4 ms·

ah, mister no politic rule * is at it again, this time telling the left to become more like the lunatic right in order to win the elections * https://news.ycom

ah, mister no politic rule * is at it again, this time telling the left to become more like the lunatic right in order to win the elections * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43122960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43122960

hagbard_c 2y ago
Yes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander after all or - in Dutch - 'Gelijke monniken, gelijke kappen'. Say, mr. complain-about people calling for comment equity (everybody can play this game), I'd be interested to hear whether you agree or disagree with what I wrote, both here as well as the previous times you complained. Instead of going ad-hominem the discourse here would be improved by trying to get to the core problem, that what lies behind the smouldering fires in western politics. That core problem is the intense polarisation which pits the 'good' side against the 'bad' one - where 'good' and 'bad' depend on which side you're on - instead of the realisation that we're mostly on 'our' side and might want to settle these petty disputes so we stand a chance of first of all standing at all instead of lying down and second standing our ground here in 'the West'.
- croisillon 2y ago
  if you want to reframe the debate from good vs. bad to west vs. invaders, you might have first to recognize that the current US administration is compromised by Russia, if not completely owned and who more than Russia wants to abolish identity politics?
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    Russia, Russia, Russia - sure. Let's see where the current negotiations around the ceasefire in Ukraine lead to. What do you think will be the outcome and, maybe even more important, what do you hope will be the outcome? I'll give you mine: I hope the talks lead to a ceasefire which will lead to an end to the conflict. I think Russia will keep control over the Krim peninsula and the Donbass region. I can more or less support the former given that the population of that area seems to largely support it and the area used to be part of Russia until Khrushchev added it to Ukraine in the 50's, I am less enthusiastic about the latter but I do not see how the conflict can be resolved at this moment without this compromise. One solution would be to have a referendum in the area but it will be hard if not impossible for such a referendum to take place without it being influenced by either parties in the conflict. I also suspect that the outcome of such a referendum would be a very close call even without undue influence given that this region was also (next to the Krim peninsula) the least enthusiastic when a referendum was held to decide whether Ukraine should declare independency from the Soviet Union [1]. Here's some background to chew on while you consider your answer: https://www.britannica.com/topic/realpolitik https://www.britannica.com/topic/realpolitik https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2017-04-14/realpolitik-history https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2017-0... https://politicaldictionary.com/words/realpolitik/ https://politicaldictionary.com/words/realpolitik/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_re...
    - croisillon 2y ago
      so you demonstrated that you personally are not as compromised as the administration, congrats i guess?
      - hagbard_c 2y ago
        I notice that you did not answer my question on where you stand on these subjects. Please do so instead of posting yet another snarky comment, it would be interesting to know and improve the discourse on this site.
        croisillon 2y ago
        > I'd be interested to hear whether you agree or disagree with what I wrote Well I disagree, which is why i snarked that you were "telling the left to become more like the lunatic right in order to win the elections". If you want more depth to it: please let the Democrats solve their issues by themselves, the way we let you dissolve the GOP into Единая Россия
        hagbard_c 2y ago
        > Well I disagree With what exactly? In the course of our 'discussion' - which consisted of me attempting to discuss while having ad-hominems and snark thrown at me by you - a few questions arose, namely: > you were "telling the left to become more like the lunatic right in order to win the elections". Well, no, that is not what I said as will be understood by anyone who does not let his emotions take over when confronted with someone with a dissenting voice. Here's what I said: I hope the "democratic" party burns down to ashes and that a new Democratic party will arise from those ashes, one which does not need to be put between quotes and which deserves the capital D. The same has happened with the Republican party which currently stands more united and stronger than they've been in a long time. While this may be good for them it is not good for the USA to have one of the two parties be in disarray for an extended period, the system is built around having the two main parties hold each other in check. The current "democratic" party has shown it does not have the capability to put up any believable sort of opposition against the Republicans which runs the risk of those Republicans getting delusions of grandeur. They need to be kept in check just like the "democratic" party needed to be - and was as a result of the last elections - kept in check. So, Democrats, pick up your pitchforks and torches and burn the whole thing down so that something better may arise, preferably before 2028. Trump did the same to the Republican party, now it is your turn. Ditch the identity politics, get rid of the looney lefties, listen to your (potential) voters - and by that I do not mean only those with funny coloured hair in the humanities departments but especially those out in the boonies, those who never went to college - and please stop the absurd reductio-ad-Hitlerum and demonisation of anyone who dares to voice an opinion outside of what is tolerated in the hallowed halls of Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Read this again and you'll notice I do not call for the "democratic" party to become more like the lunatic right - you seem to have been triggered by my use of the term looney lefties here - but instead call for the party to stop focusing on their extreme fringe so they can function as effective opposition to the currently fairly united Republican party. They don't need to become more like the Republicans in policy but in appeal to the electorate and they'll only accomplish that by moving their public focus (which is different from their internal focus, another problem they need to solve) away from the divisive identity politics and fringe interests. They need to get over [their] preening and [their] moral superiority [1] as James Carville pointed out not that long ago, climb down that rickety ivory tower they built themselves and start focusing on reality, stop larping revolutionaries. That way they might stop bleeding people towards the Republican party - notice that a sizeable fraction of the current top in that party used to be "democrats" (including the orange man himself) while the "democratic" party pulled in Liz Cheney and her ilk - and start gaining mass appeal. While that term might sound "dirty" to the academic fringe with diverse hair colours it is essential to keep the other side in check and that is what I am calling for. Now to my other question: What do you think will be the outcome and, maybe even more important, what do you hope will be the outcome with regard to the negotiations around the war in Ukraine. You did not answer this question either but gave a snarky comment about me not being 'as compromised as the administration'. I'm still interested in hearing your take on this, do you think it is time for Realpolitik or should this proxy war continue? If the former, how? If the latter, why? [1] https://www.dailywire.com/news/james-carville-has-dating-advice-for-leftists-get-over-your-preening-and-moral-superiority https://www.dailywire.com/news/james-carville-has-dating-adv...

hagbard_c 2y ago

Yes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander after all or - in Dutch - 'Gelijke monniken, gelijke kappen'. Say, mr. complain-about people calling for comment equity (everybody can play this game), I'd be interested to hear whether you agree or disagree with what I wrote, both here as well as the previous times you complained. Instead of going ad-hominem the discourse here would be improved by trying to get to the core problem, that what lies behind the smouldering fires in western politics. That core problem is the intense polarisation which pits the 'good' side against the 'bad' one - where 'good' and 'bad' depend on which side you're on - instead of the realisation that we're mostly on 'our' side and might want to settle these petty disputes so we stand a chance of first of all standing at all instead of lying down and second standing our ground here in 'the West'.

croisillon 2y ago
if you want to reframe the debate from good vs. bad to west vs. invaders, you might have first to recognize that the current US administration is compromised by Russia, if not completely owned and who more than Russia wants to abolish identity politics?
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  Russia, Russia, Russia - sure. Let's see where the current negotiations around the ceasefire in Ukraine lead to. What do you think will be the outcome and, maybe even more important, what do you hope will be the outcome? I'll give you mine: I hope the talks lead to a ceasefire which will lead to an end to the conflict. I think Russia will keep control over the Krim peninsula and the Donbass region. I can more or less support the former given that the population of that area seems to largely support it and the area used to be part of Russia until Khrushchev added it to Ukraine in the 50's, I am less enthusiastic about the latter but I do not see how the conflict can be resolved at this moment without this compromise. One solution would be to have a referendum in the area but it will be hard if not impossible for such a referendum to take place without it being influenced by either parties in the conflict. I also suspect that the outcome of such a referendum would be a very close call even without undue influence given that this region was also (next to the Krim peninsula) the least enthusiastic when a referendum was held to decide whether Ukraine should declare independency from the Soviet Union [1]. Here's some background to chew on while you consider your answer: https://www.britannica.com/topic/realpolitik https://www.britannica.com/topic/realpolitik https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2017-04-14/realpolitik-history https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2017-0... https://politicaldictionary.com/words/realpolitik/ https://politicaldictionary.com/words/realpolitik/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_re...
  - croisillon 2y ago
    so you demonstrated that you personally are not as compromised as the administration, congrats i guess?
    - hagbard_c 2y ago
      I notice that you did not answer my question on where you stand on these subjects. Please do so instead of posting yet another snarky comment, it would be interesting to know and improve the discourse on this site.
      - croisillon 2y ago
        > I'd be interested to hear whether you agree or disagree with what I wrote Well I disagree, which is why i snarked that you were "telling the left to become more like the lunatic right in order to win the elections". If you want more depth to it: please let the Democrats solve their issues by themselves, the way we let you dissolve the GOP into Единая Россия
        hagbard_c 2y ago
        > Well I disagree With what exactly? In the course of our 'discussion' - which consisted of me attempting to discuss while having ad-hominems and snark thrown at me by you - a few questions arose, namely: > you were "telling the left to become more like the lunatic right in order to win the elections". Well, no, that is not what I said as will be understood by anyone who does not let his emotions take over when confronted with someone with a dissenting voice. Here's what I said: I hope the "democratic" party burns down to ashes and that a new Democratic party will arise from those ashes, one which does not need to be put between quotes and which deserves the capital D. The same has happened with the Republican party which currently stands more united and stronger than they've been in a long time. While this may be good for them it is not good for the USA to have one of the two parties be in disarray for an extended period, the system is built around having the two main parties hold each other in check. The current "democratic" party has shown it does not have the capability to put up any believable sort of opposition against the Republicans which runs the risk of those Republicans getting delusions of grandeur. They need to be kept in check just like the "democratic" party needed to be - and was as a result of the last elections - kept in check. So, Democrats, pick up your pitchforks and torches and burn the whole thing down so that something better may arise, preferably before 2028. Trump did the same to the Republican party, now it is your turn. Ditch the identity politics, get rid of the looney lefties, listen to your (potential) voters - and by that I do not mean only those with funny coloured hair in the humanities departments but especially those out in the boonies, those who never went to college - and please stop the absurd reductio-ad-Hitlerum and demonisation of anyone who dares to voice an opinion outside of what is tolerated in the hallowed halls of Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Read this again and you'll notice I do not call for the "democratic" party to become more like the lunatic right - you seem to have been triggered by my use of the term looney lefties here - but instead call for the party to stop focusing on their extreme fringe so they can function as effective opposition to the currently fairly united Republican party. They don't need to become more like the Republicans in policy but in appeal to the electorate and they'll only accomplish that by moving their public focus (which is different from their internal focus, another problem they need to solve) away from the divisive identity politics and fringe interests. They need to get over [their] preening and [their] moral superiority [1] as James Carville pointed out not that long ago, climb down that rickety ivory tower they built themselves and start focusing on reality, stop larping revolutionaries. That way they might stop bleeding people towards the Republican party - notice that a sizeable fraction of the current top in that party used to be "democrats" (including the orange man himself) while the "democratic" party pulled in Liz Cheney and her ilk - and start gaining mass appeal. While that term might sound "dirty" to the academic fringe with diverse hair colours it is essential to keep the other side in check and that is what I am calling for. Now to my other question: What do you think will be the outcome and, maybe even more important, what do you hope will be the outcome with regard to the negotiations around the war in Ukraine. You did not answer this question either but gave a snarky comment about me not being 'as compromised as the administration'. I'm still interested in hearing your take on this, do you think it is time for Realpolitik or should this proxy war continue? If the former, how? If the latter, why? [1] https://www.dailywire.com/news/james-carville-has-dating-advice-for-leftists-get-over-your-preening-and-moral-superiority https://www.dailywire.com/news/james-carville-has-dating-adv...