3 ms·

You know if we're gonna pass laws to make it illegal for the government to interfere with the Torment Nexus, the least they could do is not gaslight us with the

You know if we're gonna pass laws to make it illegal for the government to interfere with the Torment Nexus, the least they could do is not gaslight us with the fucking name of the law. Just tell us the billionaires get to fuck the planet in the eye and the rest of us have to deal with it, at least it's honest that way.

bigfishrunning 7mo ago
They can't be that blatant, that's how you lose your next term
- saghm 7mo ago
  The second term for the "drain the swamp" president implies otherwise (it did take another cycle, but that arguably had more to do with covid than corruption).
  - basilgohar 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - pixl97 7mo ago
      I mean that seemed to happen anyway...
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - saghm 7mo ago
      I find it hard to imagine any evidence-based viewpoint in 2024 that would have led to a conclusion that Trump would be better for Gaza. The two party system doesn't give any room for choices on some issues, but that's hardly an argument that the two choices are equivalent overall.
      - johnnyanmac 7mo ago
        Evidence? No. But 2024 wasn't an election (IMO) lost on failing to appeal to the centrists and R's. It was one lost by failing to energize the D's. I still assert that a lot of D's simply stayed home as opposed to "changed to R", and that's the most effective form of vote suppression: telling them that "both sides are the same, nothing matters so why bother?"
        saghm 7mo ago
        I've seen this claimed, but I'm not convinced narratives that emerge before another presidential election cycle hold up to scrutiny in the long run. The common narrative post 2012 was that Republicans needed to move to the left on immigration to stay viable, but that didn't happen and Trump won in 2016. The narrative post 2016 was that the Democrats needed to move right on social issues, and that didn't happen (at least not to the extent that people claimed they needed to) but Biden won in 2020. My perception post 2020 is that a lot of people felt that Biden won only because of people being unhappy with Trump's handling of covid, and but Biden wasn't able to last through the next cycle to another election to be able to potentially get more data on that theory. You're not wrong that Gaza probably affected things, but the larger issue is that there was no primary at all. Nobody challenged Biden's viability until too late, and at that point the party coalesced around a single candidate almost immediately. I'd argue that even if people were happy with her on that one issue, there would still likely be plenty of others that they were not happy with, especially when she was essentially starting from behind due to the baggage left behind from the baggage of being the VP of the president who couldn't even retain the confidence of the party through the election (not to mention how much she was sidelines for the first 3.5 years of the administration).
        johnnyanmac 7mo ago
        >My perception post 2020 is that a lot of people felt that Biden won only because of people being unhappy with Trump's handling of covid, I agree with that. COVID was the breaking point of breaking points and Trump fumbled it especially badly. I certainly agree Trump would have won 2020 had it not been for his handling of COVID. >You're not wrong that Gaza probably affected things, but the larger issue is that there was no primary at all. That was a factor too. I see Gaza and the lack of primaries as the same factor: maintaining an unpopular establishment that didn't energize the party. For better or worse (much much much worse), Trump does energize his install base. The core issue these past 10 years is that "what analysts say" have diverged much further away from what the people actually want. So getting a pulse on the ground is much more important these days than traditional means of surveying and reporting opinions.
  - RRWagner 7mo ago
    You cant drain a swamp by filling it with billionaire alligators.
jfengel 7mo ago
Practically every law, and lobbying organization, is named for exactly the opposite of what it does. If I see the Puppies and Orphans Protection Act of 2028, I assume its purpose is to use puppies to strangle orphans. Proponents will point to the limitation on how many puppies you can use per orphan. Similarly, if I see the People For X organization, I assume they are against X. The Committee for Green Spaces and Clean Air is guaranteed to be an oil company. Once you develop that reflex, everything calms down. Though admittedly, I passed a sign for Fidos for Freedom. I'm not quite sure what Fidos Against Freedom does. I think they give dogs to disabled people, and they bark at you if you try to leave the house.
- ToucanLoucan 7mo ago
  All I can think of is Dr. Augustine from Avatar. "They're just pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain."
- OGEnthusiast 7mo ago
  [dead]
- idle_zealot 7mo ago
  There is something that this tactic misses: when people try to do good things, the name of their organization or policy is usually pretty honest. In an environment like ours, though, that still means that your strategy of assuming the opposite meaning has something like a 95% expected success rate.
  - bombcar 7mo ago
    The "good" news is that if the group is trying to do good things, they usually fail or remain quite small, so you never see them. So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

bigfishrunning 7mo ago

They can't be that blatant, that's how you lose your next term

saghm 7mo ago
The second term for the "drain the swamp" president implies otherwise (it did take another cycle, but that arguably had more to do with covid than corruption).
- basilgohar 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - pixl97 7mo ago
    I mean that seemed to happen anyway...
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - saghm 7mo ago
    I find it hard to imagine any evidence-based viewpoint in 2024 that would have led to a conclusion that Trump would be better for Gaza. The two party system doesn't give any room for choices on some issues, but that's hardly an argument that the two choices are equivalent overall.
    - johnnyanmac 7mo ago
      Evidence? No. But 2024 wasn't an election (IMO) lost on failing to appeal to the centrists and R's. It was one lost by failing to energize the D's. I still assert that a lot of D's simply stayed home as opposed to "changed to R", and that's the most effective form of vote suppression: telling them that "both sides are the same, nothing matters so why bother?"
      - saghm 7mo ago
        I've seen this claimed, but I'm not convinced narratives that emerge before another presidential election cycle hold up to scrutiny in the long run. The common narrative post 2012 was that Republicans needed to move to the left on immigration to stay viable, but that didn't happen and Trump won in 2016. The narrative post 2016 was that the Democrats needed to move right on social issues, and that didn't happen (at least not to the extent that people claimed they needed to) but Biden won in 2020. My perception post 2020 is that a lot of people felt that Biden won only because of people being unhappy with Trump's handling of covid, and but Biden wasn't able to last through the next cycle to another election to be able to potentially get more data on that theory. You're not wrong that Gaza probably affected things, but the larger issue is that there was no primary at all. Nobody challenged Biden's viability until too late, and at that point the party coalesced around a single candidate almost immediately. I'd argue that even if people were happy with her on that one issue, there would still likely be plenty of others that they were not happy with, especially when she was essentially starting from behind due to the baggage left behind from the baggage of being the VP of the president who couldn't even retain the confidence of the party through the election (not to mention how much she was sidelines for the first 3.5 years of the administration).
        johnnyanmac 7mo ago
        >My perception post 2020 is that a lot of people felt that Biden won only because of people being unhappy with Trump's handling of covid, I agree with that. COVID was the breaking point of breaking points and Trump fumbled it especially badly. I certainly agree Trump would have won 2020 had it not been for his handling of COVID. >You're not wrong that Gaza probably affected things, but the larger issue is that there was no primary at all. That was a factor too. I see Gaza and the lack of primaries as the same factor: maintaining an unpopular establishment that didn't energize the party. For better or worse (much much much worse), Trump does energize his install base. The core issue these past 10 years is that "what analysts say" have diverged much further away from what the people actually want. So getting a pulse on the ground is much more important these days than traditional means of surveying and reporting opinions.
- RRWagner 7mo ago
  You cant drain a swamp by filling it with billionaire alligators.

jfengel 7mo ago

Practically every law, and lobbying organization, is named for exactly the opposite of what it does. If I see the Puppies and Orphans Protection Act of 2028, I assume its purpose is to use puppies to strangle orphans. Proponents will point to the limitation on how many puppies you can use per orphan. Similarly, if I see the People For X organization, I assume they are against X. The Committee for Green Spaces and Clean Air is guaranteed to be an oil company. Once you develop that reflex, everything calms down. Though admittedly, I passed a sign for Fidos for Freedom. I'm not quite sure what Fidos Against Freedom does. I think they give dogs to disabled people, and they bark at you if you try to leave the house.

ToucanLoucan 7mo ago
All I can think of is Dr. Augustine from Avatar. "They're just pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain."
OGEnthusiast 7mo ago
[dead]
idle_zealot 7mo ago
There is something that this tactic misses: when people try to do good things, the name of their organization or policy is usually pretty honest. In an environment like ours, though, that still means that your strategy of assuming the opposite meaning has something like a 95% expected success rate.
- bombcar 7mo ago
  The "good" news is that if the group is trying to do good things, they usually fail or remain quite small, so you never see them. So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.