netstack
Texas is freedom land
No bio...
User ID: 647
I don’t exactly disagree with you. We saw the same evangelists coming out to spread the Good Vibes, and they were clearly motivated by various outlets opening the floodgates. I would be surprised if there wasn’t any coordination at the editorial level.
How much, and how heavy-handed? Eh, this is where I’m more reserved. I think a scenario where all the major editors get a phone call from Barack Obama is less likely than one where they all go to the same dinner parties and talk each other into the same conclusions.
The latter is my model for most American political activism. Lobbyists work by building a consensus in their chosen bubble: “Everyone knows that policy X is good.” Once it becomes an ingroup signal, bubble members feel the need to propagate it. This feedback loop does the heavy lifting.
I think the Vibe Shift fits that pattern. “Everyone knows Biden is going to lose.” One way or another, that became common knowledge in the editors’ bubble. After that point, they were almost certainly coordinating to spread the word. It’s the most pedestrian form of conspiracy.
The debate was bad enough that I suspect lots of Democrats, influential or not, came to the “Everyone knows…” conclusion. If so, it would be unsurprising for public opinion to follow suit. It’s not conspiratorial to suggest that realignment probably involved a lot of private conversations and some coordination!
Easy: Republicans were expected to drop Trump after (your choice of revelations here).
At first that was supposed to be primary voters. Then general voters. Then GOP congressmen. Then his base. Then the general again. Here we are, 10 years later, and Democrats are still holding out hope that (your choice of current events) will break the spell. If they feel so horrified, surely Trump’s supporters must too.
Remember how the Kamala vibe shift just sort of…happened. Suddenly, everyone from Congress to the NYT remembered that aging is bad. Biden was dragged offstage by the Vaudeville hook, and Harris picked up where he left off.
Trump has had countless events which look, to a Democrat, like that kind of scenario. But this doesn’t account for his fundamentals. There has never been an alternative to Trump.
wait how did I get involved here
What part of that was a denial?
I made predictions: no Democrat equivalent to 1/6. Harris concedes. Riots possible, but without any objectives.
What was I supposed to say? Was I supposed to include a CHAZ land acknowledgment?
Stefferi’s explanation fits my mental model of Trump. He rewards his friends, and he doesn’t think those countries have been very friendly lately. Thus, they deserve the short end of the stick.
As for goodwill? Mine lasted from the election until about 90% of the way through his inauguration speech. You can identify the exact moment my expectations started sliding.
I personally resent the guy, and I despise the way he encourages political tribalism. I’m sick and tired of listening to smart people jump through hoops to explain how he’s actually totally aligned with their principles. FCfromSSC has suggested that the last decade is something like a distributed search for ways to hurt the outgroup; while I don’t want to believe it, no one exemplifies the idea better than our President. He will continue to trample the commons and loot the treasury, sometimes literally. He will collect immunity to the various consequences which apply to us little people. And he will be praised for any damage he does so long as he hurts the right people.
The Republicans are going to do fine in 2026.
That’s how they got me, too…
Vestigial limbs from the rdrama codebase. They’ve also got a bunch of gif and css support that didn’t make it over, I think.
The only ongoing features we’ve got are related to moderating, like the volunteer system.
I wasn’t asking about all deaths. Why do you think “many or most” were killed by Ukrainians?
It is possible that the Ukrainian military slaughtered dozens or hundreds of their own citizens on reclaiming an unoccupied town. It is unlikely that they did so while encouraging foreign journalists to come document the scene as a propaganda coup. I find it much more likely that the invading army happened to kill some civilians to keep order or for sport. That’s an incredibly common human behavior.
Then don't. Either respond politely and according to the rules or not at all.
Specifically, do not accuse your opponents of being apologists. It's not constructive.
Uh...why would you assume that? What could possibly make that more likely?
Okay, so how has “the vetting of USAID” exposed Ukraine corruption? How is the Burisma scandal (or Clinton’s uranium deal, or whatever else) a “similar operation?”
Graft is a symptom, not a cause.
In response to your edit, you weren’t banned for claiming there’s no difference. You were banned for railing about degeneracy.
Probably the single most common complaint about our moderation comes from people thinking “surely those rules about civility and tact don’t apply here, for my outgroup!”
These are some pretty ridiculous accusations. It wasn’t enough to say that USAID was a waste for saving third-world lives; now it has to be a laundering scheme? How? Where? Seriously, what percentage of USAID money do you think went to Eastern Europe?
I don’t understand how you connect it to Biden winning, either.
Part 2 I’ll concede. It’s not surprising given Trump’s stated appreciation for Putin—and his skepticism of NATO. Those are enough to terrify Ukraine.
I think your third point is a complete mess, too. You shouldn’t write off all of Europe because sometimes they don’t live up to your standards. Also, if you’re talking about Paula Harlow, she’s an American.
Doesn’t matter if you find it ridiculous or not. Argue politely, without insisting that everyone who disagrees is a mindkilled moron, or don’t argue at all.
We have warned you repeatedly. One day ban this time.
And how is he gaming the system, anyway?
I also disagree with your characterization of “the people’s choice.” Immigration was not the only issue. Immigration from India, specifically, was barely mentioned. What else do Americans “overwhelmingly” not want?
Because every other Trump EO has been so carefully considered and implemented?
Trump is a “make it so” kind of guy. He’s also actively engaged in slashing government jobs. That’s not an incentive for careful investigations.
To be clear, I think a program like this could be a net positive. But I have zero faith that it’ll come from a Trump whim.
I would, I guess.
Adverse reactions are going to cluster for one reason or another.
I feel that.
Not sure what to do about it, though.
Because J Edgar Hoover and Nixon abused it.
The catch is that he doesn’t have to score a direct hit to make people miserable. If I’m fired, even if I know it’s illegal, what’s my recourse? Months of lawsuit while half the country jeers at me. Maybe years, depending on how thoroughly Trump stalls the courts. In the meantime I’ve still got to eat.
I agree that it’s less threatening than waking up one morning to find Hans Landa was running my department.
Hey, we’re talking about opioids, not PCP!
Yes, at least the child will have a mother figure but you have knowingly taken it away from its actual mother, forever.
I figured they were fighting over that bit: whether or not giving birth is enough to get the special status of “actual mother.” It’s a substantive disagreement but also a definitional one.
Okay, I see what you mean by “instance.”
Oh, I only get that from browsing the Motte.
More options
Context Copy link