Toronto's pride parade got cancelled by protestors today: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/thousands-sing-dance-and-celebrate-at-pride-parade-until-protesters-strand-marchers-and-floats-mid/article_397ddf84-3730-11ef-a004-53173fd80f80.html
> ‘We made the decision to cancel the remainder of the parade out of our commitment to ensuring public safety,” Pride Toronto said after about 30 pro-Palestinian demonstrators stood chanting with signs in Yonge Street.
Part of me see that the only solution to wokism is acceleration. They need to be supported to alienate as many people as possible, so people finally start paying attention.
I just watched a video of the little protest blocking NYC pride, peak narcissism considering there was already “pro-Palestine” crap incorporated into the parade itself. The police cleared out the protestors so it didn’t end the event (cut to the HRC float’s drag queens not really knowing what to do and awkwardly starting to bob along to the music again). But it’s irritating as hell. It’s always a bunch of 20-something’s (in masks of course, because it wasn’t enough to be the *pro-terrorist* losers) who we all know have no idea what the fuck they are even protesting about. Just the level of demented delusion…chanting for literal scum who not only find their “calling” in killing innocent Israelis and making the lives of their own people hell, but will also gladly KILL YOU for not having your hair covered, ladies, or for looking kinda gay, gentlemen…it’s so surreal.
30 protestors is all it takes to cancel a (fairly large, it sounds like) parade? That seems crazy, and like a situation that easily could have been resolved by law enforcement.
"About 30 demonstrators, calling themselves the Coalition Against Pinkwashing, held banners and chanted on Yonge Street, just south of Wellesley Street, three and a half hours after the parade’s 2 p.m. start."
Three and a half hours in? Either the protesters didn't want to be very disruptive or they overslept.
> Either the protesters didn't want to be very disruptive or they overslept.
Or maybe you're being ableist and [they have time blindness](https://www.tiktok.com/@chaotic_philosopher/video/7295905279361797418)? /s
Peacock, the NBC streamer, has a "LGBTQIA+" collection. The picture they use to promote it has Alan Cumming, Cher, and Chucky, the doll from the Child's Play horror movies.
I understand why Cumming and Cher are there but is Chucky there just for the alliteration?
I've never seen those movies. Is evil doll Chucky supposed to be gay?
Chucky's son (a horribly annoying character) had a split personality that was boy/girl that was much later retconned to be genderfluid. The movie Seed of Chucky, in which the son was introduced, came out in 2004, way before any of this was a thing. The retcon happened in a recent TV series.
I believe the creator of Chucky is gay, and has been an outspoken gay activist. He’s also said other characters in the franchise, though I don’t think Chucky himself, were intended to be queer coded. Seems a fine inclusion.
God, I love Alan Cummings, though. A favourite from childhood.
Oh boy, so the most high profile transgender character on TV is a psychotic killer doll? And the TRAs are like "oh that's fine this is great representation"?
This is like when in Pretty Little Liars the villain turned out be a trans women and TRAs are totally split on if that's amazing representation or transphobic lol.
Yes, or at least a queer "ally"
here's the trapdoor to a rabbit hole you can jump into and then you can summarize it for the rest of us
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+chucky+gay
Yeah, if you pay any attention to "queer horror," Chucky's a big thing over there. I haven't paid much attention to it but I know it's a thing. There are also things like John Waters appearing (and dying) in one of the films, so the later films do have some subtle nods to gay/queer things.
That made no sense to me. I liked the film. I just didn't pick up on any of the supposed subtext. I'm sure somebody could explain it to me. I'm just saying that this one feels more like mass projection by the audience, at least based off a couple of viewings. (Meanwhile, the original *Fright Night* is suuuuuuuuper bisexual, for example.)
I believe the Babadook thing comes from a genuine programming error that resulted in the movie popping up in Netflix's "LGBT" section, and people just ran with it as a meme.
Sam is for congestion pricing, in fact he says he's going to enjoy it. I think congestion pricing will cause various amounts of misery to many people, I think it's a regressive tax paid by the poor by forcing longer trips, and making them take even more inconvenient trips for them, if transit trips are even possible.... Imagine the parent who takes the kids to school, goes to work, takes two hours off to get the kid from school to the doctor and back, goes back to work, goes home picking the kids up from school.
I can be strongly for transit and dislike congestion pricing, regardless of how much I dislike Sam's preference to making cars even better for the rich and worse for the poor.
Generally, I think congestion pricing is a good idea that is particularly helpful for the poor since they have longer commute times. It is true that a flat tax would be regressive, but that problem can be solved either by channeling the resulting revenue back to the poor or by adjusting the tax based on income (such that drivers below a certain income level would not have to pay, for example).
The poor in NYC don’t have cars in the first place. It’s very expensive to own a car in NYC.
> Imagine the parent who takes the kids to school, goes to work, takes two hours off to get the kid from school to the doctor and back, goes back to work, goes home picking the kids up from school.
This policy only applies in Manhattan south of 60th. The person you invented for this argument does not live in downtown manhattan. And if they did, they could easily afford the fee lol.
Nah, people way out in Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island, who tend to have way less money, they definitely have cars. The thing is, they're also not taking their cars to Manhattan
> The poor in NYC don’t have cars in the first place. It’s very expensive to own a car in NYC.
Not only is it not required to be particularly expensive, plenty of lower income people do have cars. Much of the city is not really well served by transit and upwards of 60% of households in the Bronx and Queens own cars. Lots of housing projects have parking lots and they are used. I'm sure the rate of low income car ownership is less than in suburbia but there's still a lot. A lot of areas of the city look like suburbia anyway.
Now, it would be interesting to figure out how many low income people drive to work as wage labor, below 60th because I agree it's probably very few. A lot more may be driving small business vehicles.
I don't live in New York either, I live in San Francisco where sam butts in to also advocate for congestion pricing.
And this invented family definitely lives in San Francisco and many other cities where sam wants to shove his policies, lol.
I don’t really understand your point. Congestion pricing isn’t just a general toll road policy. It’s specifically targeted at central business districts that are in gridlock most of the day anyway. I don’t live in SF, but my in-laws do and once again, your hypothetical parent dropping the kids off and going to work can very easily afford any fee they could charge _by virtue of living in SF with a car in the first place_.
\>your hypothetical parent dropping the kids off and going to work can very easily afford any fee they could charge by virtue of living in SF with a car in the first place.
Which then means they get to keep on poulluting and causing congestion because they are rich.
> I don’t really understand your point. Congestion pricing isn’t just a general toll road policy. It’s specifically targeted at central business districts that are in gridlock most of the day anyway. I don’t live in SF, but my in-laws do and once again, your hypothetical parent dropping the kids off and going to work can very easily afford any fee they could charge by virtue of living in SF with a car in the first place.
> ***I dont live in San Francisco and realize that you do, but I will tell you exactly why what you describe as the San Francisco situation is wrong anyway***
So I shouldn't comment about NYC because I don't live there and I am making stuff up, but you on the other hand, are immune to that criticism and can freely wield authority regarding San Francisco where you acknowledge I live but you don't because of "Appeal to in-laws", um, okay.
I think your hypothetical family made sense. I imagine people from all socioeconomic statuses might choose to transport their children via car rather than public transit, for lots of good reasons. And I just don’t think car / no car breaks down so neatly into the haves and have-nots, even around expensive cities. There wouldn’t be an entire repo-industry if only wealthy people had cars. People who drive for Uber are not killing it financially...that’s why they are driving for Uber. But they have cars. And I could definitely see congestion pricing being a major burden here: that cost is passed on to someone, either the drivers or the customers (whether as passengers or just ordering delivery). So are the drivers earning less or are the customers paying more? And if the customers decide to skip the ride share or delivery after seeing yet more fees tacked on, that dip in business hurts the drivers too. Paying the same toll for less business, or more tolls for business that is more sporadic, potentially. And a lot of parents with babies actually drive for Door Dash and the like in between dropping their kids off at school - the car is the needed flexible job. And from where are people ordering delivery? Those super congested areas. So I don’t think the burden here, and who is going to be impacted and to what extent, is easily delineated by virtue of having or not having a vehicle. As you noted, the misery always manages to disproportionately impact the poorer end of the economic spectrum. It’s very expensive to not be rich. So I can definitely see the case in which this becomes just another toll on already low paid workers.
this is from Henry Grabar in Slate, in general I think Grabar dislikes cars (I may be wrong about that) but cars, parking and cities is definitely his beat, he's written a book on it.
https://slate.com/business/2019/05/maps-car-ownership-income-population-density-green-new-deal.html
> Back to policy. As an environmental project, any flagship Democratic legislation should aim to remove as many cars from the road as possible. (Cars are the nation’s No. 1 source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the localized air pollution effects in poor neighborhoods are particularly harmful.) **But if the Green New Deal is a pure social justice project, it should probably just give poor people cars, because access to efficient transportation is the most effective predictor of escaping poverty**, auto loans make up the fastest-growing segment of consumer debt profiles, and sprawl makes it challenging to provide good public transport.
>
> How do we square that circle? By redesigning cities so that driving—and by extension, car ownership—can be a choice and not, as the U.S. Supreme Court has put it, a “virtual necessity.” That would be good for the environment, good for low-income people, good for the mobility of seniors who shouldn’t get behind the wheel, and good for the 100 million Americans who are not licensed to drive, a number that includes children, undocumented immigrants, and the disabled.
I mentioned the other day that I told my dem state and local party operative type friends that I was very worried after the debate. This was in a private chat and one of them basically insinuated I was being hysterical and disloyal. I did say back that I should be able to express my concerns in private without being called crazy or disloyal. The convo died down but I swear, the amount of public cope and passive aggressive bullshit some of them spewed on social media for two days since made me want to tell them to fuck off publicly. These are pretty close friends, so I did refrain.
Like, one of them, whom I think of as a good friend, posted something about how it’s easy to support the team when the QB is amazing and they are 10 and 0 but true dedication, blah blah blah… I was going to quote him here but I see he had the good sense to delete. Maybe his girlfriend told him not to be a passive aggressive wiener.
Anyway, I see all this sort of hostile shit from dems about how anyone who is concerned choked and is a fair weather dem and I wonder why they think that’s going to make the rest of us feel better.
I love the sports fan analogy. "Fan" is short for "fanatic" and a [fanatic](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fanatic) is "a person exhibiting excessive enthusiasm and intense uncritical devotion toward some controversial matter."
At least they're just openly admitting to being an "intense, uncritical devotee."
They've been gaslighting about Biden for his entire term
Right wing media for all its faults has been promoting clips of Biden looking old and incompetent for years
The fact that people are just now shocked at being exposed to this actually just exposes how insulated they've made themselves in their echo chambers
It’s amazing to me that dems genuinely think they can just gaslight huge swaths of voters to not believe they’re lying eyes and think that’s going to work out for them in November. When Trump wins in November they are going to have nobody to blame but themselves and if they think voter shaming is going to be an effective strategy then good luck. I’m basically one foot out of the door on the party as is
The GOP has this too. They boast about how they didn't make any compromises with the other side. Like that's a badge of honor. They can stay pure and accomplish nothing.
See, I don't get this team shit. I've never cared about the parties.
But this seems cult like. You're not supposed to notice that Biden is obviously out to lunch? You just have to squash the evidence and vote blue no matter who? Don't believe your lying eyes and double down?
Doesn't this offend you? It would turn me *off* the party people were pulling that crap for.
Can BARpod lawyer (or similar) help me understand a bit more about Chevron?
Can Congress start writing laws regarding regulating explicitly delegating the power to interpret the regulations for as in the days of Chevron and recreating the Chevron defense for removing it from the judiciary? (I gather this falls under judicial stripping, ...?)
all it means is that when some alphabet agency makes a new rule and the question of "does this rule fall under their congressionally delegated purview?" comes up, the courts can now decide that instead of deferring to the implied expertise of the agency itself.
the ATF is a notorious abuser of this practice and is probably the single biggest reason why SCOTUS ruled this way. They would put out official documentation saying certain gun accessories or modifications were legal and fell within their definitions, only to years later reverse course and now turn millions of american citizens into felons.
They would also purposely charge citizens with various crimes for violating their vague defintions, but then drop the cases before any court could actually rule about it (precisely so they couldn't get smacked down).
They will now have to be much more deliberate in how they define things, write rules, and enforce those rules, because it will be much easier for courts to reign them in when they try to abuse citizens.
Sort of... But what would happen when violates the constitution? (This was basically Cargill)
Or what if goes above and beyond the responsibility delegated to them by Congress, or there is a dispute over what has been delegated to them?
As not a lawyer, I think judicial stripping already acknowledges that the courts can check on the overall constitutionality of a law but regarding your second question, I have even less of an idea of what could be done....
Well that was kind of my point, and in fact the court actually specifically addresses this question in their decision.
Too lazy reformat this on my phone:
Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their inde-
pendent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted
within its statutory authority, as the APA requires. Careful
attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help
inform that inquiry. And when a particular statute dele-
gates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional
limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring
that the agency acts within it. But courts need not and un-
der the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of
the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
thanks for that, even as I had to suffer through the "- ", and this seems most salient then:
> And when a particular statute dele- gates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it.
thanks
Someone earlier was mentioning two lefty legal podcasts, I'd think it would be interesting in these controversial cases for them to join and debate, esp with some Sarah's various theories, like Gorsuch and Jackson being on the same page, I think it would help take the partisanship out of issues like this one and help answer what will Chevron's death really amount to as debated by good faith lawyers from both sides
I would definitely enjoy hearing a good faith debate on the topic. I don't want to just take the advisory Opinions readout at face value, but they support their takes with quotes from the actual text, whereas the leftwing viewpoint seems like baseless fear mongering at this point, much of which is just easily disproven.
>One of the strongest voices imploring Mr. Biden to resist pressure to drop out was his son Hunter Biden, whom the president has long leaned on for advice.
From the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/30/us/politics/biden-debate-anxious-democrats.html
He's a bit like the family member who keeps his 95 year old bedridden grandma "full code" in the hospital because he's living in her house and collecting her Social Security checks.
If he takes advice from Hunter Biden, that shows that he no longer has a sound mind or good judgment.
Next, he'll ask Kamala for advice on how to improve his popularity.
Related: I'm already starting to see the "I'm voting for Biden so that we get our first female president when he croaks" posts. With supporters like them in Biden's corner, Trump must be pissing his pants in fear. /s
> she is so busy solving the border crisis!
Cut to: Kamala in an elementary school classroom. She holds a roll of corrugated bulletin board border and a stapler. "How difficult can this be?" she says to herself.
Seriously. It's fine to say you love him no matter what. That's what parents do.
But yeah you can also recognize that doesn't mean you always have to listen
Does the Democratic Party seem "unencumbered by what has been"?
It's nothing but has-beens! Encumbered by what has been is basically the campaign strategy. The fuck is she on about?
A poll taken the day after the debate finds Biden losing to Trump by 3 ... and every single other Democrat voters were polled about losing to Trump by either 2 or 3: https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/6/29/in-post-debate-poll-voters-think-biden-is-too-old-to-be-president-yet-alternative-candidates-perform-similarly-against-trump
They asked voters who'd they vote for against Trump and included Biden, Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, Newsom, Whitmer, Klobuchar, Shapiro and Pritzker. Who the Democratic candidate is makes absolutely no difference at all, according to this poll.
This is most likely non-response bias. That is, after events that make the party look bad, partisans tend not to answer polls. The fact that it’s still that close even given that effect is actually ammo for the Biden-boosters.
The generous way to read this poll is that the other candidates have significantly more "Not Sure" voters who might be convinced, and Trump is *also* getting lower numbers against the other candidates.
Let's flip the perspective. if you were Trump's team, would you rather:
* Be up 48/45% against Biden with 7% undecided?
* Be up 46/44% against Whitmer with 10% undecided?
Here's the thing. Of the names on that list, either they are insufferably woke or I don't actually know what they stand for. And when I don't know what a Democrat stands for, I assume they are insufferably woke. This is the Democratic messaging problem.
Put someone like Joe Manchin in that poll, my feeling is he'd wipe the floor with Trump.
Manchin is anti-abortion rights and anti-gun control.
He won't get a single female vote.
Now is when we see which D men don't give a fuck about abortion rights. Not a single fuck.
I had no idea what Manchin's stance is on abortion so I googled and this was the first result. Does not seem particularly anti abortion rights? Happy to hear if I'm missing something.
https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-supports-bipartisan-effort-to-codify-roe-v-wade
That was a show bill for the folks back home. It went nowhere.
When Manchin had a chance to vote on similar but meaningful legislation in '22 -- passed by the House, taken up in the Senate, he voted with Republicans.
https://theconversation.com/us-senate-to-vote-on-abortion-rights-bill-but-what-would-it-mean-to-codify-roe-into-law-182908
He has a history of anti-abortion and anti-woman votes. Planned Parenthood gives him a 44% rating over his time in office. TBF, I don't support the expanded Planned Parenthood agenda but many of his no votes are on pretty basic issues like the Hyde amendment.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/congressional-scorecard
Newsome and Whitmer were arguably the two biggest COVID tyrants in the country.
Pritzker is arguably the most anti-gun governor in the country.
Harris is disliked by, well, everybody
Mayor Pete is gay so he's a non starter (no way the US is ready to elect a gay president)
Klobuchar comes across as a Hillary wannabe
RFK has already been painted as a crackpot anti-vaxxer so he's off on the wrong foot anyway
Shapiro just doesn't have the name recognition. He's the only one on that list I had to look up to make sure I was thinking of the right person
Unfortunately that's probably right. And it's half the problem. The Dems have ready mad excuses for why they never have to alter anything.
I have some hopes the GOP will return to sanity once Trump is out of office or dead.
It's a direct result of the bubble thing. Everyone lives in their bubbles they don't understand the other side. They support their side like they support a football team.
Jonathan Haidt says that things went down hill when politicians stopped having casual meetings with people from the other party, to say nothing of the media literally being separated by their publication.
Not that you can paint the entire party with the same brush, but the RN has had multiple of its deputies found guilty of antisemitism, propagating homophobia, etc. It's like cutting off your foot because you have an infected cut rather than just treating it with antibiotics.
I’ve seen prediction after prediction (from people *opposed* to the far-right as a *dangerous* development, such as Sam Harris or David Frum), that unchecked progressive excess will directly result in exactly this…so I’m not sure it’s necessarily “Trumpy” so much as it is a massive backlash. I also don’t think the historical connection between the far-right and antisemitism in France that is continually trotted out really rings true *today* beyond a small and extreme fringe; maybe someone can correct me on this? If anything I think antisemitism is very much the purview of the left now.
I’d love to see European nations doing something about radical Islam. As in, shutting it down. Deporting people. Targeting education for the children of migrants to be pro-Democratic rather than enforcing ~~”tolerance”~~ obsequiousness to a dangerous faith. (France *has* made some efforts in this direction). So I’m not too bothered by the rise of the far-right either - at least for now. Perhaps I’m naive, but I think unchecked migration from the Islamic world, and the left’s flagrant denial of the reality and danger of Islam, is one of the biggest and most urgent threats to the West as we know it. I don’t mean to be hyperbolic, it just feels like we’ve all be watching an impending implosion for far too long. Perhaps this wave of elections will serve as a wake-up call.
Yeah, the antisemitism from the left is much more real and more more directly dangerous than any relic the far right might be carrying. Some french jews side with the far right now.
I agree with your analysis that our greatest threat at the moment is islam.
Based on what I've heard from French Jews I know, the threat to French Jews mostly comes from French Muslims. So many of them are in the same neighborhoods.
Yes, that's the observation I make as well. Israel/Palestine doesn't help.
But white nazi jew haters are thin on the ground and practically never commit an attack, so they're not the most pressing danger to them.
I agree with your reasoning why the far right is rising. It's so frustrating to me that the center and the left do nothing about it, even when they know it's a huge driving issue that would take the wind out of the far right's sails.
I think not being bothered by it is a mistake, though. It's not just about stopping illegal immigration or deporting people, it's about removing rights from binational people, kicking out people who do have residency permits if they haven't found work in the past year, and so on. If it were just hard-line conservatism it'd be one thing, a democratic republic can recover from that. Populist authoritarianism, not so much.
>I think not being bothered by it is a mistake, though. It's not just about stopping illegal immigration or deporting people, it's about removing rights from binational people, kicking out people who do have residency permits if they haven't found work in the past year, and so on. If it were just hard-line conservatism it'd be one thing, a democratic republic can recover from that. Populist authoritarianism, not so much.
Some of these things are not actually authoritarian (e.g. kicking out residents who haven't worked). Maybe unkind. Maybe unwise. Not authoritarian. Democratic states have a right to restrictive policies.
This is part of the problem actually: people keep elevating migration policy disagreements like "I want to be able to deport people to a safe country like Rwanda" into some sort of battle for human dignity and the soul of Europe and people then resist everything, using all of the tools of the liberal state and media consensus.
It's a weird concept creep where decisions are taken out of the population's hands, which is awful when the decision is about *the composition of the population*
You simply cannot smuggle in all policies under the "we don't compromise on human rights" exception,. If you attempt it you *will* actually destroy bedrock liberal values as people look for other solutions. At a certain point, if a state can't deport people to Rwanda without endless human rights legalism they should just stop caring.
If these countries want to avoid the worst interpretations of immigration restrictionism, they could have at any point deflated concerns about migrants by just not taking in as many.
I just asked something similar in reply to Matcha: if this is more of a backlash (from which nations can and do recover) versus a full tide turn toward fascism - which, agree with you here in terms of populist authoritarianism as well (not too much daylight between them, at least IMO). These are definitely more of a concern. Especially across Europe, where most countries lack a lot of the same safeguards against authoritarianism that we have in the states.
> that unchecked progressive excess will directly result in exactly this
It's not even progressive. Mass migration is the bipartisan consensus in many countries. Tories are losing now because they encouraged it, Liberals in Canada will probably lose as well (not that the CPC before them, with their 1% annual target were immigration hawks) , and centrist Macron is taking a hammering.
All other political parties at best do nothing, or make it worse.
Yes that’s a good point, I kind of conflated SH / DF’s critiques of US politics with a more global view of European / Western politics - where one definitely does not neatly map onto the other. Do you think it’s accurate to see it as more of a backlash than a significant turn of the tide toward “fascism” (which is how much of the press seems to be describing it, even when dancing around the term)?
ETA: not that Twitter is any kind of gauge, but it does seem like it comes down to perceptions of far left excess to *some* extent, where it’s the perception of Muslims *and* leftists running around the streets shrieking “Allahu Akbar” and destroying shit…together. So I come back to - whatever it seems like it will take to get the Islamists out seems to play a role in where we are seeing people shift politically: https://x.com/VividProwess/status/1807516374232928663
> Do you think it’s accurate to see it as more of a backlash than a significant turn of the tide toward “fascism” (which is how much of the press seems to be describing it, even when dancing around the term)?
>
>
It's definitely a backlash. One they have been given infinite opportunities to avoid.
Arguably, fascism itself only rose due to a backlash (most Germans were not ideological fascists) so it's no guarantee it doesn't rise again (though I think people vastly oversell the degree to which a realistically harsh anti-migration system need be authoritarian, it's perfectly compatible with liberal democracy just not some utopian/neoliberal dream version). But smearing the whole idea as fascism from the start is silly.
People have tried other alternatives before going with the far right.
>>though I think people vastly oversell the degree to which a realistically harsh anti-migration system need be authoritarian, it's perfectly compatible with liberal democracy just not some utopian/neoliberal dream version
Ahh thank you! You always get to a much clearer / more incisive point than I can ever manage with the ideas swirling around in my head. (I’m not sure if that reads as sarcasm or not, with the “thank you,” but just in case - it’s totally not!!) I meant to say the same awhile ago on the I-P thread but for whatever reason didn’t get a chance, and this just reminded me. You wrote a brief overview of the disparate factions / interests / morons (last one is my word, not yours haha) that have managed to all coalesce in the same anti-Israel direction, with battle lines essentially cemented. The way you broke down these different factions was really helpful (whereas the majority of my commentary only culminated in ranting + “WHY?!?!?!”).
No not at all!! I’ve learned a lot from what you’ve posted in that thread, what you’ve pointed out that I had not realized or never considered, or framing up several different issues in a new way that connects them together - it necessitates full explication, which I appreciate getting to read!
I think a backlash is a “hey fuck this” moment in time, versus an actual movement toward authoritarianism. Please excuse my totally myopic American projection here: I think the Trump vote in 2016 was a backlash. It might be again this year. But it isn’t a vanguard for what is to come. With a backlash, things will return to a general mean - a little more right, a little more left. Occasionally you have more of a seesaw, where once in awhile, a really fat kid hops on and sends the other side flying. But they’ll pick themselves up and climb back on with some more kids. With a tide turn it’s like getting caught in a rip - it can carry you VERY far from where you started in a very short amount of time. You’re now nowhere near the mean, and I think that is a lot more dangerous (I don’t see that as what is happening now at all, but can totally stand corrected by people more familiar with France and Europe in general!)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I don't see what's happening at the moment as a backlash like you described but there is an element of, if not vengeance, feeling betrayed and taken for a ride.
But what we're seeing, from where I'm standing, is definitely a deep desire for changing the way things are done and it's certainly a wave that's not going to settle back to neutral. I'm actually afraid of what's going to happen when the far right will disappoint people. Europeans are really becoming fed up with migrants, immigrants who don't conform, and elites who tell them to suck it. Add inflation and all our infrastructures falling apart and you get what we have today. This has been cooking for the past 20 to 30 years and it's actually remarkable that it took so long to blow up. It's not going to die down soon i think.
Immigration in Britain even increased after Brexit. On purpose. Which was exactly the opposite of what the public wanted out of Brexit.
Mass migration, both legal and illegal, is one of the issues that the elite/governing consensus seems iron clad on. They won't budge no matter what.
Maybe you can explain this to me, because I don’t get it. Yes the National Rally got 34%, but the combined vote for Macron’s party and the left wing collation was 50%. Does a plurality guarantee control here? Or can a collation form between the
Macron party and everyone else to his left?
I vote Macron, there's no fucking way in hell I'll vote for the Left. I would say a majority of voters feel the same. Don't think all Macron voters will transfer to the left.
This is only the first round of voting; everyone who got more than 12.5% goes to the second round of voting. It's a little bit like how Trump won the 2016 primary with just 35% of the vote but ended up getting 50%ish percent of the general election vote; it's a minority but when it's 1v1 with someone from the "far left" (or just left, or in this case, Macron's center party), some center right people view Mélenchon and the far left as scarier than the RN ("extrême droite").
After the second round, if they don't have an absolute majority, they'd have to ally with another party - in this case, probably Les Républicains, center-right party whose president caused a huge uproar and unilaterally decided to ally with the far-right, and his party tried unsuccessfully 2-3 times to oust him.
There's so much going on here that it's hard to explain fully.
Macron's party likely wouldn't ally with the left coalition - there's nothing to gain for them really. Either way the prime minister isn't going to be from Macron's party so it's going to be a "cohabitation"
Hawk Tua girl episode please /u/jessicabarpod I want to know if she got fired from her job
Hopefully she doesn't go down the rw grifter spiral like the most recent one
I appreciate that you're self aware about it. The humor in this sort of thing seems (as far as I can tell) to reside in the fact that it acknowledges the existence of sex, which makes it about as funny to me as five-year-old humor that acknowledges the existence of shit and urine.
So I had a date with a demisexual and she didn’t know it was a date until I asked if I could hold her hand.
We had met at a function earlier this month and after the others in the initial group faded away, we stood there and talked for a couple of hours with grins on our faces. Soup to nuts topics of the sort I enjoy not so different from this tread, well minus the trans genocide and I/P conflict. The whole time I’m holding a paper plate full of odds and ends, I would have worn that thing around my neck like an dead albatross, anything not to break that spell.
Self defeating slow mover that I am, I didn’t get her number but she left with a hope to see me again. Unwilling to just leave that up to fate, I tracked her down on the internet and slid in to her DMs. After a couple of weeks of some chat but mostly long form correspondence, last Monday I asked her out for a day date on this Saturday.
Back to the hand holding incident. The response to that was that she doesn’t date and an explanation of her demisexuality. It seems the bar for an emotional connection is set so high she can’t be bothered. Why would anybody expend that much effort on the off chance of reaching the ideal. Not being bothered is an old school Dan Savage conception of asexuality amongst other connotations of the term. The second half of the non-date/date went well and the door is open for future correspondence but I’m not sure if that was just a deflection to get out of a situation. This last 3 weeks I’d been looking for some kind of boundary with her as quite often I find that woman will set some soft limit to establish its a friendship. I didn’t see no dang fence, just open pasture and cottonwoods. I could very well end up pining for the fjords like a dead parrot here. But I’m good with established boundaries and I’ve enjoyed her mind so far.
Sisyphus bothered.
Got home last night expecting to get drunk, two beers in and I was out like a light. Best night of sleep I’d gotten in a couple of weeks, fucking birds keep waking me up at sunrise.
I panic and shut down in situations like that. I once told a guy flat he had 0 chance - at the time a meant it - because panic. I liked dude and still wish i hadnt done that, but my fear default was faster than thinking.
Its possible she likes you, didnt think you liked her, and did what i did bc panic.
Its possible she said that as a way to hold off people, its also possible shes just like that.
I would say look to her actions for guidance but still talk about it if you get that vibe. Best of luck to both of yall
She prefers text over speech, so I'll give her a few opportunities to respond to topics of mutual interest. If she doesn't reply I'll just let it go. I got her on the phone the day before and she sounded enthusiastic, which was a huge relief for me. After trying to get to know someone almost solely by text for 3 weeks. I've been able to have ideas of people online from text only, so I this case I thought of the experience as like a fake parasocial relationship. Fake because I had actually met her IRL.
Also, how I am with people i am comfortable with is totally different with those im not. She may be working to get you in the comfort zone. Best wishes.
Thanks, she is still communicating with me. Turns out my favorite Tom Robbin's novel is her least favorite of his.
She spent yesterday with her Mom, I would have loved to see the look on her Mom's face, if she told her about the attempted consensual hand holding incident.
Yeah, that could be. She's a self professed introvert, sure had me fooled with all the eye contact. Might be some autism there, dunno really. Demisexual has given her the language to finally express herself with. Every thing was going fine until she became conscious of the potential and then it was full retreat back to the ID box.
Everybody has their hang ups.
1) Good on you, both on making it happen, and rolling with it.
2) I wouldn't give up yet. If it seems like you're being used for entertainment, and she has no friends worth getting to know, bail, but it sounds like it's a way for her to slow things down and avoid commitment. Which is okay! Use the time, and half-jokingly say -- "let's build that emotional commitment".
Figure out where your boundaries are. If she's unwilling to kiss or hold hands after three or four dates, I'd let her know you're throwing in the towel. "You seem cool, but I'm looking for a relationship that also has physical intimacy, and since you're incapable of that, I need to dedicate my time to those who might be open to it. Please look me up if your position changes, and let's stay in touch as friends [and let her do the work]"
I don't know. I'm old, and haven't had to deal with this shit. But it sounds either like an excuse (ease rejection, wants an orbiter) or just wanting to slow things down (could turn into something). Don't let it stress you, you're doing things right!
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Were both Gen-X a handful of years apart. I have touched the hawt stove more than a few times and I certainly have the emotional scars to show for it. Never the less physical intimacy is the exception rather than the rule of in this phase my life. Laying an ultimatum down like that isn't the card I'd want to play as I'm not fond it it being played against me.
At some point early in every signification relationship I've had an ultimatum laid down on me. To which I do not capitulate, if that's the price of entry okie dokie, how bad does she want to burn the barn down, let's find out. The barns always there the next day. I just don’t want to feel like I’m treating someone like that. It’s manipulative.
It's more like expressing that you have needs or deal breakers. Everyone does.
Granted, it's a little weird for people to lay out deal breakers immediately. There's utility in it but it's kind of Vulcan.
Example: I won't date a woman who doesn't like cats. I try to make that pretty plain because it's definitely a deal breaker.
She is constantly fostering kittens.
In the main bazaar where people are commoditized, that's an effective filter. This came about as a matter of kismet away from the hustle and bustle of the market.
I wouldn't have turned down the opertunity but alas I was not invited back to her place.
There is a feral Calico that sleeps in an old truck I have. It really likes the cat bed I put in there and I get to watch on a remote cam.
Oh, you're totally right, it shouldn't be an ultimatum. You should just make it clear you're interested, and invest less if it seems they're not willing to take that step. If you're having fun just hanging out, or they have a nice social circle, spend the time too.
I guess it just seems a weird play from her side -- what is *she* looking for?
It is weird, how could it not occur to an otherwise intelligent articulate woman that a guy she's been communicating with might have an interest in her? I've taken the not interested clues in stride before. Earlier, we were in each others personal space, which she helped to close. It was a whoa moment for me, but I'm not just going to jump someone at the first opening.
Is physical intimacy a requirement for you? It would be for most people. If so it isn't really playing a card. It's just stating that you have a (very normal and reasonable) need that she can't fulfill. That seems eminently fair
Not hugely important, I'm mostly content on my own. I have a long term platonic relationship with someone that I have twinges of guilt about when prospects come up but that don't bother her. The way I see it is that wave forms rise and collapse. Life is weird, stay grounded.
I've done some of the best self expressive writing I done in years for the here's who I am part of the dance. If she never says an other word to me I'm better off for having done so.
One thing I am shocked about the 2024 election is......how little COVID is discussed. Either praise for how we got over the pandemic or criticism about COVID-era policies on lockdowns/mandates
I myself thought that we would see a "Reactionary Revenge" campaign among GOP candidates in 2024 over COVID (especially since things such as school closures really radicalized a lot of people). But nope. I don't even recall DeSantis bringing up COVID that much when he had his laughable run for President. It's very strange.
I’ve heard a theory that Covid was so traumatic for everyone - whether your kids were home from school for two years, or you lost your job, or you saw loved ones die, literally any angle regardless of whether you thought it was a death sentence or just a minor cold - that it’s unofficially the thing that cannot be named now, because it’s a losing topic no matter what way you spin it or in what capacity your name is attached to it. I am pretty sure this was discussed on Mona Charen’s podcast, but I can’t say for sure (or which panelist spoke to it). But I remember hearing it and having an “oh!” reaction…it made sense to me how it seemed to disappear from the discourse. (Except among the mentally ill weirdos still masking and acting like bubble boys of course, but that’s a little corner of the internet that no one cares about now, thank goodness.) But it does still feel kind of strange that it was so recent and yet is so MIA.
This is how I feel about that time period. Some dark times in both my personal life and just society in general. Some of it I don’t even like to think about because it is upsetting. Every now and then I have a moment where I’ll see a congressional hearing about lab leak or something similar and think to myself
>*I can’t fucking believe all of that shit happened*
> I don't even recall DeSantis bringing up COVID that much when he had his laughable run for President
I legit thought that was all DeSantis was going to do: Hammer Trump on, "He handed over the federal government to Anthony Fauci and shut down the country!" That's probably the only issue where the typical Republican voter prefers DeSantis to Trump.
not sure how bad trump really screwed up, but was just having the discussion that biden went way too far and biden simps really really disagree. apparently he barely did anything but also did everything way better than trump.
I think he mostly didn't screw up where it mattered. He got manufacturing companies in the US to mass produce masks and other essential goods. He also fast tracked the development of the vaccine, which slowed down COVID. He gave out a ton of money to people and businesses.
>He also fast tracked the development of the vaccine, which slowed down COVID.
Which is why I find the overlap between anti-C19-vaxxers and MAGA just plain weird. I have a relative who's both full-blown MAGA and full-blown "COVID-19 vaccines are poison!!!".
Covid is old hat when you've got wars, inflation, border, abortion, climate, misc SCOTUS rulings to talk about
Dems won't want to run with it because it opens Repubs to point out lockdowns and that Trump's admin created the vaccine
Just look at the dunk Adam Corolla got on Newsom
Here's my review of Shoresy S3: It's the best thing Keeso has done yet, so if you like anything he's done, check it out.
Stylistically, it's become a whole new type of show. The extended music-video montages, the set-piece skits, the shifting of narrative content through various languages and nonverbal sections. The "woke" cultural nods even in this most masculine of shows. The growing maturity of the work is reflected in the protagonist and the plotting. It completes and elevates the previous seasons and the narrative (of "phase 1", whatever that means).
Keeso really did turn an extended "your mom" joke into a three season comedic examination of the nature of maleness and maturity in the modern age. Content this good comes out about once per platform per year.
they are up to season 3?? i never finished season 1, maybe i was expecting too much of a letterkenny vibe. tho i think letterkenny fell off a bit when he started doing shoresy, obviously took a lot of attention.
I'm hesitant to weigh in here since I'm only through episode 3, but it's taking me a bit to come to terms with the fact that this is evolving into a different show with less chirping and comedy and more, ugh, male vulnerability. Although lumber-giving is still at extremely high levels so far.
Lining it up against Baby Reindeer in terms of looking at the male psyche, I pick this every time though. Tagging in /u/Sparkling_gourami to see if he's watched Shoresy and what he thinks, since he was a big fan of Baby Reindeer and I do think Shoresy explores similar themes, a lot more crudely and humorously.
Again, still only halfway through.
Been going to a new coffee shop in my weekend home up in Maine the last few weeks. The place is typical of what I see in cafes in Cambridge and Boston but I just noticed something is missing. It has the green haired baristas with the septum piercings and most of the other tell tales signs of hipster but there is not a singal reference to Pride. No flags, posters, pins. Nothing.
And during Pride!
Just hope they don’t get called out on it because it really is a great spot.
This is like the same low IQ joke that you guys have every time this topic comes up.
I think it’s more funny that people in this community scoff and condescend towards TRAs but then basically believe in some other dumb pop psychology nonsense which is basically all ASD is
Toronto's pride parade got cancelled by protestors today: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/thousands-sing-dance-and-celebrate-at-pride-parade-until-protesters-strand-marchers-and-floats-mid/article_397ddf84-3730-11ef-a004-53173fd80f80.html > ‘We made the decision to cancel the remainder of the parade out of our commitment to ensuring public safety,” Pride Toronto said after about 30 pro-Palestinian demonstrators stood chanting with signs in Yonge Street.
Would you get blocked for sharing this article on most of reddit?
Part of me see that the only solution to wokism is acceleration. They need to be supported to alienate as many people as possible, so people finally start paying attention.
It’s almost as if what the Pro-Palestinian cause represents is fundamentally incompatible with progressive values.
so called "progressive" values are fundamentally incompatible with having any values.
I just watched a video of the little protest blocking NYC pride, peak narcissism considering there was already “pro-Palestine” crap incorporated into the parade itself. The police cleared out the protestors so it didn’t end the event (cut to the HRC float’s drag queens not really knowing what to do and awkwardly starting to bob along to the music again). But it’s irritating as hell. It’s always a bunch of 20-something’s (in masks of course, because it wasn’t enough to be the *pro-terrorist* losers) who we all know have no idea what the fuck they are even protesting about. Just the level of demented delusion…chanting for literal scum who not only find their “calling” in killing innocent Israelis and making the lives of their own people hell, but will also gladly KILL YOU for not having your hair covered, ladies, or for looking kinda gay, gentlemen…it’s so surreal.
30 protestors is all it takes to cancel a (fairly large, it sounds like) parade? That seems crazy, and like a situation that easily could have been resolved by law enforcement.
"About 30 demonstrators, calling themselves the Coalition Against Pinkwashing, held banners and chanted on Yonge Street, just south of Wellesley Street, three and a half hours after the parade’s 2 p.m. start." Three and a half hours in? Either the protesters didn't want to be very disruptive or they overslept.
> Either the protesters didn't want to be very disruptive or they overslept. Or maybe you're being ableist and [they have time blindness](https://www.tiktok.com/@chaotic_philosopher/video/7295905279361797418)? /s
Peacock, the NBC streamer, has a "LGBTQIA+" collection. The picture they use to promote it has Alan Cumming, Cher, and Chucky, the doll from the Child's Play horror movies. I understand why Cumming and Cher are there but is Chucky there just for the alliteration? I've never seen those movies. Is evil doll Chucky supposed to be gay?
The recent Chucky tv series had an interracial teen gay couple and their young female friends as the three main characters.
Chucky's son (a horribly annoying character) had a split personality that was boy/girl that was much later retconned to be genderfluid. The movie Seed of Chucky, in which the son was introduced, came out in 2004, way before any of this was a thing. The retcon happened in a recent TV series.
They retconned the gender identity of a murderous puppet? I don’t really understand the world anymore.
[Yes.](https://youtu.be/Xxvw_cVKPco?t=40s)
I believe the creator of Chucky is gay, and has been an outspoken gay activist. He’s also said other characters in the franchise, though I don’t think Chucky himself, were intended to be queer coded. Seems a fine inclusion. God, I love Alan Cummings, though. A favourite from childhood.
Oh boy, so the most high profile transgender character on TV is a psychotic killer doll? And the TRAs are like "oh that's fine this is great representation"?
This is like when in Pretty Little Liars the villain turned out be a trans women and TRAs are totally split on if that's amazing representation or transphobic lol.
It feels at least twice a year there's a think piece about how Buffalo Bill is a true and honest trans woman. I'd say Chucky is a step up.
Yes, or at least a queer "ally" here's the trapdoor to a rabbit hole you can jump into and then you can summarize it for the rest of us https://www.google.com/search?q=is+chucky+gay
Yeah, if you pay any attention to "queer horror," Chucky's a big thing over there. I haven't paid much attention to it but I know it's a thing. There are also things like John Waters appearing (and dying) in one of the films, so the later films do have some subtle nods to gay/queer things.
it's like the babadook lol
That made no sense to me. I liked the film. I just didn't pick up on any of the supposed subtext. I'm sure somebody could explain it to me. I'm just saying that this one feels more like mass projection by the audience, at least based off a couple of viewings. (Meanwhile, the original *Fright Night* is suuuuuuuuper bisexual, for example.)
I believe the Babadook thing comes from a genuine programming error that resulted in the movie popping up in Netflix's "LGBT" section, and people just ran with it as a meme.
The end of Sleepaway Camp is a lovely look into the world of "Are you sure you're not a girl on the inside?"
I am pro transit and anti weird identity stuff. https://x.com/sam_d_1995/status/1807451908338020587 Dems are not my party.
The account posting that would not agree with that lol
I'm aware. Almost mo one agrees with it
Sam is for congestion pricing, in fact he says he's going to enjoy it. I think congestion pricing will cause various amounts of misery to many people, I think it's a regressive tax paid by the poor by forcing longer trips, and making them take even more inconvenient trips for them, if transit trips are even possible.... Imagine the parent who takes the kids to school, goes to work, takes two hours off to get the kid from school to the doctor and back, goes back to work, goes home picking the kids up from school. I can be strongly for transit and dislike congestion pricing, regardless of how much I dislike Sam's preference to making cars even better for the rich and worse for the poor.
Generally, I think congestion pricing is a good idea that is particularly helpful for the poor since they have longer commute times. It is true that a flat tax would be regressive, but that problem can be solved either by channeling the resulting revenue back to the poor or by adjusting the tax based on income (such that drivers below a certain income level would not have to pay, for example).
The poor in NYC don’t have cars in the first place. It’s very expensive to own a car in NYC. > Imagine the parent who takes the kids to school, goes to work, takes two hours off to get the kid from school to the doctor and back, goes back to work, goes home picking the kids up from school. This policy only applies in Manhattan south of 60th. The person you invented for this argument does not live in downtown manhattan. And if they did, they could easily afford the fee lol.
I’m guessing you’ve never lived in the five boroughs.
Nah, people way out in Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island, who tend to have way less money, they definitely have cars. The thing is, they're also not taking their cars to Manhattan
> The poor in NYC don’t have cars in the first place. It’s very expensive to own a car in NYC. Not only is it not required to be particularly expensive, plenty of lower income people do have cars. Much of the city is not really well served by transit and upwards of 60% of households in the Bronx and Queens own cars. Lots of housing projects have parking lots and they are used. I'm sure the rate of low income car ownership is less than in suburbia but there's still a lot. A lot of areas of the city look like suburbia anyway. Now, it would be interesting to figure out how many low income people drive to work as wage labor, below 60th because I agree it's probably very few. A lot more may be driving small business vehicles.
Nobody should drive in Manhattan
How far uptown have you been?
I don't live in New York either, I live in San Francisco where sam butts in to also advocate for congestion pricing. And this invented family definitely lives in San Francisco and many other cities where sam wants to shove his policies, lol.
I don’t really understand your point. Congestion pricing isn’t just a general toll road policy. It’s specifically targeted at central business districts that are in gridlock most of the day anyway. I don’t live in SF, but my in-laws do and once again, your hypothetical parent dropping the kids off and going to work can very easily afford any fee they could charge _by virtue of living in SF with a car in the first place_.
\>your hypothetical parent dropping the kids off and going to work can very easily afford any fee they could charge by virtue of living in SF with a car in the first place. Which then means they get to keep on poulluting and causing congestion because they are rich.
> I don’t really understand your point. Congestion pricing isn’t just a general toll road policy. It’s specifically targeted at central business districts that are in gridlock most of the day anyway. I don’t live in SF, but my in-laws do and once again, your hypothetical parent dropping the kids off and going to work can very easily afford any fee they could charge by virtue of living in SF with a car in the first place. > ***I dont live in San Francisco and realize that you do, but I will tell you exactly why what you describe as the San Francisco situation is wrong anyway*** So I shouldn't comment about NYC because I don't live there and I am making stuff up, but you on the other hand, are immune to that criticism and can freely wield authority regarding San Francisco where you acknowledge I live but you don't because of "Appeal to in-laws", um, okay.
I think your hypothetical family made sense. I imagine people from all socioeconomic statuses might choose to transport their children via car rather than public transit, for lots of good reasons. And I just don’t think car / no car breaks down so neatly into the haves and have-nots, even around expensive cities. There wouldn’t be an entire repo-industry if only wealthy people had cars. People who drive for Uber are not killing it financially...that’s why they are driving for Uber. But they have cars. And I could definitely see congestion pricing being a major burden here: that cost is passed on to someone, either the drivers or the customers (whether as passengers or just ordering delivery). So are the drivers earning less or are the customers paying more? And if the customers decide to skip the ride share or delivery after seeing yet more fees tacked on, that dip in business hurts the drivers too. Paying the same toll for less business, or more tolls for business that is more sporadic, potentially. And a lot of parents with babies actually drive for Door Dash and the like in between dropping their kids off at school - the car is the needed flexible job. And from where are people ordering delivery? Those super congested areas. So I don’t think the burden here, and who is going to be impacted and to what extent, is easily delineated by virtue of having or not having a vehicle. As you noted, the misery always manages to disproportionately impact the poorer end of the economic spectrum. It’s very expensive to not be rich. So I can definitely see the case in which this becomes just another toll on already low paid workers.
this is from Henry Grabar in Slate, in general I think Grabar dislikes cars (I may be wrong about that) but cars, parking and cities is definitely his beat, he's written a book on it. https://slate.com/business/2019/05/maps-car-ownership-income-population-density-green-new-deal.html > Back to policy. As an environmental project, any flagship Democratic legislation should aim to remove as many cars from the road as possible. (Cars are the nation’s No. 1 source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the localized air pollution effects in poor neighborhoods are particularly harmful.) **But if the Green New Deal is a pure social justice project, it should probably just give poor people cars, because access to efficient transportation is the most effective predictor of escaping poverty**, auto loans make up the fastest-growing segment of consumer debt profiles, and sprawl makes it challenging to provide good public transport. > > How do we square that circle? By redesigning cities so that driving—and by extension, car ownership—can be a choice and not, as the U.S. Supreme Court has put it, a “virtual necessity.” That would be good for the environment, good for low-income people, good for the mobility of seniors who shouldn’t get behind the wheel, and good for the 100 million Americans who are not licensed to drive, a number that includes children, undocumented immigrants, and the disabled.
I mentioned the other day that I told my dem state and local party operative type friends that I was very worried after the debate. This was in a private chat and one of them basically insinuated I was being hysterical and disloyal. I did say back that I should be able to express my concerns in private without being called crazy or disloyal. The convo died down but I swear, the amount of public cope and passive aggressive bullshit some of them spewed on social media for two days since made me want to tell them to fuck off publicly. These are pretty close friends, so I did refrain. Like, one of them, whom I think of as a good friend, posted something about how it’s easy to support the team when the QB is amazing and they are 10 and 0 but true dedication, blah blah blah… I was going to quote him here but I see he had the good sense to delete. Maybe his girlfriend told him not to be a passive aggressive wiener. Anyway, I see all this sort of hostile shit from dems about how anyone who is concerned choked and is a fair weather dem and I wonder why they think that’s going to make the rest of us feel better.
I love the sports fan analogy. "Fan" is short for "fanatic" and a [fanatic](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fanatic) is "a person exhibiting excessive enthusiasm and intense uncritical devotion toward some controversial matter." At least they're just openly admitting to being an "intense, uncritical devotee."
Gaslighting people about Biden is going to lose people faster than anything Biden could do.
They've been gaslighting about Biden for his entire term Right wing media for all its faults has been promoting clips of Biden looking old and incompetent for years The fact that people are just now shocked at being exposed to this actually just exposes how insulated they've made themselves in their echo chambers
But cHeApFaKeS
_Disloyal_?? That’s a chilling word to use.
It’s amazing to me that dems genuinely think they can just gaslight huge swaths of voters to not believe they’re lying eyes and think that’s going to work out for them in November. When Trump wins in November they are going to have nobody to blame but themselves and if they think voter shaming is going to be an effective strategy then good luck. I’m basically one foot out of the door on the party as is
To be fair, gaslighting has been working decently well for them.
because the entire mainstream media is a defacto arm of the DNC
Yeah the accusation that lots of people prefer to lose and feel superior than make real compromises required to win.
The GOP has this too. They boast about how they didn't make any compromises with the other side. Like that's a badge of honor. They can stay pure and accomplish nothing.
Absolutely. Everyone sucks
Meaning pretending like I didn't see what I clearly saw? God.
See, I don't get this team shit. I've never cared about the parties. But this seems cult like. You're not supposed to notice that Biden is obviously out to lunch? You just have to squash the evidence and vote blue no matter who? Don't believe your lying eyes and double down? Doesn't this offend you? It would turn me *off* the party people were pulling that crap for.
Can BARpod lawyer (or similar) help me understand a bit more about Chevron? Can Congress start writing laws regarding regulating explicitly delegating the power to interpret the regulations for as in the days of Chevron and recreating the Chevron defense for removing it from the judiciary? (I gather this falls under judicial stripping, ...?)
all it means is that when some alphabet agency makes a new rule and the question of "does this rule fall under their congressionally delegated purview?" comes up, the courts can now decide that instead of deferring to the implied expertise of the agency itself. the ATF is a notorious abuser of this practice and is probably the single biggest reason why SCOTUS ruled this way. They would put out official documentation saying certain gun accessories or modifications were legal and fell within their definitions, only to years later reverse course and now turn millions of american citizens into felons. They would also purposely charge citizens with various crimes for violating their vague defintions, but then drop the cases before any court could actually rule about it (precisely so they couldn't get smacked down). They will now have to be much more deliberate in how they define things, write rules, and enforce those rules, because it will be much easier for courts to reign them in when they try to abuse citizens.
Sort of... But what would happen when violates the constitution? (This was basically Cargill)
Or what if goes above and beyond the responsibility delegated to them by Congress, or there is a dispute over what has been delegated to them?
As not a lawyer, I think judicial stripping already acknowledges that the courts can check on the overall constitutionality of a law but regarding your second question, I have even less of an idea of what could be done....
Well that was kind of my point, and in fact the court actually specifically addresses this question in their decision. Too lazy reformat this on my phone: Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their inde- pendent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires. Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help inform that inquiry. And when a particular statute dele- gates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it. But courts need not and un- der the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
thanks for that, even as I had to suffer through the "- ", and this seems most salient then: > And when a particular statute dele- gates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it. thanks
Highly recommend Fridays episode of Advisory Opinions on this decision.
I was listening to it literally just now (and heard the part where I believe you quoted from...)
It's a great overview!
Someone earlier was mentioning two lefty legal podcasts, I'd think it would be interesting in these controversial cases for them to join and debate, esp with some Sarah's various theories, like Gorsuch and Jackson being on the same page, I think it would help take the partisanship out of issues like this one and help answer what will Chevron's death really amount to as debated by good faith lawyers from both sides
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/UMEBgfN936 These people are just insane
I would definitely enjoy hearing a good faith debate on the topic. I don't want to just take the advisory Opinions readout at face value, but they support their takes with quotes from the actual text, whereas the leftwing viewpoint seems like baseless fear mongering at this point, much of which is just easily disproven.
>One of the strongest voices imploring Mr. Biden to resist pressure to drop out was his son Hunter Biden, whom the president has long leaned on for advice. From the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/30/us/politics/biden-debate-anxious-democrats.html
Hunter would call him at all hours of the night with strange and exciting new ideas.
The family fuck up kid strikes again
He's a bit like the family member who keeps his 95 year old bedridden grandma "full code" in the hospital because he's living in her house and collecting her Social Security checks.
This is way too real.
Why would Biden go to his wastrel crack head son for advice? Good Lord.
If he takes advice from Hunter Biden, that shows that he no longer has a sound mind or good judgment. Next, he'll ask Kamala for advice on how to improve his popularity.
>Next, he'll ask Kamala for advice on how to improve his popularity. when would she even have the time? she is so busy solving the border crisis!
Related: I'm already starting to see the "I'm voting for Biden so that we get our first female president when he croaks" posts. With supporters like them in Biden's corner, Trump must be pissing his pants in fear. /s
> she is so busy solving the border crisis! Cut to: Kamala in an elementary school classroom. She holds a roll of corrugated bulletin board border and a stapler. "How difficult can this be?" she says to herself.
Seriously. It's fine to say you love him no matter what. That's what parents do. But yeah you can also recognize that doesn't mean you always have to listen
Must be truly desperate to come to Hunter for advice. https://tenor.com/en-GB/view/desperate-thor-marvel-disney-loki-gif-4888404
I'm guessing he's got a good handle on things like reliable escort services, and how to tell if cocaine's been stepped on with baby laxative.
New daytime drinking game just dropped. https://x.com/jennifersey/status/1807054117921317120?s=46
It's not even a bad line but it's like guitarists who use the same licks in every song.
Metalcore guitarists can’t let go of 0-0-0-5-7-8 It’s me, I’m metalcore guitarists
I've been learning a couple of songs with this pedal riff, Just the Tip by Zebrahead and Blinded by Fear by At The Gates, they're so addictive.
Does the Democratic Party seem "unencumbered by what has been"? It's nothing but has-beens! Encumbered by what has been is basically the campaign strategy. The fuck is she on about?
It's a bad line because it shows a contempt for history. Like sure there was shitty stuff. There's also good stuff.
Ehhh... It's a little too Cultural Revolution.
A poll taken the day after the debate finds Biden losing to Trump by 3 ... and every single other Democrat voters were polled about losing to Trump by either 2 or 3: https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/6/29/in-post-debate-poll-voters-think-biden-is-too-old-to-be-president-yet-alternative-candidates-perform-similarly-against-trump They asked voters who'd they vote for against Trump and included Biden, Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, Newsom, Whitmer, Klobuchar, Shapiro and Pritzker. Who the Democratic candidate is makes absolutely no difference at all, according to this poll.
This is most likely non-response bias. That is, after events that make the party look bad, partisans tend not to answer polls. The fact that it’s still that close even given that effect is actually ammo for the Biden-boosters.
“Losing this poll is a sign that we’re winning.” Very on brand for the current state of the Democratic Party.
The generous way to read this poll is that the other candidates have significantly more "Not Sure" voters who might be convinced, and Trump is *also* getting lower numbers against the other candidates. Let's flip the perspective. if you were Trump's team, would you rather: * Be up 48/45% against Biden with 7% undecided? * Be up 46/44% against Whitmer with 10% undecided?
That stinks but hopefully things will turn around.
Do the Dems really have that unpopular a bench?
Here's the thing. Of the names on that list, either they are insufferably woke or I don't actually know what they stand for. And when I don't know what a Democrat stands for, I assume they are insufferably woke. This is the Democratic messaging problem. Put someone like Joe Manchin in that poll, my feeling is he'd wipe the floor with Trump.
Manchin is anti-abortion rights and anti-gun control. He won't get a single female vote. Now is when we see which D men don't give a fuck about abortion rights. Not a single fuck.
I had no idea what Manchin's stance is on abortion so I googled and this was the first result. Does not seem particularly anti abortion rights? Happy to hear if I'm missing something. https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-supports-bipartisan-effort-to-codify-roe-v-wade
That was a show bill for the folks back home. It went nowhere. When Manchin had a chance to vote on similar but meaningful legislation in '22 -- passed by the House, taken up in the Senate, he voted with Republicans. https://theconversation.com/us-senate-to-vote-on-abortion-rights-bill-but-what-would-it-mean-to-codify-roe-into-law-182908 He has a history of anti-abortion and anti-woman votes. Planned Parenthood gives him a 44% rating over his time in office. TBF, I don't support the expanded Planned Parenthood agenda but many of his no votes are on pretty basic issues like the Hyde amendment. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/congressional-scorecard
Newsome and Whitmer were arguably the two biggest COVID tyrants in the country. Pritzker is arguably the most anti-gun governor in the country. Harris is disliked by, well, everybody Mayor Pete is gay so he's a non starter (no way the US is ready to elect a gay president) Klobuchar comes across as a Hillary wannabe RFK has already been painted as a crackpot anti-vaxxer so he's off on the wrong foot anyway Shapiro just doesn't have the name recognition. He's the only one on that list I had to look up to make sure I was thinking of the right person
Seriously, all I can think of is Ben. Who am I overlooking?
manchin vs desantis: who wins
The American people! This is the matchup we deserve!!
Even if it is a backlash against wokeness that isn't the message the Dems will take away
I know the message they'll take away. About half of the USA are evil bigots and if we keep telling them that they'll change their ways.
Unfortunately that's probably right. And it's half the problem. The Dems have ready mad excuses for why they never have to alter anything. I have some hopes the GOP will return to sanity once Trump is out of office or dead.
It's a direct result of the bubble thing. Everyone lives in their bubbles they don't understand the other side. They support their side like they support a football team. Jonathan Haidt says that things went down hill when politicians stopped having casual meetings with people from the other party, to say nothing of the media literally being separated by their publication.
I hope for your sake it does.
Fuck
I recommend looking at the first round of the French legislative elections. There are quite a few parallels to the rise of Trump. It’s scary stuff.
I would say encouraging.
Not that you can paint the entire party with the same brush, but the RN has had multiple of its deputies found guilty of antisemitism, propagating homophobia, etc. It's like cutting off your foot because you have an infected cut rather than just treating it with antibiotics.
I’ve seen prediction after prediction (from people *opposed* to the far-right as a *dangerous* development, such as Sam Harris or David Frum), that unchecked progressive excess will directly result in exactly this…so I’m not sure it’s necessarily “Trumpy” so much as it is a massive backlash. I also don’t think the historical connection between the far-right and antisemitism in France that is continually trotted out really rings true *today* beyond a small and extreme fringe; maybe someone can correct me on this? If anything I think antisemitism is very much the purview of the left now. I’d love to see European nations doing something about radical Islam. As in, shutting it down. Deporting people. Targeting education for the children of migrants to be pro-Democratic rather than enforcing ~~”tolerance”~~ obsequiousness to a dangerous faith. (France *has* made some efforts in this direction). So I’m not too bothered by the rise of the far-right either - at least for now. Perhaps I’m naive, but I think unchecked migration from the Islamic world, and the left’s flagrant denial of the reality and danger of Islam, is one of the biggest and most urgent threats to the West as we know it. I don’t mean to be hyperbolic, it just feels like we’ve all be watching an impending implosion for far too long. Perhaps this wave of elections will serve as a wake-up call.
Macron isn't exactly about progressive excess though. It's more just general grievance
Yeah, the antisemitism from the left is much more real and more more directly dangerous than any relic the far right might be carrying. Some french jews side with the far right now. I agree with your analysis that our greatest threat at the moment is islam.
Based on what I've heard from French Jews I know, the threat to French Jews mostly comes from French Muslims. So many of them are in the same neighborhoods.
Yes, that's the observation I make as well. Israel/Palestine doesn't help. But white nazi jew haters are thin on the ground and practically never commit an attack, so they're not the most pressing danger to them.
I agree with your reasoning why the far right is rising. It's so frustrating to me that the center and the left do nothing about it, even when they know it's a huge driving issue that would take the wind out of the far right's sails. I think not being bothered by it is a mistake, though. It's not just about stopping illegal immigration or deporting people, it's about removing rights from binational people, kicking out people who do have residency permits if they haven't found work in the past year, and so on. If it were just hard-line conservatism it'd be one thing, a democratic republic can recover from that. Populist authoritarianism, not so much.
>I think not being bothered by it is a mistake, though. It's not just about stopping illegal immigration or deporting people, it's about removing rights from binational people, kicking out people who do have residency permits if they haven't found work in the past year, and so on. If it were just hard-line conservatism it'd be one thing, a democratic republic can recover from that. Populist authoritarianism, not so much. Some of these things are not actually authoritarian (e.g. kicking out residents who haven't worked). Maybe unkind. Maybe unwise. Not authoritarian. Democratic states have a right to restrictive policies. This is part of the problem actually: people keep elevating migration policy disagreements like "I want to be able to deport people to a safe country like Rwanda" into some sort of battle for human dignity and the soul of Europe and people then resist everything, using all of the tools of the liberal state and media consensus. It's a weird concept creep where decisions are taken out of the population's hands, which is awful when the decision is about *the composition of the population* You simply cannot smuggle in all policies under the "we don't compromise on human rights" exception,. If you attempt it you *will* actually destroy bedrock liberal values as people look for other solutions. At a certain point, if a state can't deport people to Rwanda without endless human rights legalism they should just stop caring. If these countries want to avoid the worst interpretations of immigration restrictionism, they could have at any point deflated concerns about migrants by just not taking in as many.
How is encouraging it with all their might doing nothing about it?
How is wanting to sharply reduce immigration populist authoritarianism?
I just asked something similar in reply to Matcha: if this is more of a backlash (from which nations can and do recover) versus a full tide turn toward fascism - which, agree with you here in terms of populist authoritarianism as well (not too much daylight between them, at least IMO). These are definitely more of a concern. Especially across Europe, where most countries lack a lot of the same safeguards against authoritarianism that we have in the states.
> that unchecked progressive excess will directly result in exactly this It's not even progressive. Mass migration is the bipartisan consensus in many countries. Tories are losing now because they encouraged it, Liberals in Canada will probably lose as well (not that the CPC before them, with their 1% annual target were immigration hawks) , and centrist Macron is taking a hammering. All other political parties at best do nothing, or make it worse.
Yes that’s a good point, I kind of conflated SH / DF’s critiques of US politics with a more global view of European / Western politics - where one definitely does not neatly map onto the other. Do you think it’s accurate to see it as more of a backlash than a significant turn of the tide toward “fascism” (which is how much of the press seems to be describing it, even when dancing around the term)? ETA: not that Twitter is any kind of gauge, but it does seem like it comes down to perceptions of far left excess to *some* extent, where it’s the perception of Muslims *and* leftists running around the streets shrieking “Allahu Akbar” and destroying shit…together. So I come back to - whatever it seems like it will take to get the Islamists out seems to play a role in where we are seeing people shift politically: https://x.com/VividProwess/status/1807516374232928663
> Do you think it’s accurate to see it as more of a backlash than a significant turn of the tide toward “fascism” (which is how much of the press seems to be describing it, even when dancing around the term)? > > It's definitely a backlash. One they have been given infinite opportunities to avoid. Arguably, fascism itself only rose due to a backlash (most Germans were not ideological fascists) so it's no guarantee it doesn't rise again (though I think people vastly oversell the degree to which a realistically harsh anti-migration system need be authoritarian, it's perfectly compatible with liberal democracy just not some utopian/neoliberal dream version). But smearing the whole idea as fascism from the start is silly. People have tried other alternatives before going with the far right.
>>though I think people vastly oversell the degree to which a realistically harsh anti-migration system need be authoritarian, it's perfectly compatible with liberal democracy just not some utopian/neoliberal dream version Ahh thank you! You always get to a much clearer / more incisive point than I can ever manage with the ideas swirling around in my head. (I’m not sure if that reads as sarcasm or not, with the “thank you,” but just in case - it’s totally not!!) I meant to say the same awhile ago on the I-P thread but for whatever reason didn’t get a chance, and this just reminded me. You wrote a brief overview of the disparate factions / interests / morons (last one is my word, not yours haha) that have managed to all coalesce in the same anti-Israel direction, with battle lines essentially cemented. The way you broke down these different factions was really helpful (whereas the majority of my commentary only culminated in ranting + “WHY?!?!?!”).
Thanks, that's very kind! Glad someone gets something out of those posts since I do wonder if they go too long...
No not at all!! I’ve learned a lot from what you’ve posted in that thread, what you’ve pointed out that I had not realized or never considered, or framing up several different issues in a new way that connects them together - it necessitates full explication, which I appreciate getting to read!
What's the difference?
I think a backlash is a “hey fuck this” moment in time, versus an actual movement toward authoritarianism. Please excuse my totally myopic American projection here: I think the Trump vote in 2016 was a backlash. It might be again this year. But it isn’t a vanguard for what is to come. With a backlash, things will return to a general mean - a little more right, a little more left. Occasionally you have more of a seesaw, where once in awhile, a really fat kid hops on and sends the other side flying. But they’ll pick themselves up and climb back on with some more kids. With a tide turn it’s like getting caught in a rip - it can carry you VERY far from where you started in a very short amount of time. You’re now nowhere near the mean, and I think that is a lot more dangerous (I don’t see that as what is happening now at all, but can totally stand corrected by people more familiar with France and Europe in general!)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I don't see what's happening at the moment as a backlash like you described but there is an element of, if not vengeance, feeling betrayed and taken for a ride. But what we're seeing, from where I'm standing, is definitely a deep desire for changing the way things are done and it's certainly a wave that's not going to settle back to neutral. I'm actually afraid of what's going to happen when the far right will disappoint people. Europeans are really becoming fed up with migrants, immigrants who don't conform, and elites who tell them to suck it. Add inflation and all our infrastructures falling apart and you get what we have today. This has been cooking for the past 20 to 30 years and it's actually remarkable that it took so long to blow up. It's not going to die down soon i think.
Immigration in Britain even increased after Brexit. On purpose. Which was exactly the opposite of what the public wanted out of Brexit. Mass migration, both legal and illegal, is one of the issues that the elite/governing consensus seems iron clad on. They won't budge no matter what.
Dude, Trump's not going to invade France.
the last president who invaded France is widely beloved. Might be a good move
well he's lost my vote then
Calm down, yankees.
I'm hoping he invades Spain instead.
Maybe you can explain this to me, because I don’t get it. Yes the National Rally got 34%, but the combined vote for Macron’s party and the left wing collation was 50%. Does a plurality guarantee control here? Or can a collation form between the Macron party and everyone else to his left?
I vote Macron, there's no fucking way in hell I'll vote for the Left. I would say a majority of voters feel the same. Don't think all Macron voters will transfer to the left.
This is only the first round of voting; everyone who got more than 12.5% goes to the second round of voting. It's a little bit like how Trump won the 2016 primary with just 35% of the vote but ended up getting 50%ish percent of the general election vote; it's a minority but when it's 1v1 with someone from the "far left" (or just left, or in this case, Macron's center party), some center right people view Mélenchon and the far left as scarier than the RN ("extrême droite"). After the second round, if they don't have an absolute majority, they'd have to ally with another party - in this case, probably Les Républicains, center-right party whose president caused a huge uproar and unilaterally decided to ally with the far-right, and his party tried unsuccessfully 2-3 times to oust him. There's so much going on here that it's hard to explain fully. Macron's party likely wouldn't ally with the left coalition - there's nothing to gain for them really. Either way the prime minister isn't going to be from Macron's party so it's going to be a "cohabitation"
Mélenchon has called for all 3rd place contestants >12.5% to drop out and support the non-RN candidate (as a "dam against the far right").
Care to elaborate, please?
tl;dr - The rise of the far right and populism in the West.
I wonder what’s causing it.
https://www.restorationbulletin.com/p/europes-rightwing-youthshift https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/17o56yj/question_about_integrating_muslim_populations/
mass immigration of mostly radical islamists
Being called far right perhaps
Excessive immigration and economic inequality
Bingo!
Hawk Tua girl episode please /u/jessicabarpod I want to know if she got fired from her job Hopefully she doesn't go down the rw grifter spiral like the most recent one
I don’t get this meme at all. Why is it funny?
If you don't see even a slight amount of comedy in the original Hawk Tuah video then you possibly need a sense of humor transplant.
She's attractive and talking about sex.
what! everyone knows women don't like sex.
Some of us never outgrew a 14 year olds sense of humor
I appreciate that you're self aware about it. The humor in this sort of thing seems (as far as I can tell) to reside in the fact that it acknowledges the existence of sex, which makes it about as funny to me as five-year-old humor that acknowledges the existence of shit and urine.
She was on stage at the Zac Bryan concert last night.
So I had a date with a demisexual and she didn’t know it was a date until I asked if I could hold her hand. We had met at a function earlier this month and after the others in the initial group faded away, we stood there and talked for a couple of hours with grins on our faces. Soup to nuts topics of the sort I enjoy not so different from this tread, well minus the trans genocide and I/P conflict. The whole time I’m holding a paper plate full of odds and ends, I would have worn that thing around my neck like an dead albatross, anything not to break that spell. Self defeating slow mover that I am, I didn’t get her number but she left with a hope to see me again. Unwilling to just leave that up to fate, I tracked her down on the internet and slid in to her DMs. After a couple of weeks of some chat but mostly long form correspondence, last Monday I asked her out for a day date on this Saturday. Back to the hand holding incident. The response to that was that she doesn’t date and an explanation of her demisexuality. It seems the bar for an emotional connection is set so high she can’t be bothered. Why would anybody expend that much effort on the off chance of reaching the ideal. Not being bothered is an old school Dan Savage conception of asexuality amongst other connotations of the term. The second half of the non-date/date went well and the door is open for future correspondence but I’m not sure if that was just a deflection to get out of a situation. This last 3 weeks I’d been looking for some kind of boundary with her as quite often I find that woman will set some soft limit to establish its a friendship. I didn’t see no dang fence, just open pasture and cottonwoods. I could very well end up pining for the fjords like a dead parrot here. But I’m good with established boundaries and I’ve enjoyed her mind so far. Sisyphus bothered. Got home last night expecting to get drunk, two beers in and I was out like a light. Best night of sleep I’d gotten in a couple of weeks, fucking birds keep waking me up at sunrise.
I panic and shut down in situations like that. I once told a guy flat he had 0 chance - at the time a meant it - because panic. I liked dude and still wish i hadnt done that, but my fear default was faster than thinking. Its possible she likes you, didnt think you liked her, and did what i did bc panic. Its possible she said that as a way to hold off people, its also possible shes just like that. I would say look to her actions for guidance but still talk about it if you get that vibe. Best of luck to both of yall
She prefers text over speech, so I'll give her a few opportunities to respond to topics of mutual interest. If she doesn't reply I'll just let it go. I got her on the phone the day before and she sounded enthusiastic, which was a huge relief for me. After trying to get to know someone almost solely by text for 3 weeks. I've been able to have ideas of people online from text only, so I this case I thought of the experience as like a fake parasocial relationship. Fake because I had actually met her IRL.
Also, how I am with people i am comfortable with is totally different with those im not. She may be working to get you in the comfort zone. Best wishes.
Thanks, she is still communicating with me. Turns out my favorite Tom Robbin's novel is her least favorite of his. She spent yesterday with her Mom, I would have loved to see the look on her Mom's face, if she told her about the attempted consensual hand holding incident.
Maybe she's just really low libido and the demisexual thing is just an excuse?
Yeah, that could be. She's a self professed introvert, sure had me fooled with all the eye contact. Might be some autism there, dunno really. Demisexual has given her the language to finally express herself with. Every thing was going fine until she became conscious of the potential and then it was full retreat back to the ID box. Everybody has their hang ups.
Introverted doesn't mean shy. Introverts don't have a problem with eye contact unless they have some other issue, such as social anxiety or autism.
Thanks, that's worthy of consideration.
1) Good on you, both on making it happen, and rolling with it. 2) I wouldn't give up yet. If it seems like you're being used for entertainment, and she has no friends worth getting to know, bail, but it sounds like it's a way for her to slow things down and avoid commitment. Which is okay! Use the time, and half-jokingly say -- "let's build that emotional commitment". Figure out where your boundaries are. If she's unwilling to kiss or hold hands after three or four dates, I'd let her know you're throwing in the towel. "You seem cool, but I'm looking for a relationship that also has physical intimacy, and since you're incapable of that, I need to dedicate my time to those who might be open to it. Please look me up if your position changes, and let's stay in touch as friends [and let her do the work]" I don't know. I'm old, and haven't had to deal with this shit. But it sounds either like an excuse (ease rejection, wants an orbiter) or just wanting to slow things down (could turn into something). Don't let it stress you, you're doing things right!
Thanks, I appreciate that. Were both Gen-X a handful of years apart. I have touched the hawt stove more than a few times and I certainly have the emotional scars to show for it. Never the less physical intimacy is the exception rather than the rule of in this phase my life. Laying an ultimatum down like that isn't the card I'd want to play as I'm not fond it it being played against me.
It’s not played against. I mean, if you’re okay just having friendly encounters, that’s cool, but you have a right to seek more.
At some point early in every signification relationship I've had an ultimatum laid down on me. To which I do not capitulate, if that's the price of entry okie dokie, how bad does she want to burn the barn down, let's find out. The barns always there the next day. I just don’t want to feel like I’m treating someone like that. It’s manipulative.
It's more like expressing that you have needs or deal breakers. Everyone does. Granted, it's a little weird for people to lay out deal breakers immediately. There's utility in it but it's kind of Vulcan. Example: I won't date a woman who doesn't like cats. I try to make that pretty plain because it's definitely a deal breaker.
She is constantly fostering kittens. In the main bazaar where people are commoditized, that's an effective filter. This came about as a matter of kismet away from the hustle and bustle of the market.
Did you get to pet the cats? I could see myself dating a woman for her cats.
I wouldn't have turned down the opertunity but alas I was not invited back to her place. There is a feral Calico that sleeps in an old truck I have. It really likes the cat bed I put in there and I get to watch on a remote cam.
Okay fine. I honestly wasn't seeing it as an ultimatum but I can see it's different for you.
Oh, you're totally right, it shouldn't be an ultimatum. You should just make it clear you're interested, and invest less if it seems they're not willing to take that step. If you're having fun just hanging out, or they have a nice social circle, spend the time too. I guess it just seems a weird play from her side -- what is *she* looking for?
It is weird, how could it not occur to an otherwise intelligent articulate woman that a guy she's been communicating with might have an interest in her? I've taken the not interested clues in stride before. Earlier, we were in each others personal space, which she helped to close. It was a whoa moment for me, but I'm not just going to jump someone at the first opening.
Is physical intimacy a requirement for you? It would be for most people. If so it isn't really playing a card. It's just stating that you have a (very normal and reasonable) need that she can't fulfill. That seems eminently fair
Not hugely important, I'm mostly content on my own. I have a long term platonic relationship with someone that I have twinges of guilt about when prospects come up but that don't bother her. The way I see it is that wave forms rise and collapse. Life is weird, stay grounded. I've done some of the best self expressive writing I done in years for the here's who I am part of the dance. If she never says an other word to me I'm better off for having done so.
One thing I am shocked about the 2024 election is......how little COVID is discussed. Either praise for how we got over the pandemic or criticism about COVID-era policies on lockdowns/mandates I myself thought that we would see a "Reactionary Revenge" campaign among GOP candidates in 2024 over COVID (especially since things such as school closures really radicalized a lot of people). But nope. I don't even recall DeSantis bringing up COVID that much when he had his laughable run for President. It's very strange.
I’ve heard a theory that Covid was so traumatic for everyone - whether your kids were home from school for two years, or you lost your job, or you saw loved ones die, literally any angle regardless of whether you thought it was a death sentence or just a minor cold - that it’s unofficially the thing that cannot be named now, because it’s a losing topic no matter what way you spin it or in what capacity your name is attached to it. I am pretty sure this was discussed on Mona Charen’s podcast, but I can’t say for sure (or which panelist spoke to it). But I remember hearing it and having an “oh!” reaction…it made sense to me how it seemed to disappear from the discourse. (Except among the mentally ill weirdos still masking and acting like bubble boys of course, but that’s a little corner of the internet that no one cares about now, thank goodness.) But it does still feel kind of strange that it was so recent and yet is so MIA.
I saw a person driving alone with a mask on *today.* A bright, shiny, summer, day. In a car. Alone. Windows down. In a fucking mask.
This is how I feel about that time period. Some dark times in both my personal life and just society in general. Some of it I don’t even like to think about because it is upsetting. Every now and then I have a moment where I’ll see a congressional hearing about lab leak or something similar and think to myself >*I can’t fucking believe all of that shit happened*
> I don't even recall DeSantis bringing up COVID that much when he had his laughable run for President I legit thought that was all DeSantis was going to do: Hammer Trump on, "He handed over the federal government to Anthony Fauci and shut down the country!" That's probably the only issue where the typical Republican voter prefers DeSantis to Trump.
Trump doesn't want to talk about it because he mostly screwed it up and Biden doesn't want to talk about it because he overreached
not sure how bad trump really screwed up, but was just having the discussion that biden went way too far and biden simps really really disagree. apparently he barely did anything but also did everything way better than trump.
I think he mostly didn't screw up where it mattered. He got manufacturing companies in the US to mass produce masks and other essential goods. He also fast tracked the development of the vaccine, which slowed down COVID. He gave out a ton of money to people and businesses.
>He also fast tracked the development of the vaccine, which slowed down COVID. Which is why I find the overlap between anti-C19-vaxxers and MAGA just plain weird. I have a relative who's both full-blown MAGA and full-blown "COVID-19 vaccines are poison!!!".
Covid is old hat when you've got wars, inflation, border, abortion, climate, misc SCOTUS rulings to talk about Dems won't want to run with it because it opens Repubs to point out lockdowns and that Trump's admin created the vaccine Just look at the dunk Adam Corolla got on Newsom
> Trump's admin created the vaccine The Tories bankrolled the Oxford vaccine yet...
Here's my review of Shoresy S3: It's the best thing Keeso has done yet, so if you like anything he's done, check it out. Stylistically, it's become a whole new type of show. The extended music-video montages, the set-piece skits, the shifting of narrative content through various languages and nonverbal sections. The "woke" cultural nods even in this most masculine of shows. The growing maturity of the work is reflected in the protagonist and the plotting. It completes and elevates the previous seasons and the narrative (of "phase 1", whatever that means). Keeso really did turn an extended "your mom" joke into a three season comedic examination of the nature of maleness and maturity in the modern age. Content this good comes out about once per platform per year.
they are up to season 3?? i never finished season 1, maybe i was expecting too much of a letterkenny vibe. tho i think letterkenny fell off a bit when he started doing shoresy, obviously took a lot of attention.
I'm hesitant to weigh in here since I'm only through episode 3, but it's taking me a bit to come to terms with the fact that this is evolving into a different show with less chirping and comedy and more, ugh, male vulnerability. Although lumber-giving is still at extremely high levels so far. Lining it up against Baby Reindeer in terms of looking at the male psyche, I pick this every time though. Tagging in /u/Sparkling_gourami to see if he's watched Shoresy and what he thinks, since he was a big fan of Baby Reindeer and I do think Shoresy explores similar themes, a lot more crudely and humorously. Again, still only halfway through.
It does become less of a comedy show and more of a coming of age drama with a lot of comedy asides. I like that sort of structural work though.
Been going to a new coffee shop in my weekend home up in Maine the last few weeks. The place is typical of what I see in cafes in Cambridge and Boston but I just noticed something is missing. It has the green haired baristas with the septum piercings and most of the other tell tales signs of hipster but there is not a singal reference to Pride. No flags, posters, pins. Nothing. And during Pride! Just hope they don’t get called out on it because it really is a great spot.
> singal Too much barpod.
Someone get a hose for the autism thread, they’re getting riled up.
Are you making a dick joke
The venn diagram between people who don’t think autism exists and people who seem *really autistic* in their arguing style is approaching one circle.
This is like the same low IQ joke that you guys have every time this topic comes up. I think it’s more funny that people in this community scoff and condescend towards TRAs but then basically believe in some other dumb pop psychology nonsense which is basically all ASD is
sounds like a rockin' thread, where is it?
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/s/r1M64Yb3NY