Skibboleth
No bio...
User ID: 1226
Skibboleth
13d ago
But really, it just enrages me, when I can still muster such feelings, that believing in colorblind meritocracy, free speech, presumption of innocence, biological reality, "my rules, applied fairly," etc., is now coded as "right-wing."
Because no one believes you. Whatever you, personally, believe, it all stinks of embarassed conservatism. People make fun of self-identified "classical liberals" because the label has been spoiled by bigots hiding behind a mask of libertarianism (libertarianism that for some reason only seems to extend as far as their own preferences). I like meritocracy too, but I've met too many people for whom 'meritocracy' means never having to think about how society allocates opportunities.
I could go on, but I'm on my phone and that makes composition awkward, so I'll leave it at this: I find this comment darkly hilarious because the kind of people who populate the Motte are exactly the reason you are treated to a presumption of bad faith.
Skibboleth
8mo ago
Trump was free to bring his objections in court (which he did, to universal failure) and his allies in Congress were free to raise objections (which they did, though their colleague found them unpersuasive). He was even free to hold a rally in which he whined about how he'd been cheated.
Any claim to merely "contesting" the election evaporated when he sent a mob to attack Congress. It would be irresponsible to let him go unpunished and irresponsible to let the threat of further treason from his followers be a deterrent.
Skibboleth
12d ago
Except that's manifestly untrue. The center left and far left squabble incessantly without the former being forced out. Some gamers have a meltdown because some gaming journalists called them sexist isn't being thrown in a pit, but it is sort of telling.
the people who pull the strings in the federal government seem to be okay with defacto open borders.
Easy: the US does not have de facto open borders. "De facto open borders" is a mood expression of nativists who don't like current state of immigration enforcement. If we actually had de facto open borders, immigration would be unfathomably higher.
The people who "pull the strings" are wedged because there's no magic solutions to the material factors driving Latino migration. Nobody wants to spend the exorbitant sums it would require to actually physically secure the southern border. Nobody is willing to countenance just shooting them. Unfucking Latin America to the point where you don't have tens of millions of people who'd rather be an illegal or quasi-legal day laborer in a country where half the people hate them than stay where they are is a nontrivial exercise, and there isn't much support for that either (try and sell the guy who wants to deport all the Mexicans on spending trillions of dollars failing to develop Latin America). On top of that, the US is like most developed countries in that it has an aging native population that demands increasingly high standards of post-retirement living at the same time the retiree-worker ratio is getting worse, so it also just needs immigrant labor.
New York and other cities are howling about migrants being bussed into their communities, but so far seem reluctant to change their sanctuary city policies.
NY and other blue states already absorb the majority of immigrants, including illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. The central objection remains that the migrant bussing project is done in a maximally disruptive and uncooperative way.
Part of the Republican persecution complex is their inability to acknowledge their own transgressions.
Skibboleth
3mo ago
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.
No matter who is selected, there is going to be "If they're Republican, they're fascists".
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.
Skibboleth
7mo ago
This requires admitting that immigrants are "undesirables"
No, it requires admitting that TX regards them as such.
This doesn't appear to have enough reason behind it to even refute.
When large groups of people tell you they believe X for reason Y, you should generally believe them.
Or, to put it another way, if they have such a problem with migrants, why do they have no problem with the literal millions of them already there? What it is about a few additional busloads that makes it a bridge too far? Nativists prefer to believe that this exposes their opponents as hypocrites because it vindicates their own sentiments ("our enemies secretly agree with us"), but it doesn't square with reality.
What do you think lib-owning is, if not exposing their hypocrisy and virtue signaling?
Showing off to your supporters that you're tough and cruel to the people they hate.
Skibboleth
10mo 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
13d 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
3mo 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
7mo 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.
Skibboleth
1yr 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.
Skibboleth
24d ago
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If your theory predicts a phenomenon and the phenomenon is not observed, that strongly suggests the theory is wrong. In this case, there's a lot of incentive for election security enthusiasts to find voter fraud and they've made considerable effort to do so. The fact that have failed to do strongly suggests their theory doesn't hold water*. In this case, concealing the shenanigans requires counting on the discretion of numerous homeless drug addicts.
By contrast, there are tons and tons of instances of politicians being caught in awkward financial arrangements or grifting off their supporters. In many cases they don't have to bother hiding them because it isn't even illegal.
Skibboleth
3mo ago
And nobody is arguing that this was disrupted.
I am. I'm arguing it. Obama nominated a candidate and McConnell sat on it for a year.
it was the usual escalation that can be traced back to Bork, at the very least
Bork always gets wheeled out as the excuse, but it's total bullshit. Bork was rejected (unusual but far from unprecedented) and replaced with... another Reagan nominee. Who was confirmed. In other words, what we'd expect to happen. If McConnell had specific issues with Garland as a nominee, he should have held a hearing and voiced them. Of course, he didn't, because he didn't have a problem with Merrick Garland. He openly declared he wasn't going to consider any nominee.
You still haven't answered the question. To whom does the stolen seat belong?
The seat doesn't 'belong' to anyone because it's not a piece of property, but by long-standing American political norms it was Obama's prerogative to fill the seat. Word games and playing dumb about idiomatic use of the word 'stole' can't duck the GOP's flagrant breach of trust.
Except it was the Republicans who finally Noticed, and truly defected rather than be played for chumps.
That would imply that the Republicans weren't defecting constantly, when in fact that was pretty the standard playbook since the end of the cold war.
"We don't want to establish a precedent that other states can just ship people they don't want here without our prior consent. If migrants want to come here on their own that's fine, but we don't want the TX government deciding next week that since we're not doing anything about immigrants they can save money on vagrancy or prison facilities as well."
Skibboleth
8mo ago
Right, so you're free to protest but only in ways that are ineffective
They were only ineffective because the claim was not meritorious.
if you start doing anything similar to what we do we'll treat it like you're assassinating politicians.
One of the Trumpists' most consistent mistakes is that they believe their actions are symmetrical to their rivals.
So why exactly should Trumpists not start assassinating politicians given the incentives you're giving them?
Because their belief that they are being unfairly punished is mistaken. Doing normal democratic politics has a higher payoff than trying to flip the table when they lose. It's clearly not that they can't win elections, considering they just did.
Skibboleth
12d ago
That would depend on the actual content of their beliefs, since someone calling themselves that could be almost anything from a center left neoliberal to a blue tribe conservative to white supremacist who isn't quite ready to take off the mask.
Statistically, my money is still on conservative in denial.
Skibboleth
13d ago
People usually call themselves "classical liberals" because they pointedly want to distinguish themselves from social conservatives. What I am saying is that many/most (though not all) such people are just garden variety conservatives who are embarassed by their own socially conservative views and/or the association with other conservatives, so they come up with stories to tell themselves (and others) how the party left them behind or the SJWs forced their hand or something similar, the point of which is say "I am not really a conservative."
This seems like a willful misreading. Do you think "dominate" means "conquer by force of arms"? Because it's not as if the EU has been putting up vigorous opposition to Russian hegemony absent US spinal prosthetics.
Skibboleth
3mo ago
Of course, all of this is operating under the presumption that the Democrats' concern that the GOP has become increasingly illiberal and authoritarian is baseless hysteria. If it's not, then saying "if they're Republican, they're fascists" is not only predictable, it's fairly reasonable.
Like, say, if one of the more senior Republicans attempted a procedural coup and incited a mob to attack Congress. And then the entire party decided to go along with it and purged everyone who didn't follow suit.
Skibboleth
7mo ago
Is this a standard you apply across the board?
Yes. I might think they don't take their avowed belief seriously (but then, who does?), but if, e.g. there are tens of millions of people saying they think abortion is murder I can probably guess that they actually believe a rough approximation of that rather than somehow coordinating tens of millions of people to lie about their motives.
It might not be their only motive, since social desirability bias encourages people to put their most acceptable justification forward, but we can pretty safely say they're mostly sincere about it.
You'll be hard-pressed to find a single person who's opposed to mass immigration (esp. illegal immigration) who admits that their opposition is based on hatred of foreigners
No, but it's quite easy to find people who will admit that they think immigrants (or particular groups of immigrants) are lazy, dirty, criminal, parasitic, etc... or that they don't consider their lives to have equal value. Holocaust deniers won't generally just say "I hate Jews" and most of them probably don't hold that belief in so many words, but they will then go on to make some very sketchy claims about the character of Jews. And I'll be honest, it's not that hard to find people who will say that they think homosexuality is evil.
Simply put, you don't need a signed statement from someone saying "I self-identify as a racist/homophobe" for that to be a reasonable judgment.
Skibboleth
1yr ago
Well what keeps happening?
People keep trying to disenfranchise African Americans.
So are we to impute those laws were enacted for racist reasons?
There's no imputation required in this case - the disparate impact was very much by design.
Skibboleth
1yr ago
Boston, NYC, Chicago, and DC are liberal strongholds where wealthy Dem donors actually live. They're also large cities that don't really have a problem handling a sudden influx of a few thousand people, so they were failing to generate the desired controversy. Martha's Vineyard is small, remote, and unlike Texas doesn't have a lot of Federal money and Federal facilities designed to handle the flow of migrants.
They won't protest Republican voters from voting for their preferred candidate, so long as that candidate doesn't have some very specific disqualifying infractions.
Maybe the Republicans should stop supporting voter suppression if they don't want Dems to complain about it? Expecting the opposition party to like your candidates is a bridge too far (notably, we're not quoting anything the GOP says about Dem candidates), but nobody is trying to get Haley or DeSantis (or RFK Jr.) disqualified.
More options
Context Copy link