The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

Or maybe it simply has to do with the fact that airline pilots have irregular schedules and strange hours, spend long periods of time away from their families, and that the nature of their work naturally attracts more men than women. You can talk all you like about equality in occupations, but being a pilot is particularly non-conducive to "having it all," which is still a concern for women today even if you would rather pretend otherwise. You're literally jumping to the worst possible conclusion for no reason whatsoever, based on the (incorrect) assumption that if we created a frictionless job market where everyone got the jobs they wanted, every occupation would be comprised of 50% men and 50% women. That is moronic.

I do not see anyone whining about how we need more female trash collectors, construction workers, truck drivers, car mechanics, or plumbers. Somehow it's only the gender gaps in the glamorous jobs that catch the eye of the woke mob. Instead of wasting time discussing this, we could be talking about how few men are employed in early childhood education-- the rare area of employment where having a more equal gender balance would create substantively better results rather than just being an affirmative action program.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

The reasons are obvious, I think, and have been spelled out by people here.

It should also be noted that the context of the U.S.-China opening is that, essentially, the U.S. spent a decade pouring blood, sweat and tears into South Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism, and then suddenly, in 1969-72, Nixon pulled off a dramatic coup where without the loss of a single American life, brought in a country 20 times the size of Vietnam into the U.S. anti-Soviet camp. After this coup Vietnam was essentially no longer important, as "communist" no longer meant anti-American, pro-Soviet, which was what mattered. Given the trauma that Vietnam had inflicted on American society and its psyche for such a long time, this created tremendous euphoria.

Then in 1979-85, Deng Xiaoping initiated economic reforms, which had even more dramatic impacts on the American psyche, since during the Cold War, China was the most extreme far-left communist regime in the world. People forget that the reason Mao hated Khruschev and initiated the Sino-Soviet split (Khruschev visited China to ask Mao to allow Soviet naval bases to be built along the Chinese coast; this would have been a Cold War game-changer; but he was insulted by Mao) is that Khruschev denounced Stalin in the 1956 Secret Speech, which was leaked to the world by a Polish Secretary. After that, only China and Albania remained orthodox Stalinist parties, while China carried out the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, which were seen by the Soviets as insane left-wing extremism.

The fact thus that China, of all places, was embracing market reforms, was the ultimate vindication, in the American mind, that capitalism was the correct ideology. We didn't take seriously slogans like "socialism with Chinese characteristics", and wink-wink, nod-nodded that it was just an excuse for capitalism. The apparatchiks in Beijing weren't winking and nodding with us, but it didn't matter. In 1989-91, the most dramatic event in the world history since WWII occurred, and while it eliminated the geopolitical basis of the U.S.-China relationship, and left China the world's largest authoritarian power, it also supercharged American euphoria and hubris (with some justification). Capitalism and democracy were sweeping the world, and the fact that McDonald's were opening in Beijing and Moscow were taken as signs of the end of history, to a generation unused to seeing such sights. The Tian'anmen crackdown was overlooked because it was seen as being against the tide of history, and unimportant.

During the 1990's a debate emerged in America between "containment" and "engagement". The containment side correctly foresaw that China was a growing power with interests at odds with America and would one day be a threat, which the U.S. should act against. But the engagement side warned against the demonization of China and argued that with economic integration into the rules-based international order, China would liberalize and democratize. And indeed, there was evidence that was happening, as economic reforms and increased personal freedoms continued to grow during the 1990's. Bill Clinton agreed to give China MFN trading status in 1994, Jiang Zemin had a state visit in 1997 where he wore a tricolor hat, and in 1998 Clinton visited China and declared it a "strategic partner". After the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, the U.S. was forced to make trade concessions and USTR Charlene Barshefsky signed the deal in late 1999 which would allow China to join the WTO, which was ratified by Congress in 2000.

Nonetheless, the "containment" side had its moments in the 1990s. Bill Clinton in 1992 campaigned against the "coddling the butchers of Beijing", while George H.W. Bush, fearful of losing Texas, decided to sell F-16s made in Texas to Taiwan. Then in late 1995, Lee Teng-hui's visit to his alma mater, Cornell University, set off the 1996 Taiwan strait crisis, which Clinton resolved by sending U.S. aircraft carriers through the Taiwan strait. In 1999, the Cox Report of U.S. rep Christopher Cox outlined the threats posed by Beijing. One unfortunate cause of this early tension was the wrongful prosecution of Los Alamos National Research lab employee Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese who was falsely accused by the Clinton administration of spying. And in 2000, George W. Bush ran for office calling Beijing a "strategic competitor". Within his first 3 months in office, the collision between a Chinese J-8 fighter and a U.S. EP-3 spy plane caused an international crisis, with Bush issuing the letter of "Two Sorries" to get the plane and its crew returned. Nonetheless, in the summer of 2001, stories began to appear about threats posed by Chinese hackers.

Thus, the engagement-containment debate was not resolved, and still very much going on on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Less than six months later, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that U.S.-China relations were "the best in thirty years".

The terrorist attacks suppressed the debate for over a decade, but the underlying tension was only hidden, and when China hawks burst out into the scene against in the mid-2010s, the hatred was all the more ferocious in part due to making up for the suppressed hostility during the War on Terror years. America in the interim, which was on top of the world in the 1990s, had taken a risk on China, welcomed China's rise with open arms, assisted the rise of China, all the while in the nervous expectation that liberalization and democratization, the trends of the late 20th century, would eventually come to China, and how were we repaid? With Hong Kong, Xinjiang, the South China Sea, "Wolf warrior diplomacy", with Xi being president for life, with all the crackdowns. The "China-hating", as compucomp puts it, has the ferocity and intensity of a jibbed lover, of a spouse in a once harmonious matrimony utterly betrayed. For all the euphoria that was there in the past, the pain, regret, and bitterness of the present is all the greater. That ultimately explains much of what is going on in the minds of American elites.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

This is such an INFJ thing to say.

No but seriously, like Vosem I have almost ALWAYS gotten ENTP, for like a decade plus now since I first took it, across many variations of the test. I occasionally get slightly different results like ENTJ or ESTP, but usually ENTP.

I ain't saying it means anything but as someone who was a psychology double major in college, I can tell you it is NOT as pseudoscientific as astrology, let alone like QAnon. Vosem is right that its biggest problem is it's taking continuous variables and sorting them into rigid fixed categories. So in other words you could score 51% I, 51% N, 51% T, and 51% P, and you'll be sorted into the same "INTP" "type" as someone who scores 100% on each, even if you have more in common with someone who scores 51% E, S, F, and J and thus is supposed to be your opposite "type." So the whole "type" thing is of dubious value, except maybe in cases of people who score far to one end or the other on each axis.

I will say however that the test itself really is not that bad actually. It's rooted in Jungian psychology but managed to correlate uncannily well to four of the five "Big Five" personality factors on the later "more scientific" test universally accepted by psychologists today, which IS scored on continuous trait scales rather than assigns anyone a fixed "type." Which makes it more accurate for scientific purposes but less "fun" generally.

Basically, if you tell me your MBTI type AND tell me either you've consistently scored as one type (or close to it) for years or give me your percentages, I can guess reasonably well what your Big Five scores are likely to be. i.e. If you say you always score as a "T," I know you're probably pretty low in agreeableness for example. So it's not completely useless or invalid by any means, even if the "types" it posits are crude caricatures at best.

There have also been a number of people in my life who I've given this test or a variant of it to, and I predicted exactly what their results would be before they took it. Just saying!

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

The problem with the LGBT+ signifier if that it has fragmented so much as to make the definition useful.

Even if you look at the Transgender category you probably have some subgroups such as Transmedicalists who until recently might have been as Republican or arguably substantially more Republican than gay males, and then anyone who is "gender is a spectrum" where support for Republicans was likely 1-2% even before recent events.

All recent stuff has done is ensured the Conservative elements within the transgender community won't vote R, but that % is a distinctly tiny subset.

Conservatism is inherently unfriendly to relativism. This is not a religious influence per se, but it is generally why religious people are otherwise attracted to the Right. The thing is secular conservatives are intrinsically going to be hostile to anyone who wants to destroy social order itself(which is why it's wrong to see religion as the origins of hostility to homosexuality. Conservatives had to be persuaded SsM and homosexuality could be integrated into the social order) and therefore the entire existance of non-binary individuals is antithetical to the values which attract anyone, no matter how secular, to the Right.

So the only version Transgender identity that can be integrated into the Right is pretty much the transmedicalist one which accepts that men and women exist, are biologically distinct, and that laws/society should reflect that. I think conservatives can at that point accept that people who have fully medically transitioned can count as the gender they have transitioned into, but for the right

Transition /=/ identify as

At the same time that is half the problem. Fiscal conservatives are going to have a clash with the Transgender community in a way which they don't with gays and lesbians and that is the question of who should pay for transition. We are not talking school lunches but up to $100,000, and I don't expect fiscal conservatives to ever be happy with taxpayers footing the bill for any transition care for a long time.

In short, there are reasons why the relationship dosent work even absent DeSantis types. And even the most moderate Republicans going forward, those who will veto treatment bans and bathroom bills, are still going to uniformly oppose any form of self-id(absent transition) or efforts to get governmental support for transition.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Despite being a conservative, this is an area where I feel genuine(not hipster) Marxist analysis is somewhat useful. The US parties, contrary to claims they don't differ on economics, actually were always class-based, and Marx never claimed class politics are represented by differences on economic policy. In fact, he argued quite the opposite. Classes, which are the primary political actors in any system, have interests, and they approach policies from that perspective.

In fact, the ability to even have an ideology is a conceit of the upper bourgeoise and it is important to understand that the "woke/liberal/progressive" trend has always been a form of elite class politics.

1. Abolitionism
2. Good government progressivism
3. (Social eugenics including actual eugenics, jewish quotas etc)
4. Ideological support for civil rights(ie pushing bussing and increasingly academic policies in the 1970s designed more to crush white groups opposed to integration rather than to advance integration)
5. Modern "wokeness" LGBT/Racial stuff

Has always been associated with a New England class tradition. That tradition was strongest in the Federalists, then the Whigs, then the Republicans.

It was not the whole the GOP. After all, the GOP was created in opposition to the Democrats who were themselves an alliance of Southerners, northern free traders, urban machines, immigrant groups.

So the GOP had two wings

1. The Progressive New England Wasp wing
2. The more conservative, often ex-Democratic Midwestern Wing which was in it out of opposition to Eastern Cities, for protectionism, and suspicion of White Southern power


What changed?

Well

Group #2 was always in favor of civil rights not because they liked African Americans. The claim Republicans were racist in the 1860s is a lie. New England ones generally were progressive. Boston integrated its schools early. However, the Midwestern Republicans tended to be free soil and backed African American rights to keep the South/Democrats weak, not out of any affection themselves. Which meant once the "African American" issue moved northward, they had a reason to split with the first group.

In turn, what happened in the South is not Dixiecrats leaving. Instead, the Southern suburbs produced a new local elite who were self-confident in their economic and social position who resented their subordinate position in the Democratic party.

It is worth considering that while the Democrats had the support of the solid South, only one three southerners ever became President

1. Woodrow Wilson debatedly
2. Jimmy Carter
3. Bill Clinton


So the deal was very much the Democrats nationally would be run by their northern wing which would protect the white southerners.


So three things happened at once.

1. Midwestern Rs revolted against New England Yankee Rs(and the latter lost out in battles for control of the California party among others with Reagan)
2. The Immigrant Catholic Elite in the North chose to ally and absorb the Wasp Rs rather than destroy them. Or at least they didn't need the white southerners
3. White Southern Ds lost their existing Northern allies, which meant they and the Midwestern Rs were both adrift. So they united.


Looking at this in terms of parties leads to confusing ideas such as "they swapped policies". In reality, the parties have always been alliances of various constituencies and they shifted their alliances. But very few groups changed their politics. In other words, the Free Soil Republicans in Iowa who voted for Lincoln but also tried to ban African American migration would absolutely be on the Right today. And they have merely formed an alliance with other groups who are willing to back their positions on trade and economics, because those have become articles of faith for the Old Whig/NE elite who run the Democratic party today

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

If you're a Republican and you care about the border then you should be absolutely furious, seething with rage at your own party.

You had the bill in your hands.  You had a solution, or at least massive progress, for the border crisis.  You had Democrats willing to go along because it's become such a political liability.  This is victory.  This is what a policy victory looks like.

And what did your dumbass congressmen, your idiot politicians do?  They decided they care more about their own re-election prospects than actually solving the problem they profess to care about.  They care more about lining their own pockets than they do about this country.  They want to keep fundraising and giving speeches about this issue, which they can't do if they actually win.  So they decided to lose instead!

Remember how furious Democrats got at people like Sinema and Manchin and Lieberman and Gottheimer when they tanked bills that would have scored big policy victories and given us what we wanted, so that they could play politics instead?  We were absolutely furious!  There were huge debates on this forum that went on for dozens of pages!

And now what?  The same thing happens to Republicans and the blue avatars have no smoke whatsoever for their traitor congressmen.  You're all busy trying to delude yourselves that this bill was garbage that you didn't really want anyway.  Imagine if, after Manchin killed Build Back Better, Democrats had said "awesome this is great that bill wasn't good enough anyway Manchin is a hero."  That's the equivalent of what Republicans are doing right now.

It's unbelievably pathetic.  You guys are weak submissive bitches who bow and scrape to your politicians.  You'd lick dirt up off the floor if a career politician told you to do it.  You'll literally change your political positions and opinions on a whim if a career politician tells you to do it.  You have absolutely no mind of your own.  You have no free will whatsoever.  You're just a puppet for conservative commentators who are themselves puppets for Republican career politicians.  And the sickest thing is that you know, not even that deep down, that I'm right, but you're ok with it because it's more comfortable to just say "GeneralMacArthur is a jackass I hate that guy he's so wrong" than to compromise the identity you've built for yourself by admitting it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Steven Spielberg

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3gVAnuJUFV/

The guy is looking to make a documentary on the October 7 rapes, murders and kidnappings.

Yep. A particularly odious Corbynist was trying to gin up a boycott against him when news of this first broke.

I don't think it can be understated just how much this hardened the spines of liberal Jews worldwide. We get it that they not only expect us not to fight back, but to stand and salute at our own people's murder, or it's back to being unpersons. And no, that's not acceptable and we'd rather go down fighting.

[Schiff for Senate]

Well it was still Carter's state. There were more ancestral Ds there than a state like MS or AL, as well as more urban and black voters.

MS is quite a bit blacker than GA.

Yes, but this has the counter-intuitive effect of spurring more racial polarization, and therefore driving the white population to vote more homogeneously Republican.

It's also important to understand where these black voters live. In MS, apart from Jackson (and perhaps also Vicksburg, Gulfport/Biloxi, and metro Memphis), most of the black population lives in smaller cities and towns, in the Mississippi River Valley/Delta and the Mississippian section of the Black Belt, which are juxtaposed against and located in close proximity to rural working class white communities, which creates a very racially polarized environment. In GA, you do have a Mississippi-style situation in the Southwest Georgia and in the Georgian section of the Black belt, but you also have even more Black voters in Urban and Suburban metro Atlanta and Savannah (and to a lesser extent Athens, Augusta, Macon/Warner Robbins, Columbus, and Valdosta) whose communities are surrounded more so by white liberal/college educated white communities not as subject to racial polarization.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Re: Will non-Western democracies ever become interested in promoting democracy and human rights?

I think there is a lot of racial charges being thrown around, ironically from socialist avatars, when this is actually more of a class issue. "Human Rights"" has always divided between a Middle Class concept of individual rights - which is inherently tied to the belief that what someone has and deserves is tied to what they do in life.

Both traditional elites and those outside the middle class tend to reject this. Those at the top occupy their role through natural right, whether from god, or because they fulfill a social function. There is a village chief, or landlord, or mafia boss because there needs to be, and those who challenge them are challenging the institution necessary for society to exist.

Those outside the "Middle Class" in turn tend to value collective rights. The right of a village to access land and water trumps the right of a specific villager to keep others away from grazing ground they need, or from water when they are thirsty. Individual rights then become greed, and that extends even to things like sexual rights. It is not that homosexuality is bad per se - more that the identity means someone placing their own interests above everyone else, and today that combines with the inspiration for doing so coming from abroad.

Also the Western middle class is unique in having grown up independent of traditional power structures, largely among mercantile interests. Almost everywhere else throughout history it has been dominated by bureaucrats, and the concept of merchants or lawyers wielding political power is a sign of corruption, because it is associated with a coup by middle management in the same way Eunuchs ruling through a monarch would be. Because lawyers, judges, and merchants are all state creations or the cronies of the elites.

This leaves very little room for a Western concept of individual rights to flourish as the basis of democracy except in areas where a Western class structure has developed.

Ironically, the decline of Western liberal democracy is tied to the Western middle class becoming more like the middle classes everywhere else. The average voter no longer sees Academics, lawyers, the media or business figures as independent challengers to the state power structure, but rather as its creations and tools.

Excellent post that wouldn't be out of place in the History subforum.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Several of my old high school friends ended up getting a gastric bypass so I have some familiarity here

For people that are overweight like myself is it a dangerous procedure? I am right on the cusp of qualifying. Probably 50/50.

honestly if you're not even certain your weight is high enough to qualify then you probably have much safer and healthier alternatives for weight loss. gastric bypass is not an easy shortcut to losing weight: it's a last resort for people who weigh 400+ pounds, at the point where "a surgeon literally cutting your digestive tract apart then stapling it back together in risky and unnatural ways" is the lesser evil compared to the many many health risks of being so dangerously obese.

Generally speaking gastric bypass is only recommended to the morbidly obese, which on paper is iirc officially defined as "more than one hundred pounds overweight" so I'm assuming that's probably where you're at, thinking you might qualify but not sure?

In practice though the surgery is usually reserved for people with weights FAR above that threshold, 200 pounds or more above their ideal body weight, so that the surgery can bring them down to "only" a hundred pounds overweight. If I understand you correctly, your current weight is basically on the upper edge of the GOAL weight range, the weight that most patients who undergo these surgeries are trying to REACH through the surgery.

you can look up the full list of health complications but one of the most prominent consequences is that you'll have to spend the rest of your live on a very strictly regimented diet, in order to meet all your nutritional needs with a stomach no longer capable of just absorbing everything for you

honestly you're much better off trying to lose weight with diet and exercise (because, as i said, a perpetual diet is mandatory for the rest of your life once you have a gastric bypass) perhaps also trying out prescription appetite suppressants and/or perhaps seeking medical advice as to whether your weight might be the result of some underlying health issue (e.g. thyroid problems among many other possibilities).

Ultimately it's a risky and potentially very dangerous surgical procedure you should only seek if you've repeatedly tried everything else and nothing else works at all. Don't get me wrong, the results can be extraordinary for those who genuinely need it, but the cost can be very high.

Lastly, I will leave you with a word of caution. Of the three people I knew in high school who've gotten a gastric bypass in the last few years... one of them literally died on the operating table. I understand that the odds of something like that happening are very rare, and honestly I think at least part of the blame was with his decision to try and save money by having the operation done in Mexico, at one of those shady places that do surgeries for Americans much cheaper than they could have done north of the border (lets face it a "great bargain" on an intrusive medical procedure means they're gonna be cutting so many corners).

But still like one day he flew out promising to return a new much healthier man, and he came back home in a coffin. Procedures like this can be dangerous, try all possible mundane alternatives before you do a surgery that's gonna have serious consequences for how you live your life.

[darklordoftech]

It wasn't the Democrats and their supporters that stormed the Capitol and later pretended it was just a tourist visit. It also wasn't a Democratic operative that made up outlandish claims about the president's son. Also wasn't the Democrats who obstructed the entire agenda of the president. Democrats in congress were much more willing to work even with a buffoon like Trump during his term to get something done. And if latter wasn't so inept, he could have gotten much more bipartisan and popular things done. Just to name a few examples.

There was probably nothing Biden or any Democratic president could have done to lower the temperature because the other side is simply not interested to return to normal politics in which you respect your opponent and question is judgement on an issue rather than his motive.

It's an uncomfortable truth that even a vast majority of the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge because they want to appear balanced and unbiased, which is why the pretend "both sides" are equally responsible for the political climate. But it doesn't pass the reality check.

[Agonized-Statism]

Cutting through the Biden hacks and telling it like it is, a fantastic summary of changes in American political culture over the last four years:

Basically he was the second term of Trump. He consolidated Trumpian policies in terms of industrial policy, protectionism, and oversaw a rightward shift on immigration. He crushed the progressive wing of his Party and the traditional activist causes like BLM, woke, #Resist, Medicare4All, free college, minimum wage, anti-war, socialism, etc. collapsed. The "Squad" and the Bernie wing became irrelevant. Although he did not contribute to it, the Trump-shaped Supreme Court came of age during his presidency. The rise of TradCath culture and the right-wing reemergence online. Decisive backlash against trans rights, drag shows, etc. He moved his party towards being the pro-police, pro-establishment and pro-war party. During his presidency people like Liz Cheney shifted towards the Democrats. He was essentially the left wing of Trumpism and gave Trump four needed years to regroup, re-consolidate and formulate a carefully considered plan for how to take on the Deep State in his second personal term.

This period has been a bridge between the first term of Trump, when a man who didn't expect to win perhaps, was suddenly thrust into power with no idea what he was doing, and only started to learn how to do the things he wanted to do towards the very end of his term; and the third term of Trump, when Trumpism will be implemented in America once and for all.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Cutting through the Biden hacks and telling it like it is, a fantastic summary of changes in American political culture over the last four years:

Basically he was the second term of Trump. He consolidated Trumpian policies in terms of industrial policy, protectionism, and oversaw a rightward shift on immigration. He crushed the progressive wing of his Party and the traditional activist causes like BLM, woke, #Resist, Medicare4All, free college, minimum wage, anti-war, socialism, etc. collapsed. The "Squad" and the Bernie wing became irrelevant. Although he did not contribute to it, the Trump-shaped Supreme Court came of age during his presidency. The rise of TradCath culture and the right-wing reemergence online. Decisive backlash against trans rights, drag shows, etc. He moved his party towards being the pro-police, pro-establishment and pro-war party. During his presidency people like Liz Cheney shifted towards the Democrats. He was essentially the left wing of Trumpism and gave Trump four needed years to regroup, re-consolidate and formulate a carefully considered plan for how to take on the Deep State in his second personal term.

This period has been a bridge between the first term of Trump, when a man who didn't expect to win perhaps, was suddenly thrust into power with no idea what he was doing, and only started to learn how to do the things he wanted to do towards the very end of his term; and the third term of Trump, when Trumpism will be implemented in America once and for all.

Glad someone shared that Beet post here.

Beet on point on how the Biden administration has been pretty Trumpy to a lot of Outsider Left voters

-snip-

Most of all, during the Trump years, what Trumpism did get enacted felt like it could have been an aberration, a mistake, a fluke, a freak accident caused by the unique unpopularity of Hillary Clinton or complacency of Democrats, and that if the consistently unpopular Trump could only be defeated, the Democrats would just roll back whatever he did, and the country/world would pick up again where Obama left off. It was even possible to believe that the country was heading in the direction of Bernie Sanders, that his defeat in 2016 was similar to Ronald Reagan's defeat by Gerald Ford in 1976.

The 2018 elections and the rise of the Squad just fed that belief. Just look at all the ultra-leftist proposals of the 2019 primaries. Honestly, I felt like many progressives were not disabused of that notion until election night, 2020. Today, the Squad is clearly recognized as established but marginal.

So in short, Trump's loss in the 2020 election did not mean Trumpism receded. In contrast, it seems more entrenched in politics and has more influence over daily life than ever, and this continues to increase each year.

A low info voter who is opposed to Trumpism and reflexively votes anti-incumbent whenever they feel trends they do not like, may ironically vote for Trump simply due to a vague sense that another change in direction is needed.

Might as well stroke Vosem's ego and add this summary of competitive House primaries while my posting hiatus is on Super Tuesday hiatus.

Primaries to watch at the House level, IMO:

Republican primaries:

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

AL-1: This is a redistricting race between Jerry Carl and Barry Moore. Carl is a pretty typical Republican incumbent while Moore is more ideological than is typical (he's expressed support for Matt Gaetz, though he wasn't personally a defector against McCarthy, and he has a history of very questionable statements WRT stuff like poll taxes). The geography here favors Carl, as this is mostly his old seat, and polling has confirmed that. A win for Moore would be considered a decently large upset, though it cannot be ruled out if that is where the mood is.

CA-20: Kevin McCarthy is retiring. His handpicked successor, St. Rep. Vince Fong, is the overwhelming favorite, but had been facing a Trumpier primary challenger in county sheriff Mike Boudreaux. Since Fong was endorsed by Trump himself, it seems likely he will advance with a Democrat, but Boudreaux may stay in the race through November.

CA-49: This race is to face Mike Levin. State and national Republicans have united around self-funder Matt Gunderson, who narrowly lost a state Senate race here in 2022, but county Republicans in San Diego county are backing media exec Margarita Wilkinson, who is a Mexican immigrant and is running as a somewhat more moderate candidate. (A third candidate, populist Kate Monroe, might win if Gunderson and Wilkinson divide the vote). Wilkinson seems somewhat stronger to me, though Gunderson has more money in his bid.

NC-1: This race is to face Don Davis. Although the seat is still Clinton/Biden, it is trending heavily rightwards, and under the new boundaries would've voted Republican in 2022. This contest is between 2022 candidate Sandy Smith, one of the weakest of that cycle's intake who I can only compare to J.R. Majewski in how thoroughly she collapsed, and national favorite, veteran Laurie Buckhout. Buckhout is thought of as the favorite, but Smith has high name recognition and could well surprise. Davis has been a popular moderate in office and a GOP gain here is no slam-dunk, but at the same time Smith being a notional winner and Trump's gains among minorities suggest Buckhout should be able to win a general against Davis if she avoids mistakes.

NC-6: This is a new safe Republican district drawn to replace Kathy Manning's seat. There are five serious Republican candidates, and the winner must eclipse 30% to avoid a runoff; this is likely but not guaranteed. There is no clear favorite; the best fundraiser has been Bo Hines, who lost a winnable race in 2022 in a different part of the state, but hot on his heels are ex-Rep. Mark Walker, who represented a similar seat between 2014 and 2020; self-funding veteran Christian Castelli, who was the GOP nominee in the earlier blue version of this seat in 2022 and honestly over-performed; lobbyist Addison McDowell, who has Trump's endorsement and endorsements from much of Trumpworld but has campaigned little; and local mayor Jay Wagner, who is the choice of House leadership. None of the five winning would surprise me.

NC-8: Dan Bishop is retiring. The favorite here is St. Rep. John Bradford, who has fundraised the most (especially from gun groups) and has basically all relevant endorsements. He has two challengers, one from 2018 nominee Mark Harris running on soconism and one from wealthy businessman Allan Baucom, who is running as a relative moderate. Bradford is overwhelmingly favored but either Harris or Baucom could surprise, and their ultimate performances will be interesting.

NC-10: Patrick McHenry is retiring. St. Rep. Grey Mills is the establishment favorite to replace him, with all of the important endorsements, but he's facing a challenge from self-funding veteran Pat Harrigan, who was the nominee in a blue seat in 2022. This race feels a little bit rural versus suburban, since Mills has endorsements from police and fire unions while Harrigan feels a little bit more 2010s-ideological, and is hitting Mills on his ties to the spendy state government. No clear favorite here.

NC-13: This is a safe Republican seat drawn to replace Wiley Nickel's seat. There are four major candidates; Devan Barbour, who came in second in the 2022 primary, is running as the relatively Trumpy candidate; two moderate self-funders, Kelly Daughtry and Fred von Canon, have both spent very large amounts; and a fourth candidate, prosecutor Brad Knott (running mostly on drug war, apparently) is the only one to have any support from outside groups. This has a weirdly moderate field for what is a fairly right-wing seat, which makes me think Barbour may be underestimated. There are also several more minor candidates (including local politicians who may be underestimated if their hometowns like them); a runoff will be triggered if nobody hits 30%.

NC-14: This is a new Republican seat drawn to replace Jeff Jackson's Democratic seat. State House Speaker Tim Moore is the overwhelming favorite and does not appear to have any remotely serious competition.

TX-12: Kay Granger is retiring. The overwhelming Republican favorite is St. Rep. Craig Goldman, who is vaguely fiscon (and Jewish). He's facing a number of medium-size challengers, most of whom are running on soconism. The main question here seems to be whether Goldman can cross 50% or if he will be held to a runoff.

TX-23: Tony Gonzales is relatively moderate for this seat, having voted for the January 6 investigation and also having a history of being soft on guns. Several of his challengers have pretty decent fundraising, but there's no clear singular individual they've united around. No chance Gonzales loses, but being held under 65% or so would be a warning shot that he should move right.

TX-26: Michael Burgess is retiring. The field here is relatively large, but the candidates who've received the most attention are banker Brandon Gill, who is the choice of national Republicans (son-in-law of Dinesh D'Souza) and has the support of basically all national figures, including Trump, but few ties to the seat and pretty openly carpetbagged in from New York; and local mayor John Huffman, running on hostility to wokeness, and especially hostility to wokeness in public education; Huffman is also emphasizing his local roots although the race hasn't really gone negative. There are several more candidates (including Scott Armey, who narrowly lost the primary in 2002 here and is the son of ex-Rep. Dick Armey, a prominent 1990s Republican leadership figure), but it would be surprising if the outcome were something other than a Gill/Huffman runoff. My guess is that Gill places first tonight but Huffman is probably favored in a direct contest.

TX-28: Henry Cuellar's seat is on the edge of competitiveness. The two Republican candidates here are Jay Furman, running on really hardcore Trumpism, and a much more "normal" candidate in Lazaro Garza. Neither really has any advantage in spending or endorsements so this is just an interesting look at which attitude is more popular here. (Garza winning would be a relatively good sign, and Furman a relatively bad one for the GOP. IMO, this seat is so Hispanic that even in a GOP primary I think nowadays Furman is at a bit of a disadvantage for being Anglo, though I could be wrong.)

Democratic primaries:

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

AL-2: The creation of a second black seat has led to a giant free-for-all which is all but certain to lead to a runoff. The three likeliest candidates to proceed seem to be state House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels, Obama/Biden administration figure Shomari Figures, and state Senator Merika Coleman. Daniels has support from the state Democratic leadership; Figures from national Democratic leadership; while Coleman is running at least somewhat to the left. Notably, all are carpetbaggers -- Daniels from Huntsville at the northern tip of the state, Figures from DC (though Figures is from an Alabama political dynasty which is from this seat), and Coleman from Birmingham. There are also multiple state Representatives with local bases but poor fundraising who may advance if their hometowns really like them.

CA-12: Barbara Lee is retiring. Insider (transit board member?) Lateefah Simon has basically gotten all of the relevant endorsements and is likely cruising to victory. She faces a whole bunch of dwarf campaigns, of whom the most notable is lesbian ethnic studies professor Jennifer Tran (also a Democrat) running to Simon's right. This is Oakland, so sure.

CA-16: Anna Eshoo is retiring. There is a huge Democratic field to succeed her, of whom the most prominent candidate (considered very likely to advance) is popular former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, running on YIMBYism. Among his competitors are national favorite and veteran Peter Dixon, who has raised and spent the most; relative moderate county supervisor Joe Simitian; relative progressive St. Rep. Evan Low; BJP entryist and perennial candidate (but well-funded with high name rec) Rishi Kumar; and only woman in the field Julie Lythcott-Haims. There are two Republicans here, which most likely means two Democrats advance, but Liccardo especially might just win outright.

CA-29: Tony Cardenas is retiring. St. Rep. Luz Rivas has basically all of the relevant endorsements and is the huge favorite, and the question is whether she will advance with progressive perennial candidate Angelica Duenas or a Republican; Duenas probably has the name rec to make it.

CA-30: Adam Schiff is retiring. The field to succeed him is huge, with the most prominent candidates being St. Sen. Anthony Portantino, running on being supported by a zillion unions, and school board member Nick Melvoin, who is for education reform. Other notable candidates include Mike Feuer (supported by the LA Democratic establishment), Sepi Shyne (running on gay rights and AIPAC support), and Maebe A. Girl (running on trans rights); there are also several more local state Representatives and city councilmembers running (many of whom have fundraised enough to clear a field elsewhere, incidentally). There are two Republicans here, so it is likely that two Democrats advance, though it is possible for a Democrat to win outright.

CA-31: Grace Napolitano is retiring. The Democratic field to succeed her is huge, with the two most prominent names being former Rep. Gil Cisneros (a lottery winner and relative outsider) and St. Sen. Susan Rubio (the choice of state Democrats), though there is a high single-digit number of serious candidates. Notably, Cisneros and Rubio are backing different Republicans to try to box the other out, leading some Republicans to wonder if this is an extreme outside pickup opportunity since they over-performed here by a lot in 2022, though that is unlikely. I don't have much to say but Cisneros and Rubio are both likely to move on to November.

CA-40: Young Kim is a strong incumbent, but there's a Democratic primary to face her between self-funder Joe Kerr, who seems to be the choice of state Democrats, and school board member Allyson Damikolas, who seems to be the choice of national Democrats. Not much to say about this one although Damikolas seems to be clearly to Kerr's left.

CA-45: There is also a Democratic primary to face Michelle Steel, though veteran Derek Tran seems to have outspent the field and to have emerged as the solid favorite. The state Democratic party endorsed Kim Nguyen-Penaloza, but it seems like her campaign has lost traction to Tran's down the road. A third candidate, Cheyenne Hunt, has also gotten some attention running on TikTok leftism.

TX-7: Lizzie Fletcher is facing a challenge from Pervez Agwan on a #FreeGaza platform. Consensus is that Fletcher will demolish Agwan, but this is probably the most prominent race tonight being fought on this issue. Agwan breaking 30% would probably be a victory for him, IMO.

TX-18: Sheila Jackson-Lee has long been a controversial incumbent (known for poor treatment of staffers among other things), but she's also increasingly old, and fell flat on her face in the Houston mayoral election. She's facing a challenge from much-younger city councilwoman Amanda Edwards. Edwards is also a black woman; this race is about age rather than identity, though the non-black vote is expected to break hard for Edwards. There are several minor candidates and it seems like there is even an expectation of a runoff.

TX-32: Colin Allred is retiring. The two most prominent candidates here seem to be St. Rep. Julie Johnson and veteran Brian Williams. Johnson is a (lesbian) white woman who has endorsements from much of the state Democratic party (especially local unions; inasmuch as she has a signature issue it seems to be support for teachers?) while Williams, a black man, is the candidate of the national Democrats (inasmuch as he has a signature issue it is gun control). Several more minor candidates may throw the race to a runoff. IMO no clear favorite between the top two.

Mix:

Note that Republicans always do better in CA primaries than they "should" because of turnout patterns, but this year because of high turnout for the GOP primary this will be exaggerated. All "straw poll" figures should be interpreted as hitting the GOP ceiling.

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

CA-3: This will be a straw poll for how a race between Kevin Kiley and Jessica Morse will go. This seat was R+8 in 2022, but it's trending leftwards and could be competitive in a good Democratic year.

CA-9: Republicans recruited their dream candidate, Stockton Mayor Kevin Lincoln (who is an African-American veteran and popular mayor of the deep blue city) to face strong Democratic incumbent Josh Harder. This will be a straw poll to see how the Lincoln campaign is doing.

CA-13: Republican incumbent John Duarte won the narrowest victory of 2022. He is facing a rematch with former St. Rep. Adam Gray. This will be a straw poll to see how they're doing.

CA-21: Democratic incumbent Jim Costa is in a pretty safe seat (and won by 9 points in 2022), but he's faced close races before (in 2010 and 2014) and if there is real Republican improvement among minorities this is a place it would turn up, since there is some history of GOP voting among Hispanics in the Fresno area. His opponent is 2022 candidate Michael Maher; this will be a straw poll to see if Costa is vulnerable.

CA-22: This is an extremely negative race. Republican incumbent David Valadao is among the most moderate members of the Republican caucus, and is one of the few Trump-impeaching survivors; he is facing a primary challenge from a populist candidate in Chris Mathys, who nearly primaried him in 2022. The seat is heavily Democratic (Biden+13), but has a strong downballot Republican tradition. The two Democrats here, former St. Rep. Rudy Salas (who lost in the 2022 general) and St. Sen. Melissa Hurtado, have gone very negative against each other, with Salas as a relative moderate and Hurtado as a relative progressive. Both two Rs advancing and two Ds advancing are considered possible outcomes; the latter would be a very good sign for House Democrats.

CA-27: Republican incumbent Mike Garcia, who won by 6 points in 2022 in a Biden+12 seat, is a routine overperformer. Democrats have united around veteran George Whitesides as his opponent, who I believe has the best fundraising of any non-incumbent in the nation. This straw poll will show how the Whitesides campaign is going.

CA-34: Democratic incumbent Jimmy Gomez is getting his third consecutive challenge from David Kim; Kim keeps coming very close but not knocking Gomez off. This will show how effort number three from Kim is going.

CA-41: Another 2022 rematch, this one between Republican incumbent Ken Calvert and Democratic challenger Will Rollins.

CA-47: Democratic incumbent Katie Porter is retiring; this seat was highly Republican before Trump came on the stage and was closer than expected in 2022, but remains very Democratic. The two leading Democrats, St. Sen. Dave Min and nonprofit exec Joanna Weiss, have gone very negative on each other; Min has endorsements from many local unions while Weiss is more the choice of national Democrats. (Weiss also has had huge fundraising from basically pro-Israel forces, and while neither candidate seems to want to bring the issue to the forefront, part of what's going on here seems to be that Weiss is personally very pro-Israel and Min is personally very not.) On the Republican side, 2022 candidate Scott Baugh has seen overwhelmingly successful fundraising, and is the choice of both national and state Republicans, but county Republicans seem to be backing Max Ukropina, a former John Campbell staffer who is running a more moderate campaign. Baugh has outraised Ukropina a lot, but Ukropina has some decent endorsements and is running a real campaign, and an R-on-R general is not impossible, though most likely Baugh will advance with either Min or Weiss.

[emailking]

Yes. I like that the United Kingdom still preserves traditions that have been a central part of their government and civic life for around 1,000 years and think it is a good thing. I think that the one greatest failing of all progressives and revolutionaries, of both the past and present, is that they always seek to overthrow culture, and traditions along with governments and economies, and thus create catastrophic instability. Preserving traditional institutions and ceremonies, such as the monarchy and the coronation are good things that provide for the stability of the state, the continuity of government, and the stability of British political life and culture.

[emailking]

Access to a stable and reliable baseline of financial services is critical to economic prospects for many Americans, especially disadvantaged racial minority and rural communities.

A stable place to put their paychecks and save money, without fees simply for not meeting a minimum balance requirement, would be a massive boon to them. They could also offer secured credit cards, to help folks practice using credit while building up their credit history. They could also be a place for folks to buy tax-exempt government bonds, issued by the federal, state, and local entities.

It’s expensive to be poor in this country, and we need to change the conversation around money and finances to be one of empowerment, not humiliation. A quality banking system that serves every American fairly well is just as critical as infrastructure and public health and education. If it helps to shore up the USPS’ finances, all the better. Bring back the United States Postal Savings System!

[emailking]

I wrote this in 2020 after a 2 week binge watch on a staycation (COVID shutdowns started happening in the middle of it).

Game of Thrones is a wonderful fantasy series, revolving around control of power for one continent on an alternate Earth-like planet. It involves a vast array of royal characters with multiple schemes and goals at all times, and no one is really good. The division between right and wrong is blurred continuously.

A political junkie or an enthusiast of military history or fantasy stories will find themselves right at home. The setting is akin to the Middle Ages in Europe. While it makes it through 1.5 seasons without any overt violation of the laws of physics, alas it cannot take place in our universe. Too much mystical/magic ultimately takes place.

This society has a vast and very rich history that you learn about over time. It is very intricate and well thought out, and almost hard to believe that one person came up with all of it. He (the author) is in several of the special features and is a pleasure to listen to, discussing the world he created.

The show has powerful opening credits and a very addictive theme song that sets the mood perfectly.  I will miss hearing it.

While I very much enjoyed this series, there is much to criticize. Typically there are 4-5 separate storylines being explored at once. One of these moves at a snails pace and is completely disconnected from the rest for half the series. While this was not a problem for me, it must have been very monotonous for those watching over several years. Other storylines move at a snails pace over several seasons and ultimately go nowhere. I am pretty sure they cheat on time frames sometimes, when characters seemingly cross the continent overnight when it takes weeks or months at other times. Finally, a logistical problem is that some of the child actors age too much, especially for some of the seasons that had years between them in real time. This was very distracting.

As I mentioned the first season was very confusing. But this gets much better once you are familiar with all the people and places. The amount of background you get to the huge history is a bare minimum and not really enough.

The show features some pretty amazing performances from several actors, most notably Peter Dinklage, Charles Dance, Sophie Turner, Rose Leslie, Diana Rigg, and Iwan Rheon.

While I would tentatively recommend it, it is not a must see like Lost. You also have to be prepared for a very long buildup to the last 2 seasons, where everything finally comes together. Without a binge watch, you should probably approach each episode as a standalone medieval fantasy adventure which may answer very few if any questions you may have about what's going to happen. Part of me thinks this may have been better served by a series of movies like Harry Potter. But the author felt movies would cut too much out, so it's an HBO series. (There are several 1000 page books, with more coming.)

[Sir Mohamed]

Both are awesome.

(to the tune of "I Will Survive"

Oh yes she was afraid, she was petrified
The TV said Joe Biden won, she shook her head and sighed
And after looking round for somewhere she could vent her woes,
Hey TalkElections,
You're 'bout to find out what she knows

Well she hates Joe
Oh, can't you see
Her posts are comedy combined with one girl's misery
Joe Biden won't give her a break
This campaign's just one big mistake
And Atlas forum's gonna hear
How many damn posts will it take?

To sink the ship
To tank the race
She dreams at night of
Tears streamin' on down Biden's face
We-ell inflation's comin' back, the market's headed for new lows
I won't shut up
I'm gonna let the forum know

I'll moan and gripe
I'll kill the hype
Oh I will keep spreading my doom as long as I know how to type
Oooh, the president is f--ked
and the economy is trash
I'm Riverwalk
I love to type

There once was an L-Mass avatar
Spreading economic gloom
Typing massive paragraphs
About how Biden’s chances where doomed

Soon may the riverwalk come
To bring us a massive re-cess-ion
One day, when Biden is done
He’ll wish he told her no

Soon may the riverwalk come
To bring us a massive re-cess-ion
One day, when Biden is done
He’ll wish he told her no

[Horus]

While I am really disgusted over the global hate campaign towards trans people and especially trans children, I am also concerned with where the activists are taking the movement. As a gay man, I feel like the "lgbt" movement is not representative of my thoughts and identity anymore and so many people I have talked to feel similar to me but can't talk out loud for fear of being attacked. Sexual orientation and gender identity debates have been really diverging from one another to the point I don't think it is wise to categorize all of them in the same term. Even gender identity debates have been shifting to the point there are wide differences between who transition vs. people who think there is no such thing as gender.

I would like to make it clear that I stand with the trans community against any kind of hate attack or dehumanization attempt. Everyone deserves to feel comfortable in their skin and live the way they want without the fear of being oppressed or threatened. However, I don't think many of the arguments presented by the activists are convincing on some subjects such as sports. I also think there are natural discussions about many topics that are sensitive and new such as locker rooms and bathrooms where I can understand both sides of the argument. It is not easy to come to conclusions on sensitive topics and listening to arguments that try to slamdunk important discussions and vilify others is not helping to reach solutions.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Re: How would you fix the major issues in urban design of big American cities (this is less motivated by my agreement with the proposals than you'd think)

Some combination of:

Housing and zoning
-Streamlining the process of construction and permitting approvals to encourage multifamily housing
-Banning single-family zoning and encouraging mixed use zoning.
-Upzone urban cores and inner urban neighborhoods
-In areas with especially bad housing crises, building UK-style new towns to dramatically increase housing supply, ideally at an extremely high density.
-Developing and buying a good chunk of the housing stock to serve as scattered-site public housing (~25-35%) to serve as a safety net to decrease the impacts of gentrification.
-Create urban growth boundaries to minimize sprawl. This would probably need to be done intelligently, because it can potentially amplify housing crises if done incorrectly; in cities with a better housing situation it could be done right away. In other cities with bad housing crises and policies like this in place already, it probably makes sense to remove large sections of the boundaries for the development of the aforementioned new towns.
-Require areas near transit stops to be zoned for high-density housing and commerce.
-Areas of cities especially at risk for natural disasters, like flood plains or coastal areas receiving a lot of erosion could undergo managed retreat, with residents being abundantly compensated and receiving new housing.
-Cities would have undertake a systematic audit of their planning practices to figure out the best things they can do to prep for large-scale disasters.

Transportation
-Shift funding formulas to make public transit the primary priority over highways in urban areas
-Increase the gas tax dramatically in urban areas, with the funds from the gas tax used to supplement welfare programs
-Require city governments to undertake large transit projects in house, rather than outsourcing them to contractors. This should help control cost.
-Ban new urban highway construction or expansion -- you can maintain existing highways and deal with urgent safety issues, but you can't widen them or build new ones.
-Make highway removal funds readily available to municipalities.
-Require metro areas above a certain population threshold to build large-scale heavy rail.
-Require bus and trains to run at a high frequency (sub 15 minutes) to encourage transit use.

Health and Safety
-Require audits of planning practices and currently existing infrastructure to find patterns of racial and economic discrimination, forcing cities to undo those patterns.
-Fund police departments enough to do their jobs, but impose certain strictures -- i.e. bans on military grade weaponry, an end to qualified immunity, bans on chokeholds, mandatory bodycams, strengthened institutional review boards, and stricter enforcement of ethical rules (i.e. zero tolerance for racism).
-In many cities, a northern Ireland style remaking of the local police is necessary.
-Require cities to have available crisis numbers to call in addition to the police.
-Make housing abundantly available for the homeless (using the policies in the first section).
-Increase funding to make dignified residential treatment for the mentally ill and those experiencing addiction affordable, even for the very poor. This would probably need to be part of national healthcare service.

Municipal Structure
-Amalgamate metro areas into one city to avoid issues of resource hoarding, allow for tax dollars to go to areas with more need. This also would apply to school districts.
-States should devolve more power and funding to the municipal level.

I'm sure there's stuff I'm missing. Most of this stuff is not politically feasible alas.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

While I am really disgusted over the global hate campaign towards trans people and especially trans children, I am also concerned with where the activists are taking the movement. As a gay man, I feel like the "lgbt" movement is not representative of my thoughts and identity anymore and so many people I have talked to feel similar to me but can't talk out loud for fear of being attacked. Sexual orientation and gender identity debates have been really diverging from one another to the point I don't think it is wise to categorize all of them in the same term. Even gender identity debates have been shifting to the point there are wide differences between who transition vs. people who think there is no such thing as gender.

I would like to make it clear that I stand with the trans community against any kind of hate attack or dehumanization attempt. Everyone deserves to feel comfortable in their skin and live the way they want without the fear of being oppressed or threatened. However, I don't think many of the arguments presented by the activists are convincing on some subjects such as sports. I also think there are natural discussions about many topics that are sensitive and new such as locker rooms and bathrooms where I can understand both sides of the argument. It is not easy to come to conclusions on sensitive topics and listening to arguments that try to slamdunk important discussions and vilify others is not helping to reach solutions.

Another good one from that thread

Futhermore, there was also Everything Everywhere All at Once which was a movie about Asian culture and all that, it wasn't just a box office hit, but also won best picture at the oscars. And don't forget about Parasite, the first non english language film to win best picture, EVER.

I have no freaking idea where all this talk about how woke movies are bad, or doing terrible is coming from.

Literally. Good movies are out there, and they have done well, and some might be very woke. And that's okay.

I ignored their existence too until a couple of years ago. They flourished during the pandemic and now they have become the biggest youtube channels about movie criticism with over a million subscribers.
They got so big that even Piers Morgan called them on his show to trash on the Oscars and Hollywood's "wokeness".

 

The death of independent enthusiast media in gaming/entertainment is the real problem.

It has zero to do with a Woke plot. Rather as Woke = Corporate HR, what we have seen is the death of every major video game/entertainment outlet that is not owned by a retailer/distributor/publisher. So if the coverage sounds like it is echoing a "woke" corporate HR seminar, that is because it is.

This has resulted in the death of criticism in mainstream outlets which largely exist for marketing.

Consequently, the market for criticism has been seized by the Right. Not entirely. In isolation, there are leftwing influencers willing to say that corporate slop is terrible. But the marketing strategy of conflating criticism with attacks on diversity has worked spectacularly, not in deterring criticism from the right, but in forcing left-wing critics into silence lest they be seen as joining a hate movement.

The problem is that all this PR genius cannot change the fact that many of the underlying products are awful, and only one side is willing to "explain" why.

It's not just media. The left has fallen into a trap in the cultural sphere of becoming the fanatical defenders of the existing power structure. We have the first Democratic Socialist movement in history dedicated to insisting that Big Pharma and pre-Elon tech management can do no wrong, and that Jeff Bezos is defending democracy from dying in darkness with the Washington Post.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Internationally: he is going overboard in a campaign to ostensibly rid Gaza of Hamas, but to the point of becoming the perpetrator himself and removing Israel’s sympathetic look in the immediate aftermath of October 7.

This didn't exist. Even putting aside the universal celebration of the attacks in the Muslim world, in the west the discourse was primarily 'the attack is bad BUT' followed by an explanation in which Israel was ultimately to blame for it. Protests against Israel began before they had even begun their military response. The decades long demonization of Israel by NGOs and international civil society, which caused the ambivalent reaction in the west to October 7, is self defeating and works against Palestinians in the long run. The 'criticism' is so over the top and in most cases false that Israelis naturally tune it out, even on the occasions its true. It's the boy who cried wolf on a global scale

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

You have to be a pretty dense idiot to believe that feminism is the belief that there are literally no differences between men and women whatsoever. Unfortunately, Atlas, and this thread, is full of dense idiots, so we have to have this mind-numbing discussion. The concept of "the patriarchy" is not critiquing the idea that men and women are different; it critiques the notion that these differences must be ingrained in every aspect of society.

Men, on average, are physically larger and stronger than women, on average. In hunter-gatherer societies, this may have made the division of labor relatively straightforward. Even then, that narrative is hardly universal - or even descriptive of a majority, with the traditional imaginary perhaps a projection of our own gender roles onto the past. Even if it were true, it hardly lends credence to any sort of "natural division of labor" in agricultural societies, let alone industrial ones! The invention of tools and the domestication of beasts of burden meant that the natural average differences in size and strength between men and women were less relevant. The difference in strength between an ox pulling a plow and a human man is likely an order of magnitude greater than the difference in strength between the average man and woman. Industrial machinery further erodes any sort of biological difference; by the time we get to the contemporary economy, and the topic of the original article, the differences between men and women are so abstract and irrelevant to the role of businesses executive (or any other role of "authority") that advocates of it like VBM and TimTurder appear cartoonishly sexist. Indeed, there is no inherent reason we should think a good CEO is aggressive or metaphorically "strong" - but because of how deeply ingrained patriarchy is in society, we are conditioned to believe that a good CEO would share the same traits that make a good hunter, even though logically we understand these are wildly different roles, requiring different skills, and making different decisions. That is the very nature of patriarchy - larger than any one man or any one culture: differences between men and women are artificially exaggerated in society rather than minimized, creating the appearance that the roles each gender is funneled into are "natural" and "inherent". Take for example, the misconception or myth than boys are better at math than girls. There is no scientific, inherent basis for the idea that boys are somehow better at learning and understanding math or analytical thinking in general. But, because this misconception had been frequently repeated over the past century or more, girls have internalized the idea that they are worse at math, leading them to shy away from choosing to take higher level math courses, or pursue careers in mathematical and engineering occupations, or pursue further education in STEM fields, all leading to an underrepresentation of women in these classes, occupations, and fields, creating the appearance that, "yes, boys are just naturally suited to math - just look at who takes math classes, or works in mathematical fields, or publishes academic research in mathematics!"

Furthermore, the idea of women as the homemaker and men as the breadwinner are, again, a creation of, often explicit, patriarchal ideology. Child-rearing duties were not delegated solely to women in pre-agricultural society. In fact, I don't believe there was ever a period of time in which neither child-rearing nor "work" were shared between genders - both men and women contributed to the household. Unsurprisingly, duties that men gravitated toward became more valuable in society, which in turn further pushed out women of those duties and toward "household" duties. My favorite historical anecdote is that of the alewife , a profession common in many medieval societies. When ale was the drink of choice, men and women were both well-represented in the profession; since ale did not keep for long prior to the invention of refrigeration, it had to be made close to the place of consumption. This led to the proliferation of alehouses throughout Europe, and many women were employed as brewsters of ale - hence, alewife. Hops was first added to the brewing process in the Low Countries, and beer made with hops could keep, unlike ale. Suddenly, large-scale production was possible, creating in its wake a male-dominated field. Eventually, as beer overtook ale as the drink of choice, the alehouses gradually faded away, and the alewives with them. Women were shut out of this new profession, in an industry that now was significantly profitable and powerful. Even now, even within industries, the differences between women and men are purposefully exaggerated. Women are shuffled toward the "care" position of nurse while men are funneled toward the "analytical" doctor.  The imaginary of the stay-at-home mom emerges out of Victorian morality and full realized in the 1950s - even when (or rather, because) just a decade prior saw record women's participation in the open economy. In order for men to reclaim their jobs and position of economic power, women had to be pushed back into the home, a societal campaign reinforced by the media of the day. Yet, for some reason this entirely artificial, momentary image of society has become what many today believe is "normal", "natural", and, the worst among them, "desirable".


This is to say that these sorts of beliefs that there are "natural" causes for men and women's differences in roles of authority are based entirely in pseudoscientific feel-goodery rather than historical evidence, reliant entirely on circular reasoning. The difference between sexism and patriarchy is vast - an action can be sexist, an individual or a work of media or a concept can be sexist. A society is patriarchal - a thought rot that penetrates so deep that it predates the society itself, that is beyond one person to resolve or overturn. It is so overwhelming in its grasp on society that people are led to believe that it is in fact inherent rather than constructed.

I almost always regret effort posting on here, and I anticipate Atlas will live down to my expectations.

Shame your Ireland flag avatar is gone now, HCP.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

It appears you haven't actually read them; you're just taking a leftist Bar Association's word for it.

Groovy.

If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you (Deuteronomy 19:16-19)

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Shame your Ireland flag avatar is gone now, HCP.

Why did he do that?

[Vice President Christian Man]

Important distinction:

You seem to misunderstand the relationship. Evangelicals aren’t republicans, republicans are evangelicals. In much of the south, Midwest and plains the republican part is majority evangelical. They quite literally would cease to exist in any meaningful way if they loose those states.