SSCReader
14d ago
Also as per the article the figure they are giving is per migrant household not per migrant.
SSCReader
8d ago
They haven't forgotten any of those things,otherwise they wouldn't want problematic statues torn down would they? Because they would have forgotten those people were slave owners. They know who did what, they just think the bad things they did outweigh the good.
SSCReader
1mo ago
I definitely am not, and thats after going to take a look. The whole place looks deeply unappealing to me
I am sure lots of people enjoy it, but the overlap with here seems to much less than 100%
SSCReader
12d ago
Is this new science though? The old saw is once an addict always an addict and I've heard that for decades. That alcoholism and drug addiction have no cure just treatment to stay clean.
Saying addicts need treatment is not the same thing as claiming that treatment is a total and peemanent cure. Don't confuse what the science says with what politicians or the media say the science says.
SSCReader
1mo ago
This is counter-signalling. He knows defending them makes him look like he is on the other side (and so his arguments will be reflexively ignored), so he must counter that signal by also making sure to point how how much he doesn't like them.
SSCReader
12d ago
Can you suggest a simpler and more plain way of indicating this? I thought the caps and everything did the job. Maybe a (TM)?
Well the problem is it comes across as sneering at your (presumed) outgroup. For a start is it really lefty beliefs? Our resident Indian Mod-Doctor is not left wing and he thinks you can be cured of being an addict. I am centre-leftish and I think you can't. If you think that the general zeitgeist is that addicts can be cured and it didn't used to be, you can just say that. No need to posit any left/right belief unless that is part of your point and you then flesh it out, otherwise it just comes across as being an unnecessary sideswipe.
Sure, anyone in theory might become an addict, until they try cocaine or whatever they won't know. Someone who is an addict has tried X and then been addicted to X. My observation of relatives (and work in social care in the past), is that the desire for whatever substances they were addicted to never goes away. If it is possible for that desire to permanently to go away then I would agree they are no longer an addict. So the definition is "An addict is someone who has at any point in the past been addicted to X AND still has that desire." In practice I have never seen someone who lost that desire. However it might be possible for treatment in the future to remove that. I just haven't seen any evidence that current treatment really can. What it usually does is give coping strategies for avoiding relapsing in my experience.
Now there are grey areas here, what is the difference between someone who tries cocaine, likes it but is never addicted, versus someone who tried it, got addicted and then is able to resist that desire to use it again? If both people never use cocaine again is there a difference between them? i would suggest yes, in that if the latter's willpower is eroded (through tragedy, being put on painkillers during a hospital visit etc.) then they can relapse into addiction, while the former is not at risk of that.
SSCReader
23d ago
Clearly we need meta-safetyists to invent safetyist brakes. Of course then we will need meta-meta safetyists..and so ad inifinitum.
SSCReader
1mo ago
Jailed doesn't happen often for speech, fined and community service is more normal. In 94 LGBT protestors (including Peter Tatchell, protesting an Islamist group) were arrested for having placards, and took 2 years to be acquiited. In 98 Tatchell was found guilty under a law from 1860 outlawing protest in a church for mounting the pulpit to give a speech opposite the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 2012 Azir Ahmed was fined and sentenced to community service for speech about soldiers who should go to hell. In 2012 Barry Thew was jailed for 8 months for wearing a T-Shirt that approved of cops being murdered.
Whether you would call them leftists I don't know but, being pro LGBT, anti colonial (or neo-colonial) use of soldiers and being ACAB, seem pretty left coded.
SSCReader
28d ago
I don't see how placing a hairdryer in your car violates Primum non nocere.
Doctor's will cut you open and remove a perfectly healthy kidney from you. You can live with one kidney, but it can give you health complications and issues for life.
Now the justification is to save someone elses life through organ transplantation. But the donor is harmed. So as long as there is a relevant greater justification we do remove healthy parts of the body even aside from Trans or BIID issues.
Which isn't to say we should do that, just that First, do no harm does already have exceptions, even outside of culture war flashpoints.
SSCReader
11d ago
Why wouldn't we short-circuit that to just "has that desire"?
You probably could, simply say someone who has that addictive desire yeah. I was just editing your example definition, to point out, that there was a potential exit, in that I could be wrong so that someone who once was an addict and no longer has that desire I would consider no longer an addict. For addiction you can't generally know if you will be an addict until you have experienced it, whereas a pedophile can (and usually will) have those desires before they ever abuse a child. A pedophile who never abuses a child is still a pedophile, but there is no such thing as a cocaine addict who has never tried cocaine because the experience of what it does to you and how it makes you feel is part of developing the addiction.
My point is the zeitgeist already was that addicts can't become not addicted to drugs, I am in my 50's and that is certainly what we were taught about addiction when I was a kid. "Not even once!" Whereas current doctors (like self_made_human) seem to think addicts CAN become not addicted to drugs. So is there some kind of "new science" and does it run the direction you think it does?
My experience would say the opposite, that we USED to believe addicts can't be cured and now we are beginning to believe they can. Which could mean that there never was a really settled zeitgeist in the first place, for things to move on from. And therefore politicians and activists can simply use the version that best supports whatever position they are trying to argue in the moment (or more charitably that whatever belief they have is WHY they are taking the position they are taking).
SSCReader
12d ago
Like surgical removal? Freezing them in hypersleep? Harvesting them for Royal jelly?
I like an Aliens reference as much as the next guy but having an alien parasite that bursts from you and always having to worry about relapsing even if clean for say 5 years don't see all that similar personally.
SSCReader
30d ago
Hmm interracial marriage rates are twice as high for black men as black women and have been pretty steadily for decades. Whereas for asians it is the other way round. I don't think that can be attributed to lies from black men particularly.
"Among blacks, intermarriage is twice as prevalent for male newlyweds as it is for their female counterparts. While about one-fourth of recently married black men (24%) have a spouse of a different race or ethnicity, this share is 12% among recently married black women."
SSCReader
30d ago
Isn't that cutting your own nose off to spite your face? Your opponents finally come around to your position, to the extent they are now willing to violently oppose the Islamic people/world you also dislike and wanted to keep out, which was one of the key disputes you had with them...
And you switch sides to side with the people you were against in the first place?
Why would you expect to be taken seriously? I hate that you won't go along with my position so much, that I would side with the people that we had opposing views on? That seems like simple spite. At which point despite being correct you can't be taken seriously in any kind of political coalition. If you don't get your own way, you side with the people you were against?
Setting aside any moral issues, pragmatically there is no reason for your opponents to ever consider your ideas. If you hate them when they disagree, and hate them when they agree, then you aren't leaving much space for change, even when you are actually right.
SSCReader
1mo ago
Christianity is pretty disordered itself. So I am not sure Christianity really has much of the moral high ground here. Even setting aside the truth value of the existence of God. Why else are there 85 different sects which have had (and still do have) their own violent confrontations?
Which exact Christian sect is going to be at the head of this Christian nationalism? I suspect there will be some pretty big push back coming from inside its own house. Are you really wanting to bring back Catholic vs Protestant as a live issue?
Being from Northern Ireland, I can tell you, that might not go as well as you would like.
SSCReader
2mo ago
I think the issues is, that your approach doesn't do anything better, than the materialist approach you decry.
If you can't tell a predictive dream apart from a normal one until after, then functionally nothing changes. If some percentage of farmers who pray for their crops to grow it works, but we don't know when or why, then we are going to have to use fertilizer and act as if there is no such intervention. If you can't tell whether the trauma of watching your wife get murdered in front of you is going to give you (or her!) telekinesis to stop the attack, then you are going to have to try plain old violence.
If you can't tell if you are in the world of 40K's warp, or the world of the Christian God, or the world of Bigfoot, then you don't know if you should be trying to manifest the Imperial Truth, or following the 10 commandments or sending out hunting parties into Oregon. And given there is a near infinite probability space, and you can't predict, measure or know which of the 40,000 options you should be doing, then probably you should not do any of them. Or maybe pick a couple at random, but being aware that your chances of being right are near zero.
The reason why materialism is ascendant is that it can be used every day in the smallest of ways. Christians don't just pray for a church to appear, they build them out of brick and mortar. Islamists don't just pray for their enemies to be defeated, they buy guns and go and murder them. From the point of view of everyday life, a world where God exists but does not answer prayers, and a world where God does not exist are identical. Materialism is at the very least, mostly right. Whereas, all of your examples can't be collectively right. Some of them must be wrong, because they are contradictory, but you don't offer any way to tell which.
I would suggest the traumatic transcendence is unlikely because the world is FULL of trauma. If that was all that was needed, then the world should be full of observable examples (even if they can't be repeated!). Were Jews not under enough trauma? The man forced to watch his family murdered before he was tortured to death by cartels? Gang raped girls? Either this has to be so unlikely, otherwise we would see many more examples, (at which point it is again functionally irrelevant) or it simply does not happen.
Bacon's position likewise has a problem, if we have collectively realized our own reality and we can't opt out of it or change it, just by being aware of it, then it is once again fundamentally useless, you can't tell the difference between a world where it is true and where it is not and the only correct response must be to live in the world as it is. Incidentally this is very similar to the collective reality as posited in the Mage: the Ascension White Wolf RPG, where the "awakened" mages are able to substitute their reality (magic) against the consensus reality of humanity as influenced by the Technocracy. But they could do so repeatedly, though risking the punishment of the universe in so doing. (As an aside Roger Bacon was an influential mage in that reality), their long term goal was to break humanity free of the current paradigm, back to the older one where consensus reality was much more malleable.
However the reason humanity embraced the current paradigm was because it was safer, dragons and demons and other monsters (there were those seeking to inflict madness and corruption into the world) were banished by the light of reason, which meant that there were arguments that Mages were trying to wake humanity into a much more dangerous world and that they did not have the right to do so. Even if Bacon is correct, is a world with less predictability actually better? Or have we manifested this world because it is the one where we have the best chance?
SSCReader
1mo ago
I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Natural selection is the answer to the question of why we see creatures with fins and gills and legs and lungs and compound eyes and sonar. If it is true and explains what we see and is descriptive of the world as it works, then it is useful whether or not it is tautological. In fact if it is tautological that is very useful information, because we too try and breed new types of creature and knowing a potential natural strategy can allow us to iterate upon it.
If you know miniature shetland ponies die out in the wild because their size is non-beneficial then you know if you want to keep a population then you have to keep their environment controlled. If you know nature works a certain way, you can learn things from it even if that knowledge is merely describing a logical tautology. You know that you need to replace natural selection effects with your own (allowing only the smallest ponies to mate for example)
If we know that nature selects for beneficial traits then when we find say large numbers of people with sickle cell traits it can help us find out why that trait was selected for.
In car format, if most cars in a racing car world are red because red cars go faster, but you find a place with a population of blue cars, then that in and of itself tells you to take a close look at those blue cars because it is likely something is happening there. In a world you didn't know about car natural selection, you would not know why that was odd.
A description of the world may be very simplistic and tautological but that doesn't mean it isn't useful.
At the time, there was a lot of vocal critics of the tonal shift from 1 to 2. 1 was a much darker, dirtier, more hopeless portrayal (with some few exceptions, the Tardis and so on), where 2 leaned much more into comedy. You can see some of the follow through of that into New Vegas and beyond where you could take perks or enable the "sillier" elements (Wild Wasteland trait I think). Indeed that trait was a compromise between the developers who preferred the wilder and wackier tone against the more "grounded" one.
To steal a random comment or two:
"I played Fallout 1 and 2 back to back. Fallout 2 felt insulting to Fallout 1. Sure, there's a lot more content, but it's absurdly immature.
LOL PORNO. LOL MAGIC THE GATHERING. LOL ASIAN PEOPLE. LOL SCIENTOLOGY. LOL GETTIN' RAPED BY A SUPER MUTANT. LOL DAN QUALE."
"Fallout was kind of like Wasteland, but different. Fallout 2 was kind of like Wasteland, but worse."
"I'm old and played the games as they came out, though I was young. Fallout is a masterpiece, Fallout 2 is too silly for me. I like the darker tone, which is probably part of why I loved 3 as well. It sucks that 2 didn't even improve the gameplay. Contrast that with Baldur's Gate, which was a great game followed by a sequel that is probably my favorite PC game of all time."
And of course if you want to start an argument on RPGCodex you can simply mention that the retcon (in Fallout 2) about vaults being social experiments rather than actual attempts to save people, was a superior choice and watch the fires burn... not as hot as if you claim Fallout 3 is a good game of course, like the chap above. We prestigious monocled gentlemen have standards after all.
SSCReader
10d ago
Massive, well-funded efforts to develop Determinist methods of controlling or engineering individual humans repeatedly fail, and those failures not only do not cause an update on peoples' priors, but are completely forgotten.
Certainly from the point of view of surgery they have failed so far. But if something can be done naturally, it doesn't mean we have to have the ability to replicate it, (experimental science is powerful, but observational science is also important). But I think it does demonstrate observationally that physical changes, make people behave differently. Even drugs and alcohol are the same. You are correct that what we can't do is fine tune control someone's mind (or at least as far as I am aware). But just as I am confident that I have my own free will, I am also confident very drunk me, makes different choices than sober me, even in the same situation. Again, seeming to show that physical changes impact my free will, (though of course I generally am making the choice to drink in the first place!).
Now I would also admit, that I am not certain Determinism is true, but probably we are just either side, I think it is probably true but am not certain, and you think it is probably false but are not certain? I would say there is some evidence some kind of determinism is true, but it certainly isn't irrefutable or 100% by any means.
My own internal experiences suggest to me that changes to my body, do impact on the choices I make, such that while I also experience making choices freely, some choices appear to be more free than others. I think some people would call that willpower or something similar and suggest that we have a certain "supply" of that which allows us to make choices against our biological urges perhaps? If I am hungry for a long time, or tired, I start making choices I know are bad and after the situation is resolved, I look back and wonder what was I doing? It feels in the moment that I making free choices, but in retrospect it appears I was not. Being very tired makes me snappish and irritable, so the physical processes seem to be doing something to impact my decision making.
SSCReader
19d ago
Hence "just build nuclear plants; if you thought it was such a problem you would already have accepted the added risk".
Unless you also feel nuclear catastophe has a similar cost. Remember we've already established the risks are not being evaluated rationally. So you can't then use the fact they are not evaluating the comparative nuclear risk rationally as evidence of anything other than irrationality, thats what I mean by double dipping.
Remember these are not utilitarians. Just like the answer as to why groups who feel like abortion is a Holocaust happening every year aren't concentrating solely on that. That is just how people are. Virtually nobody who claims to believe that X is the worst thing in the world are willing to trade off other bad things against it in a rational manner. It is just not how we operate by and large. We are not rational. They are not rational. Rationalists are not actually rational (although they try).
So people who try to use that against a group (whether that is claiming Christians don't really believe abortion is murder or that climate worriers don't really believe in climate change), are just missing the point. They do believe it. And yet they will not act as if they do. Because they also believe in many other things and are not evaluating the trade offs in a utilitarian way. So that isn't evidence of anything except that they are humanly flawed (or gifted, if you think utilitarianism is evil).
Maybe it is true that every anti-abortion advocate should quit their job and advocate full time for a federal ban given as they believe that hundreds of thousands of innocent children are being murdered annually. Maybe everyone who believes climate change is an existential threat should be crowd funding atomic reactors. But that just is not how most people work.
SSCReader
2mo ago
I can't imagine what it's like to live in right-leaning communities at a time when most believe the election was stolen and they're living under the equivalent on an anti-pope.
It's fine to be honest. Just as the opposite is fine mostly. Most of my Red neighbors don't rant about Biden or Trump all the time. It certainly isn't what i would call scary. Just as with abortion, or that capitalism is murder or whatever, what people say and what people actually do is very different. And what people mostly do is go to their jobs, come home and then repeat.
Almost every Republican who says they think the election was stolen are not going to do anything about it. Just as almost no-one who says that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism actually does anything about it. Let's not get people's rhetoric confused with something they believe enough to actually do something.
You would be perfectly fine living in the vast majority of right wing leaning places in the US, just as your right wing counterpart would be perfectly fine living in a left leaning area. The vast majority of people are simply not that politically engaged.
SSCReader
3mo ago
and I think the satirists at GW either noticed the same trends or could extrapolate from the exaggerated stereotype/strawman
Well whether it was satire originally is up for debate actually! It was medieval society in space. In other words the Adeptus Mechanicus is what you get if Catholic monks takes over future science. They are very competent at getting things to work, but they make everything into doctrine, have heretics and schisms (but see Flanderization below).
Rick Priestley was a Classics and Ancient History graduate and states that 40K is what happens if a medieval society was a spacefaring one.
"Possibly the biggest influence is history rather than fiction though - actual religious practices and beliefs. I downplayed that aspect of it all when I was at GW, because you wouldn't want to be seen to make-light of people religious belief"
"But I have in the past pointed out the parallels between Christian mythology and the 40K background - with The Emperor as the 'sacrifical god' whose suffering redeems mankind (some other religions have this idea of the 'sacrificial god or king' - there is a lot of this in Frazer's Golden Bough, of course, and also in The White Goddess by Robert Graves should you be interested in such things). The concept of sacrifice within religion is very common - and it has a lot of resonance within Christianity - and the Emperor in 40K has taken on the Christ-like role - with the dual identity as 'dead' and 'eternal god' (though impossible to know that of course - but people have faith and faith alone is enough to sustain the universe) and with Horus cast into the roll of Satan. The original description of the Horus Heresy (Chapter Approved I think) is actually a fairly obvious rewrite of the war in heaven and casting out of the fallen angels - with Space Marines as 'angels' a theme which persists even to this day, I believe."
"that the mystical, pseudo-religious stuff just overwhelmed what science I actualy put into the original game."
" I don't think it was anything specific. It goes back to stuff like Edgar Rice Burroughs (Barsoom) and was a common theme on TV with things like the first Star Trek and Dr Who - where you had a kind of technician/wizard ruling class - Eloi and Morlocks even with HG Wells - so I think treating technical or scientific knowledge in that revered, practically religious, way wasn't such a leap really."
"Well - I coined the phrase in - I think - the Book of the Astronomican in terms of The Horus Heresy - although it's possible we'd described things as heretical before that. It's just part of the pseudo-religious nature of the background - I don't think the word has a different meaning in 40K than the real world - it just suggests sectarian disputation and the sort of controversies that created the Great Schism, the Albigensian Heresy, and endless similar nonsense in the real world. I don't think that contemporaries of the 'Horus Heresy' would have called it that - it's a retrospective name - but of course GW couldn't cope with that kind of concept - they portray a consistent mind-set across ten thousand years of history... which of course is another nonsense 🙂"
"BIFFORD: Is the Imperium of Man supposed to be an indictment of religion?
PRIESTLEY: That wasn't the intent! It's a dystopian future in which people believe crazy stuff because not to do so would would bring society (and humanity) tumbling abut its ears - so the various institutions of the Imperium are massively invested in things that may or may not be true... I just gave those things a pseudo-religious context because it's an obvious parallel with religious schisms during the European Reformation."
BIFFORD: Oh? What "crazy beliefs" are you referring to exactly? And how are they essentially to society's survival?
PRIESTLEY: That the Emperor is a 'god' that he is capable of expressing his will in some material fashion - that the institutions of the Imperium are divinely directed - that they are working to the same end - and (this has tended to vanish over the years) that ancient technologies are activated or controlled by magic or inhabited by spirits, that ritual tasks have magical power... for example... I once wrote a piece that we didn't use in which a subterranean worker in the Emperor's palace had the job of replacing all the light bulbs as they stopped working - but over the years the supply of light bulbs ran out - but the job still existed and was inherited generation to generation - but it had evolved into painting all the dud bulbs white so they looked like they might work - it had become a ritual, extending over centuries, that had accumulated shamanic significance within the underworld of the palace - but was ultimately... nonsense! Within that society our bulb painter has a role and respect, and the society has cohesion - albeit a bit crazy."
"At a time when most people didn’t go to college we were all graduates – Phil Gallagher studied Russian at Cambridge – and both me and Graeme (and Nigel Stillman for that matter) had studied archaeology so we brought a lot of broad cultural and historical references into our worlds."
Rick Priestley reworked Rogue Trader which was an idea he had before because it was part of the deal for him working on other things. Neither he nor Brian Ansell were aiming for a satire at that point. He specifically points out he wasn't trying to make light of people's beliefs.
The reason it has become a satire is because it was then developed by people later who would only see such a "backwards" future as anything else but a satire of religious zealots and fascism. But Priestley did not envisage it as such. And indeed he can't bring himself to play or interact with 40K nowadays because it has drifted so far from his original vision. In his version, aliens worked alongside mankind and it was much less xenophobic and much less grim dark. Indeed the original creators were almost all parts of the liberal academia you talk about, and were proud of it. A lot of the satire there is was inherited due to the fact the Priestly was told he had to put in rules so that 2000AD, Rogue Trooper and Nemesis the Warlock minis/ideas (GW properties at the time) could be used. The Adeptus Mechanicus was very competent in its initial state, it has been (as the whole setting has been) Flanderized over the years.
I think it is pretty clear though from its history, the one thing it is not is a satire of academia. It was reworked to be a satire of religion and fascism. Though how satirical is is has waxed and waned over the decades. Priestley's initial intention was basically just what if you put Medieval Europe into space. How would that look? What if Benedictine monks were the scientists? What if knightly orders were angelic super-soldiers. What if God was rebelled against by his creations in such a place? What if there were also Space elves and dwarves and orks? And also Judge Dredd? and the Inquisition? What if I took almost every Christian medieval trope and just "bunged it in" (his own words). Look at his words above, and his other interviews.
Priestley et al were historical academic wargaming nerds and probably did not write 40K as a satire as such, but it inherited some satire from 2000AD and was then interpreted as such entirely by following writers as GW became a big business. Priestley's initial conception of the Imperium is much closer to a homage than a satire. And Ansell's initial conception of the Chaos Gods was much more nuanced than them being evil. It was quite possible to a good heroic Chaos worshipper, with all of them representing both the negative and positive emotions within humanities collective unconscious.
The original 40K - Rogue Trader universe was not much of a satire at all, it was Priestley (primarily) homaging his passionate interests (history, wargaming/war, roleplaying, science fiction etc.) into one big dystopian, but nuanced world. Now of course I am not sure 40K even understands the word nuance. But there we go.
SSCReader
2mo ago
I want you to seriously try and do some experiential religious practice and try to have an open mind as to the existence of divine entities.
You realize most Western atheists were raised Christian? I had an open mind, I went to Church and Sunday school and church camp and prayed and gave it a shot. And I felt nothing. I believed with all my heart until I was old enough to start realizing there were huge holes in what I was being told and no-one had solid answers about them, but that they were still nonetheless certain they were right.
"I want the religious to seriously try and do some proper rigorous thinking, and try to have an open mind about the existence of confirmation bias, brainwashing and socialization. I want folks like yourself to perhaps even try to do experiments, or even learn advanced physics and give it a genuine shot. " - hopefully you can see why that isn't particularly a convincing argument.
We're not people who just haven't tried to believe. We've heard that same condescension for years. If you truly want to inspire people to change, you might want to try a different tack.
I don't think you can have that symbolic approach and keep the benefits of modern science. The ancients were wrong about many, many things, so why would we suppose they were right about religion? And even if they were, how do we tell which they were right about? Zeus? Ra? Yahweh? Quetzalcoatl? Morrigan? Thor? Buddha? Baal?
SSCReader
11d ago
I observe myself exercising my will without apparent restraint, and making choices through the exercise of that will. Near as I can tell, this is what everyone else observes as well. All effective methods of human social organization assume that humans have free will, and then proceed with methods to either convince them to choose cooperation, or trick them into cooperation, or else nullify their choices through the exercise of power against them. No effective methods of social organization have been found that allow one to simply engineer cooperation from the uncooperative, and this despite many trillions of dollars and millions of human lifetimes spent explicitly trying to achieve that exact objective.
So I don't exactly disagree with you, but the things that give me pause are things how people change after brain damage. Each individual (assuming they experience things similarly to me) seems to be making their own unrestrained choices through free will. I agree with your assessment here, as far as I can tell I make my own free choices, and since everyone else says the same and generally acts like me it seems likely they are too. Yet a man with a particular type of brain injury will now seem to make decisions he never would have before. Presumably he sees those choices internally as exercising his free will. It's just he now wants to be an angry drunk rather than a nice family man. Or you can give women testosterone and they get more aggressive. So I think at the very minimum the material medium in some way constrains or shapes free will. I might not consider hitting my wife, but jam a needle in my brain and I might choose just that. And I will probably think it is my own free choice.
SSCReader
3mo ago
I think this is misrepresenting the position of most of the working class Red Tribe Trump supporters I know. Sure, there is an element of "owning the blank" that happens on both sides. But they absolutely do aspire to greatness. They have a very heartfelt belief in the greatness of America. That's why the Trump's slogan was so successful. They are very serious people, with serious problems. That even I as a neo-liberal myself acknowledge are true and correct. Their small towns and cities have been hollowed out my decades of neglect and policy. Their kids are turning to drugs at tremendous rates. Getting good healthcare coverage is difficult.
and Trump for all his faults speaks to them in a way no-one else really does. And many of them acknowledge that he is a serial liar, cheater and has an ego the size of a small moon. But at least he talks about going to bat for them. DeSantis and Haley may be conservative and know the system better than he does, but they also pattern match to exactly the same kind of Republican politician who has sided with big business over the little people for the last 50 years.
See Fetterman's success (even after a stroke!) for another kind of "working class joe" kind of vibe (even as it isn't really true for either Trump or Fetterman). My old neighbor, told me he would vote for Fetterman way before he would vote for DeSantis, and he is diehard for Trump, all day every day.
The truth is, they have been taken for granted, and that has created a level of anger and despair. And for all Trump's opponents may well be better at navigating bureaucracy they are not well situated to tap into that emotion and channel it positively. I think DeSantis is an excellent political operator. But he has the charisma of a wet paper bag where the bottom fell out and spilled your shopping all over the floor.
Trump, I predict will (barring any weirdness) easily win the primary, and it will be a 50-50 shot against Biden, depending on how the economy is feeling in a few months. His big weakness of course is that he is divisive, his supporter's love him, but his opponents hate him, so he drives turnout both ways. I think he probably narrowly loses because of this, but I am by no means certain of that and he could easily win.
But to be clear, Trump supporters are very serious people, they just have very different priorities that you do or I do. To many of them, it is absolutely not a contradiction that abortion is a bigger deal than immigration. Sure a conservative utilitarian might point out that immigration is more of a "threat" to conservatism, but they are not utilitarians. While they certainly do care about mass immigration it isn't a big leap to understand why they might think (what they see as) murder of children is a teensy bit more important than illegal border crossings. Especially when it is possible deport people after they enter the country, but you can't reverse an abortion. Having said that, they support Trump who wants to build the wall, so it isn't as if they are against doing more than one thing at the same time!
Then you may want to angle to speak a little more plainly in my opinion. Tongue in cheek can be difficult to make out via text and using terms like "New Lefty Science" in that manner is just more heat than light when you are (as per the point of the site) going to want lefty people to read and engage with your points, rather than just arguing about whether the science is changing which wasn't really the point of your comment. Though I am not a mod, so you may of course ignore me entirely freely!
My experience with relatives who are addicts is that contra to our resident Indian doctor, it isn't possible to not be an addict any more. It is possible to not be an active addict, but seeing uncles falling off the wagon after decades of sobriety has resolved that for me. That doesn't mean I think alcohol should be illegal however.
And the difference between alien chest bursters and addiction is the fact that the chest burster kills the host and births a monster, an addict can be a "monster", then return to being normal for years or decades or the rest of their life, even if the monster risk is always hanging over them. It is more like lycanthropy perhaps, if we must find a monstrous analogy.
More options
Context Copy link