Why a black (or a woman) James Bond is a stupid idea

 So, full disclosure, I'm a James Bond FANBOY. Like, autistic obsession level fanboyism here. Maybe not as much now, but when I was a teenager, I had to watch every single movie, and know every single thing about the franchise. I would buy those big 40th anniversary DVD collections back around 2002-2004ish after Die Another Day came out and watch the movies obsessively. I've seen all of the official Bond movies no less than 3-5 times (seeing some of the Craig ones a bit less but still watching them quite a bit), with the older ones seen well over 10-20 times each. So yeah, fanboy. Strong opinions here. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

So, with Daniel Craig finishing up his last film, and with that going to theaters soon, there's a lot of buzz surrounding who the next James Bond should be. And a name that has been floated around regularly is Idris Elba, a black guy. Uh...why? I've also heard people saying maybe the next James Bond should be a woman. Uh...seriously? What the actual fudge? 

It's SJWism. SJWism seems to treat franchises like James Bond as like a glass ceiling. Like James Bond breaking the color or gender or sexuality barrier is some sort of political accomplishment that tells young people of those various characteristics that they can do anything. It just turns into this stupid political correctness circlejerk, and it's like ugh.

Meanwhile, us Bond fanboys, tend to be far more straight laced. We don't want a black dude as bond, or a woman, or whatever. It's stupid. I mean, James Bond is an established character, he's a white dude. He's always been played by a white dude. He should always be played by a white dude. To be honest, I remember how controversial Daniel Craig was in the first place, and let's go back to the mid 2000s real quick to discuss how things were within the fandom back then. 

Honestly, replacing Brosnan was a very controversial move. Most of us LIKED Brosnan. Sure some "old timers" acted like he was a pretty boy who couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag, but most people through Brosnan was a good Bond. And being introduced to the series with Goldeneye, along with many other people in my age group, we kinda saw Brosnan the way older generations saw Connery. Like this dude WAS James Bond to us. We didn't want him gone. We were wondering, as we got into 2005-2006, why it was taking so long to make another movie after Die Another Day and why the series was taking so long to put something out. The only time we had a glut like this was between 1989 and 1995 between Dalton's lukewarm takes and Brosnan's debut. What was up? And it seemed like Brosnan was willing to continue at the time, so what gives?

And then let's not forget how people lost their crap over James Bond being BLONDE. Like, all of the actors up to this point had dark hair. Moore's was a bit more brown but generally Bond had dark brown to black hair. All of the actors minus Moore had this color. And now we were making some BLONDE dude James Bond? Really, most fanboys at the time didn't want Craig. We wondered what the producers were doing at the time.

But, then Casino Royale came out, and while Craig's performance was rough around the edges, they essentially rebooted the series. And those flaws were justifiable. Honestly, Craig, under normal circumstances, wouldn't be a great Bond actor. He lacked the sophistication Bond normally has. But, again, they kinda rebooted the series and made Bond a new 00 agent with the story arc being a story of how he became that guy, so these changes could be overlooked. And Craig's Bond has grown through the years, learning the lessons he needed to make him the character we enjoyed in previous outings. 

That's all well and good. I mean, I kind of have to say, in retrospect, it wasn't the end of the world. They actually did take the series in a successful direction rebooting it and making it grittier and more down to earth, and I have to say that it worked. But seriously, given the amount of criticism that even Craig got, and how he basically had to earn his way to achieving parity with the other Bond actors in the eyes of the community, why the heck would we want to push a black or female James Bond in order to push some weird politically correct thing of achieving the first of something or something.

Seriously, our fandoms are not your glass ceiling. Cut that crap out. This is basically what would be, if the shoe was on the other foot, cultural appropriation.

This isn't to say that i have anything against black people or secret agents starring in their own movies. I'm not even against MI6 in the Bond universe having black or female agents who are not casted as 007 or James Bond. Seriously have fun. But when you wanna change an established fandom's canon in order to shove a politically correct agenda down everyone's throats, yeah, that's a problem.

I feel like this is one of the reason nerds end up becoming socially conservative. We saw it with Gamergate, and the ghostbusters reboot, and Battlefield 5, you always have these SJWs trying to push agendas in peoples' fandoms, and then the fandoms getting pissed off. And then the SJWs getting self righteous and portraying us as sexist misogynistic dinosaurs (to make a Goldeneye reference) for not wanting change, when their change sucks, etc.

Seriously, I wish SJWs would stay out of media and stop trying to force their ideals in peoples' fandoms. It's really stupid and annoying. Make your own crap. If it's entertaining I'll watch and play it. Just keep your crap out of old franchises. Even if they have dated standards like James Bond, mmkay? Not everything has to conform to 2021 far left social standards, ya know? These guys liken themselves as the new moral police and it kinda pisses me off after a while.

Discussing immigration and the whole whipping Haitians thing

 So, as some may already know, the border patrol was caught whipping Haitian refugees on camera. *sigh*, does anyone want to remind me who is president again? This is something I would expect to happen under Trump. Oh wait, it's Biden? Wow. Snarky sidenote to the neolibs, never EVER speak to me about kids in cages again.

Seriously, this video is about 1 step away from the border patrols having exaggerated southern accents screaming "here (repeat racial slur 3 times)". Seriously, what the actual fudge? One of them said that "this is why your country is ****". Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Under a democratic administration? Wow.

That guy should be fired immediately. I know there's a lot of systemic racism in policing, and I know that a lot of would be racist tough guys literally get into the job specifically to hassle minorities, and I could see that happening here. Give this guy some authority and suddenly he's treading on poor migrants. There should be zero tolerance toward stuff like that. Totally unprofessional. Reminds me of a comic book bad guy in terms of levels of racism there. Should be fired yesterday.

I mean, I'm gonna be honest. I'm not super pro open borders. I don't even have solid answers for what I would like to happen here. I kind of believe in most cases that people trying to come in illegally should be turned back. And I know that sometimes the sausage making of that process isn't always pleasant. But could we have a bit less "Deliverance" in our border enforcement policy, PLEASE? I mean again this is just one step from going back to the 1870s with the KKK riding around on horseback acting...pretty similar to this. We should at least try to treat migrants, you know, humanely and in a not racist way. I'm not saying we should let everyone in, I admit we need some form of border enforcement because I don't believe open borders is compatible with my vision of a social safety net. But come on we can do better than...this. 

Even then, given these are refugees some would argue, on sound legal ground if I might add, that they should be let in. And let's be honest, I'm not super duper like ANTI immigrant, I mean my default position on this stuff is people should be free to do what they want as long as they don't harm others, so I have nothing against people coming in given the reasons most seem against immigration, again, my entire stance is based on preserving my economic ideology. So take that as you will. Obviously I'm not xenophobic or against all immigration, I mean you can twist my arm with reason and facts to convince me in individual circumstances to be for letting people in. It's not a firm position of mine. So, I don't know. At the very minimum, I feel like how Biden is handling this situation is very poor and democrats are like the worst of both worlds. Trumpian foreign policy while somehow convincing themselves and others of their perceived moral superiority over the Trumpers in an insufferable way. Yeah, like your crap doesn't stink. For as "racist" as I get accused of being, yeah, you guys are way more racist than I am, just saying.

Discussing transgenderism and children

 So, this is a bit of an odd topic for me to cover, due to my dislike for delving into social justice issues that much, but I kind of felt like I needed to address this one, due to discussions recently I've been having with others. There seems to be a lot of misinformation and misunderstandings around this issue, and not being super informed on the nuances of it myself, I decided to nip it in the bud.

For reference, my perspective on transgenderism is a libertarian one. I don't really care. It doesn't affect me, if it's something you're into, cool, but it's not my cup of tea. I don't care what you identify as, I don't care about pronouns, you can be an attack helicopter and make buzzing noises in the bedroom for all I care. I just don't care. Do what you want. That's my attitude. I don't want to stop you. If you believe your life would be better changing your gender and getting reassignment surgery, go for it. It isn't my life, and I don't believe conservative views regarding sexuality should get in your way. 

However, a topic of contention that those who seem more...conservative on this issue than I am, seems to focus on, is one of children. The argument goes that children don't know what they want. I mean, one of my friends says they identified as a cat for two weeks when they were 8, it doesn't mean they should've turned into a cat. Which is, fair. Children are fickle. Children sometimes need more authoritarian guidance to set them on the right path. They can't just do whatever they want because they lack the judgment to do so. That's perfectly fair and fine. However, we've also had these kinds of discussions with homosexuality as little as 10-20 years ago, and I remember all the horror stories that came from that in terms of gay conversion camps and ignorant parents trying to brainwash their children into being straight, when no, they're not gonna be straight, forcing them to be straight is harmful, and that's how they are, and that's how they live their lives. Obviously we don't want socially conservative parents forcing their right wing views on their kids either and telling them they are not what they are and blah blah blah. Which is why I'm generally sympathetic to the trans community. I take the logic used with that, apply it to transgenderism, and am like, yeah, maybe these people should be able to do what they want.

But, you might say, transgenderism is different, because they want to change their genders. And that requires hormone treatments and surgeries, blah blah blah. What if it is a phase? What if they don't regret it? Being scientifically minded, I want to focus on just that, the science. What is the science on transgenderism among minors?

First, let's look at the DSM5 clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria in children, which includes:

Children are typically diagnosed with gender dysphoria if they have experienced significant distress for at least six months and at least six of the following:

• strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that they are the other gender
• strong preference for wearing clothes typical of the opposite gender
• strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play
• strong preference for the toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender
• strong preference for playmates of the other gender
• strong rejection of toys, games and activities typical of their assigned gender
• strong dislike of their sexual anatomy
• strong desire for the physical sex characteristics that match their experienced gender

Gender dysphoria of childhood is not a surgical diagnosis. It is a medical diagnosis that does not require treatment, other than possibly individual or family therapy, until a child reaches puberty. Gender dysphoria is typically diagnosed by a therapist or other mental health professional.

 Okay, so that makes a lot of sense. Children have to match six of those criteria, and they need to meet them consistently for 6 months. I would almost argue 6 months seems like a relatively small amount of time, but given it's not a surgical diagnosis and not one that requires immediate treatment, that's fair. It's not really addressed until puberty.

Speaking of which, don't transgender children put off puberty because of their diagnosis? I mean, sure. It's a lot less messy to prevent transition into puberty in the first place than do undo the changes to the body later on. Is this a problem? Maybe, it mentions that in puberty that an overwhelming majority of children desist and stick with their preferred genders, only to find out they are say, gay instead later on. But, that seems to be the reason they don't perform more invasive treatments to prepubescent children. They keep them on puberty blockers until the age of 16, after which they generally make a decision either way. And they normally seem to go for hormonal treatments before they go for reassignment surgery. That said the child has had literal years to decide what they want to do, and they are almost an adult at this point. They don't just chop off an 8 year old's outie and turn it into an innie. There's a clinical process with years of therapy involved before any of this becomes a serious option for them. That said, a lot of the concern over this process seems to be overblown.

So, after all's said and done, what now? Are they happy? Do they regret it? Horror stories of regret seems to accompany a lot of this anti trans sentiment. I mean you do something when you're young that basically radically alters your body, and maybe after all's said and done you have second thoughts. How often does this occur? Not often. The rates tend to differ depending on the source, but generally speaking the rates are around 1-11%. Although the one right wing source I posted had much higher regret rates (to be fair I don't trust right wing sources given that I've seen their crazy statistics being disproven again and again on other issues). Reasons seem to include feeling disfigured or health issues related to botched surgeries. Still, the issue is complicated, as there are often other underlying mental health issues that transitioning does not fix, and many of the issues related to regret seem to revolve around varying forms of social disapproval they receive for their choices. That said, maybe the biggest issue with stopping regret is for us to not be judgmental of their choices or try to impose our morality on them. That seems to be a big problem we have as a society toward people of alternative sexualities, genders, etc. We kind of like to impose our one size fits all "cishet" mentality on them, and this can cause self worth issues among those who are different. Not everyone is going to be normal and we should embrace diversity. Just because I don't circlejerk about this stuff and I might find SJWs insufferable with the affirming stuff, doesn't mean that I ain't a libertarian who believes people should pursue their own happiness. Unless it affects you, you probably shouldn't say anything. 

Beyond that, all things considered, where do I stand? Well, here's the thing. I believe in following the science, as well as balancing liberty with minimizing harm. I only believe in restricting activities or behavior if doing so causes harm. And often times, the benefits of the restrictions need to exceed the harm caused by them. As in, we should only cause harm by reducing liberty to prevent an even larger harm. Given the scientific rigors of the process by which transgender children are identified and treated, and given the relatively low regret rates of those who do transition, I believe that the process is scientific enough and rigorous enough to weed out most people who would otherwise regret the process. Like in many other cases, the right wing concern trolling and hand wringing over the subject seems misinformed. No one is cutting off and replacing 8 year olds' genitalia, before that is on the table a person will have likely undergone years of therapy in which they affirm that they want this done, and the vast majority of them will desist. Moreover, the regret rates of transitioning, barring the one right wing source, seems relatively low. I kind of have to go with the idea that this is a rigorous process including years of therapy with a relatively low regret rate. As in, there's sound medical science behind it and while you'll always find someone who regrets undergoing the process, the vast majority don't.

Funny how science can cut through the BS like that, huh?

Dear conservatives, there's no trick, get the freaking shot

 So recently Breitbart came out and said that liberals are killing conservatives via reverse psychology. Essentially they think that because we libs like to mandate vaccines, that we're basically tricking conservatives into not getting it because conservatives interpret everything liberals do and do the opposite. So the liberals are all getting vaccinated, and conservatives aren't getting vaccinated, and conservatives are dying from attrition via natural selection as a result.

*sigh*

Okay, look, there is no grand conspiracy here. Well, there is, but I'll explain it in a minute, using my conflict theory critique of capitalism and pandemics. But there's no pandemic here to kill conservatives.

You guys (conservatives) are the one politicizing EVERYTHING. You guys were the ones last year, when liberals wanted to shut the economy down and make people wear masks, who stormed state capitols claiming we were oppressing your rights to work. How we were imposing "communism" on you by giving you free money. I mean, dude, DUDE. I literally support government money, and people working less, and even I wouldn't MANDATE that stuff for good reason, because im libertarian enough where I want people to do what they want. But, when there's a deadly pandemic, yeah, we kinda gotta shut stuff down to avoid transmission of the disease, and flatten the curve, so hospitals arent overwhelmed with covid patients, kind of like they are right now, because you morons won't get vaccinated. 

The real deep state conspiracy, is that all along, capitalism hates shut downs. The rich hate shut downs, and shut downs compromise our typical neurotypical, extraverted way of life of working and sending kids to school while we work and growing that GDP. The real conspiracy has been trying to keep stuff open and force stuff open when it's unsafe to grow that GDP. In 2020, that debate was real, should we shut down and keep people safe, or keep things open and let people die? And of course you guys chose the psychotic answer to that question. Yeah, I remember Greg Abbott in Texas talking about sacrificing the elderly for the economy. Jesus christ people, you guys are monsters. Like full stop, I'm not even sugar coating it. If you think like this, screw you guys. 

But in 2021, the dilemma was solved. Now there's a highly effective vaccine for the deadly virus killing people. If everyone took it, it would probably eradicate the disease, kind of like how we eradicated smallpox and polio back in the day. AND YALL MOTHERFRICKERS WON'T TAKE IT!

There's no reverse psychology here. I don't do that grade school crap. And we libs are serious about this stuff. Get. The. Shot. We're trying to STOP you from offing yourselves. At this point, you're extending this pandemic, we're once again seeing hospitals overwhelmed, where now people who need care for other things can't get it because the hospitals are flooded with COVID patients, when probably 95% of these cases and deaths are completely unnecessary. Because a vaccine exists. 

The problem is with YOU. It's with YOU guys deciding to play these infantile games of "now I'm not doing it" when we're trying to help you. And I guess I KIND of get it. I mean, libs can be insufferable at times. I won't vote for them half the time because of that. I'm actually an independent at this point and while I'm closer to the democrats, I hate both sides. But that's the thing. I don't operate on such an extreme level of spite I'll let myself die from a virus just to own the libs. Will i refuse to vote for Biden or Hillary or whatever other crap candidates they try to force on me? Sure. I get that they're abrasive and insufferable and a bit too forceful. But seriously though. In this case there's nothing nefarious here. WE. ARE. TRYING. TO. HELP. YOU.

Seriously, I'm too autistic for these infantile reverse psychology games. We aspies are a brutally honest bunch, and I know that based on psychology this might not even convince you guys to get the shot because people don't like being treated as stupid. But that's kind of the thing. I'm so freaking autistic I dont care about modifying my message to pull high level psychology games on you guys to trick you into doing anything. I say what I mean and mean what I say, and I'm telling you to get the shot. I'm also calling you dumb for not getting it, and don't give a crap how offended you are over that. Because it's dumb. Haven't you guys taken high school biology or history? Jesus Christ, people.

Speaking of Jesus Christ, you right wingers like the Bible right? Okay, let's put this in Bible terms. You familiar with the ten plagues, and Moses and crap right? Okay, you know how with the 10th plague of killing all the firstborn children, how God told the Hebrews to put lambs blood above their doors so the angel of death wouldn't deep six their kids, right? Okay, well, let me put it this way, the vaccine is like lambs blood. Dont put literal lambs blood on your door, but take the vaccine, which has the same effect of causing the deadly plague to NOT KILL YOU.

Or to go further, you guys realize most of those arcane old testament rules about what to eat and what not to eat, and how about no one with imperfections or diseases were allowed near the temple were all early attempts at establishing rules to prevent diseases right? Yeah, Leviticus was basically one of the world's first attempts to establish social distancing. And while those rules seem stupid now, as we've become so much more advanced, sometimes you guys need to go back to that stuff to understand why in a modern context we libs want to do things like keep stores and schools closed if they're not essential, or why we wanna keep you unvaccinated people away from the public square, or why we should all wear pieces of cloth over your mouth. Same effect. 

Now, I don't follow the Bible as a holy text. I've been a proud ex Christian for 9 years and have no plans on ever going back to that. But I know some of you guys tend to be into that stuff, and given how I'm an ex religious conservative, yeah, maybe, just maybe, I need to use that logic to get through to you guys. Maybe, just maybe you'll understand, if I speak to you in those terms.

Like seriously, it's so obvious. if I were still conservative, I'd get the vaccine. And being on the left, I definitely get it. What's wrong with modern conservatives? I might hate the right these days, but at least when I left you guys had a set of principles. I might disagree with them, but it seems like all that went out the window with Trump. You guys were crazy before, but it was a form of craziness I could kind of understand. Now you guys just seem to be into cults of personality and believe in more misinformation than you ever did. And why the heck to evangelicals like Trump anyway? If I were conservative I'd think that dude was the freaking anti Christ or something. 

Really. I don't get you guys these days. Maybe it's because I've grown up and have gone in my own direction, but I just don't get it anymore. How can you guys be so misinformed to not get a life saving vaccine? It isn't an us problem, it's a you problem, and you guys better figure it out before the democrats turn full on conservative from all the sane people leaving your party and joining theirs. Which is, by the way, a huge reason I'm not a democrat any more either. I didn't leave the GOP to have to deal with those same conservatives years later because you guys crapped the bed so hard you're convincing all the smart people to leave your party en masse. I hate politics these days. This is why I vote third party and retreat into just focusing on UBI and M4A advocacy. It's such a crapshow these days.

I'm tired of 9/11 circlejerking and no I don't want to be that united again

 Okay, can we get this out of the way? I know I'm a few days late, but I write when I darned well feel like it, so bite me. (No really though, I do things by my own cycles). I'm seeing a lot of 9/11 circlejerking this year, with this being the 20th anniversary of the event. I've already written about 9/11 before and I don't think my opinion has changed much since then. I believe it was an event that changed us, as Americans, for the worse, and that we left a huge trail of destruction that outweighs the event itself and eroded the integrity of our own institutions in its wake. And I'm just sick and tired of dragging it out every year, and going on about poor us, we were attacked, blah blah blah.

One particular line of discussion worth addressing that seems new, in a post Trump era and all of this "political division" that the patriotic "but but our institutions" circlejerkers go on about is about how a lot of people wish we were that united again. In the aftermath of 9/11, the country was united like we rarely see. Republicans and democrats temporarily put their grievances aside and rallied around the flag, and everyone was super patriotic, and on the same page. Don't you wish we had that again? 

And I'll say it plainly. NO. 

And here's why. I'm a free thinker. I support diversity of opinion. I support freedom of speech and thought. And the kind of unity we had after 9/11 was the kind of unity that I deem harmful. It was the kind of unity that got us in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where dissenters were tarred and feathered as unpatriotic. it was the kind of unity that led to us passing the patriot act and eroding our civil liberties.  It was the kind of freedom that led to us suspending civil liberties and mistreating prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. And don't get me started on the Bush revisionism. Post trump, all of the sudden George W. Bush is now rehabilitated by the democrats as one of the good guys, and acts how a president should act or something. Okay, the dude wasn't as flagrantly abusive of norms as Trump, but the dude got us into two wars, one of which under false pretenses and the other arguably didn't need to be fought, and caused all those other bad things to happen. I'm sorry, but Bush is a piece of crap, and his presidency should be seen as a legacy of what not to do in response to a national crisis. 

And no, to go back to unity. if you have the level of unity we had after 9/11, you also have some sort of authoritarianism leading to that happening in a lot of cases. Something has happened where dissent to the status quo is pushed out of the overton window. Now, in some rare cases this isn't a bad thing. During FDR for example, people were relatively unified at resolving some issues with capitalism and that led to some good things. The conditions got so bad people united for change. But for the most part, unity is inherently authoritarian, and no, I don't desire unity where 90% of americans agree on everything. Unless we reach some sort of utopia where that number is because we've all decided that every other way of doing things is bad and inferior. But even that realistically can never happen as dissent will always exist, in any system.

So no, screw unity. 

To backtrack and contradict myself, I think we can agree that maybe things should be slightly more united than we are now. I mean, we should all at least agree on things like basic facts and scientific literacy. The fact that we are in a country where half the people are refusing to take a vaccine to stop a deadly virus is a problem. But, I also don't believe in trying to force people to change their beliefs. I might believe in mandating the vaccine in various forms as a matter of public health, but I stand firm that those people who believe in not taking it should be able to express their opinions, even if I believe such opinions are bad and even if I believe in mandating it. They should be able to speak out against the mandate at least. 

Anyway, that's just my view on this whole "dont you wish the country was united?" and other similar sentiments. No, actually, no I do not. While I believe people were less ignorant, I believe that people should be free to believe what they want and disagree and express such disagreement. I don't care if people are united as I see unity as an inherently authoritarian virtue.

Am I dreaming? Andrew yang allegedly to start a third party

 So, the internet is abuzz with a rumor that Yang is about to launch a third party to complement his new book, Forward. The book is about how our institutions, as they are, are failing us, and I presume his answer is to do what I've been kind of suggesting for years, to start a third party.

Good. Good good good. And you know what? Given my own intellectual development pushing me back toward Yang over the past year, I fully support these efforts. And for me, this feels different than other third parties I've looked at before like the green party or the peoples' party. With those parties, I felt like I was compromising. Many of those parties have a progressive or socialist bend, and while I have a lot in common with them, they're not exact matches of my ideology. Yang's core platform is. Sure, there are some aspects where we diverge, but my political DNA is far more Yang Gang than it is Bernie Sanders, despite me being a huge Bernie Bro in 2016. I just used Bernie as a vehicle to be honest. I wanted change, he was the change guy, I backed him. But in reality Yang was closer to what I wanted in the first place, and given how the Yang gang has faced the same challenges in dealing with the institutional democratic party that the progressive and socialist crowds have, it makes sense they would decide to go full third party. 

The fact is, and this has been well documented on this blog, I haven't been happy with the democratic party for a while. I joined them after my "awakening" in 2012, but in reality, by ideology went straight to yang gang. By 2013 I was already researching ideas like UBI and M4A, and by 2014 I was a full on supporter of them. And by 2015, the tensions with the party started, as it seemed clear they didn't want to work with this up and coming progressive wing in their party, but still wanted their votes. In 2016, they just totally ignored the left to go all in with identity politics and centrism, and despise losing in 2016, they seemed to have learned nothing through the Trump years. And then Yang ran in 2020, he had the same problems that Bernie did, and then he ran for mayor of NYC this year, and he got crapped on even more, so now he's like "fine, third party it is". So that said, I am fully in support of his efforts here. As a matter of fact, consider me a day 1 supporter. I may not contribute financially due to not having any finances to contribute, but consider me a moral supporter of this up and coming "forward" party (or humanity first, or whatever yang calls it). 

Of course, the reaction elsewhere on the internet has been negative. It's weird how propaganda works. Most people have developed stockholm syndrome toward the democrats. Even if they hate the democrats, many still oppose this effort on the idea that a third party can never win and splits the vote and we should all vote democrat for "harm reaction" or to "feel relevant." I mean, while I have nothing wrong with people exercising their principles, i feel like this mindset is a bit too pervasive and its supporters a bit too virtue signally and self righteous. The fact is, they will attack anyone who would support such a movement and shame them, and honestly, I dont think it will ever win.

Of course, that isn't the point of a third party. it's to make a statement. The democrats have been ignoring our ideas and treating us like garbage, so we start our own party with our own ideas. The point isn't to win per se, as you would need a coalition large enough to do that, but it's to make a statement telling the larger coalitions they better take our ideas seriously or face the consequences. And it doesn't seem like it's possible to win within the current party.

I was going to maybe write some stuff on this after I got back from this vacation I was on, and I did SOME research into it for the purposes of a future article that given this revelation I'm not sure if I'll ever write, but I really don't think that progressives and yang gangers can win within the current democratic coalition. The fact is it's controlled first and foremost by centrists and neolibs, who are older, affluent, and make up a majority of the party. Then there's the idpol people. Minority groups like the black vote make up significant proportions of the democratic electorate and they seem to fall toward the establishment too. Which baffles me, given how the establishment, in my estimation, screws them too, but yeah, they seem to do their own thing, and want the entire debate on their terms, and shame anyone who isnt 100% behind them as racist. And then you have progressives, whom I see as natural allies but even they're turning on Yang because they share a political DNA closer to Bernie Sanders and "democratic socialism" than Yang's human centered capitalism. Even if we did work with progressives, they still end up in the same boat as us since they're not big enough to win over a majority of voters there given the neolibs, older voters, and minority voters all seem to vote among establishment lines for some reason. 

The fact is, we're insurgent independents running within a hostile party that doesn't want us there ideologically. And they will constantly lord over the fact, going on about how we white progressives and yang gangers just dont get it and people like moderation and  blah blah blah the black vote and yeah, it's just obnoxious. I've been thinking about these races we've had this year on vacation, with the south carolina primary this year, and yang's NYC run, and Nina Turner's run, and how the establishment won all of them, and it just seems like we have no future within the democrats. Looking at Bernie cuck himself out is a shame to see too. The fact is, a Yang gang style third party is perhaps the best way I can see my ideology being taken into the future. I don't expect it to win. Vote blue no matter who sentiment is too strong for that. But given I see us in the middle of a party realignment, it is reassuring to see a third party effort very much in line with my exact ideology positioning itself for a 2024 run. And I am glad to see Yang do what Bernie would not in pushing the ball forward. This is exactly what we need. 

That said as of this time I support this up and coming forward party and Yang running for a 2024 run. I've had it with the dems, and given how they've gone all in with Biden/Harris and a challenger isn't even in the discussion within the party, yeah, no. I see no reason why I should align with dems when I can align with someone with such a close affinity to my own politics.

Hillary Bros blaming Bernie Bros for fall of Roe v Wade

 So, SCOTUS has recently effectively overturned Roe v. Wade by upholding Texas's crazy 6 week abortion law in a contentious 5-4 decision. I was going to probably discuss this at some point. I'm still "busy" and don't feel able to give my full attention to it at this time. But I do want to discuss it briefly. 

I'm fully pro choice. There's, in my opinion, no reason to oppose abortion before the 22-24 week standard set up by Roe v. Wade outside of a specific judeo-Christian perspective. I believe it is not just a bodily autonomy issue, but also one of reproductive freedom. No one should be forced to be a parent, period. I would say I go further on the issue than even most liberals would, which is a reason I had disdain for the Clinton/Kaine ticket in 2016 if you guys read my old stuff. 

Speaking of Clinton/Kaine...I'm going to have to discuss that again. Because the rallying cry of the centrist craplib in this momentous decision is to blame the "Bernie Bros". As a 2016 era "Bernie Bro", who unapologetically voted green in 2016 specifically to give a finger to the democratic party, allow me to extend another middle finger here now.

My account of events over this spat was that I never wanted Hillary as president. But the democrats forced her on us and told us we had to fall in line or else. One of their shady tactics was to scream about the Supreme Court and how Trump will nominate judges that shift the court's balance toward conservatism. Essentially, the DEMOCRATS held the court hostage and told us we BETTER fall in line or else, with decisions like this being the "or else".

They wanna create a moral dilemma for us, and then shift responsibility for the dilemma onto us. They expect us to give up our economic ambitions by jeopardizing social issues themselves. THEY put them at risk, just to stop us. THEY act like they care so much, but their caring only exists as long as they can maintain their neoliberal hegemony over us. If the left gets a little too far "left" for them, they'll throw out concern for social issues while then blaming us, for refusing to go along with them.

Some progressives do bend the knee and fall in line. Heck, most do. But some of us, like me, who do prioritize economic issues, end up not doing so, and then we get attacked.

It's a propaganda stunt on their part. I fully support a woman's right to choose, probably more fervently and ideologically consistently than the craplibs do. I'm serious. Craplibs are tepid supporters of abortion rights in the first place. They actually acknowledge something is morally wrong with it in an attempt to pander to moderate religious people. I flat out suggest nothing is wrong with it and I stand by that. 

But, the dems, in trying to maintain economic centrism, forced a hard choice on us, and some of us made the choice that went against what the democrats wanted. It was a prisoner's dilemma, and we all lost as a result. I'm okay with that. The only way to make a democratic party cooperative to economic concerns long term is to punish them for flagrantly ignoring those concerns and forcing them to pivot for our votes. if we reward them for screwing us, they will just continue to screw us and hold power over us.

THat said, I believe that this result is inevitable. If HRC did win in 2016, I suspect she would have lost in a landslide in 2020, and the same result would have happened anway. The fact is a broad diversity of issues and concerns are wrapped up into two candidates, and people vote for diverse reasons. If abortion isnt the majority of the electorate's top concern, then people will vote for other reasons, and that means the right might win the war on those issues. It happens. It was foolish of the democrats to gamble their own victory on social issues during an election where so many people felt ignored and disaffected on the economics. THis is the democrat's fault. This is Hillary Clinton's fault. She/they decided to gamble on this, and they lost. Dont blame the voters. They spoke. And they decided Hillary was crap. Instead of blaming the 1% of green voters maybe they should ask why like 45% of the country likes Trump in the first place. Trump won, because almost half the country voted for him. Scary, I know, but we should get to the bottom of his appeal and try to break his coalition without destroying the existing liberal coalition. But I dont think they wanna do that because it might mean not openly virtue signalling about social issues in such an obnoxious way, and actually having an economic platform worth a crap.

That said, this court case is a horrible loss to the left, but before you start blaming people like me, maybe look in the mirror. The fact that your first instinct in response to this is to scream THOSE DARNED BERNIE BROS is indicative of some serious personality problems on the left. Do you guys not understand how unlikeable you come off when you do that? You arent making me wanna vote for you more, you're making me wanna give you another middle finger and still refuse to vote for you.

I won't ever vote for you guys out of bullying or shame, only policy. Improve your policy or gtfo. I aint settling for an obnoxious lesser evil who acts hostile to my interests and entitled to my vote. Period.