'Climate Change' and the coming 'Climate Lockdown'

[Cherico]

I don't think people are as forgiving as all that; they're going to want at least the worst offenders jailed for their crimes.

Most people would be satisified with just giving faiuchi 3 years or so for lying to congress and having the rest removed from power like I said this is very much the reasonable early phases of the sickness. So while there would be grumbling most would be satisified with a light touch that solves the problem.

Incorrect; the Left understands the Right better than the Right understand's the Left.

They do not share the same world view, so they don't reach the same conclusions the Right does, but that doesn't mean they are ignorant that many parts of the Right want permanent, lasting control over society and to never have to deal with anything to the Left of Reagan ever again.

We see it here all the time, and the Left is good enough at infiltration they have agents in far more Right-Wing spaces than vice-versa.

The Left is also good at using undercover agents pretending to be part of the Hard-Right to try to drive that part of the GOP to hinder actual sane policy making on some issues, and to turn normies/Independents away from the Right.

Or did you forget all the glowies and CI's found to have participated in Jan 6th and which keep getting found trying to create 'controlled opposition' groups on the Right?

Nah, the Right has much, much too high an image of itself, it's cleverness, and it's ability to actually understand the Dems in the way the Dems understand themselves and the center of the political spectrum.

The cope needs to end if the GOP wants to be effective.

The left is good at lying but its also really good at lying to itself most of all. So even if they get good intel it can be ignored due to their self delusions, and this capability is degrading in real time. Your looking at them at the absolute height of their power and legitimacy and spreading that out forever.

When in reality they have no where to go but down.

 

[Zachowon]

Incorrect; the Left understands the Right better than the Right understand's the Left.

They do not share the same world view, so they don't reach the same conclusions the Right does, but that doesn't mean they are ignorant that many parts of the Right want permanent, lasting control over society and to never have to deal with anything to the Left of Reagan ever again.

We see it here all the time, and the Left is good enough at infiltration they have agents in far more Right-Wing spaces than vice-versa.

The Left is also good at using undercover agents pretending to be part of the Hard-Right to try to drive that part of the GOP to hinder actual sane policy making on some issues, and to turn normies/Independents away from the Right.

Or did you forget all the glowies and CI's found to have participated in Jan 6th and which keep getting found trying to create 'controlled opposition' groups on the Right?

Nah, the Right has much, much too high an image of itself, it's cleverness, and it's ability to actually understand the Dems in the way the Dems understand themselves and the center of the political spectrum.

The cope needs to end if the GOP wants to be effective.

The dems don't understand themselves.
The right they think they know is not truly the right. But the establishment.

Thw right that is making headway are the ones that have stayed the same in terms of ideals, and have pushed against the left the hardest

 

[Bacle]

The left is good at lying but its also really good at lying to itself most of all. So even if they get good intel it can be ignored due to their self delusions, and this capability is degrading in real time. Your looking at them at the absolute height of their power and legitimacy and spreading that out forever.

When in reality they have no where to go but down.

This is just cope, my man.

CA may be a mess, but nationally the Dems have a better hold on creating 'controlled opposition' in the GOP than vic-versa, and have more control over the media and international press than the GOP.

The Dems also are very, very good at making lies into reality, and frankly the Dems understand the tactical value in lying about the GOP while also using controlled opposition to create 'grains of truth' in the critiques of the GOP.

As well, the Dems understand tech better than the GOP, and know how to use bots and fake engagement to keep the conversations they want going, and suppress the conversations the Right wants to have.

If it wasn't for the emerging Israel/Palestinian issue rift in the Dems, I wouldn't think there is much of a chance of the GOP doing anything to really hurt the Dems electorally and socially the way the Dems continue to hurt the GOP over things like Jan 6th and some evangelical stupidity.

The dems don't understand themselves.
The right they think they know is not truly the right. But the establishment.

Thw right that is making headway are the ones that have stayed the same in terms of ideals, and have pushed against the left the hardest

No, the Dems know themselves, they just lie about and pretend otherwise for PR reasons, and for indoctrination purposes.

They also have far more agents inside the Right than the Right has inside the Left.

The Right is only making headway because Justice's Thomas and Justice Alito have spines of steel, and Lindsey Graham wouldn't let Obama put Garland's nomination up before the 2016 election.

Pretty much everything else the Right has been seriously attempting has failed, if it didn't have to go through the current SCOTUS, and the GOP has very few actual success stories to attach to those ideals.

 

[Rocinante]

This is just cope, my man.

CA may be a mess, but nationally the Dems have a better hold on creating 'controlled opposition' in the GOP than vic-versa, and have more control over the media and international press than the GOP.

The Dems also are very, very good at making lies into reality, and frankly the Dems understand the tactical value in lying about the GOP while also using controlled opposition to create 'grains of truth' in the critiques of the GOP.

As well, the Dems understand tech better than the GOP, and know how to use bots and fake engagement to keep the conversations they want going, and suppress the conversations the Right wants to have.

If it wasn't for the emerging Israel/Palestinian issue rift in the Dems, I wouldn't think there is much of a chance of the GOP doing anything to really hurt the Dems electorally and socially the way the Dems continue to hurt the GOP over things like Jan 6th and some evangelical stupidity.

No, the Dems know themselves, they just lie about and pretend otherwise for PR reasons, and for indoctrination purposes.

They also have far more agents inside the Right than the Right has inside the Left.

The Right is only making headway because Justice's Thomas and Justice Alito have spines of steel, and Lindsey Graham wouldn't let Obama put Garland's nomination up before the 2016 election.

Pretty much everything else the Right has been seriously attempting has failed, if it didn't have to go through the current SCOTUS, and the GOP has very few actual success stories to attach to those ideals.

Jonathan Haidt did a study about this and wrote about it in "The Righteous Mind," and was able to demonstrate that the right understands the left far better than the left understands the right.

I haven't read the book in a few years, so I forget the details, but I remember reading and posting about it.

 

[Zachowon]

This is just cope, my man.

CA may be a mess, but nationally the Dems have a better hold on creating 'controlled opposition' in the GOP than vic-versa, and have more control over the media and international press than the GOP.

The Dems also are very, very good at making lies into reality, and frankly the Dems understand the tactical value in lying about the GOP while also using controlled opposition to create 'grains of truth' in the critiques of the GOP.

As well, the Dems understand tech better than the GOP, and know how to use bots and fake engagement to keep the conversations they want going, and suppress the conversations the Right wants to have.

If it wasn't for the emerging Israel/Palestinian issue rift in the Dems, I wouldn't think there is much of a chance of the GOP doing anything to really hurt the Dems electorally and socially the way the Dems continue to hurt the GOP over things like Jan 6th and some evangelical stupidity.

No, the Dems know themselves, they just lie about and pretend otherwise for PR reasons, and for indoctrination purposes.

They also have far more agents inside the Right than the Right has inside the Left.

The Right is only making headway because Justice's Thomas and Justice Alito have spines of steel, and Lindsey Graham wouldn't let Obama put Garland's nomination up before the 2016 election.

Pretty much everything else the Right has been seriously attempting has failed, if it didn't have to go through the current SCOTUS, and the GOP has very few actual success stories to attach to those ideals.

*Looks at all the stuff states have done*
Seems like the right is doing exactly what they wanted

 

[Agent23]

Do they?
My personal impression of the political OpFor is that they cannot really see or hear us at all, let alone understand what we believe or want. They live too much in their own world, and will accuse us of things that are projections of their own ideology.

So no, they don't know that you want to eliminate them permanently - whatever you mean by that. They imagine that you want to flat-out genocide them, based on how they feel towards anyone other than themselves. Remember, they tend to be somewhat... infantile in their thinking.

Given the amount and and vileness of leftoid propaganda I am pretty sure that the majority of their hard support base thinks that we will unperson them and send them to work camps.
The more pathetic and incompetent and lazy their operatives are the more they will try and safeguard the people that put slop on their through by giving them bullshit jobs via stuff like affirmative action and other scummy regulations, or various forms of socialist handouts.

And since a lot of this money is given to corpos as grants, or loans, or revenue from the consumerist bioleninist clientele of the left major corpos benefit from the slop, too.

Y'all need to stop thinking of this shit as a purely ideological discussion and think of it in the frame of Italian elite theory and the likes of de Juvenal and le Bon.

The left is the most powerful outgrowth of stsrism and managerialism because leftoids are disgusting, sycophantic, power hungry roaches that have a very strong predisposition towards totalitarianism and that has been scientifically proven.

The right fucks up and creates big government, too, but ultimately you need to see that the left is the primary force behind the growth of the parasitic bureaucratic class of which it is either a part outright or of which it wishes to be a part.

In this situation, you must understand that the left sees anything that is not it's obedient, permanent clientele as a rival castle that needs to be torn down in their quest for power.

 

[Bacle]

Jonathan Haidt did a study about this and wrote about it in "The Righteous Mind," and was able to demonstrate that the right understands the left far better than the left understands the right.

I haven't read the book in a few years, so I forget the details, but I remember reading and posting about it.

The problem is he was concerned with 'Righteousness', not effectiveness, and it is not 'Righteousness' that determines political effectiveness.

The Right may understand how to be 'Righteous' compared to the Left, that is not the same as understanding the Left's base and actual internal ideologies, nor understanding how much the Left acts is not about understanding the Right, but about pre-empting the Right based on their understanding of the Right's ethos/base.

*Looks at all the stuff states have done*
Seems like the right is doing exactly what they wanted

The Left plays the Right like a fiddle a lot of the time, and yet the Right like's to think itself so fucking clever.

 

[Zachowon]

The problem is he was concerned with 'Righteousness', not effectiveness, and it is not 'Righteousness' that determines political effectiveness.

The Right may understand how to be 'Righteous' compared to the Left, that is not the same as understanding the Left's base and actual internal ideologies, nor understanding how much the Left acts is not about understanding the Right, but about pre-empting the Right based on their understanding of the Right's ethos/base.

The Left plays the Right like a fiddle a lot of the time, and yet the Right like's to think itself so fucking clever.

The left doesn't play the right like a fiddle.
It plays the stupid right for a fiddle.
You just don't want to admit the left is not as smart as you say

 

[The Whispering Monk]

The left doesn't play the right like a fiddle.
It plays the stupid right for a fiddle.
You just don't want to admit the left is not as smart as you say

I don't think you or anyone else will convince @Bacle of this simply b/c that's what he's swallowed.
I'm also certain that @Bacle has lots of reasons for his decision, but I think he's invested too much into that belief to disown it without something smashing him in the face (figuratively speaking of course).

 

[Rocinante]

The problem is he was concerned with 'Righteousness', not effectiveness, and it is not 'Righteousness' that determines political effectiveness.

The Right may understand how to be 'Righteous' compared to the Left, that is not the same as understanding the Left's base and actual internal ideologies, nor understanding how much the Left acts is not about understanding the Right, but about pre-empting the Right based on their understanding of the Right's ethos/base.

The Left plays the Right like a fiddle a lot of the time, and yet the Right like's to think itself so fucking clever.

So the sub title of his book is "why good people are divided by politics and religion," and he's not claiming that the right is more righteous, he's exploring human morality.

In his studies he found that right wingers were more often able to explain the views and motivations behind left wing thought, while left wingers were much less able to do that about right wing positions.

They were more likely to jump to false assumptions about what/why the right believes what they do.

I looked up a summary of what he was claiming because I was having trouble remembering. It's centered around the moral foundations he lays out in his work.

Conservatives recognize the moral foundations of liberals: Haidt’s research shows that both conservatives and liberals agree on the importance of Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity as moral values. However, conservatives also recognize the moral foundations of Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation, which are often rejected by liberals. This broader understanding of moral foundations allows conservatives to better comprehend the perspectives of liberals.

Liberals tend to reject conservative moral foundations: On the other hand, liberals tend to reject the moral foundations of Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation, which are essential to conservative moral reasoning. This limited understanding of moral foundations can lead to a lack of empathy and understanding of conservative perspectives.

Conservatives are more open to understanding liberals: Haidt’s research suggests that conservatives are more open to understanding liberal perspectives because they recognize the moral foundations that liberals share with them. This openness allows conservatives to engage with liberal ideas and perspectives more effectively.

Liberals are more likely to be “WEIRDer”: Haidt’s research also suggests that liberals tend to be more “WEIRDer” (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) than conservatives. This WEIRDness can lead to a lack of understanding of conservative perspectives, as liberals may be more influenced by their own cultural and social norms.

In summary, Jonathan Haidt’s research suggests that conservatives tend to understand liberals better because they recognize the moral foundations that both groups share, whereas liberals tend to reject the moral foundations that are essential to conservative moral reasoning. This limited understanding can lead to a lack of empathy and understanding of conservative perspectives.

I think he's pretty accurate with his assessment. Essentially, the left isn't as morally "complete," as in they put less interest in a lot of moral foundations that the right do, so they are unable to understand right wing positions.

My first example I can think of is abortion.

The left insists that the right wants to control women and their bodies. The right insists that it's to save babies lives.

The left can't comprehend that this is the right's position, so they think it's a lie, and look at it from their own moral framework, and decide that they obviously just want to control women. But if you talk to any right winger, and being someone who is anti abortion, we can tell you till we're blue in the face that it's about saving babies.

Reverse that: a right winger probably will have better luck explaining why a liberal is pro abortion. They don't believe it's a baby yet, they believe in the autonomy of their own body, etc. Meanwhile they just don't believe that we think it's killing s baby.

 

[Zachowon]

I don't think you or anyone else will convince @Bacle of this simply b/c that's what he's swallowed.
I'm also certain that @Bacle has lots of reasons for his decision, but I think he's invested too much into that belief to disown it without something smashing him in the face (figuratively speaking of course).

I know but thr argument is there

 

[Bacle]

The left doesn't play the right like a fiddle.
It plays the stupid right for a fiddle.
You just don't want to admit the left is not as smart as you say

Some parts of the Left are morons, but not the leadership, not where it counts, where the plans against the Right are made.

Where as the inverse seems to be true on the Right; the some parts of the base is often smart, but the leadership are morons and there is a hardcore fringe who don't want any compromise on anything their hearts desire, who lie to the other parts of the base and try to pretend the Dems aren't rather perceptive to how their base operates and thinks.

I don't think you or anyone else will convince @Bacle of this simply b/c that's what he's swallowed.
I'm also certain that @Bacle has lots of reasons for his decision, but I think he's invested too much into that belief to disown it without something smashing him in the face (figuratively speaking of course).

No, I just actually have spent time around the smarter Dems, the ones really dangerous to the Right and who understand how to work the PR angles against the Right, and understand how much of the Right exists in echochambers where outside views are not welcome.

People here discount how smart and clever the Dems leadership has been in how they built their base, how informed them of how the GOP views them, how they control public education systems in most of the nation, and make the mistake of not understanding that the Dems, even part of the base, don't view hypocrisy as a vice, but as a weapon in politics that can let them win while holding the GOP to standards they themselves don't fulfill.

So the sub title of his book is "why good people are divided by politics and religion," and he's not claiming that the right is more righteous, he's exploring human morality.

In his studies he found that right wingers were more often able to explain the views and motivations behind left wing thought, while left wingers were much less able to do that about right wing positions.

They were more likely to jump to false assumptions about what/why the right believes what they do.

I looked up a summary of what he was claiming because I was having trouble remembering. It's centered around the moral foundations he lays out in his work.



I think he's pretty accurate with his assessment. Essentially, the left isn't as morally "complete," as in they put less interest in a lot of moral foundations that the right do, so they are unable to understand right wing positions.

My first example I can think of is abortion.

The left insists that the right wants to control women and their bodies. The right insists that it's to save babies lives.

The left can't comprehend that this is the right's position, so they think it's a lie, and look at it from their own moral framework, and decide that they obviously just want to control women. But if you talk to any right winger, and being someone who is anti abortion, we can tell you till we're blue in the face that it's about saving babies.

Reverse that: a right winger probably will have better luck explaining why a liberal is pro abortion. They don't believe it's a baby yet, they believe in the autonomy of their own body, etc. Meanwhile they just don't believe that we think it's killing s baby.

Ok, the problem here is he was operating on an 'understanding moral foundations/empathy' basis and trying to understand the divide in a way that wouldn't look odd outside a Lefty sociology dept, which is not what I meant and is why his analysis fails in this context.

I meant 'understanding' is more akin to...tactical knowledge of enemy weaknesses to exploit for political gain, because that is how the Dems mostly view 'understanding' the Right; as a weapon against the Right, not a means of coexistence.

I know but thr argument is there

The argument is there because frankly I think the Right has been overselling it's effectiveness, cleverness, and understanding of it's opponents for a while now.

Without a former NYC Dem in Trump, the GOP wouldn't have had any hope of catching up to the Dems in the political and cultural conflict, and Trump proved to not be so great at the follow-through or ego-checking.

If the GOP understood the Left as well as it claims, we wouldn't be in the present political circumstances.

 

[Agent23]

I don't think you or anyone else will convince @Bacle of this simply b/c that's what he's swallowed.
I'm also certain that @Bacle has lots of reasons for his decision, but I think he's invested too much into that belief to disown it without something smashing him in the face (figuratively speaking of course).

INB4 he calls all of you who waste your time with him nazis and accuses you of putting him in a virtual concentration camp and subjecting him to a verbal genocide by struggle sessioning him, cause we are all "literally Hitler and worse".



P.S. why yes I AM drunkposting, just enjoying my long Orthodox Easter weekend, HAPPY EASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!

Христос Возкресе, ok, that should be wished on the 5th, but since it is family holiday I will probably forget...

HAPPY EASTER WEEKEND AND GOD BLESS!!!!!!

 

[posh-goofiness]

INB4 he calls all of you who waste your time with him nazis and accuses you of putting him in a virtual concentration camp and subjecting him to a verbal genocide by struggle sessioning him, cause we are all "literally Hitler and worse".



P.S. why yes I AM drunkposting, just enjoying my long Orthodox Easter weekend, HAPPY EASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!

Христос Возкресе, ok, that should be wished on the 5th, but since it is family holiday I will probably forget...

HAPPY EASTER WEEKEND AND GOD BLESS!!!!!!

Getting drunk on easter

 

[Agent23]

Getting drunk on easter

Orthodox Easter will fall on Sunday, May 5th, 2024, according to the Julian calendar used by much of Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[mrttao]

So the sub title of his book is "why good people are divided by politics and religion," and he's not claiming that the right is more righteous, he's exploring human morality.

In his studies he found that right wingers were more often able to explain the views and motivations behind left wing thought, while left wingers were much less able to do that about right wing positions.

They were more likely to jump to false assumptions about what/why the right believes what they do.

I looked up a summary of what he was claiming because I was having trouble remembering. It's centered around the moral foundations he lays out in his work.

IIRC they basically went
> Are you leftist or right wing?
> Describe your opinions on X,Y,Z
> Now pretend you are the other side, and describe the opinions on the same subjects from their perspective

And basically, right wingers were spot on in pretending to be lefties.
While lefties were completely off from what right wingers describe as their opinions.

thus showing that left wingers are living in echo chambers full of propaganda and are completely clueless of what right wingers actually believe.

 

[mrttao]

Incorrect; the Left understands the Right better than the Right understand's the Left.

They do not share the same world view, so they don't reach the same conclusions the Right does, but that doesn't mean they are ignorant that many parts of the Right want permanent, lasting control over society and to never have to deal with anything to the Left of Reagan ever again.

We see it here all the time, and the Left is good enough at infiltration they have agents in far more Right-Wing spaces than vice-versa.

The Left is also good at using undercover agents pretending to be part of the Hard-Right to try to drive that part of the GOP to hinder actual sane policy making on some issues, and to turn normies/Independents away from the Right.

Or did you forget all the glowies and CI's found to have participated in Jan 6th and which keep getting found trying to create 'controlled opposition' groups on the Right?

Nah, the Right has much, much too high an image of itself, it's cleverness, and it's ability to actually understand the Dems in the way the Dems understand themselves and the center of the political spectrum.

The cope needs to end if the GOP wants to be effective.

> The CIA is better at infiltration than rando citizens
> The CIA is under leftist control
> Therefore leftists are all masters of infiltration and right wingers are bad at it

this... is a very weird position to take.
you do realize that 99.9999% of lefties are not in the CIA?

The USSR's KGB and the CCP's secret police and hitler's secret police were all much better at infiltration than rando citizens.
This is one of the problems with authoritarianism. When a literal spy agency is acting against the populace.

 

[Zachowon]

These groups have large amount of leftists because the idea om the right of let them have jt qe are being ostracized.
Or at least that is what is claimed.
Yet, it isn't the case and the right just armt vocal at work about thier beliefs.

Because letting your enemies do the talking works out better for you in the end

 

[Simonbob]

Dems have a better hold on creating 'controlled opposition' in the GOP than vic-versa, and have more control over the media and international press than the GOP.

I think you're missing something.

The vast majority of the GOP aren't Right. They're the controlled opposition. The Right has very, very little real power.

There's a lot of Right, but almost all of them are at the bottom. Most political groups who do stuff the Right like, only go a small way, and then usually undo it.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

I think you're missing something.

The vast majority of the GOP aren't Right. They're the controlled opposition. The Right has very, very little real power.

There's a lot of Right, but almost all of them are at the bottom. Most political groups who do stuff the Right like, only go a small way, and then usually undo it.

I still don't understand how people fail to see how 90% of the West is controlled by uniparties.

American 'right' wing politicians are just whatever the left was 10 years ago. In 10 years time, republicans will be attempting to push transgenderism in schools, whereas the left will be debating if child sacrifices should be performed to Moloch or Baal.