Now that Donald Trump has Won


Ah that must be the “civil” in civil war. Still worried about the war part though.


Start it with throwing Trump and Biden into a ring like they pretended to want.


What the fuck does that mean? You think we live in a movie?

War is generally poor people dying/starving for rich men’s reasons. Usually in a way that destabilizes the region for a lifetime.


Start from the first point in the chain, an old fashioned duel between two equals, supposing they think their positions are intractable and worth the risk of themselves. That seems completely moral to me. Extrapolate from that point further till you see the issue become muddy, wherever you want to draw that line in the sand. If you reject my premise, that’s fine, but I’m not surrendering that point, which is that you can have conflict that is acceptable.


The gulf between “duel” and “war” is mind-bogglingly wide.

“let’s just fight it out and have a proper civil war between the adults on both sides” > “So what you’re saying is that you’re more comfortable with killing other people than manipulating them? Hmm.” > “If it’s done with integrity, yes.”

This response doesn’t follow.


I’m not sure what you think I’m arguing then.


Do people not see the hyperbole of the first statement, especially when I followed it immediately with Robot Jox? Maybe people don’t remember that movie. You have to think a couple steps further. Modern war is just as full of corruption, child killing, and pawns being used by the wealthy completely safe backers for their own interests. The great propaganda machine is just another engine to accomplish the same things. The people with power and the decisions being made are indirect and easily corrupted. More easily corrupted as technology advances. Why not actually have out with your conflicts in earnest somehow? Actually face your opponents?


One of the biggest faults with democrats and the current political landscape is an obsession with politeness and civility. It’s the idea that any moral taboo is worth putting on the table if it is phrased or presented in what’s considered to be the “correct” way where people were complimenting Richard Spencer for being a well-spoken, appropriately addressed man. There’s also the idea where people can’t rightfully call out people for being racist or xenophobic or even lying. NPR is incredibly self-damaging in this respect because they refuse to call Trump’s lies as lies because of perceptive desire to be “objective.”

Considering how we’ve become so divided despite the fact we try not to be, shows how inefficient the mass media is at pushing the idea of “Facism = Bad” forward. The Republicans really don’t care and it’s just showed further in the candidates like people who want to be like Trump and the fact that an uncomfortable amount of people were fine to have people like Roy Moore nearly elected to office.


I’m hesitant to take this position, not because I’m terribly fond of politeness to shitty people, but mostly because I far more commonly see this deployed as an excuse for being shitty people, for doing and saying bigoted things, while dodging any criticism for it and still claiming to be left wing. Basically, as an equivalent to the right-wing’s “Free speech” nonsense - a noble idea on the face, but just being used to justify shitty behavior, you just switch out “infringing free speech” for “Demanding bourgeois civility.” Unfortunately, there’s a large segment of the left that have already shown they can’t be trusted to not be garbage, if they don’t have people standing over them with a metaphorical bat to not do bigoted shit.


Would you say that’s more of a modern reaction to the rise of Trump or something that’s been a re-occuring flaw of the democratic party? The right has always whinged on the behalf of Free Speech but when centrists or libertarians get angry at the democrats it’s usually for a lack of ideas and convictions. That’s definitely going on as a problem ad naseum right now on politic social media where people can be convinced to not vote Democrat for not being Democrat enough.

On a personal level, I can agree with the people using that to mask left-wing bigotry. I do however believe demand for civility/neutrality has been very unsuccessful when it comes the American 24/7 News Cycle and we’ve had that Overton Window shift. The right wing clearly doesn’t care and knows how to game the system by using these manipulative tactics. I guess the dangerous question is that if American society is likely to fall into the same traps again if they were to engage in that type of dirty, unethical bloodsport.


I did not say the Democratic party, though they’re not excluded. I did mean the broader left wing.

That said, I’m not sure. I certainly think there is some problem with it in the democratic party, but I think that’s more down to being such a broad tent, rather than any problem of politeness - some shitty people get in, because they’re welcoming anyone who can fight for the same goals.

I think it might also be partially a response to the trumpian politics - it has undeniably emboldened bigots, but that doesn’t just mean right-wing bigots. It’s going to, for some people, feel a lot easier to say something that’s pulling a solid 4 on the racist scale, when there’s motherfuckers you hate roaming all about constantly pegging the dial at ten or eleven. When the extreme becomes the everyday, the less blatant awfulness becomes just as ordinary, even if you’re in theory against both.

I disagree, but not with the base premise. You can be perfectly polite, as a member of the press, while still pressing hard on issues, and really getting after the news. I think the problems with the US press are both different and deeper, but can primarily be summed up as the desperate need to appear balanced, and the way the press on capitol hill works.

As for the first, you already know where I’m going - the right is bad, so they feel the need to cover the left’s misdeeds with equal time. Which is what lead to, for example, the constant bleating about Clinton’s emails and scandals during the 2016 election, even in the nominally left-wing parts of the press - they were spending so much time reporting negatively on Trump, to maintain that balance, they tried to even it out with some negative reporting on Clinton. But that’s not balance, that’s just faking it to please people, it’s putting on a show.

Oddly, The Newsroom, for all it’s faults, showed this. Will McAvoy is portrayed as a dedicated, hard-line free-market republican, an unabashed right-winger, but there’s an entire story arc about how the republican party hates him and actively pulls their debate from the network, and thinks he’s just part of the Liberal media, because he just reports on the Facts, and doesn’t care to give the appearance of false balance.

The other part is DC journalism right now - Let’s be honest, it’s basically just access journalism, with members of the press getting closer to their subjects than the people they’re supposed to be advocates for. They’re afraid to push, to pin the politicians down, to nail the bastards to their own front doors, because they’re afraid they’ll lose access and be unable to do their jobs as they currently are. So you end up with feckless cowards who will equivocate, excuse, and ignore, when they should be getting out the knives and red-hot irons.


Honestly, it didn’t read as hyperbole to me, but we live in Interesting Times so I’ve stopped assuming anyone is joking about anything.


I’m in the same boat on this.

Except in private situations involving people with whom I’m very close, I do not joke or hyperbolize about current politics. We’re in dangerous territory now, and I am only interested in earnest discourse.

When the nazis go away, I’ll resume my usual hyperbolic snark.


Read the whole thread.


It’s not all bad, a lot of these consolidations make sense. The government has hella overlap all over the place. But yeah, sell off the postal service? Why?


People have been trying to drown the post office for fifty years or whatever. At the end of the day it all boils down to shilling for private interests. Gotta drown that baby somehow.


Except the sole reason for them is to then attack the budgets of the consolidated departments…


It also ignores that establishment of a postal service is explicitly called out in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, specifically. Now, it doesn’t require Congress to do so, but having one is 100% Constitutional.


Not only that but the post office was a big deal in terms of making this country in its early days… FEEL like a cohesive country. Privatizing it ignores what it was and what it stood for.


Yeah, that is the obvious play. It’s a shame, something like the Department of Welfare could actually accomplish a lot of good.