Bill Maher Warns Democrats Are Headed for 2022 Defeat Because ‘Nobody Likes a Snob’

RDKirk · Nov 29, 2021

iluvatar5150 said:
You're right. If someone is going to believe that Dave Chappelle was "cancelled" while being paid millions of dollars to make jokes about trans people

It's not as though the SJWs aren't doing their darnedest to cancel Chappelle.

It's just that it's impossible to effectively cancel someone who is financially and psychologically secure enough to have already voluntarily walked away from a $50,000,000 television contract.

But they are certainly doing their darndest. And many people are able to see that Chappelle actually set them up to reveal exactly that.

iluvatar5150 · Nov 29, 2021

RDKirk said:
It's not as though the SJWs aren't doing their darnedest to cancel Chappelle.

It's just that it's impossible to effectively cancel someone who is financially and psychologically secure enough to have already voluntarily walked away from a $50,000,000 television contract.

But they are certainly doing their darndest. And many people are able to see that Chappelle actually set them up to reveal exactly that.

Right. He’s got enough power and money to negate any attempts to cancel him.

But if “cancel culture” really is someone’s concern, how is going after wealthy celebrities comparable to what the Trump Administration and their fanboys tried to do Lt Col Vindman, his brother, and other whistleblowers? I can concede that a lot of left-wing cancel culture is misguided self-righteousness while also pointing out that the right is not only just as guilty of attempting to engage in the same sort of performative self-righteousness but outright intimidation in the facilitation of corruption.

ThatRobGuy · Nov 29, 2021

iluvatar5150 said:
I'd argue that there's a whole ton of overlap between those second and third bullet points, to the point where they're often nearly synonymous.

For example: IME, there is genuine disagreement on the left with respect to how to handle police budgets and tasking, with some advocating for a true "defunding" while others are advocating for augmentation. Yes, there are folks playing semantic games by pretending as if the "defunders" don't exist - but that doesn't mean that the augmenters don't exist. Anybody who understands the data knows that truly cutting back on police is probably dumb and counterproductive.

But we can't even get to the point of arguing for oversight of police and augmenting them when large swaths of the population will blindly defend the police even in the face of video evidence, refuse to believe that there's anything rotten within their ranks, approve of harsh policing and incarceration policies, and balk at paying tax money for "soft" approaches like mental health intervention and housing support for the homeless.

There's some overlap, but I was referring more to the distinction between say...
Example of #1 - fabrications:
Democrats push for vaccine mandates
- Fringe Rep/Cons suggest that it's some sort of evil globalist agenda, or about how it's "democrats wanting use covid to implement socialism"

Example of #2 - real policy, but exaggerated to reductio ad absurdum:
Democrats want universal background checks and want firearm registration
- Rep/Cons spinning it as "They're going to try to take everyone's guns away, and registration is purely for the reason of confiscation!"

Example #3 - things they see in other parts of the country, that they don't want for their own locale:
Progressive educators in NYC using the The 1619 project as history class material, and having a "Transgender Awareness Immersion Week" in 3rd and 4th grade classrooms, or having Kindergarten assignments instructing 5-6 year olds to write letters to the Cleveland Indians asking them to change their mascot.
- People living in the midwest and south (both republicans and democrats) saying I'm not comfortable with that, I don't want that here

Democrats like Jacob Frey (Mayor of Minneapolis) found out the repercussions of "doublespeak"/"the semantic game" when he got booed for saying he didn't want to "actually" defund the police.

The NY Times ran the video of how that played out for him
Video: Minneapolis Mayor Booed Out of Rally

That's what happens to politicians when they don't really support the radical cause, but are afraid to explicitly reject it out fear of "offending the wrong group".

iluvatar5150 said:
Judging by median salary charts I've seen, I imagine that a lot of midwesterners are in lousy, low-paying jobs and would find a lot to like about pro-labor politicians like AOC and Bernie.

They probably do like the pro-labor parts, which is why democrats like Jim Webb and Tim Kaine got elected in Virginia as Senators. They'd even probably go for Bernie Sanders.

They did an interesting town hall with Bernie Sanders where he sat down with Trump voters, and they were surprisingly receptive to him, and some even said they originally supported him, but once the DNC backed Hillary as their horse, they switched to the Trump team.

But I don't think it's fair to lump Bernie & AOC in together...they share a lot of overlap on economic ideology, but as you drift into some of the more "modern" social aspects and rhetoric, I think you'd find that they sort of diverge.

ThatRobGuy · Nov 29, 2021

RDKirk said:
It's not as though the SJWs aren't doing their darnedest to cancel Chappelle.

It's just that it's impossible to effectively cancel someone who is financially and psychologically secure enough to have already voluntarily walked away from a $50,000,000 television contract.

But they are certainly doing their darndest. And many people are able to see that Chappelle actually set them up to reveal exactly that.

I think the way Chappelle has been handling has been near perfection.

https://wset.com/news/nation-world/...-dc-duke-ellington-school-arts-closer-netflix

If his detractors are "triggered" by his old high school theater being named after him because his jokes are "problematic", all they have to do is donate more than his supporters and he'll decline the offer to have it named after him.

It's easy to virtue signal on twitter, takes more dedication to "put your money where you mouth is" so to speak.

Seems he learned well from other comedians' experiences...the graveling apology never works, just gives them the ammo they need to claim that they "won" or proved some sort of point.

Seems he's opted to go the Bill Burr/Adam Carolla route (which is stand your ground, tell them to shut the...up, and they'll eventually leave you alone), as opposed to the Kimmel/Fallon route (which is to give the graveling apology, and now be locked into catering to their whims)

FireDragon76 · Nov 29, 2021

ThatRobGuy said:
In US elections, one has to consider the US spectrum of Liberal <-> Conservative...not the global one. (we've had this conversation before)

Why should that be normative? The US definition of "conservative" is increasingly divorced from Burkean notions of conservativism. It swings between ideologies like anarcho-capitalism (in the 80's) all the way to Christian nationalism (today), and has an overall reactionary, rather than conservative (in the Burkean sense) character.

Most people are aware that the US political spectrum would be "right-wing" compared to places like say, Finland (our "left" candidates would be considered "center-right" in Scandinavia).

I'd be careful here. Characterizing Finland as "left wing" is an oversimplification and ignores the different cultural values of most Scandinavians (which are more rooted in Lutheranism than necessarily in Marxist Dialectic Materialism). If you want to understand how those religious values impact Scandinavian culture, look up "Jante laws" some time: Law of Jante - Wikipedia . Simply put, Scandinavians value hard work, but they don't value individual exceptionalism and they think about themselves as situated within a wider community, rather than as merely individuals.

Perhaps the plainest way to put it, Democrats are blaming the people who like Trump as the reason for the loss. When, in fact, it's the opposite, it's the people who didn't vote for Trump that likely shifted this governor race in favor of the GOP. Both parties have their die-hard fan base who will vote the party line no matter what. It's the "could go either way" folks (who'd been reliably voting democratic for the past decade+) that didn't go along with them this time.

How can you be so sure? Republicans have a history of using wedge issues to energize their base and get them to turn out, rather than appeal necessarily to independent voters.

FireDragon76 · Nov 29, 2021

RDKirk said:
That is unfortunately true.

I'd like to argue that, technically, the process of inquiry that is CRT isn't and can't possibly be taught at the K-12 level...except that there are teachers and the NEA itself on record saying that they do and intend to teach "CRT" at the K-12 level. They don't know themselves what they're teaching...they've been to a summer workshop and think they're teaching a graduate-level subject. There's no ground from which to argue otherwise.

But they are teaching something, and it's not actually CRT but conclusions from application of CRT and other social agenda intentions.

Sure, alot of real CRT is a college-level class. Most primary education has to focus on a "consensus narrative" of history, and that's where the battleground lies. So-called "CRT proponents" just want to teach about the reality of slavery and its consequences in an honest way, which isn't a thing in every US state, unfortunately.

ThatRobGuy · Nov 29, 2021

FireDragon76 said:
Why should that be normative? The US definition of "conservative" is increasingly divorced from Burkean notions of conservativism. It swings between ideologies like anarcho-capitalism (in the 80's) all the way to Christian nationalism (today), and has an overall reactionary, rather than conservative (in the Burkean sense) character.

It shouldn't be normative in terms of international geopolitics, but it's important with regards to our politics domestically. As as I mentioned before... what other countries determine to be liberal/conservative values are of little consequence in an election within a US administrative district.

To come at it from a different angle...The fact that Boris Johnson (a conservative in the UK) is in favor of universal healthcare doesn't necessarily "play" with regards to US politics, where universal healthcare is considered a "left vs. right" issue.

FireDragon76 said:
I'd be careful here. Characterizing Finland as "left wing" is an oversimplification and ignores the different cultural values of most Scandinavians (which are more rooted in Lutheranism than necessarily in Marxist Dialectic Materialism). If you want to understand how those religious values impact Scandinavian culture, look up "Jante laws" some time: Law of Jante - Wikipedia . Simply put, Scandinavians value hard work, but they don't value individual exceptionalism and they think about themselves as situated within a wider community, rather than as merely individuals.

Right, they value collectivism more than individualism...which is fine.

But in contemporary mores from a political perspective, Finland is considered a left leaning country.

FireDragon76 said:
How can you be so sure? Republicans have a history of using wedge issues to energize their base and get them to turn out, rather than appeal necessarily to independent voters.

But it wasn't the GOP base that cost the democrats the election in Virginia...

I have no doubts that republicans have found a way (via scare tactics) to make their own "die-hard" base even more "die-hard".

...we're talking about a state where Biden supporters outnumbered Trump supporters by close to 500k in the 2020 presidential elections. Mathematically, the GOP candidate Youngkin couldn't have won that without a significant number of Biden/Hillary/Obama voters voting for him.

In a state that's been racking up wins for the (D) column for 15 years, they lost because some people who had been voting democrat jumped ship, not because of republicans.

No matter how you slice it, it still comes down to a democratic strategizing problem. If your incumbent loses in a state that you've been winning for a while, one needs to at least consider the possibility that what some other players on the team are selling, may be just a tad outside of the overton window for that region.

RDKirk · Nov 29, 2021

FireDragon76 said:
Sure, alot of real CRT is a college-level class. Most primary education has to focus on a "consensus narrative" of history, and that's where the battleground lies. So-called "CRT proponents" just want to teach about the reality of slavery and its consequences in an honest way, which isn't a thing in every US state, unfortunately.

Not "just."

I think what's inflammatory not history (which need not have anything to do with CRT), but CRT-based (supposedly) anti-racism training, and particularly the categorization of whites as permanent and constant oppressors with blacks as permanent and continuous victims. That is a CRT theorist conclusion.

The fact is, little Chad is not an oppressor, and as a member of Generation A`, he's never going to become an oppressor, nor is little LaDamien doomed to be oppressed.

The problem is that CRT theory began in despair in the 70s that the Civil Rights Era had not immediately eliminated racism. It has remained in that despair for 50 years despite the fact that there actually has been significant advancement in younger generations. The CRT theorist conclusion is 50 years out of date and incorrect.

HannahT · Nov 29, 2021

RDKirk said:
The problem is that CRT theory began in despair in the 70s that the Civil Rights Era had not immediately eliminated racism. It has remained in that despair for 50 years despite the fact that there actually has been significant advancement in younger generations. The CRT theorist conclusion is 50 years out of date and incorrect.

I think many like playing with the CRT label. How they don't teach that college theory from way back when. It's a way of denying the offshoots/rebranding that are popular today. There have been teachers and parents that have come forward with unhealthy aspects of anti racism or equity stuff. Instead of addressing their concerns? They say it is not CRT. Then they put you on ignore. BAD move...you are talking their children now...not them.

I don't think they would have addressed them respectfully if they had used the correct words/labels either to be honest.

Legalism does work at times in politics (and it has), but now we are talking about messing with children. A bipartisan concept they may haven't dreamed would happen? Don't play those games when it comes to our kids. Now your outside your lane.

IceJad · Dec 10, 2021

HannahT said:
Yes, but even snobs can have actual point regarding other ones.

If people just stop at he can be a snob too, and not listen to see if he actually has a point? They will miss something important.

His first point about how they know they are losing (liberals), but don't stop to wonder if they have something they can do NOW to save themselves from that failure next election? He could have a valid point. They might have the policies that are important, but you can't hear them due to ugly noise? It won't do you any good.

He was talking about messaging. Liberal's come across as we have a country full of dumb white people. If you repeat that enough in your messages, and then come election time expect those dumb white people to come to the polls and vote for you? Especially when they claim they a substantial portion of the vote? Who are the real dummies? The smart liberal base when they lose for spending to much time on lecturing people on pronouns compared to what those dumb white people need to hear from them?

I mean they followed that experiment in VA, and lost because of it. So, what did they do? Liberal's doubled down after losing on the messaging, and had the silly media followed suit with a added flair. They again said it was the dumb white people being dumb and not listening to them. Then threw in some extra gravy and reminded them they are racist now too - or white supremist to boot to REALLY remind them they aren't just dumb now, but evil.

Great way to collect future voters! I mean LOOK at how smart the liberals are - he is pointing out. You call them dumb first, and then call them racist when they don't vote your way...and expect them to fall into line next election? What label will they use to draw them out with next time? Dumb and racist clearly didn't work, but they are to busy scrapping their noses across the ceiling to notice. If they continue on that path - their name calling/labeling people isn't going to win them elections - and yet everyone else is dumb when they can't acknowledge that.

Him being a snob or no snob? He has a point. People generally aren't going to vote for someone that speaks down to them on the whole.

Well I'm not saying that he doesn't have a point or two. Even a broken clock is right twice daily. It's just amusing to me that he can unironically give such advise without a hint of self reflection.

I'm a guy that never gives much credence to talk show hosts in general. I watch them occasionally when their clips show up in the youtube recommendations. Else nothing of value was lost if I don't.

RDKirk · Dec 10, 2021

IceJad said:
Well I'm not saying that he doesn't have a point or two. Even a broken clock is right twice daily. It's just amusing to me that he can unironically give such advise without a hint of self reflection.

I regularly vote for people who have positive traits I don't have.

Ana the Ist · Dec 10, 2021

durangodawood said:
Yeah totally agree. Ideologically I'm far left in many (tho not all) respects. Politically I'm center left, as thats how how change gets done, at least in govt.

What does ideologically far left mean to you?

Ana the Ist · Dec 10, 2021

ThatRobGuy said:
That actually happens in a lot of states...and a lot of states that people wouldn't expect.

Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, Chris Sununu... all Republican governors in states that went solidly for Obama. (2 of them even have overlapping tenures with him)

Charlie Baker, as a republican, won 2/3 of the state's popular vote in Massachusetts during the same time when Hillary was beating Trump by a similar margin in that state.

There are a significant number of people who vehemently disliked "Trumpism", but weren't buying what the democrats were selling either, and if given the choice between a reasonable Moderate republican and someone further to the left, chose the former.

I'm in that camp as an Ohioan...voted for Biden in the last presidential election, but I'm okay with Mike DeWine as my governor.

It's weird coming from Ohio if you currently live in a different state that is solidly left or right.

Ana the Ist · Dec 10, 2021

iluvatar5150 said:
You’re not wrong, but there’s still a sizable contingent who’ll never be converted, who act in bad faith, and who’ll engage in backlash anyways. Electing a black man as president, for example, was hardly a whirlwind process, yet there was enough racial backlash against him for his successor to succeed by dishonestly painting him as a foreign-born interlocutor.

Huh?

Do you actually know anyone who voted for Trump and asked them why?

Ana the Ist · Dec 10, 2021

RestoreTheJoy said:
You have actually got this backwards. White liberals tend to actually change their voices when talking down to minorities, a lowbrow and unsophisticated technique if there ever was one.

According to new research by Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Yale SOM, white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities, compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges. The study is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The researchers found that liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white. No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner.

White Liberals Present Themselves as Less Competent in Interactions with African-Americans

And yet white liberals are the only racial political group that has a measurable out group bias.

So there's a lot that can be happening there.

They could be racist and assume less of minorities. They could be ashamed of themselves and trying to hide indicators of intelligence to defer to minorities conversationally. They could be mirroring, or projecting, or....other stuff.

Ana the Ist · Dec 10, 2021

RDKirk said:
One hundred and ten years ago, Republicans called themselves Progressives. The original planks of Progressivism haven't changed since then (although a few new ones have been added). Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" speech would fit easily into the mouth of Bernie Sanders (although Bernie probably can't take a bullet to the chest and then give a 90-minute speech...but maybe he can).

But the party that supports them has changed.

I've honestly never looked up the definition of "Progressive"...I has assumed all this time it was simply an attempt to rebrand "liberal" when that word was a bit of a smear.

I'm coming back to edit this after I look it up.

That's egalitarianism....or close enough to it I can't tell the distinction. It appears to not actually be a cohesive political philosophy.

Ana the Ist · Dec 10, 2021

iluvatar5150 said:
Right. He’s got enough power and money to negate any attempts to cancel him.

But if “cancel culture” really is someone’s concern, how is going after wealthy celebrities comparable to what the Trump Administration and their fanboys tried to do Lt Col Vindman, his brother, and other whistleblowers?

The who did what now?

I can concede that a lot of left-wing cancel culture is misguided self-righteousness

How gracious of you.

I think it's presenting itself as misguided moral righteousness...but it's just extrajudicial revenge at the social level.

while also pointing out that the right is not only just as guilty of attempting to engage in the same sort of performative self-righteousness but outright intimidation in the facilitation of corruption.

Which thing are you referring to?

Ana the Ist · Dec 10, 2021

RDKirk said:
Not "just."

I think what's inflammatory not history (which need not have anything to do with CRT), but CRT-based (supposedly) anti-racism training, and particularly the categorization of whites as permanent and constant oppressors with blacks as permanent and continuous victims. That is a CRT theorist conclusion.

The fact is, little Chad is not an oppressor, and as a member of Generation A`, he's never going to become an oppressor, nor is little LaDamien doomed to be oppressed.

The problem is that CRT theory began in despair in the 70s that the Civil Rights Era had not immediately eliminated racism. It has remained in that despair for 50 years despite the fact that there actually has been significant advancement in younger generations. The CRT theorist conclusion is 50 years out of date and incorrect.

This is kinda my conclusion if you were to start and end with Derek Bell. Once intersectionality and Marxist theory got into it...it was fundamentally no longer concerned with racism apart from using it as a means to an end, a critique that can be reshaped in so many ways that they actually contradict themselves.

Ana the Ist · Dec 10, 2021

ThatRobGuy said:
There's some overlap, but I was referring more to the distinction between say...
Example of #1 - fabrications:
Democrats push for vaccine mandates
- Fringe Rep/Cons suggest that it's some sort of evil globalist agenda, or about how it's "democrats wanting use covid to implement socialism"

Example of #2 - real policy, but exaggerated to reductio ad absurdum:
Democrats want universal background checks and want firearm registration
- Rep/Cons spinning it as "They're going to try to take everyone's guns away, and registration is purely for the reason of confiscation!"

Example #3 - things they see in other parts of the country, that they don't want for their own locale:
Progressive educators in NYC using the The 1619 project as history class material, and having a "Transgender Awareness Immersion Week" in 3rd and 4th grade classrooms, or having Kindergarten assignments instructing 5-6 year olds to write letters to the Cleveland Indians asking them to change their mascot.
- People living in the midwest and south (both republicans and democrats) saying I'm not comfortable with that, I don't want that here

Democrats like Jacob Frey (Mayor of Minneapolis) found out the repercussions of "doublespeak"/"the semantic game" when he got booed for saying he didn't want to "actually" defund the police.

The NY Times ran the video of how that played out for him
Video: Minneapolis Mayor Booed Out of Rally

That's what happens to politicians when they don't really support the radical cause, but are afraid to explicitly reject it out fear of "offending the wrong group".

They probably do like the pro-labor parts, which is why democrats like Jim Webb and Tim Kaine got elected in Virginia as Senators. They'd even probably go for Bernie Sanders.

They did an interesting town hall with Bernie Sanders where he sat down with Trump voters, and they were surprisingly receptive to him, and some even said they originally supported him, but once the DNC backed Hillary as their horse, they switched to the Trump team.

But I don't think it's fair to lump Bernie & AOC in together...they share a lot of overlap on economic ideology, but as you drift into some of the more "modern" social aspects and rhetoric, I think you'd find that they sort of diverge.

Bernie....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-as-black-lives-matter-activists-invade-stage

I can't forget that. I would have voted for him had he got the nomination and I hadn't seen this happen....

But how? How do you vote for a guy who literally gets pushed aside for some activists. Bernie Sanders spent a long time serving the public, it was his moment, and a couple of activists who got angry literally shoved him out the way....for a cause they picked up a year ago.

It's a harsh thing to judge a guy on...he's old. He probably figured that was the safe play.

Fundamentally though, when push comes to shove, he looks like a pushover to me. He talks big, but I'm inclined to believe that when facing a tough choice....he plays safe.

Edit- also...I don't vote lol.

Ana the Ist · Dec 10, 2021

FireDragon76 said:
Why should that be normative? The US definition of "conservative" is increasingly divorced from Burkean notions of conservativism. It swings between ideologies like anarcho-capitalism (in the 80's) all the way to Christian nationalism (today), and has an overall reactionary, rather than conservative (in the Burkean sense) character.

I'd be careful here. Characterizing Finland as "left wing" is an oversimplification and ignores the different cultural values of most Scandinavians (which are more rooted in Lutheranism than necessarily in Marxist Dialectic Materialism). If you want to understand how those religious values impact Scandinavian culture, look up "Jante laws" some time: Law of Jante - Wikipedia . Simply put, Scandinavians value hard work, but they don't value individual exceptionalism and they think about themselves as situated within a wider community, rather than as merely individuals.

Ever notice how harsh living environments tend to one of two extremes of violence?

A group has to almost be alone in a difficult place to choose passivity and cooperation. It's as if whenever we don't have to or need to rely upon each other, we resent each other.

Or maybe it's just me.

Bill Maher Warns Democrats Are Headed for 2022 Defeat Because ‘Nobody Likes a Snob’

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Newbie

Regular Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Similar threads