I'm curious: was there a specific episode about this that got you thinking, or was it more the exposure to the whole of the show which kept joking in that particular direction?
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 288
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 288
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
They care to a point. Most people want a populist anti-elite approach to politics and messaging but that's off limits. In reality, what you see is the following dynamic:
- Republicans get their cues by testing various talking points on their base to see what sticks. They respond to the response of their base and double and triple down on the most popular. So in a sense get their policy cues from their base, but I left out one crucial thing: they're extremely disingenuous about it because the talking points are mostly just culture war tabloid style outrage bait — moral panics filled with lies and half-truths. Still, to the common Republican voter, this seems like a dialogue.
- Democrats could do the same thing but with real stuff. Even appeals to emotion are fine as long as you're being truthful, because a lot of the time you need to meet people where they are. But Democrats do not talk to their voters at all, they despise them and feel entitled to their vote because hey, look how bad the Republicans are. But then where do they get the policy if they don't talk to voters? Oh, why, the Republicans of course! They triangulate a "common sense" position between their ivory tower ideas (mostly just "civility"), the Republicans and the (pre-programmed) Republican base. Except for the populism, you see, because that's "going low" and they're going to be the adults in the room who "go high".
I hate this worthless octogenarian club of a party, sometimes more than the Republicans.
(I apologize that this turned into a rant. I do want Dems to win, I just want them to stop being, you know, them.)
I don't mean break things so much as push things and not back down the instant some parliamentarian disagrees. I want them to put goals above process, if that makes sense. And obviously to have actual good goals.
Yeah for sure. I'm afraid of the "just one more" thing too, that's why I don't think of it as casual. It's more like I expressly forbid it in association with things I do every day or places I am every day, then if it happens in the corner cases once in a blue moon, I'm fine. So for instance, one rule I have is not to buy any packs ever and I don't keep any around the house — you don't move in with your FWB lol. But if there's a crowd of friends or something, we can partake, but it's like a ritual, it has a clear start and end and you don't take it home with you. I specifically modeled it after weed, since I'm not addicted to that at all, and if it's around me I sometimes partake and sometimes don't. That's how I'm currently with cigarettes. Plus, I don't go out much these days, so I barely even see anyone else do it.
That said, you're right: both that it's a different experience for everyone, and that it's better to just never touch it again, but personally I can't live with the thought of being banned from something for the rest of my life, because that implies I've already experienced it for the last time in my life, and that just brings in the existential dread.
As someone who has a relationship with smoking, I feel like I have to say a few words:
Apart from abusing my body in ways similar to what you described, I also smoked for almost 15 years. I started out of stupidity in my twenties. I was not even in high-school, I totally averted that danger... only to step in it years later voluntarily and for stupid reasons (I coughed when trying to smoke pot so I thought I should practice, then found out the high was pretty nice and reasoned it was cheaper to smoke this than pot). Anyway, I gave up 2 years ago, but I tried many times before that. I tried cold turkey, I tried gradually, I tried lighter cigarettes, but nothing worked. The idea of never ever smoking another cigarette for as long as I lived was paralyzing. I also hated how it controlled me, and it felt like avoiding any contact with any cigarette ever was also a form of it controlling me from the other direction. So I worked something out that works for me, and maybe it will for you:
My goal was to solve the control problem more than anything. So I said I don't want a love or hate relationship with cigarettes: I want indifference. It means I don't buy cigarettes anymore, for one. This is probably the most important part, just don't smoke at home or during normal activities. The physical dependence is present in the first 3 days, after that it's just psychological, or so they say, so I took advantage of when I was down with a cold and couldn't smoke, and I kept it up after. I still had some cigarettes left and I smoked them with some friends when I was out for beers, about 2 weeks later. Whenever I felt stressed at work or whatever, I tried to just take my hand and put it on my mouth with like 2 fingers as if I was holding a cigarette and just suck thin air like it was a cigarette then blow the fictional smoke, I'd do it multiple times if needed — this gesture was calming, even if it didn't last as long as it did with the real thing, it was like halfway there. Even though this sounds like quitting, the goal was still indifference, but I was way too much in the "I need to smoke" control zone so I focused on pulling out. Throughout I didn't think of myself as anything related to smoking: I wasn't a smoker because it felt defeatist, I wasn't a non-smoker because it felt unearned, I wasn't an occasional smoker because it felt lazy — I was just trying to take the control out of my relationship with smoking and turn it into something more like "friends with benefits". I had a quit-smoking-timer app on my phone which in previous attempts I kept resetting with each cigarette I wasn't able to resist, but this time I said I'm not going to punish myself anymore: this is a new mindset and it allows for casual smoking just like you casually try some weed at a party if someone is offering and it doesn't make you addicted to weed or a weed smoker or anything like that — you're just having fun — so the app measures the time since I adopted this new mindset and new (non)relationship with smoking.
The first month was probably the only time I kept needing to repeat all of the above to myself. After that it became second nature. It was both easier and harder to do than I initially thought, but I'm confident in myself now because it's more of a fundamental identity change than a change in habits or actions: it's internal, how I see myself vis a vis smoking.
Maybe a mindset like this can help you conquer your addiction, if you're interested. I say "if you're interested" because you probably know already: you have to want it first. It can't be forced on you, it really has to come from you. If it helps, for me it came when I got mad that, after forcing myself to smoke lighter and lighter cigarettes, I learned that they're just as harmful in the long run, so I got even more mad at big tobacco for lying to me like that (apart from all the other horrible shit they've done) and that betrayal was the fuel I used as motivation. It's always the petty stuff that gets us the most, lol. Also, I really don't want to check out that soon. Non-existence is terrifying, and life is finally getting better for me. But I'm also older and need to watch my health, so I'm more open now to actively changing stuff for said health.
Makes sense, but I have a question though. Wouldn't the tribalism work in the favor of the "fuck it" approach? Since it would be targeted at Trump and his cronies. Dem voters tend to be all in on locking up Trump. And also, thinking towards more radical things Biden did, like pulling out of Afghanistan and strengthening the NLRB — those would technically be outside the typical Dem comfort zone, but I haven't seen many Dem voters take issue with that.
Where I'm going with this: I don't think voters really want this visionless triangulation approach Dems keep doing. I think the DNC wants that. The consultant class, the "it's his/her/their turn" types. Jim Carville types and other Clinton era fossils who are afraid to call Republicans weird because they value bipartisanship above all else. Not to mention literal controlled opposition rotating villain types like "Manchinema" and now Fetterman. Those guys want compromise, but I actually think voters want a fight. I think they can see plainly that Republicans are going low and don't actually want Dems to go high like Michelle Obama famously said — they want Dems to go lower and beat the GOP at their own game.
Again, all the tribalism and spite and brianrot, those are very conducive to a more aggressive approach rather than this "let them discredit themselves" crap. The latest polls favoring AOC, the Fight Oligarchy crowd sizes, the dismal disapproval of the Democratic Party as a whole, all these show that people are aware that the "adult jn the room" days are over and it's a fight for survival. I'll give you that once things hopefully get back to normal, they'll start their finger wagging again, but right now? I kinda doubt it. If anything, the less vocal hashtag resistance is more a sign of people being tired, disappointed, and resigning themselves to the idea that nobody is fighting for them anymore and they just have to make do and keep their heads low because that's how you survive fascism.
Disclaimer: not American, I'm from across the pond but I follow US politics closely because it affects us as well.
I agree, though I'm starting to think that we're being and limited by our own minds here a little. Look at how much raw power Republicans are exerting now, to much more evil ends, and they're fine doing it. I think if Dems actually grew a spine, many would follow. A reactionary electorate can go both ways, since it's mainly acting on vibes/spite/etc. Most believe nothing ever happens anyway, which is why they tell you to relax when the MAGA breaks key institutions. So I think some direct presidential action in a good direction would be good. Let the pundits scream all they want, they'll call him a communist baby eater anyway.
PS: I hope that was coherent, I didn't proof read it and I haven't had my coffee yet.
This is a great idea. You're totally right. I'm a little jealous I didn't think of it before, ngl.
Yeah it does! I tried it on an Oppo Watch from like 5 years ago (the square ones) and it was golden.
To be fair
Well there's your problem. Never hand it to fascists (or grifters, or cult leaders, etc. — basically any kind of bad faith actors).
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
One more for potholer54. He's one of the oldies, right up there with DarkMatter2525.(probably my favorite), Professor Dave Explains, Myles Power and Martymer 81. Oh, and in this vein there's a (relatively) new kid on the block: Forrest Valkai aka Renegade Science Teacher.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Feels warranted to also drop a mention of Physics Girl.
She's been going through hell for the past couple of years but she finally seems to be getting better.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
One of the greats! Also, if you like Folding Ideas, you'll love Benn Jordan. The style is very similar. Also, Technology Connections.
Yeah, don't get me wrong — it's not that Obama/Pete types don't do anything. Generally they do things, and those things are good. (I'm simplifying for the sake of argument, since there are also bad policies that liberals engage in, obviously.)
The problem is that the good things don't go far enough — even ACA was based on the Mitt Romney plan drew up by the goddamn Heritage Foundation! It was a compromise of a compromise. All other developed countries have some version of universal healthcare, while the US has preventable deaths and medical bankruptcies and Blackrock suing United Healthcare for breaking fiduciary duty by not refusing enough clients, a thing it did so often that its CEO got merced for it.
Or, take education: as someone from an EU country, I have a master's degree and zero debt — it was all free although I did have to pass an exam ahead of a hundred others, but if I needed to pay, it would have been like 1-2k USD per year, with a chance each year to get into the free tier next year if I got good grades.
Anyway, my point is that when people get too many small compromises for a long time, they start to feel duped, they get uneasy, then frustrated, then angry (disinformation contributes a lot to this process), so next thing you know they begin to reject "not enough" in favor of "burn it down". People yearn for fundamental changes, this is why they're voting Trump types all around the world: they promise big change, they promise to move fast and break things. People feel like nothing ever happens, so the promise of any change gives them hope. Ironically, the fascist appeal is just a bizarro version of "hope and change".
And here's the darkest part: despite the differences I outlined above about healthcare and education, EU countries still have the same systemic problems. People still feel duped. People are still frustrated. People still choose fascists here. Because the problems are very deep: inequality, alienation, disinformation. And neoliberalism doesn't have an answer to any of them: you need a democratic socialist for that, i.e. someone who's willing to reject capital to put people's needs first.
Pete would be a kind of Obama. But remember that Obama created the conditions for Trump. Honestly, people like them are worse because they get people's hopes up and then crush them with their (in)actions.
The only way to escape the cycle of neoliberalism (sham democracy, fascism, sham democracy, fascism, etc.) is to elect someone who is not a neoliberal. Someone who has a socialist mindset and can put democracy above capital. Someone who can acknowledge and attempt to fix real systemic issues which keep people down. Someone who is willing to tackle wealth inequality head-on through unapologetic redistribution. And maybe this should be first: someone who actually cares about workers' rights and wants to make it so that all the technological advancement benefits them too, through shorter workweeks and shorter workdays. We need a kind of person similar to people in the past generation who never stopped until they got the weekend and 8h workweek, that kind of character, someone who dreams big and fights for like a 3-day workweek of 4 hours each, and mandatory shares for each employee same as minimum wage, which btw should be like triple what it is now. And someone who believes that billionaires should not exist, i.e. can tax them to sub-billion wealth. (I know, craaazy.)
And of course to actually apply the law and prosecute the fascists and their propaganda machine (media, think tanks, billionaire donors) the way it always should have from the beginning since they've been conspiring and committing treason for decades. Sedition I think is the word. (And if this sounds like an exaggeration in the style of MAGA pundits, that's because every accusation is a confession with them. They preemptively accuse their enemy of doing the same thing they're doing so that it sounds crazy or at least unoriginal when they get accused of it later.)
Without very bold changes like the above, we are doomed. Mayor Pete cannot do that. He's a neoliberal with maybe one good idea, like abolishing the Electoral College or something. But it's not enough. The US needs Reconstruction.
That's true, I was just pointing out that the Schumer types at the DNC really don't understand that their Republican "colleagues" are taking active steps to throw them in jail or worse. In this sense it feels weird to call it a duopoly given that the only ones giving any direction the whole time were the GOP, while the establishment Dems were their useful idiots, always following their lead and trying to triangulate their policy and rhetoric between status quo and fascism, you know, to appeal to the "middle" and the "moderate Republican". It's absolute madness! And you might say they know what they're doing, that they planned this like a good/bad cop routine, but honestly... I find it much easier to see them as old stupid out of touch aristocrats with big piles of money going blindly wherever capital leads them, than as scheming double agents, because the latter would imply some actual awareness of their surroundings, which they don't have! They're totally blind to the fact that the only logical conclusion to their triangulation strategy with fascists is them in a gulag. It's plain as day, it's happening right now under their very eyes, but their priorities are... fighting David Hogg??
I'm referring to the politicians here btw, not the voters. I think the voters are really mad at Schumer and the DNC right now, and I think they're looking for new leadership. In that sense, AOC has risen in popularity recently because she's been engaging with people directly both IRL and on social media, but I'm not getting my hopes up until I see something real actually happen, and I mean nothing short of seeing the establishment Dems gone. Because even now as the world burns, the DNC is fighting tooth and nail against anyone challenging them from the left. And honestly, it may already be too late as it is, like for the whole country. I hope not, but I don't have much hope left tbh.
I'm not having this conversation. Good luck.
I agree, but I have to say, the term "duopoly" doesn't ring the same in this environment where Republicans are frothing at the mouth to mass arrest the Democrats.
That is absolutely golden. Thanks!