Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Berkut]

Nobodies blood pressure is up about it - it is just a discussion.

You seem to be the one who gets worked up over the chance to engage in yet more personal attacks because people want to talk about things that they find relevant and interesting. Why is that?

You are right - this is like a corner issue of a corner issue of a corner issue.

But it does in fact affect a lot of people. Lia Thomas effects every single swimmer she competes against in the NCAA, and even swimmers she has never competed against (in that she could establish records that remove records from others, and make new records harder to obtain). It is an interesting issue, at least I find it interesting.

It is also interesting because the right does blow it out of proportion. I contend that their ability to do so is, in part, assisted by the fact that so many on the left refuse to acknowledge that there is in fact nuance, and accuse anyone who says there is nuance a bigot. Indeed, you post is identical in content to what Harris has said - so why is him saying it some great crime against humanity, but you saying the exact same thing somehow fine? Why are you getting your blood pressure up about it?

What is a more interesting issue is why you are so compelled to be such an asshole about simply discussing things. 

I am confident that you watch a hell of a lot more Tucker Carlson then I do. You sure know a lot more than I do about what he has to say.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Nobodies blood pressure is up about it - it is just a discussion.

You seem to be the one who gets worked up over the chance to engage in yet more personal attacks because people want to talk about things that they find relevant and interesting. Why is that?

You are right - this is like a corner issue of a corner issue of a corner issue.

But it does in fact affect a lot of people. Lia Thomas effects every single swimmer she competes against in the NCAA, and even swimmers she has never competed against (in that she could establish records that remove records from others, and make new records harder to obtain). It is an interesting issue, at least I find it interesting.

It is also interesting because the right does blow it out of proportion. I contend that their ability to do so is, in part, assisted by the fact that so many on the left refuse to acknowledge that there is in fact nuance, and accuse anyone who says there is nuance a bigot. Indeed, you post is identical in content to what Harris has said - so why is him saying it some great crime against humanity, but you saying the exact same thing somehow fine? Why are you getting your blood pressure up about it?

What is a more interesting issue is why you are so compelled to be such an asshole about simply discussing things.

I am confident that you watch a hell of a lot more Tucker Carlson then I do. You sure know a lot more than I do about what he has to say.

Because I'm about tired of my country trying to turn into Hungary, fed by white nationalist grievance politics. I'm tired of people that, despite your perception I'm "going after you", I actually know is smarter than that, largely aping their talking points. I do believe in your mind you think you're just "exploring the issue", but you're exploring it from a perspective in which you've already let the foundation and a good bit of the framework of the issue get defined by right wing propaganda.

I don't know if it's age, lack of media awareness or what have you--but this right wing propaganda is pernicious. Just because you never personally consume things like Tucker's show, Breitbart, DailyCaller, etc, a lot of the influence of these shows is virality on social media, short videos, tweets etc. Eventually they cross over into being talked about by figures like Maher, Rogan et al. who are not really right wingers, but who have a tendency to want to talk about their talking points and agree with good portions of them. While it might seem like this is healthy, it is not. Because, again, we are starting with a premise where we've allowed right wing propaganda to build out the foundation of the debate.

I actually don't think there is much good at all for pro-democratic forces to talk about these issues. Talking about these issues essentially mean the fascists have already won, we're being actively manipulated, and we're in a civil war, it needs to be recognized for what it is.

Nuance no longer has value in American society.

[Berkut]

I disgree. I think talking about issues is absolutely necessary BECAUSE the right will own them otherwise. Has pretending CRT is a non-issue (and it is, in any rational sense, a non-issue) helped keep the right from taking over school boards across the country?

I don't think sticking our heads in the sand will work. Or at least it hasn't worked.

I think we should win the battle, and that means being willing to have open and honest discussion about the merits, and being willing to actually contest the right wing bullshit.

You cannot do that if every time you talk about it you get attacked from the right (of course) but ALSO immediately attacked from the left as a bigot or "middle aged white bro" for not embracing every absurd take on it that some twitter dumbass or journalist puts forth.

And of course the right is going to latch onto the more absurd things. They are assholes, they aren't stupid. If the left spouts off about some topic that is 98% perfectly reasonable, of course they are going to latch onto the 2% and attack the entirety on that basis. Both sides do that, all the time.

And I think if you want to not let the right wing propaganda universe "build out the foundation of the debate" don't you have to propose your own foundation? Doesn't that demand a discussion, and an effort within the left to demand that the foundation NOT be defined by our own silly squad? Because if we don't, we know how that works. The loudest and most extreme define the terms. 

I don't want the left to go the route of the right. And I think it is a real danger if the adults aren't willing to stand up and make the sane argument. I think this is exactly what happened in the GOP over the last several decades of my own life. People ignored the crazies, then woke up one day and they were running the show.

[OttoVonBismarck]

"If you're explaining, you're losing", is an old political axiom and I see little compelling argument against it. Mitch McConnell hilariously uttered a paraphrasing of it openly not that long ago when talking about Republican strategy.

I don't think Dems should stick their heads in the sand, but I don't think you counter propaganda with "open discussion" and "learning sessions." You largely have to find a way to contest it by flooding the common square with your own propaganda that riles up people against your enemies.

[Berkut]

But we have to define what our own propaganda *is*. 

And that means we have to discuss it within the left wing universe. 

I am not saying we should have nuanced discussions as our message, that obviously won't work.

I am saying when we all sit around arguing about what our message ought to be, we should not be accusing anyone who challenges the demand from the far left that the message reflect the most extreme version of being right wing middle aged white bro bigots who are regurgitating Tucker Carlson.

Otherwise, the "your own propaganda" is going to be stupid shit like "Defund the Police!" that nobody but the most radical supports, yet somehow seems to be the left wing message anyway. It will be Bernie Bros throwing temper tantrums because their guy lost. 

The moderate/centrist/independent part of the Dem coalition cannot be afraid to stake and defend their position. They are actually the people who actually represent most American's actual views on most issues. The strategy, so nicely illustrated by you, of accusing them of racial motivation every time they say anything is fucking bullshit. *And it isn't working*

[Admiral Yi]

I actually don't think there is much good at all for pro-democratic forces to talk about these issues. Talking about these issues essentially mean the fascists have already won, we're being actively manipulated, and we're in a civil war, it needs to be recognized for what it is.

The fascists win by electing more people than we do.  If I talk about transgender women in sports not a single additional Republican gets elected to office.

[PJL]

Right-wing extremism is like a virus. But the solution is not to ignore it, but to propose moderate versions of their ideas, like a vaccine. But unfortunately many on the far left are the anti-vaxxers, any possible hint of adapting ideas from the right is seen as heretical.

[The Minsky Moment]

The moderate wing of the Democratic coalition has staked and defended their position; they are in fact dominant in the party.  That's why we have an infrastructure plan and no BBB.  "Defund the police" is actually a good example: it was rejected overwhelmingly by the national party.  Clyburn basically made the 2020 primary a referendum on defund the police and assorted snowflakery and once defined that way, Biden cruised.  Even though notably, the most leftist candidate - Bernie Sanders - also flatly rejected defund the police.  On a national level, the policy has as much support among Democrats as using a military coup to reinstall Trump as President has in the GOP.

The right is running against schools teaching that white people are inherently evil racists and "grooming" first graders.  There is literally no one advocating this; it is invented hysteria.  The moderate left can stand up, sit down, sway side to side or do the hokey-pokey: it will make not one bit of difference.  When the right talks about the "radical left" they don't mean the actual people and positions on the left wing of the Democratic party, they are referring to something completely made up.  That's why GOP talkers can speak with a straight face about Joe "No Busing" Biden as being "radical left"; the other day someone was tarring Liz Cheney as "radical left."

Sure there are excesses on the left - there are people on the left that say or do foolish or anti-liberal things that will be grist for the Limbaughs and the Carlsons.  In a country of 330 million people there always will be such people and there will always be episodes that feed the other side's propaganda.  Just as there have always been John Birchers on the right ranting lunacy about precious bodily fluids.  The difference is that the snowflake left has little clout beyond a few city councils whereas the loony right has effectively taken over the GOP.

[Jacob]

Right-wing extremism is like a virus. But the solution is not to ignore it, but to propose moderate versions of their ideas, like a vaccine. But unfortunately many on the far left are the anti-vaxxers, any possible hint of adapting ideas from the right is seen as heretical.

While this is true, I think there's the flip-side as well. Many on the centre-left are willing to do the right's work by relentlessly attacking their supposed allies further to the left of them using the rhetoric and logic of the right.

[DGuller]

Right-wing extremism is like a virus. But the solution is not to ignore it, but to propose moderate versions of their ideas, like a vaccine. But unfortunately many on the far left are the anti-vaxxers, any possible hint of adapting ideas from the right is seen as heretical.

While this is true, I think there's the flip-side as well. Many on the centre-left are willing to do the right's work by relentlessly attacking their supposed allies further to the left of them using the rhetoric and logic of the right.

We've already had a couple of rounds debating the truthfulness and usefulness of "you're using the Fox talking points" line, but let's look at it in a different way. 

Let's say that the center left is using the rhetoric and logic of the right; could it be an indication of why the rhetoric and logic of the right hits the spot?  Again, I disagree with the premise, but even if you accept the premise, wouldn't the latter be a more useful conclusion to think about? 

Why isn't the hard left concerned that they can't even keep the center left from using the right wing rhetoric?  Sure, you can say that the center left is also stupid, but whether that's correct or not, thinking of people as stupid doesn't help you win at politics.  In fact, it helps you become even more disconnected.

[crazy canuck]

Right-wing extremism is like a virus. But the solution is not to ignore it, but to propose moderate versions of their ideas, like a vaccine. But unfortunately many on the far left are the anti-vaxxers, any possible hint of adapting ideas from the right is seen as heretical.

What is an example of a moderate version of their ideas?

[Berkut]

Right-wing extremism is like a virus. But the solution is not to ignore it, but to propose moderate versions of their ideas, like a vaccine. But unfortunately many on the far left are the anti-vaxxers, any possible hint of adapting ideas from the right is seen as heretical.

While this is true, I think there's the flip-side as well. Many on the centre-left are willing to do the right's work by relentlessly attacking their supposed allies further to the left of them using the rhetoric and logic of the right.

I think you are phrasing that wrong, and very unfairly.

I don't think *anyone* in the center-left "are willing to do the rights work". That is just flat out untrue, and implies a motive that is simply wrong, and pretty obviously so. If it were true, those people would not be "center-left" they would be the right pretending to be center-left. Logic does not have a allegiance. Logic is logical or it is not. Logic that someone on the right uses is either valid, or not valid. 

I think the center does not "relentless attack" the further left at all. I think the center would love to ignore the crazy left. But that isn't possible. It wasn't possible when the center-right tried to ignore the Tea Party right up until they all were standing around wondering how they all just got primaried out of office.

[Jacob]

We've already had a couple of rounds debating the truthfulness and usefulness of "you're using the Fox talking points" line, but let's look at it in a different way. 

Let's say that the center left is using the rhetoric and logic of the right; could it be an indication of why the rhetoric and logic of the right hits the spot?  Again, I disagree with the premise, but even if you accept the premise, wouldn't the latter be a more useful conclusion to think about? 

Why isn't the hard left concerned that they can't even keep the center left from using the right wing rhetoric?  Sure, you can say that the center left is also stupid, but whether that's correct or not, thinking of people as stupid doesn't help you win at politics.  In fact, it helps you become even more disconnected.

I think folks are very concerned that the Fox machine's talking points are so effective.

And yes, maybe you're right, maybe it means that Murdoch, Carlson, de Santis, and the right wing's general messaging operation is correct. That is one possibility that should be considered.

Let's then for argument's sake posit that where right-wing media agrees with you (IIRC that the hard left is a danger to society due to BLM / Defund the Police, Antifa, supporting Trans women in sport, making it inconvenient or impossible for some folks to speak on university campuses some time, and making it so some folks are worried about mispeaking about political correct topics and thus ruining their lives for ever).

What do we do with this? Eject the far left from the Democrat party? Abandon the Democrat party and join the GOP in the hopes of moderating it, leaving the Democratic party to the far left? Expect that the far left comes to its senses and becomes moderate because you and I have reached this agreement (and that Right Wing media won't find something new to find fault with)?

[Admiral Yi]

What do we do with this? Eject the far left from the Democrat party? Abandon the Democrat party and join the GOP in the hopes of moderating it, leaving the Democratic party to the far left? Expect that the far left comes to its senses and becomes moderate because you and I have reached this agreement (and that Right Wing media won't find something new to find fault with)?

Why do we have to do anything with it?  If we continue to disagree with some of their ideas, and at times those positions are the same or close to the far right's, so what?

[viper37]

Since there is no such thing as a woke menace, I guess this is totally fine:
Trop blanche pour interviewer Angela Davis

Too white to interview Angela Davis

Last Monday, the 78-year-old African-American essayist was invited to the Royal Circus in Brussels to come and debate in front of young people, artists, citizen movements and militant associations. The meeting was to take place at the National Theater, but as the demand was too strong, it was moved to a room that can accommodate 1700 people.
A few days before his arrival, a group of "black feminist and queer activists  " published a text on social networks demanding that the moderator of this discussion, Safia Kessas, Belgian-Algerian journalist for RTBF, be removed from its functions.
Reason: the journalist is white.
In the published text, the ten signatories affirm that the choice of a "non-black person to dialogue" with Angela Davis represents a "new spit in the face of black activists".
I'll make a clarification here: Angela Davis saw no problem with a white journalist interviewing her.

See, there's absolutely nothing to worry about.  Integrism and fanatism are simple mindsets.  Nothing to worry about.  Want to force you wife to walk 2 paces behind you, covered from head to toe in black garment during a hot summer day?  Freedom of religion.  Want to sacrifice a goat in your backyard?  Freedom of religion.  Want biological men to decide that they should compete with female athletes by pretending they are now women?  Sure, let's do it!  It means nothing after all, it's just a simple trophy.  Can't get a job as a university teacher?  Use some pills to darken your skin and pretend to black.  No outcry, it'll be the same.  Or invent yourself some First Nations roots.  It worked for some.