mouthporn.net
@random-thought-depository on Tumblr
Avatar

Random Thought Depository

@random-thought-depository / random-thought-depository.tumblr.com

Science fiction fan and aspiring science fiction author. 39 year old male. I made this because I wanted a place to put my random thoughts.
Avatar
Many Democratic elites appear to have landed on a familiar tactic: blaming everyone’s favorite scapegoat, Big Woke. Everywhere you look, you’ll see someone—often, but not always, on CNN—railing against the far-left extremists that supposedly held the party’s mainstream faction in its vise-like grip in 2024. There’s just one problem with this: the campaign these insiders are describing bears virtually no resemblance to the actual campaign we all just suffered through. They have simply invented an alternate universe out of thin air.

[...]

The ugly truth for these people is that Kamala Harris ran as right-wing a campaign as any Democrat in living memory. She downplayed discussions of her race and gender. She bent over backward to welcome billionaires, corporate titans, and Republicans into the fold. She told Black men that one of her priorities for them was…crypto. She made her past as a prosecutor a cornerstone of her pitch. She bragged about owning a Glock and joked that she would shoot people who broke into her house. She stuffed the Democratic National Convention to the gills with cops and Border Patrol agents while crushing even the tiniest dissent over her support for the genocide in Gaza. She promised the most “lethal” military in the world. She was seemingly joined at the hip with Liz Cheney for weeks. She even praised Dick Cheney! It’s hard to think of what more she could have done to satisfy the people clamoring for her to pander to conservatives.

11 November 2024

Avatar
Avatar
quoms

I'm seeing some liberal lamentations that the Democratic party is still basically gerontocratic and doesn't have a ready supply of promising and tested young leaders ready to take the reins, but no acknowledgement that this is a situation the Democrats created for themselves when they successively crushed the Occupy movement and then the Bernie movement in 2016 (at least in terms of their effect on Democratic internal structures and leadership). The Tea Party/MAGA movement is obviously evil and created a decade and a half of headaches for Republican leadership, but it also cleared the path for an entire generation of ambitious right-wing politicians, and young "talent" is one thing not in short supply in that party.

Meanwhile, the competence and ruthlessness of senior Democrats in enforcing party discipline (in part coming from dedication to right-wing Clintonianism, in part from watching the unfolding chaos of the Tea Party and wanting to avoid the same "mistakes") also shut off the talent pipeline. Most of the party's prominent younger Gen-X and Millennial cadres - the Squad and the Berniesphere - are artifacts of limited, hard-won victories against Democratic leadership that in many cases continue to face resentment and well-funded primary challenges (particularly from AIPAC this election cycle).

The College Democrat to party operative pipeline is able to fill open staffer positions in Washington but generally produces sycophants who don't transition well to candidacy. That plus a smattering of dynastic succession (Pelosi is angling for her daughter to take over her congressional seat) is just not a substitute for the chaotic processes that would have refreshed the party's membership. It's a brittle institution by design, not by coincidence.

Avatar

im sorry for this but i once again need to ask for your help

as a semi-disabled trans woman its been very hard for me to find suitable work and ive been churning thru interviews and applications like crazy but still getting fuck all. im so tired of this. my account is overdrawn and i need to buy groceries for my apartment, meds for my brain and body, and vital hygeine products and shit too. i also have a dmv appointment tomorrow to renew my license and could use help getting the funds for an uber there and so i can pay whatever fees will be due bc i really cant afford to let my license expire lol.

im sorry for all this begging its got to end someday. PLEASE help if you can i really really need it i am hungry and desperate and deeply exhausted. i probably need to raise at least 150 usd to take care of everything. im sorry i know shit is fucked for a lot of us right now but if theres any chance you can spare a dime for me itd go a long way for my general stability. thank you all i love you 💜

0/150

Avatar
my experiences with trump voters this time around has been extremely weird. the modal trump voter i talked to in 2017 had extraordinarily right-wing beliefs. everyone i've actually talked to in 2024 has believed that trump holds positions which he manifestly does not. my lyft driver comped me my ride to the hospital for no good reason. iranian immigrant hopeful that trump will take a strong antiauthoritarian stance against russia and the iranian government who will maybe help him get some more of his family into the united states.

Was thinking previously about "multivocal signaling", sending different contradictory messages to different people. Previously came up in the context of how the Hapsburg empire stopped being able to do this and thus collapsed, now with the fractured internet it perhaps has become possible again.

Avatar
Avatar
tanadrin

Matt Yglesias seems to think the only thing for the Democrats to do is to lurch as far to the right as possible and throw trans people under the bus, but I think this is stupid; MAGA candidates not named Trump ran behind their peers, plenty of Democratic policies passed in the form of ballot initiatives, and many Dem candidates outran Harris by at least a little bit. AFAICT the election was genuinely a backlash against incumbency and not a repudiation of Democratic policy positions generally.

Which sucks! But it also implies you shouldn’t screw over members of your core coalition to try to seize ground already firmly occupied by reactionaries. People with reactionary politics will vote for the brand name version, and you run the risk of alienating people who up til now voted for you. The problems liberals have relate predominantly to messaging in a fragmented media environment and the uniquely troubled circumstances of 2024 than they do to an electorate disgusted by trans women in sports or pandering to people who use the phrase “toxic masculinity.”

Avatar
wordcubed

And LGBT people are a key part of the Democratic coalition now, which is part of what makes MattY's suggestion so ludicrous. (Even aside from the obvious moral reasons that Democrats should support LGBT rights anyways.) That link puts them as voting Democrat at a rate of 86%, levels only exceeded by black women!

Exit polls placed LGBT voters at 8% of the electorate, meaning a little under 7% of ALL American voters are legbutts who consistently vote blue. If the Dems across-the-board lost even half of that, in pursuit of "moderation", then far from helping them, that'd just be another massive, massive handicap. "Dems lose another 4% of the voters" would result in a far redder, even-more Republican-dominated US electoral map.

Avatar
Avatar
doubleca5t

the lesson I'm taking away from this election is not that the Democrats need to become more left wing or more right wing but moreso that they need to find a way to cater their rhetoric towards people who genuinly have no idea what is going on. the target audience for every speech and political appearance should be someone who doesn't know what the three branches of government are because they were drawing a Cool S during high school civics

political scientists have failed to consider the possibility that the silent majority is silent because they didn't understand the question and are trying to play it cool

Avatar

People who think unions should just be inherently good organizations that function perfectly in the interest of the working class without them having to participate in any way 🤝 People who think political parties should just be inherently good organizations that function perfectly in the interest of the working class without them having to participate in any way 🤝 Making my life just like, one thousand times harder than it needs to be

Every time someone posts about how the Democrats need to run on a firm, unapologetic populist left platform I think about how bitter I still am that Cynthia Nixon did exactly that in the 2018 NY gubernatorial race and still lost to Andrew fucking Cuomo because nobody in this fucking country votes in primaries

People who want to push the Dems left: primaries are the most direct mechanism available to do that!

Avatar

i have understood so many things about online leftist culture by the fact that when i said "your local community has people you will morally and politically disagree with but you cannot lock them out of accessing any tangible service you’re organising" one of the tags responding said "this isn’t about proshippers in here you’re not welcome" like. folks. focus with me. some of us are homeless here.

There's a disconnect happening here because the primary function of social media for most casual users is to form a circle of friends around the usual things that friendships are built on: shared interests and lifestyles and ideas of what is important and what is unacceptable. When people are mainly doing leftism on social media, this encourages thinking of leftism as centered around establishing high-minded social clubs.

For anyone who still isn't getting it from someone who helps people IRL: There's a difference between whom you're helping to feed at the mealshare and whom you're choosing to hang out with for fun after the mealshare. You don't have to invite a hungry person with opinions you don't like to play board games with you, but you do have to help keep them from starving if you're serious about leftist organizing.

Avatar
Avatar
sturionic

Activism is not cold-calling.

Activism is not cold-calling, and this is critically important to understand.

I'm seeing a lot of posts on here about 'building bridges' and 'finding community,' and then (extremely valid) response posts saying "BUT HOW??" And I'm going to explain something that can be very counter-intuitive: there is strategy involved in community.

As a longtime volunteer labour organizer, I’ve taken and taught many trainings on the strategy of talking. Something that surprises a lot of people is the very first thing you do in a union campaign. You sit down with your organizing committee, take out pen and paper, and literally map it out. You draw a physical map of the workplace: where are the entrances, exits, break rooms, supervisor offices. Essentially, ‘where is it safe to have a union conversation.’ Then you draw another physical chart of your coworkers. You sort out who is union-friendly, openly hostile to unions, or somewhere in the middle, and then you plan out very deliberately and carefully who talks to whom and in what order.

Consider: If Vocally Leftist Jane walks up to Conservative David and says "hey what do you think about unions," David is going to shut down immediately. He's not inclined to listen to Jane. But if Jane talks to Moderate Jason and brings him into the fold, then Jason is a far more effective strategic choice to talk to David, and David may actually hear him out without an instant reaction.

IMPORTANT CAVEAT: If Conservative David turns out to be Alt-Right David, and could be dangerous to follow organizers, we write him off. We are not trying to reach Alt-Right David. We are trying to reach Conservative David, who may actually be persuaded to find solidarity with other employees as fellow workers. Jason is a safe scout to find out which one he is. It does no one any good if Leftist Jane (or even Moderate Jane who is a visible minority) talks to Alt-Right David and puts herself on his radar. Not only has she done nothing to convince Alt-Right David to join a union - she's probably actively turned him against the idea - but now she's also in danger and the entire campaign is at risk. NOBODY WANTS THIS. Jane was NOT a hero for doing this. The organizing committee was foolish and enacted a terrible strategy to everyone's detriment.

Where you can make a difference is with people who will listen to you. You having a conversation with your well-meaning but clueless Centrist Democrat Auntie, and maybe gently helping her understand some things the media has been glossing over, is way more strategically useful than you marching up to MAGA Neighbour You've Met Once and trying to "build community" or "understand" them. They don't care. They're impervious, dangerous, and cruel. But maybe your beloved auntie will think about what you said, and then talk to her friend Anna who IDs as "fiscally conservative" but didn't vote because she can't bring herself to get on board with Trump. Then perhaps Anna talks to her brother Nic who has MAGA leanings but isn't all the way there yet. Proto-MAGA Nic would not have listened to you, nor would he have listened to Centrist Democrat Auntie, but he might absorb some of what his sister is saying.

This is not a cop-out or an echo chamber. This is you spending your time and energy strategically and safely. You are not a useful activist to anyone if you’re dead. Anyone who is telling you to hurl yourself directly at MAGA assholes like cannon fodder has no understanding of the strategy behind community building, and you should feel comfortable writing them off.

Last point: If you are tired, emotionally devastated, and/or in danger: take a break. This post is for people who would feel better jumping into action, not for people who are too overwhelmed to even think about it right now. You are worth so much even if you’re not actively Doing Activism, and your rest is worth more than “a break period so you can recharge and Do More Activism.” We all deserve the individual dignity of being worthy of comfort, rest & safety just on the basis of being human, outside of whatever we're doing for others' benefit. To deny ourselves that dignity is to devalue ourselves, and that’s the absolute last thing any of us should be doing right now.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

I actually disagree there because everyone I've talked to IRL (and it should be noted that I travel around from state to state for my job speaking to dramatically different demographics) said that Harris was too radically left. Not saying that my anecdotal experience is a substitute for actual data but. There's the continuous radicalizing right movement.

See, I think one of the things that's really fucking everyone up right now is that it's impossible to distinguish between "person who genuinely thinks Harris was too radical and would have voted for her if she'd gone further right", "person who would have agreed with Harris's positions but got convinced she was too radical by Republican messaging", and "person who never in a million years would have voted for a Democrat but they like to consider themselves a centrist so they just say they totally would have voted for her if she wasn't such a radical leftist".

It seems like the first group is pretty small and the third group is unreachable, so the real question is how many of the second group are there compared to how many people would have voted for her if she'd gone further left, and whether those people could have been reached with appropriate counter-messaging (which brings up the whole new can of worms of how to combat the relentless firehose of misinformation spewed by Republicans 24/7).

Overall my controversial take is that election politics are really complicated and anyone saying they know for sure what would and wouldn't have worked are lying to themselves

Avatar
Avatar
jambeast

There's a lot of digital ink spilled about whether voters thought Harris' campaign contained too many hitler particles or too few, but it feels like every analyis comes with a completely different assessment of, like, what her campaign... actually was. What it was she campaigned on, what it was she said, what it was she promised.

Like nobody really actually watches any of the things that would tell you first-hand, just hearing it filtered and stained through pundits, youtubers and facebook memes.

Yeah I've seen a lot of people say it was a bad campaign because "she didn't have any real plans, she just ran on not being Trump!" Like . . . I think you're thinking of social media man, she had plenty of concrete plans that were easy to find. How was she supposed to force people to talk about those plans instead of comparing her to Trump? Especially when ad-blockers and ad-free streaming services are so popular among her base?

Similarly, I've heard a lot of Republicans/centrists say that they're glad Democrats will finally get the message that "they can't run on these insane far-left identity politics like trans women in sports!" Trans rights were definitely not a major point in Harris' campaign! But Republicans just constantly repeated it until people believed it, and it worked.

I don't know how we combat this. I think it's obviously a huge problem and it's going to be a major issue in elections going forward, but ultimately you can't force people to become politically informed, y'know?

"How was she supposed to force people to talk about those plans instead of comparing her to Trump?"

This is what campaign speeches, campaign ads on TV and radio and in newspapers etc., and the debates are for. They're your opportunity to get your message to the vast numbers of people who won't bother to check out your website. It's also, I think, what a skillful campaigner uses the media for in a less direct way; they get the media to amplify their message by talking about it (Trump and Sanders were both good at that; when media talking heads talked about Trump's big mass deportation plan it told people he had a big mass deportation plan, when media talking heads talked about whether Sanders was too far-left it told people he was to the left of the mainstream Democratic Party).

Like, I understand the frustration about this, but relying on people actively going to your campaign website or something like that is bad political campaigning. It's a nudge factor thing: you want to make the path from a person not even knowing you exist to them having all the information that'll persuade them to vote for you as low-effort as feasible; this doesn't necessarily mean you should give up on trying to communicate complex information to people, but gatekeeping a load-bearing part of your appeal behind your prospective voters checking out your website on their own initiative is probably a really bad idea. If you want people to know about your plans, you should talk about them the way Sanders talked about Medicare For All and Trump talked about building a border wall and Andrew Yang talked about Yangbucks; you should make them part of your branding. I suspect establishment Democrats are not good at this cause their intuition is that they should do everything possible to avoid being called socialist/far-left and by implication their intuition is that they should talk about left-of-center economic plans as little as possible.

Avatar

funny how the popular conception of reptiles is that theyre like, slimy and wet. meanwhile they have smooth dry scales, while we mammals are covered in glands that secrete water and oils and other chemicals. where do we sweaty greasy synapsids get off calling lizards slimy

I suspect reptiles get associated with wetness despite not actually being particularly externally wet (at least partly) because reptiles and amphibians look similar. Lots of amphibians are slimy, and amphibians tend to live in wet places.

Avatar

remember when millennials said we weren't going to be as weird and stupid about gen z as boomers were about us? lol that didn't last long huh

I just saw someone suggest that no one under 18 should have access to the internet because they're all falling for online radicalisation, and I don't know how to explain to you that "this whole group of people should be banned from part of society because they're fundamentally incapable of thinking for themselves" is actually one of the most fascist things you can think

I agree with you on general principles, but I think it's also worth pointing out here that the brewing potential liberal moral panic about "gen Z radicalization" is really not supported by the exit polls I've seen.

In 2024, the 18-29 year old vote went 54% to Harris, 43% to Trump. That made 18-29 year olds the most Harris-voting and least Trump-voting age group. The Trumpiest age group was 45-64; 54% of them voted for Trump and 44% of them voted for Harris. This does conceal a concerning gender polarization among 18-29 year olds; Harris won 18-29 year old women in a landslide, while Trump narrowly won 18-29 year old men. As I said, that is concerning ... but 18-29 year old men were the least Trump-voting men in the electorate in 2024. The most Trump-voting men were 45-64 year old men, 60% of whom voted for Trump and 38% of whom voted for Harris.

This does contrast alarmingly with Biden winning a 60% to 36% landslide among 18-29 year olds in 2020. It's more in-line with 18-29 year old voting patterns in 2016 though; Harris actually performed almost as well with 18-29 year olds as Hillary Clinton did (did worse than Clinton by one percentage part) ... but Trump did do substantially better with 18-29 year olds in 2024 than in 2016 (43% vs. 36%).

Basically:

2024 does not actually buck the "Democrats do best with young people and non-white people, Republicans do best with older white people" normal; the big shock and red flag is that this effect has weakened (whether this is a permanent shift or happened because of 2024-specific factors and will reverse in the next election remains to be seen).

Even in 2024 18-29 year olds voted left of the rest of the electorate (and yes, that still holds if you compare 18-29 year old men to older men).

Yeah, 18-29 year olds apparently moved right in 2024, but so did more-or-less the whole fucking country (including women, despite all the talk about gender polarization), Gen Z voters weren't special. Latino/as moved right too in the same way (a normally Dem-favoring demographic who favored the Dems less in 2024) but I don't see anybody implying they're now an especially reactionary demographic.

Gen Z voting patterns in 2024 aren't even a shocking huge outlier compared to voting patterns for 18-29 year olds in 2020 and 2016.

Also:

Based on the popular vote count so far, I think Trump's win in 2024 looks more like a result of a collapse of liberal enthusiasm than a result of a surge of support for right-wing politics. At this point, Trump has slightly topped his 2020 vote total, while Harris is still about 10 million votes below Biden's 2020 total (I think the USA still has a growing population, so the 2024 electorate is more people). The votes haven't all been counted yet, so it's premature to draw firm conclusions from this ... but it looks like most of the still uncounted votes are in California, Oregon, and Washington (especially California, which Harrris won quite heftily), so my guess is Trump's vote total isn't going to go up a lot.

In that context ... if there's any age demographic in the US electorate where I think "I'm soured on the Dems cause Biden wasn't as leftist as I'd hoped and Harris looks likely to be more of the same and/or I can't vote for a candidate who looks likely to continue the policies that gave Genocide Joe that nickname" might have caused a huge collapse of liberal enthusiasm, it's 18-29 year olds. How much of the apparent rightward shift of Gen Z in 2024 is actually rightward and how much is politically progressive young people staying home because they were turned off by a perception that Harris was a candidate of the status quo and continued genocide? If I'm reading these right, it looks like 18-29 year olds were 17% of voters in 2020 and 14% in 2024, which is consistent with the hypothesis that a lot of leftist and liberal young people just stayed home in 2024.

Going by these exit polls, if there's a modal face of Trumpist reaction in 2024, it's a middle-aged man. But, of course, a middle-aged husband and father who owns a house and has a job that pays more than $60,000 per year has more social capital than a 19 year old college student and his 17 year old brother who watch YouTube videos about how to be an "alpha male," and he probably has a form of reactionary politics that's more socially normalized, so the latter two people are easier targets.

Every age group old enough to have opinions about politics has political diversity; individuals should be judged as individuals.

Avatar
Avatar
intactics

Dick Cheney is a war criminal idk why the fuck Harris thought bringing out any Cheneys was a good idea

Avatar
zexreborn

Because you’re the only one(s) who reacted negatively to it, and you weren’t going to vote for Kamala to start with.

I reacted negatively to Harris's show of coziness with establishment right-wingers but I voted for her. I get not wanting to overestimate how congruent the electorate's preferences are with those of Tumblr communists, but I think you may be starting to over-correct against that here. I think I'm probably in the left-most 25% of the US electorate, maybe even the left-most <10%, but 10-25% of the electorate is a voting bloc big enough that driving up enthusiasm in them could have swung the 2024 election. People with, like, likes Bernie Sanders politics are not rare and do vote. Like, I think having a visceral negative reaction to Dick Cheney is actually not a boutique snowflake unicorn marginal tendency in the USA. Do even Republicans like Dick Cheney nowadays?

Avatar
A few weeks before the presidential election, the New York Times published an article about the influence of big donors over the Kamala Harris campaign based on not-so-humble bragging from the heights of corporate America. Now it reads much more like a confession. While Harris refused to distance herself from Joe Biden over the carnage in Gaza, she had no problem signaling her intention to scrap parts of his economic agenda that benefited working-class Americans but went down badly with the very rich. The Times described “a steady stream of meetings and calls in which corporate executives and donors offer their thoughts on tax policy, financial regulation and other issues,” which had resulted in “a Democratic campaign that is far more open to corporate input than the one President Biden had led for much of the election cycle.” According to one business executive, the Harris campaign was “definitely giving large corporations a seat at the table and giving them a voice,” in a way that marked “a significant difference from the Biden administration.” The donors weighed in behind the scenes when Harris promised to ban “price gouging” for groceries and secured an immediate rollback on the pledge: “In the days after, Ms. Harris’s team clarified that the plan would apply only during emergencies and would mirror laws already in place in many states — a narrower concept that would not immediately address rising grocery prices.” Harris might have been left with little to say about one of the most pressing economic problems in the United States, but at least her corporate backers were happy.

[...]

As well as making “remarks that indicate a less zealous approach to antitrust enforcement,” which went down very well on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, Harris explicitly rejected Biden’s plan to raise the capital gains tax to 39.6 percent. Billionaire Mark Cuban boasted that he had inundated the Harris campaign with “a never-ending stream of texts and calls and emails,” urging them to support various economic policies that would benefit his class: “The list is endless, and in all those areas I’ve seen something pop into her speech at some level.”

7 November 2024

Source: jacobin.com
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net