One of the critical failures of the eDems is that they so easily are swayed by personal relationships. Theres always a bunch of praise for neolibs thrown around in the language “I’ve worked with Benny Corporate Whore for years! Congrats and well deserved promotion Benny!” The willingness to let “friendships” rule over policy and substance is disgraceful. Oh, and its also a hallmark of failing empires. So there’s that .
Because very little of these people’s motivation has to do with any ideology or policy. They want their team to win, they want their friends to win, they want their donors to win, they want money and power. That’s it.
It’s almost like the way to get eDems to support progressive policies is for progressives to successfully try to be their friends.
Yes, its really a definitional example of institutional rot.
Poor people will never be their friends.
I think I get what you’re going for here, but you’re not suggesting that only poor people can be progressive?
Yes, they can have friends who support gay marriage and charity.
Just a galactic lol. Like I literally laughed.
I’m saying there a some nuanced differences between the way the two people express their bad ideas and biases that are worth understanding.
You are saying they are “bad”. End discussion. Your defence is to cite Milo as if he is bad in exactly the same way as Alex Jones. There are useful distinctions between those two as well that are worth understanding. But you don’t want to go beyond the level of “both bad” and then accuse me of some kind of error of logic (I honestly don’t understand) for pointing out these nuances are important.
It’s just not interesting to sort the world into good and bad and frankly it hobbles ones ability to find solutions.
I don’t love or hate either of these guys, but Joe and Bill seem pretty damn similar except Joe is slightly dumber, slightly less funny, moderately more stoned, and vastly less opinionated. They have some similar guests, but Joe is too stoned to get Noam Chomsky.
To which one?
The reader.
I voted they’re the same but really they both suck for different reasons. Maher is a grade-A asshat. Rogan sucks because he’s a clueless dudebro who tells 20% of the men in this country how to think. That % might be low.
The end of discussion is actually that Neera Tandeen is a ghoul who made an incredibly nasty attack from the left on someone who is indisputably more progressive than her based on shit she clearly doesn’t believe… oh, and that you are a pretentious asshat that loves the smell of his own farts…
Libertarians are bad. The both tend in that direction, but Maher is worse.
And anyone who whines about cancel culture tends to be an asshat.
If you are wearing a good mask, you shouldn’t be able to smell farts.
I’m pretty ashamed about that one too.
Someone posted about her.
I hadn’t heard of her so quickly looked at her wiki and didn’t see an immediate red flag.
The person responded giving details of why she was bad.
In that time I had read more about her and agreed she was bad.
This all took place over 10 minutes.
What an epic failure of logic on my behalf. Just embarrassing.
Wait, is this post pretentious? 
Yes, your ego mandates that even in error you must find superiority for yourself. Hence the need to pick the inconsequential fight of “well actually Maher isn’t AS BAD as Rogan,” in the name of “nuance.”
Who gives a shit? It’s actually anti-intellectual, having conceded the main point, you go to war on a tangential point to soothe your ego.