Tuesday November 8, 2022 is Election Day in the United States of America. In addition to Congressional "midterms" at the federal level, many state governors and other more local offices are up for grabs. Given how things shook out over Election Day 2020, things could get a little crazy.
...or, perhaps, not! But here's the Megathread for if they do. Talk about your local concerns, your national predictions, your suspicions re: election fraud and interference, how you plan to vote, anything election related is welcome here. Culture War thread rules apply, with the addition of Small-Scale Questions and election-related "Bare Links" allowed in this thread only (unfortunately, there will not be a subthread repository due to current technical limitations).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I feel like this reflects a failure to grasp the best of what DeSantis represents. Now, the Martha's Vineyard thing was, I think, a mistake, most especially since the immigrants involved didn't even leave from Florida. But Disney came out swinging against DeSantis. It wasn't his "goofy-ass...fight," it was Disney's goofy-ass fight. DeSantis' only real choice there was to remind them that they are a corporation and tell them to get back in their lane. Anything else would have resulted in DeSantis looking like a bootlicker who caves to Woke Corporatism the moment his moneyed masters yank on the chain.
Disney owns (and tyrannically enforces) a lot of beloved IP, so there will always be some people who think "Disney hates DeSantis, so I hate DeSantis." But politically speaking, "there are consequences to getting politically involved" was exactly the right message to send to businesses in this case. As they say--if you're going to take a shot at the king, don't miss. Disney sticking its corporate neck out to object to a bill forbidding schools from exposing young children to sexually explicit pedagogy was a horrible, horrible choice. They missed their shot, and DeSantis had exactly the correct response: punish defectors.
My problem is that it still hasn't been demonstrated to me that the action abolishing Disney's local control benefits the taxpayers of Florida, rather than harming both Disney and Florida. Lose-lose governance by deterrence does not appeal to me. Sanctity of contract is also highly important to me, but I'm not sure that carries broadly beyond business-Rs. I'm open to evidence that it's good, but I haven't seen it.
I think you're ignoring the "ignore it" option. DeSantis could have just said "You stick to cartoons, I'll run the state" and decried Disney's intrusion into politics, without wading into the muck with them. If you're wealthy, you probably own shares in many "woke corporations" and you don't want to get punished for what management does.
It benefits the people of Florida by ensuring that the people calling the shots are the politically accountable people, rather than (Californian!) corporations. There may or may not be a pricetag in dollars that will ultimately fall to Florida (I wouldn't even be surprised to see DeSantis backpedal on this under the right circumstances) but the political benefit seems obvious and arguably priceless. (For a much bigger example of this, see Brexit. The economic cost has been substantial, probably, but Brexit did accomplish exactly what it was supposed to: it liberated the UK from being a vassal state of Brussels.)
Same--but win-lose governance where leftists demand every W and conservatives are expected to eat every L appeals to me far, far less.
Right--then he's all talk, no action. Pass.
Then you should appreciate Ron DeSantis reminding management to stay in their lane, so as to avoid pointless confrontations with government actors. Woke Corporatism is a plague on politics, but it's not going to go away until it negatively impacts enough people's bottom line, so I think it is good to impose costs on corporations that seek to extract private profits by polluting the political commons. Of course, I say that as someone who misses the anti-corporatism of the late conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist. Presumably more pro-corporate conservatives will have a different view.
Inflammatory claim that needs some evidence surely? If you want to say it's supporters made that claim, then that is fine. But let's not assume facts not in evidence without at least substantiating your claim. The UK government was far from a vassal in my opinion. And I worked there!
Guess I'm just not sufficiently plugged in to European politics to understand why this would be "inflammatory." In this context, "vassal" just means--
As a part of the EU, the UK was legally subordinate to decisions made in Brussels (the administrative center of the EU), so I was just describing the literal state of the law pre-Brexit. When you say "The UK government was far from a vassal" are you asserting something like, "the UK did get to participate in the decision-making process, and therefore was not a vassal" maybe? If so, I don't really buy that; the UK was not EU occupied territory (modulo, perhaps, some worries over immigration) and the UK was not an EU colony (see previous qualifier), but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that the people of the UK ultimately chafed at being in a legally subordinate position to Brussels.
But perhaps I have simply failed to understand something about your objection.
Correct. Otherwise every voter is a vassal of the government no? Which I don't think is something most people would accept (Libertarians as always excluded.). In any case the vassal framing was used by one particular side, so if you want to claim it is unconditionally correct, in an aside it probably requires more explanation.
Just like groomer, or Nazi, vassal has a set of emotional connotations which is why it is used by one side as an attack. It is a good political attack don't get me wrong. I certainly endorsed its use in that context (I may be a Remainer but I was being paid by (some of) the Tories at the time) but it isn't neutral, let alone indisputably accurate.
Indeed--every voter is a vassal of the government.
I don't want to say this without couching it very carefully, because it's pretty antagonistic standing on its own in ways I don't want to convey, but my initial reaction to this parenthetical was "well a hearty 'fuck you' to you, too"--followed by some indication that I say it with a smile. I'm not offended, genuinely. But if you think in terms of "libertarians as always excluded" then it's no wonder at all that you failed to take my meaning in the first place. If you think in terms of "libertarians as always excluded," then you have a very slim chance of genuinely understanding anything I write, ever. The community even has a rule about this, come to think of it...
I didn't know this, but it doesn't surprise me. Except that in this case I would say that the side that refused to use this framing was the side engaging in disingenuous rhetoric. It's literally true, and not in a weird edge-case way; every member state of the EU is a vassal of the central organization. Watching the EU force economic medicine on Greece is exceedingly strong evidence that this is so. Saying "but the Greeks participate in the decision-making process" is classic rhetorical bullshit. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Doubtless many vassal states in empires across the ages got to "participate in the decision-making process" before they were ultimately given marching orders disregarding their contribution to the conversation.
It may not be neutral, and I accept your contextual explanation in that regard. But it does seem indisputably accurate, once you stop excluding libertarians (as, I would contend, you should). So I feel comfortable continuing to call groomers "groomers," Nazis "Nazis," and vassals "vassals," until such time as I have clearer words for the concomitant groups, behaviors, and/or phenomena.
Just because I missed this earlier. The people you call groomers would not call themselves that, the people the left call Nazis would generally not call themselves that etc.
If I definitively called Trump a Nazi in passing I would expect to be moderated HERE, because Trump does not regard himself as a Nazi. I could if I laid out supporting evidence and argument for why Trump is a Nazi perhaps. Your vassals comment didn't lay out why you believe that was a relevant term, you just dropped it in as if it were a given.
Consider:
The social cost has been substantial, probably, but 2020 did accomplish exactly what it was supposed to: it liberated the USA from being a Nazi state under Donald Trump.)
I am smuggling in controversial arguments there without support 1) That the USA needed to be liberated and 2) That Donald Trump is a Nazi. There are people who actually hold that opinion, but I don't think they should be able to say that in that way here, without getting some pushback.
I don't think this is why. Richard Spencer also does not regard himself that way; would you expect similar pushback?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link