4 ms·

By the left I don't mean democrats (they aren't left wing other than when convenient socially), I mean the theory-reading new leftists of a few decades ago i.e.

by mhh__ 2y ago

By the left I don't mean democrats (they aren't left wing other than when convenient socially), I mean the theory-reading new leftists of a few decades ago i.e. a relatively tiny group of post-marxists that came up with new terminology and became quite dominant in most academic departments of that nature. No one will openly vote for this stuff, so they gave up and ended up in institutions (amongst other things). I'm writing from a British perspective, so the joke that comes to mind is "I'm old enough to remember when judges were right-wing". I had to attend lectures about decolonizing the physics curriculum for example, in a university founded almost in the 70s (i.e. after the revolution). This is late Soviet or antiquity levels of bizarre rituals and practices. The ad I'm thinking of I don't think featured any trans people, or at least if it was they don't pass. I don't really want to dwell on this other than it stuck out like a sore thumb as something from 2021 or '22. The point is just that it's clearly evidence of some massive cultural shift inside Google. Anyway, back to Andreesen, the east Coast declared war on the west, and lost. Tough shit IMO.

foldr 2y ago
I’m also British. I can’t say that your perspective makes any sense to me. Andreessen is talking about why he voted Republican instead of Democrat. If the Democrats aren’t particularly left wing then the ‘left’ in your sense isn’t relevant here. I certainly don’t think lectures in British universities have any connection to his voting choices. >The point is just that it's clearly evidence of some massive cultural shift inside Google. I haven’t seen the ads, so sorry if I got the wrong idea about them featuring trans people. But if they just show men wearing dresses, who could really take issue with this? Are there really people who believe that men should not be permitted to wear dresses and that tech companies need to take a strong stance on what men should or shouldn’t wear? And if you’re British, would you not have seen a man in a dress every time you went to see the Christmas panto? It’s hardly a brand new cultural phenomenon, nor a harbinger of the end of days.
- mhh__ 2y ago
  > I certainly don’t think lectures in British universities have any connection to his voting choices. To me this reads like you either cannot reason abductively at all or you're being deliberately obtuse. I was giving an example of the cultural revolution he referred to. There are two strands here: One is tech drifting away from the left and/or actively being attacked by the form that popular leftism takes. The other is the Democratic insiders declaring war on tech / the east coast in general. The latter is what really drove someone like Andreesen towards Trump, but the former tee-ed it up. Macro: This isn't really about voting, it's about the different parts of the US establishment putting the brakes on the way the executive was going for the last few years. They wanted Trump to win, Kamala was a just there to see it out. As for Panto, I have indeed and this is completely different. I think you know it, at least if you don't you're a frog being boiled. You might think it's just the next chapter of progress; you have every right to do so, but to say it's not at least in some way novel is just strange. It really is a new cultural phenomenon. This type of marketing would be an anachronism in even in the first Trump term let alone 2012 or so, the recent election was basically a referendum on it, and they lost, badly. Trump post-assassination is a unity candidate to take some power back, make the federal gov less activist, undo woke etc.
  - foldr 2y ago
    I don't think a lecture that you attended once in one country is a great example of a cultural revolution in another country; it's especially not a good example of anything Democrats are advocating for in the US. In general, your posts contain a lot of free association between events and ideas that are linked from your psychological point of view, but which don't necessarily have a great deal of logical connection. "Democratic insiders" have not "declared war on tech". The interview is full of this sort of hyperbole, but there's no need to repeat it uncritically here. If we leave aside the fantasy "war on tech" and try to find whatever sense we can in Andreessen's responses, it essentially amounts to the following: he voted for Trump because he likes what Trump stands for and thinks Trump will be better for his bottom line. In other words, he voted based on perceived self interest, just like lots of voters do every time there's an election. As Andreessen appears to have no very fixed political or moral convictions beyond those expected of his class, it is rather difficult to understand him as he wishes to be understood, i.e. as an instinctive Democrat "driven" to vote for the other side by a shadowy conspiracy against his livelihood. I've now looked up the Google ad you referred to. It actually involves a nonbinary person who uses he/they pronouns (so not really a man dressed as a woman). As you yourself acknowledged previously, such ads merely reflect a broader cultural shift in the acceptance of trans and nonbinary people. Tech can perfectly well survive such changes, just as it survived gay marriage and countless other cultural shifts. Nonbinary people appearing in commercials wasn't a big election issue. The election certainly wasn't a referendum on this (or on the broader associated cultural changes). The economy was the top issue for most voters.

by mhh__ 2y ago

foldr 2y ago

I’m also British. I can’t say that your perspective makes any sense to me. Andreessen is talking about why he voted Republican instead of Democrat. If the Democrats aren’t particularly left wing then the ‘left’ in your sense isn’t relevant here. I certainly don’t think lectures in British universities have any connection to his voting choices. >The point is just that it's clearly evidence of some massive cultural shift inside Google. I haven’t seen the ads, so sorry if I got the wrong idea about them featuring trans people. But if they just show men wearing dresses, who could really take issue with this? Are there really people who believe that men should not be permitted to wear dresses and that tech companies need to take a strong stance on what men should or shouldn’t wear? And if you’re British, would you not have seen a man in a dress every time you went to see the Christmas panto? It’s hardly a brand new cultural phenomenon, nor a harbinger of the end of days.

mhh__ 2y ago
> I certainly don’t think lectures in British universities have any connection to his voting choices. To me this reads like you either cannot reason abductively at all or you're being deliberately obtuse. I was giving an example of the cultural revolution he referred to. There are two strands here: One is tech drifting away from the left and/or actively being attacked by the form that popular leftism takes. The other is the Democratic insiders declaring war on tech / the east coast in general. The latter is what really drove someone like Andreesen towards Trump, but the former tee-ed it up. Macro: This isn't really about voting, it's about the different parts of the US establishment putting the brakes on the way the executive was going for the last few years. They wanted Trump to win, Kamala was a just there to see it out. As for Panto, I have indeed and this is completely different. I think you know it, at least if you don't you're a frog being boiled. You might think it's just the next chapter of progress; you have every right to do so, but to say it's not at least in some way novel is just strange. It really is a new cultural phenomenon. This type of marketing would be an anachronism in even in the first Trump term let alone 2012 or so, the recent election was basically a referendum on it, and they lost, badly. Trump post-assassination is a unity candidate to take some power back, make the federal gov less activist, undo woke etc.
- foldr 2y ago
  I don't think a lecture that you attended once in one country is a great example of a cultural revolution in another country; it's especially not a good example of anything Democrats are advocating for in the US. In general, your posts contain a lot of free association between events and ideas that are linked from your psychological point of view, but which don't necessarily have a great deal of logical connection. "Democratic insiders" have not "declared war on tech". The interview is full of this sort of hyperbole, but there's no need to repeat it uncritically here. If we leave aside the fantasy "war on tech" and try to find whatever sense we can in Andreessen's responses, it essentially amounts to the following: he voted for Trump because he likes what Trump stands for and thinks Trump will be better for his bottom line. In other words, he voted based on perceived self interest, just like lots of voters do every time there's an election. As Andreessen appears to have no very fixed political or moral convictions beyond those expected of his class, it is rather difficult to understand him as he wishes to be understood, i.e. as an instinctive Democrat "driven" to vote for the other side by a shadowy conspiracy against his livelihood. I've now looked up the Google ad you referred to. It actually involves a nonbinary person who uses he/they pronouns (so not really a man dressed as a woman). As you yourself acknowledged previously, such ads merely reflect a broader cultural shift in the acceptance of trans and nonbinary people. Tech can perfectly well survive such changes, just as it survived gay marriage and countless other cultural shifts. Nonbinary people appearing in commercials wasn't a big election issue. The election certainly wasn't a referendum on this (or on the broader associated cultural changes). The economy was the top issue for most voters.