Do you disagree that it does reflect on them or are you asking about the mechanism of it doing so?
I don't see why it should reflect on them.
Get more pinko friends. My god, my feed is nothing but “self-care in these troubled times” advice posts.
My Facebook consists of three groups of people: people I went to primary/secondary school with, people I went to undergrad/grad school with, and people I have known since grad school. The last group is pretty much entirely pinko, not a liberal, much less a conservative in the group. The middle group is liberals, leftists, and (American-style) libertarians. The first group, though, is almost all MAGA with a few moderate liberals here and there. And from the MAGAs, I get to see a bunch of the extended MAGA ecosystem (from replies, shares, memes, etc.).
If we're going by Facebook, then I don't think the problem is cancel rhetoric, because what I see from conservatives is closer to eliminationist rhetoric.
Twitter might be an issue, but what % of voters pay attention to Twitter?
HR is something else. I don't know how that relates to the Democrats, though.
I just don't think wokeness and cancelling people is a salient part of mainstream Democratic discourse. Yeah, it's big on Twitter, and maybe in some universities, but I don't recall any wokeness or cancellation talk from Harris, or from Biden before her, or from Bernie ever. You might say the "basket of deplorables" remark is a cancel not persuade remark, but other than that, I don't even remember much from Clinton, and I doubt there's anyone here who thinks less of Clinton than I do.
I think the most amazing thing about liberal election post-mortems is that you hear the same thing every time they lose, and have as far back as I can remember (OK, at least since 2000): The Democrats have a messaging problem. Everyone likes what the Democrats are selling, but the Democrats aren't selling at well. Many articles and books have been written selling various messaging fixes. The writers of these articles and books have then served on Democratic campaigns. It's a great racket, and allows the Democrats to never, ever make a change to what they're selling no matter how often they lose.
Oh, to be clear, I just mean among political junkies, of which everyone in this thread is by definition.
And Vance definitely isn't prehistoric. He's awkward, but in the way that rich people and grad students (who are mostly rich people, to be fair) are awkward.
This sort of double standard between what we expect of Republican vs Democratic political candidates in terms of articulateness and coherence dates back long before Trump. Liberals are expected to speak in complete sentences and paragraphs, while Republicans can speak in prehistoric grunts and fart sounds.
What's amazing is that after every election cycle, a bunch of liberal journalists accuse Democrats of losing because they speak in paragraphs while the people only have the ability to comprehend grunts and fart sounds. Hell, this was the primary narrative of the 2000 election aftermath (well, after hanging chads, at least).
The bit about Harris criticizing Biden on busing, when in fact she had opposed busing, or her saying she was for Medicare for All, and then saying, "Actually I just didn't understand the question," definitely distinguishes her from Fetterman, a person who has left no doubt about his support for genocide.
This may not seem like a big deal now, but perhaps no one in the last 20 years has made progressive liberals feel more betrayed than Fetterman, so they definitely won't show up for him again.
I think Fetterman and Obama give the lesson, one the Democratic nominees in 2016 and 2024 did not heed: if you want to win as a Democrat, you have to mobilize progressives. I'm not saying you have to cater to them 100%, but you have to make sure they show up not on election day, but for the months prior to it. This pushed Obama to the win, particularly in the '08 primary and general, and pushed Fetterman to the win in his only election to the senate. Even Biden benefitted from a lesser progressive mobilization in '20, both because they hated Trump and because he tacked left during his campaign (and to a lesser extent during his first year or so in office).
Feterman has a problem, though: he may, currently, be the most hated non-Republican among progressives. Hell, he may be more hated than a good portion of Republicans. Having him in a position of high visibility within the party, whether as a DNC chair or minority whatever, or worse, as a presidential nominee, pretty much guarantees a lack of progressive enthusiasm. The Dems have twice shown they can't win by courting the center/moderate right while pretty much ignoring the liberal left; Fetterman is a good way to prove that a third time.
a href="https://www.dissentmagazine.org/">Dissent has some good post-mortems, the best of which is probably Exit Right:
In these ways, Harris repeated not only Hillary Clinton’s errors but many of the same ones that she herself had made in her ill-starred 2019 presidential campaign, which opportunistically tacked left rather than right, but with equal insincerity and incoherence. Who remembers that campaign’s biggest moment, when she attacked Biden for his opposition to busing and what it would have implied for a younger version of herself, only to reveal when questioned that she also opposed busing? Or when she endorsed Medicare for All, raising her hand in a debate for the idea of private insurance abolition, only to later claim she hadn’t understood the question? Voters, then as now, found her vacuous and unintelligible, a politician of pure artifice seemingly without ideological depths she could draw from and externalize.
Though it lays most of the blame on Biden's (and the Democratic Party generally's) feet.
I mean, it's pretty straightforward: he was accused of sexual assault and harassment; he admitted the bad behavior (without, necessarily, agreeing that it was assault), apologized, and went underground. What's interesting to me, and why I think it would be in the book, is that it's the sort of behavior that, had it occurred a year earlier, probably wouldn't have had any consequences for him on the left, even short term.
Things changed so much over the course of 2017 that, two years later, the ISO, a popular and reasonably effective far left group , was destroyed by its poor handling of similar accusations against one of its handling of a sexual assault accusation against one of its leaders from 2013 (notably pre-2017 changes).
Someday, probably in the reasonably near future, someone's going to write a book about the year 2017 in the American left, and there will be paragraphs in it about Kriss, because he's representative of one one of the dynamics of the 2017 upheaval.
Anyway, he represents a segment of the left that we heard very little from between 2018 and 2024, but will probably hear a lot more of between 2025 and 2028, and both the tone and content of that essay is pretty representative.
For other examples, might I recommend Catherine Liu, the BungaCast and What's Left of Philosophy podcasts, and if you're truly brave, Sublation Media.
I don't like or listen to Rogan, but I think he's pretty firmly cemented his status as an outside voice (even if a bad one). If the Dems want a "liberal Joe Rogan," they're going to have to accept that such a person is also going to have to be an outside voice, and that means he's probably going to not like the Democrats most of the time.
And there's a big audience for such a person. In 2016, left groups of various sorts grew not because there were suddenly a bunch of Marxists in the U.S., but because there were a lot of fairly normie libs who realized the Democratic Party really sucks. They build alternative media, alternative political organizations, and in some cases, ran their own candidates (even won in some places). The mainstream Democratic Party doesn't like this, but if they want the liberal equivalent of Rogan, they're going to have to accept it, and maybe even change in ways that makes the new liberal version of Rogan more likely to endorse them.
This is not an unpopular position in some parts of the left. I'm skeptical of such moves, but there is a lot of real estate in some cities owned by overseas real estate speculators. Maybe just make real estate speculation itself much more difficult and expensive? I know Texas has a homestead exemption that limits your property taxes on your primary residence, though that has turned out to be easily exploitable, but I bet there are other, better ways to do it.
There are practical limits on zoning, such as the capabilities of the local fire department (high rises require all sorts of fire equipment), and you don't want to build hazardous chemical plants next to dense residential areas, but I see no ethical issues with the federal government saying, for example, "You can't restrict residential/some kinds of commerdial development in some residential areas and not others, except for these very specific reasons (which don't include rich people's home prices), for example. You can also put limits on the types of restrictions that can be made to land use generally, with very specific (so less exploitable) exceptions. So, for example, the state of Texas limits building height in much of the city because of what it calls "Capitol View Corridors." This is ridiculous, and a serious impediment to building density in much of the city. That sort of nonsense the federal government can take care of with few if any ethical concerns.
The federal government certainly has options, not just in passing laws that limit local zoning restrictions (many of which, it probably goes without saying, have deeply racist origins), but with subsidies for building density, building density along transit, and building transit.
They actually do some of the subsidy stuff, though it sounds like that is under serious threat, at least if the Project 2025 transportation section has any influence on the next administration, but they could do more. Urbanists and housing advocates have been asking for the zoning stuff from the federal government for a while. I think there was some hint that Harris was going to talk about this in her campaign, but never really did.
(1) is one I hear a lot, but if you have immigrants working and paying taxes, how are they any more of a strain than you or I? If they're not paying taxes, that's only because they are forced to work underground, so to speak, and the obvious solution is to let them work above ground.
(2) Have you been to the border? I have an old friend in Eagle Pass, and another in Laredo. Neither seems particularly concerned about the people coming into town from the other side of the border, and have been much more concerned about the people coming into town from this side of the border.
(3) Seems like there's a simple solution to this one.
(4) This suggests a complete lack of understanding of the job market and economy generally.
(5) Man, much of Texas and the Southwest has been speaking Spanish since before English-speakers were on this continent. They'll be fine.
(6) See (3).
(7) For like terrorists? Seems like if you want to secure the border from terrorists, spending all your time arresting people trying to get jobs here is a waste of time and resources.
(8) They already are a political lighting rod. Also, did you see the RGV election results?
I went carless for 10 years (and lived mostly as though I didn't have a car for a few years before that), and it only worked because I lived in an extremely walkable neighborhood, literally across the street from a large grocery store. I miss that lifestyle, now that we live in a less walkable area with less transit access. It also helped that I didn't have any young children.
Our car is about to turn 5, and I assume we'll need to buy things for it soon. I'm dreading it, especially now hearing this about battery prices.
On “The Four Stages of Post-election Cruelty”
Do you disagree that it does reflect on them or are you asking about the mechanism of it doing so?
I don't see why it should reflect on them.
Get more pinko friends. My god, my feed is nothing but “self-care in these troubled times” advice posts.
My Facebook consists of three groups of people: people I went to primary/secondary school with, people I went to undergrad/grad school with, and people I have known since grad school. The last group is pretty much entirely pinko, not a liberal, much less a conservative in the group. The middle group is liberals, leftists, and (American-style) libertarians. The first group, though, is almost all MAGA with a few moderate liberals here and there. And from the MAGAs, I get to see a bunch of the extended MAGA ecosystem (from replies, shares, memes, etc.).
"
If we're going by Facebook, then I don't think the problem is cancel rhetoric, because what I see from conservatives is closer to eliminationist rhetoric.
Twitter might be an issue, but what % of voters pay attention to Twitter?
HR is something else. I don't know how that relates to the Democrats, though.
"
I just don't think wokeness and cancelling people is a salient part of mainstream Democratic discourse. Yeah, it's big on Twitter, and maybe in some universities, but I don't recall any wokeness or cancellation talk from Harris, or from Biden before her, or from Bernie ever. You might say the "basket of deplorables" remark is a cancel not persuade remark, but other than that, I don't even remember much from Clinton, and I doubt there's anyone here who thinks less of Clinton than I do.
"
I think the most amazing thing about liberal election post-mortems is that you hear the same thing every time they lose, and have as far back as I can remember (OK, at least since 2000): The Democrats have a messaging problem. Everyone likes what the Democrats are selling, but the Democrats aren't selling at well. Many articles and books have been written selling various messaging fixes. The writers of these articles and books have then served on Democratic campaigns. It's a great racket, and allows the Democrats to never, ever make a change to what they're selling no matter how often they lose.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/11/2024”
Yeah, that's my point, she's expected to, while Trump can do the "weave" or whatever he calls losing his train of thought mid-sentence.
"
Oh, to be clear, I just mean among political junkies, of which everyone in this thread is by definition.
And Vance definitely isn't prehistoric. He's awkward, but in the way that rich people and grad students (who are mostly rich people, to be fair) are awkward.
"
This sort of double standard between what we expect of Republican vs Democratic political candidates in terms of articulateness and coherence dates back long before Trump. Liberals are expected to speak in complete sentences and paragraphs, while Republicans can speak in prehistoric grunts and fart sounds.
What's amazing is that after every election cycle, a bunch of liberal journalists accuse Democrats of losing because they speak in paragraphs while the people only have the ability to comprehend grunts and fart sounds. Hell, this was the primary narrative of the 2000 election aftermath (well, after hanging chads, at least).
"
The bit about Harris criticizing Biden on busing, when in fact she had opposed busing, or her saying she was for Medicare for All, and then saying, "Actually I just didn't understand the question," definitely distinguishes her from Fetterman, a person who has left no doubt about his support for genocide.
This may not seem like a big deal now, but perhaps no one in the last 20 years has made progressive liberals feel more betrayed than Fetterman, so they definitely won't show up for him again.
"
I think Fetterman and Obama give the lesson, one the Democratic nominees in 2016 and 2024 did not heed: if you want to win as a Democrat, you have to mobilize progressives. I'm not saying you have to cater to them 100%, but you have to make sure they show up not on election day, but for the months prior to it. This pushed Obama to the win, particularly in the '08 primary and general, and pushed Fetterman to the win in his only election to the senate. Even Biden benefitted from a lesser progressive mobilization in '20, both because they hated Trump and because he tacked left during his campaign (and to a lesser extent during his first year or so in office).
Feterman has a problem, though: he may, currently, be the most hated non-Republican among progressives. Hell, he may be more hated than a good portion of Republicans. Having him in a position of high visibility within the party, whether as a DNC chair or minority whatever, or worse, as a presidential nominee, pretty much guarantees a lack of progressive enthusiasm. The Dems have twice shown they can't win by courting the center/moderate right while pretty much ignoring the liberal left; Fetterman is a good way to prove that a third time.
"
I'm sure the documentary will show a campaign bursting with vibes.
"
Well I messed that html up. Sorry about that.
"
a href="https://www.dissentmagazine.org/">Dissent has some good post-mortems, the best of which is probably Exit Right:
Though it lays most of the blame on Biden's (and the Democratic Party generally's) feet.
On “Series! Recap of World Series of the 2020s”
Hey, they worked their way to a record-breaking season.
On “He Got Away With It”
I mean, it's pretty straightforward: he was accused of sexual assault and harassment; he admitted the bad behavior (without, necessarily, agreeing that it was assault), apologized, and went underground. What's interesting to me, and why I think it would be in the book, is that it's the sort of behavior that, had it occurred a year earlier, probably wouldn't have had any consequences for him on the left, even short term.
Things changed so much over the course of 2017 that, two years later, the ISO, a popular and reasonably effective far left group , was destroyed by its poor handling of similar accusations against one of its handling of a sexual assault accusation against one of its leaders from 2013 (notably pre-2017 changes).
"
Someday, probably in the reasonably near future, someone's going to write a book about the year 2017 in the American left, and there will be paragraphs in it about Kriss, because he's representative of one one of the dynamics of the 2017 upheaval.
Anyway, he represents a segment of the left that we heard very little from between 2018 and 2024, but will probably hear a lot more of between 2025 and 2028, and both the tone and content of that essay is pretty representative.
For other examples, might I recommend Catherine Liu, the BungaCast and What's Left of Philosophy podcasts, and if you're truly brave, Sublation Media.
On “Trumped”
I don't like or listen to Rogan, but I think he's pretty firmly cemented his status as an outside voice (even if a bad one). If the Dems want a "liberal Joe Rogan," they're going to have to accept that such a person is also going to have to be an outside voice, and that means he's probably going to not like the Democrats most of the time.
And there's a big audience for such a person. In 2016, left groups of various sorts grew not because there were suddenly a bunch of Marxists in the U.S., but because there were a lot of fairly normie libs who realized the Democratic Party really sucks. They build alternative media, alternative political organizations, and in some cases, ran their own candidates (even won in some places). The mainstream Democratic Party doesn't like this, but if they want the liberal equivalent of Rogan, they're going to have to accept it, and maybe even change in ways that makes the new liberal version of Rogan more likely to endorse them.
"
This is not an unpopular position in some parts of the left. I'm skeptical of such moves, but there is a lot of real estate in some cities owned by overseas real estate speculators. Maybe just make real estate speculation itself much more difficult and expensive? I know Texas has a homestead exemption that limits your property taxes on your primary residence, though that has turned out to be easily exploitable, but I bet there are other, better ways to do it.
"
There are practical limits on zoning, such as the capabilities of the local fire department (high rises require all sorts of fire equipment), and you don't want to build hazardous chemical plants next to dense residential areas, but I see no ethical issues with the federal government saying, for example, "You can't restrict residential/some kinds of commerdial development in some residential areas and not others, except for these very specific reasons (which don't include rich people's home prices), for example. You can also put limits on the types of restrictions that can be made to land use generally, with very specific (so less exploitable) exceptions. So, for example, the state of Texas limits building height in much of the city because of what it calls "Capitol View Corridors." This is ridiculous, and a serious impediment to building density in much of the city. That sort of nonsense the federal government can take care of with few if any ethical concerns.
"
The federal government certainly has options, not just in passing laws that limit local zoning restrictions (many of which, it probably goes without saying, have deeply racist origins), but with subsidies for building density, building density along transit, and building transit.
They actually do some of the subsidy stuff, though it sounds like that is under serious threat, at least if the Project 2025 transportation section has any influence on the next administration, but they could do more. Urbanists and housing advocates have been asking for the zoning stuff from the federal government for a while. I think there was some hint that Harris was going to talk about this in her campaign, but never really did.
"
This is the way to do it.
"
There is a liberal Joe Rogan. It's called Chapo Trap House.
On “History Was Made in 2024 Election, Now What?”
(1) is one I hear a lot, but if you have immigrants working and paying taxes, how are they any more of a strain than you or I? If they're not paying taxes, that's only because they are forced to work underground, so to speak, and the obvious solution is to let them work above ground.
(2) Have you been to the border? I have an old friend in Eagle Pass, and another in Laredo. Neither seems particularly concerned about the people coming into town from the other side of the border, and have been much more concerned about the people coming into town from this side of the border.
(3) Seems like there's a simple solution to this one.
(4) This suggests a complete lack of understanding of the job market and economy generally.
(5) Man, much of Texas and the Southwest has been speaking Spanish since before English-speakers were on this continent. They'll be fine.
(6) See (3).
(7) For like terrorists? Seems like if you want to secure the border from terrorists, spending all your time arresting people trying to get jobs here is a waste of time and resources.
(8) They already are a political lighting rod. Also, did you see the RGV election results?
On “Trumped”
I went carless for 10 years (and lived mostly as though I didn't have a car for a few years before that), and it only worked because I lived in an extremely walkable neighborhood, literally across the street from a large grocery store. I miss that lifestyle, now that we live in a less walkable area with less transit access. It also helped that I didn't have any young children.
Our car is about to turn 5, and I assume we'll need to buy things for it soon. I'm dreading it, especially now hearing this about battery prices.
"
neo-marxists controlling the means of production
Best joke I've seen on this site in a long time. Well done.
"
I haven't had to buy a car battery since the Aughts, so I have no idea what car batteries are going for, but cars themselves, damn.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.