mdurak
1mo ago
Fake news as usual, unless you believe the AP or those they interviewed are in on it.
Not that it's super comfortable to do that among people of the same sex, but its worse if they're opposite.
I didn’t realize I’d typical minded others in this way until now. I feel no compunctions about shitting next to someone. The only thing that might give me pause is if I’m shitting loudly next to acquaintances, but it’s okay if they don’t know I’m the one in the stall.
The fact that some people feel discomfort from pooping in a public space certainly changes the political implications of such a move.
mdurak
1mo ago
the same theme in twelve months because it is one of those 'maybe it wasn't true before, but it seems credible now' indefinite narratives that can appear credible no matter how many times it fails to materialize.
Is there a name for this kind of narrative? Because it seems like a common failure mode
Thanks for explaining. That makes a lot more sense.
SteveKirk is clearly talking about a specific policy, right?
He was in the first part of his comment. Then the words “my political identity” made me think he was using the last sentence to generalize to his overall perspective on politics, as opposed to keeping it specific to that one topic. The words “stable” and “valuable” further made me think that the emotional response is a core and cherished foundation from which all his other political beliefs are based on.
The 'threat', is the 'threat' of being aborted.
That’s another reason I interpreted it differently. It doesn’t seem to me like the threat of being aborted is still relevant as an adult, so it didn’t come to my mind at all that “angry threat response” might still refer specifically to the feeling he had as a kid, even after all these years.
Then he says the phrase “friend/enemy distinction” — I mean, who’s the friend or enemy in a discussion like this? I can only assume the enemy is the person he disagrees with politically, because it certainly can’t be the person he agrees with. And that fits with “threat” — the threat presumably comes from this enemy person he’s discussing politics with, because where else would he be feeling the threat from?
In short, I started out parsing “The angry threat response” in a generic rather than a specific sense, and I read the rest of the sentence in that sense as well. So it sounded to me like he had this emotional way of responding to the topic of abortion as a kid, and now as an adult he still not only responds to other political issues in that same emotional way, but he considers it to be a core part of how he approaches politics, to the point where he instantly identifies other political participants as either friends or enemies. Which of course sounds ridiculous, so I had to ask.
I can't even imagine how you are parsing these comments to end up where you did.
Hahaha, does that help?
mdurak
1mo ago
The angry threat response and instant friend/enemy distinction is probably the most stable (and valuable) part of my political identity, come to think of it.
Am I interpreting you right that you instantly identify people with different politics than you as enemies, and see their policies as threats?
mdurak
1mo ago
when asked why a chicken dinner, or a tank of gas, costs twice what it did a year ago they respond with some nonsense about how "vibes" are clouding people's judgment of the "true" economy.
Unless inflation statistics are completely falsified, there's simply no way that's actually true. Perhaps people opted for a different chicken dinner than before because they're easily manipulated.
mdurak
1mo ago
That sounds very interesting. Would you happen to have links to such past discussions?
mdurak
1mo ago
What are the actual values of republican politicians? Are they the same as the actual values of democrat politicians?
mdurak
1mo ago
By all accounts, he’s seething that she stole the nomination from him.
Seething even right up before the election? I’d love to read about that!
mdurak
1mo ago
There just isn’t a way to punish the dems on this when the alternative is “not only get literally nothing you actually want, but lose things you have now.
Trump wins Dearborn amid anger over Gaza and Lebanon
"The Muslim community is united in principle against the Biden Harris administration, especially for the genocide," he said.
Not that I disagree with your logic, but people are willing to punish the Dems regardless. How should we explain this apparent voting against your own preferred outcomes? (I can understand the Muslim voters who believe in tackling domestic problems first, but not the ones who explicitly name Gaza as a reason to vote for Trump.)
mdurak
1mo ago
Or could it have just gotten an unlucky miss with that poll? I don’t understand why people took a single data point like that so seriously
mdurak
1mo ago
So if we’re to think about this like Stein did, there’s no need to worry about women figuring that one out because the problem is self-correcting anyways.
mdurak
1mo ago
More specifically, there are lots of fairly sane conservatives who have serious concerns about Kamala's understanding of constitutional rights as they apply to her opponents where they mostly don't about Biden.
What does this mean? What constitutional rights does Kamala not understand?
mdurak
1mo ago
Ok, if you truly need better election security to be convinced to accept the results, then make that a core part of your platform. Don’t focus on a whole bunch of other things with election integrity only a marginal footnote, and then afterwards come out with “Heads I win, tails the election was rigged because you can’t prove it wasn’t!”
If that’s truly your biggest concern with democracy, then make it an issue front and center and make the Democrats pay when they try to avoid it, just like how the Democrats have done that this election by focusing on Trump’s disregard for the electoral process. Instead, the revealed preferences of the MAGA constituency don’t appear to be anywhere close to emphasizing election security as one of their foremost issues.
mdurak
1mo ago
Thanks for the sources, that is really helpful.
At this point, my remaining gripes are that Trump’s complaints about 2020 being rigged still come across as highly ad hoc. Again, if there was such massive fraud, why didn’t the rest of the Republican establishment side with Trump? If there was any evidence for fraud, surely some of the court cases in some of the states would have advanced and federal investigations would’ve come up with something, because the Democrats don’t control every part of government like that. Instead, it was pretty much unanimous consent from establishment candidates across the aisle which way the election went.
And if there’s really no way for the current level of evidence to satisfy you, then make that a core political issue. Instead, all the noise has been about how 2020 was stolen, instead of how 2024 onwards will be made more secure.
mdurak
1mo ago
Ah, fair enough, you’ve shifted my priors on this.
That system had been ongoing from the New Deal era. It was only found out because they jobbed a single co-conspirator who blew the whistle.
Where did you get this specific detail from? I’d like to read up on the source.
Now those people wouldnt investigate fraud if it punched them in the face. Feds consider such allegations low class.
Likewise, source on this? Because it seems the 2020 election certainly was scrutinized plenty. Why would Republicans and even Trump’s own advisers be okay with conceding the election if there was actually such widespread fraud?
mdurak
1mo ago
What was the 1982 case? I don’t see anything that pops up for Illinois in 1982.
And why would a seemingly isolated case be evidence of consistent fraud throughout the decades? It seems unlikely for widespread electoral fraud to be uncaught for so long; someone else in the discussion even mentioned how faked petition signatures for Obama were caught
How did those other price signals get systematically destroyed? What alternative solutions are there?
More options
Context Copy link