4 ms·

This is some real low-effort enlightened centrism nonsense. The author basically just says "both sides bad" and then points out that comparisons to Weimar Germa

This is some real low-effort enlightened centrism nonsense. The author basically just says "both sides bad" and then points out that comparisons to Weimar Germany or Rome are bad, but don't worry, they'll mention them anyway.

SftwreEngnr 6y ago
Excellent reply. Terse and informed. Just kidding, you're a cunt.
zepto 6y ago
What did you think about the parts where they discuss economics and demographics?
- shakezula 6y ago
  They make some interesting points about religion, particularly around how the left abandoned it, but absolutely miss the forest for the trees when discussing demographics. They vaguely describe what I would call intersectionalism, but they take such a reductionist approach that it really misses the point. They call it a bunch of "categories", which is pretty misleading, in my opinion. They also are pretty harsh with how they describe those categories meshing into local communities, missing the forest for the trees in how intersectionalism is a micro view and communities are the macro. On economics, I agree with the author that it's very difficult to start a family in America right now. They're mostly on the money about the unions and wage problems, but they again betray their underlying opinions by lumping Democrats in with Republicans on this issue where they honestly might be the most different. I would agree with the author about the "knowledge economy" not working out like we thought, though I'd attribute that to skyrocketing education costs and other educational system issues, not wage issues. One could argue better wages would help, though. I would accept that. I think the author betrays their own opinions several times in this article. They're scathingly critical of the left, but paint the right as essentially just victims of the above mentioned "categories" that have sprung up. Democrats are not blameless, and I'm first in line to be critical of the politicians I have voted for, but Republicans are also not innocent victims.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > Democrats are not blameless, and I'm first in line to be critical of the politicians I have voted for, but Republicans are also not innocent victims. Honestly, I can’t see how or why you would accuse the author of this, given paragraphs like this: “The Republicans started the cycle of escalation in the 1990s. Rejecting the very idea of a bipartisan consensus, Newt Gingrich disseminated a partisan vocabulary to make it appear that Republicans favored the opposite of everything Democrats favored. Gingrich told Republicans to contrast the “conservative opportunity society” with “the liberal welfare state.” Semantic warfare was combined with quasi-military organization, as Gingrich and his Republican successors imposed a degree of discipline on the Republican Party in Congress that was alien to American traditions.”
    - shakezula 6y ago
      Their skew is more obvious when the author starts discussing the demographics and social issues sections. I also can't stomach an equivocation of the protests we had over the summer to the protests we just experienced at the Capitol. Nuance and context has never been a skill of these types, though.
      - zepto 6y ago
        What statements you are reading as equivocation? I can’t see where the author makes any comparison between the two at all, but perhaps I missed something. Also, it seems like you have just dismissed the author entirely as a ‘type’. Again I don’t see how that helps.
        shakezula 6y ago
        They boiled down demographics and social issues to a bunch of "categories" but I'm not allowed to call them a "type"? That seems unfair. They point out that in the last two months there's been 2 different Capitols, one stormed by the right, one stormed by the left. On face value, that's true, but they're implicitly declaring them as equally bad. It just lacks the context or nuance of _why_ each of them happened. One of them was a response to police brutality and extra-judicial killings of their community members, and the other was an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected President, or at least stall the process for it. You can be critical of the CHAZ (which I am) and still recognize that it wasn't anywhere near the same as storming our nation's Capitol with the intent of stalling and disrupting the election process for our President. I'm probably what most would call a socialist, and I'm all for discussions about labor and wages and class consciousness, and that seems like what this author is, albeit in a hamfisted way, getting at, but they're just coming across as a smug to me.

SftwreEngnr 6y ago

Excellent reply. Terse and informed. Just kidding, you're a cunt.

zepto 6y ago

What did you think about the parts where they discuss economics and demographics?

shakezula 6y ago
They make some interesting points about religion, particularly around how the left abandoned it, but absolutely miss the forest for the trees when discussing demographics. They vaguely describe what I would call intersectionalism, but they take such a reductionist approach that it really misses the point. They call it a bunch of "categories", which is pretty misleading, in my opinion. They also are pretty harsh with how they describe those categories meshing into local communities, missing the forest for the trees in how intersectionalism is a micro view and communities are the macro. On economics, I agree with the author that it's very difficult to start a family in America right now. They're mostly on the money about the unions and wage problems, but they again betray their underlying opinions by lumping Democrats in with Republicans on this issue where they honestly might be the most different. I would agree with the author about the "knowledge economy" not working out like we thought, though I'd attribute that to skyrocketing education costs and other educational system issues, not wage issues. One could argue better wages would help, though. I would accept that. I think the author betrays their own opinions several times in this article. They're scathingly critical of the left, but paint the right as essentially just victims of the above mentioned "categories" that have sprung up. Democrats are not blameless, and I'm first in line to be critical of the politicians I have voted for, but Republicans are also not innocent victims.
- zepto 6y ago
  > Democrats are not blameless, and I'm first in line to be critical of the politicians I have voted for, but Republicans are also not innocent victims. Honestly, I can’t see how or why you would accuse the author of this, given paragraphs like this: “The Republicans started the cycle of escalation in the 1990s. Rejecting the very idea of a bipartisan consensus, Newt Gingrich disseminated a partisan vocabulary to make it appear that Republicans favored the opposite of everything Democrats favored. Gingrich told Republicans to contrast the “conservative opportunity society” with “the liberal welfare state.” Semantic warfare was combined with quasi-military organization, as Gingrich and his Republican successors imposed a degree of discipline on the Republican Party in Congress that was alien to American traditions.”
  - shakezula 6y ago
    Their skew is more obvious when the author starts discussing the demographics and social issues sections. I also can't stomach an equivocation of the protests we had over the summer to the protests we just experienced at the Capitol. Nuance and context has never been a skill of these types, though.
    - zepto 6y ago
      What statements you are reading as equivocation? I can’t see where the author makes any comparison between the two at all, but perhaps I missed something. Also, it seems like you have just dismissed the author entirely as a ‘type’. Again I don’t see how that helps.
      - shakezula 6y ago
        They boiled down demographics and social issues to a bunch of "categories" but I'm not allowed to call them a "type"? That seems unfair. They point out that in the last two months there's been 2 different Capitols, one stormed by the right, one stormed by the left. On face value, that's true, but they're implicitly declaring them as equally bad. It just lacks the context or nuance of _why_ each of them happened. One of them was a response to police brutality and extra-judicial killings of their community members, and the other was an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected President, or at least stall the process for it. You can be critical of the CHAZ (which I am) and still recognize that it wasn't anywhere near the same as storming our nation's Capitol with the intent of stalling and disrupting the election process for our President. I'm probably what most would call a socialist, and I'm all for discussions about labor and wages and class consciousness, and that seems like what this author is, albeit in a hamfisted way, getting at, but they're just coming across as a smug to me.