Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions -
Break your brain. You know you want to.
|
Wednesday, 18 January 2017
quote [ I’ve been angry and disgusted about a lot of things since Election Day. But over the past few days I’ve been angrier than Jack Nicholson’s character from The Shining to see all these so-called “progressives” come out of the fucking woodwork to crucify Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) for voting against one amendment to a budget reconciliation bill that could have allowed Americans to buy cheaper imported prescription drugs from Canada — even though the amendment wasn’t going to become law ]
I'm not sure I endorse these sentiments, but let's have a spirited discussion about them!
|
eidolon said @ 6:44pm GMT on 18th January
I consider myself far left and unfortunately agree with many views in this article, though the anger and fervor are a turnoff for me. You all know what you did, if you haven't learned by now, a stern lecture isn't going to stop you.
I will highlight this particular passage because we saw and continue to see demonstrated here on SE: the large Bernie Bro/Zealot/Never Hillary cult made it clear that anyone who didn’t worship at the altar of Saint Bernie Sanders wasn’t a “real progressive” and therefore wasn’t worthy of their support unless they cleared an impossibly high bar.
We can be equally progressive but disagree on where progress needs to be made and how it ought to be made. I have nothing against, for instance, education, I simply do not believe it is the silver bullet that will improve all our lives. The law of supply and demand dictates that the more degrees we earn, the less any individual degree is worth. The idea that it creates an educated voter base is also misplaced because people aren't getting a degree to become philosopher kings, they are doing it to earn money because that is the message they have always received (and one my professor friends hate).
On the issue of Sanders' voting record, I had pointed this out before that his record was quite comparable to Clinton's, yet she was nailed to the wall for things Sanders got a pass on. It gave the appearance that his most fervent voters had two primary motivations they might not admit even to themselves: 1) Excuse their own debts to enrich themselves, everyone else be damned, and 2) Keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.
Some of the people who consider themselves the most progressive, when you look at what they wanted and who benefited, were the primary beneficiaries of the policies they championed. That means these people happened to align with the left, but under other circumstances, they would not have. Their motivations were selfish and it sickens me to be lectured by someone claiming to be selfless when they are anything but.
To put it another way, a poor person demanding help for the poor is correct and on the right side of history. However, that very same poor person, if they were rich, might change their tune, meaning they are not a progressive. If wealth did not change their position, then there's a better change their motives were pure.
Ultimately, there are no outsider politicians, only outsiders. To be a politician is an education and skillset, and simply being elected does not make one any good at those things, only years of service of will. This is a sick game, and it has its own abhorrent rules. Sanders knew that because he's not an outsider, he's a politician, just like any other halfway reasonable choice for the presidency. And just like them, his record will have blemishes on it. His supporters would not have been so insufferable if they would have just admitted and accepted that, realized that political purity is no more real than any other sort of human purity.
Politics is a sick game and you don't win by refusing to play.
Agree or disagree with anything else I have said, but listen when I tell you this: our best chance of seeing laws made against obstructionism is if the left obstructs as aggressively as the right has. When they do it, it's patriotic, when we do it, we're breaking the government and have to be stopped, even if that means government intervention.
Let's play by their shitty rules until they make laws to stop us (and consequently themselves).
eidolon said @ 6:47pm GMT on 18th January
I consider myself far left and unfortunately agree with many views in this article, though the anger and fervor are a turnoff for me. You all know what you did, if you haven't learned by now, a stern lecture isn't going to stop you.
I will highlight this particular passage because we saw and continue to see demonstrated here on SE: the large Bernie Bro/Zealot/Never Hillary cult made it clear that anyone who didn’t worship at the altar of Saint Bernie Sanders wasn’t a “real progressive” and therefore wasn’t worthy of their support unless they cleared an impossibly high bar.
We can be equally progressive but disagree on where progress needs to be made and how it ought to be made. I have nothing against, for instance, education, I simply do not believe it is the silver bullet that will improve all our lives. The law of supply and demand dictates that the more degrees we earn, the less any individual degree is worth. The idea that it creates an educated voter base is also misplaced because people aren't getting a degree to become philosopher kings, they are doing it to earn money because that is the message they have always received (and one my professor friends hate).
On the issue of Sanders' voting record, I had pointed this out before that his record was quite comparable to Clinton's, yet she was nailed to the wall for things Sanders got a pass on. It gave the appearance that his most fervent voters had two primary motivations they might not admit even to themselves: 1) Excuse their own debts to enrich themselves, everyone else be damned, and 2) Keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.
Some of the people who consider themselves the most progressive, when you look at what they wanted and who benefited, were the primary beneficiaries of the policies they championed. That means these people happened to align with the left, but under other circumstances, they would not have. Their motivations were selfish and it sickens me to be lectured by someone claiming to be selfless when they are anything but.
To put it another way, a poor person demanding help for the poor is correct and on the right side of history. However, that very same poor person, if they were rich, might change their tune, meaning they are not a progressive. If wealth did not chance their position, then there's a better change their motives were pure.
Ultimately, there are no outsider politicians, only outsiders. To be a politician is an education and skillset, and simply being elected does not make one any good at those things, only years of service of will. This is a sick game, and it has its own abhorrent rules. Sanders knew that because he's not an outsider, he's a politician, just like any other halfway reasonable choice for the presidency. And just like them, his record will have blemishes on it. His supporters would not have been so insufferable if they would have just admitted and accepted that, realized that political purity is no more real than any other sort of human purity.
Politics is a sick game and you don't win by refusing to play.
Agree or disagree with anything else I have said, but listen when I tell you this: our best chance of seeing laws made against obstructionism is if the left obstructs as aggressively as the right has. When they do it, it's patriotic, when we do it, we're breaking the government and have to be stopped, even if that means government intervention.
Let's play by their shitty rules until they make laws to stop us (and consequently themselves).
eidolon said @ 7:19pm GMT on 18th January
I consider myself far left and unfortunately agree with many views in this article, though the anger and fervor are a turnoff for me. You all know what you did, if you haven't learned by now, a stern lecture isn't going to stop you.
I will highlight this particular passage because we saw and continue to see demonstrated here on SE: the large Bernie Bro/Zealot/Never Hillary cult made it clear that anyone who didn’t worship at the altar of Saint Bernie Sanders wasn’t a “real progressive” and therefore wasn’t worthy of their support unless they cleared an impossibly high bar.
We can be equally progressive but disagree on where progress needs to be made and how it ought to be made. I have nothing against, for instance, education, I simply do not believe it is the silver bullet that will improve all our lives. The law of supply and demand dictates that the more degrees we earn, the less any individual degree is worth. The idea that it creates an educated voter base is also misplaced because people aren't getting a degree to become philosopher kings, they are doing it to earn money because that is the message they have always received (and one my professor friends hate).
On the issue of Sanders' voting record, I had pointed this out before that his record was quite comparable to Clinton's, yet she was nailed to the wall for things Sanders got a pass on. It gave the appearance that his most fervent voters had two primary motivations they might not admit even to themselves: 1) Excuse their own debts to enrich themselves, everyone else be damned, and 2) Keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.
Some of the people who consider themselves the most progressive, when you look at what they wanted and who benefited, were the primary beneficiaries of the policies they championed. That means these people happened to align with the left, but under other circumstances, they would not have. Their motivations were selfish and it sickens me to be lectured by someone claiming to be selfless when they are anything but.
To put it another way, a poor person demanding help for the poor is correct and on the right side of history. However, that very same poor person, if they were rich, might change their tune, meaning they are not a progressive. If wealth did not change their position, then there's a better change their motives were pure.
Ultimately, there are no outsider politicians, only outsiders. To be a politician is an education and skillset, and simply being elected does not make one any good at those things, only years of service of will. This is a sick game, and it has its own abhorrent rules. Sanders knew that because he's not an outsider, he's a politician, just like any other halfway reasonable choice for the presidency. And just like them, his record will have blemishes on it. His supporters would not have been so insufferable if they would have just admitted and accepted that, realized that political purity is no more real than any other sort of human purity.
Politics is a sick game and you don't win by refusing to play.
Agree or disagree with anything else I have said, but listen when I tell you this: our best chance of seeing laws made against obstructionism is if the left obstructs as aggressively as the right has. When they do it, it's patriotic, when we do it, we're breaking the government and have to be stopped, even if that means government intervention.
Let's play by their shitty rules until they make laws to stop us (and consequently themselves).
<-- Entry / Current Comment
eidolon said @ 6:44pm GMT on 18th January [Score:1 Underrated]
I consider myself far left and unfortunately agree with many views in this article, though the anger and fervor are a turnoff for me. You all know what you did, if you haven't learned by now, a stern lecture isn't going to stop you.
I will highlight this particular passage because we saw and continue to see demonstrated here on SE: the large Bernie Bro/Zealot/Never Hillary cult made it clear that anyone who didn’t worship at the altar of Saint Bernie Sanders wasn’t a “real progressive” and therefore wasn’t worthy of their support unless they cleared an impossibly high bar.
We can be equally progressive but disagree on where progress needs to be made and how it ought to be made. I have nothing against, for instance, education, I simply do not believe it is the silver bullet that will improve all our lives. The law of supply and demand dictates that the more degrees we earn, the less any individual degree is worth. The idea that it creates an educated voter base is also misplaced because people aren't getting a degree to become philosopher kings, they are doing it to earn money because that is the message they have always received (and one my professor friends hate).
On the issue of Sanders' voting record, I had pointed this out before that his record was quite comparable to Clinton's, yet she was nailed to the wall for things Sanders got a pass on. It gave the appearance that his most fervent voters had two primary motivations they might not admit even to themselves: 1) Excuse their own debts to enrich themselves, everyone else be damned, and 2) Keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.
Some of the people who consider themselves the most progressive, when you look at what they wanted and who benefited, were the primary beneficiaries of the policies they championed. That means these people happened to align with the left, but under other circumstances, they would not have. Their motivations were selfish and it sickens me to be lectured by someone claiming to be selfless when they are anything but.
To put it another way, a poor person demanding help for the poor is correct and on the right side of history. However, that very same poor person, if they were rich, might change their tune, meaning they are not a progressive. If wealth did not change their position, then there's a better change their motives were pure.
Ultimately, there are no outsider politicians, only outsiders. To be a politician is an education and skillset, and simply being elected does not make one any good at those things, only years of service of will. This is a sick game, and it has its own abhorrent rules. Sanders knew that because he's not an outsider, he's a politician, just like any other halfway reasonable choice for the presidency. And just like them, his record will have blemishes on it. His supporters would not have been so insufferable if they would have just admitted and accepted that, realized that political purity is no more real than any other sort of human purity.
Politics is a sick game and you don't win by refusing to play.
Agree or disagree with anything else I have said, but listen when I tell you this: our best chance of seeing laws made against obstructionism is if the left obstructs as aggressively as the right has. When they do it, it's patriotic, when we do it, we're breaking the government and have to be stopped, even if that means government intervention.
Let's play by their shitty rules until they make laws to stop us (and consequently themselves).
