Dem Post Mortem

[thebeave]

Bill Maher has a pretty good "Dem Post Mortem":

Hey Dems ... When You're in a Hole, STOP DIGGING!!!

 

[ZiprHead]

The Democrats’ Refusal to Break With a Broken System Cost Them Dearly

The party has followed its affection for Beltway institutions and their stodgy norms to its logical endpoint—getting locked out of power. It’s time for a rethink.

newrepublic.com

It’s become something of a glum tradition in the Democratic Party. After an electoral beating, opinion makers and political elites—along with everyone with a social media account—offer their takes as to why Democrats blew it. For many, it is that the Democratic Party and President Joe Biden didn’t do more to help protect innocent lives in Gaza. For others, it is that Vice President Kamala Harris dared to campaign with Liz Cheney. Senator Bernie Sanders and many others point to the Democratic Party having moved away from its roots as the party of working and blue-collar folks.

The one self-evident answer that no high-minded pundit wants to admit is that people simply bought what Donald Trump was selling. Specifically, that Trump manages to appeal to voters who believe the system sucks and respond to what he says, over and over again, he’s going to do about it: crush it, shove obstacles out of the way, and get immediate results. It’s obviously authoritarianism and a terrible way to actually run a country. But I sympathize with many of the people who pinned their hopes on a radical transformation of a status quo that’s left people behind, including many in traditional Democratic constituencies.

Donald Trump tapped into something that everyone feels—that our current system of checks and balances and polite political norms doesn’t allow the country to move either nimbly or boldly enough, resulting in a consistent failure to deliver relief and results that people tangibly feel and desperately want.

Classic MSM sanewashing! If people believe Trump was campaigning on any such construction of an enlightened, understandable populism, it's because they watched too much CNN; they could not possibly have derived this position from any of his actual speeches or campaign platform! When has Donald Trump ever promised to "radically transform the status quo that has left people behind?" That's a better summary of Obama's campaign platform than Trump's... Trump doesn't promise economic justice through stirring institutional reform, he offers people conspiracy theories about who's hurting them, and solemnly promises to hunt down America's enemies, internal and external, while making vague promises about a "golden age" that must be returned to but can only be reached through him. That's not the same thing at all. He's a Mussolini, not a Mao. Where do "commentators" come up with this shit?

Seems to me you've just described the same thing in differant terms.

 

[Elixir]

Classic MSM sanewashing! If people believe Trump was campaigning on any such construction of an enlightened, understandable populism, it's because they watched too much CNN; they could not possibly have derived this position from any of his actual speeches or campaign platform! When has Donald Trump ever promised to "radically transform the status quo that has left people behind?" That's a better summary of Obama's campaign platform than Trump's... Trump doesn't promise economic justice through stirring institutional reform, he offers people conspiracy theories about who's hurting them, and solemnly promises to hunt down America's enemies, internal and external, while making vague promises about a "golden age" that must be returned to but can only be reached through him. That's not the same thing at all. He's a Mussolini, not a Mao. Where do "commentators" come up with this shit?

Spot on. Very well said.
When “sanewashing” makes it into Websters, will Trump’s picture be in the definition?
For the life of me I can’t think of another individual who inspires the term.

 

[Politesse]

For the life of me I can’t think of another individual who inspires the term.

I know it is verboten to make the Vergleich, but papers like the NY Times that were around for both periods hated/loved Hitler just as much and in the same way that they hate/love Trump.

Outrageous and shocking, ultimately impossible to embrace, yet curiously alluring and fundamentally relatable to the resentments of the average American guy. The press always rationalizes fascists in the same way, because that's what sells papers (or generates clicks).

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The GOP is just so damn good at lying to the people.

Take heart. They’re also really good at fucking things up. This will be a master class in that.

10,000+ US soilders were killed or maimed in Iraq, over 100,000 Iraqis died, millions permanently displaced. Our derivatives fuck-up dragged the global economy into the shitter. The MAGA wing took Covid so poorly, it helped kill hundreds of thousand more people. I've seen how expansive their fuck ups can be. I don't want to wait five years for everything to collapse, just so the Democrats can regain power, kind of get things back in line and then the GOP given back power because of fucking pronouns that some people just can seem to manage.

Right, which is a really good argument for blue-state secession. I don’t want to wait five years either. Nowhere is it set in stone that this nation must always be one nation. Also, almost one in four Americans, mostly in the red states, favor secession, according to a poll referenced by Counterpunch. The Civil War secessionists seceded for a despicable reason, but dating almost to the founding of the republic those favoring secession for any reason have pointed to the 10th amendment as justification for it, and I think regardless of the reason people invoke for secession, whether that reason is good or bad, the 10th amendment argument is a good one.

This is delusional.

The U.S. isn't going to let California, New York, or any other state go. It's NEVER going to happen. Also, take a gander at the military bases up and down the west coast. From San Diego up to SF, the coast is littered with naval firepower that could immediately be brought to bear. JRTC is near Barstow. They could have full armored brigades on the ground in SoCal within days. Furthermore, the police would be effectively utilized to violently quell civil unrest.

There isn't going to be some popular uprising. Few liberals own guns anyway and they certainly aren't organized into survivalist militias; and even if they were, look how the Taliban fared against the U.S. military. And they were armed by Pakistan, with direct paths into and out of the country.

The Tenth Amendment? What makes you think the Trump government gives the slightest shit about what the Constitution says? They blow their noses and wipe their asses with it. It means nothing. Even if they did bother with looking at the 10th Amendment, it doesn't apply to secession anyway. It applies to commerce, family law, and policing activities (for the most part). It sure as hell doesn't provide for peaceful secession.

SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that the states have an "indissoluble relation[ship]" with the [United States]. See Texas v. White.

If you're referring to using their state's rights argument against them, well, that's a useless exercise in pedantry.

None of this is referring to what I am talking about. As I said at least twice now, my idea of secession is peaceful dissolution of the union, which would have to begin with ordinances of secession. Lincoln himself said that the union could break up provided all parties to the compact agreed to this. Many red states have expressed an interest in secession. As for the 1869 Supreme Court decision, I don’t give a rat’s ass what the court says, because these courts have issued doozies like Dred Scott and overturning Roe V. Wade. As Lincoln again said, a decision of the court is not a “Thus saith the Lord.” But in any event, the 1869 decision, so far as I know, did not address the issue of peaceful dissolution by all parties to the compact.

Okay.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Great thing about EuroChristians colonialism.
When they steal stuff it remains theirs forever. Because they stole it according to the Christian culture of the day!
Tom

People have been conquering each other's territories since time immemorial. That's neither unique to European societies nor to Christian ones.
Including various Amerindian tribes and societies. You don't think Mexica/Aztec empire was just dropped in place from above, do you?

Ottomans conquered Constantinople in 1453. Are they "EuroChristian" too? Should they give it back to the rightful owners?

This is yet another thing people are sick of hearing.

America bad!!!

Yes, we've got serious issues that need addressing, but for Christ's sake, complaining about shit that was done 150* years ago and using it to insult the nation you live in now turns off tens of millions of people.

You can't have a discussion about e.g. the Tiananmen Square Massacre without some tedious blowhard saying, "But America did this Other Thing!"

*Yes, I know it didn't all happen 150 years ago, but I'm not going to make a list of it all. The point is that it's long in the past and consistently bringing it up does nothing to help us now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It does not matter what your or I or anyone thinks.

Really?
I'm not happy about the election results myself. But if it doesn't matter what anyone thinks then away we go!
Tom

When it comes to evidence, facts, logic, and reason, it doesn’t matter what anyone believes. As recently as 1969, the medical/psychiatric establishment labeled gay people as mentally ill.

Exactly. Trans is where gay used to be.

 

[Politesse]

Great thing about EuroChristians colonialism.
When they steal stuff it remains theirs forever. Because they stole it according to the Christian culture of the day!
Tom

People have been conquering each other's territories since time immemorial. That's neither unique to European societies nor to Christian ones.
Including various Amerindian tribes and societies. You don't think Mexica/Aztec empire was just dropped in place from above, do you?

Ottomans conquered Constantinople in 1453. Are they "EuroChristian" too? Should they give it back to the rightful owners?

This is yet another thing people are sick of hearing.

America bad!!!

Yes, we've got serious issues that need addressing, but for Christ's sake, complaining about shit that was done 150* years ago and using it to insult the nation you live in now turns off tens of millions of people.

You can't have a discussion about e.g. the Tiananmen Square Massacre without some tedious blowhard saying, "But America did this Other Thing!"

*Yes, I know it didn't all happen 150 years ago, but I'm not going to make a list of it all. The point is that it's long in the past and consistently bringing it up does nothing to help us now.

If "they" are willing to instigate the next national disaster specifically because they didn't want children to learn about a previous national disaster of a similar kind, that seems to me like a very literal demonstration of a certain old aphorism concerning history.

You know, I get why a six year old might be distressed by a nuanced discussion of history. How could the president have ordered something "bad" to happen, isn't the president "good"? How can a "hero" hurt someone? This sounds like a good discussion to have with your pre-operational phase child after watching Captain America 5: The Villains Are Back and They Are Us.

But the role of adults ought to be to help guide them toward a more nuanced understanding of good and bad, right and wrong. Pretending to be unable to distinguish between "Some Americans did a very bad and controversial thing in 1848" and "America bad!!!" is childish and unattractive in anyone over the age of fourteen or so. Don't feign greater ignorance than you actually harbor. Actually being stupid is a disability. Pretending to be stupid for rhetorical gain is peevish at best.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because some people here seem to be incapable of understanding this concept:

Consider the word chair. Most people would tell you "chair" is a category of object types. This is a naive interpretation of the word. Most people would as a result say to the person who said "there is not really such a thing as a chair" is crazy. But there is no such thing all the same.

(Can't find the meme picture)
Chair: Has 4 legs, you sit on it. A horse qualifies.

This is because while chair SEEMS like a category of object shapes it is not, strictly; rather, "chair" is a description of what someone needs an object FOR, and because there are many intents someone could have in asking for a "chair", there is no one meaning.

Yup, I've seen rocks and the like referred to as "chairs". It really means an object suitable for sitting on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because some people here seem to be incapable of understanding this concept:

Consider the word chair. Most people would tell you "chair" is a category of object types. This is a naive interpretation of the word. Most people would as a result say to the person who said "there is not really such a thing as a chair" is crazy. But there is no such thing all the same.

This is because while chair SEEMS like a category of object shapes it is not, strictly; rather, "chair" is a description of what someone needs an object FOR, and because there are many intents someone could have in asking for a "chair", there is no one meaning.

Really, people use the word "chair" as a placeholder because they either do not understand their intent clearly enough to speak it, or doing so would require too many words that are generally unnecessary for the context, or in some cases because stating their explicit intent would reveal their intent as inappropriate as an attempted end run around respect of privacy.

Of course this has come up time and again in any discussion where someone puts some ignorance on display, but here we are yet again trying to say words like "chair" refer to a fixed physical property when they refer to a wide and varying range of intents.

The inability to separate literal from figurative language is going to be the downfall of humanity.

Seriously, this is a critical capability. It's inherent in being able to separate fact from fiction. Being able to understand that chairs are literal things that do actually fucking exist in the real world while also being able to understand that "chair" has a figurative meaning related to temporary usage is a fundamental necessity for complex thought.

You're missing the point. "Chair" generally refers to the objects which are manufactured for purpose, but we also use the term for other objects that can serve the purpose in the absence of the manufactured for purpose objects. You're looking at the logs around the Raintree (3000+ year old Bristlecone pine on our local mountain) and saying that since they don't have legs they can't be chairs. Yet they are sometimes referred to as chairs and the arrangement is clearly by human action, intended for sitting on.

A trans person is the log around the tree rather than a perfect example of their gender.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Gender identity is fluid. If all the hillbillies in America believe otherwise, they are wrong, and no one should pander to their stupidity just to get their votes.

It's just as real as astrological cusps, who vary between Aries and Taurus day by day, and who present their personalities as inconsistent interpretations of how those signs rule their lives.

Look, I don't give a crap at all if someone sometimes feels more masculine or more feminine. I don't care if someone wants to wear trousers one day and a skirt the next - that's window dressing, and it matters not at all to anyone other than them.

But a person's feelings about themselves does not obligate anyone else on the planet to warp their perceptions or to pretend that when Ellen Page puts on a suit and cuts her hair, that somehow she is indistinguishable from any other Hollywood man, and if put in a line-up among Jason Momoa, Chris Evans, and Danny Devito, nobody would be able to easily and accurately identify her as female.

Appearance doesn't always prove reality. There are those who are repeatedly mistaken for the wrong gender. I wouldn't fool anyone in person but in situations where I am not present mistakes abound. (And that includes the phone--it does something to my voice that makes it sound female.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll be perfectly honest: I don't care about the miniscule trans demographic as it relates to political engagement. If one wants to permanently change themself, then they can go right ahead. It's their right and none of my business. But when such a tiny group with a horribly amplified voice impairs the judgment of an entire political party, then yeah, I'm going to have something to say about it.

I see it more like making crosswalk buttons that talk to aid the visually impaired. Small minority, but it's not a big deal to accommodate.

By and large, Trump supporters are reprehensible morons. Most of those people can't be saved. They're irredeemably ignorant and bad faith actors. We know that, and we've harped on it for so long and to such a degree that it's not only tiresome, it's detrimental because rather than find a viable solution, liberals have instead failed to recognize their own detachment from reality by disregarding the problems that everyone faces.

The problem is that the problems that "everyone" faces are things with no real solutions. The Democrats didn't campaign on them because they know any "solution" is bullshit. The Republicans like bullshit so that's what they ran on.

 

[Elixir]

Small minority, but it's not a big deal to accommodate.

Seems to take up a disproportionate amount of space in the realm of political discourse. Or perhaps a LOT more people are trans than come to my attention - I tend not to ask a lot of questions when a person seems androgynous, and if they are apparently of a given gender I don’t question that either. So maybe they’re everywhere, incognito, just waiting to do whatever it is that they do that strikes terror into the heart of RW snowflakes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can only speak to what I've seen with my nieces and my daughter and math is more involved and better suited for critical thinking than it was 25 years ago. And 25 years ago, it wasn't that bad.

It's possible the reporting is biased but if that news article is a reasonable approximation of the truth they're going too far. I do agree with the changes they have been making to math education--basically a shift from rote learning to understanding why. And putting it into real-world contexts is a good thing. But it should still be math, not history.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

The shifting of smart kids outside of classrooms isn't thought of being a great idea anymore. That doesn't mean the school doesn't enrich the talented in reading and/or math. I can attest to that personally / anecdotally.

The only real solution is to put such students into some sort of accelerated program--but great care needs to be taken to keep it from being a tool of discrimination.

The draft also suggested that math should not be colorblind and that teachers could use lessons to explore social justice — for example, by looking out for gender stereotypes in word problems, or applying math concepts to topics like immigration or inequality.

This doesn't say what you think it says. It means Carlos is going to count apples. Amy is breaking bananas up into dozens. Ahmed is on a train going from Albany, NY to somewhere better than Albany, NY.

There's a difference between removing the cultural biases (good) and inserting ideas like inequality (bad).

About the only good part of it is that is emphasizes statistics and data science. It should not come at the expense of calculus though, but instead of nonsense like talking about "immigration or inequality" in math class.

You are reading too deeply into some of this. They aren't getting rid of Calculus. They are allowing the kids that aren't going to be doing the harder maths, to focus on other maths. This isn't about supplanting calculus with word problems on cultural appropriation.

Back when I was in high school calculus was an elective. As it should be--most students aren't going to do well. And most people will simply not need calculus in their lives. Despite being in a field where I use a lot of the lower math I can't recall ever using calculus professionally and that part of my education has rusted into pretty much uselessness.

 

[thebeave]

I'll be perfectly honest: I don't care about the miniscule trans demographic as it relates to political engagement. If one wants to permanently change themself, then they can go right ahead. It's their right and none of my business. But when such a tiny group with a horribly amplified voice impairs the judgment of an entire political party, then yeah, I'm going to have something to say about it.

I see it more like making crosswalk buttons that talk to aid the visually impaired. Small minority, but it's not a big deal to accommodate.

By and large, Trump supporters are reprehensible morons. Most of those people can't be saved. They're irredeemably ignorant and bad faith actors. We know that, and we've harped on it for so long and to such a degree that it's not only tiresome, it's detrimental because rather than find a viable solution, liberals have instead failed to recognize their own detachment from reality by disregarding the problems that everyone faces.

The problem is that the problems that "everyone" faces are things with no real solutions. The Democrats didn't campaign on them because they know any "solution" is bullshit. The Republicans like bullshit so that's what they ran on.

Trans people can integrate into society without a problem, about 95% of the time. Its the 5% that are the issue. Namely, getting a free pass into women's spaces, like sports, restrooms/gyms, prisons and the like. Its not trivial to dismiss those concerns, as some people keep insisting.

 

[bilby]

Seems to take up a disproportionate amount of space in the realm of political discourse.

That's not caused by trans people though; The political discourse agenda is set by media moguls, politicians, and other "influencers", and is amplified by positive feedback loops in the public at large - people want to talk about the latest hot topic, which makes the topic hotter still, getting even more people talking about it...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again, a case where there's no way he could have been convicted had he not incriminated himself in defending himself. Before he came along my position was that long ago rapes were virtually certain not to be provable--but twice now we have had high profile defendants who have convinced me of their guilt. The women didn't prove to me that they were raped, the defendants convinced me that they raped the women. He even brags about grab them by the pussy--that is at a minimum sexual assault and if there's any penetration that's rape.

"Grab them by the pussy" is just talk. Distasteful talk, but not specific (could well be empty braggadocio) and not evidence. Again, EJC could not even recall what year the alleged attack happened. She published a book where she claimed to have been attacked many times during her lifetime - is she that unlucky or just making shit up? Why didn't she report it when it allegedly happened and there could have been corroborating evidence?
I don't know whether anything happened in a Bergdorf changing room sometime in the mid-90s. Neither do you, nor the jury that voted against him. There certainly isn't any evidence one way or the other. There is evidence that EJC is a weird duck for sure - her talking about rape being "sexy" to Anderson Cooper, or her insistence that she kept "the dress" unwashed in the back of her closet for a quarter century.

What you're missing is that she did not remotely convince me it happened. Rather, he convinced me that his denial of it happening was false.

 

[bilby]

Trans people can integrate into society without a problem, about 95% of the time. Its the 5% that are the issue.

A tiny minority of a tiny minority is only an issue if the politicians and media want them to be.

Ignoring the vocal handful of activists in minority communities is routine.

Breaks from that routine are due to politicians and media barons wanting controversy to sell fascism and/or newspapers; Not to the actions of those activists, keen though they are to take the credit.

Trans people are a good choice of political football, partly because they are a very small minority, so public perceptions can be set by the media, uncontaminated by actual contact with trans people themselves; And partly because there's an easy hook in to sex, which is the key to all great marketing campaigns.

Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk don't give shit the first about boys playing on girls soccer teams, or about how unfair that is to the girls on opposing teams.

But they all care about power, wealth, and fame; And they all know that they can whip the public into a frenzy over the utterly minuscule number of cases of trans activism, and can thereby gain those things while distracting everyone from their own manifold horrors.

The only people who need to care about whether or not Betty, who used to be Billy, plays soccer in the Power Cable, Nebraska, Junior Soccer Third Division, are the other players in that division, their families, and their friends. The only organization that needs to formulate policy around the issue is the Junior Soccer League that oversees that competition.

The only beneficiaries of expanding the discussion to the entire nation, are the media and the politicians. They benefit both from the futile attention of the public at large (who vote, click, and pay for people and stories that stoke their prurient interest); And from the reduced attention of the public at large (to issues they should be voting, clicking, and paying to influence).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The election result was not about VALUES or IDEOLOGY. It was about CHANGE and the ECONOMY. There was a perception that the economy was not recovering fast enough and people wanted swifter changes to get us there. Kamala Harris was seen as the status quo and just as much at fault for not improving things swiftly as Biden even though VP's have little power.

Frankly, to fix the economy the way they wanted it fixed would require a DeLorean and
View attachment 48505

How would that fix the economy? They could go back to economic times they like, but what change could make the current economy into what they want??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am generally in favor of trans issues. I think people should be free to be who they want to be.
But I also think that activists take it too far, and that alienates many people. Like for example activsits that say that no transition is even necessary to demand to be addressed as another gender or "non-binary". Or that preferred pronouns should be inquired about on a daily bases, as people may change them based on mood. Do I feel like a "he/him" or "they/them" today? And then get upset if "wrong" pronouns are used. It is hardly surprising that this kind of self-centerdness alienates people.

"No transition is even necessary"--misrepresenting the situation. No surgery required--but that's how it should be! Try it out before taking irrevocable steps. Live as the other gender for a while before you do surgery.

Indeed, there is a lot of infighting. For example, with attacks on Seth Moulton (D-MA).

Needed: A respectful debate on trans women in sports

After his party’s election defeat on Nov. 5, Rep. Seth Moulton (Massachusetts) offered some blunt advice: “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. … I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
Mr. Moulton’s remarks sparked an immediate backlash within his own political camp. His campaign manager quit. A state legislator accused him of “scapegoating transgender youth.” A city council member in Salem, Massachusetts, called for him to resign. The Bay State’s governor, Maura Healey, opined that Mr. Moulton was “playing politics with people.” Even Tufts University briefly got in on the act when David Art, chair of the political science department, reportedly called Mr. Moulton’s office and told him not to contact the university to recruit interns in the future, though Tufts quickly clarified that “we have not — and will not — limit internship opportunities with his office.”

There is this weird purity culture on the contemporary left.

The problem here is that it hasn't been demonstrated that there's a problem. (On the flip side, I don't see it being demonstrated that there isn't, either.) It's certainly not a big one, a naturally high-T woman is going to have an advantage over someone on testosterone blockers.