From conservative media outlets to the campaign trail, there’s nothing the right loves to obsess over more than wokeness. Their claim is that an obsession with political correctness has veered into authoritarianism — and that culturally, intellectually, and politically, we’re all worse off for it. We think it’s worthwhile to open up a debate about whether or not this argument actually holds up. Aren’t powerful Republicans the ones moving to restrict abortions, gay marriages, and a host of other basic rights? When leftists attempt to oppose military aid to Israel or criticize right-wing governments, right-wingers in power quickly lose their concerns about censorship, political targeting, and suppression of free speech. Which side can rightfully be accused of authoritarianism?
I found S and A to be intolerably annoying, and flaccid. The “just asking questions” crowd without viable solutions simply trying to muddy the waters. Moderation might be the real enemy.
They reminded me of times when left podcasts had right wing people on. These people are always asking the listener to play mental gymnastics and pretend like it’s intellectual.
And it seems like people like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are using their platforms to say that what Dems have been doing is way more corrupt than Repubs. BS! Both sides are looking corrupt AF. It’s a disgrace that this is what the electorate has to look forward to in 2024
It looks like the exact opposite is the case. I'm not a huge fan of either, but you're going to have a hard time trying to find an example of them actually promoting a corporate Republican candidate. Whereas Kulinski was downright shilling for Biden like a few days ago...
But I think I can see what you mean. Taibbi and Greenwald's contributions may indeed give this impression. There're two reasons. First, they are a little more honest than self-serving clowns like Kulinski or Pakman. Second, incomparably more professional. They are not just serving their target audience with talking points which they know they will be able to sell. They're properly trying to implement a conceptual approach. They are not very good at it, in my view, for various reasons. But they are trying. And I think some time ago both realised that left-wing fascism is just as real and deadly as its right-wing counterpart. But while the danger of the latter is kinda acknowledged - at least, at a cultural level (but certainly not in terms of actually addressing it) - the danger of the former is customarily downplayed even there. Hence, I believe, their emphasis...
What you are perfectly right about, though, is that choosing between a "giant douche" and a "turd sandwich" is a patent disgrace. But it's entirely on the electorate...
I love Krystal and Kyle, and I've never heard of Sitch and Adam, but clearly the latter have done far more research on the trans issue than the former.
Not at all. “These micro-incidents prove this entire segment of people is questionable” is not a serious argument nor one that provokes any meaningful discussion. Their entire point is to muddy the water and not make a point.
I found S and A to be intolerably annoying, and flaccid. The “just asking questions” crowd without viable solutions simply trying to muddy the waters. Moderation might be the real enemy.
They reminded me of times when left podcasts had right wing people on. These people are always asking the listener to play mental gymnastics and pretend like it’s intellectual.
And it seems like people like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are using their platforms to say that what Dems have been doing is way more corrupt than Repubs. BS! Both sides are looking corrupt AF. It’s a disgrace that this is what the electorate has to look forward to in 2024
It looks like the exact opposite is the case. I'm not a huge fan of either, but you're going to have a hard time trying to find an example of them actually promoting a corporate Republican candidate. Whereas Kulinski was downright shilling for Biden like a few days ago...
But I think I can see what you mean. Taibbi and Greenwald's contributions may indeed give this impression. There're two reasons. First, they are a little more honest than self-serving clowns like Kulinski or Pakman. Second, incomparably more professional. They are not just serving their target audience with talking points which they know they will be able to sell. They're properly trying to implement a conceptual approach. They are not very good at it, in my view, for various reasons. But they are trying. And I think some time ago both realised that left-wing fascism is just as real and deadly as its right-wing counterpart. But while the danger of the latter is kinda acknowledged - at least, at a cultural level (but certainly not in terms of actually addressing it) - the danger of the former is customarily downplayed even there. Hence, I believe, their emphasis...
What you are perfectly right about, though, is that choosing between a "giant douche" and a "turd sandwich" is a patent disgrace. But it's entirely on the electorate...
They are not the same but they’re both amoral ghouls.
https://www.youtube.com/live/m0IvbvCvrEk?feature=share
I love Krystal and Kyle, and I've never heard of Sitch and Adam, but clearly the latter have done far more research on the trans issue than the former.
Not at all. “These micro-incidents prove this entire segment of people is questionable” is not a serious argument nor one that provokes any meaningful discussion. Their entire point is to muddy the water and not make a point.