I feel for the Democrats. Every Right Wing party just gets this mythical shield of 'best for the economy [ignore all the previous times we wrecked it], best for family values [ignore that we are all sleeping around and hate you], best for law & order [we want police to be able to beat you up without consequeces]'. And it's fucking infuriating. What is wrong with people?!
You just have to remember what they actually mean.
"Better for the economy" = more likely to cut taxes.
There's nothing you can do about the unequal treatment because the parties are self-selected to put people who will put group loyalty over truth on one side and it's not Democrats'.
I really feel like the democracy pivot is going to be looked back on as a mistake.
People just don't care. Or don't believe it.
She was eating his lunch when it was what she's going to do for you, how costs will come down, and how she'll protect the right to choose.
Then somehow we ended up back at Biden's democracy in danger approach. Which, to paraphrase Carville - I'm not sure how many families are at the dinner table worrying about the health of democracy.
I hope I'm wrong. It just feels like there was a winning strategy happening and then we got Biden 2.0.
Tell me you haven't watched a sporting event in the last two months...
This only applies to 14% of states
I don’t recall seeing any Harris ads here in Ohio
A lot of Brown though
I have also seen a lot of Trump, but that’s because Trump is the main character of Bernie Moreno ads because Moreno himself is a toxic candidate dipshit
I feel for the Democrats. Every Right Wing party just gets this mythical shield of 'best for the economy [ignore all the previous times we wrecked it], best for family values [ignore that we are all sleeping around and hate you], best for law & order [we want police to be able to beat you up without consequeces]'. And it's fucking infuriating. What is wrong with people?!
It's the fucking Fremen Mirage - this idea that you need "hard men" to make the "hard decisions".
I mean yeah if you are outside of a swing state and have managed to see a Harris ad that's money down the drain. They're specifically trying not to accidentally show you an ad.
Do what you can to elect Harris/Walz and downticket Dem candidates in your area by doorknocking, phonebanking, or postcarding: https://www.mobilize.us/
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I’m not engaging with any criticism or armchair QB of the Harris campaign at this point.
She’s carried herself with absolute aplomb, she’s had plenty of marked leads in the polls, the money and donors and endorsements are there en extremis, the choice for president could not be more clear.
I won’t abide second guessing at this point. If we lose (fairly, obvs) it’s because the Nazis have more votes than we do.
Anyone offering campaign critique that splits hairs over microblocs or weird manufactured trivial press gaffes is missing the Nathan Bedford Forrest for the trees.
I really feel like the democracy pivot is going to be looked back on as a mistake.
People just don't care. Or don't believe it.
She was eating his lunch when it was what she's going to do for you, how costs will come down, and how she'll protect the right to choose.
Then somehow we ended up back at Biden's democracy in danger approach. Which, to paraphrase Carville - I'm not sure how many families are at the dinner table worrying about the health of democracy.
I hope I'm wrong. It just feels like there was a winning strategy happening and then we got Biden 2.0.
What pivot?
She was eating his lunch when she had back to back honeymoon periods of becoming the nominee and the DNC. Those boosts are never permanent and never have been. But, also, she is still consistently leading in the popular vote. I don't really see a question of who will get more votes on Tuesday, the question is where do those voters live. Because we have such a fuck awful system.
I’m not engaging with any criticism or armchair QB of the Harris campaign at this point.
She’s carried herself with absolute aplomb, she’s had plenty of marked leads in the polls, the money and donors and endorsements are there en extremis, the choice for president could not be more clear.
I won’t abide second guessing at this point. If we lose (fairly, obvs) it’s because the Nazis have more votes than we do.
Anyone offering campaign critique that splits hairs over microblocs or weird manufactured trivial press gaffes is missing the Nathan Bedford Forrest for the trees.
I just don't see any reason to believe he'll break his 47% support ceiling. Nazis do not have a majority of the country behind them. But our democracy doesn't care about popular mandates to enact policy. Otherwise we'd have had a near straight run of Democratic Presidents for 32 years
I feel for the Democrats. Every Right Wing party just gets this mythical shield of 'best for the economy [ignore all the previous times we wrecked it], best for family values [ignore that we are all sleeping around and hate you], best for law & order [we want police to be able to beat you up without consequeces]'. And it's fucking infuriating. What is wrong with people?!
I had a computer programming professor who said something like “you can’t optimize your way out of insufficient hardware”.
I think a big problem with modern society is that we are essentially trying to design software solutions to hardware problems, and essentially because we are using hardware that is 100,000 years old and that evolved for a use case that no longer exists and is probably nearly maxed out in capability or even being overworked in a modern society, our society will always be vulnerable to exploits and attacks by bad actors or even just cascading failures, vulnerabilities which are nearly impossible to engineer out of the system with “software improvements” like better designed societal and governmental structures.
In other words, I think a lot of the really frustrating aspects of society like people’s gullibility and self destructive tendencies are “meat problems” that are going to be nearly impossible to permanently overcome, and our society, as fucked up as it is, may just be nearing the limits of the best humans can do.
Rogan: Roe was the law of the land and all of a sudden that had been taken away and you have these men trying to dictate what women can and cannot do with their bodies
Vance: Yeah, yeah... but you have women who go too far and try to celebrate it
Rogan: Very few do that
When Rogan is calling bullshit, yikes. It gets worse after somehow
Rogan: The concern is men are making decisions on what women can do. Some states have extreme laws that put women in vulnerable positions and if they go to another state, they could then be prosecuted. It’s concerning
Vance: I haven’t heard of this as something that actually exists
I feel for the Democrats. Every Right Wing party just gets this mythical shield of 'best for the economy [ignore all the previous times we wrecked it], best for family values [ignore that we are all sleeping around and hate you], best for law & order [we want police to be able to beat you up without consequeces]'. And it's fucking infuriating. What is wrong with people?!
I had a computer programming professor who said something like “you can’t optimize your way out of insufficient hardware”.
I think a big problem with modern society is that we are essentially trying to design software solutions to hardware problems, and essentially because we are using hardware that is 100,000 years old and that evolved for a use case that no longer exists and is probably nearly maxed out in capability or even being overworked in a modern society, our society will always be vulnerable to exploits and attacks by bad actors or even just cascading failures, vulnerabilities which are nearly impossible to engineer out of the system with “software improvements” like better designed societal and governmental structures.
In other words, I think a lot of the really frustrating aspects of society like people’s gullibility and self destructive tendencies are “meat problems” that are going to be nearly impossible to permanently overcome, and our society, as fucked up as it is, may just be nearing the limits of the best humans can do.
I believe the saying is we are cave-dwellers with medieval institutions and godlike technology.
I feel for the Democrats. Every Right Wing party just gets this mythical shield of 'best for the economy [ignore all the previous times we wrecked it], best for family values [ignore that we are all sleeping around and hate you], best for law & order [we want police to be able to beat you up without consequeces]'. And it's fucking infuriating. What is wrong with people?!
I had a computer programming professor who said something like “you can’t optimize your way out of insufficient hardware”.
I think a big problem with modern society is that we are essentially trying to design software solutions to hardware problems, and essentially because we are using hardware that is 100,000 years old and that evolved for a use case that no longer exists and is probably nearly maxed out in capability or even being overworked in a modern society, our society will always be vulnerable to exploits and attacks by bad actors or even just cascading failures, vulnerabilities which are nearly impossible to engineer out of the system with “software improvements” like better designed societal and governmental structures.
In other words, I think a lot of the really frustrating aspects of society like people’s gullibility and self destructive tendencies are “meat problems” that are going to be nearly impossible to permanently overcome, and our society, as fucked up as it is, may just be nearing the limits of the best humans can do.
The idea of a "perfectly rational actor" as a model for human behavior has been incredibly destructive to serious discussions of personal accountability, public policy, and government.
The sooner we come to terms with the fact that people are imperfect, flawed beings driven by irrational factors who can be manipulated in ways great and small, the better off we will be. Because then we can have a responsible, meaningful discussion about how to create an environment that facilitates our better natures and true long-term goals and values, instead of constantly giving in to our baser instincts.
I really feel like the democracy pivot is going to be looked back on as a mistake.
People just don't care. Or don't believe it.
She was eating his lunch when it was what she's going to do for you, how costs will come down, and how she'll protect the right to choose.
Then somehow we ended up back at Biden's democracy in danger approach. Which, to paraphrase Carville - I'm not sure how many families are at the dinner table worrying about the health of democracy.
I hope I'm wrong. It just feels like there was a winning strategy happening and then we got Biden 2.0.
What pivot?
She was eating his lunch when she had back to back honeymoon periods of becoming the nominee and the DNC. Those boosts are never permanent and never have been. But, also, she is still consistently leading in the popular vote. I don't really see a question of who will get more votes on Tuesday, the question is where do those voters live. Because we have such a fuck awful system.
Agree on the system and vote count.
I'm not in a swing state and I don't watch sports, so my ad exposure is minimal. All I get is what the candidates are talking about, or at least what they're shown to be talking about.
And everything I'm seeing/hearing in this last stretch has been threat to democracy stuff.
They have done a stellar job with the campaign, don't get me wrong. To pull off what they have in 3 months? Unprecedented.
I'm just worried that message didn't work with Biden and it may not work now.
I feel for the Democrats. Every Right Wing party just gets this mythical shield of 'best for the economy [ignore all the previous times we wrecked it], best for family values [ignore that we are all sleeping around and hate you], best for law & order [we want police to be able to beat you up without consequeces]'. And it's fucking infuriating. What is wrong with people?!
I had a computer programming professor who said something like “you can’t optimize your way out of insufficient hardware”.
I think a big problem with modern society is that we are essentially trying to design software solutions to hardware problems, and essentially because we are using hardware that is 100,000 years old and that evolved for a use case that no longer exists and is probably nearly maxed out in capability or even being overworked in a modern society, our society will always be vulnerable to exploits and attacks by bad actors or even just cascading failures, vulnerabilities which are nearly impossible to engineer out of the system with “software improvements” like better designed societal and governmental structures.
In other words, I think a lot of the really frustrating aspects of society like people’s gullibility and self destructive tendencies are “meat problems” that are going to be nearly impossible to permanently overcome, and our society, as fucked up as it is, may just be nearing the limits of the best humans can do.
The idea of a "perfectly rational actor" as a model for human behavior has been incredibly destructive to serious discussions of personal accountability, public policy, and government.
The sooner we come to terms with the fact that people are imperfect, flawed beings driven by irrational factors who can be manipulated in ways great and small, the better off we will be. Because then we can have a responsible, meaningful discussion about how to create an environment that facilitates our better natures and true long-term goals and values, instead of constantly giving in to our baser instincts.
That was a driving impulse behind our government structure. The idea being that the ambition of each branch and the States would serve as a meaningful limiter to any one group of people holding too much sway. The problem is that they didn't account for partisanship and how multiple veto points could be weaponized to break the electoral feedback loop. Which is somewhat understandable and forgivable for folks in the 18th century without a lot of models to compare to. Less forgivable today
Rogan: Roe was the law of the land and all of a sudden that had been taken away and you have these men trying to dictate what women can and cannot do with their bodies
Vance: Yeah, yeah... but you have women who go too far and try to celebrate it
Rogan: Very few do that
When Rogan is calling bullshit, yikes. It gets worse after somehow
Rogan: The concern is men are making decisions on what women can do. Some states have extreme laws that put women in vulnerable positions and if they go to another state, they could then be prosecuted. It’s concerning
Vance: I haven’t heard of this as something that actually exists
Why the fuck is Joe Rogan pushing harder than actual journalists?
Oh and also, no, I at least am in no way sick of hearing about the canvassing. Been enlightening in a lot of ways.
I feel for the Democrats. Every Right Wing party just gets this mythical shield of 'best for the economy [ignore all the previous times we wrecked it], best for family values [ignore that we are all sleeping around and hate you], best for law & order [we want police to be able to beat you up without consequeces]'. And it's fucking infuriating. What is wrong with people?!
I had a computer programming professor who said something like “you can’t optimize your way out of insufficient hardware”.
I think a big problem with modern society is that we are essentially trying to design software solutions to hardware problems, and essentially because we are using hardware that is 100,000 years old and that evolved for a use case that no longer exists and is probably nearly maxed out in capability or even being overworked in a modern society, our society will always be vulnerable to exploits and attacks by bad actors or even just cascading failures, vulnerabilities which are nearly impossible to engineer out of the system with “software improvements” like better designed societal and governmental structures.
In other words, I think a lot of the really frustrating aspects of society like people’s gullibility and self destructive tendencies are “meat problems” that are going to be nearly impossible to permanently overcome, and our society, as fucked up as it is, may just be nearing the limits of the best humans can do.
The idea of a "perfectly rational actor" as a model for human behavior has been incredibly destructive to serious discussions of personal accountability, public policy, and government.
The sooner we come to terms with the fact that people are imperfect, flawed beings driven by irrational factors who can be manipulated in ways great and small, the better off we will be. Because then we can have a responsible, meaningful discussion about how to create an environment that facilitates our better natures and true long-term goals and values, instead of constantly giving in to our baser instincts.
That was a driving impulse behind our government structure. The idea being that the ambition of each branch and the States would serve as a meaningful limiter to any one group of people holding too much sway. The problem is that they didn't account for partisanship and how multiple veto points could be weaponized to break the electoral feedback loop. Which is somewhat understandable and forgivable for folks in the 18th century without a lot of models to compare to. Less forgivable today
It's more that they did not care about having an electoral feedback loop. The job of government was to do only the things all of them wanted done. They were the veto points, they were the branches, and they were the States.
If you look at the US's government structure as a way to determine the consensus of the state-based aristocracy, it makes sense.
And it's not like they did not have a model: Parliament used to have supremacy. This was deemed bad because it could impose decisions on aristocrats.
I feel for the Democrats. Every Right Wing party just gets this mythical shield of 'best for the economy [ignore all the previous times we wrecked it], best for family values [ignore that we are all sleeping around and hate you], best for law & order [we want police to be able to beat you up without consequeces]'. And it's fucking infuriating. What is wrong with people?!
I had a computer programming professor who said something like “you can’t optimize your way out of insufficient hardware”.
I think a big problem with modern society is that we are essentially trying to design software solutions to hardware problems, and essentially because we are using hardware that is 100,000 years old and that evolved for a use case that no longer exists and is probably nearly maxed out in capability or even being overworked in a modern society, our society will always be vulnerable to exploits and attacks by bad actors or even just cascading failures, vulnerabilities which are nearly impossible to engineer out of the system with “software improvements” like better designed societal and governmental structures.
In other words, I think a lot of the really frustrating aspects of society like people’s gullibility and self destructive tendencies are “meat problems” that are going to be nearly impossible to permanently overcome, and our society, as fucked up as it is, may just be nearing the limits of the best humans can do.
The idea of a "perfectly rational actor" as a model for human behavior has been incredibly destructive to serious discussions of personal accountability, public policy, and government.
The sooner we come to terms with the fact that people are imperfect, flawed beings driven by irrational factors who can be manipulated in ways great and small, the better off we will be. Because then we can have a responsible, meaningful discussion about how to create an environment that facilitates our better natures and true long-term goals and values, instead of constantly giving in to our baser instincts.
That was a driving impulse behind our government structure. The idea being that the ambition of each branch and the States would serve as a meaningful limiter to any one group of people holding too much sway. The problem is that they didn't account for partisanship and how multiple veto points could be weaponized to break the electoral feedback loop. Which is somewhat understandable and forgivable for folks in the 18th century without a lot of models to compare to. Less forgivable today
It's more that they did not care about having an electoral feedback loop. The job of government was to do only the things all of them wanted done. They were the veto points, they were the branches, and they were the States.
If you look at the US's government structure as a way to determine the consensus of the state-based aristocracy, it makes sense.
And it's not like they did not have a model: Parliament used to have supremacy. This was deemed bad because it could impose decisions on aristocrats.
I think they also saw the US as continuing on as something like an “independent colony” rather than transitioning fairly quickly into a real grown up country (which arguably it had done within a decade or so, certainly it was well into being a regional power by the Mexican American war.)
I think generally the founding fathers just didn’t understand to a great degree the kind of nation they were designing.
I feel for the Democrats. Every Right Wing party just gets this mythical shield of 'best for the economy [ignore all the previous times we wrecked it], best for family values [ignore that we are all sleeping around and hate you], best for law & order [we want police to be able to beat you up without consequeces]'. And it's fucking infuriating. What is wrong with people?!
I had a computer programming professor who said something like “you can’t optimize your way out of insufficient hardware”.
I think a big problem with modern society is that we are essentially trying to design software solutions to hardware problems, and essentially because we are using hardware that is 100,000 years old and that evolved for a use case that no longer exists and is probably nearly maxed out in capability or even being overworked in a modern society, our society will always be vulnerable to exploits and attacks by bad actors or even just cascading failures, vulnerabilities which are nearly impossible to engineer out of the system with “software improvements” like better designed societal and governmental structures.
In other words, I think a lot of the really frustrating aspects of society like people’s gullibility and self destructive tendencies are “meat problems” that are going to be nearly impossible to permanently overcome, and our society, as fucked up as it is, may just be nearing the limits of the best humans can do.
The idea of a "perfectly rational actor" as a model for human behavior has been incredibly destructive to serious discussions of personal accountability, public policy, and government.
The sooner we come to terms with the fact that people are imperfect, flawed beings driven by irrational factors who can be manipulated in ways great and small, the better off we will be. Because then we can have a responsible, meaningful discussion about how to create an environment that facilitates our better natures and true long-term goals and values, instead of constantly giving in to our baser instincts.
That was a driving impulse behind our government structure. The idea being that the ambition of each branch and the States would serve as a meaningful limiter to any one group of people holding too much sway. The problem is that they didn't account for partisanship and how multiple veto points could be weaponized to break the electoral feedback loop. Which is somewhat understandable and forgivable for folks in the 18th century without a lot of models to compare to. Less forgivable today
It's more that they did not care about having an electoral feedback loop. The job of government was to do only the things all of them wanted done. They were the veto points, they were the branches, and they were the States.
If you look at the US's government structure as a way to determine the consensus of the state-based aristocracy, it makes sense.
And it's not like they did not have a model: Parliament used to have supremacy. This was deemed bad because it could impose decisions on aristocrats.
I think they also saw the US as continuing on as something like an “independent colony” rather than transitioning fairly quickly into a real grown up country (which arguably it had done within a decade or so, certainly it was well into being a regional power by the Mexican American war.)
I think generally the founding fathers just didn’t understand to a great degree the kind of nation they were designing.
"Political parties are bad, so you should just not have any."
I feel for the Democrats. Every Right Wing party just gets this mythical shield of 'best for the economy [ignore all the previous times we wrecked it], best for family values [ignore that we are all sleeping around and hate you], best for law & order [we want police to be able to beat you up without consequeces]'. And it's fucking infuriating. What is wrong with people?!
I had a computer programming professor who said something like “you can’t optimize your way out of insufficient hardware”.
I think a big problem with modern society is that we are essentially trying to design software solutions to hardware problems, and essentially because we are using hardware that is 100,000 years old and that evolved for a use case that no longer exists and is probably nearly maxed out in capability or even being overworked in a modern society, our society will always be vulnerable to exploits and attacks by bad actors or even just cascading failures, vulnerabilities which are nearly impossible to engineer out of the system with “software improvements” like better designed societal and governmental structures.
In other words, I think a lot of the really frustrating aspects of society like people’s gullibility and self destructive tendencies are “meat problems” that are going to be nearly impossible to permanently overcome, and our society, as fucked up as it is, may just be nearing the limits of the best humans can do.
The idea of a "perfectly rational actor" as a model for human behavior has been incredibly destructive to serious discussions of personal accountability, public policy, and government.
The sooner we come to terms with the fact that people are imperfect, flawed beings driven by irrational factors who can be manipulated in ways great and small, the better off we will be. Because then we can have a responsible, meaningful discussion about how to create an environment that facilitates our better natures and true long-term goals and values, instead of constantly giving in to our baser instincts.
That was a driving impulse behind our government structure. The idea being that the ambition of each branch and the States would serve as a meaningful limiter to any one group of people holding too much sway. The problem is that they didn't account for partisanship and how multiple veto points could be weaponized to break the electoral feedback loop. Which is somewhat understandable and forgivable for folks in the 18th century without a lot of models to compare to. Less forgivable today
It's more that they did not care about having an electoral feedback loop. The job of government was to do only the things all of them wanted done. They were the veto points, they were the branches, and they were the States.
If you look at the US's government structure as a way to determine the consensus of the state-based aristocracy, it makes sense.
And it's not like they did not have a model: Parliament used to have supremacy. This was deemed bad because it could impose decisions on aristocrats.
I think they also saw the US as continuing on as something like an “independent colony” rather than transitioning fairly quickly into a real grown up country (which arguably it had done within a decade or so, certainly it was well into being a regional power by the Mexican American war.)
I think generally the founding fathers just didn’t understand to a great degree the kind of nation they were designing.
"Political parties are bad, so you should just not have any."
I think they assumed a lot of political things would be decided on the state level, and that the federal government would basically act as “we’ve got an England at home” handling only foreign policy and the most high level national decisions. In that sort of situation it might make sense for parties to only exist on the state level, kind of like how parties don’t cross national lines in the EU. That ultimately just didn’t work out for a lot of reasons, and that model was essentially dead by the end of Washington’s administration.
I think some day there will be a breaking point where social media pushes it too far and gets heavily regulated/censored. Could be either party that does it, for good or ill. But right now these platforms, alongside the traditional media, are kingmakers that often represent a serious threat to the party in power. Things haven't been this way for very long in the grand scheme of things, and I don't think they'll stay this way forever.
I’m not engaging with any criticism or armchair QB of the Harris campaign at this point.
She’s carried herself with absolute aplomb, she’s had plenty of marked leads in the polls, the money and donors and endorsements are there en extremis, the choice for president could not be more clear.
I won’t abide second guessing at this point. If we lose (fairly, obvs) it’s because the Nazis have more votes than we do.
Anyone offering campaign critique that splits hairs over microblocs or weird manufactured trivial press gaffes is missing the Nathan Bedford Forrest for the trees.
I just don't see any reason to believe he'll break his 47% support ceiling. Nazis do not have a majority of the country behind them. But our democracy doesn't care about popular mandates to enact policy. Otherwise we'd have had a near straight run of Democratic Presidents for 32 years
The issue these days is that There are people who have either heard the allegation of Nazi getting thrown around far too liberally at any person who's autocratic or ill tempered so the term doesn't carry as much weight. Further, you have other people who think you can only be a nazi if you have a brown shirt, german accent and a swastika proudly displayed on your person.
I think some day there will be a breaking point where social media pushes it too far and gets heavily regulated/censored. Could be either party that does it, for good or ill. But right now these platforms, alongside the traditional media, are kingmakers that often represent a serious threat to the party in power. Things haven't been this way for very long in the grand scheme of things, and I don't think they'll stay this way forever.
I believe every new mass media going back to the printing press has basically gone through the same process.
I assume people get tired of me bringing up canvassing but yeah people do actually care about all of the things you've seen the campaign focus on, to varying degrees.
I never get tired of you bringing up canvassing and your anecdotes that mike this whole situation more personal and more palatable. Thank you, and please continue to make this space brighter with the reflection of the torch you carry in the real world.
I know I don't post much here, but as a lurker, I see you and appreciate you.
I feel for the Democrats. Every Right Wing party just gets this mythical shield of 'best for the economy [ignore all the previous times we wrecked it], best for family values [ignore that we are all sleeping around and hate you], best for law & order [we want police to be able to beat you up without consequeces]'. And it's fucking infuriating. What is wrong with people?!
I had a computer programming professor who said something like “you can’t optimize your way out of insufficient hardware”.
I think a big problem with modern society is that we are essentially trying to design software solutions to hardware problems, and essentially because we are using hardware that is 100,000 years old and that evolved for a use case that no longer exists and is probably nearly maxed out in capability or even being overworked in a modern society, our society will always be vulnerable to exploits and attacks by bad actors or even just cascading failures, vulnerabilities which are nearly impossible to engineer out of the system with “software improvements” like better designed societal and governmental structures.
In other words, I think a lot of the really frustrating aspects of society like people’s gullibility and self destructive tendencies are “meat problems” that are going to be nearly impossible to permanently overcome, and our society, as fucked up as it is, may just be nearing the limits of the best humans can do.
I believe the saying is we are cave-dwellers with medieval institutions and godlike technology.
The title of one of my favorite books puts it such: Too near the Cave, too far from the Stars
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
I think some day there will be a breaking point where social media pushes it too far and gets heavily regulated/censored. Could be either party that does it, for good or ill. But right now these platforms, alongside the traditional media, are kingmakers that often represent a serious threat to the party in power. Things haven't been this way for very long in the grand scheme of things, and I don't think they'll stay this way forever.
What does this even mean though? It's a platitude that doesn't seem to result in any actionable data points. The only thing people propose is "let's put in something which bankrupts social media and then it will be gone" (when they're not pretending that kids are the real victims - frankly, social media has destroyed way more over-50s adults). Except even that wouldn't work, because you can trivially run social media overseas and people will flock to it (see Tiktok), and while I'm sure Bytedance loves the money it makes I'm also pretty sure a number of governments would be very happy to eat the loss for messaging control.
And that's ignoring the reality that computer power is still getting bigger and bigger and with a consistent regulatory environment, something like ActivityPub could wind up becoming new social media at whatever size server scale keeps it just below the regulatory event horizon - that hasn't happened yet, because there's no need for it too.
I really did not have joe the bro Rogan as a shining light of journalism on my bingo card this year.
What a strange fucking election.
I mean in the same interview Rogan says Global Warming isn't an existential threat and that even if it got bad, people would just move to which JD Vance just says Yea. So I wouldn't really say that you're getting a good view of how it's being received.
Like a lot of things with Vance and Trump, its just another one to add to the pile of both sides will look at it and assume whatever outcome is favorable to their own party is what the takeaway was.
I really did not have joe the bro Rogan as a shining light of journalism on my bingo card this year.
What a strange fucking election.
I mean in the same interview Rogan says Global Warming isn't an existential threat and that even if it got bad, people would just move to which JD Vance just says Yea. So I wouldn't really say that you're getting a good view of how it's being received.
Like a lot of things with Vance and Trump, its just another one to add to the pile of both sides will look at it and assume whatever outcome is favorable to their own party is what the takeaway was.
The summary of Joe Rogan as a gateway podcast is pretty accurate IMO: he winds up priming his audience to go into the loony bin. The trick is that he'll layer in some lightweight pushback on one point, then support a whole bunch of others.
I really did not have joe the bro Rogan as a shining light of journalism on my bingo card this year.
What a strange fucking election.
We should've seen this coming back when The Daily Show was the only program willing to call out the bullshit.
Or, arguably, even further back when Fox News started out and people noticed that they skewed basic graphs to suit their narratives and...no one cared and they just got more and more market share and were still treated as legitimate news.
personally I think the 'democracy is in danger' talking point is just too vague; it needs a decent amount of contextualization and anyone who's ready to hear it is probably decided anyway. The point is much better made by talking about republicans wanting to take away women's right to choose, to inspect children's genitals, etc; concrete effects of electing republicans.
it's weird because it felt like after Harris became the nominee there was a fairly decisive strategic change away from the Biden messaging; they seem to have kinda regressed lately but maybe it's just the convention/nomination bumps kinda petering out
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Posts
You just have to remember what they actually mean.
"Better for the economy" = more likely to cut taxes.
"Family values" = hates LGBTQ
"Law and Order" = hates minorities.
This only applies to 14% of states
I don’t recall seeing any Harris ads here in Ohio
A lot of Brown though
I have also seen a lot of Trump, but that’s because Trump is the main character of Bernie Moreno ads because Moreno himself is a toxic candidate dipshit
It's the fucking Fremen Mirage - this idea that you need "hard men" to make the "hard decisions".
She’s carried herself with absolute aplomb, she’s had plenty of marked leads in the polls, the money and donors and endorsements are there en extremis, the choice for president could not be more clear.
I won’t abide second guessing at this point. If we lose (fairly, obvs) it’s because the Nazis have more votes than we do.
Anyone offering campaign critique that splits hairs over microblocs or weird manufactured trivial press gaffes is missing the Nathan Bedford Forrest for the trees.
What pivot?
She was eating his lunch when she had back to back honeymoon periods of becoming the nominee and the DNC. Those boosts are never permanent and never have been. But, also, she is still consistently leading in the popular vote. I don't really see a question of who will get more votes on Tuesday, the question is where do those voters live. Because we have such a fuck awful system.
I just don't see any reason to believe he'll break his 47% support ceiling. Nazis do not have a majority of the country behind them. But our democracy doesn't care about popular mandates to enact policy. Otherwise we'd have had a near straight run of Democratic Presidents for 32 years
I had a computer programming professor who said something like “you can’t optimize your way out of insufficient hardware”.
I think a big problem with modern society is that we are essentially trying to design software solutions to hardware problems, and essentially because we are using hardware that is 100,000 years old and that evolved for a use case that no longer exists and is probably nearly maxed out in capability or even being overworked in a modern society, our society will always be vulnerable to exploits and attacks by bad actors or even just cascading failures, vulnerabilities which are nearly impossible to engineer out of the system with “software improvements” like better designed societal and governmental structures.
In other words, I think a lot of the really frustrating aspects of society like people’s gullibility and self destructive tendencies are “meat problems” that are going to be nearly impossible to permanently overcome, and our society, as fucked up as it is, may just be nearing the limits of the best humans can do.
When Rogan is calling bullshit, yikes. It gets worse after somehow
I believe the saying is we are cave-dwellers with medieval institutions and godlike technology.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
The idea of a "perfectly rational actor" as a model for human behavior has been incredibly destructive to serious discussions of personal accountability, public policy, and government.
The sooner we come to terms with the fact that people are imperfect, flawed beings driven by irrational factors who can be manipulated in ways great and small, the better off we will be. Because then we can have a responsible, meaningful discussion about how to create an environment that facilitates our better natures and true long-term goals and values, instead of constantly giving in to our baser instincts.
Also Republicans: 'Above and beyond disgusting': Mount Pleasant parade display depicts Kamala Harris in chains
I should.
just one fix
Agree on the system and vote count.
I'm not in a swing state and I don't watch sports, so my ad exposure is minimal. All I get is what the candidates are talking about, or at least what they're shown to be talking about.
And everything I'm seeing/hearing in this last stretch has been threat to democracy stuff.
They have done a stellar job with the campaign, don't get me wrong. To pull off what they have in 3 months? Unprecedented.
I'm just worried that message didn't work with Biden and it may not work now.
It kinda needs to work!
That was a driving impulse behind our government structure. The idea being that the ambition of each branch and the States would serve as a meaningful limiter to any one group of people holding too much sway. The problem is that they didn't account for partisanship and how multiple veto points could be weaponized to break the electoral feedback loop. Which is somewhat understandable and forgivable for folks in the 18th century without a lot of models to compare to. Less forgivable today
Why the fuck is Joe Rogan pushing harder than actual journalists?
Oh and also, no, I at least am in no way sick of hearing about the canvassing. Been enlightening in a lot of ways.
It's more that they did not care about having an electoral feedback loop. The job of government was to do only the things all of them wanted done. They were the veto points, they were the branches, and they were the States.
If you look at the US's government structure as a way to determine the consensus of the state-based aristocracy, it makes sense.
And it's not like they did not have a model: Parliament used to have supremacy. This was deemed bad because it could impose decisions on aristocrats.
It was released today
I think they also saw the US as continuing on as something like an “independent colony” rather than transitioning fairly quickly into a real grown up country (which arguably it had done within a decade or so, certainly it was well into being a regional power by the Mexican American war.)
I think generally the founding fathers just didn’t understand to a great degree the kind of nation they were designing.
"Political parties are bad, so you should just not have any."
I think they assumed a lot of political things would be decided on the state level, and that the federal government would basically act as “we’ve got an England at home” handling only foreign policy and the most high level national decisions. In that sort of situation it might make sense for parties to only exist on the state level, kind of like how parties don’t cross national lines in the EU. That ultimately just didn’t work out for a lot of reasons, and that model was essentially dead by the end of Washington’s administration.
The issue these days is that There are people who have either heard the allegation of Nazi getting thrown around far too liberally at any person who's autocratic or ill tempered so the term doesn't carry as much weight. Further, you have other people who think you can only be a nazi if you have a brown shirt, german accent and a swastika proudly displayed on your person.
I believe every new mass media going back to the printing press has basically gone through the same process.
I never get tired of you bringing up canvassing and your anecdotes that mike this whole situation more personal and more palatable. Thank you, and please continue to make this space brighter with the reflection of the torch you carry in the real world.
I know I don't post much here, but as a lurker, I see you and appreciate you.
It’d be close though
The title of one of my favorite books puts it such: Too near the Cave, too far from the Stars
What a strange fucking election.
What does this even mean though? It's a platitude that doesn't seem to result in any actionable data points. The only thing people propose is "let's put in something which bankrupts social media and then it will be gone" (when they're not pretending that kids are the real victims - frankly, social media has destroyed way more over-50s adults). Except even that wouldn't work, because you can trivially run social media overseas and people will flock to it (see Tiktok), and while I'm sure Bytedance loves the money it makes I'm also pretty sure a number of governments would be very happy to eat the loss for messaging control.
And that's ignoring the reality that computer power is still getting bigger and bigger and with a consistent regulatory environment, something like ActivityPub could wind up becoming new social media at whatever size server scale keeps it just below the regulatory event horizon - that hasn't happened yet, because there's no need for it too.
I mean in the same interview Rogan says Global Warming isn't an existential threat and that even if it got bad, people would just move to which JD Vance just says Yea. So I wouldn't really say that you're getting a good view of how it's being received.
Like a lot of things with Vance and Trump, its just another one to add to the pile of both sides will look at it and assume whatever outcome is favorable to their own party is what the takeaway was.
The summary of Joe Rogan as a gateway podcast is pretty accurate IMO: he winds up priming his audience to go into the loony bin. The trick is that he'll layer in some lightweight pushback on one point, then support a whole bunch of others.
We should've seen this coming back when The Daily Show was the only program willing to call out the bullshit.
Or, arguably, even further back when Fox News started out and people noticed that they skewed basic graphs to suit their narratives and...no one cared and they just got more and more market share and were still treated as legitimate news.
it's weird because it felt like after Harris became the nominee there was a fairly decisive strategic change away from the Biden messaging; they seem to have kinda regressed lately but maybe it's just the convention/nomination bumps kinda petering out
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat