The Glade 4.0

No, that's Bernie Sanders. He'll be in Congress 150 years from now as the Crypt Keeper.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Thanks Michael, I appreciate it.



It's becoming clear in recent years that belief based on faith has absolutely nothing to do with whether the supernatural is involved in that belief.



Calling their exploding behavior into question is the most effective response. Obviously it has no bearing on the matter at hand, but enraged explosions are really a form of argumentum ad bacculum.



Getting banned from a place that would ban you for that may not be such a terrible fate.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is why I have begun to draw the distinction between liberals and left-wing conservatives. Truly, if you examine their behavior, it is very much like the right-wing conservatives they revile (see Riov's post about immortality disgusted as party loyalty, or perhaps he meant to say immorality disguised as party loyalty - it's equally applicable to the left).

The term "liberal" implies something about a group's values and motives that is no longer true of the left as an entity, and probably hasn't been true for a long time. Actual liberals have been hoodwinked into supporting something far more sinister that ultimately leads to a totalitarian regime.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I think the politically correct, victim identity politics dialogue coming from the left may be changing that, although I am not sure it is for the better. Trump didn't win because he got an incredibly huge number of votes. He won because lots of liberal voters stayed home. But them staying home doesn't get an actual liberal thinker into office. It just means that there are fewer total people voting, and one of the two assholes the parties have picked still wins. We're not seeing independants or third parties make any inroads on your defacto political dichotomy.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Except that the ******* that won wasn't the party's pick, and was for all intents and purposes, an independent who occasionally called himself a Democrat in the past barged in and took over the Republican party. The Republican party tried (with hilarious incompetence) to avoid him and utterly failed, partly because none of the other candidates wanted to go toe-to-toe and waited too long for someone else to do it (witness Chris Christie taking out Marco Rubio for no apparent reason before getting eliminated himself), and partly because the voters had quite enough of it and imposed him on them.

Bernie Sanders came remarkably close to accomplishing the same thing, but was thwarted by a combination of superdelegates (which Republicans don't have), the DNC's shenanigans, and the fact that he was running against the first vagina, as well as a number of other lesser factors. Still, he far exceeded all expectations, but he was only a Democrat when it came time to run.

On top of that, the Libertarians put in their strongest showing yet and probably would have cleared the 5% threshold for Federal funding (which would massively increase their funding and ability to get attention - funding matters most when your main issue is lack of recognition) had Gary Johnson not suffered not 1, but 2 "Aleppo Moments".

This is what major inroads actually look like realistically.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If you go far enough left, the message of helping the poor, the worker, and the minority becomes a mix of 1917 Russia "class enemies" talk with attempts to apply 1960s civil rights crusading to white people ordering Chinese food. The extreme left is trying to make 2 messages that are A) outdated and B) incompatible with each other fit a country where we've replaced civil rights battles with "cultural appropriation" concerns and where the national poverty line for a single adult is 12x to 15x the level of extreme poverty defined by the world bank.

The level of misery in the west is just nowhere near the levels it was when these messages were developed, but because social change has been so rapid over the last few decades, the messages haven't had time to adapt - the civil rights leaders of the 1960s are often still alive; their progeny hear them and emulate them but they didn't experience the past and have no perspective.

The extreme left is lashing out for an enemy to fight, but there simply isn't one that matches the level of hysteria it is employing. This has put the mainstream left in a bad position; for a long time it was willing to tolerate the constant screams of "RACIST!" or whatever even if it really thought it was too much, but hey, it was targeted at the right, so who cares? Well, unfortunately, once it alienated enough people a crisis developed - and any time the mainstream part of the left tries to get a handle on things, the language gets turned on it.

Even the non-mainstream left can get it; Bernie got BLM all over him and people ***** his campaign and state were "too white" because his attack plan was to stick with the socialism while bringing the social message down to mainstream levels - Bernie is not the one making comments about "deplorables". The media keeps giving these people a platform as well because there's both a fascination with the crazy and a terror of granting that the right may have had a point all along about the crazy (the right's own crazies have never been as effective at salami-slicing their way into the public eye so the equivalent situation hasn't developed there.)

This is, indeed, pretty sinister. Fortunately, however, there's that misery factor. People just aren't desperate here. People want to come here to live, not get away. This helps confine the crazy to manageable enclaves.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Reading the threads is often really entertaining.

"Hey guys, can you believe this? Richard Spencer is speaking at a major university."
"That's bullshit, no respectable institution would ever allow that."
"No, you won't believe this, they were actually going to just let him speak until the cops said that it was almost certain that violence would result if he showed up there."
"Who allowed him to be booked in the **** first place? Fire that idiot yesterday."
"So how is he still speaking if they banned him?"
"He went and got a court order! The judge ordered them to let him speak!"
"The Republicans must have paid someone off, did they not tell the judge about the violence?"
"I don't get how any judge doesn't know who Richard Spencer is in 2017. He had to **** know that hate speech was the only reason Spencer would ever go there, and that's absolutely not allowed."
"Yeah, since when is hate speech protected?"

*Fast forward to violence actually happening*

"**** Spencer, he's lucky nobody went and shot his sorry ***."
"Three more people Trump put in the **** hospital. Is this **** ever going to stop?"

It amuses me that the instigators of violence are the ones complaining about the violence.

The terrorists win indeed.

_________________


Grenade 3 Sports Drink. It's fire in the hole.. Your hole!

Yeesh, those are at the level of Yahoo comments. I'm proud to say I usually get censored and banned by sites with a higher calibre of SJWs than that!

To be fair, of course, right-wing commenters on places like National Review are no more illuminating or informed. It's just that the site mods don't usually ban anyone who disagrees with the party line. Instead, they leave the comment sections as free-for-alls, and the regulars dogpile on liberal commenters, call them "cucks" or "libtards" every time they comment, and then congratulate each other on their wit and rectitude when the liberals either stop responding entirely or start responding in kind. It seems places like the Glade - where folks actually disagree in a mostly civil manner and take it in stride when things get temporarily uncivil - are really hard to find.

I can't remember the last time I saw a comments section on National Review at all.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah, it's ugly. Even with the Facebook login requiring people to post under their real names, the level of stupid in there is shocking. It always surprises, me to be honest. Some of the staff and guest writers at NR are truly awful, but most are actually solid enough, so I would have expected a higher calibre of commenters. The same is true of The Atlantic on the left-of-center side of things. I guess when a site is popular enough, you just end up with the dipshits commenting.

No, what I meant was I didn't think they had a comments section at all. I can't see it for some reason.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Oh, I see. I suppose calling it a "section" was misleading. If you scroll to the bottom of an article - aaalllll the way to the bottom, past all the advertising links that pop up - you should see where you can post comments on that particular article.

I don't see it. Oh well; It's probably best.

I also wish I couldn't see anything written by Kevin Williamson. My usual reaction to any article by him is dread, and I'm getting so I can identify his just by the titles. I don't know if this guy actually thinks he's funny or if he's just an imbecile but he's absolutely terrible.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Lol. Yeah, he's not one of my favorites. I do find Jonah Goldberg pretty amusing, and Ramesh Ponnuru, David French (except on sexuality/gender issues - dude has some hangups!), Charles Cooke, and Andrew Stuttaford usually give me something to think about. Andrew McCarthy used to have some intelligent legal analysis, but he's gone a bit off his rocker in the last couple years. He's off in John Yoo "of course the Constitution permits the President to launch infants from trebuchets as long as he yells 'national security' while he does it" territory these days, and he seems at least halfway convinced that Obama Deep State Fifth Columnist Red Brigades are still plotting a coup of some sort!

At most outlets on both sides, most writers and commentators have certain topics they ought to just stay away from. With David French that's sex. With Kevin Williamson it's basically everything. He's what I imagine a right-wing Bill Maher would sound like. He substitutes sarcasm, snark, and condescension he's completely undeserving of engaging in, for actually having some idea what the ****.

He wrote an article or two last year - right around the time it became clear that NR's "never Trump" issue had failed because it's a magazine for politics junkies, not something the average person actually reads - basically having a tantrum at the voters that amounted to "how dare white people have drug problems! You're inconveniencing conservative intellectuals!"

It was the same condescension we've heard from people like Maher, and it'd be tempting to say the fault is equal - except people actually have heard of Bill Maher.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Encouraging signs from China.

One of the things about a resurgent Russia and an emergent China is that their client states need to learn (or re-learn) that you don't get to drag your patron along with you to a place they don't want to go.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."