Haven’t you read his own self report of his motivation? He cares so much about left wing causes that he’s decided to accomplish them by making a part time job out of attacking the most left wing person (whoever that might be) in this election for a variety of made up reasons.
It’s a hugely effective strategy. MLK did the exact same thing; he just made up hostile nonsense about the most civil-rights-friendly candidate at any given time, and presto! It pushed them to the left. That’s how we got the voting rights act and all this other good stuff.
I understand the logic, and it’s actually fairly shrewd. But in practice here, it’s looking to me a lot like just shitting on a candidate and sapping enthusiasm on topics that she does not currently have agency to act on. And then there’s the electoral pragmatism angle, in the context of an election where the other party has been subsumed by overt fascists and Nationalist Christians.
I don’t mean to demean or diminish the struggle of Palestinians, or any number of other extremely important causes. But failing to win this election is going to destroy so, so much. So my argument is that this is a “stop the fascists at all costs” situation, and confusing and snarling the issues like this is counterproductive. There’s a time and a place for that strategy, and I just don’t think this is the appropriate time.
If you want to evaluate the candidates on their energy policies (for some fuckin reason, as if it is necessary to have a comparison between these two on the merits), you can check into what each of them wants to do, and how much sense it makes.
If you want to pressure the Democrats to be more climate friendly in their policies, probably the best way is just to educate voters about what a vital issue it is (change the calculus of what positions will win or lose them elections), or maybe make the case to the Democrats that support for the fossil fuel industry isn’t as vital as it used to be (e.g. point to candidates in PA who were openly hostile to the industry who still got elected e.g. Fetterman)
Picking out one random wedge issue, and covering it in terms of whether Harris “flip flopped” between her support for the Green New Deal several years ago which included this one provision and now at this point not really saying much about it, as if that is gonna make anyone better informed about what is going on, makes no sense. It’s just creating a conflict between two random single statements at the very fringes of what a coherent energy / climate policy would even be. But it makes perfect sense if you’re casting about for some random cherry picked thing to say about her that sounds bad (and in a very particular way that will lose her support from both fossil fuel people and climate people, because each of them can focus on one time frame of her position which is alarming to them that they disagree with.)
OK, so your complaint isn’t about the factual nature of the reporting (Harris’s policy stance hasn’t been misrepresented as far as I can tell) your complaint is how it’s being contextualized and presented.
So it’s not “made up” hostile nonsense, it’s maybe just simply “hostile nonsense” from your perspective.
I mean, Obama really did wear a tan suit. He really did ask for Dijon mustard. Maybe it would have been more accurate for me to say “ginned up” instead of “made up,” because generally speaking they are more or less factual yes.
Like I say, someone from the left who’s all upset about Obama’s drone strikes and saying hey WTF we need better than this, that 100% makes sense to me. But if someone is attacking Obama about the tan suit, and then when they’re called out they say well what about the drone strikes, I’m just trying to push him to the left, that seems dishonest to me. Doesn’t that accusation make sense?
Idk, I think fracking is a much bigger deal than the tan-suit panic but who knows, maybe that’s how chuds felt about Obama’s fashion choices.
edit: just as an aside, seeing as how this is a climate community, i would have thought Harris’s energy policy would be very relevant to discussion and not in any way irrelevant.
Oh, fracking is a huge deal. As is the rest of energy policy, as is the half a billion tons per year CO2e that Biden’s policies have removed from our emissions.
I was referring to the idea of removing any level of qualified analysis from the evaluation of Harris’s real policies proposed or otherwise, and replacing it with “she made THIS one-off comment several years ago about something that is purely a performative aspect of any policy because the current congressional climate simply will not allow a ban on fracking anyway, and then that contradicts this OTHER one-off comment she made just recently about something SHE’S A FUCKIN FLIP FLOPPER” horse race disingenuous bullshit
You can’t simply analyze your way out of the extremely unhealthy/unsustainable/environmentally damaging practice that is fracking by pointing to CO2 reduction policies. People aren’t objecting to fracking because of its CO2 emissions (not just, anyway), it’s a problem because it poisons aquifers and causes untold amounts of harm to subterranean and geological systems. Saying ‘but look at all the other good stuff they’re doing for CO2 reduction!’ is only compelling if CO2 was the primary concern of the practice (it isn’t).
And anyway, you could have that conversation without constantly complaining about certain factual statements not aligning to your prejudiced electoral motivations and without coming into every conversation accusing people you disagree with of misrepresenting reality
the current congressional climate simply will not allow a ban on fracking anyway
lmao oh well fuck me then, guess we can’t expect any progress from our politicians
Why do I always find you in the comments trying to nuance your way out of criticizing democratic positions.
So then I said, Herr Thälmann, how important is nuance, in analyzing a political situation? How important is compromise with people even who don’t see eye to eye with you perfectly, politically?
And he said, ZERO. Just push for what you want. If it’s not perfect, it’s garbage; try to oppose it. Compromise is the obstacle to progress.
And I said wait. How can I hear you? I thought you died. In Buchenwald.
And from that point on, I heard nothing. Only silence.
Haven’t you read his own self report of his motivation? He cares so much about left wing causes that he’s decided to accomplish them by making a part time job out of attacking the most left wing person (whoever that might be) in this election for a variety of made up reasons.
It’s a hugely effective strategy. MLK did the exact same thing; he just made up hostile nonsense about the most civil-rights-friendly candidate at any given time, and presto! It pushed them to the left. That’s how we got the voting rights act and all this other good stuff.
I understand the logic, and it’s actually fairly shrewd. But in practice here, it’s looking to me a lot like just shitting on a candidate and sapping enthusiasm on topics that she does not currently have agency to act on. And then there’s the electoral pragmatism angle, in the context of an election where the other party has been subsumed by overt fascists and Nationalist Christians.
I don’t mean to demean or diminish the struggle of Palestinians, or any number of other extremely important causes. But failing to win this election is going to destroy so, so much. So my argument is that this is a “stop the fascists at all costs” situation, and confusing and snarling the issues like this is counterproductive. There’s a time and a place for that strategy, and I just don’t think this is the appropriate time.
Agreed
Just checking in: is THIS article made up hostile nonsense? Or are you vaguely referring to some other thing
Correct.
If you want to evaluate the candidates on their energy policies (for some fuckin reason, as if it is necessary to have a comparison between these two on the merits), you can check into what each of them wants to do, and how much sense it makes.
If you want to pressure the Democrats to be more climate friendly in their policies, probably the best way is just to educate voters about what a vital issue it is (change the calculus of what positions will win or lose them elections), or maybe make the case to the Democrats that support for the fossil fuel industry isn’t as vital as it used to be (e.g. point to candidates in PA who were openly hostile to the industry who still got elected e.g. Fetterman)
Picking out one random wedge issue, and covering it in terms of whether Harris “flip flopped” between her support for the Green New Deal several years ago which included this one provision and now at this point not really saying much about it, as if that is gonna make anyone better informed about what is going on, makes no sense. It’s just creating a conflict between two random single statements at the very fringes of what a coherent energy / climate policy would even be. But it makes perfect sense if you’re casting about for some random cherry picked thing to say about her that sounds bad (and in a very particular way that will lose her support from both fossil fuel people and climate people, because each of them can focus on one time frame of her position which is alarming to them that they disagree with.)
OK, so your complaint isn’t about the factual nature of the reporting (Harris’s policy stance hasn’t been misrepresented as far as I can tell) your complaint is how it’s being contextualized and presented.
So it’s not “made up” hostile nonsense, it’s maybe just simply “hostile nonsense” from your perspective.
I mean, Obama really did wear a tan suit. He really did ask for Dijon mustard. Maybe it would have been more accurate for me to say “ginned up” instead of “made up,” because generally speaking they are more or less factual yes.
Like I say, someone from the left who’s all upset about Obama’s drone strikes and saying hey WTF we need better than this, that 100% makes sense to me. But if someone is attacking Obama about the tan suit, and then when they’re called out they say well what about the drone strikes, I’m just trying to push him to the left, that seems dishonest to me. Doesn’t that accusation make sense?
Idk, I think fracking is a much bigger deal than the tan-suit panic but who knows, maybe that’s how chuds felt about Obama’s fashion choices.
edit: just as an aside, seeing as how this is a climate community, i would have thought Harris’s energy policy would be very relevant to discussion and not in any way irrelevant.
Oh, fracking is a huge deal. As is the rest of energy policy, as is the half a billion tons per year CO2e that Biden’s policies have removed from our emissions.
I was referring to the idea of removing any level of qualified analysis from the evaluation of Harris’s real policies proposed or otherwise, and replacing it with “she made THIS one-off comment several years ago about something that is purely a performative aspect of any policy because the current congressional climate simply will not allow a ban on fracking anyway, and then that contradicts this OTHER one-off comment she made just recently about something SHE’S A FUCKIN FLIP FLOPPER” horse race disingenuous bullshit
Hope this helps
You can’t simply analyze your way out of the extremely unhealthy/unsustainable/environmentally damaging practice that is fracking by pointing to CO2 reduction policies. People aren’t objecting to fracking because of its CO2 emissions (not just, anyway), it’s a problem because it poisons aquifers and causes untold amounts of harm to subterranean and geological systems. Saying ‘but look at all the other good stuff they’re doing for CO2 reduction!’ is only compelling if CO2 was the primary concern of the practice (it isn’t).
And anyway, you could have that conversation without constantly complaining about certain factual statements not aligning to your prejudiced electoral motivations and without coming into every conversation accusing people you disagree with of misrepresenting reality
lmao oh well fuck me then, guess we can’t expect any progress from our politicians
Why do I always find you in the comments trying to nuance your way out of criticizing democratic positions.
So then I said, Herr Thälmann, how important is nuance, in analyzing a political situation? How important is compromise with people even who don’t see eye to eye with you perfectly, politically?
And he said, ZERO. Just push for what you want. If it’s not perfect, it’s garbage; try to oppose it. Compromise is the obstacle to progress.
And I said wait. How can I hear you? I thought you died. In Buchenwald.
And from that point on, I heard nothing. Only silence.