who is erasing females on account of male transsexuals? I'm not sure you even know what you are talking about here. If femaleness is indeed erased, then gender transition would be pointless, because there would be nothing to transition from, or to. I'm sure J K Rowling is not alone in championing equality for one group while at the same time opposing it for another. It happens all the time, she just happens to be famous enough for a world full of fans to be aware of it.

I'm also sure that no one in any of these groups is asking for "hyper visibility". Our Haitian immigrants in Ohio did not ask to be singled out with the slander that they eat their neighbors' pets. Women without children did not ask to be ridiculed as "childless cat ladies". And LGBT people did not ask to be vilified as perverts, when statistics show that the actual threat to children comes from straight, cisgender men. People just want to be left alone to live their lives. That is hard, though, when law and policy exclude them from opportunities routinely available to others. Now an excluded group can just take this sitting down, without objection, content to live as second class citizens. Or, they can speak up and demand to be afforded the same rights as others.

What would you do?

Being "fine with equality" means everyone can access housing, education and medical care; everyone can compete for jobs on their merits alone; everyone can marry and have a family if they want; everyone can live their own lives without interference, as long as they do no harm to others; everyone is treated with the same respect as a human being. It really is that simple. Everything else is fear-mongering from people who want the electorate divided, so they cannot band together and throw the oligarchs out.

Bottom line: the way to get rid of focusing on minority demographic groups is to stop excluding, restricting, and harassing them, and just let them live their lives like anyone else.

 

[Lark]

Who is erasing females on account of male transsexuals? I'm not sure you even know what you are talking about here. If femaleness is indeed erased, then gender transition would be pointless, because there would be nothing to transition from, or to. I'm sure J K Rowling is not alone in championing equality for one group while at the same time opposing it for another. It happens all the time, she just happens to be famous enough for a world full of fans to be aware of it.

I'm also sure that no one in any of these groups is asking for "hyper visibility". Our Haitian immigrants in Ohio did not ask to be singled out with the slander that they eat their neighbors' pets. Women without children did not ask to be ridiculed as "childless cat ladies". And LGBT people did not ask to be vilified as perverts, when statistics show that the actual threat to children comes from straight, cisgender men. People just want to be left alone to live their lives. That is hard, though, when law and policy exclude them from opportunities routinely available to others. Now an excluded group can just take this sitting down, without objection, content to live as second class citizens. Or, they can speak up and demand to be afforded the same rights as others.

What would you do?

Being "fine with equality" means everyone can access housing, education and medical care; everyone can compete for jobs on their merits alone; everyone can marry and have a family if they want; everyone can live their own lives without interference, as long as they do no harm to others; everyone is treated with the same respect as a human being. It really is that simple. Everything else is fear-mongering from people who want the electorate divided, so they cannot band together and throw the oligarchs out.

Bottom line: the way to get rid of focusing on minority demographic groups is to stop excluding, restricting, and harassing them, and just let them live their lives like anyone else.

OK, mind how you go.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Coriolis]

OK, mind how you go.

What do you mean here?

I think a lot of the confusion about transgenderism is that the majority of people confuse it with Drag shows because that's the only time they are aware of it. There are Drag performers who are transgendered, but many who are not and there are even a few women. People see that exaggeration of feminine symbols in a drag show as aggressively over-riding femininity or even mocking it. If I think about it long enough, I'm not certain I understand exactly what Drag shows are philosophically and artistically, except it is a continuation of the theatrical tradition of exaggerated makeup and costume to be visible on stage for the audience members. In a way Lady GaGa dresses in drag for that same theatrical effect filling large stadiums. Humans also have a persistent drive to radically alter the body and adorn it in dramatic ways, which is seen throughout time and geography. It is likely because we have abstract reasoning and so can impose internally conceived of self-concepts onto our outward forms. The theatrical aspect of this is a separate issue from transgenderism, which is quiet and personal, deeply psychological exploration of Self.

I think accepting true transgenderism is a first step to breaking down demographic power hierarchies. This may sound radical, but I actually think people should be able to choose their race (skin color) as well, since it's already a social construct. I choose my hair color. As you likely know, but I'll state for other readers, skin color is as meaningful genetically as height. Two individuals with white skin or two with dark brown skin can be further apart genetically than one white and dark skinned person. We could easily have the "tall people" and "short people" races and have the same level of biological meaning.

Morphological freedom is a new concept that science is making more available to people, and I think it's a brilliant way to dismantle the irrational, arbitrary demographic based power hierarchies.

Yes, there are definitely multiple issues at play here. The last, what you call morphological freedom, is closely related to the idea that each of us should be able to control what we do with our own body. This is fundamental. It applies not only to physical gender transition, body piercings and tattoos, and hair and skin changes that you mention, but also crosses over into reproductive rights. We can really see right wing hypocrisy here. The same "parental rights" that cannot be compromised by allowing a minor to get an abortion without parental consent go right out the window when a parent supports a transgender child in seeking treatment, even simply counseling or consultation. You can't have it both ways.

As for drag as an art form, to me it just looks like another form of impersonation. Impersonation often does exaggerate the qualities of whoever is being impersonated, to make it obvious what persona is being portrayed, and perhaps even to poke some fun or present satire, as the exaggerated features in political cartoons. It only works because we have some very clear lines about gender expression, lines that fortunately have faded a great deal - a woman wearing trousers, for instance, is completely unremarkable.

The baseless furor about transgender people has the unintended consequence of catching cisgender people in its snares. Basketball star Brittney Griner has been accosted many times for using women's restrooms, because her appearance differs significantly from that of the average female. Even worse, gender non-conforming girls playing sports have at times been accused of being transgender, and threatened with intrusive physical exams to prove they are really female. I don't know whether there has been follow-through on this, but it would be a traumatic experience no child should have to endure. I wonder in the months and years ahead whether "trans" will be the new cry of "witch" when you want to make trouble for a neighbor you don't like. People need to listen to the scientific and medical evidence, not baseless fear-mongering, otherwise many cis people stand to suffer, too.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yes, people are indeed dynamic and not irredeemable. What this means is that they are able to be manipulated. Democracy fails when people are ignorant enough to be easily duped. Antidotes include robust public education that raises children to be skeptical and to think critically; and one-on-one interactions that give the lie to unsupported claims, and build in interpersonal trust. The first is a long term answer that eludes us for the present. We will have to see how far the second gets us.

As you allude to, it will take a long time for the harvest of robust public education, and difficult to obtain the political will for it, especially since it involves something so long term.

Therefore, I must place my trust in the second.

I also think bottom-up approaches have the potential to bear fruit. There has been a repeated problem with some of the people at the upper echelons of the Democratic orbit being out of touch with what is actually going on; I think many of those people have a great deal of arrogance or complacency, and no matter how dire the alternative is, they are not willing to talk to people on the ground, and they are not willing to learn new things. This election was not the first time this has happened.

I am not sure what I have in mind, exactly, but I do feel I could do better at whatever it is needs to be done than these experts who are incapable of learning from failure.

 

[The Cat]

I am not sure what I have in mind, exactly, but I do feel I could do better at whatever it is needs to be done than these experts who are incapable of learning from failure.

You're only comfortable saying that because you havent had your hand or head stuck in a jar for the last four years. And none of us can prove that the experts have yet escaped their jars. I'm pretty sure Nancy Pelosi gets her head stuck in the stairs at least as much as W did.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You're only comfortable saying that because you havent had your hand or head stuck in a jar for the last four years. And none of us can prove that the experts have yet escaped their jars. I'm pretty sure Nancy Pelosi gets her head stuck in the stairs at least as much as W did.

They'll probably be back, because they never go away, Why fire someone at the top for making a colossal mistake like that?

The only thing I mean is that I see possibilities for things that weren't possible in the past two years. That's all they are, but it's not nothing.

 

[Coriolis]

As you allude to, it will take a long time for the harvest of robust public education, and difficult to obtain the political will for it, especially since it involves something so long term.

Therefore, I must place my trust in the second.

I also think bottom-up approaches have the potential to bear fruit. There has been a repeated problem with some of the people at the upper echelons of the Democratic orbit being out of touch with what is actually going on; I think many of those people have a great deal of arrogance or complacency, and no matter how dire the alternative is, they are not willing to talk to people on the ground, and they are not willing to learn new things. This election was not the first time this has happened.

I am not sure what I have in mind, exactly, but I do feel I could do better at whatever it is needs to be done than these experts who are incapable of learning from failure.

I saw one video where Tim Walz was talking with undecided voters considering voting for Trump. I think they were in a Midwest state, but not Minnesota. They included farmers, small business owners, and factory workers - all men. He went around the table asking each one of them what their main concerns were, and what would help. It was all economic. Walz was able to drill down with each one of them on specifics of their situation: costs of seeds and fertilizer, various regulatory requirements, distribution and supply issues, the difference between what a consumer pays and what they - the producers - receive. I can't picture anyone in Trump's circle doing the same. Perhaps Walz didn't do enough of this, or too few Democratic campaigners took this approach. Perhaps the 100 or so days Harris had to campaign was too short for such a one-on-one approach to reach enough voters. Now they will have 2 years to do it until the midterms. I like to think people like Walz will be leading the way.

 

[ygolo]

I saw one video where Tim Walz was talking with undecided voters considering voting for Trump. I think they were in a Midwest state, but not Minnesota. They included farmers, small business owners, and factory workers - all men. He went around the table asking each one of them what their main concerns were, and what would help. It was all economic. Walz was able to drill down with each one of them on specifics of their situation: costs of seeds and fertilizer, various regulatory requirements, distribution and supply issues, the difference between what a consumer pays and what they - the producers - receive. I can't picture anyone in Trump's circle doing the same. Perhaps Walz didn't do enough of this, or too few Democratic campaigners took this approach. Perhaps the 100 or so days Harris had to campaign was too short for such a one-on-one approach to reach enough voters. Now they will have 2 years to do it until the midterms. I like to think people like Walz will be leading the way.

The top of the ticket did their best, including Biden when he was the candidate.

In a way, people hate the Democratic Party "Machine," especially the legacy media. They pushed against Sanders in 2016. They coalesced around Biden in 2020 when Sanders was winning. After forcing out Biden, Harris was all but coronated.

Being anti-populist is unpopular. Who would have thought?

There are more misfits and weirdos than so-called "normal" people, especially when "normal" is dictated by millionaire celebrities who own multiple homes and push for regulations that keep others from becoming prosperous themselves.

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

Oligarchy.​

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ford looking to cut thousands of jobs in Europe

 

[The Cat]