ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11d ago
What's "liberaltarian" if not the liberterian-ish wing of left-liberalism? If the minimum wage or basic income are good enough for him, why would he be ideologically opposed to tariffs?
Paul Krugman, the famous economist whose views are taken seriously, is the guy writing academic papers. Paul Krugman, the economics popularizer whose political views are Taken Seriously, is possibly the biggest hack who ever existed in the history of punditry, so to the extent the distinction is worth making, it works against your argument.
It is hard to distinguish between "the Trump tariffs are implementing a bad policy" and "the Trump tariffs implementing a questionable policy incompetently" because Trump is deliberately opaque about what the policy the tariffs are implementing actually is. (For the umpteenth time, tariffs are a tool, not a policy).
If tariffs are a tool not a policy, then the absence of "Trump tariffs are implementing a good policy incompetently" as a possibility should show you that the argument is not being made in good faith. There are principled leftwingers who do make that argument, they point out why the trade policy done up to now was bad for America / the world, why you might want to change it, and why tariffs can be the right tool for the job, and then proceed to show why the way Trump is doing it is bad. But implying that tariffs are somehow ideologically incompatible with left liberalism is just historically wrong.
although I still think it's useful to look within the movements to see if there's corrections within the movements as well. When Dems lost 2024 they had a notable period of reflection where new ideas were more accepted
You can't use the Dems as your example for a concession done within a movement, when you just rejected MAGA as an example of "Repubs" doing the same. Earlier you were using even broader categories like "the left", so this just comes across as gerrymandering.
What happened in the Democratic party is the same kind of factional warfare of one movement trying to supplant the other that we've seen inside the Republican one... except it's a strictly inferior version of it, because whereas the neocons got beaten so badly that a good deal of them decided they have better chances with the Democrats, woke progressives are alive and well.
There was a brief period of Dems asking questions like "how do we win young men back?", but the answer apparently was "by doubling down on nagging them to death". There was absolutely no repudiation of their positions on culture that they supposedly were introspecting on.
I don't see why anyone here is relevant since this place is small and mostly dominated by conservatives.
Because we are specific people with an ongoing relationship, and discussed the subject. If anything it makes more sense to discuss people here, because talking about Democrats or progressives at large usually gets you accused of homogenizing the outgroup. If there was such a widespread mea culpa on Biden's senility, it should have been reflected on this forum, the same way the original "Biden is fine, and if you disagree you're crazy/biased/both" was.
Demanding they stop rejecting conservative critiques more broadly
All I'm demanding that they reckon with why they rejected what was clear and obvious reality, and why they attacked anyone who disagreed with them.
Depends what you mean by "durable". I see no reason so far to believe that it will stop being effective, but if you're referring to the possibility of it being overturned by the next administration, that's certainly a choice they can make, but it's a choice that will unequivocally show that substituting the diligent and competent for the short-attention-spanned and retarded does work out better.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11d ago
The MAGA movement itself is largely exactly that - a concession that liberals were right about neocon wars and "free trade".
The left broadly owned up to screwing up over Biden's age.
No one here ever said anything remotely close to "yeah, you guys were right", and I'll believe they've owned up when they refrain from lazy insults like "conspiracy theorist" the next time something obviously true is pointed out.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12d ago
Tariffs used to be a pretty standard left-liberal policy position, Paul Krugman literally got the (not)Nobel Prize for arguing for them. The only coherent objection to what Trump is doing from that perspective is "his goals are good, but he's doing it wrong", which a few principled left-wingers are doing.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12d ago
Compared to last week I'm at:
Make the "subscribe" button workAdd a script to download content from the subscribed to profiles - This one will need cleanup / optimization, and I just barely cobbled it together for now.- Start on reorganizing the database architecture to optimize performance.
So I only managed to wrap up the second point. In other news, got meself a new laptop, and spent a lot of my tinkering time setting it up the way I like it.
How have you been doing @Southkraut?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13d ago
Can you point me to some instances of people self describing in that way from the 70s and 80s?
Emily Hicks, Richard R. Weiner, Douglas Kellner.
If those are decent nutshell descriptions then let’s take “oppressor/oppressed analysis” for instance. What’s the justification for calling that Marxist specifically?
That Cultural Marxists themselves thought that they are taking inspiration from Marx:
We are, in Marx's terms, "an ensemble of social relations" and we live our lives at the core of the intersection of a number of unequal social relations based on hierarchically interrelated structures which, together, define the historical specificity of the capitalist modes of production and reproduction and underlay their observable manifestations. ”
— Martha E. Gimenez, Marxism and Class, Gender and Race: Rethinking the Trilogy
I’ve heard this term bandied about for years but never directly encountered someone who uses it.
Because people were using it back in the 80's and maybe late 70's, and when the term started attracting too much negative attention, they promptly started pretending it's a conspiracy theory.
Also, "never met someone who uses the term directly" is an argument that's applied extremely selectively.
Most of the “applied cultural marxists” and postmodernists seem to outright reject Marx and any similarities in their thinking (e.g., oppressor and oppressed) seem to pre-date Marx.
Critical Theory proudly takes inspiration from both Marx and postmodernism.
Some potential meanings I’ve considered and discarded:
Those are fairly decent nutshell descriptions, and there's no reason to reject them.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
14d ago
I wouldn't say the US forced him to abdicate - he was couped in the 1970's by his Prime Minister. But if the question is "why did the US not put Zahir Shah on the throne as part of their policy of building not-the-Taliban?"
Then you'd be wrong, and that's not the question. They forced him to renounce all future claims the throne.
then per Wikipedia
Please, no.
That the US deep state still (wrongly) considered Pakistan an ally who might have a better sense of Afghan politics than they did was obvious if you were paying attention in the noughties.
Maybe, but given this, and the decision to rebuild Iraq as a democracy seems to indicate ideological commitment, and your theory that it was all cynical is far from obvious.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
14d ago
But what the US was actually doing in Afghanistan was spending two trillion dollars to (unsuccessfully) spread not-the-Taliban,
So why did they force the king of Afghanistan to abdicate, instead if putting him on the throne?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
14d ago
What the fuck is going on?
Certain key beliefs our society is based on are Noble Lies, and can't be sustained in an open, high quality, debate environment, leaving the believers only with the option of having a closed debate environment.
The establishment is likely also making sure that no open discussion takes place, because the wrong information coming out at the wrong time is often a direct threat to their power and their goals.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
15d ago
Police gun combat training begins and ends with point the gun at someone, hear Sibyl's judgement, shoot if Sibyl allows you to.
I don't know if I'd go that far. Every enforcer seems very proficient in hand to hand combat.
EDIT: Oh sorry, you said gun combat training specifically.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
15d ago
Why? The border crisis was solved overnight.
Step 1 would be to have competent and diligent people in charge, making decently intelligent decisions about prioritization and being dedicated to followthrough.
People tried that. The ones calling themselves diligent and competent refuse to implement the policies they campaign on, and proceed to invest their political capital into foreign wars that aren't ran diligently or competently.
And if diligence and competence gets us Biden's border crisis, perhaps these words don't mean that much to begin with.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
15d ago
It's not a well regarded consensus at all. AI is very likely to be used in malicious ways by the powers that be, it is very likely to have second order effects that will make society dumber and people less resilient, but none of it is going to happen in the way the AI safety movement predicts. AGI / ASI / Whatever we're calling it today is unlikely to exist, not just in the next 5 years, but in the foreseeable future (I'll bet you money on this).
I don't see the deflection.
You don't? A straightforward answer to the question would give some indication of what you would think or do in the situation, but for some reason your actual answer only says what you think is likely to happen, and says nothing about your personal judgement of the outcome. Which is awfully convenient given your later argument about people rejecting the "overarching context" when it's suits them. That's a very peculiar kind of blindness that you have, for sure.
People arguing against pedo acceptance will be just as useless as people arguing against gay marriage if the progressive march ever wants to sexually liberate children.
Unless they lose that particular fight for a second time, in which case we'll come back to pretending they never wanted it again.
Besides, it's not about the arguments, as those did little to save marriage from homosexuals.
It's a good thing I'm not trying to save marriage from homosexuals during the course of this conversation, then.
If the majority of trans people weren't mentally ill or completely unpassable 40 somethings, there would be no backlash
Much like your totally not racist statement about which races it's ok to segregate from, this one sure takes the sting out of any talk of "transphobia". Unless you think that being trans is a mental illness in and of itself, these aren't the majority of trans people, and they cause more backlash than the mentally ill unpassable 40-somethings.
But it is inevitable so long as people don't reject the overarching context.
The conversation so far:
- The march of progress is inevitable!
- No it's not. There are several issues where "progress" was brought to a halt, we just pretend to not remember them, or that they weren't "progress".
- Ok, let's say I believe you, how is that relevant?
- Because it shows that the march of progress is not inevitable...
- But it is inevitable!!!
And as as far as I can tell the "overarching context" is the same thing as "the inevitable march of progress" so that argument was entirely circular.
A local preacher, known for fiery sermons, once said: You don't invite sin over for coffee. You say: Away with you! You disgust me!
My entire point is that you're not doing that. First you act like you want to have a rational conversation, when it's pointed out how your arguments and comparisons make no sense, you switch to religious proclamations and start playing the preacher bonking the unfaithful with a bible, and finally when I switch to questions more appropriate for a religious conversation and ask you about your sincerely held beliefs, you suddenly adopt a passive disembodied voice and act like the discussed beliefs aren't even yours. The only time when it looks like you might mention something about your beliefs, you talk about what you don't believe and immediately pivot to criticizing others.
I'm game for any kind of conversation sincere you want to have, but this is just trolling.
When you figure out how to have a rational conversation with a true believer, be that an Islamist or a transexual, let me know.
It's pretty easy. Both sides have to want it, and be aware of the inferential gaps between each other. You can't make someone do it though, and the entire point I was making is that you don't seem to be showing any desire for having one.
I don't think you could. I think it would come across as empty.
Maybe to you, but progressives wouldn't be making dissent a bannable offense if it felt empty do them.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17d ago
I don't think they crippled the civilian infrastructure to the same extent as the Americans did.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18d ago
That would imply the Russians care more than what he's portraying not less - even though most people would not care, they're not doing a fraction of what the US did in Iraq, or what Israel did is doing in Gaza.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18d ago
Russia cares about worldwide public opinion to some small degree, it's just at a much lower level than you seem to think.
He seems to be portraying the Russians as caring about it to the extent it could cause an increase in support for Ukraine, why would their actual level of caring be lower than that? It's completely cynical basic strategic thinking.
If you asked the median Ukrainian if they thought Russia was fighting with "several hands tied behind its back", they'd almost certainly laugh at you.
That has no bearing on whether or not they are actually going all out on them. The US collapsed most of the Iraqi civilian infrastructure when they invaded back in the day, this is what not caring about international opinion looks like.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18d ago
But ‘assisted in the death of, via second order effects on murder rates’ is a rather different phenomenon.
I don't know if I agree with that. If law and order collapses as a result of civil war, it's not going to be much comfort to me that technically the mob burning down my house is a second order effect.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18d ago
And even the spicier FC post cited by others doesn't seem to be calling for violence
AvocadoPanic was asking "is there a way to express that some issues may not have satisfactory political solutions?", not "is there a way to directly call for violence?". The answer to the latter is obviously "no".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18d ago
That's mostly a rationalization for their lack of resistance. What do you think they will actually resist peso rights, instead of coming up with a similar rationalization?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18d ago
Just how independent is that "independent" rediscovery? If progressives make an about face on trans issues and decide it's all abruse by evil capitalists to make money off of vurnelable gender non-conforming children, is that the leftist normies spearheading the pushback, or a copy-paste of an argument they were condemning as fascist five seconds ago?
If I look up that time when the US threatened to withdraw UN's funding, over it's associations with NAMBLA, am I going to see mostly conservative, or mostly progressive names attached to that? Is that a valid way to test your theory? If not, what would be?
Really? Where are the states that discriminate against women, non-whites, and promote heterosexuality to the same extent that progressive states discriminate against men, whites, and promote minority sexualities and gender identities?
More options
Context Copy link