Funny events in anti-woke world

[Phoenixmgs]

I wouldn't like to cook burgers every day, because I don't eat them every day. Yes, you can likely cook steak, eggs, and bacon. But that gets boring.

I was just listing examples of easy to cook food, I'm sure there's tons more. I'm guessing using stuff like InstantPots and crockpots is pretty easy to make a tasty healthy dinner. I only actually cook dinner 3 times a week on average so it's not like I'm eating the same thing every night even if I did make burgers 3 straight nights that I did actually cook dinner. People have the options (in accessibility and price) and power to eat healthy food if they want to. Every place I eat at (besides the Mexican places) has the main option for the side to be fries and I haven't ordered fries in over 2 years. What you eat is a choice and people deflect that responsibility onto anything else to not be responsible themselves.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Cope
Seethe
Mald

 

[tstorm823]

I dunno. If your faced with a housing crisis for instance then the Left's idea of just building more houses seems a much better selling point then the right's idea of kicking out some brown people and hoping for the best.

Around these parts Geert Wilders has also never been known for his economic policies. They're so shaky he doesn't even dare submitting them to the central planning bureau which parties traditionally do. Also most economic problems plaguing Europe(and the US) have their origin in right wing policies so this supposed fear of the left ''driving the economy into the ground'' seems really strange. And if you ask even those voters that despise the left then even they have absolutely nothing good to say about Reagan or Thatcher.

Building houses is not the left's idea. I did a google search, because I'm certainly not terribly familiar with the politics in the Netherlands off the top of my head, to make sure my understanding of things applies equally there. Turns out it does:

https://www.costar.com/article/1466930316/dutch-real-estate-sector-cautiously-optimistic-after-far-right-election-win

Relevant quotes from that:
" Like all other parties, the PVV wants to build more houses. "

" The previous government tried to make housing more affordable for people on middle incomes by making a larger part of the housing stock subject to rent regulation. The uncertainty this created scared away investors and developers, making the situation even more urgent. "

Left wing parties across the globe have decided when they need more housing to subsidize building things and then put on rent controls, both of which disincentivize owning property, which leads to companies building less new houses and accelerates renting culture and absentee landlords (as there's little incentive left to maintain property).

It's not even a particularly right-wing thing to say "let building houses be less expensive, and the supply issue will fix itself", but the extra right-wing party is saying that, and it's a method of solving housing shortages with a dramatically better track record than left-wing policies.

 

[tstorm823]

Generally speaking the idea of the right as the fiscally responsible party that protect us from left wing mismanagement is a very funny event in anti woke world. Its the right proudly claiming a mantle that doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny.

Take the US for instance. The Republican presidents do not have a strong track record as excellent administrators. Most are more well known for scandal and disaster. When it comes to solid management of the state you have Eisenhower and then its all Democrats like FDR, Truman, Clinton Obama. On the Republican side you either have disasters like Bush, Trump or Nixon, or lesser men, placeholder presidents like Ford or Bush Senior. And Reagan who's economic legacy is the strongest also has that legacy completely discredited by now. Even if we were to put stock in Neoliberism we should note that the supposed boom of that era was under the Democrat Clinton rather than any Republican.

If the Great Depression is traditionally seen as having been mishandled by the Republican Hoover and fixed by the Democrat FDR, if the supposed boon of neoliberalism happened under Democrat Clinton and not under a Republican, and if the Republican presidents of the last century were a gigantic mixed bag at best then why are we expected to believe Republicans are the party of responsible governance?

Its similar in Britain where it was Atlee and not Churchill who had the big economic achievements, where it was new labour rather than Thatcher and co who oversaw the height of neoliberalism and where currently the Tories prefer setting fire to the economy for political gain rather than manage it.

The best papers the right has on the economy is a philosophy that's now thoroughly discredited and even that they've thrown away in favor of wild adventures with the economy just to play political games with it.

There is a distinct trend, you're just not noticing it: all of your information is wholly lop-sided. If there is an opportunity to blame Republicans, you'll bet people have found it. The Great Depression happened after Democrats re-engineered the entire US finance system, but Hoover had been in office for less than a year, so obviously he's personally at fault. But at the same time the recession that worsened under Obama has nothing to do with him, or with Congress, it's all Bush's fault. FDR presided over a decade of economic turmoil that only changed course by Europe blowing itself up and you consider that good management. Any economic success during or after Republican presidencies, you just consider discredited, and that's good enough.

Like, it's not your fault you associate Republicans with scandal and disaster. You've been fed that crap by Democrat aligned media groups that have held the reigns of global information for the last century.

 

[Hades]

There is a distinct trend, you're just not noticing it: all of your information is wholly lop-sided. If there is an opportunity to blame Republicans, you'll bet people have found it. The Great Depression happened after Democrats re-engineered the entire US finance system, but Hoover had been in office for less than a year, so obviously he's personally at fault. But at the same time the recession that worsened under Obama has nothing to do with him, or with Congress, it's all Bush's fault. FDR presided over a decade of economic turmoil that only changed course by Europe blowing itself up and you consider that good management. Any economic success during or after Republican presidencies, you just consider discredited, and that's good enough.

Like, it's not your fault you associate Republicans with scandal and disaster. You've been fed that crap by Democrat aligned media groups that have held the reigns of global information for the last century.

I'd argue that just the presence of Nixon, Trump, and Bush at the list inherently ties the Republican presidencies to scandal and disaster. Even the most ''objective'' reading can't get around the bad track record. And for what its worth the media tend to go along with the pretension that the right wing parties are those of ''responsible government''

But what you say isn't especially relevant. We can assume that despite everything the Republican presidents were all solid and responsible administrators but they just aren't seen that way which means its impossible to justify the reputation of alleged responsible governance in those figures. Even the average Republican voters wouldn't have good things to say about Hoover and downright hates Bush.

Relevant quotes from that:
" Like all other parties, the PVV wants to build more houses. "

" The previous government tried to make housing more affordable for people on middle incomes by making a larger part of the housing stock subject to rent regulation. The uncertainty this created scared away investors and developers, making the situation even more urgent. "

Sure sure. The PVV stance isn't literally ''lets not build any more houses!'' but they continuously tie the housing shortage not to policy or shortage but just by the number of brown people. Meaning that even if they build some houses they'll inevitably go after the wrong ''problem'' and thus not solve anything.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'd argue that just the presence of Nixon, Trump, and Bush at the list inherently ties the Republican presidencies to scandal and disaster. Even the most ''objective'' reading can't get around the bad track record. And for what its worth the media tend to go along with the pretension that the right wing parties are those of ''responsible government''

I might discount Nixon as being some time ago, and not that bad by today's standards, and stick with Trump and Bush and more recent ones.

I'd definitely discount Hoover, as that was near 100 years ago, though he was bad at a time when the US really needed a not too bad president.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Cope
Seethe
Mald

Well, the whole point of Brexit was to show the EU that the UK doesn't need them. But the EU is still supposed to need the UK.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Republicans aren't racist...

Ofcourse not, they have blacks friends.

 

[Hades]

I might discount Nixon as being some time ago, and not that bad by today's standards, and stick with Trump and Bush and more recent ones.

I'd definitely discount Hoover, as that was near 100 years ago, though he was bad at a time when the US really needed a not too bad president.

After Trump Nixon certainly isn't the embodiment of a crook anymore. And unlike Donald he seems to have actually been talented but self sabotaging rather than a walking disaster. But still, his impeachment was a pretty traumatizing moment for the US, and it furthers the direct line of Republicans after Eisenhower who were either mediocre at best or completely damaging at worst.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Ofcourse not, they have blacks friends.

Democratic policy makes life harder for blacks but apparently that doesn't make them racist because they say on the TV how not racist they...

 

[Avnger]

Democratic policy makes life harder for blacks but apparently that doesn't make them racist because they say on the TV how not racist they...

Ah yes, Phoenixmgs, famously one able to understand the lives of others beyond his own myopic view, explaining to black people how they're voting for people making their own lives harder.

Do we have a word for this yet? Phoenixsplaining maybe? Or do we just call it racesplaining? whitesplaining?

 

[Thaluikhain]

After Trump Nixon certainly isn't the embodiment of a crook anymore. And unlike Donald he seems to have actually been talented but self sabotaging rather than a walking disaster. But still, his impeachment was a pretty traumatizing moment for the US, and it furthers the direct line of Republicans after Eisenhower who were either mediocre at best or completely damaging at worst.

Fair enough.

Ah yes, Phoenixmgs, famously one able to understand the lives of others beyond his own myopic view, explaining to black people how they're voting for people making their own lives harder.

Do we have a word for this yet? Phoenixsplaining maybe? Or do we just call it racesplaining? whitesplaining?

Go with the generic ones, Phoenixmgs isn't unusual outside this fairly small forum. Sorta miss the inventively weird forumers we had back in the day.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Democratic policy makes life harder for blacks but apparently that doesn't make them racist because they say on the TV how not racist they...

Probably because they don't have black friends, like the republicans.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Ah yes, Phoenixmgs, famously one able to understand the lives of others beyond his own myopic view, explaining to black people how they're voting for people making their own lives harder.

Do we have a word for this yet? Phoenixsplaining maybe? Or do we just call it racesplaining? whitesplaining?

Don't black people want more affordable homes, lower cost of living, less segregated schools?

Probably because they don't have black friends, like the republicans.

Yeah, it's like nobody can have an actual discussion here and it's all just cheap soundbites you hear on the echo chamber of your choice. The whole "black friends" thing was asinine to begin with.

 

[McElroy]

Yeah, this is true of a lot of facets of healthcare recipients who have lifestyles outside the ideal: if you're overweight, that's the cause of your problem; if you're a drinker, that's the cause of your problem; if you're a smoker, that's the cause of your problem; etc. Obviously sometimes that is the cause of your problem, but too often it seems an easy way to dismiss the necessary exploratory work.

This is sometimes poor communication, sometimes the patient is huffing copium. This stuff goes public because outside medical services the story can be spun however the storytellers like it, but medical professionals can only put up a general reply due to confidentiality.

At 50 under my current weight (a fairly middling 74kg or so) I'd be seriously underweight; at 50 over I'm not even out of the 'overweight' band by BMI.

True, but also remember that a person's ideal weight is within 18,5-25 on the BMI, you can vary within that and always be "ideal".

 

[Gergar12]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/26/africa/nigeria-plateau-killings-intl/index.html

113 people die, and CNN barely covers it.

 

[tstorm823]

And for what its worth the media tend to go along with the pretension that the right wing parties are those of ''responsible government''

Yes, but then they tell you it's all scandal and disaster, and the conclusion you decided was most reasonable is that people for responsible government are actually all scandalous and disastrous. Maybe just don't believe all the lies and it will make more sense.

 

[Gergar12]

Flagship public universities likely to cut more humanities, staff — especially in rural states • Kansas Reflector

Many lesser-known public colleges nationwide have begun cutting back on the humanities. Similar reductions are only expected to grow across the country.

kansasreflector.com

Miami University of Ohio is trying a different tack for low-enrollment programs: consolidation rather than elimination. A memo from the university showed 18 programs under consideration for melding into other specialties, including American studies, art history, classical studies, French, German, Italian studies, religion, as well as Russian, East European, and Eurasian studies, and women’s gender and sexuality studies.

It always starts with a few majors. This is how knowledge dies. This is how insight inward toward self-criticism dies. Also really Spanish??? As if we don't need more Spanish majors in the US.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Flagship public universities likely to cut more humanities, staff — especially in rural states • Kansas Reflector

Many lesser-known public colleges nationwide have begun cutting back on the humanities. Similar reductions are only expected to grow across the country.

kansasreflector.com

Miami University of Ohio is trying a different tack for low-enrollment programs: consolidation rather than elimination. A memo from the university showed 18 programs under consideration for melding into other specialties, including American studies, art history, classical studies, French, German, Italian studies, religion, as well as Russian, East European, and Eurasian studies, and women’s gender and sexuality studies.

It always starts with a few majors. This is how knowledge dies. This is how insight inward toward self-criticism dies. Also really Spanish??? As if we don't need more Spanish majors in the US.

You can learn all that stuff on your own more efficiently. The only reason people go to college vs just learning it on their own is because a job would require the degree. Thus, the fewer jobs that require such degrees, the fewer people are going to enroll. How many jobs require German studies?

 

[Hades]

Yes, but then they tell you it's all scandal and disaster, and the conclusion you decided was most reasonable is that people for responsible government are actually all scandalous and disastrous. Maybe just don't believe all the lies and it will make more sense.

I still don't see the alleged lie. Because even the most ''neutral'' reading can't get around the fact that the last two Republican presidents were Bush who started two disastrous wars, and Trump who's Donald Trump with both of them dangling around the bottom of presidential rankings. Nor can they get around the fact that Nixon had to resign in scandal.

Bad track record even with a most favorable of readings.