Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
No bio...
User ID: 1226
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
2yr ago
We replaced homophobia with political enmity, not indifference.
The enmity is because the homophobia, to a large degree, remains. Many homophobes have grudgingly agreed (or been forced by law or social pressure) to not actively persecute homosexuals, but their position remains that homosexuals are not legitimate members of society and should be tolerated only on the condition that they keep it to themselves - don't express affection in public, don't "shove it in my face", don't say gay acknowledge homosexuality. And, of course, many of them do persecute homosexuals.
Indifference is reacting to two men kissing in public the same way you'd react to a man and a woman kissing in public, not tolerating private homosexuality.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
2mo ago
One of the hallmarks of the American populist right is, on the one hand, an almost gleeful cruelty, and, on the other, a fragility and hypersensitivity that is remarkably at odds with their self-image as tough and emotionally resilient (unlike the snowflake libs). Obama in particular evokes paroxysms of rage (for, uh, reasons) and "you didn't build that" rather bluntly punctures one of their core myths and their hypersensitivity means they can't let it go.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
3mo ago
Sorry for the heat, but it's probably more honest than what you usually get.
No, I actually hear stuff like this on the regular from gainfully employed relatives and acquaintances, loudly telling anyone who will listen how they're not allowed to speak their mind for fear of dire consequences.
For reasons that I don't understand, a lot of right-wingers simultaneously openly, viciously loathe liberals but also seem to crave their respect and approval.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
5mo ago
"Gulf of America" is some freedom fries-tier petulant nationalism and everyone who supports it deserves to be mocked relentlessly for their lack of dignity.
If you're a white man under 50, then you've experienced things being renamed as something that is done to your people
Speak for yourself.
Renaming thing can be good or it can be bad, because who and what we choose to honor says something about ourselves. Nor are we bound for eternity by the preferences of those who came before us. We don't expect Latvians to keep up Soviet monuments or Germans to preserve the aesthetic decisions of the Third Reich.
Renaming things that bear the names of Confederates is good, because it is a repudiation of tyranny and white supremacy. The best you can say about these men were that they were good generals (usually not even that), and we're not lacking for pillars of martial excellence that weren't traitors. Renaming things named after, say, Jefferson is bad, because while Jefferson had many less-than-admirable qualities, they're not why we honor him. I'm pretty mixed on Columbus Day, because while Columbus was pretty terrible even by the standards of the time, it's meant to be a celebration of Italian American heritage, not exploitation and genocide (though, as above, I think we could probably dredge up a less notorious alternative who was also actually American).
The Right is, of course, free to rename things, but of late the people and things they seem to want to honor have a tendency to vindicate their critics.
Also, Denali is a vastly superior name name to Mt. McKinley.
I think it's a good move
Has Trump ever done anything you didn't consider a good move?
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
5mo ago
"The Left" cannot run for president. There are numerous distinctions between Trump's post-election schemes and the summer 2020 riots, but Trump's close personal involvement is a rather glaring one.
there's no way to create a law code that can't be interpreted maliciously by one of the thousands of legal jurisdictions.
They can already do this.
Do you want to be right, or do you want to have a functioning country? The only reason that elected officials are not routinely prosecuted is because it is not done.
We already prosecute elected officials. If we concede to Trumpist threats every time it comes time to punish him for his lawlessness, we won't have a functioning country. Why not say the stubborn insistence that Trump must be impervious to prosecution and punishment is a threat to the stability of the country because the message it sends is that procedural politics are futile? If corrupt politicians will never face justice, why not deliver it yourself?
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1yr ago
it's insane to expose the President to prosecution for executing the duties of the Presidency.
Why? If the president can't do his job without committing crimes, maybe we need to either review his job or the law. The constitution certainly doesn't suggest immunity from criminal liability.
Furthermore, is there are reason why this standard is particular to the presidency and not any elected official? Shouldn't Bob Menendez be accountable to his voters, not some dodgy DoJ official? Who are federal prosecutors to to contravene the will of Illinois' people by charging Mike Madigan?
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1yr ago
You are wrong if you are accusing me of actually being an "embarrassed conservative
I am not trying to accuse you of anything. I am telling you why this political narrative is not taken seriously.
the white nationalists or white nationalist-adjacent don't claim liberalism
The people I am describing are not white nationalists (they are frequently racist, but not ideologically so). They are embarassed conservatives. I use that turn of phrase for a reason - they are people who like to think of themselves as liberal even though their political priorities and sensibilities are overwhelmingly right-wing. I know no shortage of people like this in real life by dint of the fact that I used to be one, and the almost universal pattern was that when push came to shove they'd come down on the conservative side of an issue. Sometimes this was just lack of perspective - they couldn't conceive of how a gay man or a black woman might have a different experience with - but often it was just disregard.
Not sure what you mean by that. GOP politicians are on-record as being in favor of targeted discouragement while GOP legislatures have been slapped down for passing targeted voter ID laws and contriving to re-disenfranchise felons in Florida (mentioned in the link above). That's to say nothing of things like suspicious patterns in polling place closures.
What is true, as near as I can tell, is that there isn't solid evidence for voter suppression efforts having a decisive impact on any particular election (anyone cares about). Partly this is because voting suppression tends to provoke short-term backlash, partly because more egregious efforts have been struck down, and partly because they're most likely to be implemented in already solidly red areas where they don't matter that.
But that's not a very strong defense. Regardless of how effective their efforts have been, the GOP continues to be openly supportive of making it harder to vote.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1yr ago
Otherwise, "we're a sanctuary city so long as none of the alleged refugees turn up on our doorstep" is just virtue signalling.
What share of illegal immigrant/asylum seekers/etc... do you think wind up in California? (Spoilers: it's a lot, considerably more than Texas)
LA and the state of CA have perfectly adequate reasons to oppose migrant busing without exposing themselves as secretly anti-immigrant hypocrites:
- lack of coordination from TX government
- Denying precedent for the principle that TX can shuttle indigents or undesirables to CA in lieu of handling them itself
- Ideological belief that shuttling migrants around is unethical.
The preponderance of evidence suggests this is an exercise in lib-owning, so it really shouldn't be surprising that liberal governing bodies are opposed to it.
A weirdo leftist failing to get you banned for sharing a conservative opinion seems like evidence in favor of my point.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
3mo ago
I'm just going to refer back to what I wrote when this came up a few years ago, since nothing has really emerged that had changed my views on the subject (tl;dr Correia and Torgersen mostly precipitated the situation they claimed to be fighting because they were upset pulp wasn't winning awards, pre-2015 Hugo winners were totally fine):
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
4mo ago
I think it's bad that those supposedly-neutral institutions have taken up partisanship.
I agree. I think it would have been better for everyone if scientists had steeled themselves against the slings and arrows of the resentfully ignorant. Alas, the scientists are only human, and after decades of being told "you're an enemy", they took it to heart.
You think it's thoughts that the conservatives are opposed to?
You know what? Yes, actually.
Again and again, the American right has proven itself to be distrustful of thoughtfulness. Many are quite proud of not being effete intellectuals who think too much. The business gentry that comprises a large share of the conservative elite resent academics and think education is solely for training new workers, nationalists can't stand critical examination of cherished patriotic myths, and religious conservatives have concluded that science is an existential threat. A large part of why they're liable to view academia as parasitic is that it doesn't sit well with their cult of action.
(This is also why they've largely been reduced to begging liberals to make conservative art for them - it's not some fundamental inability of the conservative mind to produce art, but that modern American conservatism holds artists in contempt).
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
4mo ago
...this paper seems entirely unobjectionable. I'm genuinely baffled as to what the problem is here.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1yr ago
TheMotte has confidently assured me it's no big deal.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1yr ago
I've been here the whole time. Until 2014 or so I was a Republican.
I'm going to need you to be more specific about "ratfuckery", because my experience over the past 23 years has been an ever-escalating right-wing persecution complex at the same time as they've become increasingly underhanded and unhinged.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
5mo ago
That niche group appears to be running much of the federal government regardless of election results
That seems like an extraordinary claim. What is your basis for thinking a small group of redditors constitutes the unelected shadow government of the United States?
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
5mo ago
I don't want to discount the insurrection - the combination of the riot and the fake electors scheme was truly egregious. I don't know if Trump intended for a literal riot to happen, but if you look at the speech he gave at the rally directly preceding the march on the Capitol it seems fairly apparent that Trump wanted to intimidate Congress into acquiescing to his stealing the election.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
8mo ago
The parts of WV without West Virginians are objectively non-shitholes and actually pretty incredible. The inhabited parts, on the other hand, not so much. Rural squalor is truly an underappreciated part of America, especially in the South. I would say it's tragic, but they mostly seem to prefer it and who am I to tell people how to live? So godspeed and all, but don't try and tout its superiority.
I could just as easily ask where you see that. This sounds like a fantasy version of conservatism peddled by 4channers who haven't seen the sun in weeks. Mannerbund? I have never heard any normiecon talk about this. If you were to ask the average Midwestern conservative what that was, they'd assume it was a niche beer.
It is true that conservatives often fancy themselves rugged outdoors types, and nevermind the fact that they're an insurance salesman who lives in a Dallas suburb. This has about as much credence as the pseudo-intellectual pretensions you get from a lot of college-educated liberals, i.e. none.
It is also true that conservative political narratives tend to play up reactive grievance - Trump was/is present as a natural reaction to disdain from 'coastal elites' - while playing dumb about the phenomenal amounts of bile spewed towards others. And this is what I mean. Conservatives have this bizarre tendency to posture as if they had no choice, as if the unbearable rudeness and condescension of liberals forced them into their positions. And we're expected to take them seriously for some reason.
What are you looking at/seeing which leads you to draw the opposite conclusion?
For example: the quote I quoted. Other things in this genre: McCarthy blaming Democrats for Speakership chaos, as if it were the Dems responsibility to sort out GOP coalition woes. The endless Diner Safaris are another prime example. Or, for that matter, the fact that large swathes of rugged, independent Deep Red America are basically collective welfare cases that would've died out long ago if not for Federal transfers and spending.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1yr ago
If you never hold politicians accountable you encourage corruption and tyranny. Holding politicians accountable means prosecuting them when they commit crimes.
Once prosecuting ex-politicians was on the table
We already prosecute politicians. The constant special pleading for Trump makes no sense.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1yr ago
An enticing thesis in other contexts, but not here, as they are clearly speaking in reference to people who have American citizenship who feel they didn't deserve it and given the broader context of their conversation.
as in this week in DC and already elsewhere, voting
Also part of the ancient traditions of America
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
2yr ago
The entire point of sending them to Martha's Vineyard is that it was small and ill-equipped for the problem. Specifically, previous efforts to stir shit by bussing immigrants to major cities on the eastern seaboard failed to draw attention or rile up anti-immigrant sentiment (few noticed and no one cared - little enough surprise, as these are big cities and already have very large immigrant populations, including large numbers of illegal immigrants), so it was necessary to step up the shit-stirring. The defense offered - that this is about sharing the burden that border states have unfairly been forced to shoulder* - doesn't hold up to scrutiny. GOP-run southern states have made no serious effort to arrange for the large-scale transfer of migrants or asylum seekers to northern blue states, which is what you would actually do if you were burdened and trying to redistribute it. Instead they (Abbott and DeSantis) have done it about as inefficiently as possible, sending penny packets at considerable taxpayer expense and without regard for the welfare of the people transferred. That suggests that the point was either publicly owning libs or trying to rile up nativist sentiment.
(As an aside, I will not be at all surprised if it turns out that these people agreed to transportation under false pretenses.)
*whether or not it is actually unfair is another matter, considering the flow of Federal money and economic cost-benefit analysis of immigration.
The riots in 2020 were triggered by one guy dying under sketchy circumstances.
This seems like a spectacular failure to grasp the deep, unresolved tension in the US over how law enforcement conducts itself. There were anti-police protests in 2014 under Obama as well. You can't attribute these things to a single police murder.
then make a big deal about fulfilling that promise.
This is not making a big deal out of enforcement. It is ostentatious cruelty (one might even say the cruelty is the point :v).
You've also got things like ICE going after valid visa holders, calling immigrants "invaders", and the DHS declaring intent to "liberate" LA from the socialists.
I mean, you can believe what you like, but as I said, asking your opponents to not criticize your publicly acknowledged policy positions is a bit silly. Of course, the GOP doesn't call it voter suppression for the same reason Dems don't call it illegal immigration, but it doesn't change the fact the GOP is on record being in favor of making it harder to vote.
The analog here is the GOP talking about how Dems are socialists planning to destroy the American way of life, i.e. normal political marketing. It might be nice if people spoke in less hyperbolic terms, but the fact that they aren't isn't indicative of much.
More options
Context Copy link