Yes, I know you were blaming Obama and Democratic senators. And you’re an idiot. I don’t know how to explain that to you.
Which is why I was sarcastic in the first place. Because if you’re making statements this objectively dumb there’s really no engaging with you except for making fun of you.
Because between the two of us you’re the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about.
Are you anti-surveillance like Flock? Anti-ICE? Obama wasn’t. The 2009-2011 Democratic senators weren’t. They enabled the very tools being used by fascists against the American people today. What aren’t you getting here?
Ok. I’ll try and explain it to you. It probably won’t help, but I’ll try anyway.
You made sweeping, declarative statements based on generalized conclusions. Your argument essentially boils down to: if Obama and this faceless, nameless, amorphous blob of people you call Democratic senators had done everything differently, specifically, everything the way you think they should have, then everything would be different, and Trump wouldn’t be president.
Well, yes. Obviously. If everything had happened exactly the way you wanted it to, we’d be living in a utopia. Or, at least, your version of one.
But that’s not how history works. You don’t get to look backward at an outcome and simply declare, “If this had happened instead, everything would have been fine.” That’s counterfactual reasoning without actually establishing the causal chain. You would need to demonstrate that the alternative action was realistically available, that it would have produced the desired result, and that there weren’t other variables that would have changed the outcome.
Take the period after World War I. You could argue that if the victorious powers had pursued a different economic and political settlement with Germany, reduced the severity of the reparations burden, and avoided some of the conditions that contributed to political instability, Hitler’s rise might have been less likely. You could even argue that different decisions might have changed the trajectory of European history entirely.
And, sure, in hindsight, governments could have made different choices. Maybe World War II could have been avoided. Maybe the Holocaust could have been prevented.
But that’s not what happened.
That’s precisely why statements like “If Obama and the Democratic senators had done X during Obama’s administration, Trump wouldn’t be president” are so intellectually lazy. You’re taking an enormously complicated historical and political process and reducing it to a hypothetical in which the people you dislike made the correct decisions according to your preferred outcome. That’s not an explanation of what actually happened. It’s hindsight dressed up as analysis.
Moreover, if you think Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally different in the ways that actually matter to the underlying structure of American politics, then you’ve completely lost the plot.
Obviously, there are meaningful differences between the parties, and those differences can have very real consequences. But both parties operate within the same political and economic system, both depend heavily on wealthy donors and corporate interests, and both have repeatedly failed to address structural problems that should have been addressed decades ago.
We still have an absurdly expensive and heavily privatized healthcare system. We have weak antitrust enforcement compared with what would be necessary to meaningfully challenge corporate concentration. We have no federal term limits for Congress, and we continue to allow members of Congress to participate in stock trading under rules that are far too permissive.
So my objection isn’t that Democratic policies and Republican policies are literally identical. They obviously aren’t. My objection is that, in this particular argument, you’re pretending that the identity of the party in power, or a handful of supposedly correct decisions by Obama and Democratic senators, provides a simple explanation for an outcome that was the product of decades of political, economic, and social forces.
That’s the part I disagree with.
You can construct an infinite number of alternate histories where everything would have turned out differently if people had simply made different decisions. That doesn’t make those counterfactuals useful explanations of reality.
History happened the way it happened. The interesting question isn’t “What should they have done if they knew exactly what we know now?” It’s why did they make the decisions they actually made, what constraints were they operating under, and what structural forces produced the outcome we got?
That’s a much more useful conversation than pretending the entire problem could have been avoided if Obama and some Democratic senators had just played the game correctly.
I’m not reading all that bud. And it’s not about what I believe. It’s about what you believe.
if Obama and this faceless, nameless, amorphous blob of people you call Democratic senators had done everything differently, specifically, everything the way you think they should have, then everything would be different
And do you think Obama and the 2009-2011 Democratic senators did what they should have? Did you support ICE in 2009? Did you support warrantless surveillance in 2009?
So I tried to explain it to you without name calling and you couldn’t be bothered to read it. If you did most of your questions would have been answered.
And there he was, knowing nothing, which was to say knowing everything, for ignorance, when properly seasoned with confidence, becomes indistinguishable from wisdom, and he had seasoned himself liberally.
Everyone was wrong. This he knew.
He knew it before breakfast, before coffee, before the newspaper had even been opened. He had read the headline, therefore he understood the article. He had watched a nine-minute video, therefore he understood the subject. He had once spoken to a man who worked in a hospital, therefore he understood medicine. He had driven across a suspension bridge, therefore he understood engineering.
“Gravity isn’t even really proven,” he announced.
“Then why do things fall?”
“Density.”
“Density doesn’t cause things to fall.”
“That’s what they want you to think.”
Who they were was unclear, but this was hardly a problem. The less clearly defined the enemy, the more powerful the argument.
He questioned everything.
Except himself.
If evidence agreed with him, it was proof. If evidence disagreed, it was propaganda. If every expert disagreed, the experts were corrupt. If nobody could find evidence either way, then clearly the evidence had been suppressed.
“Do your own research,” he said, having conducted none.
Research, in his understanding, meant finding the first webpage containing the words he already believed and sending it to someone else.
He had opinions on physics, economics, history, medicine, military strategy, constitutional law, nutrition, climate science, and quantum mechanics, despite possessing no demonstrable knowledge of any of them. His qualifications were extensive: he had been alive, he had owned a television, and once he had successfully changed a tire.
Thus he was an expert.
He distrusted scientists because they admitted uncertainty, doctors because they disagreed with him, professors because they used large words, and books because books contained “agendas.”
He preferred videos made by men sitting in parked trucks.
They looked authentic.
One such man had explained that history was written by the winners.
He had accepted this immediately, though he could not remember who had won Waterloo.
Facts, he explained, were subjective.
He then became furious when someone disagreed with his facts.
This was not hypocrisy.
It was nuance.
He had learned the word online.
He used it incorrectly.
Naturally, this did not diminish its importance.
And so he continued, erecting magnificent towers of certainty upon foundations of absolutely nothing, each conclusion supporting the next like drunken men leaning against one another in a doorway, until finally he arrived at the only conclusion that could survive every possible objection:
“I’ve done my research.”
He had not.
But he had searched.
And in the modern age, apparently, that was close enough.
He demanded an explanation, received one, and upon discovering that explanations contained information, declared it too long.
Yes, I know you were blaming Obama and Democratic senators. And you’re an idiot. I don’t know how to explain that to you.
Which is why I was sarcastic in the first place. Because if you’re making statements this objectively dumb there’s really no engaging with you except for making fun of you.
Which I am. Because you’re stupid.
Because between the two of us you’re the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about.
Are you anti-surveillance like Flock? Anti-ICE? Obama wasn’t. The 2009-2011 Democratic senators weren’t. They enabled the very tools being used by fascists against the American people today. What aren’t you getting here?
Ok. I’ll try and explain it to you. It probably won’t help, but I’ll try anyway.
You made sweeping, declarative statements based on generalized conclusions. Your argument essentially boils down to: if Obama and this faceless, nameless, amorphous blob of people you call Democratic senators had done everything differently, specifically, everything the way you think they should have, then everything would be different, and Trump wouldn’t be president.
Well, yes. Obviously. If everything had happened exactly the way you wanted it to, we’d be living in a utopia. Or, at least, your version of one.
But that’s not how history works. You don’t get to look backward at an outcome and simply declare, “If this had happened instead, everything would have been fine.” That’s counterfactual reasoning without actually establishing the causal chain. You would need to demonstrate that the alternative action was realistically available, that it would have produced the desired result, and that there weren’t other variables that would have changed the outcome.
Take the period after World War I. You could argue that if the victorious powers had pursued a different economic and political settlement with Germany, reduced the severity of the reparations burden, and avoided some of the conditions that contributed to political instability, Hitler’s rise might have been less likely. You could even argue that different decisions might have changed the trajectory of European history entirely.
And, sure, in hindsight, governments could have made different choices. Maybe World War II could have been avoided. Maybe the Holocaust could have been prevented.
But that’s not what happened.
That’s precisely why statements like “If Obama and the Democratic senators had done X during Obama’s administration, Trump wouldn’t be president” are so intellectually lazy. You’re taking an enormously complicated historical and political process and reducing it to a hypothetical in which the people you dislike made the correct decisions according to your preferred outcome. That’s not an explanation of what actually happened. It’s hindsight dressed up as analysis.
Moreover, if you think Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally different in the ways that actually matter to the underlying structure of American politics, then you’ve completely lost the plot.
Obviously, there are meaningful differences between the parties, and those differences can have very real consequences. But both parties operate within the same political and economic system, both depend heavily on wealthy donors and corporate interests, and both have repeatedly failed to address structural problems that should have been addressed decades ago.
We still have an absurdly expensive and heavily privatized healthcare system. We have weak antitrust enforcement compared with what would be necessary to meaningfully challenge corporate concentration. We have no federal term limits for Congress, and we continue to allow members of Congress to participate in stock trading under rules that are far too permissive.
So my objection isn’t that Democratic policies and Republican policies are literally identical. They obviously aren’t. My objection is that, in this particular argument, you’re pretending that the identity of the party in power, or a handful of supposedly correct decisions by Obama and Democratic senators, provides a simple explanation for an outcome that was the product of decades of political, economic, and social forces.
That’s the part I disagree with.
You can construct an infinite number of alternate histories where everything would have turned out differently if people had simply made different decisions. That doesn’t make those counterfactuals useful explanations of reality.
History happened the way it happened. The interesting question isn’t “What should they have done if they knew exactly what we know now?” It’s why did they make the decisions they actually made, what constraints were they operating under, and what structural forces produced the outcome we got?
That’s a much more useful conversation than pretending the entire problem could have been avoided if Obama and some Democratic senators had just played the game correctly.
I’m not reading all that bud. And it’s not about what I believe. It’s about what you believe.
What on earth are you talking about? They’re not a nameless amorphous blob of people. These were elected politicians. You can look them up right here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Senate
And do you think Obama and the 2009-2011 Democratic senators did what they should have? Did you support ICE in 2009? Did you support warrantless surveillance in 2009?
So I tried to explain it to you without name calling and you couldn’t be bothered to read it. If you did most of your questions would have been answered.
So I’ll just go back to name calling.
You’re an idiot.
I’m not reading your wall of word vomit when you can’t answer basic questions about your principles bud. You lack substance.
And there he was, knowing nothing, which was to say knowing everything, for ignorance, when properly seasoned with confidence, becomes indistinguishable from wisdom, and he had seasoned himself liberally.
Everyone was wrong. This he knew.
He knew it before breakfast, before coffee, before the newspaper had even been opened. He had read the headline, therefore he understood the article. He had watched a nine-minute video, therefore he understood the subject. He had once spoken to a man who worked in a hospital, therefore he understood medicine. He had driven across a suspension bridge, therefore he understood engineering.
“Gravity isn’t even really proven,” he announced.
“Then why do things fall?”
“Density.”
“Density doesn’t cause things to fall.”
“That’s what they want you to think.”
Who they were was unclear, but this was hardly a problem. The less clearly defined the enemy, the more powerful the argument.
He questioned everything.
Except himself.
If evidence agreed with him, it was proof. If evidence disagreed, it was propaganda. If every expert disagreed, the experts were corrupt. If nobody could find evidence either way, then clearly the evidence had been suppressed.
“Do your own research,” he said, having conducted none.
Research, in his understanding, meant finding the first webpage containing the words he already believed and sending it to someone else.
He had opinions on physics, economics, history, medicine, military strategy, constitutional law, nutrition, climate science, and quantum mechanics, despite possessing no demonstrable knowledge of any of them. His qualifications were extensive: he had been alive, he had owned a television, and once he had successfully changed a tire.
Thus he was an expert.
He distrusted scientists because they admitted uncertainty, doctors because they disagreed with him, professors because they used large words, and books because books contained “agendas.”
He preferred videos made by men sitting in parked trucks.
They looked authentic.
One such man had explained that history was written by the winners.
He had accepted this immediately, though he could not remember who had won Waterloo.
Facts, he explained, were subjective.
He then became furious when someone disagreed with his facts.
This was not hypocrisy.
It was nuance.
He had learned the word online.
He used it incorrectly.
Naturally, this did not diminish its importance.
And so he continued, erecting magnificent towers of certainty upon foundations of absolutely nothing, each conclusion supporting the next like drunken men leaning against one another in a doorway, until finally he arrived at the only conclusion that could survive every possible objection:
“I’ve done my research.”
He had not.
But he had searched.
And in the modern age, apparently, that was close enough.
He demanded an explanation, received one, and upon discovering that explanations contained information, declared it too long.