domain:nfinf.substack.com
hydroacetylene
2m ago
My boomer relatives watch reruns of pre-90's sitcoms or make fun of Finding Bigfoot and Ancient Aliens if they stay up late. They might put on a game show(usually a rerun). But I've never heard of them watching The Late Show or Jimmy Kimmel Live or any of those. They're more likely to pull up a more rural-oriented reality show as a last resort- anything from one of the seven zillion Cops knockoffs about game wardens to Swamp People.
Obviously anecdata but still. I'm sure there are Hanania-esque republicans watching these things, but socially conservative boomers have other choices of brainrot.
07mk
3m ago
I certainly think he could have beaten Trump for the standard reasons. Clinton almost beat him, and I think Sanders would've leached off more populist-type voters from Trump than he would've lost relative to Clinton. The type of Clinton voters who would've been upset enough at Sanders not to vote for him seems likely to be small, particularly Clinton partisans also tended to hate Trump even more, and Sanders's downsides to them were things he shared with Trump, i.e. old white guy. No way to know for sure.
I believe that at least some parts of woke would've carried on mostly the same way, which is everything to do with trans. The writing was on the wall beforehand with parallels being made between trans and gay in terms of being something innate to oneself that one discovers by being true to oneself, versus being something that can be influenced within people, especially impressionable young people in whom certain amounts of hormones are flowing for the first time, with the emotional influences thereof. The situation with Lia Thomas, the MTF college swimmer who's caused controversy for obvious reasons, probably would've happened regardless. I have to wonder, though, if we would have learned about WPATH suppressing research in order not to give political ammo to their critics.
Entertainment media is where I think there might have been a noticeable difference. Living in a blue area, I've yet to see it overstated how much President Donald Trump seemed to have broken an unfortunately significant number of people's brains, and this seemed to have been especially true in Hollywood, which I think probably led to more messaging being prioritized over quality, likely in subconscious ways. I can't remember any in particular now, but I'm pretty sure I've read a number of interview answers by directors, writers, and even video game devs who said their work was inspired by the idea of fighting against the rise of fascism in the USA in the form of Donald Trump. President Sanders probably wouldn't have inspired such works, and maybe execs might have had a slightly higher priority on profit over in-group approval among political peers such that some of, say, Disney/Marvel's downfall due to woke-ifying old franchises could've been slowed down.
Jesweez
4m ago
Yeah the part where they invaded everyone to conduct industrial scale ethnic cleansing campaigns does kind of overshadow their views on tax policy.
gorge
4m ago
No, in the full quote he specifically insulted Donald Trump saying he was grieving like a four-year-old mourning a goldfish -- https://www.themotte.org/post/3263/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/367826?context=8#context
gorge
9m ago
What's the point of an analogy if it doesn't work unless it's exactly the same? ... "Don't make jokes about deaths" wasn't really a standard until last week, and while people often got sensitive about such jokes, this wasn't a broad standard
There is a different standard for the jokes of a network television host, than there is for the jokes of a shock jock or a horrible person on South Park. With the network variety show, the implicit agreement with the audience is that "these are the kinds of jokes you can re-tell in polite company; these are the kind of jokes that good people can tell." So when he tells a joke that only Cartman or Howard Stern would tell, he is not doing his job correctly.
There is also a different standard for jokes about self-inflicted stupid deaths versus tragic deaths versus murders versus political assassinations. This is the most significant political assassination in the United Sates since RFK. I highly doubt any network comedian was making RFK jokes a week after his death. I remember Princess Diana jokes, but I highly doubt they were made a week or a month within her death on network TV.
Looks like a local sports radio host specifically mocked Halladay's death, and the stupidity of his actions, but he was widely criticized for this and forced to issue a public apology: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/nov/09/boston-radio-host-mocks-moron-roy-halladay-after-death-in-plane-crash-at-40
hydroacetylene
9m ago
I'm not sure what unreliable information and malevolent lies the right has embraced- AFAIK the original narrative 'far left shooter, upset about Charlie's stance on trans' was close enough to government work.
Quantumfreakonomics
10m ago
It depends on if capital would have rallied around Donald Trump if the alternative was Sanders. I just don't think sophisticated people were ready to do that in 2016. I think Bernie could have won. If you think our timeline sucks, there's an alternate one where the United States ends up like Germany or the UK.
hydroacetylene
13m ago
Hold on there's no need to resort to violence. The way to make sure the cowboys lose is to increase the star players' pay. C'mon, listen to the cowboys fans tell jokes about it.
Skeletor
13m ago
Well it's not untrue in the way saying Robinson was 50 years old would be untrue. Ideology and political philosophy don't work that way. We don't even have a manifesto from Robinson.
I'm not going to bother reiterating all the evidence we've been exposed to thus far, but this is just hogwash. I know it hurts to lose a round of "guess the shooter's politics" this thoroughly, usually it's just some generic schizo that doesn't really map to anything, but this time the left really did get got. This routine will never fly outside of Bluesky/Reddit.
Frankly I'd respect a simple "fuck you" more.
benmmurphy
13m ago
isn't this just a muh plaintiffs don't have standing decision. if the plaintiffs weren't looking for relief against future violations from the government but instead focussed on current violations maybe they would have been successful.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
15m ago
I agree, and confessed to being unsure and not fully exploring it. However, two wrongs don't make a right, and that discussion doesn't detract from the main point I made, I don't think.
hydroacetylene
15m ago
Actually prosecuting these guys for incitement to violence is not how you go after them. You get them demonetized- much simpler.
Quantumfreakonomics
16m ago
There aren't enough intelligent, thoughtful people in the country for a viable party to get away with only making valid arguments and espousing only reasonable policy positions. If you don't make a serious play for the stupid vote you just get creamed, and that means both parties end up making stupid arguments for stupid positions.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
17m ago
Kimmel said, in essence, if we parse the quote finely (I don't really want to do this but you objected to my characterization and upgraded it to the level of knowing falsehood):
-
MAGA really wanted to wanted the shooter to be non-MAGA
- this implies that the shooter is, in fact, MAGA, but only implies it! It is unsaid, and potentially, facially, true (bailey-claim). Was there desire for this fact to be true, a non-MAGA shooter? Objectively yes. So Kimmel is using a bit of a motte-claim, which annoys me, but are we really cancelling a whole show because an implied motte-claim is untrue and offensive?
-
MAGA are trying to score political points
-
said political points scored from "it"; grammatically this is unclear and grammar teachers advise against it for this exact ambiguity, but the next sentence suggests that he meant the finger pointing and not the murder as "it".
-
also not even implied, but requiring assumptions from the listener on their own: who is the finger pointing directed AT? Presumably, the left, but this is not claimed.
-
He then goes on to his main point, which is that Trump is not truly grieving. I agree with a poster below that this is a potentially cruel point because people grieve differently, but isn't there a grain of truth here? The response to tragedy is often commodified. Isn't calling that out fair game?
The claim that all MAGA are inherently murderers is an even more extended third-degree implication rising from the first bullet and its sub-bullet (logic goes like: not only is the shooter a MAGA but the 'denial' stems from MAGA insecurity at being themselves prone to such acts of violence). That's too far removed to count, in my eyes.
In short, "denial" is the implied emotion; denial usually implies guilt; and guilt applies to all Republicans. That's three degrees, depends partly on emotional reasoning, and I find it weak.
hydroacetylene
20m ago
I think the first thing to note about Sanders is that while the establishment does not like Trump, they hate Sanders(and other actual socialists) a lot worse. Right-populism is bad for GDP maxxing but unpredictable left-populism is a lot worse.
So, that out of the way, we saw Hillary fail with full elite backing. Sanders with no elite backing? Hmm, that relies on a self-proclaimed socialist being popular enough to overcome that. I doubt that, especially in 2016.
I do think the coalitions would look different. The democrats are to a large extent reliant on upscale movement in their direction. What Sanders managed to win over from the bottom, he loses from the top.
zeke5123a
37m ago
Isn’t this just another way of saying “blue tribe supports the riots because it thinks without the riots other what they view as good things won’t come to fruition?”
Maybe you think that’s unfair, but I really struggle to understand the above thinking as it’s divorced from reality.
SnapDragon
39m ago
Definitely! I suspect being a two-time American Crossword Puzzle Tournament champion doesn't hurt, either.
anti_dan
42m ago
But to give everyone money you either have to tax at such exorbitant rates that you are going to cripple the economy, or you are going to be giving out so little that it doesn't help anyone but the very poor anyways.
So unless you are the first politician in centuries to figure out a way to tax the underclass to give some extra money to private sector upper middle class families, your redistribution program is going to be bad for society.
aqouta
46m ago
Just give the money to everyone! The trump stimmy checks were the right idea
The Trump Stimmy checks were in fact not universal.
anti_dan
48m ago
What leftist movement has been obsessed with concepts like purifying the racial makeup of the country?
This is central to the identity of Nazis for people on the left, but they had a menagerie of policies that frequently overlapped with the left.
TitaniumButterfly
1hr ago
Yeah, I was going to say, Jeopardy isn't over until Hoff gets his day behind the podium.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1hr ago
He seems formidable! The puzzle-making background seems to really help him on wordplay categories, anagrams, etc.
SnapDragon
1hr ago
Hey, one of my puzzle-hunting acquaintances (Paolo Pasco) is currently on a win streak!
Bartender_Venator
1hr ago
Had he won the primary or presidency, I think it would have turned out very similarly to Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Bernie has been in politics on the fringes of his party for a long time, but has no friends in high places, would face a generally unfriendly media, and is extremely weak to idpol infighting. Do I think he could have beaten Trump? No, but Trump's victory would have looked very different. Bernie is not a strong character in direct interpersonal conflict, and he would face a great deal of that from within the party before even getting to Trump. Then you'd have relentless Trump bullying, probably in a manner closer to the primaries than to his contest with Hillary - say what you want about Hillary, she's no shrinking violet - playing up all the weirdnesses of Bernie's character and platform. Trump probably runs significantly closer to the center on policy (not that that's ever affected people's impressions of him), and the Republican Party donor class falls in line behind him far faster. The election is decided more conventionally, since the outcast white working class is more divided - that's one part of this scenario I'm not sure about, the extent to which "white working class rage" is sidelined as a media topic compared to our timeline, or if an anti-both-candidates media plays it up even further. The one wild card would be the extent to which the leftist organizers and agents (in the sense of media agents) behind the rise of the Squad, Mamdani, etc. step into the limelight earlier and pull something crazy off, though they would be younger, less organized, and in a less developed social media environment.
If Sanders won, there would be a crazy three-way power struggle in his administration between the Old Left (him), the New Left (woke), and the party establishment. I really find it hard to see anything other than the Old Left capitulating as far as possible to New Left demands. Sanders himself is not really woke, but the entire activist apparatus supporting him, and anybody under 70 he could get to staff his admin, would be New Left as much as they are Old. Sanders himself was very happy to drop policy planks, like immigration skepticism, where the Old conflicted with the New. But the end result is very different for "woke", in that it becomes the flagpole of an insurgent populist movement rather than an establishment ideology. Essentially, instead of a Trumpist right against a woke establishment, you have a much weaker but still fairly powerful populist right (this is not the critical defeat for populism that a Hillary victory would have been), a bipartisan establishment, and a SocDem/woke populist left. Bernie most likely ends up a pretty ineffective and chaotic one-term President (think Trump 1, but more internal shambles and economic problems than enemy action), which also harms wokeness by association. The private sector's wokeness is bigger in some ways but comparatively muted in others, at least among upper management, since the vibe is not "us the institutions resisting Trump", but more a fearful compliance with the Administration of the type you're seeing now. The civil war we saw in news media between cautious management and woke staff kicks off way earlier. Covid finishes the Sanders administration off, and the next admin probably inherits a significantly worse economic position, ratcheting up the three-way tensions between woke/Trumpist/establishment going into the incoming Republican (Cruz?) administration.
You’re overthinking this quote. Here is all that really matters:
Combine this with Jimmy Kimmel’s known history of outrageous bias and the (correct) interpretation is obvious.You could probably show 1000 people that Kimmel quote and ask them if Kimmel thinks the shooter is MAGA and you will get essentially 100% (minus lizardman constant) saying yes.
More options
Context Copy link