Posts posted by wildcat09
-
-
7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:
Honestly whoever needed evidence was deluding themselves. Imagine if you had a close friend who could hook you up with unlimited, consequence-free sex sessions with underage girls. 99.999% of people would end that friendship and they would even call the police if they felt safe doing so.
But is Donald J. Trump the kind of person who would turn down sex with underage girls? Most honest people know and have always known that the answer is: "absolutely not, he would be a repeat customer."
We already knew he WALKED INTO A GLASS DOOR BECAUSE HE WAS TOO DISTRACTED BY THE SIGHT OF UNDERAGE GIRLS SWIMMING IN A POOL.
We already knew he SUMMONED REPUBLICAN CONGRESSWOMEN INTO THE SITUATION ROOM TRYING TO PREVENT THE FILES FROM BEING RELEASED. THE FUCKING SITUATION ROOM.
This seems high. I mean, just look how many Republican men we know are pedophiles.
-
-
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:
I don't think you know what you mean with these words. Part of this is just a limitation of the English language. But what does it mean to "accept the reality of another person's experience and view of the world"?
Like, actually play out the conversation, because I think you're reading into everyone's posts something that isn't there. Just because we are discussing the actual problems and solutions here in this thread, doesn't mean we are saying that the empathetic conversation also includes discussion. Those are two separate things, which I've tried to make clear to you repeatedly.
The entire fucking thread my man. That's all you've been doing in response to my posts.
This was Bozo yesterday:
QuoteNeither. It means to sit with them in their feelings, listen, and not argue with them or attempt to explain them away. It’s what separates empathy from sympathy.
That sounds exactly like what a blue-haired progressive might say to some chud Rogan fan. "Your feelings are valid and I want to sit here with you in them." I think we can all imagine the response that would generate from the chud and Bozo usually thinks that type of talk is very silly and counterproductive.
I know he just read that and thought "I don't mean you say literally those words!" We get that, which is why we've all understood what he's been advocating this entire time to be that we need to indulge a chud's belief that he's been unfairly discriminated against, even when that's obviously a false belief.
-
-
Edited by wildcat09
26 minutes ago, YChang said:Help me understand… so do blame minorities? I didn’t realize we had that kind of soft power in the US.
No, he wants to blame affluent white progressives for attempting to help minority groups. That way it's totally not racist.
Bozo thinks he had a potential political career fucked over by someone overly concerned about racial identity politics and has been bitching about it here ever since. He doesn't even get the history right. The Democrats began abandoning majoritarian middle class economic interests long before the party began championing progressive social issues. The abandonment of majoritarian middle class economics goes back at least to Carter's administration and sped up with Clinton's first election. And while that abandonment aligns to some extent with the economic interests of big Democratic donors, it wasn't driven by their financial interests. It was driven by the fact that they got the shit kicked out of them by Reagan running on a small government platform. Democrats looked at their pro-labor political messages and this result and the conclusion they drew was that America was deeply conservative:
From ~1980 to 2012, the party tried to split the baby on "narrow social issues" pretty much every election. They were for civil rights but also tough on crime. They wanted abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. They didn't think gay people should be able to get married, but thought they should be able to enter into civil unions. Etc. They very much thought American politics was about turning a dial that had a clear "left" and "right" on it, and thought that by landing right in the center of that dial they could win.
The party didn't really begin embracing a politics focused on embracing social issues until around 2012, when Obama came out in support of gay marriage, which was in response to a growing shift in public sentiment in support of gay marriage. They then became a bigger deal during Trump's first term in response to his white supremacy and particularly in 2020 after George Floyd, and the party finally actually embraced abortion as a political issue during Biden's administration after the repeal of Roe. But again, these were all in response to shifts in public sentiment; the poll nerds just looked at that and said "hey the center of the dial is actually left of where it used to be now, we have to move to the new center."
Where the party actually failed is that they completely forgot that political figures can change public opinion and thought the answer to all of politics was in simply chasing public opinion to triangulate perfectly in the center on as many issues as you could. But Bozo doesn't get to play the victim in that story.
-
-
-
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:
I got the impression that he didn’t read it based on his reaction, which seemed to be more of a reflexive response to a light skin, but if you did in fact read it, @wildcat09, I apologize.
This:
What proposal? Why would anybody ever talk to an angry kid that way? It’s pure projection and totally bizarre.
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:Dude. Most of our current information ecosystem aimed at young white males is "talking to angry kids" in EXACTLY that way. That's a huge part of the problem.
59 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:Yes, I agree with you and I made no such proposal that was something we should do in order to get people back into a voting coalition.
I think we have to meet people where they are to confort them, and we have to accept the truth of their personal experience do them. But that is a far cry from validating their most corrosive and misplaced resentments.
The upshot of the essay, after all, was that minorities and women didn’t do anything wrong. They just got jobs.I think we're done here.
-
20 hours ago, 52-80 said:
The ADL casts a wide umbrella on what counts as right-wing, even for events that are not right-wing ideologically motivated, such as during drug deals or prison gang attacks.
An Aryan Nations member who stabs a Crip counts as RW murder, because definitionally A.N. is right-wing. Do they count a Crip stabbing of an A.N. as left-wing?
Half of what goes into their extremism killing scoreboard (212 of 429) is non-ideological.
I doubt this was intended as a joke, but it's a fucking great one, man.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Popular Post
41 minutes ago, Red Five said:Kind of a dumb question, but it's been three days since the deadline passed to release everything. Have we actually learned anything? Were any names at all released? Any actual relevant information uncovered?
We learned that the Trump administration is desperate to hide something and is very bad at cover ups.
-
35 minutes ago, G650 said:
That is true, but the bigger challenge almost all humans face is getting over the fact that life, itself, is not fair.
Right. A big part of growing up is realizing the world doesn't revolve around you and that you can do everything right and still get the short end of the stick for arbitrary or no reasons at all. We can and should work to provide a system that helps alleviate the worst symptoms of that and to minimize the unfairness, but there's no way to actually eliminate unfairness and create a perfectly meritocratic system. There will always be some number of people who have bad luck. It doesn't help anyone to indulge their anger and encourage them to attribute their bad luck to false causes.
These guys don't need JD Vance's bullshit, they need Shoresy:
-
-
5 hours ago, UpperWestside said:
Roth would be the guy to read and listen to here. He’s far and away the best political writer we have in America. Not even a close 2nd to his work. I asked him a similar question to this at one of Defector’s birthday parties about how he understands this stuff so well and the answer more/less was rich people are lazy.
I'm imagining that scene in As Good As It Gets where the lady asks him how he writes women so well, except instead of being an asshole Roth is just very uncomfortable with the idea that he understands them at all.
-
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:
Well, the thing is I say shit like that all the time in person. I just smile and look them in the eyes when I do it, plus I’m handsome and tall, but not so much of either that it’s weird.
You’d be amazed what you can say to people’s face if you smile and look them in the eye when you say it, so please, know that I am smiling now, and imagine a handsome but approachable man your age looking you right in the eye and saying to you, in a friendly way:read the essay next time.
And then I wink at you. And you blush a little, and not in a gay way, not that there would be anything wrong with that, more in a curious way.
This reads like an Andrew Tate post.
-
Edited by wildcat09
7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:“I don’t have time to read this, so let me tell you what I think about it in 1000+ words over the course of several days and a half dozen or so posts. “
Man, you very clearly need to talk to a therapist.
ETA: seriously man, what the fuck is wrong with you? That’s the kind of response you should expect to get punched in the face for if you said that shit to a grown man in person.
-
Edited by wildcat09
1 hour ago, LCHorn said:You and I both clearly feel the same on this, and I also think it's why @Bozo_Casanova is getting accused of being condescending.
He is, in my opinion, condescending of a general "if THEY feel that way it's their own fucking problem" response that makes up a good number of the posts in the thread.
I've been a bit simplistic in some of my responses because I didn't have the time to give this 5,000+ words when shit needed doin over the weekend. What I and Dahobbs and others have been pretty clear about though, I think, is that we are willing to believe that some young white men have been discriminated against by silly employment policies, but that it isn't a real widespread issue. There's reams of data backing up the fact that it isn't really a widespread issue. It's certainly not as severe an issue as Republicans pretend it is. That means that many, and I believe most, young white men who believe they've been discriminated against are wrong in that belief. Now I can empathize with why they wrongly think that. I grew up in a conservative family surrounded by conservative families. I remember the whispered racial grievances of the 90s and 2000s. We were all too good and too respectable to be racist; that was for white trash. But my mom and tons of friends' parents would talk about how it wasn't fair that underperforming black kids were taking our spots in college and that reverse racism was the only real racism left in America.
It's easy to start believing that shit and if you start believing it might be true you'll start spotting things that you think reinforce it as you progress through life, because the world is a big place with a lot of people in it and many of those people make mistakes and some of those people are just shitty people who do bad things. I was a shitty student from a middle class home at a very diverse high school full of high-achieving minority students. I absolutely could've gone down that path. I like to think I'm smart enough that I never would've fallen for it, but if I had been born ten years later and Trump was mainstreaming unapologetic racism again at the time I was becoming an adult and politically aware, I could see an alternate timeline where a version of 19-year-old me bought into the racial grievances.
I think about that alternate me and I wonder: would it help turn him away from that path to have a liberal tell him that those peddling the racism were right about him being screwed over to help some dumber black kid or whatever? Fucking of course not. "Even the liberal [centrist pundit] agrees with us that the left has gone too far" is some of the most effective conservative rhetoric. The idea that reinforcing that rhetoric would result in liberal political gains is insane.
Of the white boys and young men who've bought into these false racial grievances, some are undoubtedly open to persuasion. Those who are a little smarter than most of the others, those who have some liberal friends, those who stumble onto a lefty podcast that starts to make sense to them, etc. But persuading all those young white men requires convincing them that their racial grievances are mistaken.
And for the very select few who might've been unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and actually did get shafted for being white, we can say "shit man, that sucks and shouldn't have happened, but you can't let that experience poison you." Using me as an example again, my dad died from medical malpractice when I was a teenager. That experience has undoubtedly impacted how I feel about our healthcare system. If that had happened now to alternate me, with frauds peddling woo healthcare bullshit from the White House, I could see him buying into it. But I didn't buy into it, even though I was pretty familiar with all of that woo bullshit 20 years ago, because I wasn't surrounded by people saying "well you know RFK Jr. is right that there are a lot of problems with the healthcare system!" It was still the type of thing only kooks bought into and that helped me look at their bullshit critically.
If we were talking about healthcare rather than discrimination, Bozo's proposal to reach me would've meant indulging my worst feelings and most wrong beliefs. It would've meant telling me something like "you're right to be angry, they killed your dad for money." But that's not what happened; what happened was that a doctor who was by most accounts a good doctor made a horrible mistake, because he's a person and people make mistakes. I'm very glad Bozo wasn't there to tell me comforting lies when I was at my worst; I'd be a worse person today if he had.
-
14 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:
My thoughts on this are complicated and I don’t disagree that we have over-credentialed a lot of work and under-valued non-credentialed work.
That said, it’s not really disputable that for decades the message and policy has been that college is an important vehicle for social mobility and improvement and that it’s important to improve access to minority groups and women.
It’s a hard pivot from that to “actually a bunch of you need less college.”
Fewer boys are applying for colleges for a very simple reason: more girls are. There’s a type of male (conservative) who wants absolutely nothing to do with anything that woman do. We’ve seen this in various professions (e.g. teaching and nursing) and now we’re seeing it in education.
They’re not being denied opportunities, they’re refusing them. Because they have shitty parents that instill shitty values in them. There’s not an equivalent to Title IX that can fix that.
-
19 minutes ago, G650 said:
So while I'm rambling, I also think we really have to separate culture from politics to be effective. I was actually thinking about this recently in the context of something else, but this is just another example. Republicans have banked on culture shit, but I can promise you if you feed and house a man the odds are in your favor he will vote for you.
The utter failure of Bidenomics begs to differ.
-
Edited by wildcat09
25 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:Yes, it requires you to be open to the possibility that they aren’t imagined, even if the reasons are more complex than it seems to them. If someone gets shafted, they got shafted. That should be enough for you.
This sounds like a recipe to turn even more young white men against the Democratic party. What you're prescribing is identifying Democrats as their enemy.
ETA: This is JD Vance, literally today:
You're saying that we need to tell young white men that he's correct.
The Lost Generation essay
in Cloak Room
The whole thread is just this: