Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

holy hell, default embed sizes are ridiculous lol. It took multiple "scrolls" to get past this longcat video on desktop

by default embed makes the video as wide as your browser window. it's dumb.

 

 

also now i know you're fullscreening like a noob.

Edited by elfenix
  • Haha 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

 

relevant to yesterday's posts on homeless vs. unhoused.

Was coming here to post this. I think that the key here is that this needs to be taken as messaging guidance for politicians.  I do have to say that I don’t hear many of these (I do hear some) from national level reps. I do hear most from local officials and the NGO sectors. But by far this is vocabulary most used by online people who aren’t anything except online. 

List below. The categories are theirs and  not mine. 

Therapy speak:

Quote

Privilege

Violence (as in “environmental violence”)

Dialoguing

Othering

Triggering

Microaggression/assault/invalidation

Progressive stack

Centering

Safe space

Holding space

Body shaming

Seminar Language:

Quote

Subverting norms

Systems of oppression

Critical theory

Cultural appropriation

Postmodernism

Overton Window

Heuristic

Existential threat to [climate, the planet, democracy, the economy]

Organizer Jargon:

Quote

Radical transparency

Small ‘d’ democracy

Barriers to participation

Stakeholders

The unhoused

Food insecurity

Housing insecurity

Person who immigrated

Gender/Orientation Correctness:

Quote

Birthing person/inseminated person

Pregnant people

Chest feeding

Cisgender

Deadnaming

Heteronormative

Patriarchy

LGBTQIA+

Shifting language on race:

Quote

Latinx

BIPOC

Allyship

Intersectionality

Minoritized communities

Explaining away crime:

Quote

Justice-involved

Carceration

Incarcerated people

Involuntary confinement

 

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's fascinating how there's such a dichotomy between one party where words mean nothing and the nonsense gives them power, and another where words mean everything and articulate definition drains their strength.

It's amazing how quickly this movie is coming true: 

1471305999030.gif.aa9862588133e367748200e6be2fbdde.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

 

relevant to yesterday's posts on homeless vs. unhoused.

I come to Surly from a strange and foreign land, "woke"/"far left"/"socialist" as may be (one of the reasons I read CR and DT is to get opinions from places different from mine, even when from the same team). I am not a fan of Third Way, but that article makes a lot of sense. Even here in the People's Republic of Cascadia I'd not ever even heard of some of those phrases, and the ones I have heard or seen used invariably sound stilted, condescending, nerdy, and out of touch. Nobody in meat space uses these terms; you'd get laughed out of my local bar - a very liberal place -for even trying to use most of them. I can't even imagine chatting with anyone talking like that while visiting friends in more maga areas of the state; I'd at best get chased out of the bar and at worst get a probably deserved ass-kicking.

(oh, and Dems - maybe point out some states that have already given their constituents things that poll high across the board with the message "See? This is possible!" rather than throwing up your hands and giving up on it because "it's too hard.")

  • Like 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's fascinating how there's such a dichotomy between one party where words mean nothing and the nonsense gives them power, and another where words mean everything and articulate definition drains their strength.

Yep, the game is rigged. 

I think the Democratic Party is an absolute joke right now, but the reality is nothing they say matters because, in general, the American people have lost their minds. I think we are living in probably the biggest mental health crisis in our country's history, the triumvirate of social media/post-pandemic/Trump has broken us. 

Pray for Trump/GOP to lose power and Dems enacting legitimate policies that undeniably benefit people. That's our only way out. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
38 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Most of those nobody actually affiliated with Democratic politics even use. This is just third way ratfucking.

See, e.g., jeansgate

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm starting to think Democratic political consultants are on the payroll of the Republican Party.

Third Way's entire reason for existing is to help Republicans win elections. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
On 8/20/2025 at 5:43 AM, BurntOrange&White said:

Steve in Nebraska doesn’t give two shits about Israel/Gaza. 

Why would anyone give a shit about Steve in Nebraska, unless he is in District 2.  There are plenty of Steves in LD2 who give a shit about Israel/Gaza.  (I was Tuco Nebraska CD2 until four years ago. There are plenty of people who care about Gaza.)

 

On 8/20/2025 at 8:34 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

The nature of the Republican voting coalition is completely different. 

Yes of course. There was even a Texas Young Democrats LatinX Caucus focused on getting the vote out in the RGV plus big cities. 

 

On 8/20/2025 at 2:08 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

It’s not the same as gender, clearly, but the problem with “LatinX” is that it disrespected many Hispanics who didn’t and don’t see themselves as LatinX. At best, it presented progressives and Democrats as hopelessly out of touch, but for some it is offensive. 

Let's talk some more about the reasoning and mechanics here and you can present a solution.  A few things I understand about "LatinX"

1. It's not a Latino/Latina/Hispanic/Chicano movement.  It's a feminist movement, or a byproduct of the feminist movement.  Feminists are pushing for more gender neutral language.  There are feminists who are in the "Latino" community who don't want to be defined by a masculine adjective. And there are feminists outside of the Latino community who will support them. 

2. Anytime you push for cultural changes, you will inevitably get pushback.  When we started using "work-hours" instead of "manhours" in proposals, there were some people who scoffed at it.  But, at work, you get paid. So, yeah, it will offend some Latinos.  That's not a shock to anyone.  

3. I'm willing to bet the "Texas Young Democrats Latinx Caucus" was started by people at the local level who are invested in both Latino and feminist causes.  This was not something handed down from the national party or lobbyists in Washington.  

So, what do you do if you are Party leadership?  Do you tell feminists to store their shit, that their cause needs to be backburnered for the next twenty years or that you simply don't believe in their cause?  Do you tell that people who are actually showing the fuck up, volunteering their time, and working to get voter registered that they are in the wrong Party?  

My recommendation: 

A. Show the fuck up.  Go to your local Party meetings and work to both understand the different factions and influence the overall group direction with your more centrist views (and votes).  Nobody is going to change the dynamics at the local level by complaining about Schumer or whoever you consider the "leadership" of the Democratic Party is. 

B. Work to convince voters that they should vote for their interests rather than against their annoyances.  There is no reason to believe the Latino community will be particularly feminist.  We need to get them to vote for the Latino interests.  There is no reason to believe the black community will be particularly pro-gay.  We need to get them to vote for Black interests.  There is no reason to believe gay people will be pro-progressive tax policies.  We need to get them to vote for gay interests.  

Unfortunately I think that has become more challenging in the outrage-culture of social media.  There is always something to be pissed about, and that is were Republican messaging it targeting.  I also think it more difficult to explain the reasoning behind different issues, which might be annoying people, when you have to do it a one second scroll-by ad.  I

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

More "hey, does your life suck?  these people in charge are why" and less "here's my deep thoughts on a highly divisive issue."

"Pedophile Republicans and their billionaire friends are stealing from you and shutting your schools down so they can force you and your kid to work as slave labor in their mines" should be an easy message to sell.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think we are living in probably the biggest mental health crisis in our country's history, the triumvirate of social media/post-pandemic/Trump has broken us. 

Just wanted to highlight this part because I 100% agree.  
 

I also think it points to a long term problem because Trump won’t live forever and we’ll put the pandemic malaise further into memory.  Unregulated social media, however, is a rot that seems immune from regulation.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Why would anyone give a shit about Steve in Nebraska, unless he is in District 2.  There are plenty of Steves in LD2 who give a shit about Israel/Gaza.  (I was Tuco Nebraska CD2 until four years ago. There are plenty of people who care about Gaza.)

 

 

Let's talk some more about the reasoning and mechanics here and you can present a solution.  A few things I understand about "LatinX"

1. It's not a Latino/Latina/Hispanic/Chicano movement.  It's a feminist movement, or a byproduct of the feminist movement.  Feminists are pushing for more gender neutral language.  There are feminists who are in the "Latino" community who don't want to be defined by a masculine adjective. And there are feminists outside of the Latino community who will support them. 

2. Anytime you push for cultural changes, you will inevitably get pushback.  When we started using "work-hours" instead of "manhours" in proposals, there were some people who scoffed at it.  But, at work, you get paid. So, yeah, it will offend some Latinos.  That's not a shock to anyone.  

3. I'm willing to bet the "Texas Young Democrats Latinx Caucus" was started by people at the local level who are invested in both Latino and feminist causes.  This was not something handed down from the national party or lobbyists in Washington.  

So, what do you do if you are Party leadership?  Do you tell feminists to store their shit, that their cause needs to be backburnered for the next twenty years or that you simply don't believe in their cause?  Do you tell that people who are actually showing the fuck up, volunteering their time, and working to get voter registered that they are in the wrong Party?  

My recommendation: 

A. Show the fuck up.  Go to your local Party meetings and work to both understand the different factions and influence the overall group direction with your more centrist views (and votes).  Nobody is going to change the dynamics at the local level by complaining about Schumer or whoever you consider the "leadership" of the Democratic Party is. 

B. Work to convince voters that they should vote for their interests rather than against their annoyances.  There is no reason to believe the Latino community will be particularly feminist.  We need to get them to vote for the Latino interests.  There is no reason to believe the black community will be particularly pro-gay.  We need to get them to vote for Black interests.  There is no reason to believe gay people will be pro-progressive tax policies.  We need to get them to vote for gay interests.  

Unfortunately I think that has become more challenging in the outrage-culture of social media.  There is always something to be pissed about, and that is were Republican messaging it targeting.  I also think it more difficult to explain the reasoning behind different issues, which might be annoying people, when you have to do it a one second scroll-by ad.  I

 

 

 

Because Steve in Nebraska is the same average guy as Joe in Georgia, Pete in Pennsylvania, Mike in Minnesota, Mark, in Michigan, etc.  the average guy is average no matter where they live but I guess democrats super polls can’t figure that out and they’re too high and mighty to realize it. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Because Steve in Nebraska is the same average guy as Joe in Georgia, Pete in Pennsylvania, Mike in Minnesota, Mark, in Michigan, etc.  the average guy is average no matter where they live but I guess democrats super polls can’t figure that out and they’re too high and mighty to realize it. 

If the "average guy" in a purple state was the same as the "average guy" in a solidly red state, those purple states would be solidly red. Do you not understand how this works?

But your clarification makes it easier to understand what you are going for.  But I think you are using it to back into a position you have already have.  There are dozens of different issues that affect 10s of thousands of swing and cross-over voters (and non-voters) in different swing states.   

 

 

Edited by Tuco
  • Like 1
Posted

Minnesota Democrats vacate endorsement of Omar Fateh for Minneapolis mayor

Exhibit #696969 that the Democrats have endless smoke for their own left flank as opposed to next to none for the GOP. The incumbent here could barely scrape up 30% of the vote, and yet the Party is actively torpedoing the candidacy of someone that is possibly looking like a 2nd Mamdani, which is far more terrifying to them. Can't have too many Muslim socialists around!

  • Rage+1 2
Posted

Great last few pages, especially the empathy for the homeless.

My key takeaway is that the Democratic Party is singing "Well holy moly, me oh my / you are the apple of my eye" in 2025 and nobody is here for it.

Posted

I get some of the word thing that Dems get pegged with (even though to the point it is usually not the candidates themselves using them rather people in the "D orbit"). And it's not really the words themselves, it's the body receiving them and how unable to think critically about anything and or make everything personal. 

Take "white privilege" for example.  I'm a perfect example of somebody who, if they were a moron, could sit there and say, "What the fuck are you talking about?" Make it all about me and how I was a product of single-parent teacher, grew up in apartments, didn't have a lot etc.  Personally, the "feels" isn't one of privilege.  But yeah I'm smart enough to know that even though all that sucked, one of the things I did have going for me...I'm a white dude in America.  Can I point to where exactly it helped me along my personal journey?  Nah.  But did it very likely help at points along the way?  Absolutely, I can wrap my head around that.  

Most people in similar circumstances....not so much.  They just feel "attacked"

So the problem is most people are too stupid, selfish, etc for that level of discourse and so if you want to win you gotta adjust.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Surly Bevo said:

I get some of the word thing that Dems get pegged with (even though to the point it is usually not the candidates themselves using them rather people in the "D orbit"). And it's not really the words themselves, it's the body receiving them and how unable to think critically about anything and or make everything personal. 

Take "white privilege" for example.  I'm a perfect example of somebody who, if they were a moron, could sit there and say, "What the fuck are you talking about?" Make it all about me and how I was a product of single-parent teacher, grew up in apartments, didn't have a lot etc.  Personally, the "feels" isn't one of privilege.  But yeah I'm smart enough to know that even though all that sucked, one of the things I did have going for me...I'm a white dude in America.  Can I point to where exactly it helped me along my personal journey?  Nah.  But did it very likely help at points along the way?  Absolutely, I can wrap my head around that.  

Most people in similar circumstances....not so much.  They just feel "attacked"

So the problem is most people are too stupid, selfish, etc for that level of discourse and so if you want to win you gotta adjust.  

Good post, but adjusting language won't help Dems win. The people you're trying to appease are unappeasable. It's a scam. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 8/22/2025 at 9:54 AM, Captainant said:

It's fascinating how there's such a dichotomy between one party where words mean nothing and the nonsense gives them power, and another where words mean everything and articulate definition drains their strength.

I quit watching Bill Maher years ago but there have been some pretty good clips lately of him going off on MAGA. Just saw one where he was praising Newsom for his mocking Trump and he said dems need to quit trying to outsmart the general public and start trying to out stupid them. Sadly that’s what will work

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 8/21/2025 at 10:01 AM, Brian Fantana said:

Mamdani seems like the best strategist the left has seen in a long time.

He’s good, but he’s not any more talented or better than Greg Casar. He just happens to be running for Mayor of New York City and drew an inside straight, so he gets a lot of run. 

Speaking of Greg, I’m a little worried about his future at the moment. I tried to convince him to run in the new district 37 because I think he could win. 

I think Doggett could win it too, but with Doggett opting to retire, it’s very possible Sara Eckhardt will get in the primary for 35. I don’t think Greg wants any part of that.
He could still win, and I like contested primaries, but she wouldn’t have to leave the Senate so the risk is much higher for him and either way there’s going to be a lot of blood on the floor when it’s done. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

I quit watching Bill Maher years ago but there have been some pretty good clips lately of him going off on MAGA. Just saw one where he was praising Newsom for his mocking Trump and he said dems need to quit trying to outsmart the general public and start trying to out stupid them. Sadly that’s what will work

Was that before or after he glazed up Trump until he was a dried out husk because Trump invited him to the oval office and then was nice to him?

Posted
On 8/21/2025 at 4:05 PM, LCHorn said:

Sorry to pick on you, but stellar is a high bar and I think digging into this is a good way to interrogate how we got here.  

What legislative success made your life better?  Which of Biden’s foreign policy successes improved your life?  Not to Beetlejuice @Brian Fantana, but do you think his handling of Israel was stellar?  Ukraine?

Bear in mind, I’m not trying to be silly about this, there’s ample reason to appreciate basic competency and decency and Biden possessed both.  I do feel like some have been a little quick to exaggerate Biden’s virtues, not terribly unlike we did in the 2004 election when everyone was exhausted with Bush, felt mezzo-mezzo on Kerry, and put the Clinton years on a pedestal.  

At a high level, he gets a fucking 20 out of 10 on Ukraine.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
On 8/21/2025 at 10:53 AM, immamac said:

It isn't that easy. Mental health being available doesn't mean that the person is going to use it or actually continue on the path prescribed to fix it. 

Mental health can't mean a fucking babysitter in a home for crazy people. Some people are just fucked up. 

Excellent point.  People with mental health issues are extraordinarily resistant to treatment, even if available.  There are a variety of reasons for this, but it is definitely a frequent characteristic of such disorders.

For example, the addict who doesn't reach bottom by being homeless and the attendant further degradations, and voluntarily seek and comply with treatment, probably has no bottom and is doomed to institutions, jails, and death.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

At a high level, he gets a fucking 20 out of 10 on Ukraine.

Hard disagree. He was too cautious on everything but messaging; following the Obama playbook. And always had the politics front of mind.  
 

Bold leadership would have been a company on a training mission near Kyiv and declaring an air policing coalition of willing flying out of Germany and Poland in December 21.  That would have flipped Putin’s card table over and make him think of another game. 

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

it’s very possible Sara Eckhardt will get in the primary for 35. I don’t think Greg wants any part of that.

He'd smoke her, and DSA is why.

Posted
21 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

That would have flipped Putin’s card table over and make him think of another game. 

It also would have guaranteed massive protests in every major city against unnecessary US intervention, and a landslide defeat in 2024.

Posted
5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

He'd smoke her, and DSA is why.

Man, I would never bet against Sarah Eckhardt in a Travis County primary. 
She’s well liked and all that, but also, her organizational strength is unreal.

Posted
10 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It also would have guaranteed massive protests in every major city against unnecessary US intervention, and a landslide defeat in 2024.

The Dems anyway, he got massive protests anyway. So not really a big difference; although there wouldn’t have been a further invasion and people would have forgotten it anyway. 
 

But yes, tankies like you would have protested. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Man, I would never bet against Sarah Eckhardt in a Travis County primary. 
She’s well liked and all that, but also, her organizational strength is unreal.

I have no problem with her, but he's done the job before and has a national profile. I think he'd win by 8 points or more.

Posted
3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The Dems anyway, he got massive protests anyway. So not really a big difference; although there wouldn’t have been a further invasion and people would have forgotten it anyway. 
 

But yes, tankies like you would have protested. 

The protests came in 2024 because Brandon was a genocidal Zionist, not because of Russia/Ukraine. US intervention in 2022 would have been a completely different beast, and it might also have helped the vaunted red wave happen. Especially if the MAGA media apparatus leaned hard into the "Donald the Dove" lie and trotted out assets like Tulsi Gabbard to discredit NATO. I've seen some bad takes but this might be your dumbest yet.

Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The protests came in 2024 because Brandon was a genocidal Zionist, not because of Russia/Ukraine. US intervention in 2022 would have been a completely different beast, and it might also have helped the vaunted red wave happen. Especially if the MAGA media apparatus leaned hard into the "Donald the Dove" lie and trotted out assets like Tulsi Gabbard to discredit NATO. I've seen some bad takes but this might be your dumbest yet.

December 21 was not 22. Deterrence failed because we didn’t try it. Anyway, more Ukrainians would have been alive. 

It is hilarious that the worst case you can come up with here is a Trump victory with a platformed Tulsi Gabbard. Imagine if that had happened. 

Posted
1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

December 21 was not 22. Deterrence failed because we didn’t try it. Anyway, more Ukrainians would have been alive. 

It is hilarious that the worst case you can come up with here is a Trump victory with a platformed Tulsi Gabbard. Imagine if that had happened. 

Not just a victory, a landslide built on two years of a lame duck who gets no judges confirmed and no laws passed, paving the way for the "mandate" to do fascism even more quickly than he's doing it now.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

At a high level, he gets a fucking 20 out of 10 on Ukraine.

Fuckin A man. 
 

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

I have no problem with her, but he's done the job before and has a national profile. I think he'd win by 8 points or more.

I hear you but a national profile means jack shit in a May primary and you’ve got to win in Bouldin Creek, Hyde Park, French Place near South Austin, etc and she’s personal friends with all the vote ropers at the precinct level. 
It’s similar to the Obama vs Bobby Rush dynamic in 2000. She’s just very strong on the ground. 
My guy tells me she’s not running, and I hope that means she’s going to go after Danny G. But if she decides she wants to serve in congress, Greg is in for the first real test of his career. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted (edited)

I love establishment liberals that call everyone to the left of them "tankies". Imagine being a serious person one time in your life.

I sometimes wonder if 956 knows just good comfortable he would be in the Trump administration. They love neo-McCarthyist bullshit, too.

Edited by Brian Fantana
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

I love establishment liberals that call everyone to the left of them "tankies". Imagine being a serious person one time in your life.

I sometimes wonder if 956 knows just good comfortable he would be in the Trump administration. They love neo-McCarthyist bullshit, too.

Super serious non-tankie stuff from the beloved DSA a few days after Russia tried to seize Kyiv. 

Quote

DSA reaffirms our call for the US to withdraw from NATO and to end the imperialist expansionism that set the stage for this conflict. We call on antiwar activists in the US and across the world to oppose violent escalations, demand a lasting diplomatic solution, and stress the crucial need to accept any and all refugees resulting from this crisis. Much of the next ten years are coming into view through this attack. While the failures of neoliberal order are clear to everyone, the ruling class is trying to build a new world, through a dystopic transition grounded in militarism, imperialism, and war. Socialists have a duty to build an alternative. 

Quote

We recognize that the expansion of NATO and the aggressive approach of Western nations have helped cause the crisis and we demand an end to NATO expansion. We also oppose US and NATO military interventionism and the tens of billions in military aid and weapons shipments which only further exacerbates the war and undermine a negotiated settlement, as well as sanctions that will harm ordinary Russians. 

 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
Posted
1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

I love establishment liberals that call everyone to the left of them "tankies". Imagine being a serious person one time in your life.

I sometimes wonder if 956 knows just good comfortable he would be in the Trump administration. They love neo-McCarthyist bullshit, too.

Its the DSA that would be very comfortable on this one:

Quote

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
58 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Super serious non-tankie stuff from the beloved DSA a few days after Russia tried to seize Kyiv. 

 

 

51 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Its the DSA that would be very comfortable on this one:

 

What's your point? Do you think I agree with the DSA on this? Socialists/leftists are not a monolith, the DSA doesn't represent me (though I do align with them on some things), nor are they even Marxist-Leninists for the most part. Of course, neither am I, but that hasn't stopped plenty of fucking donkeys like you on this site from stupidly characterizing me as one because every last one of you is a chicken shit that just doesn't want to openly call us "commies" because it would make you sound like you belong with the GOP.

It's perfectly valid to criticize the DSA for putting out an anti-interventionist message in response to Russia's unacceptable actions, but your response being instant, foaming at the mouth, neo-McCarthyism is...very revealing.

It just serves to remind me that there are a ton of people just like you would gladly see the state string up or deport people like me, except most of them are in the GOP, and that's because you are a dichotomous thinker that believes in nothing, save for what the established power structure tells you is good or bad.



×
×
  • Create New...