Deny, Defend, Depose

[Voidwalkin]

deviation from reality

Me, before the election: "guys I don't think voters view immigration limits as inherently racist, these views are sorta detached from what people think"

Me, after an election in which every left leaning demographic imaginable voted for Trump in record high percentages(except rich people who trended otherwise: "guys I think the views were kinda detached from what people think maybe"

You: "Insane conservative, we are the people". I do thank you for being less, uh, angry, than your other posts, though.

 

[Lexicus]

(but have absolutely no idea how far your positions and viewpoints are from vast swathes of America)

Lmao at this, suffice it to say I am quite aware of how far my views are from the American mainstream.

You once seriously asked me why they don't take tackling out of football, lol.

You, uh, seriously misinterpreted that exchange.

As I say, we have a problem when the Democratic Party actually spends most of its time shitting on the "left-wing activists" and people like you are still arguing unironically that the "left-wing activists" and the Democratic Party should be thought of as the same entity.

The really ironic thing here is I kind of agree with some of what you're saying about the "activists," particularly how the moral shaming stuff is toxic to any attempt to actually organize people, but your posts on this are essentially word salad because, despite you claiming to have voted for Bernie, you have stated on several occasions on this forum that you believe the project of the left (a more egalitarian society) to be impossible. For example,

Kinda skeptical humans are capable of anything other than pursuing individual status.

And here which I can't quote because the thread is locked:

Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

For anyone thinking that US corporations would support a war of tariffs or trade upon the US biggest trade partners, read up on how that went the last time Trump attempted that in 2016-17, to score some brownie points among his base. And Musk will not be dictating US security or trade policy...

forums.civfanatics.com

If you are actually trying to persuade anyone on the left to change their approach, then saying right off the bat that you believe the core political project that defines the left in the most basic sense is impossible gives the game away. Basically, you're advocating for Clintonism without the veneer of social progress. Who is that supposed to be for, anyway?

 

[Samson]

You once seriously asked me why they don't take tackling out of football, lol.

What TF does the rules of rugby with armour have to do with the POTUS?

 

[Voidwalkin]

What TF does the rules of rugby with armour have to do with the POTUS?

The reason that tackling is essential in American football is that it is thought moral for young men to express their physicality, violently, in cooperation with a team, against adversity.

I never bought it, even when I played, but the honoring of the martial is 100% there. If this is not known, there is a demonstrable lack of experience with what people think.

 

[Samson]

The reason that tackling is essential in American football is that it is thought moral for young men to express their physicality, violently, in cooperation with a team, against adversity.

I never bought it, even when I played, but the honoring of the martial is 100% there. If this is not known, there is a demonstrable lack of experience with what people think.

But what does Biden have to do with the rules?

 

[Voidwalkin]

But what does Biden have to do with the rules?

If somebody doesn't know basic precepts of really really basic American culture, how can they estimate to what extent Biden did or did not accept left wing activist social thought?

You have to know where the baseline is to estimate how far Joe got from it. If one doesn't, it may look insane to say Biden is woke, but to those actually on the baseline? He may be. The estimate is off.

For an example: it made the rounds on conservative media(I learned of it through coworker) that Biden appointed a non binary person to a minor administrative office. This person showed up in pink stilettos. It caused a stir, and yeah, such break from tradition is very unusual. There's no reason to flip out in a free society over anybody fashion choices to me.

That is not what these people think. They believe there is value in conformity to traditional masculinity, that the traits it instills are valuable.

If one presumes my view is common? Biden is not woke. The latter is the real common view, I'm afraid, and this did not go over well, consequently. He is sufficiently far in these and many such acts to categorize his admin as woke in the eyes of at least 50% of the country. You really have to know the baseline to know how it will be perceived.

 

[Samson]

If somebody doesn't know basic precepts of really really basic American culture, how can they estimate to what extent Biden did or did not accept left wing activist social thought?

You have to know where the baseline is to estimate how far Joe got from it. If one doesn't, it may look insane to say Biden is woke, but to those actually on the baseline? He may be. The estimate is off.

For an example: it made the rounds on conservative media(I learned of it through coworker) that Biden appointed a non binary person to a minor administrative office. This person showed up in pink stilettos. It caused a stir, and yeah, such break from tradition is very unusual. There's no reason to flip out in a free society over anybody fashion choices to me.

That is not what these people think. They believe there is value in conformity to traditional masculinity, that the traits it instills are valuable.

If one presumes my view is common? Biden is not woke. The latter is the real common view, I'm afraid, and this did not go over well, consequently. He is sufficiently far in these and many such acts to categorize his admin as woke in the eyes of at least 50% of the country. You really have to know the baseline to know how it will be perceived.

Perhaps you are missing my point, or perhaps I am missing something about American sport. In a UK context, if you want to complain about fiscal policy or global warming you would complain to Kier. If you want to complain about the offside rule or the VAR you would complain to the FA or UEFA. Why are you complaining about the rule of American football to the POTUS, who is not in charge of those rules?

 

[Voidwalkin]

Lmao at this, suffice it to say I am quite aware of how far my views are from the American mainstream

Sorry it took a while. Got lost on a Christmas nature walk.

While you may estimate a large gap, I'm confident it is a chasm.

You hounded a guy for expressing a really tame admiration for Megyn Kelly, categorical condemnation. It was... much more civilized than 99% of the things I've heard coworkers say, everywhere, from Cleveland to Galion, most of which was...yeah, sometimes directly to the target of their affection, darkly, too.

And here which I can't quote because the thread is locked

The drive for individual status can be, and historically, often is, actually captured in a utilitarian way to benefit the majority of people. In a pyramid hierarchy, pursuit of individual status and pursuit of the more egalitarian overlaps almost completely.

You conclude because I don't think absolute communist equality possible, commitment insincere. The Sanders platform is well beneath the ceiling of human cooperation. If we got it, I would pursue greater equality still, even if failure is at some point certain. This is just life to me. I was born, I struggle to make things better, despite knowing full well I will inevitably die, probably covered in my own ****. There is nothing in my position rendering commitment impossible.

If you are actually trying to persuade anyone on the left to change their approach, then saying right off the bat that you believe the core political project that defines the left in the most basic sense is impossible gives the game away. Basically, you're advocating for Clintonism without the veneer of social progress. Who is that supposed to be for, anyway?

As per above, this is flawed because it is built upon a faulty foundation: that one can't be committed to greater egalitarianism while falling short of communism. Most Americans are actually of the opinion that not only can you be, but that it is correct to try.

As I say, we have a problem when the Democratic Party actually spends most of its time horsehockyting on the "left-wing activists" and people like you are still arguing unironically that the "left-wing activists" and the Democratic Party should be thought of as the same entity.

The really ironic thing here is I kind of agree with some of what you're saying about the "activists," particularly how the moral shaming stuff is toxic to any attempt to actually organize people, but your posts on this are essentially word salad because, despite you claiming to have voted for Bernie, you have stated on several occasions on this forum that you believe the project of the left (a more egalitarian society) to be impossible. For example,

In paragraph one, Dems are pushing back because your cohort, although widely successful in changing norms and views within collegiate environments, has flopped with the majority. They're trying to win, and you're insisting they adopt your activist positions on things like IP, which don't enjoy wide support and are widely thought prioritized too highly. Rightly, they don't love that.

In two, I had figured you had some sympathy because you're wise enough to see a problem this obvious. I just think you underestimate it. The grassroots, activist hounding of really mainstream positions is just straight poison. It's not even about Dem leaders. No individual actor could have this large an effect. The way this culture, which, yep, academia(people love it when I say it), is interacting with others is just really bad. Impressively self destructive.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Perhaps you are missing my point, or perhaps I am missing something about American sport. In a UK context, if you want to complain about fiscal policy or global warming you would complain to Kier. If you want to complain about the offside rule or the VAR you would complain to the FA or UEFA. Why are you complaining about the rule of American football to the POTUS, who is not in charge of those rules?

You're over-thinking it. I don't expect people to complain to Biden about anything related to the NFL. I just think if you dunno that the violence of football occupies a special place in American culture, with a cultural significance greater than BOOM, you may be from a cloistered section of society and may consequently not know the majority perception of things culturally.

 

[Samson]

You're over-thinking it. I don't expect people to complain to Biden about anything related to the NFL. I just think if you dunno that the violence of football occupies a special place in American culture, with a cultural significance greater than BOOM, you may be from a cloistered section of the country and may consequently not know the majority perception of things.

I see. I had not got that here or in the other thread. That sounds like a serious problem of NFL players.

 

[Lexicus]

You're over-thinking it. I don't expect people to complain to Biden about anything related to the NFL. I just think if you dunno that the violence of football occupies a special place in American culture, with a cultural significance greater than BOOM, you may be from a cloistered section of society and may consequently not know the majority perception of things culturally.

Just for the record, of course my questions about football in that thread were meant to throw that special place occupied by the 'violence of football' in American culture into relief. I am very aware that the majority of Americans do not share my views on football. The only Voidwalkin and I agree on is that you don't organize a workplace by telling people that the violence of American football is one of many expressions of the fact that traditional masculine culture is essentially one long celebration of violent savagery. This does actually segue into the last point,

That sounds like a serious problem of NFL players.

Yes! The "violence of football" has some pretty messed-up effects on the health of players, effects which are only just beginning to be examined by science and taken up by popular culture. It should be noted this is hardly a problem exclusive to football Americano, but equally my critiques of professional sports aren't limited to football Americano either. But this isn't a thread about sports, and the matter at hand is Voidwalkin using a complete misapprehension of what my questions about football meant to support an argument about politics and culture that doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

 

[Angst]

my impression isn't that dems lost because they appeased left-leaning activists with minor concessions, seeing what i've gotten hold of online; and that's even in an environment, where anti-"woke" (or as it's halfway shifted to now, anti-dei) rants are very loud and very common. i gathered that while progressives are often seen as annoying or misguided to the centre, it's usually not what really carries swing states. according to 538 - admittedly an old poll, i've been busy - reps won more on economy and immigration issues, as well as not being the incumbent during the recession; ie, first, the perception that republicans are good with business, even if republican voters agree with democratic policy on a blind poll; second, that foreigners are scary, and older immigrants dislike the younger immigrants thinking it's too easy to gain citizenship at this point (talking latinos here; and they're generally very conservative, culturally); and third, being an incumbent party during a recession. (the last point of the poll, "foreign policy", means nothing to me as an issue; is it ukraine? israel? nato? a bunch of conservatives really like to hyperinvest into the military, to support israel to the end, but to ignore the ukraine issue and raise a middle finger to nato allies, all of which is kind of a hodgepodge, at least to a degree that i have no idea what would've moved the needle in that aspect; then, abortion is more clear-cut as to why people voted a certain way.)

the issue doesn't seem to be that progressive policy turned away republican voters enough to matter across the middle; from the meagre data i've seen, it more gains left voters than it loses on the right. unless there's some groundbreaking polling done in december (and admittedly, there usually is), what happened is that the reps won over the centre on economic issues and recession incumbency, basically. clintonian "republican, but less" policy isn't working out anymore, new labour is generally a very weak stance at the polls across post-80s western economies today.

i don't really think biden appointing some lgbt administrator somewhere really moves the needle that much, is the point. the democrats are dealing with a very disenfranchised left wing at this point, and are hemmoraghing voters there too. understand that you can be annoyed with something, but it's not necessarily something that fervors you into voting for the opposite.

this is, by the way, a recent position of mine. i still think americans are generally quite bigoted (no, they're not alone, it's not the point). i just don't think it in itself moved the needle much here, not in the swing states that mattered.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Just for the record, of course my questions about football in that thread were meant to throw that special place occupied by the 'violence of football' in American culture into relief. I am very aware that the majority of Americans do not share my views on football. The only Voidwalkin and I agree on is that you don't organize a workplace by telling people that the violence of American football is one of many expressions of the fact that traditional masculine culture is essentially one long celebration of violent savagery. This does actually segue into the last point,

Ah. I see. Very well done. You were genuinely indistinguishable from someone who is entirely clueless. Forgive the misperception. Given our other disagreements, like differences about which way rural rust belt trailer park voters go, your willingness to categorize any opposition to immigration as inherently racist, a proclaimation that American institutions are hopelessly and irredeemably racist and will forever remain rooted in slaver culture, all of which are against working class sensibilites, you can perhaps imagine how my first instinct was not that you were subtly making inquiries to arrive at a specific conclusion.

I had thought you more direct than that, given that you were willing to advocate drone strikes, clarifying to a different inquiry by Samson himself, who presumed you not serious, that you really did mean it, and this is a far stronger and more alienating thing, even when said jokingly. I never woulda suspected, I genuinely default to trust.

 

[Farm Boy]

I wonder if the violence of football has more, less, or comparable health effects to chronic isolation, inactivity, and obesity.

I mean, not everybody has it in them to be clean living and pacifistic like the Amish. So they're probably too high a bar to aim for.

 

[Arwon]

I would think it would be much less, it's not really a community mass participation sport into adulthood to keep giving millions of concussions. The rugby codes and Australian Football would have a bigger adult disease burden relative to population.

 

[Voidwalkin]

economy and immigration issues

These are linked, yeah, but don't underestimate the social side, especially with the latter. Dems pivoted hard to border security late. It didn't matter. Why? On every SM platform in America, known Dems(here, I mean rank and file) are insisting that immigration is good, often pointing to academic studies to prove their point, other times, straight to racism.

Problem: academia is known, rightly, to be the heart of modernity, which is putting most traditional values under reexamination. Single most influential movement post-WW2. Success after success. At least...it seems that way. It's wildly successful within that environment, and its credentialed graduates occupy almost every single position of authority in America. Underneath, this is still a very Christian, very traditional country. Hard to find a worker without a traditional value or sensibility that hasn't been attacked, often powerfully. Trust is low. Study is ignored. I've personally been a part of that process, btw. I'm an atheist, a hard materialist. I don't deny gleefully attacking.

Trump, the counter-elite, has established credibility that he hears these voters, via really toxic rhetoric, poisonous tbh, yet indisputably in defiance of the pieties, while doing what I believe to be a conscious projection of the macho strength that is still widely admired, not simply respected....and they're increasingly going with the counter-elite, consequently. The Trump gains in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, WI and PA appear permanent. NV? In doubt.

Dems lose the trust battle on morality. All authoritative sources of info, from NYT to the peer reviwed paper, that could conclusively demonstrate that Dem policies might be good? Brought to ya by the same people who use the same verbiage as the group they've already identified as conducting a full court press against the traditional. Broadly(Jesus Christ). They even speak differently. Again, here I'm a part: talk would just be used instead of speak.

It's noted we are even post-truth on economics, now, correctly. It's not mysterious to me why. There are major, core values gaps that have eroded trust and been pursued far too aggressively and vigorously. Propaganda, Fox News, these all occur after that trust is lost. They have no power until that point. Nobody who is a believer in academic institutions goes "climate hoax". It all happens after. There is a wide values gap that must either be reconciled, respected, with a niche carved out for the traditional within the left, or simply, the traditionalists must be imperiously crushed or denied all influence(least likely, prolly impossible). It is the last course that's been taken. It's not working.

All American political events occur within this long term context. It touches each one, impactful on every issue.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I would think it would be much less, it's not really a community mass participation sport into adulthood to keep giving millions of concussions. The rugby codes and Australian Football would have a bigger adult disease burden relative to population.

Agree but FWIW, there was a high-school player who saw his mood rapidly swing downward. After his suicide(I'm afraid), believe he left a note requesting he be tested. He did indeed have CTE. IIRC he played only three years. Non-zero risk.

 

[Narz]

The idea that the Biden administration was "woke" or really in any way designed to please left-wing social activists is genuinely insane

He chose Kamala and his VP based on sex and race.

We ended up with someone running against Trump who was resoundingly rejected in the primary and paid the consequences.

 

[Narz]

Ah. I see. Very well done. You were genuinely indistinguishable from someone who is entirely clueless. Forgive the misperception. Given our other disagreements, like differences about which way rural rust belt trailer park voters go, your willingness to categorize any opposition to immigration as inherently racist, a proclaimation that American institutions are hopelessly and irredeemably racist and will forever remain rooted in slaver culture, all of which are against working class sensibilites, you can perhaps imagine how my first instinct was not that you were subtly making inquiries to arrive at a specific conclusion.

The hostility towards people and reading people's concerns (say about immigration for instance) in always the most uncharitable possible light is what's alienating.

But these types don't care about alienating people cuz the everyday people are dumb anyway but then of course one shouldn't be surprised by not being able to capture the popular imagination.

 

[Senethro]

The hostility towards people and reading people's concerns (say about immigration for instance) in always the most uncharitable possible light is what's alienating.

But these types don't care about alienating people cuz the everyday people are dumb anyway but then of course one shouldn't be surprised by not being able to capture the popular imagination.

Nice anti-imigration people still want brutal deportation and enforcement.