paraphrand

I was taught by various sources that the reason there is some truth to the idea that democrats and republicans are the same is that they are both participating in perpetuating and spreading neoliberalism. That’s the point of view I have. Do you disagree with that?

I’m not trying to redefine anything, I’m expressing a point of view. From what I can tell, republican/democrat and neoliberal are not mutually exclusive terms.

What the hell? Democrats and Republicans are neoliberals. They both participate in neoliberalism as it has been since, like, the 1970s/1980s. When everything started being dismantled.

Neoliberalism is an economic and political theory advocating for free-market capitalism with minimal government intervention, emphasizing privatization, deregulation, and free trade.

So, NAFTA, deregulating all sorts of industries, a lack of regulation on the tech industry, dismantling or not supporting unions, etc.

This tariff stuff does not change anything, imo.

Are you guys all neoliberalism supporters or something?

Neoliberalism is maintained with the two party system we have. And the two sides participate in the ratchet effect.

This is why both sides are going crazy over Zohran.

It feels like you are just using labels a bit wrong. I’m not arguing against your point, just your choice of labels. All these downvotes without proper explanation to help me understand is really lame.

My point was that they are all neoliberals.

Edit: What the hell? Democrats and Republicans are neoliberals. They both participate in neoliberalism as it has been since, like, the 1970s/1980s. When everything started being dismantled.

Neoliberalism is an economic and political theory advocating for free-market capitalism with minimal government intervention, emphasizing privatization, deregulation, and free trade.

This tariff stuff does not change anything, imo.

Are you guys all neoliberalism supporters or something?

I’m worried it will turn into political violence. 😔

“Republicans and neoliberals” is redunant.

I’m now sick of all the slammed comments.

Sounds like more of that stochastic terrorism to me.

Keep pumping billions into AI. I’m sure it’ll fix the numbers.

What I heard of it all sounded like projection.

So you’re saying social media isn’t a cesspool? That’s what these quotes are highlighting.

You don’t need to argue with my comment, a comment that quotes the article like that. It’s not suggesting this was a “both sides” situation, and that Kirk had upsides. It’s pointing out polarization, and lack of decorum, lack of sensitivity, a pressure to race to post, gross incentives for profit and many other toxic properties of social media.

Kirk was a shithead. Don’t get me wrong. But, all your reply is is restating facts about Kirk and the right wings tactics and not discussion about the topic of the article.

I specifically quoted these in hope of replies that were not just statements that reflect one side of the toxic discourse. Even if they are correct and factual about Kirk and the corrosive rhetoric he and his organization peddle.

The article is about extreme polarization. And polarization means there is no nuance. Nuance would be following the facts, not making up ones own lies about the radical left.

The article is about talking past each other instead of with each other. The article is about people just posting their views instead of engaging with others in a nuanced way.

“Lack of Nuance” here is talked about broadly as a property of social media platforms. Not as a property of Kirk.

But Hemmer added, the choice of others to reshare [graphic content] is driven by the fact that social media “rewards this kind of extreme content.” Many who re-shared the images are making money and gaining followers off of it, she notes. “That’s just part of the incentive structure of media today,” she said.

…Nuance fails in online platforms designed to boost and sustain engagement and promote content likely to provoke a reaction from users. Already, social media pundits on the left are questioning whether the texts and interviews in the charging documents are real. Meanwhile, those on the right are agitating to declare left wing activists as terrorists.

These teachers probally know better than the rest of us just how pervasive his content and similar content is.

I watched this yesterday, and I agree that it was a very good speech.

Ah, I see. Thanks for coming back and clarifying.

I was referencing Turning Point USA actually. In retrospect, it didn’t make much sense.

My brain conflated Turning Point USA and Talking Points Memo.

Trump style? Can you clarify?

Talking Points, you say?

Yes, they have successfully censored the news. No one will find out.

There are plenty of good reasons to aggressively moderate a shit hole like Reddit. I wouldn’t read into it in this case.

Civil War II

Stop with the tech bro shit. We are not updating the last war.

If he dies, I bet they use that to tell everyone to shut up each time it comes up. “The man’s dead! Have some respect! There’s no point in digging deeper now!”