Why are ultraliberals so fucking anal about pop culture

[Ender]

Liberals are useless.

A rather large portion of your post hits home for me, but I don't know if you can say liberals are useless without also applying this to everyone else (which is something I would do) because a rather large portion of the populace seems vulnerable to being taken in by superficial aspects and forming cults of opinion around them.

Like, "New" Lara Croft is this feminist icon. Whereas "Old" Lara Croft is a sexist piece of shit. And I ask: why?

Because new Lara has smaller boobs? Because new Lara wears pants? I honestly don't get it. And then I read shit that these two aspects make old Lara "hypersexualized*" (also of note, the camera focuses on her butt...... in a 3rd person... platformer...) and all I can really think to say is "Fuck you."

And I can't really take either group seriously while me and a whole shitton of other gamers are shaking our heads at the idea that either "DOAX3" or "Mass Effect 1" are porn games.

*Honestly, with this kind of criticism and the randomness behind it, if I was a developer: I might just be inclined to forgo female anything and just deal with criticism due to the "crime" of exclusion. I mean, I wouldn't. But I can see why this ends up being a thing in the industry.

I can say "Liberals are useless" without applying it to everyone else because I'm speaking of their larger view of power, systems, goals, and theory of change, not everyone (and increasingly fewer people) subscribe to their dogshit ideology.

Most people don't have a considered set of principles and a framework of politics (here politics meaning an understanding of power relations, how power moves through systems, their impact, their second order effects, and how to alter these relations and systems). Most people go through the day just trying to live their lives the best they can. To the extent they behave a given way (in treatment to others, in norms at work, in voting) it is because how their social circle does. That is, it is dependent on how their communities have been organized. And unfortunately liberals have done the organizing, and how they structured the world was utter shit, and now its all coming how to roost.

A lot of folks are edging to the right, like you reveal when you talk about shunning all women related things rather than deal with the hassle. I'd advise against that; join us on the left, we are good and nice boys

[Darth Yan]

Technically Diana DOES kill Ares, which means that he won't be able to push people to destruction anymore; hell her entire arc involves realizing that things are more complicated and that while you can inspire people they have to make the choice themselves (which is a fair point). And if anything the High Command of Germany is portrayed sympathetically (the reason they want to surrender is because their soldiers are dying and they can't win); Ludendorff is portrayed as a psychopathic jackass.

But the quest - end the war - was accomplished by Steve when he blew up the gas. Had the attack gone through the war would have continued. He stopped it, ending the war. Killing Ares did nothing at all.

And I have seen conservatives make similar obnoxious proclomations (in the 90s they were the ones going "OH THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!); even now there are those who are complaining about "SJW's" ruining comics (hence why they got furious when sam wilson takes on violent racists; or Superman protects illegal immigrants from a white supremacist." Liberals don't have a monopoly

Yeah, well, scratch a liberal...

And David Brin is still a complete idiot. One of the entire points of the prequels is that their arrogance and being out of touch is what allowed palpatine to maul them. Vader's not as bad because it's made clear that in a perverse way karma already punished him (he's a bitter self hating fuck who loathes himself but feels he can't go back) and it's made clear that the jedi, while wise are NOT infallible and not necissarily better than mortals (Han saves luke at one point, wedge saves him at another)

Brin wrote his essay before the prequels were out.

And the thing about ares is that he wants to kill ALL humans; since the Versailles deal WAS pretty crappy in real life it's more like he engineered a shitty deal to ensure that humans will continue to fight

Yeah, that's kind of the point of how shitty the politics of the film are.

Even leaving the prequels aside the Jedi are not infallible. Vader being redeemable is proof that they aren't infallible since Luke proved them wrong on the matter.

Liberals are useless.

A rather large portion of your post hits home for me, but I don't know if you can say liberals are useless without also applying this to everyone else (which is something I would do) because a rather large portion of the populace seems vulnerable to being taken in by superficial aspects and forming cults of opinion around them.

Like, "New" Lara Croft is this feminist icon. Whereas "Old" Lara Croft is a sexist piece of shit. And I ask: why?

Because new Lara has smaller boobs? Because new Lara wears pants? I honestly don't get it. And then I read shit that these two aspects make old Lara "hypersexualized*" (also of note, the camera focuses on her butt...... in a 3rd person... platformer...) and all I can really think to say is "Fuck you."

And I can't really take either group seriously while me and a whole shitton of other gamers are shaking our heads at the idea that either "DOAX3" or "Mass Effect 1" are porn games.

*Honestly, with this kind of criticism and the randomness behind it, if I was a developer: I might just be inclined to forgo female anything and just deal with criticism due to the "crime" of exclusion. I mean, I wouldn't. But I can see why this ends up being a thing in the industry.

I can say "Liberals are useless" without applying it to everyone else because I'm speaking of their larger view of power, systems, goals, and theory of change, not everyone (and increasingly fewer people) subscribe to their dogshit ideology.

Most people don't have a considered set of principles and a framework of politics (here politics meaning an understanding of power relations, how power moves through systems, their impact, their second order effects, and how to alter these relations and systems). Most people go through the day just trying to live their lives the best they can. To the extent they behave a given way (in treatment to others, in norms at work, in voting) it is because how their social circle does. That is, it is dependent on how their communities have been organized. And unfortunately liberals have done the organizing, and how they structured the world was utter shit, and now its all coming how to roost.

A lot of folks are edging to the right, like you reveal when you talk about shunning all women related things rather than deal with the hassle. I'd advise against that; join us on the left, we are good and nice boys

Honestly conservatives can be even stupider (the alt right is a conservative moment, conservatives tend to be racist and sexist more frequently, they tend to endorse stupid as shit policies like trickle down economics), they also tend to oppose change even when it's a good thing (their understanding of power relations, the impact and second order effects.) Acting like only liberals make bad communities or organize them badly is silly (honestly conservatives are worse in several respects (Kansas is now a complete dumpster fire thanks to Brownback's foolish economic policies)

[Q99]

Frankly liberals are way better at organizing- areas with stronger unions have less wage gap and higher standard of living. Areas of urban blight who have received liberal 'we can solve that with government programs, not free market,' recover faster, etc..


I mean, whenever you talk groups that make up 20%+ of the country, there will be plenty of problems and assholes and idiots, but if you're talking 'what approach to community works better'? Well, there's a reason why the blue states are largely subsidizing the red states. One of the ironies in the US is if it wasn't for liberals chipping in more on the federal level, the conservatives couldn't sustain their states to the level they do.

[Ender]

Honestly conservatives can be even stupider (the alt right is a conservative moment, conservatives tend to be racist and sexist more frequently, they tend to endorse stupid as shit policies like trickle down economics), they also tend to oppose change even when it's a good thing (their understanding of power relations, the impact and second order effects.) Acting like only liberals make bad communities or organize them badly is silly (honestly conservatives are worse in several respects (Kansas is now a complete dumpster fire thanks to Brownback's foolish economic policies)

Not really sure how you can get the idea I favor conservatives when you quote me encouraging someone to come to the left, but ok.

Frankly liberals are way better at organizing- areas with stronger unions have less wage gap and higher standard of living. Areas of urban blight who have received liberal 'we can solve that with government programs, not free market,' recover faster, etc..


I mean, whenever you talk groups that make up 20%+ of the country, there will be plenty of problems and assholes and idiots, but if you're talking 'what approach to community works better'? Well, there's a reason why the blue states are largely subsidizing the red states. One of the ironies in the US is if it wasn't for liberals chipping in more on the federal level, the conservatives couldn't sustain their states to the level they do.

Except most of that is the result of pre-Powel memo/neoliberal decisions and us whistling past the graveyard as we coast on it. For the past 40 years the decision has been to grind the seedcorn rather than organize things such for the kind of shared prosperity you say it brought.

I mean yeah, unions see to a higher standard of living and smaller wage gap. But the worst union defeats came at the hands of liberal democrats. You can talk about Reagan and the air traffic controllers all you want, but it was Paul Volcker and the Clintons who did the lions share of the damage, and Obama burned down every chance he had to reverse that. Yeah, recovery programs reverse urban blight, but go read Chain of Title about the foreclosure crisis or read up on the liquidation of Detroit, or what Obama did to Puerto Rico.

We used to do a lot of wonderful investment and make strong sensible policy, but the last time we did that was probably the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

[Simon_Jester]

Clinton and Obama both tried to compromise with the Republican Party in hopes of actually getting anything done. Clinton got things done as a result, though many of them turned out to be a mixed bag. Obama got nothing done as a result, because the Republicans came right out and said point blank that their only priority was to defeat everything he did regardless of whether he tried to compromise with them or not.

Except most of that is the result of pre-Powel memo/neoliberal decisions and us whistling past the graveyard as we coast on it. For the past 40 years the decision has been to grind the seedcorn rather than organize things such for the kind of shared prosperity you say it brought.

I mean yeah, unions see to a higher standard of living and smaller wage gap. But the worst union defeats came at the hands of liberal democrats. You can talk about Reagan and the air traffic controllers all you want, but it was Paul Volcker and the Clintons who did the lions share of the damage, and Obama burned down every chance he had to reverse that. Yeah, recovery programs reverse urban blight, but go read Chain of Title about the foreclosure crisis or read up on the liquidation of Detroit, or what Obama did to Puerto Rico.

We used to do a lot of wonderful investment and make strong sensible policy, but the last time we did that was probably the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

That draws a pretty interesting line in the sand in history. Because "American policy went bad starting in 1970" suggests that the last waves of good policy came from one of two places.

One, the Great Society under Johnson. Which modern liberalism has been defending and modern conservatism has been attacking.

Or two, the Nixon era. And Nixon was part of the last wave of Republicans to be characteristically liberal on domestic policy, before the Goldwater faction took control of the party. And, again, a lot of the changes Nixon made to US domestic policy are now characteristically liberal positions. This includes the EPA, it includes his health care plan, and so on.

By contrast... Today's Democrats are a flawed and compromised party but they at least have a constituent base that would support things like that. Today's Republicans consist of a pro-sane-government rump party that's stuck riding the tiger of Tea Party nativism and anarcho-capitalism. So if you want back the kind of federal government that did good work back in the '60s (at least at home), you're a lot more likely to get that out of today's Democrats than today's Republicans.

The reality is, the Republicans Southern Strategy of 1968-80 worked... and it worked far too well. To the point where forty years later, they can't put the genie back in the bottle, and to where the genie is arguably in charge now anyway.

[Q99]

Clinton and Obama both tried to compromise with the Republican Party in hopes of actually getting anything done. Clinton got things done as a result, though many of them turned out to be a mixed bag. Obama got nothing done as a result, because the Republicans came right out and said point blank that their only priority was to defeat everything he did regardless of whether he tried to compromise with them or not.

Well, he *did* manage both healthcare and the stimulus. And heck, 'preventing Republicans from meddling with the recovery,' was a feat in and of itself. Not many presidents can claim to have an economy that resembles a straight rising line.