The disinformation by the ‘No on 97’ campaign was crazy prolific, even in ‘progressive’ and public media… I’m not surprised this failed (though very disappointed🙁).
I don’t probably need any of the prescription advice above. Looks like Massachusetts voted green after all.
Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse, I remembered that there will be an acceptance speech and as a politically interested person I have to watch that shit.
I swear to god that Willamette Week endorsement of No on 97 left me fuming, but not as much as their endorsement of homophobe Dennis Richardson for Secretary of state. If he wins I’m done.
How I’m feeling every time there’s another projection…
Ah, so you’re going with the false dilemma fallacy instead?
Sarcasm aside, look, it’s not the “that you don’t publish a manifesto” thing, it’s that you constantly and consistently attempt to oversimplify and ignore actual current situations in favor of your idealized end goals. Having an idealized goal is great, but the fact that you routinely blithely ignore the actual topic being discussed in favor of baseless utopian musings is, being blunt, somewhat irksome. And that’s on every topic–race, gender, politics, etc.
I get that you’re an autistic genderqueer radical-equalist iconoclast, and I respect that, and even agree with you on some perspectives. But it generally isn’t helpful and is distracting to the actual discussion being held, which is why I’ve just gotten in the habit of flagging your posts as off-topic when you start navel-gazing on the word particles.
On top of that, you display a distinct egocentric streak that makes interacting with you when you’re pontificating on your idealized goals to be extremely frustrating, because not only do you fail to acknowledge that other people might have different viewpoints than yourself, you refuse to even acknowledge that the possibility exists.
And, finally, when people try to point out the implications of your words, you have repeatedly engaged in what I can only call a dishonest rhetorical tactic of redefining them on the fly to mean what you want them to mean, instead of what the general consensus meaning is. And, basically, as I and everyone else can’t know what you mean by a specific word before we interact with you, arguing with you is pointless, because you can move the goalposts as you please to make the protestor in the wrong.
Which also leads to the converse perspective–since I can’t know if your statements are communicating the generally accepted semantical meaning that I would read them as, then, just as I can’t take your negative statements that I disagree with at their stated value, then neither can I take your positive statements at their stated value–because you’ve shown that you will say “That’s not what that word means to me” despite it being the dictionary definition and insisting on your own privileged interpretation. If I can’t tell what a given statement means without attempting to challenge it for clarification, why bother with the attempt at engagement or comprehension at all?
And if this came off as too brusque, I apologize, but, for some reason (i.e. I’m in the middle of watching a wannabe fascist dictator being elected by a hateful electorate) I got really irked at someone’s refusal to acknowledge the reality that we live in and who gave a petulant response to a humorous poke to stay on topic. I should have just flagged as Off Topic in the first place, rather than engaging, but, congrats, you got elected for me to vent my spleen at.
By the way: the death penalty has been making quite the comeback during this election as well.
It’s shit all the way down.
This is not the country I was raised to believe in.
I’m off to bed.
Making America great again?
I voted for Chloe Eudaly too–hooray, tiny bright spot.
Ahhh, shit… when the phone rings at 5:30 am, it’s never good news.
The republicans aren’t winning. They’re losing just as hard as the democrats here. And all because the Dems were just too cowardly to put forward a candidate people actually wanted to vote for.
It looks like I was right about it being a mistake to throw an establishment candidate into a race against a populist.
The extent to which my being right gives me satisfaction is exceedingly low. In the territory of large negative numbers best described by exponents of exponents.
I love how this is still on FiveThirtyEight’s frontpage:
I still can’t wrap my head around the logic behind running a candidate that 45% of the public has been literally conditioned to hate. In what world does that make ANY sense?
Man, Nate Silver has got to loathe Donald Trump as much as anyone could. When he was punditing he was way off, and when he turned to the numbers, they weren’t telling the whole story.
World, please forgive us. We did not all choose him. He does not represent all of us. There are many of us as shocked and appalled as you must be… and we are at just as much of a loss in how to deal with whatever fresh hell is about to be unleashed. We are sorry. I am sorry.
I don’t know what else to say, I really don’t. I really never thought this would happen.
Yeah this. The hate machine for Hillary was way bigger and had much deeper roots than the Obama one.
Well fuck it you had a good run USA, maybe you will pull through this but it will take a long time to clean up the mess.
She controlled the party. Bernie didn’t. So she decided to nominate herself. I’ve not been a huge Hillary fan, but she’s so much better than tRump he shouldn’t have even made it on the ballot.