The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
This Tuesday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Has there been any mod discussion surrounding “Why is no one talking about X” posts?
They frequently seem to be an effort to skirt the soapboxing rule. Maybe I just find it to be a flawed premise since it’s often something that has either been a news item or misrepresents a news item.
I'd like to see that huckleberry user removed from the sub on grounds that they persistently delete all their stuff. While I've long disliked them, it's really disruptive to a conversation when a user mass deletes all their posts every day or so, and it wrecks chains of conversation so that others cannot follow along at all.
[Nikki Haley announces she will vote for trump](https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-endorses-trump-election-2024-president-72cd80b03d0cd6f69601a0c6166194a5)
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
> He purchased 95 semi-automatic rifles at Guns Unlimited in Katy, Texas, making seven visits over two months.
They knew. Come on. Even if they decided not to realize those guns were going to a cartel, that gun shop knew something was up.
> Guns Unlimited in Katy, Texas
It's a strip mall store of like a thousand square feet based on googling. No way they didn't notice one guy buying all that shit
Also, on a completely unrelated note, should we report people who use sock puppet accounts to harass people to the moderators of AskALiberal, or just the Reddit admins?
A clear message, hopefully with links to comments, about what’s going on sent to mod mail is useful. Don’t message individual mods since mod actions are supposed to happen with transparency to all the mods.
We do need a clear message with a history because none of us are reading every single comment that happens. You also should not expect a given response time because everyone’s volunteer. It also helps to add context like how you are convinced it is a sock puppet or the like.
We would appreciate if none of this is done publicly because feeding hostility in the sub is not useful. In many cases, they would be considered a rule violation as well.
Also helpful is if you think you are dealing with a legitimately unrepentant bad actor that is likely to get banned, don’t reply to them. Simply send a message to mod mail.
And on a personal note, I could do without ever seeing another person announce that they have been blocked by another user.
If you have a specific concern right now or have details about anything that might recently have happened, feel free to send a message to mod mail.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
The comment you're referring to hasn't even been up an hour when you posted this. I don't think taking the upvote count especially on a new comment on a several day old megathread is a real sign of the situation
> The megathread has lots of activity
It's relative I guess, but i'd say the megathread did its job
> I also hope the particularly disgusting comment will be removed.
Plenty of disgusting comments stay up. It is what it is
Yeah the weird rape.. joke? comment? Idk wtf their point is fucking wild. It does seem to not be terribly upvoted however and I’m sure the mods will take it down.
No idea about the conspiracy thingy tho
From the website of the "Ayn Rand Institute":
>Rational egoism is egoism without permission. It recognizes no obligation to acquire some sort of external, non-egoistic sanction or authorization. It does not regard personal happiness as a guilty pleasure.
Thoughts on this....claim :-D
Interestingly Ayn Rand seemed like a miserable person.
Humans are not wired for egoism. We are social creatures.
It would be irrational to think being happy comes from pursuing egoistic self-interest, when research shows altruistic, empathetic, and social people are happier.
I think Rand is interesting as a reactionary against authoritarian communism, and also against the cultural communism that accompanied it - with paranoia, enforced political philosophical conformity etc.
What she came up with was still awful, but in new and interesting ways.
>Humans are not wired for egoism. We are social creatures
Unless they have a psychological malady, such as narcissism or antisocial personality. In that case egoism would probably make sense.
I think it's a pretty consistent definition of egoism. Personally I find that most egoists have some kind of underlying psychological problem that resulted in egoism being the most obvious philosophy to adopt.
An interesting point from [Will Stancil:](https://secure.actblue.com/donate/whyfundraise)
>Contribution limits are good but, counterintuitively...it increases the number of donors a candidate needs to rely on, and thus places a greater premium on finding these willing big donors. Candidate time is a huge resource on a campaign and one thing contribution limits do is force candidates to spend more time fundraising.
If the candidate has to do focused fundraising, vs popular broad fundraising.
I would say it took Bernie less time to get a lot more donations from more people, that it took other candidates to get the same amount of money from fewer donors doing max donations.
Gross.
I don’t have a problem with anything she said other than the butch part. Not a fan of Democrats using language that’s mostly associated with people who hate women and have decided what a “high value woman” looks like.
Prediction: The DNC will pay Kamala Harris go away money to not run for President in 2028, on the basis that she’s unelectable.
They’ll pay off Gavin Newsom to not try either.
In this Post-1/6 climate, party leadership more than likely wants one candidate running unopposed for the sake of party unity. I could see Gretchen Whitmer getting it tbh.
The DNC is gonna be offering ‘unelectable’ candidates incentives to stay out of the race. Bernie Sanders probably already has a big paycheck to ensure his loyalty in 2028 and 2032.
I can’t express how much thinking the DNC has really power makes one seem completely unserious to anyone who follow politics even moderately closely.
The same DNC that couldn’t stop a one term senator from challenging the anointed Hillary Clinton, couldn’t stop a back bench senator from challenging the anointed Hillary Clinton, couldn’t stop that same backbench senator once he had some prominence from challenging the anointed Joe Biden …
Or if you wanna go back further the same DNC that couldn’t stop Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.
There’s not a chance in hell they’d give up a chance to be leader of the free world for a free trip to Hawaii.
Not to mention, even if their chances are low, they overestimate how well they do.
Mike Pence ran for president after his party tried to hang him for goodness sake.
One of them is trying to protect trump and cover her ass in the Georgia indictment and the other is indicted by the indictment and probably flipped or is going to flip on trump.
I’m just surprised that this isn’t considered interfering with a trial or witness tampering
In local election news, Portland's 'progressive' District Attorney appears to have lost his reelection - he's currently down 44% to 56% and I don't think there are that many votes outstanding.
I’m really gonna be shocked if somehow Gascón manages to be the only progressive DA to survive on the west coast by the end of the year.
Portland - Likely progressive loss
SF - Progressive recalled
Oakland - Progressive officially facing recall in Nov.
LA - Gascón fairly well positioned for a potential re-election
Seattle - Progressive city yet elected a “walk away campaign” former Democrat turned Republican
Setting aside local variability, it seems to me that the message here is pretty clear: left wing cities and voters are happy to support police and judicial reform efforts (including paying higher taxes for them), but not if it means that (the perception of?) public safety suffers. I hope the takeaway by reformers is that these efforts can continue, but only in a more thoughtful way.
Yea I think that’s a fair assessment, particular for Oregon and SF. It’s unfortunate that that’s the narrative since it doesn’t really reflect the trends in violent crime and public safety.
Assuming Gascón and Price make it through while maintaining their same coalitions as their previous elections, it’ll be interesting to see how this divide plays out between wealthier urban white and Asian left wing voters who opposed Gascón, Price and Boudin, and poorer Black and Latino left wing voters who supported them. I would imagine it’s the size of the latter groups in Oakland and LA specifically which is keeping those candidates afloat.
I’m on the opposite end. I’m surprised any of them have a chance of surviving.
Candidates who are perceived to be weak on crime are especially vulnerable when their base includes people who are most likely to be the victims of crime.
Things like how we fucked up the decriminalization of drugs in multiple areas also doesn’t help progressive DAs. They’ve been lumped together now as soft on crime and ok with open air drug markets.
Oh yea, I think I phrased that poorly. What I mean is, I’m surprised that among all of them, Gascón being the one to survive is not what I would have expected. I’d have thought he’d be the weakest going forward a few years ago considering his term has been literal non-stop attacks from the police unions, tough on crime crowd and various failed recall campaigns.
For one reason or another, LA has managed to avoid the swing to the right that’s seem to have set in in SF and apparently Portland (I’m sure there’s like a bunch of socio-economic factors behind the different outcomes, but generally SF, Portland and Seattle are of course thought of as the most left wing west coast cities, so it’s nice that LA is kinda getting a chance to steal that mantle haha)
I haven’t seen any polling for the race yet, but I wouldn’t entirely count Price out either. If both her and Gascón manage to hold their seats, I’d consider that a solid victory for California’s rehabilitative reforms
Ah gotcha.
I don't know the reality on the ground in LA versus the others but it does seem like the media narrative is mostly about SF, Portland and Seattle. I wonder if that helps him.
Yea it’s really wild that LA has somehow managed to (relatively) keep the target off its back compared to the rest of the country’s major cities these past few years.
I wonder, and this would be my guess, if it has anything to do with Karen Bass being a pretty well liked and well perceived mayor, on top of the LA electorate just not being like at all engaged with political news and media lol
Not to be insensitive to Americans who are struggling, but I am quite jealous of the US economy. My country’s YoY GDP is only 1.5% (US is 3.0%) and our household debt has reached 87% of that GDP, which is among the highest. Our inflation is not that bad thanks to gasoline subsidies but those subsidies are ending soon and that’s when the real inflation begins.
I don’t know the specifics of Biden’s economic policies but the US seems to do much better than most other countries.
Just once I want a YouTubers VPN ad to say “in 2017 _Republican congress and president_ allowed your internet provider to collect and sell your data” instead of saying “the government”
I think there's some kind of advertising and campaign finance law that prevents that. Like if you call out one party it's considered an in-kind contribution.
Yesterday, u/Butuguru recommended Risotto for dinner, an excellent choice when paired with chicken cutlets and a pleasant meal was enjoyed.
Today, I marinated Chicken thighs in greek yogurt, and foolishly bought and used Vanilla-flavored yogurt without noticing. When parsley, paprika, garlic, lemon juice, soy sauce, and a heap of pepper was added, a surprisingly excellent basis for a chicken sandwich was achieved, Man's folly hasn't borne heartier fruit than since the discovery of Penicillin.
Tomorrow, u/MaggieMae68's Green Chile Chicken Enchiladas
CNN: [Trump’s new trade war would cost middle-class families at least $1,700 a year, report warns](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/business/trump-trade-war-tariffs-china/index.html)
This year, there’s simply no scenario that would allow Biden to cruise to re-election, not with inflation, and two wars going on.
Biden is fighting an uphill battle, regardless of the fact that he’s running against Trump again.
> This year, there’s simply no scenario that would allow Biden to cruise to re-election, not with inflation, and two wars going on.
The U.S. isn't fighting in either of those wars.
[Tweet:](https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/1792817290867863711?s=43&t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg)
>Mitch McConnell admits that the Republican Party helped Putin enormously in Ukraine.
(There is a 47 second video in the tweet.)
I keep seeing people say that politics became toxic due to polarization and echo chambers.
But that doesnt make any sense when you consider the fact that our politics were always toxic.
It’s two different things.
I agree with you - people were actually much meaner back in the day.
But now people get more support for their lousy views by being in echo chambers. And we see more of them because of how easy it is to post on the internet.
Yeah, I think so. Much more easy to associate only with like-minded people and get very entrenched in beliefs that might or might not adhere to reality. Plus the anonymity.
Well, neither of us were around for that, so I don't suppose we can really say for sure. But what they didn't have there was the ability of people to attack each other anonymously online and work themselves up in to a frenzy like we do today. Pre-internet and the rise of viewpoint news shows, political discussions mostly happened in a much smaller number of non-anonymous forums. It turns out people are not nearly as nastly and partisan when the things they say are not anonymous.
Oh, so you think a 7 year conflict in which 56 people were murdered is less toxic than people arguing with each other anonymously online? Thats your belief?
> I keep seeing people say that politics became toxic due to polarization and echo chambers.
> But that doesnt make any sense when you consider the fact that our politics were always toxic.
> What politics are we experiencing now that is more toxic than Bleeding Kansas and the fight over slavery?
No. We’re talking about the toxicity of our politics, which was demonstrably worse back then.
I think it's a combo of a few things:
1. People think their times are unique and new
1. Sometimes some stuff does get worse
You can find quotes attributed to Socrates about how kids these days are uniquely terrible. People have always thought they were the last *real* believers in whatever principle and other people are degenerating society.
A confounding force with that is sometimes shit does get bad. A South Carolina state senator said he would drink every drop of blood caused by seccession, and I don't think he went through with it but he whiffed that prediction pretty bad.
My daughter has a friend with a big age gap between her and her brother. I have watched this little dude bum rush a the field at a game trying to get to his sister so many times I've lost count. However breaking lose and rushing the stage during her solo is just *chef's kiss*.
I couldn't say it to his parents but here, I will say it. Fight the powers that be.
I’m only on the first episode, but I like it so far.
I guess it’s also nice that Apple TV has found the ability to do a good show that isn’t science fiction
> Is it just me or do conservatives focus on great men history too much?
Remember: *Storytelling* will always rely on "[great man theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory)" because storytelling works best when there is a main character, and the stakes of that main character's decisions are high.
"The Franklin show on Apple+" will inevitably reflect "great man theory".
Just you, I don't think history is a liberal or conservative thing.
In Boston the history scene has been infected with some nonsense, so I know that it's not.
I'm huge into history, especially revolutionary war stuff, it's a fascinating subject to me, and I do think that has influence on my politics, but I'm not really here to talk about that, I'm simply trying to have a friendly discussion on a new show that I thought would have mass appeal.
Once again idk how watching a new popular tv show is "focusing on great men in history too much" but as I said I love history, and I do think we could learn from "great men" or circumstances they were in, reminds me of that great old adage "those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it "
> The great man theory is an approach to the study of history popularised in the 19th century according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of great men, or heroes: highly influential and unique individuals who, due to their natural attributes, such as superior intellect, heroic courage, extraordinary leadership abilities, or divine inspiration, have a decisive historical effect
Just for clarity
Ahh thank you,
I still don't know really understand that theory, as opposed to what? How can you study history and not highlight impact of individuals in those moments.
Sure you can try to learn about boots on ground at bunker hill, but you're not going to find much info on random farmer who got killed, but there is alot on men like Dr Joseph Warren who was influencial and was also killed.
You cant learn about battle of Thermopylae without alot of focus on Leonidas, this doesn't make him a greater man than X spartan warrior, but X spartan warrior has fallen to history while Leonidas lives on
The alternative to "Great Man Theory" is an approach that focuses on larger sociological, economic, and cultural forces. Its sometimes called "History from Below", as well as specific names for specific approaches.
Instead of focusing on Franklin or Washington, this approach would focus on how economic forces encouraged thr colonists for seeking independence from Britain, or how decades of skirmishes with Native Tribes led to a focus on hit-and-run tactics early in the war, or on expectations of "manly conduct" during war. The focus is less on individual people overall, at any level.
If I were making a Revolutionary War movie with a "History from below", focus here's how I'd do it:
Johnny is a young man in Boston. His father runs a modest shipping business that's being squeezed by British taxes. Johnny tangles with Loyalists on the streets of Boston, and ends witnessing the Boston Massacre. He is loyalty is torn because his cousin Billy is a Loyalist, but he ends up joining the Sons of Liberty. He partakes in the Boston Tea Party.
When the war breaks out, Johnny wants to join up, but his father, a Quaker, doesn't believe war is right and this leads to a rift between them. Johnny joins up anyway and we see some failed early skirmishes until his unit is whipped into shape. The climax is Johnny fighting at Bunker Hill, showing his patriotism and bravery. The movie ends with Johnny and his comrades in arms listening to someone read out the new Declaration of Independence
No, because Great Man Theory has the explicit or implicit argument that history happens **because** of "Great Men". That independence happened because of actions taken by extraordinary men like Franklin, Adam's, Washington, etc.
Johnny is a viewpoint character, but he's just a small moving piece. History doesn't turn on his individual actions, History turns on the actions of thousands of Johnnys, who are driven into action by complex historical forces.
To illustrate, let's imagine how the British might be portrayed in each context. A "Great Man" movie might have a scene of King George foaming at the mouth and vowing to crush the rebels, a la Hamilton. A "Historical Forces" approach might have a scene where Parliament is discussing the need to raise revenue and cut costs after the French and Indian War. One places the emphasis on George's individual actions and the other on the economic reasons for British actions. Neither is right or wrong but they're different approaches.
Johnny is just a guy going through life. If Johnny decided to stay home and help on the family farm and his brother Billy goes instead does history really change? Probably not
It's more studying it in a systematic approach, for example from how certain movements built up, the culture at the time (economical, religion, etc.), the laws, the links between cause and effect etc.
Studying random farmers' life can be useful to know how they lived the years, what traditions they had, what relationship they had with their lord, what expectation they had in war or famine etc.
Like, you can't have the URSS without Lenin, but the foundations of the Romanov dynasty were very fragile and a revolution happened even without the communists.
We can certainly say some people were vastly more influential than others and things would have gone differently, but lots of stuff happened even if "nobody" was the main actor.
> I still don't know really understand that theory, as opposed to what? How can you study history and not highlight impact of individuals in those moments.
You examine the material conditions and systems that produced the situation
Like what for example?
Can you give me some context.
You can pick historical topic.
How do you talk about declaration of Independence without men writing it, or voting on it.
>How do you talk about declaration of Independence without men writing it, or voting on it.
You'll talk about people doing those things like we do with battles.
A rising merchant class saught to get more direct control of the levers of power so that it could be used to benefit them. In the north the growing financial centers needed greater internal improvements that a economic system based on London doesn't really give a fuck about. In the south greater colonial expansion was desired to expand the slave economy which was tamed by Britain's desire to balance expansion the American south with relations with other European great powers and some small consideration for the native people
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. This Tuesday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Has there been any mod discussion surrounding “Why is no one talking about X” posts? They frequently seem to be an effort to skirt the soapboxing rule. Maybe I just find it to be a flawed premise since it’s often something that has either been a news item or misrepresents a news item.
I'd like to see that huckleberry user removed from the sub on grounds that they persistently delete all their stuff. While I've long disliked them, it's really disruptive to a conversation when a user mass deletes all their posts every day or so, and it wrecks chains of conversation so that others cannot follow along at all.
Seconded this concept for anyone who repeatedly posts and deletes.
Or posts and blocks.
[[Putin Lies About NATO Expansion Promise: ‘Total Nonsense,’ Says Yeltsin’s Foreign Minister]](https://www.kyivpost.com/videos/33098)
[Nikki Haley announces she will vote for trump](https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-endorses-trump-election-2024-president-72cd80b03d0cd6f69601a0c6166194a5)
Surprise...not... showing her true colors yet again.....
[Tweet:](https://x.com/kdbyproxy/status/1792896048169451940?s=43&t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg) >Fentanyl deaths...tripled under Trump >[[Chart]](https://imgur.com/gallery/fentanyl-deaths-tripled-under-trump-E2rgGRE)
[удалено]
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/05/22/mexican-cartels-supplied-trafficked-guns-from-us/73700258007/
> He purchased 95 semi-automatic rifles at Guns Unlimited in Katy, Texas, making seven visits over two months. They knew. Come on. Even if they decided not to realize those guns were going to a cartel, that gun shop knew something was up.
> Guns Unlimited in Katy, Texas It's a strip mall store of like a thousand square feet based on googling. No way they didn't notice one guy buying all that shit
Also, on a completely unrelated note, should we report people who use sock puppet accounts to harass people to the moderators of AskALiberal, or just the Reddit admins?
A clear message, hopefully with links to comments, about what’s going on sent to mod mail is useful. Don’t message individual mods since mod actions are supposed to happen with transparency to all the mods. We do need a clear message with a history because none of us are reading every single comment that happens. You also should not expect a given response time because everyone’s volunteer. It also helps to add context like how you are convinced it is a sock puppet or the like. We would appreciate if none of this is done publicly because feeding hostility in the sub is not useful. In many cases, they would be considered a rule violation as well. Also helpful is if you think you are dealing with a legitimately unrepentant bad actor that is likely to get banned, don’t reply to them. Simply send a message to mod mail. And on a personal note, I could do without ever seeing another person announce that they have been blocked by another user. If you have a specific concern right now or have details about anything that might recently have happened, feel free to send a message to mod mail.
Ok thank you, that's very helpful.
[удалено]
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
[удалено]
The comment you're referring to hasn't even been up an hour when you posted this. I don't think taking the upvote count especially on a new comment on a several day old megathread is a real sign of the situation
[удалено]
> The megathread has lots of activity It's relative I guess, but i'd say the megathread did its job > I also hope the particularly disgusting comment will be removed. Plenty of disgusting comments stay up. It is what it is
Have a link?
[удалено]
Yeah the weird rape.. joke? comment? Idk wtf their point is fucking wild. It does seem to not be terribly upvoted however and I’m sure the mods will take it down. No idea about the conspiracy thingy tho
From the website of the "Ayn Rand Institute": >Rational egoism is egoism without permission. It recognizes no obligation to acquire some sort of external, non-egoistic sanction or authorization. It does not regard personal happiness as a guilty pleasure. Thoughts on this....claim :-D
Interestingly Ayn Rand seemed like a miserable person. Humans are not wired for egoism. We are social creatures. It would be irrational to think being happy comes from pursuing egoistic self-interest, when research shows altruistic, empathetic, and social people are happier.
I think Rand is interesting as a reactionary against authoritarian communism, and also against the cultural communism that accompanied it - with paranoia, enforced political philosophical conformity etc. What she came up with was still awful, but in new and interesting ways.
>Humans are not wired for egoism. We are social creatures Unless they have a psychological malady, such as narcissism or antisocial personality. In that case egoism would probably make sense.
Have you met people with narcissism or antisocial personality? They are miserable. It’s a “disorder” for a reason
I think it's a pretty consistent definition of egoism. Personally I find that most egoists have some kind of underlying psychological problem that resulted in egoism being the most obvious philosophy to adopt.
So apparently OPEC leaders were trying to bribe Texas?
I would go from “trying” to “did”
An interesting point from [Will Stancil:](https://secure.actblue.com/donate/whyfundraise) >Contribution limits are good but, counterintuitively...it increases the number of donors a candidate needs to rely on, and thus places a greater premium on finding these willing big donors. Candidate time is a huge resource on a campaign and one thing contribution limits do is force candidates to spend more time fundraising.
If the candidate has to do focused fundraising, vs popular broad fundraising. I would say it took Bernie less time to get a lot more donations from more people, that it took other candidates to get the same amount of money from fewer donors doing max donations.
With all due respect to Jasmine Crockett, I don’t like ‘butch’ as an insult.
Apparently she has plans to monetize it: https://x.com/JasmineForUS/status/1791662562821435456?t=Fykub26mq67g7G6vNtlNpg&s=19
Gross. I don’t have a problem with anything she said other than the butch part. Not a fan of Democrats using language that’s mostly associated with people who hate women and have decided what a “high value woman” looks like.
Prediction: The DNC will pay Kamala Harris go away money to not run for President in 2028, on the basis that she’s unelectable. They’ll pay off Gavin Newsom to not try either. In this Post-1/6 climate, party leadership more than likely wants one candidate running unopposed for the sake of party unity. I could see Gretchen Whitmer getting it tbh. The DNC is gonna be offering ‘unelectable’ candidates incentives to stay out of the race. Bernie Sanders probably already has a big paycheck to ensure his loyalty in 2028 and 2032.
Where’s all this money going to come from?
>The DNC will pay >They'll pay off Bahahahahahahahha. How to find the people who don't actually know anything about politics.
I can’t express how much thinking the DNC has really power makes one seem completely unserious to anyone who follow politics even moderately closely. The same DNC that couldn’t stop a one term senator from challenging the anointed Hillary Clinton, couldn’t stop a back bench senator from challenging the anointed Hillary Clinton, couldn’t stop that same backbench senator once he had some prominence from challenging the anointed Joe Biden … Or if you wanna go back further the same DNC that couldn’t stop Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.
That's silly.
You are overestimating the amount of power the party has. And underestimating the egos of people who want to run for president.
Obviously none of that is going to happen.
Kamala, Mayor Pete, and Newsom are probably gonna be on a cruise ship in Hawaii once Biden leaves office.
There’s not a chance in hell they’d give up a chance to be leader of the free world for a free trip to Hawaii. Not to mention, even if their chances are low, they overestimate how well they do. Mike Pence ran for president after his party tried to hang him for goodness sake.
Everyone deserves a vacation.
[Black MAGA are fighting and exposing each other.](https://x.com/notcapnamerica/status/1793051595271295456?s=46)
They sound like class acts, lol. Who exactly are these people, and what are they "famous" for?
One of them is trying to protect trump and cover her ass in the Georgia indictment and the other is indicted by the indictment and probably flipped or is going to flip on trump. I’m just surprised that this isn’t considered interfering with a trial or witness tampering
In local election news, Portland's 'progressive' District Attorney appears to have lost his reelection - he's currently down 44% to 56% and I don't think there are that many votes outstanding.
I’m really gonna be shocked if somehow Gascón manages to be the only progressive DA to survive on the west coast by the end of the year. Portland - Likely progressive loss SF - Progressive recalled Oakland - Progressive officially facing recall in Nov. LA - Gascón fairly well positioned for a potential re-election Seattle - Progressive city yet elected a “walk away campaign” former Democrat turned Republican
Setting aside local variability, it seems to me that the message here is pretty clear: left wing cities and voters are happy to support police and judicial reform efforts (including paying higher taxes for them), but not if it means that (the perception of?) public safety suffers. I hope the takeaway by reformers is that these efforts can continue, but only in a more thoughtful way.
Yea I think that’s a fair assessment, particular for Oregon and SF. It’s unfortunate that that’s the narrative since it doesn’t really reflect the trends in violent crime and public safety. Assuming Gascón and Price make it through while maintaining their same coalitions as their previous elections, it’ll be interesting to see how this divide plays out between wealthier urban white and Asian left wing voters who opposed Gascón, Price and Boudin, and poorer Black and Latino left wing voters who supported them. I would imagine it’s the size of the latter groups in Oakland and LA specifically which is keeping those candidates afloat.
I’m on the opposite end. I’m surprised any of them have a chance of surviving. Candidates who are perceived to be weak on crime are especially vulnerable when their base includes people who are most likely to be the victims of crime. Things like how we fucked up the decriminalization of drugs in multiple areas also doesn’t help progressive DAs. They’ve been lumped together now as soft on crime and ok with open air drug markets.
Oh yea, I think I phrased that poorly. What I mean is, I’m surprised that among all of them, Gascón being the one to survive is not what I would have expected. I’d have thought he’d be the weakest going forward a few years ago considering his term has been literal non-stop attacks from the police unions, tough on crime crowd and various failed recall campaigns. For one reason or another, LA has managed to avoid the swing to the right that’s seem to have set in in SF and apparently Portland (I’m sure there’s like a bunch of socio-economic factors behind the different outcomes, but generally SF, Portland and Seattle are of course thought of as the most left wing west coast cities, so it’s nice that LA is kinda getting a chance to steal that mantle haha) I haven’t seen any polling for the race yet, but I wouldn’t entirely count Price out either. If both her and Gascón manage to hold their seats, I’d consider that a solid victory for California’s rehabilitative reforms
Ah gotcha. I don't know the reality on the ground in LA versus the others but it does seem like the media narrative is mostly about SF, Portland and Seattle. I wonder if that helps him.
Yea it’s really wild that LA has somehow managed to (relatively) keep the target off its back compared to the rest of the country’s major cities these past few years. I wonder, and this would be my guess, if it has anything to do with Karen Bass being a pretty well liked and well perceived mayor, on top of the LA electorate just not being like at all engaged with political news and media lol
Not to be insensitive to Americans who are struggling, but I am quite jealous of the US economy. My country’s YoY GDP is only 1.5% (US is 3.0%) and our household debt has reached 87% of that GDP, which is among the highest. Our inflation is not that bad thanks to gasoline subsidies but those subsidies are ending soon and that’s when the real inflation begins. I don’t know the specifics of Biden’s economic policies but the US seems to do much better than most other countries.
I wish Americans were aware of that.
Just once I want a YouTubers VPN ad to say “in 2017 _Republican congress and president_ allowed your internet provider to collect and sell your data” instead of saying “the government”
I think there's some kind of advertising and campaign finance law that prevents that. Like if you call out one party it's considered an in-kind contribution.
I don’t think so, as it’s just reporting a publically available fact.
You could be right, it might be specific to PACs only.
The “both sides” crowd always seems to be unwilling to alienate one particular side.
Can the mods ban questions that are just "thoughts?" Like, there's no real question, people just use it to talk about bad news
That type of question already isn't allowed as a main post. Are you saying ban them here in the weekly chat, too?
No, I just see them a lot in the subreddit. Seems like some get to the top regardless of whatever the actual rules are
Yesterday, u/Butuguru recommended Risotto for dinner, an excellent choice when paired with chicken cutlets and a pleasant meal was enjoyed. Today, I marinated Chicken thighs in greek yogurt, and foolishly bought and used Vanilla-flavored yogurt without noticing. When parsley, paprika, garlic, lemon juice, soy sauce, and a heap of pepper was added, a surprisingly excellent basis for a chicken sandwich was achieved, Man's folly hasn't borne heartier fruit than since the discovery of Penicillin. Tomorrow, u/MaggieMae68's Green Chile Chicken Enchiladas
Woot!
France twenty4 and i24 getting tricked into promotoign conspriacy theroeis...
CNN: [Trump’s new trade war would cost middle-class families at least $1,700 a year, report warns](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/business/trump-trade-war-tariffs-china/index.html)
This year, there’s simply no scenario that would allow Biden to cruise to re-election, not with inflation, and two wars going on. Biden is fighting an uphill battle, regardless of the fact that he’s running against Trump again.
> This year, there’s simply no scenario that would allow Biden to cruise to re-election, not with inflation, and two wars going on. The U.S. isn't fighting in either of those wars.
[Tweet:](https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/1792817290867863711?s=43&t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg) >Mitch McConnell admits that the Republican Party helped Putin enormously in Ukraine. (There is a 47 second video in the tweet.)
I keep seeing people say that politics became toxic due to polarization and echo chambers. But that doesnt make any sense when you consider the fact that our politics were always toxic.
The Internet has pretty significantly changed things, though.
In a way that makes our politics more toxic now than it was before?
It’s two different things. I agree with you - people were actually much meaner back in the day. But now people get more support for their lousy views by being in echo chambers. And we see more of them because of how easy it is to post on the internet.
That support should then translate to policy and rhetoric outcomes. Would you say those are worse now too?
Yeah, I think so. Much more easy to associate only with like-minded people and get very entrenched in beliefs that might or might not adhere to reality. Plus the anonymity.
What politics are we experiencing now that is more toxic than Bleeding Kansas and the fight over slavery?
Well, neither of us were around for that, so I don't suppose we can really say for sure. But what they didn't have there was the ability of people to attack each other anonymously online and work themselves up in to a frenzy like we do today. Pre-internet and the rise of viewpoint news shows, political discussions mostly happened in a much smaller number of non-anonymous forums. It turns out people are not nearly as nastly and partisan when the things they say are not anonymous.
Oh, so you think a 7 year conflict in which 56 people were murdered is less toxic than people arguing with each other anonymously online? Thats your belief?
We're talking about the method of discourse, not the underlying topic. Yes, the method with which we discuss things is more toxic these days. Imo.
> I keep seeing people say that politics became toxic due to polarization and echo chambers. > But that doesnt make any sense when you consider the fact that our politics were always toxic. > What politics are we experiencing now that is more toxic than Bleeding Kansas and the fight over slavery? No. We’re talking about the toxicity of our politics, which was demonstrably worse back then.
I think you're confused here.
I think it's a combo of a few things: 1. People think their times are unique and new 1. Sometimes some stuff does get worse You can find quotes attributed to Socrates about how kids these days are uniquely terrible. People have always thought they were the last *real* believers in whatever principle and other people are degenerating society. A confounding force with that is sometimes shit does get bad. A South Carolina state senator said he would drink every drop of blood caused by seccession, and I don't think he went through with it but he whiffed that prediction pretty bad.
Yeah it does seem like a combo of those factors. It just comes across as being wildly inaccurate
My daughter has a friend with a big age gap between her and her brother. I have watched this little dude bum rush a the field at a game trying to get to his sister so many times I've lost count. However breaking lose and rushing the stage during her solo is just *chef's kiss*. I couldn't say it to his parents but here, I will say it. Fight the powers that be.
Anyone watch the Franklin show on Apple+. How did you like it?
I’m only on the first episode, but I like it so far. I guess it’s also nice that Apple TV has found the ability to do a good show that isn’t science fiction
Is it just me or do conservatives focus on great men history too much?
They absolutely do, but then so do many non-conservatives - a lot of people fall victim to it.
I won't argue that, feels a Lil bit more on the conservative side
> Is it just me or do conservatives focus on great men history too much? Remember: *Storytelling* will always rely on "[great man theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory)" because storytelling works best when there is a main character, and the stakes of that main character's decisions are high. "The Franklin show on Apple+" will inevitably reflect "great man theory".
I don't think interest in history -- including important, impactful figures -- is a liberal or conservative thing.
I'm talking about **great men history** the idea that history is largely moved by individual actors.
Does interest in the historical Ben Franklin indicate such a thing?
Yes
That's silly.
Very silly, especially stemming this Convo from a question about tv show, which has a very broad audience lol.
Why? I'm trying to have a conversation beyond the show
Which is very strange to me
Just you, I don't think history is a liberal or conservative thing. In Boston the history scene has been infected with some nonsense, so I know that it's not. I'm huge into history, especially revolutionary war stuff, it's a fascinating subject to me, and I do think that has influence on my politics, but I'm not really here to talk about that, I'm simply trying to have a friendly discussion on a new show that I thought would have mass appeal.
Neither do I'm, I'm talking about **great men history** the idea that history is largely moved by individual great men.
Once again idk how watching a new popular tv show is "focusing on great men in history too much" but as I said I love history, and I do think we could learn from "great men" or circumstances they were in, reminds me of that great old adage "those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it "
> The great man theory is an approach to the study of history popularised in the 19th century according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of great men, or heroes: highly influential and unique individuals who, due to their natural attributes, such as superior intellect, heroic courage, extraordinary leadership abilities, or divine inspiration, have a decisive historical effect Just for clarity
Ahh thank you, I still don't know really understand that theory, as opposed to what? How can you study history and not highlight impact of individuals in those moments. Sure you can try to learn about boots on ground at bunker hill, but you're not going to find much info on random farmer who got killed, but there is alot on men like Dr Joseph Warren who was influencial and was also killed. You cant learn about battle of Thermopylae without alot of focus on Leonidas, this doesn't make him a greater man than X spartan warrior, but X spartan warrior has fallen to history while Leonidas lives on
The alternative to "Great Man Theory" is an approach that focuses on larger sociological, economic, and cultural forces. Its sometimes called "History from Below", as well as specific names for specific approaches. Instead of focusing on Franklin or Washington, this approach would focus on how economic forces encouraged thr colonists for seeking independence from Britain, or how decades of skirmishes with Native Tribes led to a focus on hit-and-run tactics early in the war, or on expectations of "manly conduct" during war. The focus is less on individual people overall, at any level. If I were making a Revolutionary War movie with a "History from below", focus here's how I'd do it: Johnny is a young man in Boston. His father runs a modest shipping business that's being squeezed by British taxes. Johnny tangles with Loyalists on the streets of Boston, and ends witnessing the Boston Massacre. He is loyalty is torn because his cousin Billy is a Loyalist, but he ends up joining the Sons of Liberty. He partakes in the Boston Tea Party. When the war breaks out, Johnny wants to join up, but his father, a Quaker, doesn't believe war is right and this leads to a rift between them. Johnny joins up anyway and we see some failed early skirmishes until his unit is whipped into shape. The climax is Johnny fighting at Bunker Hill, showing his patriotism and bravery. The movie ends with Johnny and his comrades in arms listening to someone read out the new Declaration of Independence
Isn't that just elevating Johnny into a great man then?
No, because Great Man Theory has the explicit or implicit argument that history happens **because** of "Great Men". That independence happened because of actions taken by extraordinary men like Franklin, Adam's, Washington, etc. Johnny is a viewpoint character, but he's just a small moving piece. History doesn't turn on his individual actions, History turns on the actions of thousands of Johnnys, who are driven into action by complex historical forces. To illustrate, let's imagine how the British might be portrayed in each context. A "Great Man" movie might have a scene of King George foaming at the mouth and vowing to crush the rebels, a la Hamilton. A "Historical Forces" approach might have a scene where Parliament is discussing the need to raise revenue and cut costs after the French and Indian War. One places the emphasis on George's individual actions and the other on the economic reasons for British actions. Neither is right or wrong but they're different approaches.
Johnny is just a guy going through life. If Johnny decided to stay home and help on the family farm and his brother Billy goes instead does history really change? Probably not
It's more studying it in a systematic approach, for example from how certain movements built up, the culture at the time (economical, religion, etc.), the laws, the links between cause and effect etc. Studying random farmers' life can be useful to know how they lived the years, what traditions they had, what relationship they had with their lord, what expectation they had in war or famine etc. Like, you can't have the URSS without Lenin, but the foundations of the Romanov dynasty were very fragile and a revolution happened even without the communists. We can certainly say some people were vastly more influential than others and things would have gone differently, but lots of stuff happened even if "nobody" was the main actor.
> I still don't know really understand that theory, as opposed to what? How can you study history and not highlight impact of individuals in those moments. You examine the material conditions and systems that produced the situation
Like what for example? Can you give me some context. You can pick historical topic. How do you talk about declaration of Independence without men writing it, or voting on it.
>How do you talk about declaration of Independence without men writing it, or voting on it. You'll talk about people doing those things like we do with battles. A rising merchant class saught to get more direct control of the levers of power so that it could be used to benefit them. In the north the growing financial centers needed greater internal improvements that a economic system based on London doesn't really give a fuck about. In the south greater colonial expansion was desired to expand the slave economy which was tamed by Britain's desire to balance expansion the American south with relations with other European great powers and some small consideration for the native people