Social WR Lounge v247: I ain't no sexy boy. I don't dance, son.

[Islam Imamate]

The writing was not professional quality and the point was basic, but it is true that people get these collective obsessions, and that bad things tend to result from them.

You could fit his point onto a fortune cookie and it would be a better experience than reading that article.

Imagine unironically mentioning AOC alongside the Taliban.

 

[LazaRRus]

 

[tonni]

I'm glad it's getting some pushback but dear god there's a lot of people like that. They'll grow out of it, right...???

 

[tonni]

@LazaRRus Last one, I promise.

 

[LazaRRus]

I'm glad it's getting some pushback but dear god there's a lot of people like that. They'll grow out of it, right...???

And that's what is crazy. I don't think that they will.

 

[Trotsky]

Bullshit ass take of course.

But the part about AOC daring to primary Democrats that aren't cool with the Green New Deal is just a necessary feature the two-party system. When you only have two options, there HAVE to be coalitions and parts that don't fully see eye-to-eye.

For the entire 80s, 90s and early 2000s, the progressive wing of the Democrats had to suck it up and give in to the moderates. Now the tables are slightly (SLIGHTLY) turning. If the moderates don't like it, they should come up with ideas that are more appealing.

The Bolshevik part (they killed you for complaining!) got a chuckle from me, but the Venezuelan part really did piss me off. It just blows my mind that someone who is a professional journalist can say that Maduro is starving his people as revenge for not believing in socialism (LOL!) and not second guess that he might not understand the goings on in that country.

The writing was not professional quality and the point was basic, but it is true that people get these collective obsessions, and that bad things tend to result from them.

I didn't think the writing was bad, but the thinking was really, really bad. I would also personally estimate that the obsessive ideology displayed in the article is more damaging and more pervasive among both politicians and the general public. Because what he is describing is demanding action be taken in a fixed proximity to an ideal that you hold. But what he is representing is demanding action be taken in a fixed proximity to an ideal that you don't.

 

[LazaRRus]

@LazaRRus Last one, I promise.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

This is now the croc/gator power hour

 

[tonni]

And that's what is crazy. I don't think that they will.

That dude just said it's adultist to suggest kids can't make drastic life decisions. Adultist, Laz. I just sat down on the ground laughing at that fucking word.

 

[Trotsky]

 

[tonni]

I know you think kids shouldn't be drinking and smoking, but I just wanted to let you know that that has very serious adultist implications. I hope you see this as a moment of growth and an opportunity to get educated. Muting this convo.

 

[Gregolian]

That dude just said it's adultist to suggest kids can't make drastic life decisions. Adultist, Laz. I just sat down on the ground laughing at that fucking word.

This is why corporal punishment should return.

 

[LazaRRus]

That dude just said it's adultist to suggest kids can't make drastic life decisions. Adultist, Laz. I just sat down on the ground laughing at that fucking word.

At this point I have no words.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Bullshit ass take of course.

But the part about AOC daring to primary Democrats that aren't cool with the Green New Deal is just a necessary feature the two-party system. When you only have two options, there HAVE to be coalitions and parts that don't fully see eye-to-eye.

For the entire 80s, 90s and early 2000s, the progressive wing of the Democrats had to suck it up and give in to the moderates. Now the tables are slightly (SLIGHTLY) turning. If the moderates don't like it, they should come up with ideas that are more appealing.

Yglesias had a good take on the issue yesterday (I think it's paywalled), though it's not about intra-party dynamics. From about '70 to '90, Republicans were the dominant party and were thus able to get a lot of what they wanted done. That started changing in the '90s, and from the early Aughts on, Democrats have been the more dominant party, and thus have been able to get more of what they want. That's about the electorate more than the individuals in power. For example, we saw some expansion of social spending relative to GDP under Bush (obviously that accelerated a lot under Obama, and now is expanding more--elections matter but the public sets the broad parameters). I think it's useful to just think of every district as being on a spectrum. As the national center moves, that means that more-extreme candidates will be electable (Boehner also made that point today), and that shifts the power of different subcoalitions.

I think intraparty squabbles are pretty much irrelevant unless they're strong enough to cause the other party to win races they otherwise wouldn't.

 

[Trotsky]

Wait, you disagree with that? I thought you were posting it because it was obvious and reasonable. The guys who pull that pseudo-naturalist bullshit about body parts are creeps and they are uninformed about that subject and most others. And it's hugely unhealthy to let those creeps dictate bodily autonomy and concept. Historically, they're the same dudes that shamed people (using "common sense" anatomy) for integrating the butt and breasts into sex because they were for pooping and lactating.

 

[CubicleGangster]

Sounds suspicious.

Well yeah

 

[Jack V Savage]

I didn't think the writing was bad, but the thinking was really, really bad. I would also personally estimate that the obsessive ideology displayed in the article is more damaging and more pervasive among both politicians and the general public. Because what he is describing is demanding action be taken in a fixed proximity to an ideal that you hold. But what he is representing is demanding action be taken in a fixed proximity to an ideal that you don't.

I think the writing wasn't so much "bad" as that it was lacking in goodness. If I'm a high school teacher, I'm giving it an A, but I wouldn't publish it. The thinking is simple, but doesn't stand out for being over simple.

On the last part, I think something got a little mangled, but if I'm reading you right, I think you're really wrong about my ideals.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

@LazaRRus Last one, I promise.

Lol at “adultist” thankfully my autocorrect doesn’t recognize that as a word.

But now I’m worried this guy is a or something.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wait, you disagree with that? I thought you were posting it because it was obvious and reasonable. The guys who pull that pseudo-naturalist bullshit about body parts are creeps and they are uninformed about that subject and most others. And it's hugely unhealthy to let those creeps dictate bodily autonomy and concept. Historically, they're the same dudes that shamed people (using "common sense" anatomy) for integrating the butt and breasts into sex because they were for pooping and lactating.

Was gonna say something like that, but then I read the longer thread and decided to pass.

 

[tonni]

Wait, you disagree with that? I thought you were posting it because it was obvious and reasonable. The guys who pull that pseudo-naturalist bullshit about body parts are creeps and they are uninformed about that subject and most others. And it's hugely unhealthy to let those creeps dictate bodily autonomy and concept. Historically, they're the same dudes that shamed people (using "common sense" anatomy) for integrating the butt and breasts into sex because they were for pooping and lactating.

In the context of removing breast(tissue) I don't think it's that creepy to point out that it might be a bad idea since female breasts do have a function.