• 1 Post
  • 162 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 6th, 2023

help-circle



  • What you’re describing is a low consciousness of politics, whether due to desperation, poor education, or whatever else, since those moment-to-moment experiences generally could productively be described as political.

    My argument, and you might actually sympathize with it, is that the only fundamental difference here is the media screaming at people about this nonstop. Seriously, lineral people who like to fancy themselves as “staying up to date” with political goings-on are basically in an abusive relationship with the media that complete contorts their ideas of the past and future to promote the “this is the most important election of our livetimes” bullshit that they’ve done three elections in a row now. It’s not what the politicians are doing, it’s this screaming from the media that is frankly wrecking the mental health of the people who listen to it regularly.

    I actually do remember what it was like before then and a few months into it starting, whatever you might say of my decision making, I just disconnected for two years because I already hate Trump and don’t need a thousand headlines a day that ORANGMANBADORANGMANBADORANGMANBAD. It ended up being a good opportunity to learn about politics from a historical perspective and get some distance from this shit (and ultimately, that was a major factor in my becoming a communist, but we aren’t here for that).


  • Perhaps you’re conflating “the electoral dog and pony show” for “politics” then, because if you were “deeply poor,” it’s hard to imagine not dealing with politics. Easy example, the cops are a pretty political institution, acting as the agents of establishment powers. Hell, the enclosure of the commons and the resultant practically monopolistic effect that landlording has is also pretty political, liberals just don’t talk about it (other than Adam Smith).







  • Bernie is a bastard, but I think it’s backwards thinking to blame voters rather than candidates. In a nominal democracy, it’s the job of the candidates to appeal to people to get votes. If there is any merit to this idea, we must conclude that the failure was the Harris campaign for not generating the confidence needed to vote for her – which is a very expected outcome when you’re running as reactionary a campaign as she did, calling the wall a “good idea” and so on.






  • and very nearly succeeded

    How can you say this? Do you think that there’s some artifact in the Capitol that grants the power of Legitimate Governance? Do you think a dipshit protest-turned-walking-tour where the cops only saw fit to fire on like one person and only a couple of cops were killed by the rioters is enough to reverse an election in the country that is the global superpower? The country that overthrows governments abroad with much greater violence every few years?

    Is it possible that a couple of politicians would have been beaten to death? Yeah, in a somewhat different world, but the rioters did not begin to approach doing anything in the same dimension as a “successful coup”. There was no connection between what they did and what a group would need to do to take over the country, and imagining there was even anything in the Capitol that could be used for a bit of leverage (like if some pols got caught), that still wouldn’t be a coup and the feds would send SWAT in to blow some brains out.

    It’s just classic American aggrievement politics, the hogs put on a show for you so now it’s “1/6” like it’s a new 9/11 combined with the fucking burning of the White House in 1814. It was never going to amount to anything on the magnitude that you’re asserting, or even several orders of magnitude below it. There is no conflict in which like 6 people die (multiple from rank stupidity) that can connect even notionally to the outcome of overthrowing the most powerful country in the world!

    Well, unless it’s like a judicial coup or some other situation where people are exercising their political power directly, to be fair. But it’s not like Trump was doing the smarter thing and using executive orders to lay the ground for toppling the government, and even then there are so many barriers he’d need to get over that he didn’t even have the cognitive capacity back then to grapple with.



  • That’s not at all what the quote is and neither is the top level commenter’s interpretation, and I think it not being these is pretty obvious if you read No Exit. The point that he was making (and this is putting it crassly because I know jack shit about his Heidegger-based phenomenology) is the presence of other people forces us to be self-conscious, to regard ourselves as the object of someone else’s perception and judgement. That’s why Sartre goes out of his way to say the room (their jail cell in Hell, effectively) had no reflective surfaces, so that the character’s perception of themselves could only come from the people they are stuck with (this doesn’t entirely make sense, but I am pretty sure it’s what he meant). You can read him talk about some of the premises informing this by checking out his writing on “The Look,” like is quoted below this comic.

    So it’s a slightly obtuse point about intersubjectivity that people have turned into a cutesy way of talking about their own misanthropy. It’s probably more emblematic of the meaning of the quote how people in this thread, original commenter especially, are talking about silently judging people for this and that action.