'Liberals'/'Leftists' in America

[fruhmenschen]

A liberal is someone who walks out of the room
When a argument turns into a fight

A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged

[Joe Hillshoist]

Does that make lefty's southpaw fruh?

[Belligerent Savant]

[Belligerent Savant]

Muriel Blaive, PhD
@MurielBlaivePhD
·
But hey, the left applauded so it's alright!
Btw they don't make the faintest connection between the current disastrous situation and the lockdown. Two completely separate phenomena!

https://twitter.com/MurielBlaivePhD/sta ... 63653?s=20

[Harvey]

Surely the most efficient criminal cartel in history.

[Belligerent Savant]

[stickdog99]

[stickdog99]

[8bitagent]

Imagine going back in time to the 2000's and saying that in the 2020s, the left would be advocating for total censorship, supporting a march toward World War 3, being pro pharma, etc. The amount of authoritative evil done in the name of "Covid-19" in the last 3 years is creepy and evil(let alone not even being allowed to question any aspect of it) Wasnt that long ago I remember Biden and Trudeau along with countless Reddit/Twitter armies saying people should lose their employment, or even be jailed for refusing to get an experimental vaccine(for a virus we can't even question its origins) And of course, only now the government will allow questionkng Covid's origins now that it fits into their end game of total war against China/Russia/Iran/North Korea in the coming years.

[stickdog99]

[Grizzly]

Oh God, that pothead, Right wing Jimmy Dore is at it again!

[stickdog99]

[Belligerent Savant]

.
A number of astute observations here regarding a certain Pathology among a certain demographic.

https://unglossed.substack.com/p/indiff ... -as-status

Indifference to Threats as Status Symbol

Urban progressives and ostentatious recklessness.

BRIAN MOWREY
MAY 5, 2023

Before playing Emma Vigeland’s embarrassing remarks, it should be well-noted that the local political response to Neely’s death has been outright crass and… sensible. Both Mayor Adams and Governor Hochul, yesterday, emphasized reducing the presence of the mentally unwell on public transit, and continuing to increase police presence, clearly prioritizing their local silent majorities (and tourists) over the protesting elite progressive fringe who would prefer to send society to hell to prove their worth in heaven (in fact, this is what so upsets the podcasters in this clip). Had I seen these briefings at the time, my post yesterday would have been more open to the possibility that we are at a 1990-ish inflection toward slowly defusing racial tensions and reducing urban crime.

Aside from virus and vaccine policies, I haven’t followed recent New York politics; perhaps these sensible statements shouldn’t be surprising. Either way they are a welcome alternative from using the Neely incident to demand unspecified acts of sacrifice from the government and society (including working Black New Yorkers) on behalf of racial justice. Along with the dearth of national media coverage, it seems this incident will rapidly fade from attention.

In a segment lamenting Adams’ and Hochul’s no-nonsense, politically apt replies, however, Young Turks pundit Emma Vigeland preens about having walked the walk on voiding her own regard for safety in the presence of aggressive, violent sketchiness:

https://youtu.be/rP3Z0YY-x_w?t=591

What a gaze into human saintliness. Never mind that society cannot run on saintliness; someone has to empty the trash bins in the recording studio. Perhaps that person should be allowed to offer an opinion on whether “[their] fear [when being struck by a mentally ill man on public transit] is not the primary object of what we should be focusing on.” (If they give the wrong answer, Vigeland can simply inform them of the facts as she so clearly sees them. Let them eat vagrant elbow.)

There is an obvious rationale at work here, but I want to be careful to couch it in ambiguous terms. The progressive urban mind is not simply one thing or the other, but many different things. One of these is blindness — when facts confront them that demand conclusions which are ideologically unsound, e.g. “I am unsafe around this person,” — these facts are often, I would say, filtered out from conscious awareness; memory-holed in real-time.

Another, related to filtering, is cognitive dissonance; if unfortunate urban observations cannot be obscured from consciousness entirely, they must simply be admitted while the belief contradicted by those observations is nonetheless maintained. This is dissonance, and urban progressives, I think, have a high tolerance.

But a third animating force of the urban progressive mind is ostentatious personal recklessness. Vigeland’s attitude toward being elbowed in the head by a vagrant is a status symbol (one she quite evidently frets over losing if the city is returned to a semblance of order by better policing). Like all status symbols it depends on being inaccessible to the working class. As the whole point of aristocratic European fashion was merely to demonstrate that you could spend hours a day getting dressed, the whole point of Vigeland’s ostentatious comfort with violence from strangers is to demonstrate that she can afford to virtue signal.



How ironic, if not sadistically mocking, that she claims that rider concern for safety is what is “bourgeois.”

And so, like, the politics of dehumanization™ privileges the, the bourgeois kind of concern of people’s immediate discomfort in this narrow, narrow instance.

Again, note that cognitive dissonance is still one of the demons riding Vigeland’s shoulders here. Ostentatious disregard for personal safety cannot override her own observations and instincts; it requires shifting definitions — from “fear” in the previous sentence to “discomfort” — and siloing — acute confrontations with dangerous strangers are merely “narrow, narrow instances,”1 as if that does anything to preserve individuals from the consequences of being jumped, mugged, stabbed, etc.



(To be clear on my thoughts on this example; there is nothing particularly ostentatious about the lack of situational awareness on the part of the two individuals attacked; it exemplifies ideologically driven blindness.)

“Narrow, narrow instance” allows Vigeland to write off her fear as some sort of transient misunderstanding, rather than what it is — perception of a reality of danger.

What’s most important here is the distinction between armchair, naive notions of defund-the-police-ing based on a lack of experience with danger, and the urban progressive’s carefully curated embrace of such experiences. Vigeland isn’t merely dismissing working class or rural priorities on safety based on having never seen what society without policing is like (as could describe my perspective before California) — she knows it does not work for the working class. But, again, that is precisely what gives it value for the affluent, urban progressive. Not in my backyard, but yes next to my expensive outdoor dining experience.

Snippet from the comments to the above piece:

Jon
Writes Notebooks of an Inflamed Cynic
May 5
·
Copying from my comment just now on yesterday's post since relevant to the "90's inflection point/silent majority" thesis:

Interesting thread on how the NYT readers are responding. Not what I would have expected... actually, it kind of is what I would have expected, I've just been used to my expectations being wrong so often recently.

https://twitter.com/TruueDiscipline/sta ... 6207704065


Brian Mowrey
May 5
Author

Amazing - and yes, really makes 90s rerun look like a contender

hoppah
May 5

Wow. How unexpectedly heartening.

Jon
Writes Notebooks of an Inflamed Cynic
May 5
·
I know, right? Either the vibe really is shifting in general, or NYC subways are even more hellish now than we assumed (I haven't ridden them in a decade, they were pretty much fine even out in Queens back then. Occasional mariachi band was about the worst of it.).

@TruueDiscipline

Top NYT commenters not sympathetic to latest racial incident:






...

@Canti_Redux
·
NYT commenters are typically hyper-partisan so this is kind of remarkable.

https://twitter.com/TruueDiscipline/sta ... 04065?s=20

[DrEvil]

There's an easy fix for that: restrain him without killing him. Done. The above is a long-winded way to say: more police and more use of force please.

Oh, and for future reference, TruueDiscipline seems to be a white supremacist.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Do you know he intended to kill that homeless person? What experience do you have, specifically in these scenarios? Are you aware that, often, such scenarios can not always be easily managed or controlled? There is no way to know, in any event, what harms this homeless person would have caused if no action was taken to minimally subdue him, but none of us were there to have true context of circumstances, regardless.
(Though as indicated by one of the NYTimes commenters above who reportedly observed this homeless person just prior to his demise: "...he was violently threatening passengers, including women and children".)

And anyone that has not experienced or was ever involved in similar circumstances is in no position to opine about what 'should' have been done in that scenario. Ask anyone trained in combat or skirmishes, or anyone that has been in at least 1 or more street brawls and they will acknowledge the unpredictability of such circumstances.

Also: whatever the fuck 'TrueDiscipline' believes in has absolutely ZERO to do with the screenshots he (or she) shared from the NYTimes. The comments in the NYTimes are the same regardless of who shares them (whatever the fuck the sharer may believe in won't change the content in those NYTimes comments, for fuck's sake).

To emphasize further:
I only shared that person's tweets explicitly to share the NYTimes comments. I had no prior exposure to that Twitter handle before it was shared in the comments of the substack article I shared above, and did not look into that twitter handle's beliefs because they are NOT GERMANE or RELEVANT to the NYTimes' excerpted comments, which stand on their own regardless of whatever the fuck "Truediscipline" believes in. The fact you looked into that Twitter handle at all -- when my prior posting contained NO EDITORIALIZING of note from that Twitter handle -- reveals more about you, and what you are attempting, abysmally, to imply.

You are only further fortifying the point of this thread.

The fact you consistently employ this oftentimes weak and lazy "the messenger is corrupt, therefore the message is corrupt" form of argumentation displays only your lack of intellectual/investigative rigor.