Forum Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About butterbumps!

  • Rank
    totally cromulent

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    I think it depends on what kinds of sources you're looking at. The newspapers and straightforward articles don't always mention what you bolded beyond what Milo's said about it himself, but it comes up in some opinion and news analysis pieces. And I do think we can expect a long form bio piece on him from one of the leftist mags in the next few months. ETA: @The Anti-Targ I think that's kind of the point being made by the left. And how it's definitely not about "free speech" at all (if it was, then ostensibly there's no bridge too far, right?)
  2. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    Pretty much every source I've read on this acknowledges Milo as a victim. But why would the left (or anyone) focus on that aspect of this beyond simple acknowledgement that some victims try to normalize their abuse (which I've also seen pointed out, and that's the justification he's using himself), especially in the kind of news articles reporting on this? I guess are you looking for like a long form biography piece on Milo that humanizes him, looking at potentially formative events like this, explaining how he became an abusive troll piece of shit or something? I'm sure that will be in the Atlantic next month. I'm sorry, I'm a little unclear how this relates to what I'd written. Milo was specifically discussing 13 year old boys with men mid 20's and older. I'm not questioning why anyone, right or left, would be against sex with kids and teens. I was pointing out that the left has been expressing disgust that it took something like advocating sex with 13 year olds to stop the right from giving him a hate-speech platform.
  3. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    I wasn't aware that the left was being overly harsh about the pedophilia revelations specifically, but rather it has been expressing disgust that this is what crossed the line for the conservatives who were more than happy to help him spread his non-child sex abuse hate speech. It's the right that's shut him out over this. How do you think the left should be reacting? This is a case where he's both victim and victimizer. I guess I'm just unclear as to what you believe an appropriately sympathetic response from the left would be about this, especially because you agree that we have to take a hard line on his statements, which is what's generally happening.
  4. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    Well, for instance, BLM isn't really about economic injustice. I'm not sure that issues like the disproportionate targeting (and killing) of black people by cops is something that socialism addresses. But isn't the assumption of the need for anti-discrimination laws already acknowledging that the solution can't simply be economic? I'm not sure if you were thinking of AA as included in that assumption, but if not, would socialism correct for disproportionate favoritism of whites in hiring and salary? Beyond that, I'm not sure that the discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community is economic in that way; does socialism deter people from refusing service to this community (or deter the disproportionate violence committed against them)?
  5. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    I think the mistake you're making is in assuming that without things like AA, the world works as a meritocracy. That's not the way it works, though. It's far from a meritocracy, and that's exactly the problem. Even with identical or nearly identical qualifications, the wrong gender, or race, or other identity factor makes it far less likely one will get the job (not to mention the same pay). And it doesn't "just work out." Everyone doesn't start out at the same starting line. Some start out ahead of it, while others yards behind. The way AA works isn't about punishing the dominant class. It's simply about not giving them automatic preference and priority at the expense of others any longer.
  6. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    I thought he was emphasizing the assertion that this would be saving taxpayers money otherwise being wasted on idle positions. Because if he brought this up to show us that the Trump administration was "draining the swamp" of unnecessary expenses taxpayers finance as a triumph, he must surely be clutching his pearls over the egregious cost to taxpayers that is the personal habits of the first family. The Obamas spent an average of $12.1m per year on family travel. Trump has nearly exceeded that in the first month for his personal weekend travel, which doesn't include the $500,000/ day* cost of guarding Trump Tower (another $15m monthly in federal taxes), all the boondoggle foreign travel his kids choose to do, or the rent he's going to charge the Defense Dept for setting up in his building. I thought by electing a billionaire we were getting a president who'd have no need to fleece taxpayers. Sad! *I thought this was costing NYC $1m daily, per other reports. Does NYC split the cost with federal taxpayers?
  7. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    What part of what you quoted is of special note to you? That he's "shaking things up", and in so doing, saving taxpayers money that was otherwise wasted with giving people "idle roles"? ("They are being shifted now to new assignments," the aide said, noting that currently the employees do not have a principal official to staff. "The difference now is they are actually doing work. We think the American taxpayer will appreciate that.")
  8. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    I think the some people do tend to think that way about Muslims needing to endlessly denounce terrorists. But I want to draw a distinction that I think is important. I don't think we can really draw an analogue between "Trump voters" and "Muslims." Trump voters performed an action (placed a vote for Trump), whereas Muslim denotes a religious affiliation. In the same way we shouldn't put an onus on, say, all white christians to endlessly profess and denounce all the random crimes committed by other white christians (i.e. Quebec mosque shooting, Dylan Roof church shooting, etc) or else assume they are deranged hate filled terrorists, neither should we put an onus on all Muslims to ceaselessly renounce all terrorist acts committed by Muslims or or else assume they're also terrorists/ terrorist sympathizers. However, when one takes the affirmative action of voting for a politician, it is fair to ask whether those individuals support the positions taken by that politician. When a candidate has a whole lot of excesses as part of their package, I think it's fair to assume that those voting for the package are either voting for the excesses, or are comfortable enough with those excesses to cast a vote in favor. That is, unless those voters do something to mitigate the negative externalities of that vote (i.e. protest in some way the parts of the package they believe are wrong or misguided). But more to the other point I was making, it's been repeatedly suggested by Altherion that Trump voters are just people hoping for a better life, not really interested in the bigotry part of the package. If that's true-- Trump supporters aren't bigots or bigot sympathizers-- and if it's also true that Trump only plays to his base, then it would suggest that he's singing the wrong song. If they truly aren't invested in his bigotry, then they ought to let him know so that he stops "performing" for a bigoted audience.
  9. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    This is in reference to my post, I assume. You should read to the end. I will requote for you, with special attention to the bolded:
  10. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    @Altherion Just to get on the same page, what aspects of neo-liberalism are you referring to? I get that this is the perception people have-- that things will be worse for their future generations if the Obama/ Clinton* state of being were continued. Is this a vision you also share, or are you just pointing that out as an explanation for why they seem desperate enough to vote for a charlatan like Trump? *I saw from another post that you seem to believe it wasn't so much Clinton's policies that would be ineffective or inimical to the middle class, but rather that a Republican Congress would be the enemy of implementing otherwise good policy. If Republicans are the problem, then doesn't it make utterly less sense to vote in a repub executive branch to award them a monopoly? Did you assume that Trump would spend time forming populist policy himself without heed to the republican agenda, would appoint left-wing/ populists/ socialists to his cabinet, would totally control a republican Congress to bend to his populist will? These people still do see terms like "bigot" or "sexist" or "racist" as bad. One problem is that they refuse to accept those things when they see it; people don't want to admit a bigotry exists unless the perpetrator is, for instance, wearing a white hood. Another issue seems to be that a lot of white people are mistaking rising equality of other groups for "reverse discrimination." I don't think a lot of people truly acknowledge or understand just how much their white identity enabled a kind of social dominance for ages. So they misinterpret any loss of that dominance for discrimination. Trump is the first politician in a long while who came in and played to their fragile white identity, promising them that they wouldn't "be discriminated against anymore," assuring them that they could get away with saying whatever potentially hurtful thing to other identity groups just like in the good old days, reinforcing the mistaken belief that rising equality means subjugating white people. He took their racial (and gender/ religious/ sexual) anxieties, said they were being treated like second class citizens now, but that with him in power, they'd be "equal" again. Of course this is nonsense. He essentially promised to make all these other historically discriminated against groups second class citizens again. Do you genuinely not see why that is deserving of moral condemnation? I'm not sure how much forbearance his supporters deserve regardless of which part of the overall package they claim to be supporting in light of the egregious excesses he brings-- specifically in terms of bigotry. My point was that if a Trump supporter doesn't want to be seen as a bigot, a bigotry enabler, or a questionable person by the big bad judgmental left, then the onus is on them to do something to mitigate the negative externalities that come with the Trump package first. These people who claim to not have voted for bigoted reasons, who chafe at being thought of as bigotry enablers, should be calling their MoCs, donating to rights causes, or protesting with the left on these matters. If his base truly does reject the bigotry he spun-- which you seem to keep trying to suggest by implying that his base is primarily voting for "hope and change"-- then they need to let him know. As you pointed out upthread, he only plays to his base. So if his base is actually filled with all these good people who only want a little something better for themselves, then they should prove it, work to show Trump they reject those parts of his snakeoil, and ostensibly his message should change, right?
  11. US Politics: Opening Pandora's Box

    what post is this in reference to?
  12. US Politics: Opening Pandora's Box

    I get that you phrase it this way to make it sound more benign. But "hope and change" had a whole lot to do with a bunch of white people who wanted to go back to regressive social formats that kept them artificially on top. Racial anxiety keeps coming up in study after study as the best predictor of a Trump vote. I get that you like to focus on the segment of Trump voters who are economically impacted by globalization (a much smaller number than you've argued, but let's leave that for now), who are just so desperate and hopeless that they were willing to buy the mind numbingly stupid miracle cures sold by a charlatan. But the majority of Trump voters are not of that particular segment of people. The majority of Trump voters are economically not-destitute (mostly) white people who were either actively inspired by some sort of bigotry, or found the bigotry an acceptable part of the overall snakeoil package. I don't know how much forbearance Trump voters deserve on the principle that we should respect each other's choices. Their "choice" was not only stupid, but actively harmful to vast portions of their fellow citizens. However, I feel differently toward a Trump voter who is willing to take ownership of the fact that they voted for bigotry and dangerous incompetence (if not their particular motivation), and does something to mitigate the clearly egregious excesses that are obvious parts of the package they voted for, but claim not to support.
  13. U.S. Politics: Courting Trump

    I think that's generally true,but I thought altherion was for the populist elements. Though it looked like he included the judiciary in with "the establishment" (as opposed to a fundamental part of "the nation") for some reason. I definitely don't think trump is anti establishment despite how he tries to brand himself as such. The things he's against tend to be things like democratic norms, checks on his power, fundamental institutions and so forth.
  14. U.S. Politics: Courting Trump

    What about his multiple failures to promise he'd accept the election results if he lost? What about his remarkable insistence that he actually won the popular by a landslide? What about his incessant proclamations of voter fraud? He might not be successful at it, but I couldn't say I'm super confident he wouldn't try to pull some ridiculous stunt in the event he lost. How are you defining "establishment" vs "nation"? He, and his administration, is pretty hostile to very large segments of the population, is working against the economic interests of pretty much everyone except "the elites," appears to be unable to separate "good for me" and "good for country," flagrantly abuses his position for personal gain, doesn't seem to read the EOs put in front of him, refuses security briefings, and needlessly compromises relations with foreign allies. That, plus the issues Manhole mentioned (specifically undermining the judiciary branch), strikes me as kind of a hostile danger to the country.

    So what are these people who voted against the status quo doing to guide the principles they voted for? I mean, I get that they voted for a particular issue that was part of the "Trump package." But the "Trump Package" is super heavy on bigotry and compromised rights for groups of people, as well as prodigious excesses of the highly corrupt Trump family, among other minor issues like gross incompetence, unpreparedness and unsatisfactory temperament. So if these unsavory aspects of the "Trump package" are not what they voted for, and they believe themselves to be good people who just wanted change, what are they doing to try to curtail the excesses they apparently want no part of? Where are their voices? I get that we shouldn't lob calls of "racist" indiscriminately at Trump voters (or write them off as "bad people"), but here's the thing: voting for Trump was a really bad thing! The "Trump Package" contains a lot of negative externalities, and even if one voted for one of the innocuous reasons, they had to have a certain degree of comfort with the ridiculously problematic excesses that are part of the overall package. I kind of think these "good Trump voters" have a bit of a debt here, some externalities they should work to mitigate if they resent being seen as bad people.