OccamsRazer @ OccamsRazer @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

373

Joined

2 yr. ago

You don't actually believe it do you? I thought it was obvious that these are memes like the couch thing.

Should be fine. I've even had it recommended from pros. Not sure if that's because it's cheaper or more available or better for some reason, but anyway it should be fine.

I'm talking about things like pointing to extreme views and radicals on the other side as though they are examples of the norm, intentionally propagating lies, bad faith arguments etc. The sort of thing that is only about your team winning and the other team losing. Discussing ideas is much more interesting than circle jerking about how evil such and such is or intentionally spreading misinformation because you know it helps your team.

And yes, your examples would be the same type of thing, though I'd have to take your word for it that they happened that way.

Path to fascism and handmaid's tale are also slippery slopes though. I don't think the right has a monopoly on that kind of rhetoric. The rest of that is kind of weird, though understandably can be hard to get used to for people who struggle with change. But I'm not sure I agree about sports. I think that's a complicated topic and feel bad for women who want to be competitive in their own space. The Olympics thing is even more complicated than the usual transgender debate, but ultimately women's sports is going to have to decide how exclusionary they are going to be. They already exclude men, so they will have to determine who else to exclude in order to protect their competition. Maybe the answer is to be less exclusive, but anyway that's why this is a hard topic.

You can jump to extremist rhetoric and zero sum game thinking, but I don't think it helps anything. It's no better than what the worst of them are doing.

Well the couch thing is not real of course, but also not sure what you mean about the slippery slope. I guess maybe the bad weird thing kind of makes sense though, but that's open to interpretation and pretty relative to what you consider normal.

I mean, did you forget that the Democrats started it? They launched a campaign to call Republicans weird in a derisive and condescending way. Democrats used it as an attack, as a negative trait, as something gross and repulsive. It doesn't make sense to me, and I still have no idea what they were trying to accomplish with this strategy. Did they forget that a good part of their base takes pride in being weird?

This is not what a matriarchy would look like at all, since men are physically stronger overall. A matriarchal society would have to be based on respect or some other acknowledgement by men that women should lead, since a domineering, physical, might-makes-right society would not end up this way. Not sure why or how (some) women feel the need to physically subjugate men and rule on men's terms, to use the rules of patriarchy to form a matriarchal society. It simply can't work.

I've been trying to make sense of the whole "weird" campaign, but concluded that it's actually just confusing and I'm not really sure what they are trying for.

That makes as much sense as a cure for cancer does.

I saw a town hall recently with a bunch of democrats giving speeches and they were all doing it too, making fun of people and trying for low effort zingers. It just didn't really work, seemed forced. Like junior high kids trying to gain social capital by making fun of people. But in general it seems like the strategy is to try energize the Democrat base with populist tactics rather than taking the high road and hoping that regular Americans actually want something different.

Yeah it's more the idea, the potential for abuse or use of this as a strategy.

Given where we are now, it seems obvious that you would let the delegates pick the candidate, but it's sort of strange that The People don't actually get any say in who the candidate is. Kamala will get the nomination from the ruling class alone. It's an option that could be used to circumvent the democratic process. Something to keep an eye on.

Ashli Babbit situation is totally different though.

Why would you even say that? You honestly believe that or are you a dnc bot? People like you are why politics is so toxic.

No, actually most people aren't blood thirsty lunatics who are willing to kill their political opposition. Most people are able to disagree with others without wanting them dead.

They totally knew he was there. There's a video of the counter sniper lining him up right as the shooting started.

Yeah that's an interesting development. I have more questions now than I did before.

Concentration camps? Do you actually believe that or have it based on anything?

A bunch of people were saying that it wasn't even a mask, but it obviously is. His mom even said that he wears one to cover some scars he is embarrassed about. I was just pointing that out.

Also I don't think mask wearing should be illegal. I think it's a big government over reach. Maybe I'd be fine with an additional penalty for wearing a mask while committing a crime, or something like that, if you really wanted to go after masked people. No way you should be able to be arrested for that. I don't think it would even hold up to court challenges as a viable law. I am confident that we will see these laws overturned.

You haven't been watching very closely then. There has never been a moral high ground.