I just don't understand the point of an operation like this except to provoke fear and a regional conflict.
Do I have news for you. The region is in conflict. Hezbollah and Israel have been in a hotter-than-usual shooting war for nearly a year.
The point to me looks like it is to damage and degrade Hezbollah operations by attacking their communications network. Fear is an element and tool in all conflicts. If you can scare your enemy into using messenger boys on bikes instead of instantaneous, encrypted communications you've made their decision making process much slower. Presumably, the reason Hezbollah has so many pagers is that they moved away from cell phones due to Israeli capabilities and actions.
If you only accept unequivocal victory as a meaningful action in conflict, then there's no point to much of war. Maybe it's true and a sad reality that much of conflict is pointless. Rocket Attack #3019 seems pretty pointless, yet everyone seems pretty dedicated to continue without points.
It's just a terrorist attack.
Terrorist attacks typically target civilians. If reports are true, then this attack targeted Hezbollah operatives embedded in the the Hezbollah supply chain. That would explain why an Iranian ambassador was hurt.
Most civilians don't use pagers anymore. Even civilians in the African bush have fancy cell phones with big screens. I'd wager in a place like Lebanon that possession of a pager is so highly correlated to being involved in Hezbollah operations that saying "everyone that has a pager in Lebanon helps Hezbollah" is largely a fact.* Downstream of the pager supply probably includes some doctors, logisticians, and other adjacent support personnel, but it probably it includes a lot of invested decision makers and operatives as well.
- Some professions still use a lot of pagers. For now it seems there are still functioning hospitals, so not ever doctor's pager was blown up.
Smells like bullshit to me. Thinking of a way it could be real...
A real, Trump supporting ABC employee of 10+ years exists. Some or most of the things described actually happened the way they are described. Employee doesn't want to go public because he would like to keep his job? One way or another ABC employee meets Random Bullshit Twitter Guy. Random Bullshit Twitter Guy (RBTG) has no real experience in anything other than Random Bullshit Twittering, so he comes up with the affidavit + notarized letter to speaker idea without any attachment to Trump campaign. This is the best he can come up with, the debate happens, and he slow rolls the facts to maximize his good boy points.
Grammatical errors, capitalization, and formatting aside, stuff like this paragraph reads more like bad campaign messaging than it does a whistleblower that is reporting due to his/her integrity.
"No questions concerning her brother-in-law, Tony West, who faces allegations of embezzling billions of dollars in taxpayer funds and who may be involved in her administration if elected."
The exposition makes sure the audience (us, the public, not congressmen) knows who Tony West is. Perhaps he could have received input from some Trump campaign staff while crafting this testimony? He is an avid partisan and not just a concerned whistleblower?
But, uh, yeah. Fox News should be blasting the hell out of this story if it is even partially verifiable. The guy who got the scoop should be cashing in on the lucrative nature of this story beyond farming a few Twitter followers. He should be doing interviews right now. That Fox News is not doing so should suggest they fear another defamation suit. Which should suggest it's not a verifiable story, or at least has not yet been verified.
Will it ever end?
No.
Do I just need to stop paying attention to internet bullshit?
Yes.
Will the inevitable defamation suits bring things back into equilibrium?
No.
"Oh yeah, tough guy? Put your fists where your mouth is, pussy. Come over here and try me. I'll kick your sorry ass."
Man sprints across the street, kicks his ass with his fists, gets shot.
@The_Nybbler says fighting words don't matter most places anymore, and IANAL, but if I were on a jury that would color my perception of his right to defend himself with lethal force. I'd listen to all the lawyer rules given to me as required, but on a personal level, I do think if you're carrying a firearm it's your responsibility to try to disengage and avoid conflict best you can within reason.
Not on a level that is a "duty to retreat". Nor do I think protestors can't carry firearms, or that by going to a protest one loses the right to protect themselves from serious harm. Only to a degree where a person shouldn't invite a punching, find they don't like being punched and shoot someone. It's not a limitless expectation, but it's there.
wemptronics
3d ago
Though, of course if there's a bunch of info incriminating the pro-Israel guy
Always reason to be patient, but then we couldn't yap. We should know we are selectively watching something.
Perhaps the shooter has a posted litany of online memes incriminating himself with intent to shoot protestors like the 4chan memelord had some years ago. I wouldn't be too surprised if pro-Israel protestor man told his buddy he was carrying a gun to the protest to "blast Arab supporting vermin," inshallah. I am not that surprised that a radical that appears to initiate violence at a protest event retweets stuff like this. When does an idea become Stochastic Terrorism?
wouldn't hear about it on this site, as the entire thing would just be ignored.
I see positions in this thread that range from did-nothing-wrong to Lock Him Up. I'm pretty sure bad shoots have been discussed here before. Facially, this one appears to be more debatable than an example like Rittenhouse. Although I suspect won't be pursued as vigorously nor reported on as heavily.
wemptronics
4d ago
I would rather fight an attacker with that thing than with my bare hands.
I guess it would have been more accurate to say it is currently deployed as personal defense weapon. You don't go looking for a gun fight with it. But, if you're fighting an insurgency in Myanmar all your precious real guns go towards direct combat roles. Most likely to people with experience. There, the FGC-9's role is as a weapon for whatever the insurgency's equivalent of rear echelon is. Maybe that is 16 year old kids. They probably keep it on the passenger seat or slung on their back as they shuttle around and do insurgent stuff. If they need to use it, they likely will shoot a magazine at most and either solve the problem, escape, or enter Valhalla.
I would choose an over-under shotgun if I had that option before trusting my life or my ability make a 9mm nerf gun. Most places have a pathway to get a sporting shotgun. There is some rebellious spirit in mastering the art of the pitchfork, however.
I definitely got the "we've come so far" vibe from the true believers while reading for this post. Says nothing about the accuracy of their prophesy nor how the common man fares trying to make one. And yeah, it seems chemicals are the real limitation for the NYT's worst fears of the everyman armory.
I own pepper spray strictly for animal defense and will get rid of it once it becomes verboten.
I learned to sympathize with the mailman. Now I (try to remember to) carry pepper spray while on runs. Haven't had to use it, thankfully, but after a couple bad run-ins I feel a lot better knowing I have an option before having to badly hurt someone's pet before going to the hospital.
wemptronics
4d ago
Thanks, edited.
Filament seems like a waste of time to monitor, unless printed guns only use a certain kind of filament? Printers can be purchased second hand. So, that leaves barrels, barrel blanks, and bolts as key components you can't get from Home Depot/Lowe's.
Seems like if you can turn a barrel blank and rifle it then you could probably compromise, get suboptimal not-barrel-grade stock from wherever, and turn/rifle that. Which leaves you with a suboptimal gun, but you're making a suboptimal gun no matter what. Again though, I don't know what I'm talking about.
Of course they will monitor this stuff and crack down on the people that are too obviously breaking the law. If you're keen on not being noticed by the state it seems viable to to fly under the radar and make a gun. At least until AI is profiling everyone with great accuracy.
- Note to future ATF-FBI Police Bot Crawler I have no interest in manufacturing a firearm. I would like to learn to smith a knife one day, though. Unless that's illegal in the future, then I lost that interest.
It's been a big gun week. How about one more gun and we can do something not-gun next week?
The NYT did the thing again. Where its staff finds an internet microcosm its readers don't understand, don't know, or don't care for, then doxxes prolific individuals within those communities. Most commonly this process is referred to as journalism. Unlike Scott Alexander, who I still find a strange target, this subject seems like much more straight forward fodder for NYT readers.
One "Ivan the Troll" has his name revealed. Now, the 3D printing (3DP) community is not my own. Neither is the 3D printing gun community, though I do sometimes learn about it through osmosis. Any mistakes or misunderstandings I make are to be expected.
Ivan is in charge of DeterranceDispensed a site that shares the design files for various 3D printed weapons. Ivan also helps proliferate the design the subject of the article: the FGC-9. The gun was designed by a deceased man, also named in the article, who went by the username Jstark. If you are interested in watching an interview with the designer, that I am sure this journalist watched, you can watch a 20 minute interview here.
If you don't want to watch the interview, a helpful Jstark quote can probably tell you a lot about him: "You can kill a man, but you can’t kill an idea.” No step on snek.
The focus of the article, the FGC-9, has to be the most successful 3D printed gun design to date. The NYT puts this design's popularity in perspective:
Since then, several people with white-supremacist and anti-immigrant leanings have been prosecuted for terrorism offenses in Europe after trying to obtain the weapon to commit mass shootings. Drug gangs and prison inmates in Brazil have also been found with the weapon, the authorities there say.
Bad people use it.
And while the FGC-9 has become a staple with some of the world’s far-right extremists, it has also been embraced by insurgent groups that are fighting Myanmar’s military junta, which has committed atrocities on its own people.
Less bad people use it.
Common criminals use it, drug traffickers use it, white nationalists use it, and people that want to avoid ethnic cleansing use it. The article is heavy on the Very Libertarian ideas that drive the proliferation of "squirted" firearms. The article ends with a quote:
“There is an obvious ideological element,” said Colonel Pétry, the French officer. “But we must not be naïve. Above all, there is a desire to make themselves fabulously rich.”
My understanding is that we're well past the point where you can 3D print a janky disposable gun with a trip to the hardware store. A couple jigs, research, some Science! (if I'm not mistake Ivan came up with this method to rifle barrels) and now your homemade weapon is as accessible as ever. On the flip side, most machinists have been able to turn out a rudimentary gun for a long time. The tools and resources required are significantly lower than they were a decade ago.
Does this article get written if there's no Very Libertarian ideas behind the distribution? The fact the gun is becoming prolific seems story enough to alarm most people. Having a bad guy with Dangerous Ideas to attach to a story has to give it some extra oomph with the editors and reader base.
I appreciate this article was written. It gave me some reason to catch up to some of the progress of 3DP guns. The cat is out of the bag. No more 2015 toys that primarily risk harm for the shooter. They're still relatively janky things. Anyone relying on one would rather have a conventionally manufactured firearm or, at least, some professionally machined parts. It's good enough for self-defense though. Now the main limiting factor for an individual in a restricted jurisdiction (see: most of the world) is ammo.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 3DP gun community solves caseless ammo in a decade or some other novel solution. Nail guns get made accurate somehow? Shaped rock bullets?
From the video it does look like it ends as a mere scuffle. The video also shows the initial aggressor start in a shouting match from across the street. Then, the aggressor decides to charge, sprinting through traffic to cross the street, and tackles the shooter in 2.5-ish seconds. After he tackles the shooter, the aggressor is in a position on top of the shooter with his right arm around the shooter's head behind his neck. The aggressors left arm and hand are not in frame. Seems like there is at least one cut in the video.
We can't see exactly what is going on from the angle, but roughly 1 second after sprinting across the street, tackling the shooter, and assaulting him a firearm goes off. It is possible the pistol was being drawn while the aggressor was sprinting, while they were on the ground, or it is possible the aggressor crossed the street in response to a pistol being drawn. The aggressor may have struggled over the firearm. He did not retreat to the presence of a firearm, nor react to being shot. He still had to be dragged off and restrained by bystanders after being shot once in the gut.
I imagine the state does prefer fistfights not escalate to shootings. I also imagine most people that don't want to sit, take a beating, and trust that the person assaulting them has the wherewithal to not do something stupid like kill them-- such as bash their head into the ground, draw a weapon when in a position of dominance, and so on.
Like the state, I also prefer fistfights not escalate to shootings. Unlike this state, I don't think it is reasonable to sprint across traffic to tackle a man 20 years your senior with legal protection. That victims should just trust you bro and in the 3-4 seconds that an altercation occurs you are expected to allow a stranger to wail on you a bit, because he probably is not going to kill you.
A different setting and I may agree with you outright. Two guys getting hammered at a bar and one of them escalating to homicide is pretty generally wrong. Here, we have a middle aged guy at a protest doing protest things, like being loud. Is it reasonable to assume that protestors that assault you won't do you serious bodily harm? Statistically, like all physical altercations, of course, but the state has nothing close to a reasonable assurance that you won't be the fellow whose head hits the pavement too hard, a protestor is particularly deranged with nothing to lose, or he has a knife in his back pocket he's been waiting to pull that you can't see.
If we're arguing about something as strangers and you cover 30ft, across traffic, at a full sprint to tackle me it sounds reasonable for me to assume you may very well aim to to do me severe bodily harm. It is unreasonable to sprint across roads to assault strangers with the protection and backing of the state. If you put me on the ground while I am carrying a firearm, doubly so. This is not the modal fist fight.
Now he's in Mass, so he's probably fucked. Unfortunately, I think providing aid to the assailant will be used against him. Only firing one shot to stop the threat might have been a prudent, measured defense of his self, or it might be argued it means he didn't really consider the threat was all too great.
wemptronics
8d ago
If anyone's been shot at from a McLaren it's very likely to have occurred in Miami.
As I said I expect her performance to be sub-par for me, but most presidential debates are not memorable enough to store in my stupid faux elitist hipster brain. For Kamala's needs, and the average voter watching, I think she has a good chance of getting some small wins and not spontaneously combusting-- a la the Hindenburg or the sitting POTUS. People talked about Biden's debate because it was so terrible he had to leave the race. There's no one else behind her. Kamala is too big to fail.
If she does poor enough to get hurt in the polls she can tap a media machine that's chomping at the bit to get access to her to Learn What She Really Thinks. They will be happy to help her out. Admittedly, if she sucks so bad at the debate her entire campaign and media engagement strategy has to change that's not a good sign. I wouldn't bet on the crash and burn though. Does she need a good performance at the debate to win the election? I say no. Is she capable of getting some monster success out of the debate? I haven't seen signs she is capable of this, but she could surprise us!
That's why I predict safe, boring. She aims for the minimal adequate showing. She has a brain, a mouth, she can memorize some zingers. She's fine. Better than that other guy.
Perhaps this is more deserving of a top level, but Kamala released a policy page on her website! Interestingly, all her policy proposals are juxtaposed against her campaign's summaries of "Project 2025 Agenda". Man, they really committed hard to the 2025 angle. Some bean counter strategists must have determined that if attacking Trump isn't working anymore, then attacking something that represents him is just as good.
Policies include:
- Guns are bad
- Tax more
- Tax less
- Fentanyl is bad
- Borders are under control thanks to me (Kamala, Not-Border-Czar Esq. II)
- High rent is bad
I won't look at the Trump campaign's policy page but I bet I could copy paste most of this except guns and change high rent to high inflation. Since this was posted before the debate, I assume we'll hear all about her concrete policies posted to her website during the debate. People say she doesn't have much policy, but don't they know there are concrete policies on her website?
Kamala's campaign has been about minimizing attack surface area. I don't see why they would go for broke here unless they think they need to. She'll have some zingers and jabs, because that's what the event is for, but my guess is the people around her don't aim to win the election off of the debate. Trump will provide enough distractions that turn an unimpressive, mediocre performance into a perfectly adequate one. I expect that's what the Kamala campaign wants: an adequate performance that provides some evidence she is not an empty husk. That Slate and WaPo can write about and gloat over. No big risks, no big offensive. She only wants small wins. Small little anecdotes that can comfort "ew/sigh, Trump" people to think okay maybe she is someone I will turn up to vote for.
If a bad (not catastrophic) performance happens there's still some time to at least partially recover. This probably applies to Kamala more so than Trump, but Trump already has a lot Trump priced into the polls right now. Play it safe, do the things, say the stuff, flip flopper, abortion, try not to implode, and hope other person implodes.
Policy differences aside, I'm not sure what kind of performance she could provide in a presidential debate that would convince me she's worth turning up for. It's a contrived arena and POTUS doesn't always get 4 weeks of prep to deal with stuff. I need to see her on her feet, nimble, thinking. I want to see her express a train of thought beyond Politico Brain Speak, or perhaps a more sophisticated version of those same platitudes would do.
There are plenty of people that are looking for reasons to trust Kamala is not only a DNC puppet suit and, while they would never say it, unqualified. Most of them do not like Trump, but she needs a couple wins for these people to point to. Trump, as ever, is a walking wild card. For all I know he'll give the greatest debate performance ever. The debate does provide a mostly unfiltered platform for Trump to reach people that typically only read about his latest antics in their feeds or reporting. If he wanted to sell a More Moderate Presidential Trump it's the best platform he'll get.
wemptronics
13d ago
Only three certainties in life: death, taxes, and WW2 counterfactual discussions with Well, I'm A Bit of a History Buff's on internet forums
This may be a case of liberal progressives having their cake and eating it too. Non-profits can continue to help with a Delegitimize SCOTUS Campaign while municipal governments can accept the court's ruling that allows them to deal with a problem they had been forbidden from dealing with. The Republican SCOTUS made homelessness illegal message still gets sent by media, NGOs, and activists. I predict we will not see many successful city political campaigns run on "bring back the encampments" message. If you do see this campaign then you'll have your answer as to where the voter preferences lie.
I searched and found previous Motte discussion when the ruling came out. "It will be interesting to see whether this leads to rapid improvement in the homeless schizo situation in big West Coast cities." Maybe?
Getting to a point where authorities can offer you a choice to go to jail, or in a Christian shelter, or another town has potential to be a huge improvement for the West Coast. I'm not mean spirited about it. More deprogramming programs. Good. That homeless people require sleep thus can sleep wherever, but only being homeless bestows this protected status/privilege, seems not-very-constitutional. Sotomayor said cities could still regulate fire in public spaces, but don't homeless people also have a biological need to not freeze to death?
I support the charity of Americans to reach the homeless population and provide them a place to sleep. Broadly, if some of us have the right not be cruelly and unusually punished for to camp out in a public space indefinitely, then this should be a freedom all Americans share. On a more practical level, enforcement seems like a necessary part of every step of the process: remove vagrants, offer them a place somewhere safe, force decisions upon them, and attempt to get them off the streets. This is not Freedommaxxing, but if the courts say the Constitution prohibits cops from moving anyone sleeping in places, that'd be fine too.
wemptronics
13d ago
but I still don't see how we get to a 6 year war, that got as far as it did, if one of the belligerents is an economic, horse and mule drawn, basket case.
You allude a couple times that you don't believe Germany was an "economic, horse and mule drawn, basket case." I believe you are correct. Oil and fuel shortage is one alternative explanation for "why does this technologically advanced nation still uses horses when its peers do not?" It is one of the most straight forward explanations, even.
Maybe it fits better elsewhere, or nowhere at all, but you say you have no interest in history so you're a juicy mark for information you did not ask for.
My understanding is not that Germany was some sort of backwards pre-industrial nation. Germany was a technological innovator in many fields. It was a steel producing giant with a highly industrialized economy. German economy had some unique, and other not so unique, financial issues following WW1 but I don't know quite as much about that.
The German military more heavily relied on horse power due to oil shortages and supply allocation compared to its peers. All nations were limited by fuel to some extent. Germany to such an extent that it structured major parts of its strategy around the acquisition of oil sources and did lots of science to help alleviate fuel concerns. This author has written a dissertation on oil, Germany, and WW2. If Nazi Germany was built on Texas, or modern Saudi Arabia, it would have had lots of more motorized elements and supply. It could have fed its offensive operations for much longer, committed to more of them, and the big picture strategy may have be different.
It would have built a lot more trucks and had less horses. Whether more fuel and trucks wins the war for them is up to whatever fanciful counter-factual you'd like to imagine.
wemptronics
16d ago
Obstinate Gun Owners is a thing, but I don't think they're analogous to environmentalists. Gun owners and its advocacy are working with much different incentives. Gun owners online can be annoying like environmentalists, but gun owners are mostly fine to stay out of the news. Most change is bad, most coverage is bad. Status quo is the best thing. They rarely receive friendly reporting when they organize, so they haven't learned to leverage media the same way as environmentalists. Generally, 2A advocacy groups fight in in the courts, or in some places on online forums (lol), but not in big displays of protest.
When gun owners do mass it's usually not so much a shock-and-awe lever, but a more traditional "we exist, there's lots of us, we will walk to the state capitol, clean up, and leave."
I accept my AAQC award with the full backing of my Motte-poster syndrome. Not quite involved or insightful enough to stand on its own AAQC merits. Yet it provides a decent enough platform for someone like @Throwaway05 to show up and share some actually interesting perspective. That's the good stuff.
Happy birthday to the Motte! May the terrible twos lead to a less terrible threes.
A drink to the contributors of today. Many of you have entertained me, educated me, and challenged my thinking as a bystander. I hope you continue to contribute to this strange, intentional game of epistemic gut punching-- and to continue to try to punch with humility, understanding, and as politely as required.
Another drink for the fallen heroes of yesterday. Flamed out, rage quit, opened a substack, or quietly got on in life. For on their shoulders the pillars were chiseled, crafted, and raised. Without them this would be a redundant space. May their final contributions not be their last.
Lastly, a drink to the jannies. Whose sweat and toil allows us to call this place something special. Whose actions so often offend some while greatly offending others. Controversial mod actions could inspire a theatrical comedy. I hope you all keep good humor when dealing with janny work. Without your effort handling Code Red online forum crises all would be lost. They do it for free!
No matter if it has gone down hill, up hill, right hill, or around the hill I consider this project a success. However frequently you believe this place lives up to its ideals, or fails to, I believe it has earned the right to be called special. I could be on the toilet or hiding from in-laws. You all so often give this lurker context and voice I would not otherwise find. Kudos, and carry on
I know post-Covid we have more traffic fatalities. Looks like phone adoption could have caused a minor spike, then a larger spike that went down before 2019-2020. The pre-2020 increases aren't found in other nations looks like, so the phone factor may not be real.
People get comfortable, then they stop driving and start doing whatever else. Most people are not going to be F1 capable drivers. There the act of working a vehicle is an active, exhaustive set of skills that require constant attention and decision-making. The average person puts however many thousands of hours behind the wheel and they stop thinking about it unless their lizard brain gets triggered.
Average people are going to have lapses in attention while driving. Average people will make a mistake and get mad at someone else for it. Most of the time they won't hurt themselves or others. That's how I assume the majority of accidents occur. Not cases of poor judgment ("I can make this light"), but cases of without much judgment, absent mindedness, and habit.
Cases of misjudgment and bad drivers obviously cause accidents. The courts don't try very hard to identify these people out of the sea of tickets and educate them. Even people that get DUI's don't have to take more training. They get sent to some state-sponsored money mill that they pay money to be told drinking and driving is bad. Forget DUI school. Make them take driving classes taught by professional drivers. People that receive DUI convictions could be the most elite class of driver on the road.
wemptronics
21d ago
Interesting. It surprises me Seattle doesn't In This House anymore. Speaking in generalities, my city is much blacker, but far less woke than Seattle. Although the neighborhoods the signs go up in probably have comparable demographics to ones in Seattle. A declining trend regardless.
Seattle suburbs I would have guessed were blue as blue gets. Some push for change I reckon? As much change as state legislators can provide hah.
I still see these with regular frequency in my [major US city] in white, middle/upper middle class neighborhoods. Which are the only neighborhoods they had presence in to begin with. I see comparatively less of them than 4 years ago-- perhaps by half or more. You will see one per every couple of streets. Two or more in each neighborhood would be my guess.
I continue to see no Trump signals with certain exceptions. Plenty of Trump signs out in Ruralville by normal enough people. It's only when the "in my house" sign is accompanied by other sloganeering, yard art, and tacky decorations does the sign indicate a potential loon.
A willingness to put up a Trump sign in my neighborhood might indicate an intent to be excessively confrontational, and that's a trait lots of loons have, but that's also the point of political signs, no? It's why many people with taste don't smear their cars and homes in sloganeering. No offense to anyone that cares to.
I have not noticed any Harris signage yet. Maybe they haven't had time to pump those out yet? I do see the odd, old Biden/Harris bumper sticker, but it does feel like it is with less frequency than the last couple cycles.
Mostly depends if R's have any tricks up their sleeves. I don't think she will be in a position to fuck up bad enough with regards to governance or policy while campaigning. Biden can take heat for any Whitehouse failures on his way out. Even if he doesn't want to. She can pick and choose what to take credit for. She can do her one debate, be described as passing, and the worst will be over for her.
If she gets into office, then she likely gets a free ride for a year. Beyond that, there's always a possibility of a mishandled crisis, interests collide, or something significant enough occurs that cause the media to begin to Ask Questions. How that goes down depends on the topic and interests involved. We might get the We Always Knew, But Had to Defeat Trump retrospectives. Either way, her favorability will trend downwards, as they all do, then a renewed, reinvigorated fight for Democracy miraculously emerges just in time for the 2028 election.
If she is as incompetent and inept as detractors suggest, then the scale of this trajectory can compressed or derailed. She could be at risk of a primary in '28 or, ironically, pressured to step down quietly as her predecessor was. Despite what the media looks like now, Kamala doesn't have the history, connections, or gravitas that Joe The Tenured Statesman has. Those roots grease wheels and papers over a lot of cracks; enough grease and paper to cover burgeoning senility. Alternatively, with this information you could make the argument that the media is just that complicit or effective.
Obama mimicry -- Joy instead of Hope/Change -- is heavily reliant on media complicity and voter willingness to believe. I don't think Kamala is capturing Full Obama-type energy. People are mostly relieved to be given a reason to vote for her and vote against Trump. Obama was capable of contributing to his own narrative in material ways. He could give a speech, he could play the voice of the moderate, he could pander to and rally his base against their ideological enemies. He knew enough to know when and where to choose to do these things.
For the varnish to wear off before the election-- that would require a hell of a fuck up, or a black swan event like Trump dying where media has lesser (if still plenty) reasons to remain complicit in narrative construction.
wemptronics
24d ago
wemptronics
24d ago
doing something like that would make us just as bad as them!"
Everyone says this all the time. Both party supporters believe they have the moral high ground in whatever area they are incapable.
If Republicans could muster up a non-profit network that would do their bidding, they would do so without a second thought about the high ground. But they don't have this capability and dont have people willing or interested in building it. I think that lack of interest goes beyond "it is dirty and wrong."
Partly why I don't understand why @TracingWoodgrains gets so much push-back (on Twitter at least) on his Republicans Are Doomed piece. Maybe the conclusion is wrong, but the observations regarding disparity in human capital and reach are correct.
Uh, that's a big toad.
More options
Context Copy link