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. 

Discussing Gen Z republicans and dunking on the social "left"

 So, 538 discussed Gen Z republican voters, and how they are socially liberal, but still prefer the GOP and Trump over the democrats. Why? Because first of all it depends on the social issues. Much like me, they adopt a libertarian framework on social issues, meaning the left wins on stuff like gay marriage and abortion, but on the other hand, they think the dems are "too far left" on issues like race, guns, and immigration. Gee, really sounds like me. But then, on the other side of things, they are conservative on economics and foreign policy. On economics, they adopted a view from the recession that they made it and all you need is a little bit of fiscal responsibility. Uh, what? THat's dumb. But gen Z is a very young demographic and lets be honest, when I was their age, I followed a similar trajectory ideologically. Around 2008ish I gave up somewhat on the social issues and became more libertarian, but then stayed a tea party conservative. However, actual conservatism terrified me so I shifted left hard, and the recession taught me we actually did need government intervention, so I shifted left. I'm not sure these guys will make the same journey I did, as I cannot see how one can live through 2008's recession and still be a fiscal conservatism. 2020, I can KIND of see, because there's an argument to be made by the right that "we wouldn't need these policies if we didn't force people to stay home", which...has other issues, like people dying and spreading a deadly disease, but I can at least see the argument if you're young and dumb and don't think things through. But, I digress.

A huge reason I wanted to discuss this is because most reactions I see from this come from...the social left. And it's the exact kind of social left people like to dunk on. You know, how dare these people not place left wing social issues as their top concerns. They're not REALLY social leftists, they're just conservatives with 1 or 2 social issues. WHat do you mean they're too far left on race? They just support white male supremecy, blah blah blah. 

Ya know what? Screw you guys. I am one of these guys, socially. The thing that draws me to the left more to the right is economics, and I'm one of those "bro" type economic progressives the social libs hate so much. I am a white male who cares more about UBI and healthcare than abstract social justice issues. And I'm an ex conservative operating out of a post conservative ideological framework.

On social issues, you guys should be happy. If I'm what the new social right looks like, congratulations, you won the culture war. I wanna repeat that. YOU WON. The religious right has been defeated. No longer will we obsess over gays getting married and abortion and crap. The vast majority of the next generation on the right supports your rights. It just doesn't mean we're "woke." I consider myself on the left because I grew up during last generation's culture wars. Today's "socially right" views among the under 45 or so crowd ARE what used to be reasonably left. And this is where I have so many issues with the left these days socially. I joined the left in 2012, at that precarious time where the religious right was just starting to finally decline, but before all this woke crap became mainstream. I remembered "atheism+" at the time, and how it as a failed movement because all that intersectionality stuff just didn't...advance causes. Inclusivity is well meaning, but sometimes it just comes across as obnoxiously self righteous.

And then gamergate happened, and I just avoided that whole mess as I saw the points both sides made and how it was just a dumb dumpster fire. And then in 2016 HRC fanned the flames by attacking white male progressives like me as "bernie bros". Which, quite frankly, damaged my relationship with the left. You act hostile toward me, my ideology, my identity, and the policies I support, and gee, you lose me as a voter, who knew? And the democrats and the left have just gotten worse since then. As I see it, the let unnecessarily racializes everything, making identity politics support a litmus test, and flexing on white progressives by going on and on about "the black vote" and gee, its like they dont want white progressives in their party. Seriously. If I was not an economic leftie, I WOULD be supporting Trump and the right. But because my economic views are at this point, left of the democrats, I find myself politically homeless as democraft shift toward idpol driven neoliberalism and the right toward cultural and economic conservatism. 

Really, I'm not saying that these gen Z conservatives can all be won over. I do think that economic policy trumps social policy for many people (something these social lefties need to understand and stop being soo self righteous for it). But if the democrats dropped the idpol a bit,they could open themselves up to a lot of potential independents, like me, who are more socially moderate on issues of race, with little policy cost to the democratic party (lets face it im very likely to their left on race on actual policy due to their entrenchment to being "moderate" to please people who cannot be pleased). And over time I believe some of these gen Z conservatives could make their way to the left.

Seems to be a lot better than sticking to self righteousness, and, you know, shaming people for not obsessing with certain segments of policy they dont care about. Just saying. The social left should celebrate with the progress made, while still acknowledging some progress has yet to be made, and try to push its agenda in ways that bring people over, not pushes them away. For all the talk of big tent politics and ideological purity, the left doesnt practice what they preach on social policy. Only on economics.

Democrats flexing on progressives makes me want to support them even less

 I swear, democrats are their own worst enemies when it comes to getting people to suppport them. It's like they're unknowingly practicing reverse psychology on people to make people NOT want to support them. A lot of progressives are in an abusive relationship with the democratic party, and the dems seem to know it. They have nowhere to go, so they basically tell them that and tell them they have to vote for them or else they get the other guy. Then when they win, they're like "YOU SEE, YOU STUPID PROGRESSIVES, THE VOTERS WANT PRAGMATIC MODERATES AND INCREMENTALISM AND DON'T WANT PIE IN THE SKY PROGRESSIVE IDEAS." When people vote for them, they ascribe a motive to those voters, conflating a large proportion of lesser evil votes as active support for their ideology, and insisting that voters want their brand. This is a huge reason I find voting for moderates so untenable. When I vote for candidate, I see it as a tacit support of their ideology and agenda. And I don't support those guys. I dont like that agenda. And because dems seem to treat votes as rewards for their percieved popularity, I refuse to reward them with a vote. This is why I demand democrats earn their vote. I will vote for a candidate who at least tries to appeal to me. Even if they aren't perfect, even if they fail on some of my priorities. I mean, Bernie lacked support for UBI. Yang failed to support medicare for all. I would have voted for either. But what I wont vote for is someone who is obviously hostile to my interests and then demands I support them. Ean my vote.

I support Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan

 So, I notice Biden is under fire a lot for his withdrawal frm Afghanistan. Love how the media is so biased in favor of the military industrial complex. Whenever we pull out of anything it's always "but but what about the poor people who live there who depend on us?" Uh, give them asylum and move on? I don't know why we need to spend billions of dollars a year protecting a minority of a country from a majority that clearly doesn't want us there.

And that's what it came down to. When Bush went in, Bush painted this picture of nation building of us being treated like liberators. You know, like us freeing Europe from the Nazis. Uh, no. The fact is, most people don't want us there. And while I can be FAR MORE lenient on Afghanistan than Iraq in the sense that at least we had a legitimate purpose to go into Afghanistan, given we were attacked, we fulfilled that core purpose TEN YEARS AGO. Seriously, we killed Bin Laden in 2011. It's now 2021. Time to move on.

It didn't matter if we pulled out 10 years ago. It wouldn't matter if we pulled out 10 years from now. or even 100 like the hardcore neocons seemed to want. The outcome would be the same. We tried to give them democracy, it's up to them whether it sinks or swims.

And let me explain something real fast. The Taliban are NOT Al Qaeda. THe reason we targetted the Taliban was because they controlled Afghanistan and hosted Bin Laden there and didn't take too kindly to imperial powers like the US telling them to hand him over. So we invaded and did it the hard way. You can say they had it coming at the time, but at this point, eh, fighting them is a sunk cost and there's no real benefit too continuing to do so. 

Which brings us to why we should pull out. We're just wasting time, money, resources, and people by being there. War is expensive, and I'd rather use that money improving life for our own people. As Eisenhower once said, each bomb we build means less hospitals, and highways, and schools for children (paraphrasing). If the core threat is eliminated, why are we still there? Mission accomplished, go home. Sticking around "nation building" is how empires die. They overextend, waste tons of money in military conflicts that amount to nothing, and then they leave. Better we leave earlier than later. 

Really, I hate to act like I don't care about what happens to the country and the people in it, but to some extent I really don't. We have a nation state system of governance. The American government exists to protect the US, its borders, and its people. It is not a charity for helping out the rest of the world. At the same time, I dont believe we should interfere more than we need to, for the sake of national security and collective international security. Afghanis can figure out Afghanistan. If they wanna return to a theocratic hellhole that's no concern of ours unless it affects us negatively. We should've gotten out 10 years ago, and Biden did a good here, no matter how messy it is. It is like vietnam, a costly occupation that ended in "losing", its almost as if history repeats itself and we shouldn't have invaded then either. Let's try not to commit any more "Vietnams", shall we?

Forcing people to get vaccines without forcing them

 So, I've noticed a lot of liberals are trying to leverage people to get their vaccines not through a state mandate, but through economics. They often want to force people to get the vaccine by having their employer mandate it. The way they see it, you don't HAVE to get it if you would rather be fired, but let's face it, because people need jobs, they'll get it, because they don't have a choice.

I'm going to be honest, I'm using this topic to push my indepentarian ideology. I fully acknowledge this is roundabout forcing people to do something. And the libs pushing it know it. But they're able to go "who, me? No, you dont HAVE to get it, but if you don't, you wont be able to work". So it is force. And I acknowledge it's force. And I wish libs would be more transparent that this is basically about force. And I'm pretty sure the right anti vaxxers understand its force.

Okay, if you agree we're forcing people...how is it any different for other aspects of economic coercion in the first place? Can't we just acknowledge we're basically forcing people to work and they don't have a choice, they merely have to choose between tons of employers? Because that's what we're doing. Can we acknowledge that? Sure, it's better than literal slavery, but it's still wage slavery. 

So, despite this, do I support making people get the vaccine? Yes. And I do think that market forces are slightly less oppressive than a state mandate, so I would support that. However, in my ideal world everyone would have universal basic income and universal healthcare. And it wouldn't be the end of the world. Heck, I'm perfectly willing to shut out unvaxxed individuals healthy enough to get the vaccine out of society in general for the duration of the pandemic. We aren't going back to shut downs. COVID is not an easily preventable disease, but that involves getting the shot and following proper procedures. Which people apparently suck at. But hey, if those guys in my ideal society wanted to live in isolation on UBI and get all their stuff via delivery and curbside pickup? By all means. You get to stay in lockdown, the rest of us get to actually participate as we want. After all the problem is the unvaxxed spreading the disease to others. They wanna take their life into their own hands that's on them but I cant in good conscience allow them to put others at risk in the process. Without a UBI do I still support such a system? Sure. I'm sorry but public health is more important than your freedoms. Your right to swing your fist ends at another's nose, and your right to not be vaxxed ends when it spreads a deadly disease to other people in society. 

But hey at least Im transparent about my views. I wont do the weasel words like most libs seem to be doing these days. I just went on this spiel to once again remind people that our society is coercive and for as much as people try to deny that, they sure as heck dont have a problem with using that coercion to get their way. I normally oppose such coercion and wish to minimize it. Even in the case of getting vaccinated. But the reality is that push comes to shove being vaccinated is important and you should have to get the shot to participate in society with other people. Period. If you dont like my stance, join me in advocating for basic income, I fully support your right to live your unvaxxed life in isolation working the land in the middle of nowhere or relying on delivery and curbside pickup and never leaving the house. You just don't get to spread germs to other people. 

Curtis Sliwa and UBI

 So Curtis Sliwa, the republican nominee for mayor in NYC, came out in support of a basic income pilot in NYC. And if I lived in NYC I would support him over Adams as a matter of principle. Sliwa seems to have a pretty good history, and he's a vocal opponent of Trump, so he's a through and through moderate republican from an era that no longer exists in republican politics. 

It just goes to show that I will vote for anyone who supports my issues. Given the hand wringing, runarounds, and pretentious lecturing by moderate dems flexing their victories over me, yeah I'm not really a vote blue no matter who kind of guy. You cant just sit back and say "you see, you don't understand voters, voters dont want a fiery progressive, and they don't want a UBI, they want moderates and identity politics and the status quo, blah blah blah." Cool. You realize the second a better candidate comes along I'm dumping you guys, right? Well, this is one of those times. You support UBI, you get my vote. Period.

Too bad I don't live in NYC. I can't vote for the guy. But I would if I lived in NYC. I hate moderates who don't stand for anything with a passion. 

Should we censor anti vax people?

 Between MTG being banned from twitter several times recently, and an anti vax sub being quarantined on reddit, I kind of feel a need to briefly touch upon this issue. Again, don't want to get too in depth right now as I'm going to be busy over the next month, but something I wanna discuss. Should people who push dangerous misinformation like anti vax crap be censored?

I'm gonna be honest, while the more vindictive inner demon within me feels schadenfreude over these guys being banned for their blatantly harmful views, I'm gonna disagree, logically speaking. As you guys can tell I have zero sympathy for the anti vaxxers. None. I think they're idiots, i think they're harmful, and I think they're even getting people killed. But here's the thing about free speech. It doesn't just apply to people you like, and to ideas you like. And I quite frankly dont trust neither government nor private companies to regulate speech and act as a ministry of truth. Sorry, we need to beat the vaxxers in a way that doesnt take away their right to a platform to express their views. I know that the authoritarian left is big on censorship in the past 5 years or so, but I've always been critical of these guys. I get it, Trumpers spread fake news and misinformation. But if you take away their right to say what they think, they will come for everyone else next. I've seen it play out on many forms and subreddits, where people end up getting banned just for opposing the mainstream circlejerk. Well intentioned censorship never ends up well, because those good intentions sour fast, and then we're left with a ministry of truth who bans anyone they simply don't like. Since we wanna avoid that, we should simply allow idiots to speak. Even if they are idiots. And they are idiots. *sigh*. I never said being philosophically consistent is easy. Sometimes you gotta take your lumps. This is one of those times. I have to freaking side with the anti vaxxers out of principle here. Let's face it, they're wrong, but freedom of speech guarantees the right to be wrong. If you're not allowed to be wrong, you dont really have freedom of speech. Anyway, that's my take on this.