The Future of the GOP

[wease]

We are really equating edgelord posts on internet with attempted murder. That is happening.

B was right. We need a 30 day time out here.

You’re the one that keeps insisting Vance’s point was that our society needs to forgive and give people a second chance. I’m not equating anything. I’m just asking why forgiveness and second chances are only options for MAGA.

[BurtReynolds]

You are trying to say that because tweets can be forgiven by the right, then murder of right wingers must also be forgiven by the right, or else they are being hypocrites, which might be the single most idiotic thing I've read on RM today. And that includes dime's posts!

[Bi_3]

We are really equating edgelord posts on internet with attempted murder. That is happening.

B was right. We need a 30 day time out here.

You’re the one that keeps insisting Vance’s point was that our society needs to forgive and give people a second chance. I’m not equating anything. I’m just asking why forgiveness and second chances are only options for MAGA.

You are doing the same peeps tried to, you are clouding the actual issue by inserting identity groups into it and then discussing the group instead of the individual in question and their specific actions. Redemption for bad words on the internet should be a possibility for everyone and no one, including the tweet has said otherwise. That was kinda the whole point of the tweet actually

[BurtReynolds]

No? Why?

Seems weird that we don't know much of anything about a presidential assassin in an age where personal info is so plentiful.

[epilogue]

No? Why?

Seems weird that we don't know much of anything about a presidential assassin in an age where personal info is so plentiful.

Does it? Or is your conspiracy brain doing too much work again?

[BurtReynolds]

No? Why?

Seems weird that we don't know much of anything about a presidential assassin in an age where personal info is so plentiful.

Does it? Or is your conspiracy brain doing too much work again?

Yes, I believe it does seem weird. That's why I said it. I can do this with you all day.

[epilogue]

No? Why?

Seems weird that we don't know much of anything about a presidential assassin in an age where personal info is so plentiful.

Does it? Or is your conspiracy brain doing too much work again?

Yes, I believe it does seem weird. That's why I said it. I can do this with you all day.

Do what?

[BurtReynolds]

It's remarkable how obvious it is in retrospect to see that Republicans were always just controlled opposition, always more than willing to allow liberals to set the frame, until about now.

Disagree on that. I think the red team was trying to follow public sentiment and in this specific case I think that the public was convinced and the red team ceded that "words are literal violence" to the left about a decade and a half ago, but as the left's behavior signaled that words it didn't like were in fact worse than actual literal violence being committed in the streets and terms like *phobe and *ist became weapons used to hurt people, the pendulum swung the other way. I worry it's swung too far though as Musk's behavior seems unprofessional and out of control. He needs to tone it down before federal courts go in and reverse DOGE's actions or all he did was burn his good will to the ground.

I mean, you're doing it here, too, in the last sentence. Good will of who? They were always worried about opposing some ghost called "the good will", which is why their history is a steady chain of slow losses, as though they were merely progressives going the speed limit (which most of them were).

Turns out, most of those worries are phantasms. Lots of people are supportive of just straight refusing this shit.

[epilogue]

HE SAID DISAGREE ON THAT

[wease]

No? Why?

Seems weird that we don't know much of anything about a presidential assassin in an age where personal info is so plentiful.

He wasn’t a presidential assassin.

[BurtReynolds]

Not for lack of trying.

[wease]

He didn’t try to kill a president

[BurtReynolds]

Please don't do this. It's Friday and it's been a long week.

[epilogue]

There are so many realities.

Only theirs means anything.

[Higgs]

It's remarkable how obvious it is in retrospect to see that Republicans were always just controlled opposition, always more than willing to allow liberals to set the frame, until about now.

Disagree on that. I think the red team was trying to follow public sentiment and in this specific case I think that the public was convinced and the red team ceded that "words are literal violence" to the left about a decade and a half ago, but as the left's behavior signaled that words it didn't like were in fact worse than actual literal violence being committed in the streets and terms like *phobe and *ist became weapons used to hurt people, the pendulum swung the other way. I worry it's swung too far though as Musk's behavior seems unprofessional and out of control. He needs to tone it down before federal courts go in and reverse DOGE's actions or all he did was burn his good will to the ground.

I mean, you're doing it here, too, in the last sentence. Good will of who? They were always worried about opposing some ghost called "the good will", which is why their history is a steady chain of slow losses, as though they were merely progressives going the speed limit (which most of them were).

Turns out, most of those worries are phantasms. Lots of people are supportive of just straight refusing this shit.

I would think "flippant comments" and "wrong viewpoints" were far far more relevant and "sticky" when they come from our elected leaders and lifelong politicians. Surely these people, who are literally voted for to run the country based on what they espouse, should be held to far higher standards than most anyone else.

But I guess all I have to do is look at Trump to see that simply isn't the case anymore.

Its very sad really. Perhaps I need to stop with my "past norms" and move onto the new situation, as shitty as I believe it to be. Say whatever you want, so long as it gets you votes. You can always walk it back (if you feel you need to). Ethical behaviour (and by this I mean simply treating people reasonably and fairly within the existing laws) is a thing of the past.

Bigly sad.

[Bi_3]

It's remarkable how obvious it is in retrospect to see that Republicans were always just controlled opposition, always more than willing to allow liberals to set the frame, until about now.

<snip>

Disagree on that. I think the red team was trying to follow public sentiment and in this specific case I think that the public was convinced and the red team ceded that "words are literal violence" to the left about a decade and a half ago, but as the left's behavior signaled that words it didn't like were in fact worse than actual literal violence being committed in the streets and terms like *phobe and *ist became weapons used to hurt people, the pendulum swung the other way. I worry it's swung too far though as Musk's behavior seems unprofessional and out of control. He needs to tone it down before federal courts go in and reverse DOGE's actions or all he did was burn his good will to the ground.

I mean, you're doing it here, too, in the last sentence. Good will of who? They were always worried about opposing some ghost called "the good will", which is why their history is a steady chain of slow losses, as though they were merely progressives going the speed limit (which most of them were).

Turns out, most of those worries are phantasms. Lots of people are supportive of just straight refusing this shit.

Elon is relying on Trump supporting him to get any of this done, so firstly it's the Don's good will. If Elon embarrasses him, Trump will force Elon out. But Elon's wealth comes from consumer products, now that he has alienated half the country with his reckless approach to cost-cutting should he piss off Trump he will lose the other half and his brands will become toxic. So it's a bit unique in this case as it's the good will of the president and consumers vs the media and entrenched bureaucrats in the past.

I also believe it's way too soon to judge the public's reaction here. The changes haven't been felt outside of fed employee and contractor circles yet, but the larger targets are coming in the next 30 days and these will have reach far beyond the niche elements Elon has targeted so far.

[Bi_3]

I would think "flippant comments" and "wrong viewpoints" were far far more relevant and "sticky" when they come from our elected leaders and lifelong politicians. Surely these people, who are literally voted for to run the country based on what they espouse, should be held to far higher standards than most anyone else.

But I guess all I have to do is look at Trump to see that simply isn't the case anymore.

Its very sad really. Perhaps I need to stop with my "past norms" and move onto the new situation, as shitty as I believe it to be. Say whatever you want, so long as it gets you votes. You can always walk it back (if you feel you need to). Ethical behaviour (and by this I mean simply treating people reasonably and fairly within the existing laws) is a thing of the past.

Bigly sad.

The shift is not in whether or not this type of language is 'good', the shift is in whether or not this type of language is grounds for expulsion from your ability to provide for your family and more broadly from society, and how much leverage society grants to those who seek to weaponize it. Do we still want people to live in fear of journalists digging through their digital footprints looking for reasons to brand them with a scarlet "R"?

The tricky part is to step back from this specific instance and look at what this type of social enforcement looks like at scale. Every single one of us now has a long and permanent history of our thoughts spanning decades, reflecting our contemporaneous perspectives as we move through life. Whether it's a signature on a petition, attendance at a protest, drunk picture at a party, or writing online. We all have that history now. And in our current society we view the past with the lens of presentism, which means we don't see the past as the people living at the time did, we see at as we live today. For something like the global slave trade it's obvious, but topics like gay marriage it's less so. President Obama opposed gay marriage when he first ran. Does that make him a hateful bigot? No, because the context of that position at the time matters. Let's say a fundamentalist Muslim was ask their opinion on gay marriage and they sad it's a crime against god as their religion dictates. Does that make him a hateful bigot? Maybe, maybe not. The context of that position at the time matters. Taking it one step further to preferred pronouns. The very idea that a person's pronouns can change is still very new to the majority of the population and a person using the wrong pronouns is pretty common. Does that make him a hateful bigot? Does that mean they should lose their livelihood, sending their family to ruins because now we see this as hate despite this person having lived potentially decades upon decades without it ever coming up as something to think about? What about even trickier things like singing explicit lyrics in popular songs? Eating meat? What if we fall into actual Christian nationalism? Should everyone who ever typed 'goddamn it' be fired and trotted out before cameras and forced to apologize? Who gets to decide what past words and opinions are and are not forgiven?

Society is so dynamic that it's almost impossible to know what behaviors are universally acceptable today and even more impossible to know how the things we consider perfectly acceptable behaviors now will be viewed in the future, so we are left will an important question: Is the default position for past words forgiveness or condemnation? That is the essence of what Vance asked, but it's bigger. Why would anyone ever say anything if those words could be used to destroy their families in the future? And when people like Congressman Khanna come out and demand an apology from that Doge guy, that is the question they are answering.

[E.H. Ruddock]

This is how our SecDef dresses for work.

[Higgs]

I would think "flippant comments" and "wrong viewpoints" were far far more relevant and "sticky" when they come from our elected leaders and lifelong politicians. Surely these people, who are literally voted for to run the country based on what they espouse, should be held to far higher standards than most anyone else.

But I guess all I have to do is look at Trump to see that simply isn't the case anymore.

Its very sad really. Perhaps I need to stop with my "past norms" and move onto the new situation, as shitty as I believe it to be. Say whatever you want, so long as it gets you votes. You can always walk it back (if you feel you need to). Ethical behaviour (and by this I mean simply treating people reasonably and fairly within the existing laws) is a thing of the past.

Bigly sad.

The shift is not in whether or not this type of language is 'good', the shift is in whether or not this type of language is grounds for expulsion from your ability to provide for your family and more broadly from society, and how much leverage society grants to those who seek to weaponize it. Do we still want people to live in fear of journalists digging through their digital footprints looking for reasons to brand them with a scarlet "R"?

The tricky part is to step back from this specific instance and look at what this type of social enforcement looks like at scale. Every single one of us now has a long and permanent history of our thoughts spanning decades, reflecting our contemporaneous perspectives as we move through life. Whether it's a signature on a petition, attendance at a protest, drunk picture at a party, or writing online. We all have that history now. And in our current society we view the past with the lens of presentism, which means we don't see the past as the people living at the time did, we see at as we live today. For something like the global slave trade it's obvious, but topics like gay marriage it's less so. President Obama opposed gay marriage when he first ran. Does that make him a hateful bigot? No, because the context of that position at the time matters. Let's say a fundamentalist Muslim was ask their opinion on gay marriage and they sad it's a crime against god as their religion dictates. Does that make him a hateful bigot? Maybe, maybe not. The context of that position at the time matters. Taking it one step further to preferred pronouns. The very idea that a person's pronouns can change is still very new to the majority of the population and a person using the wrong pronouns is pretty common. Does that make him a hateful bigot? Does that mean they should lose their livelihood, sending their family to ruins because now we see this as hate despite this person having lived potentially decades upon decades without it ever coming up as something to think about? What about even trickier things like singing explicit lyrics in popular songs? Eating meat? What if we fall into actual Christian nationalism? Should everyone who ever typed 'goddamn it' be fired and trotted out before cameras and forced to apologize? Who gets to decide what past words and opinions are and are not forgiven?

Society is so dynamic that it's almost impossible to know what behaviors are universally acceptable today and even more impossible to know how the things we consider perfectly acceptable behaviors now will be viewed in the future, so we are left will an important question: Is the default position for past words forgiveness or condemnation? That is the essence of what Vance asked, but it's bigger. Why would anyone ever say anything if those words could be used to destroy their families in the future? And when people like Congressman Khanna come out and demand an apology from that Doge guy, that is the question they are answering.

I think that words are just words and anything needs to be viewed in context. That hasn't changed regardless of society changing over time. My point about politician's however stands as I believe they should be held to a higher standard. I don't need apologies from them for saying things I disagree with or may find repulsive, but I do need them to either back up their words or, alternatively, change opinions, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in my opinion - I'm 53 these days and still growing and changing opinions on lots of stuff, I afford others that ability also.

I actually think demanding apologies is kinda dumb, and oh so Democrat. I however have no issue with throwing people's past comments at them to see what they come back with. Either own it or roll it back.

But yeah, politician's who choose to live their lives under that microscope have a higher standard to reach. The DOGE dude, not so much, but I see no issue with bringing up his past comments if they are relevant. How he handles it from there is up to him.

[Bi_3]

Giving this speech with the M$FT CEO sitting there is *chef's kiss*