domain:preview.redd.it
ulyssessword
2d ago
I distinctly remember posters here telling me how great she is.
I found it! Perhaps the only comment on the entire Motte that is unequivocably pro-Harris. Oh wait, I found one more, and a third that might count.
I suppose the plural is valid, but I expected a lot more than that when I skimmed through the entirety of those two threads.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
2d ago
I distinctly remember posters here telling me how great she is.
Receipts please. This really does not mesh with my memory of the period; are you sure it was not just one stray poster somewhere leaving an outsize memory because you found what they said so outrageous?
Jiro
2d ago
To Jay Jones.
Saying that we "don't have the context" for him doing that is giving charity where it is not warranted.
crushedoranges
Can Marx explain the used panties market?
2d ago
I hate him for being a blue-tribe brahmin who believes in the progressive shibboleths: the left hates him for not being maximally accelerationist revolutionary Che Guevara. The magnitude of dislike is not equal.
When he goes 'trans issues are not tactically wise for politics, we should get into power and then implement them', I think, 'oh, he's a liar.' They go, 'oh, he's a HERETIC!'
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
Are you proposing being uncharitable to Jay Jones or to other people on this forum? I don't think principle of charity ever said you had to be charitable about statements made by public figures, just about the person you are currently arguing with.
ulyssessword
2d ago
In response, someone in the red tribe claimed that “the Obama administrations lawsuit in Ohio is meant to prevent active duty servicemen from being allowed to vote early”.
I couldn't find that in your link, either as a direct quote or a more general sentiment. Could you point to it more directly?
Botond173
2d ago
Is this the same Klein who supported (and probably still supports) the Californian YMY / affirmative consent law? Because yeah, it doesn't seem so bizarre to me.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
2d ago
Oh of course. Your mention of this time last year made me think there was something election related involved and I got lost in trying to remember what the youths were saying back then.
SkoomaDentist
The Greater Finnish Empire
2d ago
You have gained +5 to neuroticism
MotteThrow
2d ago
Is life in prison due to a kangaroo court much better? As that is something Dem actually attempted to do to Trump. And certainly I don't remember if any Dems were vocally against it.
MotteThrow
2d ago
I'd guess he feels Dems are more comfortable supporting Pol Pot rather than Bin Laden. Assuming the 3 bullets are going Hitler/Gilbert/Gilbert at least.
If it wasn't for huge blunders like Harris and Hillary
Harris was a blunder? I distinctly remember posters here telling me how great she is. How she broght on the vibe shift, how optimistic everyone is thanks to her, how all the kids are sending each other coconut memes. LANDSLIDE ENERGY!
2016 was a while back, but the only people I recall dooming about Hillary were the Bernie Bros.
If the democrats could field another Obama
They can't. Even if Obama could run for a third term he would just end up becomming as insufferable as Harris. This is what the Blue Tribe is now.
I'm not seeing it. If the democrats could field another Obama the Republicans would get annihilated. If it wasn't for huge blunders like Harris and Hillary, and Trump being a lightning in a bottle candidate.
When push comes to shove, most young people in the western world are loaded up with liberal/leftist/progressive priors. You just need to properly activate them. To that extent Trump doesn't even represent a real world right wing movement. It's just soft liberalism with a lot of bloviating.
To top it all off, the only youth demographic that isn't completely in the tank for democrats is shrinking. Ethnic replacement was a winning strategy and the only thing Democrats need to do is wait.
BahRamYou
2d ago
yeah like the other guy said, it's not really something you'd see as a tourist, and it's not at all common for younger generations, but used to be common for older generations. Apparently it was just banned last year, but I have no idea how effective that ban is. I'll be the countryside still has places for it.
NullHypothesis
2d ago
According to a 2020 survey of South Koreans, 83.8% of respondents reported to never having consumed dog meat before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat_consumption_in_South_Korea
It was more common several decades ago, but it's in decline. The people who have eaten it before are of the older generation, and most of them do not consume it regularly.
If you're talking to a Korean online (especially in English), they probably have never eaten dog before.
faceh
2d ago
When is the last time, genuinely, you've seen any article published in any mainstream new media that was written from the perspective of a disaffected male where he was able to express what his perceived grievances were, and explain what he might want from a political party?
Or even something less direct: what about an article that takes men's complaints in good faith, listens to them, doesn't immediately blame them on the men in question, and considers that they're actually being honest about what they want and that we should devote some resources to addressing their concerns.
I've seen like a dozen from the past few months where a woman tries to explain why she thinks men have gone missing, or entreats them to 'come back' (here's a hint, don't publish it in the 'style' section), or an explicitly female perspective on how male's politics are concerning. Literally, read the article about how women having the desire to be with men at all makes her the actual victim.
Oh, remember that controversy over the "Tea" app that would let women anonymously report on alleged male misbehavior. Women of course were the victim of male rage in that whole debacle.
And we intermittently see articles like this, written by "Helen Coster" that handwrings over it as if its an intractable problem that we simply lack the technology to understand let alone address. But at least notes (correctly) that this is going to be catastrophic for Dems over the longer term.
Here's the only recent article I could find that even tries to consider the male perspective (and written by a dude) but it stops very short of elevating any possible proposals and of course balances the male perspective with the female.
I'm so. so. SO tired of there being literally only ONE side on the microphone, screaming the same 3ish complaints and then trying to entice men into solving the problem by compromising on everything they actually want and voting Democrat against their own instincts.
I'd say this is all proof by demonstration that the Democrats don't actually want to reach young men. It would be trivial to give them a platform to explain what they're actually looking for, to publish their words directly, rather than a third party puzzling about their internal processes and proposing half-baked 'solutions' that don't actually cede anything.
But they do not give men such a platform. The implication as I read it is that they really want men to just shut up and follow 'instructions' rather than voice concerns that, from the Dems perspective, don't matter, aren't actually concerns, and would require compromising on their various policy goals (and rouse the ire of their other interest groups) to actually address.
And this is all you would need to realize they will never, EVER actually make traction with the men, so place your bets for future political outcomes on that assumption. Also notice how J.D. Vance is quite adept plugging in to male cultural touchstones and echoing certain male concerns in a way that encourages them to engage with the GOP politically. CUE THE HANDWRINGING. Don't listen to J.D. Vance, the guy with the wife, kids, whose whole life is basically a male-coded success story. Listen to "Leila Atassi" instead, she sounds like an ideal commentator on masculinity.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
NullHypothesis
2d ago
Why is it that I will forever know
As long as you keep bringing it up it'll get stored in your memory more. If you said your mother's middle name every day for a week and every week for a month and every month for a year and every year for the rest of your life, you'd probably remember that too.
nomenym
2d ago
The problem is that normie progressives are increasingly becoming like moderate Muslims.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
eating chicken feet, dog meat, or any kind of organ meat
I'm not really surprised about the other things, but I've heard from many sources the dog thing is rather exaggerated and not that common or culturally entrenched. I mean, for me it's like one of the most known memes about Koreans but I always thought it's being quite far from the actual situation. Have I been wrong?
see nothing but excuses, equivocation, or using tragic events as an opportunity to dunk on his political opponents
This is fairly uncharitable given nearly all of these events Trump does have words of condemnation to say of the violence, so "nothing but" is inaccurate.
Dylann Roof
Cesar Sayok
Trump, speaking at the 2018 Young Black Leadership Summit at the White House, called the sending of the bombs a “despicable” act that has “no place in our country” and vowed that “swift and certain justice” would be delivered.
“We must never allow political violence to take root in America. We cannot let it happen. I am committed to do everything in my power as president to stop it and stop it now,” he said.
According to Wikipedia's summary of the events trump says this first:
My highest duty, as you know, as President, is to keep America safe. That's what we talk about. That's what we do. The federal government is conducting an aggressive investigation and we will find those responsible and we will bring them to justice. Hopefully very quickly. Any acts or threats of political violence are an attack on our democracy, itself. No nation can succeed that tolerates violence or the threat of violence as a method of political intimidation, coercion, or control. We all know that. Such conduct must be fiercely opposed and firmly prosecuted. We want all sides to come together in peace and harmony. We can do it. We can do it. We can do it. It will happen.
He starts attacking the media the day after. So I think your summary is uncharitable, unless the Wikipedia summary missed something Trump said before.
The Whitmer Kidnapping Plot
He does dunk on Whitmer. He also said he condemns violence and that he defends all Americans, even his opponents.
I'm going to stop going down the list here, but I'm sure I could find an example of Trump condemning the attack and disavowing political violence for each one of these. Yes, I realize this doesn't fit your extremely narrow criteria you defined, which I will question below, but it does provide some context for your summary of the events.
Name one instance where someone on the right engaged in violence or violent rhetoric and Trump offered nothing but a full-throated, unequivocal condemnation. Name one.
Why is this the requirement? The issue a lot of people had with rhetoric from the left is there were a lot of people who wouldn't even condemn the killing of Kirk or of any political violence at all. At least Trump had the sense to condemn the events before he starts dunking on his political opponents. Is there one instance where someone on the left engaged in violence or violent rhetoric and the left or the media offered nothing but a full-throated, unequivocal condemnation? I'd also like to note trump dunking on his political opponents is not an endorsement or excuse for political violence.
I'm not interested in which side has more total incidents or who started it or any of that, because it honestly doesn't matter at this point.
Why does it not matter? None of these events are equivalent to the Kirk assassination. Nor are they equivalent to a literal expression of wanting to murder the other side. Nor are the reactions to these events equivalent. Has Trump been calling for the literal deaths of his opponents, especially by shooting them? It seems unfair to demand the absolute best behavior from Trump while simultaneously waiving off any bad behavior from his opponents by saying you're not interested. Can we at least demand the left match Trump's behavior of condemning political violence before dunking on their political opponents?
turn down the temperature
I'm not sure this type of messaging will resonate with the right at all. One side watched one of their own get murdered in cold blood and in the aftermath watch a pretty significant portion of the left actively cheer for it. Why is it up to the side being attacked to try to "turn down the temperature"? If one side has people calling for the literal death and murder of their opponents and the other side has Trump making jokes about his political opponents, which side has more heat?
There definitely is truth to the notion that many on the right seems not willing to want to reconcile with the left anymore. Most of this rhetoric was in response to the response to the left of Kirk's assassination. I do think long term if no solution is found this will only continue to divide America. That being said, willingness to reconcile has to come from both sides, with both sides being willing to addresses bad actors on their party.
insinuating that the ends justified the means; right-wing extremists were okay because they at least wanted the same things he did
Could I get a source for this? It does seem alarming for Trump to have said Right wing extremists are okay (assuming he's talking about violent actions from the far right are okay).
the Democrats didn't do a good job of stopping the 2020 protests (never mind Trump was president)
So when democrat states and cities were allowed to do what they want, was it a failure on Trump? What are your thoughts on Trump now using federal troops to enforce laws that these places refused to do? Was there anything Trump should've done to minimize the damages caused by the 2020 protests?
anti_dan
2d ago
Democrats don't want people to enjoy foreign food? Any time I go to DC all I get is swamped with claims that the locals (all Dems) know the best Ethiopian place in the world (of course all these places inevitably suck because they pick them based on it being a unique choice rather than good).
No no.
There is something I think that is adjacent to what you are talking about which is cultural appropriation, which is frowned upon. But that is basically me, a white guy, starting an Ethiopian food restaurant that is actually good and making profits from it. That is what would be frowned upon.
Calling them old church ladies is pretty unkind to old church ladies. My grandma is an old church lady. She frowns upon premarital sex and excessive drinking. I have found no real evidence that either of those activities are good in the long term. A progressive scold, from my perspective, is a sort of double negative. They frown upon scorning bad things, but rarely have strong opinions on what is actually good. An example is that they might be fit themselves, but are not open to criticizing fat people for being fat. Or they don't steal from retail establishments, but think criminal prosecution of retail theft is wrong.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
How is AOC not a wokescold?
Press X to doubt. Harris's online presence was so fake it was pathetic. Not even the usual shills showed any enthusiasm, (ignoring the Eglin Air Force Base glowies on reddit)
More options
Context Copy link