@Outlaw83's banner p

Outlaw83


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 18 02:18:13 UTC

				

User ID: 1888

Outlaw83


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 18 02:18:13 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1888

If you look actually at what the NATO account posted, they were posting a quote from a Ukrainian journalist turned soldier who said that. Here's a link to the start of the Twitter thread -

https://twitter.com/NATO/status/1628687934000885760

Now, you can disagree w/ any of this soldier's statements, but this isn't official NATO propaganda, in the way you're stating it is.

OTOH, yes, why are you shocked people point to widely known cultural artifacts as symbols. Far more people will know the Nav'i or Han Solo than some random underdog force.

It's cringe, but most change in society happens because normies w/ cringe views get on the same side as activists.

Just like the Dr. Suess issue, this is what happens when you let greedy families of authors keep control of a work. Put in the public domain, and a thousand versions could come out.

You have to remember that this site/former subreddit heavily leans toward the type of person who despised going to high school. The median person, while thankful they're no longer in high school, doesn't think of it as some evil prison. Like, as an actual poor-ish kid who was in honor/AP classes, I actually largely enjoyed school (outside of math, because I wasn't great at it).

This is sort of the most underrated thing about politics - for instance, in polling of the 2022 midterms, cancel culture and trans issues were among the things that GOP voters cared about least, let alone independent or democratic voters. So, why is it something consistently pushed by all sorts of right and centrist-leaning media, including the establishment and anti-establishment media?

Because it's something that effects college-educated right-leaning people in red areas, with a side dish of the occasional centrist getting upset at it. If you're a big state school graduate who now lives in the big urban area of your state, or a coastal area, but you're a conservative, of course you're upset about all this, and since you're more likely to be on Twitter, you'll post more about it. This becomes even more true when it's very right-wing people who have lots of clout on social media who live in insanely blue areas. Of course, say, some FOX News personality who lives in New York thinks the woke agenda out of control.

Now, I'm not saying some blue-collar worker in rural Alabama is pro-trans or thinks the 1619 project is great, it's that it's incredibly likely, despite occasional drummed stories about "50% of this class is now trans or non-binary", they likely have never heard of the 1619 project nor have their been more than maybe a handful of trans kids, if that, in the past decade. Now, immigration, or gun control, or abortion - that, they'll care about, because they believe it effects them.

The reality is if instead of spending tens of million (reportedly) on anti-trans ads this past cycle, if that money had gone into pretty bland 'hey, inflation is bad and crime is up' ads, Kevin McCarthy wouldn't have needed 18 rounds to become Speaker and Mitch might be Majority Leader again.

When it comes to stats like this, I think people are missing two obvious possibilities -

1.) The data is just bad

2.) Men and women's definition of relationship are different. So, yes, the dude that has a FWB he smokes pot with and watches Netflix before having sex isn't a relationship, but she isn't dating anybody else, and they hang out regularly so...

Also, he whole "they're all dating older men" argument could be figured out, by just looking at the data, because if it's true the women are just dating older, there'd eventually be gaps between men and women, where men would have the advantage. I'm going to guess that the worry all the 33 year olds are dating the 22 year olds isn't really true. Some 26 year olds might be, but that's been what happens even in the 90's.

Hell, in 1993, I'd actually bet more 18 year old high school senior girls had sex with adult males than in 2023.

You basically hit on all the major parts. An erotic thriller was an actual big deal, even in 1991, especially if you were say a married middle-class man who couldn't really get away to watch porn on your own, while today, that same married middle class guy has a world of porn at his fingertips. But also yes, if you're selling to a worldwide audience, you can't upset anybody.

I will point on the celebrity thing, another thing is if you're a famous woman, you have alternatives to be sexual, where you make the money. For instance, instead of posting for Rolling Stone or whatever, Rhianna makes her own lingerie line, is one of the models for it, and so on. The actual reality is, the actual amount of nudity and sexuality among famous women is about the same as in 1993, it's just centered about celebrities who actually want to do it, as oppose to those felt they are forced to do it to get a roll.

Which explains Game of Thrones or more accurately, many cable dramas. There'll be far more sex scenes and nudity in the first season or two, because the actresses don't have the power to say no to a gratuitous nude scene. Even if you aren't well-paid by the 2nd or 3rd season, you're now plot important to a show that has a plan, so you have the leverage to say no. Also, even putting that aside, there's no need for the random nudity to bring people in at that point.

Mark Levin has a radio show that lots and lots of people still listen to (1.5 million daily was the most correct-seeming number from a quick Google, but it could be an over or underestimate), especially the type of right-leaning person who still buys books (old people), while RH mostly gets into arguments on Twitter, has a successful Substack, but really has little reach in normie land.

I think sometimes people forget that because of things like Substack, Patreon, etc., somebody can have a very healthy living, while not having much reach. Like, I don't knoe his Substack numbers, but he could have a healthy six-figure income, and have an audience of basically nothing, politically.

I think the complaints about gerontocracy by left, centrist, and right-leaning people are more a picture of some odd timing than a long-term issue that people try to pretend it is.

In the House, it's already fixed itself. Jefferies is the leader of the Democrat's, and Mike Johnson is the Speaker, and even if he gets knifed, another normal-aged Republican will replace him, eventually. Before that, Pelosi only lasted as long as she did, because her preferred successor got beaten in a primary by AOC, and it was thought she was the only one who could keep the House majority together, and her new preferred successor needed some seasoning.

In the Senate, McConnell's stepping down after his term is over, and Schumer likely will pretty soon as well.

Biden only ran in 2020, because he thought he was the only one who could defeat Trump, and thought the same in 2024.

In 2028, on the GOP side, there will either be Trump, or a bunch of Republican leaders of normal politician age - DeSantis, Noem, Cruz, Vance, Stefanik, et all.

Same thing on the Democratic side - Bernie isn't running again, but Newsom, Whitmer, Pritzker, Kamala, maybe AOC, etc.

Again, have your own personal views on all those people, but their all within standard issue politician age ranges.

I honestly think a lot of people ensconced in an online world of overnight Prime shipping don't realize that it takes time to actually build evidence, even for something obvious, and to get things done. Note, as a social democrat, I get upset w/ my more left-leaning friends who expect Congress to act like a Doordash order, as well.

There was likely no fishiness about how long it took, outside of the usual fishiness when you're dealing with a defendant who might actually have good lawyers, which means the gov't actually has to be careful, as opposed to some random DA going after some random gang member who shot another gang member.

Basically, nobody on the Internet supported Joe Biden, but he was the Democratic nominee easily.

I'm not saying Haley is going to do that, but the loud online people are all Trumpian, just like the loud people online in 2020 were all Bernie supporters. It's just Trump also has more support among the rest of the party.

Haley at say, 20% is not a shocking number, and ending up at say, 35-40% in New Hampshire, a very moderate state that Haley is putting a lot of time into wouldn't be surprising at all. So, a few outlier polls currently showing her within 5 or 10 in New Hampshire aren't out of line.

I also think you're likely in your own bubble. The type of people who support Haley, are likely not on media you show, or in areas where you are. Also, NYT polling isn't polling NYT readers, it's usually polling people who watched the debate.

But, as somebody else noticed, the type of person who likely supports Haley at the moment is a combination of college-educated center-right voters, normie suburban voters, and such, that for obvious reasons, don't mention their politcal beliefs on the Internet a lot, because they'll get called RINO's by most of the party, but also are too conservative to ever be Democrat's.

OK, guess I have to speak up as probably the only actual social democratic partisan Democrat here -

The reason Joe Biden is running for reelection is because he's the incumbent President and wants to run for reelection, and primary challenges agains incumbent President's go badly, and most importantly, nobody would beat him. Like, contrary to popular opinion, there is no secret Deep State Cabal of Obama, Hillary, and whomever running the country. No, it's the codgy old guy, the people who have been around him for years, and a bunch of former Warrne staffers. Secondly, even if he did step down, Kamala's the nominee because she's the VP, still has good approvals among Democrat's, and so on.

Now, we're probably going to disagree on the fundamentals on who's smart or not, but going to the bench - the thing people miss is much of the current Democratic bench is in the states - Whitmer in Michigan in the same state Biden barely won, wins by ten, and also turns the Michigan legislature entirely blue for the first time in decades, Shapiro in PA wins by a landslide, Pritzer in Illinois's a little more controversial but you beat a bad billionaire with a good class traitorous billionaire, there's Governor Roy Cooper in North Carolina who has won two terms in a light-red state, while running as a standard issue liberal, Andy Beshear in Kentucky is a pro-choice and pro-LGBT Governor of that state about to win reelection, Tim Walz has been a solid governor of Minnesota, and for more well-known folks, there's Newsom in Cali, and for the more moderates/neoliberals, Polis in CO. In the Senate, even then, there's Raphael Warnock, a pretty down-the-line liberal Senator who won in Georgia.

Like, on pure electoral talent, 2022 shows the Democrat's have plenty of it, simply looking back at the historical record of midterms.

I also, frankly, think people have gone so over the board underestimating Kamala, that they'd assume she'd lose in some 40-state landslide. As a social democrat, she wouldn't be my preferred candidate in 2028 (Whitmer or Warnock for me), but at worst, Kamala loses the EC 312-226, and even then, still only narrowly loses the popular vote, and that's if the GOP doesn't nominate somebody Trump-adjacent or somebody with no charisma like DeSantis. So yeah, a boring ticket like I don't know Brian Kemp/Kim Reynolds probably wins that election that way, but Tucker/Vivek, or something like that - Kamala can totally win because people will choose cringe they're embarrassed guy by the weirdos, and as seen by some of the right's reaction to the Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce thing, they're entirely too much the weirdos.

Finally, probably most controversially, Fetterman. He outran Biden in Pennsylvania and has the look much closer to the median American than anybody else. Hell, polling showed the stroke made voters more sympathetic to him, as the elite media was telling him to withdraw, savaging his debate performance, and so on.

I'm not somebody who says the GOP can't win in 2024 or 2028, but this weird idea, because Biden's the nominee there is no bench is simply false, and I'd make the opposite argument for the GOP. Whose somebody that can win a primary with a Trumpian base, that can actually win a national election?

Yeah, almost nobody is taking only $10,000 to move to [insert random African country here]. Or hell, most countries. This is where "race-conscious" people's views of frankly, black people's intelligence fail them. Even prisoners would realize that 10k isn't getting them far, even in the poorest nation's on Earth.

Like, maybe 100k? Maybe? Even then, it'd only be the very bottom, most desperate, frankly kind of moronic ten percent who'd take the deal (and quickly end up dead, broke, or both), and frankly, that wouldn't make much of a difference, because the smart criminals could find plenty of possible low-level criminals from the next ten percent.

As you mentioned, with Liberia, the native African's had basically no connection with the outside world and the freed slaves had every advantage, including kind of implied American backing. So yeah, drop a aircraft carrier off the coast, and somehow give some poor black people laser guns and they might be able to pull that off again.

If you actually look at nuclear development, electricity deregulation made it impossible to do the long-term funding to build nuclear reactors, because the time to get your money back is such a long tail.

It's not a surprise that France, the only country that continued to basically directly control nuke reactors via the gov't were the only ones to continue to really build them. Ironically, in a situation where a New Dealer like Hubert Humphrey was POTUS, nukes might've been better off.

It's not so much the media doesn't care about white victims - it's that the African-American community is organized in such a way that if somebody gets shot by the police, somebody in that family knows a pastor or a community organizer who knows another pastor or a local politician who knows somebody reasonably famous or a prominent journalist to get it out there.

Meanwhile, probably half of the white victims' own family will back the cops over the victim.

For the same reason people may be "tired" of the Marvel formula, but those movies still make hundreds of millions, because there are millions of literal children/teenagers and also, millions of non-English speaking people globally who have basically teenage minds when it comes to Western entertainment, such as YT videos or blockbuster movies.

In the 70's and 80's, not only did those in charge of making entertainment were largely from the entertainment business, but since you didn't really know why a movie made a lot of money, you could make it a little smarter or whatever. Now, in a world where every script has been thrown into a computer to analyze for best performance, and the guy writing the checks used to run the theme park division of the same corporation six months ago, there's going to be nobody who cares about appealing to more than the median consumer, and the sad reality, is a lot of even successful movies from the 70's and 80's and 90's could've been even more successful if they were a little dumber - the rest of the audience were basically paying a tax to appease smarter viewers because those people were in charge.

Now, they're not.

Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana also shot down abortion bans via referendum. The median voter may not be in favor of unlimited abortion, but they have zero trust the GOP will only actually pass moderate abortion restrictions. It's the reverse of the gun issue - the median voter actually is uncomfortable with unalloyed access to guns, but doesn't trust the Democrat's on the issue.

The 70's in the immediate post-Sexual Revolution era was also...just weird. Like yeah, you can name all the weirdo French intellectuals you want, but also, some of the biggest musicians in the world were dating 14-year-olds, and the work just kind of shrugged. Brooke Shields was being sexualized in a way that doesn't really happen in the same way anymore.

Like, you could've jailed every single French intellectual you mentioned and Led Zeppelin was still going to be sleeping w/15-year-old groupies, with no pushback from wider society.

What was really happening was a big shift in the Overton Window thanks to the pill and breaking of traditional sexual mores, and some ideas went out over the skis but eventually got brought back. It's only weirdo online right-wingers like ole' RH defending women teachers who sleep with their students, and the age of consent is getting raised basically worldwide, to line up with eighteen in most places.

What's fireable is in the views of the person with the checkbook.

Again, I live in Seattle. Outside of maybe a fringe group of people who work in Amazon/Microsoft/etc. who have various issues, I don't actually see this at all. When I go to Tacoma, Federal Way, Everett, etc,. ya' know what I see? Adults on dates, in relationships, etc. People are mostly within the same range of attractiveness and age. I mean, I also see this in Seattle, but I'm making a point that even in a tech hub like Seattle, only a pretty small percentage of people actually work at those tech hub jobs.

Obviously, I'm not saying it's perfect out there, but if you honestly have a six-figure job at Amazon/Microsoft/etc. and can't get laid, it's a you problem, not a problem with all the terrible women who only want 40 year old doctors or whatever.

To be fair, some of the blame can be put on Lincoln for overreacting and putting a basically pro-slavery Democrat like Johnson as VP. America's a far better place if Hamlin is the President after April 1865, plus Hannibal Hamlin is an awesome name for a President.

I mean, Uncle Tom's Cabin is a sentimental, overwrought story of the time, and I'm sure the Frederick Douglas and Charles Sumner kind of "cringed" at parts of it, but they also realized it was enormously helpful to get the still quasi-racist Northerners on the side of abolition.

So, there was some talk in this thread (or the previous one) about why the Israel/Palestine issue is such a big one in progressive circles, as opposed to country x, y, or z. Well, there were some decent historical and cultural explanations, I think one reason that really didn't get brought up is because there's actual disagreement within the wider left-leaning coalition is why there's more fire, on both sides.

So, as an actual progressive Democratic partisan, let me explain a bit.

Putting aside actual tankies or the 11 Lieberman Democrats left, if you put the median Bernie & the median Biden primary voter in 2020, and had them talk foreign policy, there would be wide agreement - Iraq was a mistake, we were in Afghanistan too long, Russia is bad and Ukraine needs our defense, but American foreign policy has been too hawkish in general, and so on. So, there's no spice, outside of the occasional Twitter dunk of somebody who had a bad take on Iraq in 2004, but even that's kind of hackish and old news to most Democratic voters at this point.

But, there would be actual disagreement on Israel & Palestine, especially if both sides were intelligent median voters because it's an actual complicated issue. At the moment, polling shows the median Democratic voter view is along the lines of, "the Israeli government are a-holes, Hamas is terrible, and the hostages need to be released, but Jesus, the IDF seems to be going overboard on this, and oh yeah, the surrounding governments are full of instigators."

Now, the more progressive voter would be more harsh on the Israeli government, more friendly to the Palestinian population, and so on, but the polling that showed 50/50 support for Israel vs Hamas among younger voters, was likely bad polling. The reason why Democratic views used to be more pro-Israel, is because the Israeli population used to reflect a more liberal view of the conflict, and now it really doesn't, plus wider changes in the makeup of the Democratic coalition.

Finally, the "but Palestinians have bad views on x, why do you support them," is a bad argument, because as progressives, we believe even terrible have the right to vote, and self-government. Only letting people with the right views (or the right amount of land ownership) is the reactionary view. Now, if said Palestinian government passes anti-LGBT laws or whatever, then we'll treat them like we do other countries with no leverage on us - sanctions and such until they embrace the loving arms of deviancy, or whatever.

In the long run, if this is all old news by Election Day 2024, it'll likely be forgotten, and more importantly, the vast majority of even young SJW left-wing Democratic voters are self-centered voters, like 95% of all voters, and will be reminded that Trump wants to put more reactionaries on the court, cut taxes for rich people, limit trans right, etc, make student loan payments higher, et al, and vote accordingly. I'd make a $1 bet w/ anybody here, that as long as the Israeli situation is basically back to some form of status quo, there will be no real movement of the youth vote, or a lack of turnout, beyond the lack of turnout there always is.

After all, Gretchen Whitmer actually lost ground among Muslim voters in 2022 in her re-election campaign (probably due to LGBT issues), but won by wider margin. Which is the only real trouble spot for the Biden team in 2024, since they literally do not care if some college-educated 2nd gen Muslim immigrant in Los Angeles doesn't vote.

Standard Disclaimer: Yes, lots of people are dumb, and will have simple reasons, and weird views.

No - total defense spending is around $800 billion a year, and even most of the Ukraine "spending" is largely writing off old equipment we were never going to use or is outdated.

It's weird that our aid to Ukraine is actually the biggest showing of American power since you could argue, the First Gulf War. As I've said before, the military equivalent to the stuff that's in the back of our garage is fighting what was supposed to be the supposed badass un-woke army to at worst, a draw, But then again, I'm old enough to remember basically, 2020 when the 'in' thing to do was compare 'woke' American recruiting ads to the supposedly more effective, nationalist ads for the Russian, Chinese, et al militaries.

I have to say, it's amusing to me the way pro-Russian/anti-American people online have turned Victoria Nuland into the modern-day Bismarck, able to take down governments and change the political winds with a single visit.

The actual secret reason is nobody really knew what people read when they bought the newspaper. So, you couldn't cut the foreign policy stories, local news, etc. OTOH, the Internet knows exactly what you're clicking on, and media responded accordingly.