psychothumbs @ psychothumbs @lemmy.world

Posts

679

Comments

410

Joined

2 yr. ago

Nope, if it's one thing it's NIMBYs

There's no paywall, you can just click "continue reading" on that pop-up.

I was just a kid, get off my back!

You have not really been civil at all, and have repeatedly engaged in bad faith interpretations of what I and the article say, while accusing me of bias. If you can't engage in any self-reflection over that I won't engage with you.

The whole thing with mysterious producers approaching him out of nowhere when he's at his lowest point to get him to record a faux-populist song that really reinforces conservative power is very Black Mirror.

-Not that this guy is necessarily a piece of shit or anything, it’s just that what’s being revealed about him through this music is the undercurrent of conservative ideology that is the water in which he swims and which he’s unconsciously reproducing in this song.

So you’re saying you perceive him as a piece of shit because your assumptions of his policy proposals that are based on your assumptions of one line that he’s saying in a vacuum?

I don't think I can really keep engaging with you if you're going to engage in such bad faith as to quote me saying he's not a piece of shit and respond with "so you're saying he's a piece of shit" unless you apologize and promise to try to be a little more generous in your discourse going forward.

He's blaming these problems on "rich men north of Richmond" aka Washington DC, it's not a stretch to think about the policy implications. And what are the policies he mentions? Taxes being too high and welfare benefits being too generous. Again, not exactly a stretch to see the implied recommendation is tax cuts and welfare state cuts, pretty much the core planks of the Republican Party platform.

I definitely agree listening to the music people make and listen to can be a good way to gain insight. Really my problem with the song is the opposite of what you imply - I don't wish he had policies drawn up at all, it's the extent to which he does reveal policy preferences here that I have a problem with. Not that this guy is necessarily a piece of shit or anything, it's just that what's being revealed about him through this music is the undercurrent of conservative ideology that is the water in which he swims and which he's unconsciously reproducing in this song.

We seem to be going around in circles a bit. You're pointing to the various ways in which he speaks to legitimate complaints about the difficulties of life, which I've already agreed are valid. The problem is nothing he explicitly or implicitly suggests doing about those problems would actually help, and indeed the implied recommendations fit more with a conservative policy outlook that would be actively harmful to people with those problems.

That's kind of what the whole article is spent laying out.

I thought this distinction between left and right populism from the article was useful:

As the political analyst John Judis has argued, this is more or less what distinguishes right populism from the left variety: Whereas left populism posits a binary between the people and the elites, right populism conjures a three-part division of society between “the people,” the elites, and the undeserving others whom the elites coddle at the people’s expense.

The song's complaints about working class life ring true, but then whenever it gets close to a political statement, whether about taxes, politicians, or welfare it never says anything a wealthy conservative would argue with.

The issue with the song and with right wing populism generally is that it gets some of the complaints right, but points people in exactly the wrong direction in terms of looking for solutions. So it can be really maddening for people on the left because it's substituting for a correct analysis in a way that sabotages bringing the working class together.

She is a legislator, by definition anything she does is a group effort not a solo accomplishment.

A statement denying this nasty rumor about their behavior I hope?

What's the distinction of it being blocked vs defederated? I just want to make sure I can see their posts and they can see mine.

Not sure I understand your point - yes the runner of the instance has the ability to do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean whatever they want to do is a good idea. If the decision is implemented my response would indeed be to move to a different less problematic instance, after complaining a bit to see if I could get the decision reversed rather than having to flee.

Vaping isn't bad for you, nor is nicotine really, so what's the big deal?

High schoolers should all get free public transit access anyway.

Yeah I think that's the proper route. Parents who want to restrict what their children see need to take responsibility for doing so and not try to make the government do it for them at the expense of everyone else's privacy.

I think there's a lot of vague support for keeping porn away from children that evaporates in the context of the actual issue at hand where porn sites are being mandated to collect and store the IDs of every visitor.

Ironically it would be so much easier to do that if they actually implemented the law they're suing over, which demands they record the ID of everyone who uses the site.

Haha he can be a frustrating writer sometimes, though I enjoyed this piece. He's definitely a left-wing Democrat, capitalization conventions aside.