Jump to content

wildcat09

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    13126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by wildcat09

  1. 23 minutes ago, softlynow said:

    Me too was a factor, I'm sure. But I think 2 other developments fueled the feminist backlash. First, young misogynists got their Rush Limbaugh figures in Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson. Second, the ability of losers (what we used to call incels, and we really should insist on doing that again) to connect with each other in large groups and form a groupthink that led them to absurd conclusions.

    Corporate America was always going to be brake on feminist advances, but they couldn't put it in reverse without the help of masses of meatheads and gamers, not to mention the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies and dickheads.

    I think that analysis is backward, though. When it was mostly meathead and/or incel shit it wasn't serious. It was the buy in and promotion from the mainstream media that gave the backlash legitimacy in the eyes of much of the public.

    There's a reason that conservative activists are always trying to get the New York Times to cover issues, and not just to cover them but to frame their coverage in a particular way. Steve Bannon, Chris Rufo, etc. understand the legitimizing impact that has for their propaganda well beyond the number of people who actually read the Times.  For this, the elite media circles didn't even need to be pushed, they sprinted to endorse the backlash.  

    • Rage+1 2
  2. 3 minutes ago, softlynow said:

    We focus on the racism bit, but young men (and some not so young) reacting to the attack on their god-given right to be superior to women is a major factor as well.

    Equality is triggering, in all its forms.

    What I find interesting about this in particular is that it's not new. I'm nearly 40 and by the time I was in high school women were largely competitive with men in school and most jobs. The exception that held out the longest was at the executive level.  Me Too really scared the shit out of executives, particularly media executives, and they manufactured a backlash that has pushed us back 50+ years, all so they can grope women at the office. 

  3. 22 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

    Loving the implication of the CASA ruling.  Trump can demand that every first-born be sacrificed to appease Stephen Miller’s wrath and unless you live in a lib state it’s happening for at least as long as it takes to certify a class
     

    Don't worry, they'll make that impossible too.

    Quote

    America is broken. And the hell of it is that I fundamentally agree that it’s a stretch of judicial power to issue nation-wide injunctions and we are beyond the norm. But there’s also a norm against just issuing facially unconstitutional executive orders. And at this point it’s just 6 people cherry-picking the norms that should continue to apply (and it’s the ones that appease Stephen Miller).

    The dead giveaway was the express exception from their ruling for challenges to agency action. They might as well have simply written "notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Republican district judges may grant nationwide injunctions if a Democrat ever manages to retake the White House and Republican groups challenge anything they try to do." 

    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  4. 7 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

    I'm interested in y'all's comments on this?  How widespread is this sentiment in your opinions?    How large a part of it is responsible for the disconnect between the working class and the party? 

    Frankly at the heart of democracy is disagreement on many levels, but that works to move things along slowly towards a better society.  But I personally feel the scam of superdelegates to put Hillary in over Bernie was the point where people started shaping up this idea and reinforcing it with example after example.   

    image.thumb.png.2f7438faa33c9a8c9231157bf8060a3a.png

    This is overly simplistic, but does fairly describe a certain part of the Democratic establishment.  It's wrong on a few things, most notably the establishment's support for austerity. We've seen a huge shift away from austerity politics among establishment Dems since Obama's presidency. There's literally only a handful of elected Congressional Dems who might still buy in to the austerity shit, and that's because they're dumb enough to genuinely believe it's necessary, economically speaking.

    The true part (and the part that's really at the heart of what's wrong with the party) is that it's a party of consultants and careerists (we could actually use more opportunists in the Democratic party). The consultants keep their status within the party by insisting on the importance of polls, focus groups, etc. to winning, and the careerists think the point of the party is a jobs program for good soldiers. Those who feel they've waited their turn react more negatively to someone they see as skipping the line than they do to anything Republicans do, because beating Republicans is secondary to maintaining their own place within the party.

    • Hook 'Em 4
  5. On 6/27/2025 at 12:40 PM, Hook1997 said:

    Hegseth is a total idiot but he’s not totally wrong. There were many in this thread that liked the first reports of their nuclear program not being destroyed and the materials being moved out before hand.  

    Did you graduate high school?

    • Like 1
    • Haha 4
    • Drool 1
  6. 2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

    FWIW, I listened to portions of the birthright citizenship case and when they were not discussing injunctions, at least 6, and possibly 7 judges were extremely skeptical of the government’s position. 

    Yeah but Barrett loves to sound sane in oral arguments then rule with Alito.

    • Like 1
    • Rage+1 3
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  7. 1 hour ago, Firemans4Horn said:

    Talking to voters and listening to them. Seems like a good strategy. 
     

     

    But have you considered that Chuck Schumer makes up fake voters in his head and wonders how they'll respond to certain messages/policies?

     

    Yes, he really does this.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  8. 11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    The Japanese were in no position to dictate terms. Why was it so important to the Japanese not to offer an unconditional surrender?

    They wanted to keep the emperor as a figurehead. US officials were split and didn't want to agree to that. The real bitch of it all is that we later let him keep the throne.

    Also, relying on a fucking LLM to fact check should get an instaban.

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Rage+1 1
  9. 1 hour ago, bolverk said:

    The "be interesting" part of that is what @Bozo_Casanova has argued recently, stating that it's more important than the actual policies.

    Being interesting certainly helps, but that's not even strictly speaking necessary. Bernie isn't interesting but motivated a hell of a lot of people. The minimum is that you have to seem like you give a shit about something that other people want you to give a shit about. This isn't complicated, centrist Dem strategists just overcomplicate it because they need to do so to keep getting hired on campaigns that fail too often and underperform always.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...