Outlaw83

Outlaw83 1d ago

I mean, yes, there has been social change, but the vast majority of that has been positive in my view, and in the view of the vast majority of people. It's up to those guys to determine if their deepest worry is about the gender or race of their favorite superheroes or the average bust size of the women in video games or whatever is proof that SJW's have taken over. I truly do think 'the SJW's have ruined everything' types do really overrate how much everybody in nerd culture was really on their side, as opposed to people who weren't opposed to the nerd culture of 1994, but also aren't opposed to the nerd culture of 2024.

If your deepest view is culture was great in 1995 and everything was fine, yeah, you're going to be left behind, just like if you're belief that culture was great in 1970, even in 1995, you'd be considered an out of touch old guy that's being passed by. 1995 is actually a long time ago now, when it comes to culture.

I've also made this point before - in 1994, if two nerdy (likely) white dudes are having a political argument, they probably don't have too deep a connection to many of the political arguments, even if they have different views on something. On the other hand in 2024, the left-leaning person is far more likely to have non-white people, LGBT, or other groups that are effected by conservative policies, so it's not a shock that now they have a closer relationship with those folks, they're less likely to be seen as just arguments.

Like, why do I want to be personally friendly with people who want to make the lives of my other friends worse? I'm fair about this - I don't expect somebody whose pro-life, anti-transgender rights, or super anti-immigration whatever to be my friend if they deeply care about those issues.

Context

Outlaw83 1d ago

The problem with this argument is if everybody was actually on your side in nerdy spaces in the first place. There were plenty of people who wanted to kick you out from the jump.

Again, I've made this analogy before, but in 1997, if among your friend group, one of the guys in your local area that is into anime, Warhammer, Doctor Who, or whatever thing you're deeply into is kind of off, occcasionally says cring things or whatever, you may put up with it, because that's the only option you have. But, this did make a current brand of nerd think they had more support than they actually did.

But, in 2024, you don't have to deal with that guy anymore, and thanks to the increased popularity of nerdy things in general, there are plenty of people with more normal views on stuff.

If the option is somebody who might know less about cool thing y you're into, but also doesn't complain there are now non-sexy women or non-white people in prominent places within said cool thing, a lot of people are going to side with the person who knows less because they're less annoying to be around, even if you don't care one way or another.

I'd also argue video games are part of the capitalist system, while crochet groups really aren't, even though there have been rows about crochets involving race. But yes, it turns out people who own businesses want to make more money, and they'll drop their appeal to males 18-34, if it'll help them also win over older males and women.

I think a big thing your side doesn't get is the actual reason for the desexualization of games is actually less evil SJW's, but the fact that programmers, engineers, and actual gamers are getting older, having kids, and it's far more defensible to a wife to be playing a game on the lbig living room TV with characters that look like the modern Tomb Raider, The Last of Us, or whatever the game people have determined is full of 'ugly' people, as opposed to the polygons with boobs of the late 90's.

Ironically, I would compare this to a refugee situation, where refugees sometimes put up with extremist or less than fantastic parts of their refugee community because they all have to stand together. Well, some of the refugees found a new country and they have to follow certain rules and stop saying certain things and don't find that a problem, while there's a smaller group that wants to hold on to outdated traditions because that's the way it was.

Context

Outlaw83 2d ago

This is a time thing - Hillary was basically Public Enemy #1 (even more than Bill) from their arrival into national politics in 1992 to Obama showing up in 2008. So much was thrown at her (the truthfulness is up for you to decide) that it seeped into even left-leaning people's view of Hillary.

Kamala's only been a national issue for around five years and in that time, honestly, the wider Right has been from the outside, seemingly more obsessed with AOC & Hunter Biden than Kamala.

Context

Outlaw83 2d ago

I mean, this is a general problem for the current GOP, which is different from the past.

As a dirty left-winger, I opposed the Bush GOP with all my heart, but I understood they were trying to win majority support. They failed in 2000, but even putting aside everything post-9/11, they governed in a way to try to get a majority in 2004 - Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, etc. along with social conservative stuff I didn't like, but was at least far more popular at the time.

Which, they were then rewarded with the last electoral Presidential majority a Republican candidate has received in 2004, that then they decided to blow-up by trying to privatize Social Security.

Now, the GOP seems not interested in actually winning over a majority of voters. The view seems to be, run a straight flush, win with 47.3% of the vote, then act like you won a 35-state mandate in your actions afterward, then be shocked you become unpopular 19 seconds into office.

Ironically, that's why beyond pure partisanship, it would've been nice if what looked like was possible in 2004 - Kerry winning w/ a popular vote loss - would've happened, because then there might've been a bi-partisan movement to trash the Electoral College, and I'm not saying that as somebody who believes the GOP would be unable to create a platform and argument to win a national popular vote.

-3

Context

Outlaw83 2d ago · Edited 2d ago

I mean, you can vote for those things, if you start to care less about other things. For instance, there are still plenty of people who don't like gay people in the Democratic coalition, they're just mainly old black people who don't care that much about it.

Like, I'm not a leftie who doesn't think there are people with legitimately cross-pressured opinions, but at a certain point, I have to say, "OK, you care more about thing x than thing y we agree on. I'm not going to change my view on thing x or agree we need to compromise, because I care deeply about that issue as well. Good luck on finding a candidate that matches what you care about.'

That's why primaries happen - people vote for their preference, then they decide on whether the person that won is acceptable. I voted for Edwards in '08 and Bernie in '16 & '20, but Obama, Hillary, and Biden were all acceptable, because the alternative in all cases was a in my view, right-wing reactionary to fascist party.

There are also people who feel politically homeless - that was many, many, many progressive people from basically the late 80's to mid-00's, people who thought the New Deal consensus was terrible from the late 30's to early 60's, and so on.

Plus, on the issues you mentioned, there has been advancement - the new IBR plans for student loans, expansion of ACA subsidies, a CTC for one year (damn you Manchin), and so on. It's not enough, but it's still better than anything being offered up by the other side.

I'm also going to be honest and say I thought you were likely trolling, but it took me five minutes max to write-up that response, so why not actually give the pro-Democratic position that basically doesn't exist here.

Context

Outlaw83 3d ago

A few main things -

1.) Lots and lots of smaller departments, where a combination of nepotism/corruption and just a need for bodies create lower standards. I think while there are some specific pretty terrible big city PD's, the worse police departments in medium and small towns and cities across America, where they truly are unaccountable and incesteous, while having immense power.

2.) A non-professional culture - From what I've seen, European's treat the job of police as yes, something admirable, but it's still a job and one you need the right qualifications and training for. In the US, as I think somebody said, it's basically a place where non-college educated men can make good wages and be respected in society, and not much else. Obvious, there's the matter of the number of guns, but looks at the difference between the median UK or European police officer's uniform and a US police officer's.

3.) Post 9/11 worship - People might forget/not know this, but there were police scandals in the 90's and some pushes for reform, and the median view of the police was something like NYPD Blue - there were good and bad cops, and so on. 9/11 meant it became basically impossible to question anything any cop did for a decade plus, and then another five years for said questioning to reach a critical mass, due to social media.

4.) People like having the thugs around - You sometimes see this in this place, and just in wider America - people who don't think they'll ever have to deal with cops don't mind the proles getting what they deserve, including at times, other proles.

Context

Outlaw83 3d ago

Terrible training, mostly.

The median European cop spends far more time training than the median American officer.

Context

Outlaw83 4d ago

He just called in via phone during Kamala's first speech in Wilmington. Ironically, sounds the best he has since the SOTU.

Context

Outlaw83 5d ago

Yup, this weird view the Democrat's have no bench just isn't true. Roy Cooper, Tim Walz, Mark Kelly, and others you haven't listed are also reasonable contenders.

The actual dirty little secret is the GOP bench is kind of bare, when it comes to people who appeal to the median voter - yes, there are plenty of candidates who win red states by 20, but outside of that, when it comes to swing state or blue state Republican's with any crossover appeal who have a chance of winning a MAGA-tilted primary, there's Brian Kemp from Georgia and that's about it, and even he has obvious issues with the whole "not going along with Trump after 2020."

The reality is, in 2028, if Kamala wins this time, and the ticket is say, J.D. Vance/Kristi Noem, I'll have zero worries about that ticket outside of a 2008-style economic collapse.

-1

Context

Outlaw83 5d ago

I think a legitimate argument is stress over Hunter pushed him over the edge - there's interesting stuff that specific family stress can make otherwise fairly normal older people decline much quicker.

Context

Outlaw83 5d ago

Except basically Generic Democrat's are running ahead in swing state Senate races.

-1

Context

Outlaw83 5d ago

A pro-union NLRB, support for expanded health care access, a plan to increase manufacturing that actually creates jobs as opposed to just increase tariffs, an IRS that goes after billionaire and millionaire tax cheats, stopping various Republican attempts to deregulate environmental, labor, and other sorts of law or cut social spending, putting Democratic judges on the bench, attempts at student loan forgiveness and reform, criminal justice reform, and since I'm a social progressive like the vast majority of social democrats outside of stupidpol, support for immigration, abortion, LGBT rights, feminism, and action against climate change.

Joe Biden has been the best President of my lifetime, and Kamala will likely be even be better because she won't be as wedded to being nice to Republican's or as abashedly pro-Zionist.

Regardless of what edgy rich left-wing podcasters in Brooklyn may claim, there are differences between the two parties, which is despite being to the left of 95% of the population, I am a partisan Democratic party supporter. Give me STV or proportional voting and I'll shift, but in a FPTP EC-based system, changing the Democratic Party form within is the only way for the goals I support to have a chance.

Context

Outlaw83 5d ago

Sure, in their own personal life, maybe. Not being told that by right-wingers who want to ban abortion as they're calling Kamala a DEI candidate.

But hey, as a left-wing social democrat, I can only hope the Republican campaign becomes all about Willie Brown, how Kamala is a DEI candidate, and so on.

-1

Context

Outlaw83 5d ago

No, it's even easier - Kamala can say she's prosecuted sex criminals and frauds like Trump before, and no, the Willie Brown attack is not going to work outside of the Republican base.

However, if you want suburban women to vote 75-25 for Harris, then go ahead and do that attack.

-2

Context

Outlaw83 8d ago

Bonds even before he got (rightly) upset over the attention McGwire & Sosa got and started taking roids was a HOF player.

Especially since he was going up against plenty of roided up pitchers himself, I'd argue 2001-2004 Barry Bonds is the among the scariest athletes when it comes to ability to take over a game, and it's in a sport where he only gets 5 chances to do so.

Context

Outlaw83 14d ago

I want my neighbors to have 0% interest in killing homeless people to simply cull the population of them. That's it - if you have any interest in killing homeless people because you don't like having them around, and they're causing more issues than they're worth as human beings, you're the person I want sent to uninhabited BLM land.

-2

Context

Outlaw83 15d ago · Edited 15d ago

Except this is the lowest period of non-arbitrary violence against the most anti-social elements of society in probably human history and also the least violent part of human history. In the past, there was way harsher actions against anti-social elements of society, and far more general violence and chaos.

Also, the reason I wouldn't want is you're not a nice, respectful, orderly neighbor. You're an authoritarian with dreams of violent cleanses of people lesser than you, so in aggregate, crime and disorder goes down by 5%, if they're out of bounds of what you determine to be an orderly society.

-5

Context

Outlaw83 15d ago

I mean, there are semi-normal calls on this website, with basically zero real pushback calling for moderate to severe limitations on the ability of 50% of the population to be equal to the other 50% of the population when it comes to educational opportunities and general place in society.

So, maybe there's a "well, IQ shows that actually, I'm OK with some African-American and Hispanic's in prominent positions if they prove themselves worthy" arguments thats pro-merit but basically making it as tough as possible for women to go to college or access birth control is cutting off half the population because they seem to want more babies.

-7

Context

Outlaw83 16d ago

The funny thing is, as one of the resident left-leaning people, both sides think the other side are genius political actors, racking up win after win, while their side is useless, weak, and being rolled over.

I think part of it is that in a 50/50 political world, and with enough states under strong Dem and GOP control, there are overreaches on both sides to make it seem like either side is running over things, based on your own views, while thinking your side is unable to fight.

-1

Context

Outlaw83 16d ago

I mean, sure, nothing works 100% of the time. There are still people upset over Brown vs. Board of Education out there after all.

But, I'm not talking about woke self-hating white liberals like myself celebrating the end of the white majority or whatever.

I'm talking about the fact that your median Texan exurban Trump voter in a middle class neighborhood is far less likely to freak out over non-white people moving to their neighborhood than frankly, even pretty centrist to center-left European's when it comes to Muslim's or hell, Romani people. If you look at polling, even now in a fairly anti-immigrant swing of thermostatic opinion, there's still fairly decent numbers of Trump voters about immigrants in society and such, and even now, the less/more/same numbers on immigration are still far better in the US than basically anywhere in Europe.

The same thing happened with gay people - it went from only freaks in San Francisco or whatever to oh hey, that's sad that gay people are dying to oh yeah, my cousin's daughter is a lesbian to oh, Dave in the office is gay - weird, he didn't seem it to Mary & Alice bought the Newman's house and so on.

Integration is key, and ironically, America is much better at it than Europe in a variety of ways. In part because we just got a whole lot more non-white people, but also because we're not wedded to 'my family has lived within 10 miles of this village since before basically recorded history and that's the only true way to be x' or whatever the Euros have their hang ups about. Meanwhile, in America - show up, pay taxes, get a job, and learn to cheer or boo the Cowboys depending on where you live, and welcome to America. Pass the burger. We even threw on some veggie ones for Vivek and Priya even though I'd never eat any.

Same thing will and is already happening with trans people. At an accelerated pace, but partly because the numbers are so small, only conservatives stuck in very blue areas and grifting online right-wing entertainers care all that much in reality. Polling showed in a post-mid-2022 midterms that it was the least important issue among Republican voters.

-2

Context

Outlaw83 17d ago

I mean, this is how minorities of all kinds have eventually grown their public support, even as people opposed to it are upset - by being parts of various communities, big and small. In a world without an hierarchical society imposed on-high from either an authoritarian government or religion, it turns out continued interactions with people different from you tend to make you friendlier to that group of people.

The big jump that eventually causes the loss of widespread opposition to a minority groups isn't "I love these group of people and embrace them" grows to a majority, it's "I met x, they're a y, and they're fine, so you're weird for being so freaked out" grows to a majority.

That's why even among Trump voters, their actually less harsh on immigration than even some centrist Europeans, because they've grown in a far more multicultural society than most Europeans have.

Context

Outlaw83 17d ago

I mean, it's mostly just cheaper housing or in Europe, a larger safety net. Sure, maybe family closeness helps in edge cases, but it's actually just housing is much cheaper in China, Turkey, or many other low-income countries with no homelessness. Even accounting for cost of living and wages, there are a lot of cheaper housing options in a second-tier city in Turkey, India, or Kenya than the US.

By the same token, the larger safety net helps left-leaning support of harsher treatment of problem homeless people in Europe. You can't have just the stick, and even if you disagree with how we handle the carrot here in the US, you still need some form of carrot.

-3

Context

Outlaw83 17d ago

Yup, America's inherent libertarian values is something that trips up both the paternalistic right-wingers here and my fellow paternalistic left-wingers here.

The reason why Europe is OK with being harsher to homeless people is partly, there's a larger social safety net, but also, there's more people OK with basically a harsh rules-based order, as opposed to a bunch of descendants of people who didn't like that rules-based order, and risked their lives getting on a boat and being on the ocean for weeks, if not months.

Context