| ▲ | dandellion 18 hours ago |
| >> It's inevitable… > Yes and no. Yes and yes. The right and the left don't even speak the same language. I'm not a native English speaker and half the time I don't even understand what the left are even saying. Examples: > regress into an id-dominated state of hyper-reality > what can be, unburdened by what has been What does that even mean? People keep calling the right stupid, but at least everybody can understand what they're talking about. |
|
| ▲ | 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | blharr 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >What does that even mean?
"id-dominated state" refers to the psychological "id" basically being primal. "A person who is dominated by their id might be narcissistic and impulsive" I don't blame you for not getting this part, but it is a common psychological theory. >What can be unburdened by what has been Well, yea. If you take a fragment of a sentence out, it is going to be confusing. The full quote is on the lines of "My mother raised me to see what could be, unburdened by what has been" i.e. to look at accomplishing at the highest possibilities without the baggage of traditional limitations Reading it now and in context, its a normal impactful thought. But the right took a cut off the middle... like if I quoted you and said "a native English speaker and half the time" a missing phrase will obviously make it confusing |
| |
| ▲ | dandellion 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Even with the context, rephrasing it like this: > i.e. to look at accomplishing at the highest possibilities without the baggage of traditional limitations Is much easier to understand. The other one I might have guessed correctly, but yours is quite clear to understand. |
|
|
| ▲ | jrflowers 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think one example of hyperreality(1) would be a person seeing a phrase that they don’t immediately understand and deciding “this is how ‘the left’, a real and cohesive/consistent group, talks” 1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality |
| |
| ▲ | llm_trw 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | athrun 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The real world is a complicated place. You want simple answers when reality is complicated and nuanced. The fact is that there are—and have always been—people for which these things are not the same. You might want to wish it away, but that doesn't change reality. | | |
| ▲ | llm_trw 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | >>I've just committed a hate crime and possibly called for genocide. >You might want to wish it away, but that doesn't change reality. My post was 4 sentences long and you skipped 2. Why even bother replying? |
| |
| ▲ | jrflowers 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | While “the left” in the US is incredibly nebulous, largely composed of groups and people that rarely agree on nearly anything at all, let alone a literary style, this recent article(1) about Bluesky has an eloquent description of “the right” when it comes to online spaces. > Liberals and the left do not need the right to be online in the way that the right needs liberals and the left. The nature of reactionary politics demands constant confrontations—literal reactions—to the left. People like Rufo would have a substantially harder time trying to influence opinions on a platform without liberals. “Triggering the libs” sounds like a joke, but it is often essential for segments of the right. The assumption that strangers on the internet are interested in or obligated to engage with “debate me bro”-style theatrics any time a person feels like summoning them to is very much a specific example of hyperreality that is particularly endemic amongst “the right” > I'm going to go ahead and stick my dick in the hornets nest You can put your dick somewhere else. It is not interesting here. 1 https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/11/twitt... | | |
| ▲ | llm_trw 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Liberals and the left do not need the right to be online in the way that the right needs liberals and the left This is quite ironic considering that the last 8 years 'Liberals on the left' have done nothing but react to whatever Trump was doing that day. >The assumption that strangers on the internet are interested in or obligated to engage with “debate me bro”-style theatrics any time a person feels like summoning them to is very much a specific example of hyperreality that is particularly endemic amongst “the right” If you don't want to have an online debate don't post in places that have comments. | | |
| ▲ | protocolture 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | >This is quite ironic considering that the last 8 years 'Liberals on the left' have done nothing but react to whatever Trump was doing that day. No thats literally his point? Trump doesn't provide good interesting politics. Trump makes liberals angry, thats the product. Most of his policy positions are there to generate liberals talking about how his policies are bullshit. If he was suddenly unable to engage with liberals he wouldnt be able to hold right wing interest at all. The one shot copmala had was to run the most crazy batshit circus of a campaign possible. Free Ponies, Killer clowns, whatever. Keep trump out of the news, and you would break the cycle. |
|
| |
| ▲ | magicalist 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Except this is yet another example of who's actually doing the navel gazing. I think it's clear your objection here isn't the navel gazing, so let's speak plainly. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | staplers 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| People keep calling the right stupid, but at least everybody can understand what they're talking about.
This isn't the enlightened take you think it is. Lack of education led us here. Fuming at intellectuals when they attempt to address complex issues reminds me of our evolutionary ancestors fuming at the creation of civilization. |
| |
| ▲ | dandellion 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not an enlightened take, it's a pretty basic observation. I've had the fortune of working with many people a lot smarter than me, and one thing all the smartest ones can do is explain complex topics to people outside their field in a way they can understand. Using intellectual language to address a non-intellectual audience like voters, or a forum with many non-native speakers, that they won't understand seems a dumb thing for an "intellectual" to do. It's not about intellect, enlightenment or education, it's about using language to communicate instead of using it for... something else, not sure what. | |
| ▲ | lordfrito 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Lack of education led us here. There are a lot of intelligent people that just happen to be "uneducated". Meanwhile I've met plenty of "educated" people that hold a wide variety of contradictory beliefs and lack the ability to critically think. "Not educated" is just another convenient (and lazy) strawman outgroup. Liberty for me but not for thee, etc. | |
| ▲ | lolinder 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Lack of education led us here. No. Belittling people for their lack of education led us here. People don't follow those who consistently treat them as barely-human tally marks that we (their betters) tolerate as long as they vote the right way. Eventually they get sick of being treated as less-than, and eventually someone comes along that makes those people feel important. There are only really two reasonable ways out of Trump's populism at this point: learn from him and recognize the importance of the less-educated, or reduce the franchise and prevent people from voting unless they pass a certain educational bar (which not is not actually an option for so many reasons). Any other approach will either take generations or is doomed to failure. |
|
