19
votes
Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of February 17
This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.
This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.
Here are some links about the 50501 protests against the unconstitutional stuff that Trump is doing:
The 50501 site
And a wikipedia article about it
Hopefully these protests will grow as more people wake up to the threat. The main problem right now is that there is very little resistance from the leaders inside the government. There are so many checks that failed.
It's very noticeable that you don't have to be an evil genius to take over the entire country. You just have to be a persistent gambler who keeps doubling down and trying again. I think about other dictators who have taken over and they are usually just the boldest and least moral people. But they usually risk death. Trump hasn't risked much because the system is so broken that it can't handle a bad actor who has no morals, and his power is magnified by the corruption of political parties.
I took a peek out of my news/politics hole to see what Ezra Klein was talking about and found this interesting interview he did about Elon Musk with Kara Swisher. (Transcript available here.)
I think her read on Trump and Musk's narcissistic need to be loved is probably more accurate than Ezra Klein's "they don't care anymore" perspective. (Not that I can't see where Klein is coming from.)
I find her read on Musk's psychology quite believable. Not just the grandiose narcissism, but the dramatic immaturity.
I also found this potential outcome below quite believable. Fingers crossed we see it.
A huge, public fight between Trump and Musk would be delightful. Particularly given how much both of them like to bully people with the legal system.
I think think if you had to boil Musk's (and realistically, also Trump's) behavior down to a soundbite, it's this. Both are narcissistic petulant man children. They think the world revolves around them. Only they are the ones who can fix this almighty impending doom. Anything good that happens, it's because they are the hero in this story. Anything bad that happens, well it's not my fault, it's (insert whatever here). No accountability. Someone does something that doesn't fit into the plans that they wanted? Well that's a targeted slight on them specifically and they must seek retribution.
They are immature children who got handed the keys and have a crippling need to be loved.
I think the ancient legend of Narcissus falling in love with his own reflection reflects this somewhat. It's not that they love themselves per se, but that they love what they believe they ought to be. If you've ever wondered why narcissists seem to let everything revolve around themselves and never be satisfied, that's it. They try to have everything be about the person they are not. Which doesn't work because well - that's not what the reality is.
The Oval Office isn't big enough for one of those kinds of ego's. Let alone two. Additionally, the alliance on which Trump gets his power have massively conflicting interests. You have the tech bro libertarians, christian nationalists, white supremacists, rural America and more. And while some of them overlap, there are some core differences as well. Especially on the economy. It's not going to last, the question is what will break first.
Depending on what leverage Musk has over Trump, that inevitable conflict might not happen publicly.
Musk is the real wild card here, along with Vance if Trump should be removed.
It's crazy to me. A year ago I was unaware that we have motivated influential people who want to remove the democratic and due process guardrails that keep us all safe as US citizens, in favor of authoritarian privilege because that's edgy I guess. We need to make classes in political history mandatory. Anyone who knows about the French revolution or Stalin's purges, or the disappeared people in Argentina etc. Shouldn't want to risk ending up on the wrong side of arbitrary power of the type that Trump and Musk want.
Yeah for all we know there are already struggles going on behind the scenes. I wouldn't be surprised by that, given how the balance of power within the US government is essentially being ruptured.
The fact nothing has happened here has me VERY curious and worried. That was my expectation, but we've got musk talking behind the desk with his kid maybe telling trump to gtfo (which i'm not totally sold the kid wasn't talking to someone off camera), and no blow up?
Makes me think that something has happened that makes them both happy or somehow keeps them in line.
And in relation to this, I do wonder if the goal is that Musk IS the future of the party. He's younger and he hasn't run twice already. Of course he can't run for president, but clearly that doesn't matter. He can be in power as many times as he wants because there's nothing against what he currently is, and should that happen, I'm not sure there's much against him being in the cabinet
It takes time for cracks to form. While I’m loath to do another Nazi Germany comparison (I find it narrows peoples views of what fascism and authoritarianism can be, among other things), it took around eighteen months from Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor to the Night of the Long Knives and Röhm and the SA being purged. There are significant differences between Trump’s America First NatCon populism and Musk’s techno-conservatism that are bound to come to a head, just as the fusionist socially conservative, free-market internationalism of the late 20th/early 21st century GOP did in the last ten years.
I'm surprised they've remained on good terms as long as they have so far, too, but I will be absolutely shocked if they don't end up hating each other at some point. You can't put two narcissists that extreme together forever and not expect them to come to blows.
On the other hand, I also thought this country would never in a million years elect such a stupid con man as Trump, so what do I know?
I'm SURE they hate each other. I'm just curious what got them to pretend otherwise. In general before it was "I'm the president, i have the power, kiss the ring" from trump and musk walked. Now trump is supposedly fuming at all this "president musk" talk, but sure seems to have calmed down about it in the visible public sphere.
Trump wants access to Peter Thiel and his rolodex of techno-conservatives, Musk is the only one of them that can put up with him for extended periods of time, and they both want a libertarian land where wealth is a synonym for freedom?
The Dept of Education's "Dear Colleague" letter to end DEI gives universities 2 weeks to comply
The letter
This is just one article from one student newspaper but this conversation is happening across the country. I got our university president's very lukewarm response yesterday. (We have a policy of staying off the radar when possible so I'm not surprised.)
This targets DEI broadly but focuses on race since the Supreme Court ruling they're citing was about race. Outside of the classroom they're targeting things like special "graduations" (they're more considered separate recognition ceremonies for various communities, commencement isn't impacted), identity based housing, and even programming.
I'm going to be stressed out about this for quite a while. Not sure how our university will try to pivot, but hopeful it doesn't turn into a "fuck out core values" moment... At the same time being directly targeted by the DoE, DoJ, or just the president's mouth will not be a good thing for myself or the students
We just received an email from the university president this morning about this. No actions have been taken yet, and they haven't stated what they actually intend to do. I'm hoping they fight, we're a large and well funded public university, if anyone has the resources, we do.
https://president.umich.edu/news-communications/messages-to-the-community/new-doe-ocr-guidance/
It's the best legal/PR strategy not to make bold statements - in part because the legal side is so nebulous, in part because no one wants to be the lightning rod for this right now. I think the SCOTUS decision doesn't reach that far, but those are the conversations legal depts and the ACLU and such will be having.
Oh agreed, I don't expect them to make any bold statements about anything yet. They'll get their legal ducks in a row first and then also figure out how to manage the PR angles.
Unlike
Musk'sTrump's team, who are just swinging the bat around smashing anything they feel like and not giving 2 shits about either the legal pushback or the public perception of what they're doing and how they're doing it.As Trump ‘Exports’ Deportees, Hundreds Are Trapped in Panama Hotel (gift link nyt)
Panama says they're just "assisting" but the international orgs are saying Panama is controlling the deportees, many of whom say that they'll be unsafe, even killed, if returned to their home countries.
The number of people who that cited thinking they'd be spared because they're Christian, and good people is so depressing. I understand the desperate hope, but I wish someone had warned them that being Christian will not save you from xenophobia or racism or the effects of it in policy.
Panama is building a camp, and is likely to be pressed into doing the US's bidding to avoid Trump coming for the canal - which he'll probably still do if he wants to. Costa Rica is also accepting a flight soon. How many countries will we pressure into collaboration before something breaks?
Saw this and thought it was worth sharing here:
https://bsky.app/profile/misspunklesmom.bsky.social/post/3lihbvuoflc2x
From the linked video itself (it's pretty short and I think worth watching)
I think the OP got it wrong. It's not that he "speaks how they speak". There's a sympathy that he has that is very extremely rare among the left, especially if you look at social media, when it comes to people who have been misled by disinformation.
I have a bit of a more cynical take: in order to convert Trump voters (and, really, this probably applies to most people in varying degrees), you need to give them an offramp that doesn't require them to admit that they were ever wrong. "You were lied to and they actually hate you" is more effective than "You made a horrible mistake and doomed us all, you awful person."
You’re absolutely right!
By saying that, he makes it very easy for him to switch sides. Why would you make it hard for someone to switch sides? Make it easy, and after they’ve switched it’ll be easier to admit that they messed up. This guy has incredible emotional intelligence.
And like you said this applies to a lot of people. It’s human nature to get defensive when accused of being wrong. It probably applies to you and me. My pants would be on fire if i said I’ve never reacted defensively and emotionally, or dug my heels in when I was wrong.
I think for at least some slices of the left there was a larger degree of sympathy the first time around. But now it's the second round and the lesson could, indeed should, have been learned.
I'm not saying that is necessarily the fairest or even most effective approach from a coalition-building approach. But I'd guess that's at least behind some of the current reaction from the left-of-center side of things.
You're definitely right, but I think that view misses a crucial point on why these people didn't "learn the first time around". And like you mentioned, that response does nothing, and could actually be harmful, in actually effecting change.
Lots of people are politically distrustful and ignorant, and a lot of those people voted for Trump. They don't feel like government makes a difference in their life (and in many cases they're wrong), and so they don't tune in to politics and even actively avoid it. And they also don't talk with family/friends about politics because the risk of blowing up friendships because they have a view that might not be PC is just not worth the risk. These people didn't learn from the 1st trump administration because for many of them, they didn't feel any negative effects during the first admin. That's changing because the administration is enacting project 2025 somewhat clumsily. There were people who were looking up if Joe Biden had dropped out on election day.
You can criticize these people for being, perhaps willfully, ignorant. You can make fun of them. But how do you reach out to them? How do you educate them?
This kind of ties into what I've been talking about on other threads here. How do you reach people who have insulated themselves from discussions about politics? There's a big lack of online media (mostly podcasts IMO) that is casual, and touches on politics from a left-leaning perspective. Think stuff like Joe Rogan. Some of this can probably be attributed to moneyed interests and influence, but I honestly think most of it comes down to a lot of the purity testing that goes on in the left. If you don't stand inline 100% with the left, then you get vilified and morally criticized for it. With that kind of culture, how can casual political talk exist?
This follow up video with the two farmers from that original video having a longer in-depth conversation gives some insights into what might have led a right-leaning independent American to vote for Trump in 2024, and what made them realize Trump was the wrong person to vote for. It'll help you understand the challenges of reaching these voters. The conversation starts about an hour in and is an hour long but I strongly recommend listening to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLgJLGCa-vo&t=3611s
This is 100% my family. Both my siblings are fully grown with their own kids, and I frequently tell them about things that are happening that they had no idea was happening. I don't expect everyone to immerse themselves in the daily political nonsense (that's not healthy for anyone), but it's crazy to me that people are still completely disengaged at this point.
Yes that's reasonable but it's not going to make things better. If sacrificing pride is all it takes to make things better then there shouldn't be push back for this.
But sacrificing for people who got everyone into a bad situation is only reasonable one they show a sincere attempt to change. If my partner was engaging in regular self-destructive behavior that affected me and my future, there would have to be visible changes before they were welcome as part of my life. If you keep coddling people who hurt you and the people around you, that doesn't help anyone but the addict/abuser. It doesn't even really help them either, it just puts off their day of reckoning. It's not about sacrificing pride, but about self-respect and the willingness to take care of yourself in a bad situation.
I think I’m misunderstanding what you mean here. Is it self-care to throw FAFO in Trump voter’s faces when they realize Trump’s admin is hurting them? A lot of Trump voters didn’t identify with MAGA, and I don’t think that should matter anyways for being compassionate.
I think it would be healthier and more effective to say: “Hey, that really sucks that you’re being affected”, and encourage them to find out other ways they could be negatively affected, and how others, including people in their community are being negatively affected.
Most people aren't engaging with those Trump voters in the first place but whether they're lashing out or just talking within their peer group who agree with them, they're engaging in venting and self-soothing which isn't really self care IMO but it's part of what people colloquially call self care.
Real/effective self care does involve setting boundaries and does not require having to engage with people who actively harm you. And i think that's the problem, the "regret my vote" people are being seen in this isolated window, often ignoring previous behavior (which often includes bigoted comments, or trolling the libs sort of comments) or the harm their actions have caused.
And in the present they're typically not apologizing for the harm they've done, nor even recognizing it. They're upset because they didn't think his policies would apply to their needs. They essentially accidentally slapped themselves in the face, but I'm supposed to be nice to them as if they didn't slap me with a sneer on their face first?
So is it more productive? No but people left of center are constantly being asked to "reach across the aisle" to people who call themselves, their families and friends absolutely horrible things and who have caused real harm even just through their votes, even though again and again the outcome is for the people reaching out to get hurt.
It is a noble cause, but one that should be undertaken particularly by those less frequently wounded by those policies and votes - by people with more privilege and ability to take a few hits. I personally educate people often, but if a few days ago they were calling for my friend's deportation to a concentration camp, or they're currently calling me a liar who doesn't need meds for being concerned about RFK's proposals, why do I have to sway them and not the millions of non-voters instead? How many times do we reach a hand out only to have it bitten?
Especially when you're femme, fat, with a nose ring and a shaved head? I'm basically their stereotype if I bothered to dye my hair instead of ditch it. As I said, I educate a lot, but I set boundaries on it, and there are people who have been doing this education the whole time. If "they" won't listen, that's really not on us.
Often the self sacrifice involved to keep reaching out, especially for minoritized groups, is not healthier. It's as toxic to have too loose of boundaries as it is to have ones too rigid
Being mean because they were first doesn’t strike me as setting a boundary. It’s an excuse to hurt because you’re hurt, which is a classic way that bullying gets spread.
I’m sorry about the vitriol and hate that you receive. I can’t make up for it, and if you don’t have the emotional bandwidth to graciously reply to those that find out the consequences of their vote (although my call for sympathy and graciousness extends to a lot more situations than just that), that’s more than ok. In that case I’m not asking you to be gracious or sympathetic. I’m asking you not to engage, and to take care of yourself.
Being angry releases dopamine and feels good. It’s why people get addicted to Fox News. It affects everyone on social media. And it’s not saying there aren’t valid reasons to be angry. Just be cognizant of the beast that’s being fed and how your brain is, and may have already been rewired.
I explicitly said that "lashing out is self soothing, which isn't real self care IMO, but is often called that" and that setting boundaries is self-care.
I'm a mental health professional and educator, and I'll continue to educate people as part of my job and my passion but I think you ignored everything else I said in favor of the same sort of "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" rhetoric that we consistently hear. I'm saying that we cannot ignore the harm folks have directly caused, sometimes days before they turn around and are "regretful." That's not an apology, nor restorative justice, nor any of the things I value.
How much effort should be expended on people who slapped themselves but didn't care that they slapped us first? In fact often wanted us to be slapped? Why are we not allowed to be angry? And are you spending as much time chiding them for the lashing out they're doing and have done? If our hurts cannot evoke empathy then they will simply repeat the same behaviors.
As I said, most people aren't actually saying FAFO to trump voters, some are, but most aren't, they're saying FAFO to other people that agree them. People aren't being paid for this emotional labor and many people are still doing it anyway, but fuck it'd be nice to hear that they should have to take even a little bit of sarcasm or irritation rather than infantilizing them. I know how to de-escalate and 'gentle parent' adults and do it regularly. But I should not have to.
I'm essentially asking you to treat them like equal participants and not fragile glass figurines, or literal children, who must be gently carried through the consequences of their actions. I don't think we serve them or ourselves otherwise.
You're right. Sorry, I did do that a bit. I think that happened partially because I was responding on mobile and on the app it's difficult to reference a comment while you're replying to it. I think we're largely on the same page and are doing a bit of talking past each other. I think the missing part that I haven't said is that yes, some people are not worth engaging with at all.
It sounds like these two people you're talking about are potentially MAGA diehards?
Yes we should be swaying the non-voters and those closer to the middle.
Trump voters aren't a monolith. There's more similarities between a non-voter and someone who voted for Trump because they've been misled but think he's deplorable than with someone who is diehard MAGA.
You're right. Most people aren't having personal conversations across the aisle. This being said among people who agree doesn't make it better. It makes it worse. It is out in the open where it's directed at anyone who voted for Trump, not a single person who you're having a conversation with. Even if it's in a private setting, are you absolutely sure no one in your group is a quiet Trump voter?
You have three rough groups in the US, politically. Two in-groups: straight dem and straight republican voters. And a third, who identify as independent even if they might vote mostly on one side or the other.
Like you said, stuff like FAFO, is a form of self-soothing. It's a form of self soothing that's harmful. You're perhaps building some camaraderie within the in-group, but it's a horrible look from the outside. How is that behavior conducive to swaying people in the middle, who aren't in the in-group?
I don't think we agree that much. I still think you are infantilizing these people at a level that's disrespectful to their intelligence.
The two people were a conglomerate of examples on the internet, not actual individuals. (Because if they call everyone on meds a liar who doesn't need them, or call for the deportation of people in the same category as my friend, they're still doing it to me and my friend)
I'm aware there's a broad array, but what did the "Regrets" people say and do before their regrets? Do we absolve all of that? Because truly, what is being asked is treating them like toddlers who cannot understand the consequences of their actions and thus are not obligated to give absolutely anything to fixing it. I do talk to people in a thoughtful and educational manner, much of the time, but I'm tired of being told to do it better or more often, or that people who vent are the bad guys. If you weigh people who vent after being harmed in one hand and people who actively do harm in the other and blame the former more than the latter because you expect "Better" from them, you're both supporting the abuser over the victim and coddling the abuser.
Also, yeah I know the people in my private setting aren't trump voters. I suppose their entire lives could be a lie, but it'd be more than just their voting record. This is an argument against having any peer support for your feelings at all and that's bullshit.
If they're acknowledging harm, not just harm to themselves, but the harm they've caused others, then we can start to talk about more. A "regret" voter who only gives a damn about themselves, doesn't really regret their vote, they just regret that they accidentally slapped themselves while slapping other people. They would have been fine hurting others without getting hurt themselves.
And while I can, and do, absolutely work to educate folks like that... I have no desire to sit here, outside of that setting and pretend that they're incapable of taking responsibility for their actions and need to be infantilized. And I don't have any illusions that saying so ruins my ability to do that work, because i do that work at work and in person in general. The idea that they can't handle criticism because they might hate us, means that they already hated us. That farmer would probably really only listen to the older white male farmer who responded to him. He wasn't listening to anyone else, no matter how hard they tried. He certainly didn't listen to any number of the wide variety of people ahead of time.
As for people "in the middle" I mostly don't believe they exist "in the middle" as most swing voters on panels and in general have turned out to be "embarrassed" voters or plants. But the non-voters didn't vote for a variety of reasons, and should be motivated to vote and to be active now if they're unhappy with the current status quo. It's their motivation that needs swayed and still, that isn't everyone's job, all the time. We're allowed to have feelings and opinions and jokes and share them and not shut up unless we have something positive to say, which again, is the message you're expressing.
Edit: since this is too long, this is universal - if I'm someone's close friend or their therapist (or equivalent) then I'll talk to them like a therapist. If they're a toddler I'll talk to them like a toddler. But otherwise, honestly, otherwise I have no obligation to them beyond them being a human being and deserving a base level of respect that many of them will not grant me in return. We have to stop leveling the onus of all the emotional labor on the people that didn't initiate the harm.
This is pretty baseless conjecture IMO. Did you listen to the hour long conversation that they had?
I don't think it's infantilizing to recognize that people are emotional and full of biases and heuristics that can escape logic and rationality without them being aware of it. We're all susceptible to it.
I think most of your most recent comment doesn't at all address what my last comment was focusing on. Let's discount any one-on-one discourse. I'll take a concrete example: Let's say there's an article shared on bsky about a trump voter who ends up on the short end of one of his policies.
It's pretty common to see enthusiastic proclamations of FAFO on these kinds of articles. This is what I'm talking about. This kind of response is toxic, unproductive, and comes from the exact tribalistic human nature that results in conservatives espousing things like "libtards" or reveling in "owning the libs". It's the other side of the exact same coin. Go ahead and justify it as joking or whatever you want. That's exactly what the other side does too. It doesn't make it better.
I watched a number of videos but no, not an hour long, I watched most of what happened before the other guy got involved and did not find him open to the very positive and thoughtful responses he got.
As I said, I'm a mental health professional, I've been on the therapist side of therapy, I work non-clincially now. I am not saying people don't have emotions. I'm saying for anything to actually get better they have to take personal responsibility for the harm they've done not just only experience the "therapist" reaction. That is something a therapist can help with but everyone isn't obligated to treat you the same way.
No one isn't better than "them", but I only ever see criticism of the one, not the other, ironically from "both" sides. All of this being a reduction into a false dichotomy. And expecting everyone on the left to react the same as, for example, I do when I'm actively using those skills, without training, is unfair when you don't expect the same level of skilled emotional awareness and labor out of the right.
You're still putting the burden on one side and excusing the other IMO.
Edited to fix a dangling sentence.
There's a far cry between what I'm asking for and being a therapist, IMO. I feel it's disingenuous to equate the two.
I'm giving constructive criticism. I want the dems to beat the republicans, so of course I'm not giving constructive criticism towards the right.
There's lots of reasons the dems lost this time around. A lot of it is out of our control. I'm trying to address the things that we can control. And it seems like every time I do that I'm met with pushback, with things like "we shouldn't have to do that" or "it's not fair". That may be true, but if we don't improve, how will we win?
I think talking people out of a cult mentality is often the job of a therapist. But regardless that is emotional labor and I equate the skillset because putting aside your own feelings to take care of the emotions of others is like therapy (or parenting, or being a best friend, all times where emotional labor, with various boundaries, makes sense). (You also said we couldn't vent in our peer spaces because they might contain a Trump voter which again is ridiculous)
I don't think the reason we lost was because we weren't nice or persuasive enough. The Dems worked harder than ever last cycle to appeal to the center right. To the point it was alienating to others.
As I've said, it's work I do. I'm also not going to pretend that it's fine that we have to do it. And the onus should not be on the oppressed minorities - there's a reason many black women said they're sitting down.
You say you're offering constructive criticism, I'm saying this isn't new. It's the same thing I was told to do during Obama's term, during Trump's term, during the last election cycle. Its just chiding people who are worn out, hurting and often having to turn inward to ensure they make it through hard times for not being polite about it.
If I told you every day that if you push this button you'll get slapped in the face, and then you push it and come to me sad you got slapped in the face... adults are broadly capable of understanding cause and effect. But people are being shipped to concentration camps without due process because you pushed that button and it's my fault because saying "I told you this would happen" wasn't nice enough... so you had to push the button again, harder? I mean it's kind of ridiculous.
Yes people should be kind and empathetic, in general, but I believe that the constant berating to be nicer to people who literally only regret the part of their vote that hurts them, is far more harmful than internet randos saying FAFO. We're generally well aware that the people finding out are a much MUCH greater number than those that fucked around.
What I'm asking of people is not to talk people out of a cult mentality. It's to be mindful of your own toxicity and try and avoid it.
I didn't say you couldn't vent. I'm saying not to be toxic.
Also, from your rhetoric of being slapped in the face, we're talking about appealing to different demographics. You're arguing that it's not worth appealing to anyone because some people might be impossible to reach.
Am I berating? If I am, I'm sorry. But can you really characterize my comments as berating and then say that the left doesn't have any problem with toxicity?
We're hitting a point here again where you're responding to a line or two of my replies to you and are ignoring everything in between where I say many things other than what you're claiming I'm saying.
You set up the situation where yeah, you really can't vent to anyone in any setting without being potentially toxic.
As for demographics, anyone who voted for Trump falls into the "slapped me in the face" category. I'm not saying don't reach out to anyone, I'm saying it is not fair to consistently ask people to be nicer to people who've harmed them and are only regretful that this harm blew back on themselves. Setting a boundary that people need to acknowledge harm done is reasonable and for effective change conversations, required. It's also required to maintain mental health.
But I've been explicit that I in fact reach out to, educate, etc. people all the time, so I'm not sure how you got that I'm opposed to it, unless you're not reading my responses or I'm being unclear.
As for the persistence of hearing this information it's the aggregate, hence me saying "we need to stop" as a member of the community being discussed.
We didn't lose because we didn't reach out to the right. Dems did that, extensively.
You can absolutely vent without being toxic. Someone around you being a Trump voter shouldn't change that.
I think we're having some core misunderstanding of each other and I'm not sure where exactly. I think you're still on the original point of this thread, and I've moved onto a slightly different topic.
This thread started with how to get Trump voters to listen, and I think that's why you're talking about reaching out to and educating people. Which is a different point from what I've been discussing for the bulk of the thread but I'll address that.
It's great that you do that. If you got the impression that I think you're opposed to that, there was some miscommunication that happened somewhere.
As for setting a boundary that people need to acknowledge harm done, I agree, but why not make it as easy as possible for those people to do that? It doesn't need to be the first thing they say. It can be easier for it to be a journey. And it's not the first nor the last step of that journey.
Pulling from a previous comment up the thread: I linked the conversation that those two farmers had. In that video the younger farmer did end up admitting he was wrong, and IMO showed that he was working to educate himself and be open to learning new things about how politics affect other people.
I'm not saying that the left isn't reaching out to the right. I'm saying the dems are reaching out in a way that isn't working.
Trump is popular because he's an amazing salesman. You may not buy into what he's selling but a lot of people do. The dems are terrible at selling. They need to get better.
And that brings me back to that longer form conversation I linked to. If you watch it, the older farmer is constantly giving the younger farmer easy outs. He'll ask a somewhat challenging question and then immediately follow up with: "If you're not comfortable answering, that's ok". He's making the journey easy. That's part of what an effective salesman does. If who you're talking to feels trapped or cornered or like they have no way out, they'll either get themselves out and remove themselves from the conversation or become defensive.
Before you said you "did not find him open to the very positive and thoughtful responses he got". From that conversation, it's clear that he has the capability to be open. But for whatever reason those previous responses didn't get to him. Why did he listen to this older guy? Is it because they're both white men? That probably helped, but I think that distracts from the learnable lesson from this.
To get someone to change their mind it's easier if you get on their side somehow first and establish a connection. Why should this guy listen to other random people? This guy connected first: "Oh hey, we're both farmers. Our community has been lied to and misled by fox news and right wing talk radio." And then he gives the younger guy some agency and gives him the offer to reach out.
Previously...
I was never arguing that. But that's where that miscommunication happened.
I think our disconnect is that I know how to change people's minds. You keep explaining it, but I'm telling you I have a degree in talking to people and helping them come to new conclusions and that I do this work in various ways daily.
When I'm doing that work, and I don't just mean my job, I'm doing that work. When I'm not I'm tired of having my words policed as toxic, mean, unhelpful, even when they're the mildest "we told you all this before" sentiment, while I see no one on the right, absolutely no one, addressing the horrible comments about people's mental health, safety, identity, etc. People who are friends with those particular commenters aren't policing them nearly so hard as liberals police other liberals and leftists. We are allowed not to be perfect and we are very allowed to not be swayed by people who insist they probably would have voted differently if we'd just been nicer. And we will, likely, shit post sometimes. Literally or metaphorically.
As I've said in another thread, being linked to a two hour video with an hour of it to watch, is not a reasonable ask for an online conversation. I'm not doing more homework than I assign for the course I teach. I understand he eventually came around, as I said initially, I don't think, based on his previous responses to other people, he would have listened to someone without the shared identities that the other farmer had. You disagreed, but we don't have evidence of that since he only changed after a long conversation with that one guy.
There's not a learnable lesson when we already know it. But I cannot make him empathize with me if those identity pieces are key. The other positive responses he got were mostly from people he didn't share identities with. Idk if I saw another farmer out there. The only evidence of outcome is who he listened to. And that's why the onus should be on people with those shared identities. The friends of those people making horrible Facebook comments. The family members, the people colleagues with similar experiences that makes it easy to relate to.
Look, trolling that guy's post? Nah. But continuing to roast the lady the whole said she voted for Trump because of the cost of pre-sliced name brand cracker cut cheese? When it was half the price at Aldi and she's doubled down? I don't give her views but I love a good "could someone check on the cheese lady and see how her grocery bill is?" comment.
If that's too toxic then I'll just have to settle for being put in whatever work farm camp RFK Jr sets up for ADHD people. We'll get nothing done, so no one will be able to afford cheese slices then either. Those cows will not get milked in the morning if brushing my teeth is a complicated game of reminders.
I don't see the point in continuing, i just see zero benefit in yet another conversation about being nicer to the people who hurt me. This is far from the first, I'm sure we'll make it six weeks or so before it comes up again. And that's despite me being nice to them all the time already.
Boundaries are healthy, we should set them.
You're right, that's my mistake.
We're having a conversation in a public forum, so when I say "you" a lot of the time it's in the general sense and for the benefit of those who may be reading but are not actively participating in the thread.
I haven't seen any evidence that people are practicing these "already known" lessons, so whether it's already known is moot. And yeah, if you can't connect with and relate and have some kind of shared identity on some level, then you'll have trouble changing someone's mind.
That would be ideal, but the current political environment doesn't really foster talking about politics with friends and family. That kind of plays into one of the reasons why I am vilifying rhetoric that you disagree as being toxic. Because I think that kind of behavior might seem benign, but I think it fosters an environment which inhibits those kinds of discussions from actually happening.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
People cannot talk to their friends and address when they're friends are doing hurtful things.... Why are you expecting strangers to conform to a higher standard of behavior and aren't tell people to talk to their friends. Guys calling out their male friends on misogyny, for example, stops the social acceptability of sexist comments which begins the process of change. A "not cool bro" moves mountains. That's the sort of place we should start, not "don't vent too toxic online among strangers." (And if your friends vent too toxically that's the specific intervention to have, rather than broad lectures.
Btw, cheese slice lady isn't interested in absolutely any conversation about her vote, I followed. I'm choosing my battles. Being more worried about being toxic to her (a person I have never spoken to and who has never read my comments) vs the "put people on mental health meds into camps" feels counter productive.
When black women criticize the white privilege of white women, even jokingly especially in predominantly black spaces, I also tell other white women that if their response to this is to be pissed at black women, they weren't actually being allies either. It's not just directed at Republicans.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. It's a bit like insisting on rules of etiquette in a zombie apocalypse. If we don't find joy,
evenespecially in dark humor, we'll lose the will to keep fighting.People should be kind when they can, but maybe we can point the lecture at the person (and the people who theoretically are friends with them) who today on a random Facebook post in my area that I just looked up said about protestors:
(Note this is racist among other things.)
I agree this is really important to do, and is part of the solution
I don't see why we can't do both
Strong disagree here. There are other ways to keep moral up. You're going to balk at this comparison but edgy and dark humor is the exact reason why places like 4chan are the cesspools of the internet. Dark and edgy humor is fine for the people who are in on joking about the hateful parts of those jokes. But it gives an alibi to the people who join in and say the hateful parts non-ironically.
Again, my argument for being less toxic has nothing to do with converting cheese slice lady. Cheese slice lady isn't the only person who sees comments on her video. It's a broader cultural issue and how your political slice is seen by the general apolitical public.
I don't think whoever posted
would even entertain my "lecture". Why would I direct my lecture at them?
Also like I said, this is constructive criticism. They're on the other side of the aisle, politically speaking, from me. Accept or reject my constructive criticism; why would I direct it towards them? Do you want me advocating and strategizing for the republicans?
Dark humor isn't the same as 4chan. Me whistling in the dark about whether I'll be stripped of my rights is not the same as 4chan bigotry. So no, I don't think those are the same at all. I don't agree that all jokes, edgy or otherwise, are equally problematic or harmful. It's more "hey sure won't get anything done on that farm if we don't have our meds, lol, gods I hope it doesn't happen" and less whatever 4chan does these days, but last I heard it was explicit racism.
I don't comment on cheese lady's videos, I already said that. I will hope some day someone gets through to her, but again if someone else doubles down on bigotry because they saw me heart a joke about her, when math proves her wrong, I really can't say anything useful to them. I love cheese. I'd still never vote for Trump even if Kamala had told me cheese would go away forever. It's wild to me to say I shouldn't laugh about that.
You're explicitly advocating talking to Republicans in a particular way, I'm advocating you giving them advice about talking to others in a more positive way instead. So yeah. I do want you to help them be better instead. Unless you're saying that by my refusal to accept your "constructive criticism" you'd give them help at being more harmful instead? I assume not, but that "would you rather I do the thing you dislike because you don't support/agree with me" response is the thing I'm saying is the problem I'm highlighting. If it requires hour long therapy sessions to convince people not to respond that way, that's an unreasonable expectation of most people. (And yeah if I'm working that hard for over an hour, it's a therapy session.)
We agree people should generally aim for kindness and that venting isn't the most healthy habit, but it's also a very common one and we don't agree where that line is. That's fine.
Where I really disagree is that IMO lefties have been doing this outreach for a very long time. And educators are constantly tone policed and told, even by the president, that they cannot make anyone feel bad. When what is meant is that you cannot, should not make the white cis men and women "majority" feel bad and who cares how bad everyone else feels, they should just be nicer, again.
I am however drawing my boundary here and won't be responding further because I don't truck with being compared to racist/homophobic/antisemitic, everything, 4chan because I think a lady with a really bad take finally realizes she didn't get cheaper cheese. I don't want her to die, to suffer, to be harmed, to be sent to camps, to have her education or family ripped away. Those things aren't the same. So I'm out.
Maybe I didn't make it clear in the context of our broader discussion about toxic rhetoric, but this is not the kind of dark humor I was talking about. It's not at all related to the particular type of dark humor I pointed out that has a hateful component and thrives on 4chan. There's nothing wrong with this humor. It's not toxic or offensive.
I don't know why you keep bringing this up, as if it's something I'm advocating that you do. It's not.
I'm not sure why there's such an allergic reaction to not making a certain demographic feel bad. They did make up nearly 70% of the vote in 2024. At the very least it's a very pragmatic thing to do.
I didn't say they were the same. And I wasn't talking about jokes about cheese lady in particular. I have no idea who cheese lady is. I'm pointing out flaws that we as people have, especially in groups. It doesn't mean those flaws manifest in the same way. There's nothing on the level of the hatred that goes on at 4chan but there is bigotry that gets masked by jokes on the left.
And my intention of pointing these out is not to insult you. It's so that we can acknowledge them and use that knowledge to better ourselves. We should always be looking to improve and grow.
I'll note that some of them realize it at the micro level, that obviously the current administration, being Trump's, is responsible for whatever current I'll befell them.
But many of them don't suddenly go "Oh damn, those ideas I supported are bad". They say "It is absolutely correct to go slash and burn upon the big evil government, except my daughter who works at the national parks service, she's doing good important work don't fire her".
Now, will FAFO make them realize that these are indeed the direct consequences of what they voted for - of what they supposedly still support? Maybe not. But at some point nothing really will.
I meant is it though? Will sacrificing pride just make things all better?
Because a lot of the people complaining aren't saying things like "Wow my eyes have been opened about the harm in extreme budget cuts and deregulation, I am now changing my position". Many, as much as I can see online, are going "Budget cuts and mass firings and immigrant deportation are very good, except my daughter at the national parks service is a very good and loyal worker don't fire her and my farm employees are very reliable workers who will work for me for cheap, don't deport them. But continue doing it with everything else".
So while I haven't thrown FAFO at anybody, I can absolutely understand those who, in general at least, do.
I don’t think this is the magical solution all on its own, but even if it was, I don’t see how any of that validates pushback to this idea of being more sympathetic and compassionate?
And to me this idea encapsulates: if you don’t have the emotional bandwidth to be kind, don’t engage.
Top Russian and US officials meet for talks on Ukraine war without Kyiv
I know that it's mostly about domestic politics here, but still. Even if I'm far from Russia geographically this is utterly terrifying. They have a heavily militarized economy and are terribly wounded, deeply affected by their own propaganda, and it's not unthinkable that they'll resort to desperate measures to 'safe' themselves afterwards.
The gap between Belarus and Kaliningrad makes for a strong reason for Russia to become more aggressive in the future... While Finland and Poland have strong militaries it's still insane to think about the possibility.
Social Security head steps down over DOGE access of recipient information: AP sources
Trump's 'flood the zone' strategy as designed by Stephen Bannon is working well. It has scattered and disoriented the Democrats worrying about myriad relatively minor issues—renaming the Gulf of Mexico, buying Greenland, taking over the Kennedy Center chair, dismantling DEI, trans passports and sports participation, immigration, establishing the Faith Office—while he guns for the all-existential issue: consolidating power and authority, perhaps to permanently reshape American government.
Stephen Bannon said,
In other news, dancers are protesting Trump's takeover of the JFK center by... performing a... modern dance choreography.
He’s already consolidated power, and many of the things you list as distractions are an extension of that very plan. I feel like democrats in congress should be doing more to stymie his progress, but I don’t see the point in criticizing how dancers at the JFK center have chosen to protest. Democratic voters have few option with the GOP in full control of government. We can protest, and we can organize for the midterms, and we can call our sympathetic representatives and encourage them to stop dragging ass in Congress and start making a scene, and I feel like that is about it. So why are you gripping that a group of people have chosen to protest when the other option is to roll over and wait for midterms to save us, if they can. Bannon is talking about the media so I’m not sure why you are focused on the protestors. You should be directing your ire against the media and those in Congress that you can influence, and you should definitely be out there joining protests so that the media will report on them. Unless you have a better plan for pushing back against this consolidation of power, in which case, and I mean this earnestly, I’d love to hear it.
Bernie is barnstorming and Raskin the former constitutional law professor is coordinating the litigation strategy for democrats in congress.
They're not doing nothing, but a lot of them could do a lot more.
The labor movement is the best vehicle for defending all of our rights and advancing society
ICE Prosecutor in Dallas Runs White Supremacist X Account
Trump fires chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and two other military officers
Fired: Joint Chiefs Chairman, Top Navy Leader, Air Force Vice Chief, Service Judge Advocates General
I've been dreading the day they eventually got around to the military.
A Friday Night Massacre at the Pentagon - gift link
I do not have a positive outlook. Went to a protest last Monday that should have had several thousand people. There were only several hundred. This is not a small city. I think people have given up, are too scared, or may still be in denial.
Distress flag flies from El Capitan in Yosemite National Park
Good on them
Musk's Doge cuts survivors fund for 9 11 first responders. Some Republicans in Congress object
Trump calls for federal takeover of local Washington DC government
Well... I'm sure this won't cause a heavy protest in the capital if he makes a genuine attempt. In the capital, where all those embassies are located.
I love this line so much. It doesn't matter to him that there are people who are homeless, he doesn't want foreign heads to see them. I really can't overstate how much I despise the Carrot Conman.
FULL SPEECH: Steve Bannon CPAC 2025 Day One - 2/20/25
This is a good speech to listen to as far as understanding what and how issues are being presented in the conservative sphere.
ETA: ‘The deification of Trump will be complete’ at CPAC 2025
Video - Jasmine Crockett rallying opposition to Trump and Elon
ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight 🔊
The Age of Influentialism by Ryan Broderick of Garbage Day
Trump loyalist Kash Patel is confirmed as FBI director by the Senate despite deep Democratic doubts
And once again will I link this.
Long live the king.
The Art of the Deal - Jonathan Pie
Trump just named Right wing podcaster Dan Bongingo Deputy Director of the FBI — bsky link
We sink ever lower.
ETA: Ex-Secret Service agent and conservative media personality Dan Bongino picked as FBI deputy director