4 ms·

> The political "left" has become much the same in the other direction here these days as well There are some rather unhinged people on the left, sure, but the

by arp242 2y ago

> The political "left" has become much the same in the other direction here these days as well There are some rather unhinged people on the left, sure, but they're basically just nutters on the internet, maybe a few activist groups, and things like that. They're certainly not the ones running the show: by and large the people elected to office on a Democratic ticket are ... just normal sane people.[1] People you can disagree with, dislike, or even hate: that's all fine. I intently dislike Ronald Reagan, but he was also a relatively normal sane person so that's okay, and part of the normal democratic process. What we've seen in the Republican party is completely different. Not just over the last few months, over the last few decades. Remember Mitch McConnell just outright obstructed anything for years simply as a power game to make the Democrats look bad? Or Republican actors cooking up crazy conspiracies about the Clintons and then banging on and on and on about it for years and years? And of course the Democratic party isn't perfect. But there are degrees of things, and it's just not comparable. This is "murder, rape, and shoplifting" – all are illegal and should be prosecuted, but they're also not hte same. People saying that "both sides are the same" are deeply and profoundly misinformed, suffering from pseudo-intellectual delusions of "being above it all", or just outright arguing in bad faith. [1]: I'm sure there are the occasional exceptions – there are thousands of people if we count federal, state, and local level and any group of thousands has a few nutjobs no matter how you qualify them. It's not above the baseline nutjob factor.

skissane 2y ago
> There are some rather unhinged people on the left, sure, but they're basically just nutters on the internet, maybe a few activist groups, and things like that. They're certainly not the ones running the show Just the other day, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) was quoted as saying, regarding his own Democratic Party, that “I think the majority of the party realizes that the ideological purity of some of the groups is a recipe for disaster and that candidly the attack on over-the-top wokeism was a valid attack” - https://www.politico.eu/article/us-senator-mark-warner-democrats-brand-really-bad-msc-us-election/ https://www.politico.eu/article/us-senator-mark-warner-democ... So, (if I’m interpreting you correctly) you are saying extreme views isn’t a major problem in the Democratic Party, while Senator Warner is arguing it was a significant contributor to their loss in the 2024 election, and hence Trump being back in the White House. Who is right here?
- staticman2 2y ago
  If you want to know why voters voted the way they did you'd probably try to find a good poll of voters not instead search for the most exciting quote you can find from a politician.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - skissane 2y ago
    Maybe Warner’s diagnosis of the 2024 election is wrong-but that’s not my point. My point: it would be rather strange for leading Democrats to come to believe their party is being harmed by its own extreme element if that element was non-existent or completely lacking in any relevance.
    - staticman2 2y ago
      He said "over the top" not "extreme". Those two terms are not synonyms. If you don't believe me ask your favorite LLM. Maybe you think he meant "extreme" and was using a euphemism. But then we have a second problem: politicians aren't necessarily reliable for analysis because they can't necessarily say what they believe.
      - skissane 2y ago
        > He said "over the top" not "extreme". Those two terms are not synonyms. They are different vaguely defined degrees on the same continuum; while “extreme” no doubt has stronger connotations than “over the top”, neither term has a precise definition and the boundary between the two isn’t clearly defined. > But then we have a second problem: politicians aren't necessarily reliable for analysis because they can't necessarily say what they believe. True, but I think you’ll find that in that soul-searching period which inevitably follows defeat, they have the greatest freedom to speak their minds and say what they really think, or at least much closer to what they really think. And the bigger the defeat, the more that’s true: and while November 2024 wasn’t that big a defeat in raw numerical terms, I think it was a much bigger loss in psychological terms
cshores 2y ago
Yes, because political slogans like Defund the Police resonate with people. /s

by arp242 2y ago

skissane 2y ago

> There are some rather unhinged people on the left, sure, but they're basically just nutters on the internet, maybe a few activist groups, and things like that. They're certainly not the ones running the show Just the other day, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) was quoted as saying, regarding his own Democratic Party, that “I think the majority of the party realizes that the ideological purity of some of the groups is a recipe for disaster and that candidly the attack on over-the-top wokeism was a valid attack” - https://www.politico.eu/article/us-senator-mark-warner-democrats-brand-really-bad-msc-us-election/ https://www.politico.eu/article/us-senator-mark-warner-democ... So, (if I’m interpreting you correctly) you are saying extreme views isn’t a major problem in the Democratic Party, while Senator Warner is arguing it was a significant contributor to their loss in the 2024 election, and hence Trump being back in the White House. Who is right here?

staticman2 2y ago
If you want to know why voters voted the way they did you'd probably try to find a good poll of voters not instead search for the most exciting quote you can find from a politician.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- skissane 2y ago
  Maybe Warner’s diagnosis of the 2024 election is wrong-but that’s not my point. My point: it would be rather strange for leading Democrats to come to believe their party is being harmed by its own extreme element if that element was non-existent or completely lacking in any relevance.
  - staticman2 2y ago
    He said "over the top" not "extreme". Those two terms are not synonyms. If you don't believe me ask your favorite LLM. Maybe you think he meant "extreme" and was using a euphemism. But then we have a second problem: politicians aren't necessarily reliable for analysis because they can't necessarily say what they believe.
    - skissane 2y ago
      > He said "over the top" not "extreme". Those two terms are not synonyms. They are different vaguely defined degrees on the same continuum; while “extreme” no doubt has stronger connotations than “over the top”, neither term has a precise definition and the boundary between the two isn’t clearly defined. > But then we have a second problem: politicians aren't necessarily reliable for analysis because they can't necessarily say what they believe. True, but I think you’ll find that in that soul-searching period which inevitably follows defeat, they have the greatest freedom to speak their minds and say what they really think, or at least much closer to what they really think. And the bigger the defeat, the more that’s true: and while November 2024 wasn’t that big a defeat in raw numerical terms, I think it was a much bigger loss in psychological terms

cshores 2y ago

Yes, because political slogans like Defund the Police resonate with people. /s