Lauchs

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 4 points 52 minutes ago

I've fallen out of star wars as the recent stuff has been mediocre (or Andor which was "quality television" but felt, to me out of place in a galaxy ruled by space wizards with laser swords) but damn, seeing that wolfman dude and the notion of Urkel... Well, I'm tempted!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I'm still not sure I get this. Is it just odd for them to be looking at a hangnail?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't think he's a genius but knows one game very well, and it's treating the Left/media the same way I treated my younger sister when I was an asshole; wind her up, watch her melt down, over-react and get in trouble.

And we take the bait EVERY. GODDAMN. TIME.

He's not imitating Nazis by accident and he's not doing it because he's a Nazi. He's doing it because it makes us make ourselves look like hysterical children.

Edit: It's not 78D chess, it's the easiest game to play. Couldn't be much more simple as far as politics go.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 19 hours ago

That's an.... interesting opinion.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

That's why we have to vote in primaries for non-evil.

But we get outvoted, badly, by senior citizens so old time politics reigns supreme.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 20 hours ago

Oh no, I get that. I think he's echoing that stuff intentionally but more to make us cry fascist etc. He loves our reaction to the dictator but only on day one schtick, his side sees it as a joke, we take it deadly serious and I worry median voters think "he was already president, we still have a democracy, these guys are over-reacting."

We can be simultaneously right AND lose the persuasion game. I'd rather win the persuasion game.m as that matters more than being right.

I think about Jan 6, with horrifies Democratic leaning folks but to a large swathe of the public, it doesn't seem to register as a concern compared to inflation etc.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 20 hours ago

Fair, I play more RPGs and whatnot where a knife takes 4 years to injure someone. (Though, a bad sword can take just as long because, I dunno, it's too dull to chop through this peasant's leather tunic? Goddamnit Ultima.)

[–] [email protected] 21 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

"He knows what he is doing,” Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history who studies fascism and authoritarianism, said of Trump’s statement. “He chooses his words carefully.”

Yeah but not in the way this person thinks. I firmly believe a large chunk of trump's success is his ability to bait the Left/media into frothing at the mouth and making us seem like we're blowing things out of proportion.

It's why he uses stuff like lying press, to a student of history, that's a pretty clear Nazism. To a casual American, he's just hating on the press. Similarly with this, to a casual American, he really means deporting illegal immigrants back to their home countries, whereas to this author, well, you read the article.

I think back to the debate and how well Harris baited trump, it was so nice to see it go the other way and it worked beautifully. Hopefully, we can be wiser than trump and avoid taking his latest and future bait attempts.

 

Apologies if gifs aren't allowed!

27
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Almost everyone agrees there should be more compromises in politics. So I'm curious, how would that play out?

While I love the policy debates and the nuances, most people go for the big issues. So, according to the party platforms/my gut, here's what I'd put as the 3 for each party:

Democrats: Abortion rights, gun control, climate change.

Republicans: Immigration, culture war (say, critical race theory in schools or gender affirming care for minors) , trump gets to be president. (Sorry but it really seems like a cult of personality at this point.)

Anyway, here's the exercise: say the other side was willing to give up on all three of their issues but you had to give up on one of your side's. OR, you can have two of your side's but have to give up on the third.

Just curious to see how this plays out. (You are of course free to name other priorities you think better represent the parties but obviously if you write "making Joe Pesci day a national holiday" as a priority and give it up, that doesn't really count.)

Edit: The consensus seems to be a big no to compromise. Which, fair, I imagine those on the Right feel just as strongly about what they would call baby murdering and replacing American workers etc.

Just kind of sad to see it in action.

But thanks/congrats to those who did try and work through a compromise!

 

Having large numbers of people starve to death seems like a pretty damning indictment of a system. But I dunno, maybe I'm overly attached to food?

 

Listened to Billie Jean while cleaning, wondered what the all time playlist might be.

I imagine Kanye, Clapton, Pink Floyd, James Brown, Ike Turner all make the cut with MJ but I'm curious what Lemmy comes up with!

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
view more: next ›