5 ms·

Blue team is hesitant to use its power in a lot of ways, and due to insisting on consensus most of the time they are handicapped. Red team actually seems to kno

Blue team is hesitant to use its power in a lot of ways, and due to insisting on consensus most of the time they are handicapped. Red team actually seems to know what power is and how to use it--unfortunately for us, they lack discrimination and strategic planning in its application. Blue team also required a bunch of thought-killing exercises and public signalling of things that are clearly inefficient and intellectually bankrupt and dishonest--this drove away a lot of smart people that actually wanted to get shit done, and made it easy for red team to point over and say "see, they're lying/delusional/woke?" as covering fire when red team pushed for their own odious agendas. Blue team also not only failed to address issues but deliberately lied about them: the immigration crisis was pilloried when Trump wanted to build a wall, but once Biden took power a few weeks later suddenly _then_ the immigration crisis was a real policy concern. When people were complaining about the cost of food and goods, that was silly--but now that Trump's in power, suddenly we are told to care again. The attempted manufacturing of consent by the media on the left (and to be clear, red team does the same thing) is now too obvious not to be used against them. Given all of this: * Things aren't as bad as they're being made out to be, though they are serious. * There is an entire industry relying on your fear and anxiety to exist, so practice good information hygiene. * Maybe look beyond the obvious labels (woke, Nazi, marxist, fascist) to understand what's actually going on--don't be intellectually lazy. * Revisit the things you think you know and why they're Good or not--and consider what others would think of them (for example, we can't both talk about how it's only a matter of years that "white" will be a minority in the US and that that's a good thing _and also_ claim that reactionary concerns about replacement are wholly unfounded). Good luck to you.

ilaksh 2y ago
I would like to believe that those are just intellectually lazy labels. Are you sure it's not 100% accurate to say that Musk and Hegseth are neo-Nazis? Or that we are headed straight for new American Holocaust against Hispanics and a race-fueled third world war? I want that to be hysterical paranoia or "intellectually lazy labels". But look at the historical parallels.
- loanedempathy 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - computerthings 2y ago
    > What is the relative population of Latinos in the US as a percent, compared with Jews in Germany at the time? What is the geographic distribution of those folks compared to Jews at the time? What is the representation of Latinos in Congress? How is that relevant? > it's also worth evaluating on its own merits. But why do it in the form of a riddle?
    - loanedempathy 2y ago
      > How is that relevant? The thing that user is concerned about seems to be trying to decide if we're looking at another Holocaust. It seems reasonable to check to see if the preconditions are similar. > But why do it in the form of a riddle? It's not a riddle, it's an invitation to set a baseline to discuss from that's not just "the world is scary and we're looking at another Holocaust". If somebody says the world is scary and they want reassurance, we can't just go "no the world isn't scary it's gonna be fine"--we have to explain _why_ the world isn't scary, and to do that we need shared understanding. It's not helpful if, for example, they mean Nazi in the general sloppy sense ("thugs and bigots that seek power") and I use Nazis in a very particular sense (a group desirous of annexing Sudetenland and Alsace–Lorraine, seeking to restore German and Austrian economic power, scapegoating particular minorities and progressive values for cultural corruption, a reliance on a patchwork of occult and mystical foundations for rallying, etc.). So, I didn't ask "riddles": I asked a bunch of questions to see where they were coming from before making an argument one way or the other. I wish more folks did this in the years leading up to the current situation, but here we are.
      - computerthings 2y ago
        > It seems reasonable to check to see if the preconditions are similar. I know. And I ask how that is relevant, how any answer to those particular question would makes them similar or dissimilar. It's not. I know this for a fact, but you didn't even make the attempt to claim otherwise. It's not about absolute or relative numbers. And it's not about knowing the future. If I say "don't fall asleep with a cigarette", do I mean "don't burn yourself", "don't kill yourself", "don't burn down your house", "don't burn down the block", "don't burn down the city", or "don't burn down the continent"?
jhp123 2y ago
so when Elon Musk stands at a podium and performs the Nazi salute, it is "intellectually lazy" to use labels like "Nazi" or "fascist"?

ilaksh 2y ago

I would like to believe that those are just intellectually lazy labels. Are you sure it's not 100% accurate to say that Musk and Hegseth are neo-Nazis? Or that we are headed straight for new American Holocaust against Hispanics and a race-fueled third world war? I want that to be hysterical paranoia or "intellectually lazy labels". But look at the historical parallels.

loanedempathy 2y ago
[flagged]
- computerthings 2y ago
  > What is the relative population of Latinos in the US as a percent, compared with Jews in Germany at the time? What is the geographic distribution of those folks compared to Jews at the time? What is the representation of Latinos in Congress? How is that relevant? > it's also worth evaluating on its own merits. But why do it in the form of a riddle?
  - loanedempathy 2y ago
    > How is that relevant? The thing that user is concerned about seems to be trying to decide if we're looking at another Holocaust. It seems reasonable to check to see if the preconditions are similar. > But why do it in the form of a riddle? It's not a riddle, it's an invitation to set a baseline to discuss from that's not just "the world is scary and we're looking at another Holocaust". If somebody says the world is scary and they want reassurance, we can't just go "no the world isn't scary it's gonna be fine"--we have to explain _why_ the world isn't scary, and to do that we need shared understanding. It's not helpful if, for example, they mean Nazi in the general sloppy sense ("thugs and bigots that seek power") and I use Nazis in a very particular sense (a group desirous of annexing Sudetenland and Alsace–Lorraine, seeking to restore German and Austrian economic power, scapegoating particular minorities and progressive values for cultural corruption, a reliance on a patchwork of occult and mystical foundations for rallying, etc.). So, I didn't ask "riddles": I asked a bunch of questions to see where they were coming from before making an argument one way or the other. I wish more folks did this in the years leading up to the current situation, but here we are.
    - computerthings 2y ago
      > It seems reasonable to check to see if the preconditions are similar. I know. And I ask how that is relevant, how any answer to those particular question would makes them similar or dissimilar. It's not. I know this for a fact, but you didn't even make the attempt to claim otherwise. It's not about absolute or relative numbers. And it's not about knowing the future. If I say "don't fall asleep with a cigarette", do I mean "don't burn yourself", "don't kill yourself", "don't burn down your house", "don't burn down the block", "don't burn down the city", or "don't burn down the continent"?

jhp123 2y ago

so when Elon Musk stands at a podium and performs the Nazi salute, it is "intellectually lazy" to use labels like "Nazi" or "fascist"?