Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[RedSoxFan9]

Going to jail, losing your job, getting evicted, not having money etc make it harder to deal with mental illness.  Biden’s beautiful fail son doesn’t have to worry about any of that. 

[SaysWho?]

Just now, RedSoxFan9 said:

Going to jail, losing your job, getting evicted, not having money etc make it harder to deal with mental illness.  Biden’s beautiful fail son doesn’t have to worry about any of that. 

 

I know. I've talked to these people. I've met them. I've written stories on them. I've raised money for them. 

 

That doesn't mean addiction shaming or making fun of an illness of someone with means is somehow OK. This isn't a difficult concept if you want to break the stigma of what addiction and mental illness are.

[RedSoxFan9]

If you care so much why do you post so many Florida man threads 

[Jason]

8 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

I already covered this: I don't think you understand that legal consequences are irrelevant to fighting mental illness and promoting education of it regardless of your class.

 

I think you're reading into his a comment a point that isn't there.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I already covered this: I don't think you understand that legal consequences are irrelevant to fighting mental illness and promoting education of it regardless of your class.

They are relevant: like basically everything else, poverty makes these issues more difficult to overcome or even live with.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, RedSoxFan9 said:

If you care so much why do you post so many Florida man threads 

 

"Guess the State" was made to show that weird stories aren't exclusive to Florida. Notice how the title wasn't, "Florida Man."

 

But it doesn't seem like you actually care about mental illness as much as you care about looking like you care about it. Which would make sense.

 

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

I think you're reading into his a comment a point that isn't there.

 

Then I recommend not bringing up class because it's not relevant to the stigma.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

They are relevant: like basically everything else, poverty makes these issues more difficult to overcome or even live with.

 

They aren't if you're serious about breaking the stigma surrounding it. If you're gonna joke about his crack binge, then the stigma remains especially for someone poorer with less of a support system.

[Chris-]

RSF bemoans the use of mockery against lower social classes, yet happily utilizes mockery (and worse) against those of higher social classes, completely oblivious to the fact that the latter legitimizes and normalizes the former. It's almost as if once you disregard socials norms and civil discourse, you can't call on them for any degree of protection. Then again, when you are a white, well-educated straight man, why worry? Even in the most toxic of social environments, you are perfectly safe.

 

Enjoy your cruelty, @RedSoxFan9. I'm sure the marginalized groups you purportedly care about enjoy the social environment you love to feed.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, Chris- said:

It's almost as if once you disregard socials norms and civil discourse, you can't call on them for any degree of protection.

Oh what bourgeois liberal horseshit.

 

If people really cared about "norms", then they would be actual laws.

[Chris-]

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Oh what bourgeois liberal horseshit.

 

If people really cared about "norms", then they would be actual laws.

 

I fail to see how that is the case; you can care about the 'norms' of interpersonal social interaction while also believing that the state shouldn't codify them into law. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

12 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

They aren't if you're serious about breaking the stigma surrounding it. If you're gonna joke about his crack binge, then the stigma remains especially for someone poorer with less of a support system.

I agree with that. I'm not defending his mocking of an addict. Just stating that addiction is easier to manage for those with means so you can't totally discount their station

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I agree with that. I'm not defending his mocking of an addict. Just stating that addiction is easier to manage for those with means so you can't totally discount their station

 

Agreed as well. So @Jason was right that I read too much into your post.  

[RedSoxFan9]

Bourgeois libs would be much happier if they were Republicans

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

15 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

I fail to see how that is the case; you can care about the 'norms' of interpersonal social interaction while also believing that the state shouldn't codify them into law. 

To me, that is cognitively dissonant as it leaves open the possibility that the thing that is cared about could be violated without actual punishment for that violation.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

2 hours ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

Pretty much.

 

I actually found the hit to be kind of a cheap shot by Harris. But it was undeniable that Biden's response was weak, confused, and pretty indicative of his shortcomings as a candidate.

Not much of substance was said.  At the end of the day it was just more cheap identity politics.   

 

The Dems will need more than that to win.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

9 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

At the end of the day it was just more cheap identity politics.

At the end of the day, ALL politics are ultimately based on "identity".

[Chris-]

Just now, SFLUFAN said:

To me, that is cognitvely dissonant as it leaves open the possibility that the thing that is cared about would be violated without actual punishment for that violation.

 

But we are talking about social inputs and outputs. If someone is an asshole and socially marginalized as a result, does that constitute punishment? If I wrong someone who I am close to and the relationship ends as a result, does that constitute punishment?

 

It's curious that you would argue against social norms given your moderation of this board embraces them. For example you've stated jokes about suicide or asking people if they are autistic are verboten - and you've deleted posts/threads to that end - but few people would say those things should be codified into law. We just rely on the assumption that colloquially recognized social standards will properly identify and react to them. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

23 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

But we are talking about social inputs and outputs. If someone is an asshole and socially marginalized as a result, does that constitute punishment? If I wrong someone who I am close to and the relationship ends as a result, does that constitute punishment?

 

It's curious that you would argue against social norms given your moderation of this board embraces them. For example you've stated jokes about suicide or asking people if they are autistic are verboten - and you've deleted posts/threads to that end - but few people would say those things should be codified into law. We just rely on the assumption that colloquially recognized social standards will properly identify and react to them. 

I personally do not view such social "sanctions" as real punishments.

 

For the purposes of this board, I am the law so my actions are inherently based on a legal framework that I have decided upon.  Therefore, there is no need for "social standards" as my law renders them irrelevant.

[RedSoxFan9]

Lol we have a genuine horseshoe theory guy on here

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

20 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

At the end of the day, ALL politics are ultimately based on "identity".

Right, but the phrase is commonly accepted as shorthand for politics based on ethnic/gender/sexual identity, as opposed to class/economic identity.

 

Placing more emphasis on the former over the latter will not win back the working class voters the Dems need to win, nor inspire labor in general to come out to vote, even against an unrepentantly pro-capital, pro-rentier party.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

23 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Right, but the phrase is commonly accepted as shorthand for politics based on ethnic/gender/sexual identity, as opposed to class/economic identity.

 

Placing more emphasis on the former over the latter will not win back the working class voters the Dems need to win, nor inspire labor in general to come out to vote, even against an unrepentantly pro-capital, pro-rentier party.

While that's all well and true, what happens when the interests of the social identity groups and the economic identity groups are invariably at odds with each other?

 

On the issue of reparations, do they tell African-Americans to please continue to be patient if the white working class throws a hissy fit?  Do they say the reverse?  And that is just one of the countless issues where this clash will arise.

 

This is the Gordian knot that Democrats will probably never be able to effectively disentangle so they probably shouldn't even bother wasting time trying.

[RedSoxFan9]

 

Biden’s team is getting revenge

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

While that's all well and true, what happens when the interests of the social identity groups and the economic identity groups are invariably at odds with each other?

 

On the issue of reparations, do they tell African-Americans to please continue to be patient if the white working class throws a hissy fit?  Do they say the reverse?  And that is just one of the countless issues where this clash will arise.

 

This is the Gordian knot that Democrats will probably never be able to effectively disentangle so they probably shouldn't even bother wasting time trying.

I think it would mean, in practice, focusing first and foremost on the ‘bread-and-butter’ economic/class issues that cut across ethnic lines, and advertise advancing the interests of disenfranchised ethnic groups one ‘prong’ of this larger strategy.

 

That way, even if the white working class doesn’t like a particular policy—like reparations—they’ll still feel like they’re voting for a party that is still, on the whole, ‘on their side’ or ‘has the right idea’. (As will the non-white working class)

 

This was essentially the lynchpin that held together the fractious and multiracial ‘New Deal Coalition’ and it’s still—with some tweaks and updates, of course— the Dems’ best bet. (it also benefitted the nation’s minorities in the long run)

 

The more it appears to labor (a class which itself, it’s worth noting, is multiethnic) that the party’s primary focus is on advancing the particular cause and interests of ethnic and sexual minorities, and that addressing  labor’s economic interests is merely a smaller part of this focus, (rather than the other way around) the more the Dems empower politicians like Trump to bamboozle them into thinking he’s going to act in their interests, despite the exact opposite being true.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

15 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

The more it appears to labor that the party’s primary focus is on advancing the particular cause and interests of ethnic and sexual minorities, and that addressing  labor’s economic interests is merely a smaller part of this focus, (rather than the other way around) the more the Dems empower politicians like Trump to bamboozle them into thinking he’s going to act in their interests, despite the exact opposite being true.

What do you say to an ethnic minority who says, "To hell with that.  The white working class has been pandered to for decades and every time the opportunity arises, they gladly vote for the guy who indulges their grievances.  Our advancement as full members of this society comes first, then we can talk economics."

 

I am utterly convinced the Democratic Party is in an unenviable, intractable position.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

8 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

What do you say to an ethnic minority who says, "To hell with that.  The white working class has been pandered to for decades and every time the opportunity arises, they gladly vote for the guy who indulges their grievances.  Our advancement as full members of this society comes first, then we can talk economics."

 

I am utterly convinced the Democratic Party is in an unenviable, intractable position.

“Just remember how much worse it got when they *weren’t* pandered to, and every avenue of political power capable of advancing your interests was completely closed off as a result”

 

I think that this sort of “tolerate a little evil to do a greater good “ dynamic is unfortunately the sad reality of politics in a democratic republic as diverse and divided as the US, particularly as it pertains to advancing the interests of minorities.

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[CitizenVectron]

These polls are all over the place. The biggest wildcard seems to be Bernie Sanders. In the polls he is up (like here), Harris and Warren are down. In the polls where he is down, they are up. Biden seems to be solidly around 25-30%.

[Joe]

Just now, CitizenVectron said:

These polls are all over the place.

 

We should be polling Iowa and NH right now. Way more important than this bs.

[Ricofoley]

Yeah I'm not a statistician, but it seems like everything after Biden has a lot more variance to it than polls do most of the time. You look at some other polls and it seems like Bernie is plummeting.

[CitizenVectron]

34 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

We should be polling Iowa and NH right now. Way more important than this bs.

 

The only one I've seen of Iowa had Warren in the lead with a slight edge over Biden and Bernie, I think. But it was from a former internal Obama pollster and their reputation is unknown.

[SaysWho?]

Steve Bullock raised $2 million in the second quarter despite jumping into the race a month after fundraising again. That's more than Hickenlooper raised.

 

Bennet raised $3.5 million.

[osxmatt]

Well, Joe Biden is a socialist.

 

 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

maybe we shouldn’t let rich kids go to public k-12 schools too

[legend]

On 7/4/2019 at 12:13 PM, SFLUFAN said:

To me, that is cognitively dissonant as it leaves open the possibility that the thing that is cared about could be violated without actual punishment for that violation.

 

I would be more sympathetic to this thought if having governments enforce any policy faithfully with regard to its intent was trivial. It is far from that as evidence by this history of failures in our justice system. And some things are harder to have good implemented policy for than others, particularly those that fall under social norms (even social norms that have good reason to exist). When the gain from an idealized implementation is not significant, the practical cost of trying to implement such a policy usually outweighs it and it's not worth trying to implement.

 

On top, the reality of society often makes it so that trying to enforce a certain policy on people has no meaningful effect and can make things worse. I see the war on (hard) drugs as an example of that. On it's face, trying to get rid of hard drugs from our society seems like a good idea. But it turns out that the legal war isn't actually an effective way to achieve that goal and worse has other impacts that actually make society worse.

 

Bottom line: you might have a good social goal, but enforcing it legally is often not a good way to achieve it and can have negative effects.

[TheGreatGamble]

On 7/4/2019 at 1:41 PM, RedSoxFan9 said:

Lol we have a genuine horseshoe theory guy on here

Because horseshoe theory is real. HT is about how the behaviour of the extremes of both side are a mirror. They are. Both sides want to block speech they don’t agree with (more so liberals though), both sides use violence (Antifa and the far right have both caused violence at multiple events). Both sides use the internet to shame and intimidate the other side. Both use the distant past of others to try to destroy people (serious, does anyone beyond the msm give a fuck what someone said in 1972). 

 

Ill agree the right is a little more disgusting, but both act roughly the same. 

the world would be better off without both those extremes.