- Joined
- Aug 30, 2019
- Messages
- 9,413
- Reaction score
- 5,877
- Location
- Oceania, 1984
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Conservatives by definition want to maintain the status quo,
Absolute proof, in writing, that the whole thing is manufactured bullshit.The right-wing will never stop generating culture war issues, because without it, there is literally nothing in the movement except tax cuts for the wealthy. Nothing. The right can't win elections without them.
If every single culture war issue were addressed today, the right-wing would generate new ones the next day. It would not stop with abortion bans, LGBTQ discrimination, or removing affirmative action. Every single right-winger knows this.
Progressives even apply conservatism to science. Whereas anyone with half a brain understands that the body of scientific knowledge is constantly changing, progressives mouth vapid statements such as "the science is settled", when it comes to their pet issues.
The right-wing will never stop generating culture war issues, because without it, there is literally nothing in the movement except tax cuts for the wealthy. Nothing. The right can't win elections without them.
If every single culture war issue were addressed today, the right-wing would generate new ones the next day. It would not stop with abortion bans, LGBTQ discrimination, or removing affirmative action. Every single right-winger knows this.
Haha. "Settled science" just means the overwhelming majority of the experts
working in that field agree to it- nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry conservatives. Evolutionary biology and climate change science are settled science, no matter how much you try to gaslight.
Science isn't subject to majoritarianism.
Aren't progressives the same group who claim women can have penises and men can give birth?
It's funny, I was considering doing a thread discussing this more generally - that what political interests would like to do is create a 'brand' that gets people loyal to it, so that they support what it supports without asking questions about the policies. So a word like 'conservative' works for that, and all people need be told with the conditioning they've received is 'liberals are for this' for them to be violently against it.
Then you can take an issue like 'inheritance tax' and just indicate that being against it is the conservative position and people will be against it, rather than looking at the merits. And so they spend a HUGE amount to build that 'brand' power, just as Pepsi and Coke do but more more intensely. Coke and Pepsi don't have a top national cable channel dedicated to indoctrinating people to drink their beverage 24x7.
Not 'conservatives' - the political consulting industry who are mercenaries for the special interests who use the brand 'conservative'. Being surprised they're good at propaganda is like being surprised Coke is good at making their soft drink look enjoyable to drink. They're a weapon to create political loyalty. They're about as concerned with the harm caused as Coke is with diabetes.One thing you have to hand to conservatives: they are absolute experts at public messaging, propaganda, and demagoguery. They know how to play on people's paranoias, ignorance, and misunderstandings, using slogans, and jingoism to advance the interests of their sponsors.
In contrast, liberals suck at messaging. "Defund the police"? Bernie continuing to call himself "socialist"? Seriously? I know the sentiment behind those things, but man the messaging sucks. Bernie needs to sit behind a pickup truck with a shotgun in hand and tell people he wants to protect the every day American against big corporations, because that's really what he wants. But instead he keeps calling himself "socialist" and then expects to get stuff done. Ridiculous. Of course the Koch brothers are going to win that war.
Not 'conservatives' - the political consulting industry who are mercenaries for the special interests who use the brand 'conservative'. Being surprised they're good at propaganda is like being surprised Coke is good at making their soft drink look enjoyable to drink. They're a weapon to create political loyalty. They're about as concerned with the harm caused as Coke is with diabetes.
I think Bernie could have done better on that, but that comment wasn't quite fair. Bernie says he's not a "socialist", but a "Democratic Socialist"; his doing that did more to help people discuss the topic instead of just demonize it than probably anyone in American history; and he got a more positive reaction from young people. More generally, Democrats are almost like comparing the local lemonade stand to Coca-Cola.
Or, perhaps, let's compare the 'messaging' of water and Coke.
Water: essentially free, enjoyable, very healthy. But where's the marketing? Instead Coke has thousands of displays of their logo, and carefully designed commercials that get people to think, instead of free, healthy water, I'll spend money on an unhealthy Coke. How many McDonalds meals are ordered with a free water and how many with a Coke product?
I added a bit more to that post if you can re-read it. Yes, I already agreed Bernie could have done better, but I make the criticism more accurate.Bernie really expects Billy Joe Bob in Tennessee to know the difference between "socialist" and "democratic socialist"? Come on. Bernie really needs to hire a better PR firm.
Not really. Yes, the left cares about issues in the 'culture wars' sometimes, things like 'the n-word is wrong to use'; but it's the right-wing propaganda industry who USES the issues as a 'culture war' they create for manipulating people and building political loyalties to corrupt interests.Uh, HELLO? "Both sides" love the culture wars. 'Liberals and progressives' are the ones who start most of them (often for good reasons).
The majority of people here are bickering about culture war issues. And they try to plow progressive principles under.
Right Wing is nothing but "Confederate Segregationist".... It has never been anything more than that.
The Wealthy have used LOBBYIST GROUPING THEY CALL "Modern Day Republican Political Party", which is the: Anti-Tax, Anti-Regulation, Anti- Democracy, Anti-Racial Equality, Anti-Gender Equality and Anti-Preamble of The Constitution.
The creation of Political Party was created and crafted by "The Wealthy" to DIVIDE the wealthy from the working class, and people are blind to that fact, because of the Racism that the wealthy embraced based on the History of Slavery that exist even before America gained its Independence.
The Lobbyist Groups known as Political Party grew from the Ideology of Pro Slavery and Anti Slavery mentality and the mentality to seperate the Poor White from The Well to Do Whites, and because the poor whites were uneducated they were easily used by the wealthy to back the agenda of the wealthy. They suckered in the working poor by a claim of Fiscal Conservatism, which basically only wanted Tax Money to be spent on what the Wealthy Wanted!!! The Wealthy controlled the jobs, and if Poor whites did not vote the way the wealthy wanted, they could kiss their jobs good bye.
Today, they groups them together under the word "gerrymandering' and these people submit to it even still, after 100's of years and still can't and don't think deep enough to know it, because they have been made slaves to Racism.
quote
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Rating
Trueend quote
Not really. Yes, the left cares about issues in the 'culture wars' sometimes, things like 'the n-word is wrong to use'; but it's the right-wing propaganda industry who USES the issues as a 'culture war' they create for manipulating people and building political loyalties to corrupt interests.
The left does some of that, but not nearly in the 'industrial strength propaganda' manner the right does. The left might march for 'BLM' because they care about the issue; it's the right that pounds thousands of messages about 'CRT' funded by corrupt interests. There's a difference.
I don't really disagree. But see #20 and note the huge differences between corporate Democrats (Senator Pelosi, for example) and actually progressive Democrats (mostly, if not all, NOT in the Senate). I saw this the other day, and it's making a LOT more sense:
The Congressional Progressive Caucus is composed of nearly 100 progressive members -- 97 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and one U.S. Senator.
And who is that ONE supposedly progressive US senator? I'm going to guess that it's Bernie.
There's a big difference between the non-progressive Democrats and the progressive Democrats, but a much, much bigger difference between all the Democrats and the Republicans. There are progressives in the Senate, but the Congressional Progressive Caucus is a House Caucus; Bernie co-created it when he was in the House, so ya, he's remained a member as a Senator.
Because they're still - inexplicably - one of two major political forces, and able to block most government actions. They have a lot of power and need to be dealt with.Why do you even bother with Republicans? Let the GOP go. Let it die in pieces.
Because they're still - inexplicably - one of two major political forces, and able to block most government actions. They have a lot of power and need to be dealt with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?