Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Agema]

Well it's obvious, fascism is like socialism, and we know how socialism works.

This is a line that in ways originates with Hayek. Hayek essentially viewed the world as free or not free, and lumped in fascism along with communism as totalitarianism. Step forward to the 80s, this was a basis for what had become fashionable in the right wing to rebadge fascism as left wing - because any and all bad things come from the left wing, mm'kay. Part of this is attempting to argue that "right wing" means individual freedom (especially in the economic sphere): whilst with a grain of truth in the here and now (because economic freedom is the established socio-economic order), any student of history would know that that this doesn't explain the right wing across the years well at all.

Fascists certainly pursued what was a sort of pragmatic centreist economic policy - and of course necessarily this does create a level of similarity with 30s/40s liberalism, because to a certain extent both were looking at resolving similar problems (increased infrastructure development, reducing poverty, etc.). However, beyond that there's a huge divergence in reasons why. The Nazis were focused around the nation: turning their nation into a powerhouse and keeping the working classes content with their station for stability and social order. Liberals were focused around individuals: the inherent welfare and development of their people, and principles of egalitarianism.

 

[tstorm823]

So it is your contention that no Republicans have made heinous attacks on political opponents, been complete sleazes with women, or incited political violence, then?

No, that is not my contention.

Even if you discount Trump, these characteristics are still more common among Republicans.

Something that really sticks in my craw is how Republicans and US conservatives condemn the Dems for being overly hostile or personal towards them... when the Republicans sling constant shit, day after day, on a far greater level. Essentially: they can dish it out but can't take it.

Those characteristics are not more common among Republicans. Like, look at the gun control debate: the most common piece of rhetoric, by far, used by Democrats is "common sense gun legislation". What is "common sense gun legislation"? Nothing, it's nothing, it has no definition, no recommendations. That phrase is intended to say only one thing: "Republicans have no common sense." I mean, it certainly gets worse than that, there have been "you have blood on your hands" and "we won't let you keep getting away with this" lately, but I bet you've heard "common sense gun laws" a thousand times without processing that they're specifically calling Republicans out for lacking common sense. That's hostile, that's personal.

Like, every time there's a tragedy or disaster, Democrats fingers are immediately pointed at Republicans, who say "stop making this political", which inevitably gets the "we're not making this political, it is political, we need policy for this", but that's not what "stop making this political" means. It's not "we can't talk about policy", it's "stop campaigning on this right now". Imagine a Republican politician crashing a press conference to give updates on a tragedy like Robert Francis O'Rourke did, cause there are like 3 registered Republicans total who would pull a stunt that stupid, and Trump is one of them, where half the Democratic Party is cheering this crap on. To Democrats, everything from a mass shooting to a hurricane is an attack ad for them to exploit. That has been their M.O. since Lyndon Johnson ran for president.

 

[Agema]

No, that is not my contention.

Well in that case, you're just cherry picking data to try to make a point that doesn't in truth exist.

but I bet you've heard "common sense gun laws" a thousand times without processing that they're specifically calling Republicans out for lacking common sense. That's hostile, that's personal.

This whole paragraph is just cherry picking: it's like a bunch of Republicans have sat down in the bar and worked themselves in "And another thing the Democrats do..." lather with precisely zero knowldge, consideration or insight into anything their own party does. Because they make political capital out of tragedies, use language implying personal pejoratives (what do you think the implication of "pro-life" is for abortion supporters?) and carry out all manner of stupid stunts. You just apparently don't notice or think about them because of cognitive bias.

 

[tstorm823]

This whole paragraph is just cherry picking: it's like a bunch of Republicans have sat down in the bar and worked themselves in "And another thing the Democrats do..." lather with precisely zero knowldge, consideration or insight into anything their own party does. Because they make political capital out of tragedies, use language implying personal pejoratives (what do you think the implication of "pro-life" is for abortion supporters?) and carry out all manner of stupid stunts. You just apparently don't notice or think about them because of cognitive bias.

No different than the implication of "pro-choice", and try to pretend you haven't heard "anti-choice" 1000x as often as "anti-life".

If a non-conservative here claimed the Democrats were full of empty rhetoric designed to pit people against one another while doing the same policies as Republicans, you'd agree in a heartbeat. The idea that the parties are both horrible but the Democrats put a coat of paint over it is a meme. I take a slightly inverted perspective on the same thing: both parties try to do the right things (for the most part), but one of the two backed by the media establishment has successfully convinced half the country that the other party is evil. Yes, I know Fox News also exists and does the same thing the opposite direction. That's literally the purpose of Fox News, to act like the Democratic media establishment but for the Republicans. I don't like this, I think a lot of social degradation is happening because of Republicans copying the Democrats tactics, but that's what's going on. Democrats did all the same crap Trump does for 50 years before Trump got into office. I'm not trying to convince you that Trump doing it is acceptable, but suddenly acting like "oh, this behavior is what fascists do, it's very different from the norm" is complete bull.

 

[Agema]

No different than the implication of "pro-choice", and try to pretend you haven't heard "anti-choice" 1000x as often as "anti-life".

So what? You're trying to make the point here that Democrats do stuff the Republicans don't. But it's not remotely true.

If a non-conservative here claimed the Democrats were full of empty rhetoric designed to pit people against one another while doing the same policies as Republicans, you'd agree in a heartbeat.

I don't think I'd object to anyone saying the Democrats are full of empty rhetoric, although it might to some extent depend upon topic and context. The Democrats and Republicans are manifestly not the same in policy overall. They may be very close in areas, further apart in others, and they may also be closer in practice than desire because of the US political system strongly inhibiting non-consensus policies. They are likely to be very similar in tactics and attitude, because they are operating in the same political ecosystem.

Your perception of Fox News as a reaction is quite funny. Fox News was following Rupert Murdoch's tried and tested selling trick of capturing right wing audiences and shifting debate to the right that he had previously pioneered in Australia and the UK. Newspapers were mixed; mainstream TV was reasonably neutral, and even into the cable era, much-maligned CNN was more neutral than not by more objective measures. The existence of a "Democratic media establishment" is the accidental by-product of the creation of this Republican media establishment. The minute the US right created their own privileged space to wage media war, explicitly attacking the bias of everyone else (despite being worse than those they railed against in almost every way), everything else de facto became "Democratic" in viewership and perception, irrespective of actual content.

Your inability to recognise how shitty Republicans have been throughout the years is nothing but your own self-deluding limitation. The best I could say is go fix yourself.

Although - random idea - perhaps the problem partly lies not in the parties, but the populace. Maybe the problem is the Southern USA: the harder anyone drives to win them over and becomes composed of them, the more they suck.

 

[Silvanus]

Those characteristics are not more common among Republicans. Like, look at the gun control debate: the most common piece of rhetoric, by far, used by Democrats is "common sense gun legislation". What is "common sense gun legislation"? Nothing, it's nothing, it has no definition, no recommendations. That phrase is intended to say only one thing: "Republicans have no common sense." I mean, it certainly gets worse than that, there have been "you have blood on your hands" and "we won't let you keep getting away with this" lately, but I bet you've heard "common sense gun laws" a thousand times without processing that they're specifically calling Republicans out for lacking common sense. That's hostile, that's personal.

That is.... absolutely scraping the barrel. So, when Republicans say they support 'family values', they're insinuating Democrats hate families?

Just no. You can't take a positive descriptor that someone uses for themselves and insist they meant that all their opponents are the opposite.

Like, every time there's a tragedy or disaster, Democrats fingers are immediately pointed at Republicans, who say "stop making this political", which inevitably gets the "we're not making this political, it is political, we need policy for this", but that's not what "stop making this political" means. It's not "we can't talk about policy", it's "stop campaigning on this right now". Imagine a Republican politician crashing a press conference to give updates on a tragedy like Robert Francis O'Rourke did, cause there are like 3 registered Republicans total who would pull a stunt that stupid, and Trump is one of them, where half the Democratic Party is cheering this crap on. To Democrats, everything from a mass shooting to a hurricane is an attack ad for them to exploit. That has been their M.O. since Lyndon Johnson ran for president.

This is steaming bullshit. Telling people not to "make it political" in the aftermath of a tragedy is an insipid little whine to prevent anybody addressing what caused the issue.

It's a natural and logical inclination after a tragedy to prevent further tragedy. It is exactly the time to address peoples' concerns, not just to stonewall and retreat back into pointless "thoughts and prayers". The bereaved themselves overwhelmingly want action to prevent recurrence, and "don't make it political" is a roundabout tool to shut them down and prevent that outrage from translating into actual change.

Also: if not now, then fucking when? If nobody can push for legislative change in the aftermath of a mass shooting, that leaves very little opportunity to do it, because America seems to be experiencing a mass shooting every other fucking week.

 

[Schadrach]

The fact that the same people pointing to Amber Heard's relationship history as proof that she is a bad conniving abuser have also decided that Marilyn Manson, who met Wood when she was an underage girl, whose relationship history is basically just a string of abuse allegations, who was bragging about sexually assaulting fans in his autobiography back in the 90s and who talked openly and unashamedly in interview about wanting to smash Wood's head open with a sledgehammer after she broke up with him is somehow being framed because he's friends with Johnny Depp just shows how pathetically little reality actually matters.

I'd be shocked if every allegation against Manson were false. I'll also be shocked if none of them are.

Especially because one in particular should be trivial to prove - Wood appeared in a simulated sex scene in a music video (Heart Shaped Glasses). She has claimed that she is being raped on film in that music video (and has tried to get it taken down from online platforms on that basis). Given there would be a whole cast (the video has a ton of extras) and crew around for that and it was shot in multiple takes over more than one day there should be a mountain of witnesses one way or the other.

 

[Agema]

Especially because one in particular should be trivial to prove - Wood appeared in a simulated sex scene in a music video (Heart Shaped Glasses). She has claimed that she is being raped on film in that music video (and has tried to get it taken down from online platforms on that basis). Given there would be a whole cast (the video has a ton of extras) and crew around for that and it was shot in multiple takes over more than one day there should be a mountain of witnesses one way or the other.

A mountain of witnesses to what, precisely? Two pelvises coming together as would be expected from simulated sex?

Unless someone saw his penis enter one of her orifices, this mountain of witnesses might be a great deal less conclusive than you suppose. After that, even if sex occurred, he can always argue that she consented (or, as a jury will likely side with under the principle of benefit of doubt, she did not explicitly refuse), where few if any of these witnesses will be relevant. She might argue she was drunk or drugged (to a standard beyond reasonable doubt as well), and again most or all of these witnesses are likely to be neither here nor there.

As we all know from a mountain of precedent, getting charges to stick is extraordinarily difficult, especially against someone with access to expensive lawyers.

 

[tstorm823]

They are likely to be very similar in tactics and attitude, because they are operating in the same political ecosystem.

Except they aren't operating in the same political ecosystem. There are, no doubt, equally scummy politicians in the Republican Party, but they can't pull the same crap because the media environment is aggressively adversarial to them. Republican talking points end up a lot more direct and matter-of-fact, not necessarily because the people are that way, but because you can't risk fun rhetorical twists when every word out of your mouth is twisted into racist Nazi dogwhistling. When Democrats turn a phrase, they have the New York Times to explain it in their favor and popularize it as the new hot intellectual buzzword. Republicans do not have that priviledge.

Your perception of Fox News as a reaction is quite funny. Fox News was following Rupert Murdoch's tried and tested selling trick of capturing right wing audiences and shifting debate to the right that he had previously pioneered in Australia and the UK.

It's not my perception, it's the stated goal. The original slogan was "Fair and Balanced", which was intended to signal that turnabout was fair play, and they were going to do for the right what the other news networks did for the left. That is the schtick.

Newspapers were mixed; mainstream TV was reasonably neutral, and even into the cable era, much-maligned CNN was more neutral than not by more objective measures. The existence of a "Democratic media establishment" is the accidental by-product of the creation of this Republican media establishment. The minute the US right created their own privileged space to wage media war, explicitly attacking the bias of everyone else (despite being worse than those they railed against in almost every way), everything else de facto became "Democratic" in viewership and perception, irrespective of actual content.

Lyndon Johnson ran a campaign on how his opponent was a racist who would trigger nuclear war, and then he got the federal government to build segregated neighborhoods and sent the US into Vietnam, and the coverage of him was so positive that people still believe he was a good president. The term muckrakers was coined by Teddy Roosevelt because the press was pissing him off. The New York Times is the most influential single news outlet, probably on the whole planet, and has directly endorsed every Democratic candidate in the general presidential election since John F Kennedy.

Although - random idea - perhaps the problem partly lies not in the parties, but the populace. Maybe the problem is the Southern USA: the harder anyone drives to win them over and becomes composed of them, the more they suck.

If there was any part of your post that was indicative that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, other than regurgitating exactly the bias you think doesn't exist, it's this part. You clearly have never been to the South here, and have no idea why they vote the way they do.

 

[tstorm823]

That is.... absolutely scraping the barrel. So, when Republicans say they support 'family values', they're insinuating Democrats hate families?

Just no. You can't take a positive descriptor that someone uses for themselves and insist they meant that all their opponents are the opposite.

Seriously? You can't? If I said "Vote Republican, cause we need smart people in Congress", you wouldn't identify the jab?

Also: if not now, then fucking when? If nobody can push for legislative change in the aftermath of a mass shooting, that leaves very little opportunity to do it, because America seems to be experiencing a mass shooting every other fucking week.

This is not a response to what I said, you're arguing with a strawman.

 

[Silvanus]

Seriously? You can't? If I said "Vote Republican, cause we need smart people in Congress", you wouldn't identify the jab?

For starters, that's a little different; that's a descriptor of a person rather than a policy. If Republicans described a policy proposal as "smart", I wouldn't interpret it as insinuating that everyone else is stupid.

This is not a response to what I said, you're arguing with a strawman.

You derided the Democrats for pushing for gun control legislation in the wake of tragedy, calling it an "exploit" and "campaigning". That's a directly relevant reply.

 

[Agema]

Except they aren't operating in the same political ecosystem.

They are absolute in the same ecosystem, unless you think there are parallel universes with multiple universes, two where the Democrats and Republicans campaign in isolation and a third we're in where they somehow get mashed together. There are regional differences at the state level, and there are at least some differences in demographic groups which will result in some differences.

There are, no doubt, equally scummy politicians in the Republican Party, but they can't pull the same crap because the media environment is aggressively adversarial to them.

This is just so much random verbiage untethered to reality: firstly, the right has a huge media presence. Secondly, a lot of the media is perfectly happy to - and does - give the Republicans a fair go.

It's not my perception, it's the stated goal. The original slogan was "Fair and Balanced", which was intended to signal that turnabout was fair play, and they were going to do for the right what the other news networks did for the left. That is the schtick.

You mean, what the founders of Fox News perceived to be bias.

Lyndon Johnson

Yawn. I'm just not very interested in your weird hate-boner for Johnson.

If there was any part of your post that was indicative that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, other than regurgitating exactly the bias you think doesn't exist, it's this part. You clearly have never been to the South here, and have no idea why they vote the way they do.

I'm just pointing out a correlation that the timing you're giving for the Republicans becoming "like the Democrats" mirrors the conversion of the South from majority Democratic to majority Republican.

 

[Trunkage]

This is a line that in ways originates with Hayek. Hayek essentially viewed the world as free or not free, and lumped in fascism along with communism as totalitarianism. Step forward to the 80s, this was a basis for what had become fashionable in the right wing to rebadge fascism as left wing - because any and all bad things come from the left wing, mm'kay. Part of this is attempting to argue that "right wing" means individual freedom (especially in the economic sphere): whilst with a grain of truth in the here and now (because economic freedom is the established socio-economic order), any student of history would know that that this doesn't explain the right wing across the years well at all.

Fascists certainly pursued what was a sort of pragmatic centreist economic policy - and of course necessarily this does create a level of similarity with 30s/40s liberalism, because to a certain extent both were looking at resolving similar problems (increased infrastructure development, reducing poverty, etc.). However, beyond that there's a huge divergence in reasons why. The Nazis were focused around the nation: turning their nation into a powerhouse and keeping the working classes content with their station for stability and social order. Liberals were focused around individuals: the inherent welfare and development of their people, and principles of egalitarianism.

It's interesting to note that Hayek did talk about social security being beneficial not long after winning the Nobel prize (or whatever the economics one is called)

I'd also note that his idea of 'Freedom' was - 'do this or you die.' I don't find his idea of Freedom freeing at all

 

[Terminal Blue]

Especially because one in particular should be trivial to prove - Wood appeared in a simulated sex scene in a music video (Heart Shaped Glasses). She has claimed that she is being raped on film in that music video (and has tried to get it taken down from online platforms on that basis). Given there would be a whole cast (the video has a ton of extras) and crew around for that and it was shot in multiple takes over more than one day there should be a mountain of witnesses one way or the other.

Problems here:

At the time the video was released, Manson himself was ambiguous and contradictory about whether it was simulated or not, but refused to concretely deny that it wasn't and, on several occasions, made statements that clearly implied it wasn't. Following Wood's allegations, he has concretely claimed that it was simulated. Wood, at the time, also claimed that it was simulated, but now claims that this was a lie and that she was pressured into making that claim. Also, bear in mind that there were certainly multiple takes and cuts in that scene and it's possible the footage used in the final video was indeed simulated, but that doesn't mean the events described by Wood didn't take place.

Some of the people who have come out to defend Manson seemingly haven't gotten the memo, because at least one crew member has come forward and confirmed that the sex was unsimulated, but claims that Wood, who was high at the time, came up with the idea. They also claim that Manson is a shy romantic who wasn't comfortable with the idea of having sex on camera. This is, to say the least, hilariously out of line with Manson's well documented behaviour and yet consistent with a common fan perception. Which brings us neatly onto who the cast and crew actually were..

According to Manson's statements at the time, there were two crews on the production. One was "his" crew, after all he was the director, and the other had some kind of disagreement with him over the sex scene. Now, we don't know what that second crew did or what their disagreement was. They might have just been editors who had no influence over what happened on set, but the key point here is that a significant proportion of the production staff on the shoot consisted of people Manson knew, had a professional relationship with or had otherwise hired himself. This may explain why a member of the crew is claiming to have insider knowledge of Manson's character and personality, but it also attests to the more relevant problem that any witnesses present might be motivated not to incriminate Manson or themselves.

Regardless, I don't think a defamation case is going to offer any kind of real insight into what actually happened. But here's the thing. I wouldn't be surprised if Wood got some details wrong. I also wouldn't be surprised if she isn't being entirely honest about the context of what happened and how she felt about it. That is normal within her position. Our culture is not yet ready to deal with the real experiences of victims of grooming, because they often don't present like stereotypical victims, and thus it's no surprise to me that someone in the public eye would seek to re-frame those experience as violent, forcible abuse because that is the only way they are going to be listened to. It doesn't really bother me and I don't really consider it a lie.

Basically, if someone references Lolita in relation to their relationship with a younger partner, slam that person's face into the nearest wall, then find their partner and tell them that dependence is not the same thing as love, that being loved shouldn't be contingent on living up to someone else's fantasy, and to try and remember the last time their partner did something for them which wasn't accompanied by the immediate expectation of reward or reciprocity. Be sure to give them a number they can call if they're ever in trouble.

 

[tstorm823]

For starters, that's a little different; that's a descriptor of a person rather than a policy. If Republicans described a policy proposal as "smart", I wouldn't interpret it as insinuating that everyone else is stupid.

I would.

You derided the Democrats for pushing for gun control legislation in the wake of tragedy, calling it an "exploit" and "campaigning". That's a directly relevant reply.

" It's not "we can't talk about policy", it's "stop campaigning on this right now". " - tstorm823

I did not deride Democrats for pushing for gun control legislation. I have great respect for those who are actually working on policy right now. My derision is aimed at the people who instead of working on things are out there pointing at the Republicans and saying "children are dead because of YOU!"

This is just so much random verbiage untethered to reality: firstly, the right has a huge media presence. Secondly, a lot of the media is perfectly happy to - and does - give the Republicans a fair go.

Counterpoint:

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Liberals were focused around individuals: the inherent welfare and development of their people, and principles of egalitarianism.

*sotto voce* For white people, anyway...

 

[Silvanus]

I would.

Lol ok. In that case, pretty much every political campaign since the dawn of time is insulting and denigrating, because you'd be hard pressed to find very many that don't describe their own policies positively. Every Republican pointing to their 'family values' credentials is implying Dems hate families.

" It's not "we can't talk about policy", it's "stop campaigning on this right now". " - tstorm823

I did not deride Democrats for pushing for gun control legislation. I have great respect for those who are actually working on policy right now. My derision is aimed at the people who instead of working on things are out there pointing at the Republicans and saying "children are dead because of YOU!"

You want them to push for policy without highlighting how current policy has failed?

This all just seems very arbitrary and thin-skinned. The US Democrats are just about the least combative political party towards their opponents around. And unless you've missed it, the Republicans have ended up nominating numerous figures who're claiming the Democrats are satanic paedophiles.

 

[bluegate]

This all just seems very arbitrary and thin-skinned. The US Democrats are just about the least combative political party towards their opponents around. And unless you've missed it, the Republicans have ended up nominating numerous figures who're claiming the Democrats are satanic paedophiles.

Well, the Democrats obviously made them say those things.

 

[Hawki]

UK cinema chain cancels screenings of ‘blasphemous’ film after protests

Cineworld cancels all showings of The Lady of Heaven after branches were picketed by Muslim activists

www.theguardian.com

Cowards.

 

[tstorm823]

Lol ok. In that case, pretty much every political campaign since the dawn of time is insulting and denigrating, because you'd be hard pressed to find very many that don't describe their own policies positively. Every Republican pointing to their 'family values' credentials is implying Dems hate families.

That depends on how they say it. A person can talk about their family values without necessarily implying other people lack them. "Family values are important to me" is a neutral statement that says nothing about anyone else. But if you hear something like "OUR candidate cares about family values" or "we need family values back in Washington", they are 1000% saying Dems hate families, that is exactly the intended message.

You want them to push for policy without highlighting how current policy has failed?

This all just seems very arbitrary and thin-skinned. The US Democrats are just about the least combative political party towards their opponents around. And unless you've missed it, the Republicans have ended up nominating numerous figures who're claiming the Democrats are satanic paedophiles.

I'm aware that is happening now, and I don't like it, but I'm telling you that follows 50 years of Democratic politicians claiming Republicans are all Hitler and/or rapists. Rapist nazi and satanic pedophile are not really that far removed from each other.