Larry of the Lake

Who cares? Why cater to a bogus hypothetical?

Huh, sounds like the debt tripling hasn't done any damage. And the rate of increase has slacked off. Since 2000 doubled after 7 years, then 8, years or so, then only a 50% increase over the next 7.

Alright help me out, where are the goalposts going next? Do you seriously think that the national debt increasing is what drives inequality?

So has the size of the economy. It's not like all the creditors can or will just demand their money all at one time.

The deficit and the debt are two different things, and constant deficit spending does not mean that debts arent being paid.

What's unreasonable and ridiculous is thinking that constant deficit spending means things aren't ever being paid for.

I'd bet good money there are at least a couple of anti-fascists among us. What brave souls would dare reveal themselves?

Please join us this time next week for Lefty Infighting Part Deux: Uncensored (mostly)and Unblinkered

Whoa cool!

Nvm Eta: I've always wondered about that too, what the reaction would be to self-medicating

Winning elections Eta: And fundraising

I'm sure that's part of it. Let me try another way of putting it- I don't think there is actually that much support within elected Democrats for reducing incarceration rates. Or at least they don't seem very committed to bail reform, or asking prosecutors to share evidence against a defendant in a timely manner, or reducing plea bargaining. Or reducing police funding or the number of police on the streets. I think a lot of Democratic voters support these things (and I know that many do not support them as well) but I think the party has very little commitment or interest in these issues if they get any negative press whatsoever, even if it's just regurgitated corporate concerns and uncritically repeated without examination quotes from police departments.

Re: criminal justice reform: The San Francisco DA recall was led by Democrats to remove Boudin, no? Who were taking advantage of corporate victimhood and pandemic related crime to get rid of someone actually trying to reform things? Not sure what lesson is to be learned here other than that a large portion of the Democratic party doesn't want reform or is incredibly reluctant to change the status quo, even when the status quo sucks. Maybe part of the issue is that the real "lefty infighting" is actually a disagreement on policy and not merely strategy or aesthetics. A good number of Dems are invested in the status quo. I guess my point is that I think pointing to the failure of a progressive DA in San Francisco as an example here is a bad fit. It failed because Dems either freaked out that the reforms were too unpopular or they were too invested in the way things were before Boudin. The lesson I take from this is that a lot of Dems don't have the same goals, are not particularly bothered by our criminal justice system, and are not going to be allies in any kind of meaningful structural reform.

Neil Patrick Harris just confirmed as the first Eastern Hemisphere AI, created mostly from the work of an Indonesian grad student but patented by NBC thanks to their Party Ownership; apparently IBM and Apple have two independently-germed constructions (went to different schools together) trying to recycle flatulence at Pacific floor conditions. It's a Bigfoot vs Dracula-Squid showdown and the losers are all of us except the re-animated hive-mind managed homonculous of Honest Abe. He's got a packed schedule of Amazon union-busting activities but you can suck him off for a $8.99 a month donation to Fellatio for Freedom.

Ok but what do you call an actor playing a political actor who was actually an actor, too, like some one playing Reagan in a movie? Check fucking mate.

Ty at In-and-Out for the first time: Ty: This menu amirite? Cashier: Yeah, it's crazy. Ty: give me three double doubles insane-o mode, my friend Cashier: uhh Ty: muppet madness style *cough cough* like the tazmanian devil Cashier: are you... Ty: the one that plays the fucking drums *wink* Cashier: there's no need to curse at me, sir Ty: I'm not talking vegetable or mineral my friend Cashier: first time huh Ty: Roger that, amigo. And blazed out of my skull

In a lot of areas there are already informal screening processes and attitudes (and probably formal ones as well) that are going to remove candidates from consideration who fail to toe the ideological blue line.

this is ground control to major ron you've really banned the word gay and the papers want to know what boots you we-ear And it's time to laugh like normal if you dare

Sounds like you can easily game the system, just show up with a sack full of the heads of some local landlords and a can of Barkeeper's friend to be ready to polish your debate trophy

My gf is having her children taken away from by the state because the podunk family court judge is uncritically swallowing the father of her children's story hook, line, and sinker despite plenty of evidence that she's telling the truth about him abusing her two children. He flipped it around and said she's trying to defame and ruin him. It's working. It sucks having claims not examined critically and thoroughly before forming a conclusion, but out of all the things under the umbrella of #believewomen, I can't really bring myself to care that much about people being unreasonable in a social setting when I'm seeing the legal system first-hand not only dismiss without consideration someone's claims of child abuse, but turn around and say that reporting abuse which doesn't result in a conviction is abuse itself. I get that this is pretty much whataboutism or someone responding to you with "well, there are bigger problems," but that's just where I'm at personally.

Well at least this got @sologdin and @Nas! out of protective custody

Just for perspective, I've exchanged much more vitriolic, aggressive, and ad hominem words with Kal, DMC, TY, Week , etc. I'm not advocating or excusing bombastic language (even when it's correct) but a thick skin and a charitable interpretation of others words can be a charming combination in discussions like this. There's an art to being an asshole. More to your point about people acting as if discomfort is actual violence, well that's a problem where the complaining about it is louder and more prevalent than the practice. It also might be helpful to think of stuff like that as a spectrum - there IS a point at which language and speech blurs into violence or at least inciting violence. People are going to have different ideas of where that line lies. I'm not trying to "gaslight" you by claiming you can't find people making hyperbolic arguments. Of ourse they're out there. But in lieu of an attractive alternative method of communicating they are unlikely to change simply by being ostracized or berrated or policed for tone. Provide an alternative method of criticism or speaking or tackling issues that doesn't turn their stomachs and maybe you can persuade them.

With Wodehouse I think you do the immersion technique and just start them off with Code of the Woosters or Joy in the Morning.

I think describing a specific behavior or action you dislike is going to be more effective than making it about the identity or ideology of the person doing it: "I know most BLM activists ( or insert whatever group here) are fine but a couple of the more extreme ones are just as orthodox and tribal as the chumps at the Federalist" Isn't going to be as well received as "I think it's probably a bad idea to dox people or vandalize public property, no matter who is doing it". Again though, I think this is an issue with humans in general, not just lefty internal politics.

The problem with the left is, it's made of people. There are bunch of different factions in the Not Right-wing US that all have their own orthodoxies, reflexive responses, stuff they're defensive about, times when they act tribal or "illiberal". Another issue is trying to play the blame game when most of the "problems" come from the fact that you're dealing with people rather than some Ideal Rational Being. The set of people who vote Dem is a big tent and they don't necessarily share the same goals or policy preferences beyond the common denominator of "definitely not what Republicans are trying to do.". Add on top of that probably 95% of people don't really think about politics that much and just don't care and certainly aren't going to be trying to come up with a coherent strategy. Add on top of that among the people who do care and whose job is studying and caring about shit they are often so siloed off, super-focused on one particular special niche policy issue that you have all these autonomous NGOs, think-tanks, and activist groups with incredible understanding of one thing but much less of a structure organizing all these little parts. But the power structures they're battling tend to be the same big groups (the dictatorship of the shareholder, energy companies, big pharma, the insurance industry, corporations and jobs that depend on the carceral state, the MIC), etc. Maybe the best thing to do about lefty infighting or whatever is to just ignore it?