Dglgmut

That reddit is full of leftists. It's likely all fake posts. Also, right wing people don't even use reddit.

Yeah, that's what I meant with my alternative at the bottom of that post (the middle class white women who Trump lost). However that doesn't make sense either, if in fact the skewed makeup of the count is due to an excess of ballots with ONLY a vote for President. If there is 450,000 ballots with only a vote for Biden that is very strange.

I thought it was suspicious that Rupublicans were getting more votes except when it came to the President. Why would someone vote for a Democrat President but leave the rest of the ballot blank?? Even as fraud it seems lazy... but I guess that's how the Dems work? They make their schemes obvious enough that you can gaslight common sense people by calling them a conspiracy theorist. (Do they just want division?) Alternatively I did hear that while Trump picked up votes from minorities (mainly black and Latino men), he lost a lot of middle class women. That would explain the down-ballot Republican voting plus Biden.

Here's an excerpt from Curtis Yarvin's latest post, on the election: Obviously he does not see Trump getting a second term. He is pro-Trump, in a sense, despite the tone of this passage. His problem is with the modern Right in general and their unwillingness to take power from the Left. His advice to the President would be to declassify everything that would not harm national security before his term is up, and bring all the troops home so Biden would have to initiate all foreign intervention himself. Sounds like a good plan to me. One positive thing that will come from Biden being officially elected is the title of The Underdogs will be undisputed. This will lower political energy of the Left, and make the Right take their enemies more seriously.

I think they only planned to have as many fraudulent votes counted/counting mistakes as necessary. As Trump began to have a scary lead in key states, the shenanigans would proceed. But with Trump getting, what, 8 million more votes than 2016, that's a lot of fake votes/clerical errors. On that scale I can't imagine the quality of cheating is up to par and I feel like it will be hard to keep covered up.

lol now I see Georgia and Pennsylvania are now showing Biden leading... By the end of the 'counting,' Biden is going to have 400+ electoral votes.

The Reuters map I've been checking every so often now has Arizona as a Democrat "lead," rather than a "win".

If the electoral map stays the way it is now, Trump still lost AZ and WI compared to 2016.

Looks like Texas will be red after all.

Joe Rogan's live stream is about to start I think, and Jones is supposed to be there.

Don't know if it's just me, but twitter links are not showing up as embedded. It's naked html and the link doesn't work unless I open it in a new tab.

I don't think that 8% black vote is accurate. Here is a history of black voting: 11% in 2004 as a response to 9/11, presumably, and Bush's pro-war stance. 4% and 6% against the first black president, and 8% for Trump in 2016. Since Trump's win I can only imagine black support for the president is up. It's hard to qualify that, but it's probably easier to put it in terms of loyalty to the Democrats being down. It's not so much that Trump has been great, but that the overwhelming Democrat support isn't sustainable when it hasn't come with any noticeable benefits to black people.

Where are his voters on that map?? This is bullshit.

Uh... and Kanye??

Sorry, I didn't understand this. So it's not a system of ideas/ideals (definition of ideology), but it is something that people use to identify themselves. I actually wouldn't consider a lot of people who identify themselves as leftists to be leftists. I think a lot of people just think of leftism as the compassionate position and don't really know much about it. I use the term leftism rather than getting specific about the political design because it doesn't matter to me. They all point to the same thing: diffusion of political power. They hold that a committee is more effective than a leader. The left vs right paradigm is confusing for people, with new dimensions being added to better explain the differences... none of which are really necessary in my opinion. The confusion mainly comes from the difference between the design of the political structure vs the actual policies. Centralized vs diffused power is like comparing men to women. Power structure is to policy what gender is to gender expression. A man wearing a dress is not a woman. Equal rights are not equality. It takes unequal power to implement and enforce those rights from the top-down.

How can you talk about leftism if you can't identify it? Identify, then evaluate, right? But besides that, describing leftism as a body of ideas and stories just doesn't work--there's disconfirming evidence available. There is no coherent story, the narrative is a blatant contrariety completely dependent on the other side. The leftist narrative is reactive, it doesn't grow out of itself. edit: I thought this while watching the debates, as Trump would try to explain things so that they connect to one another: the COVID response, his taxes, Biden's corruption. Biden wouldn't do the same thing, he would speak as if he was making a statement that didn't need context, but didn't explain anything either. He's not adding to a story, he's just stoking emotions... "c'mon man."

You can keep mischaracterizing what I said, but I don't see how that's productive. It's funny, someone said something similar to you a few weeks ago... "Antifa is just an idea."

Oh, then I guess there's nothing to worry about

I'm not pointing the finger. I am trying to understand why they do what they do. Let's identify: Before we identify leftists, we have to identify leftism. I understand leftism as a secular religion, in which God has been replaced by Equality. This is their highest common proclaimed value. They don't actually have to value equality on a personal level, but to be a leftist they must pursue equality. Ironically pursuing equality is an effective way of achieving super-equality, e.g. Bernie Sanders and AOC. In pursuing equality they create villains and victims. White straight men are the villains who need to be made equal. We can see by their actions that the victims are secondary. The way to help the victims is to hurt the villains. This is the religion, but the politics are of broader scope and include allies and opponents. You can be a white ally and a black opponent, it just depends on whether you support equality. To be a good white ally you should self-flagellate; to be a good black ally you should assert your moral superiority. There's a lot of story elements here, but they only explain what, not why. The first cause is pursuing equality, everything else is built on top of that. Why equality? Equality is the most primitive common value. We can use reason to devalue equality, but on an instinctive level inequality bothers us. This isn't to say that leftists really do want equality, but that pursuing equality seems like a no-brainer. It looks good. The worst thing said about people pursuing equality is that they're misguided. There's no risk of being demonized. Now you've got people doing bad things for a noble cause. Some of them are actually intelligent. The question is do they actually believe this story? MSK, you'd say yes. The core story is the first cause and you can get all of your answers there. I say it depends why this story was written. Is this story their way of understanding the world? I say no. They do have stories for that too, but this aspect of themselves is a part of a defense system. The two ideological sides write their stories for different purposes. On one side you've got a story for the purpose of explaining how the world works, on the other you have a story used to justify anti-social behavior. If you challenge the story of the former you are making an intellectual challenge (they've got their facts wrong), if you challenge the story of the latter you are making a normative challenge (your cause is not really noble). This is why leftists have a more aggressive defense system. They have a cause which they use to defend abhorrent actions, challenge the cause and you delegitimize the actions. So I see people being attracted to leftism--the pursuit of equality--not because they think equality is really the highest ideal, but because it's a pretty good excuse for what they really want. The reason the two sides think differently is because one is in denial about their own depravity. They don't want to face it, they'd rather create an outlet. We all have issues, but it is the denial that distinguishes leftists. They can't admit that they want to do bad things, so they can't work on those feelings, and so they write the story. This highlights a point of disagreement between us. There is no "they." The ideology is steering the ship. Because the highest value is the lowest common denominator, there is only one possible destination. Societal shifts to the left are systemic.

LOL As much as I see the value in the letter as a threat to influence people's vote, I don't know if the people writing/delivering the letter realize how well it serves as a warning to prepare (even though "warning" is right on the page)... There will be no civil "war." There are only so many leftists willing to put themselves in danger. If Trump is elected and they attempt a pogrom, I predict they get massacred and Trump helps to protect the patriots from the legal repercussions.

You're making my argument into this reflexive thing that it's not. I have tried to see things from the leftist perspective. I am surrounded by leftists and talk to them all the time. A lot of them are filled with anger. It would be upsetting to me when I would find this out, and of course you've seen this even if only on the Internet. Seemingly normal people will have some disturbing expressions that are supposedly rooted in compassion, but expose themselves as pretty sadistic. This is what I mean by each side not being a mirror image of the other. In your model each side is doing the same thing but in opposite directions. You are so sure that "core story" explains everything, always. If that were true, "core story" would just be a synonym for psychology, and include the subconscious. But if you were consistent and used it that way you would have to talk about more than just narrative. I doubt many psychologists talk excessively about "core stories" or narrative, but even if they do, they have to leave room for things like trauma.

Yes, but I'd add that they don't even know what their motives are. By "they," I don't mean all leftists, I mean the ones who are doing the real damage. I think the ones who believe the narrative are clever, rather than gullible, as one might assume. They actually have to figure out a way to make sense of the all of the rationalizations and justifications. They have to contradict the narrative in certain points, budgeting the dubiousness of the whole thing. These clever leftists are not the ones creating the stories. They are just trying to keep up, as even though they are intellectually capable, they are cowards and are only want to stay with the crowd. The ones at the helm are the leftists I'm concerned with, and they are not an exclusive/static group. They are a fluid group that anyone can join simply by adding to the fire. The way to contribute is to further justify anti-social behavior. Notice that the left doesn't seem too concerned with pedophilia. Is this because they are pedophiles themselves? No, it's because pedophiles are a bad target for them. If they stand against pedophilia they are standing against anti-social behavior. Why do they want power/acceptance? They want impunity. Stealing stuff and engaging in mayhem is not a means to an end, it's the end. Why are they so inconsistent in their defense of so-called victims? Why do they showcase some "victims" and sweep others under the rug? It 100% depends on what the victim can justify. A white victim of black violence could hardly be used as a justification for anti-social behavior. Like you said, their goals are not arrived at ideationally. Thought is used only as a way to create that impunity. Again I have to point out what we have all seen, they are never satisfied. The more they are appeased the angrier they get--because with appeasement comes the expectation that the anti-social behavior will cease. Their impunity exists only while they have a cause.

The Middle Ages were characterized largely by an obsession with sin. The Reformation played a large role in ending that, not through a change in philosophy but by disempowering the church. People's relationship became between them and God, rather than having ecclesiastical intermediates. It seems the people did not care so much about sin when they were not being judged by authority figures. (I may have got something wrong here, but I think this is roughly what happened.) Perhaps that's the change that is making us more obsessed with sin again? We have a more rigid structure of authority? It may be that the public school system has shaped modern generation's mindset in a way that past generations were not. Perhaps it is the way parents started looking at school as the most important predictor of their child's future well being, while in the past school was less important (making the approval/authority of teachers less important to the children). The intellectuals became so powerful through results. They proved their worth, and in that they gave value to the intellectual identity. Being an intellectual took a back seat to being identified as an intellectual.

I assume the question was about this: But this is all based on a misinterpretation. The original quote was "My point is that people think in stories, sure, but what you have on the left is not thinking." People think in stories. That could mean a lot of things, but what I meant is that when people think, they often think in stories. Like if I say, "People like popcorn at the movies." People may like to go to movies without getting popcorn, and other people may not even like going to movies. That part of the quote was just me agreeing with how you look at the way people often think, but the second part, "what you have on the left is not thinking," was me saying that the actions of the left are not motivated by thought. Am I saying these people don't think? Ever? No. They are even capable of reasoning when it isn't in that aspect of their life corrupted by repressed emotion. Here, I'll rephrase the quote from a different angle: Narrative is not the only way to explain people's behavior. Just like you can't think your way out of a psychological problem, people do not always think themselves into one. Do you have some hierarchical discrepancy to point out here?

Okay, keep focusing on the thinking. See how well it explains their actions.