Opinion of Vosem

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

He's one of the handful of right-wing posters on this site who has views diametrically opposed to mine but for whom I believe is a generally good guy with concise, rational arguments even when I fundamentally disagree with 99% of his premises for those arguments. Horrible, dystopian views but a FF as far as being able to get along with others users and I'd rather he be here to offer that viewpoint than this place just be an echo-chamber.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I view all right leaning pollsters the same the still think it's 2016, just like there is a pollster named 2016 that it's not a 538 map but a 303 map and D's cant even win WI, we just voted and MT Treasure and Old School got all their predicted maps wrong and some even red leaning avatars believe them, at least S019 doesn't ignore me when TML did when I corrected MT Treasure

Why do you think Leip gives us these maps and not listen to ratings to make our own maps why if you are D make a ratings map and you can just not make one and depend on the ratings which were wrong last time Real clear politics had RS winning the S last time

It's called wave insurance it's 538 not 303 and we will eventually have a Filibuster proof Trifecta the majority of the population is D we win the PVI

[Badger]

Indeed horrible dystopian views as noted by many other posters in this thread. Though i for one give next to zero F's about the fact that he posts them "calmly and rationally". I would say cold-bloodedly and automaton-like are better descriptions.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Not the worst blue avatar.

[Reaganfan Democrat]

Just because he doesn't troll doesn't make him an interesting or good poster. I'd put him on ignore but my ignore list is always full.

[Хahar 🤔]

Looks like he saw how much you guys like him and got some ideas!

[jamestroll]

He is not economically entirely wrong, but any functional society needs social welfare programs to exist.

[Cassius]

Good lad.

[Ferguson97]

There is no such thing as dog-whistling of any kind -- racial or otherwise -- from anyone -- conservative or otherwise.

I'm convinced at this point that he's doing an elaborate bit. I don't think anyone could actually be this stupid.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

He's gone beyond his previously semi-tolerable Atlas Shrugged clown views to arguing that everyone who doesn't want to cut the social safety net is a bigoted moron who hates poor people. HP.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Many blue avatars unestimate Biden and he is at 5o% and it's 303/355 EC votes we won't make it to 400 due to TX and FL 70

LoL we are still living on post Dobbs

[Vosem]

Looks like he saw how much you guys like him and got some ideas!

😈

(Although my conversation with Badger in the other thread is a play-by-play repeat of things we've both been saying since maybe 2017 at the latest).

He is not economically entirely wrong, but any functional society needs social welfare programs to exist.

Sure, but that's only because societies right now are insufficiently wealthy.

There is no such thing as dog-whistling of any kind -- racial or otherwise -- from anyone -- conservative or otherwise.

I'm convinced at this point that he's doing an elaborate bit. I don't think anyone could actually be this stupid.

I initially entertained the idea that dog whistles did exist, but in 2016 I realized that all accusations of dog-whistlism during the presidential primaries that year, both on the Democratic and Republican sides (Hillary and Bernie supporters both launched accusations like this at their opponents, as did Trump and Cruz supporters), were extremely fake, with the candidates obviously saying what their real positions were. Further examination led me to the conclusion that this seems to be true everywhere. I think people who believe in dog whistles are either accepting their culture's conventional wisdom (which is almost always that these exist, since that makes it easier to demonize whoever your culture dislikes) or -- more commonly -- simply don't have enough exposure to people who aren't very much like them.

Belief in dog whistles is often incredibly harmful, too -- not to Godwin this conversation, but during the rise of the Nazis English-language media at least believed their 'kill the Jews' rhetoric was a dog whistle for economic populism. Of course, it wasn't, because dog whistles don't exist, and they went on to enact a genocide. This is the most common way genocidal rhetoric goes unnoticed.

Anyway, no, I've been saying this for 7 or so years on a variety of platforms and in different languages.

He's gone beyond his previously semi-tolerable Atlas Shrugged clown views to arguing that everyone who doesn't want to cut the social safety net is a bigoted moron who hates poor people. HP.

Well, not everyone (I'm not sure about you, but I think many people -- outside the US an overwhelming majority -- sincerely believe that social safety nets help poor people), but this is true of Badger, whose posts I have been reading for over a decade.

Many blue avatars unestimate Biden and he is at 5o% and it's 303/355 EC votes we won't make it to 400 due to TX and FL 70

LoL we are still living on post Dobbs

50% for Biden in 2020 would've meant much less than 303 electoral votes -- though OTOH 50% for House Democrats in 2022 translates to more.

~~

As always I welcome all feedback! Thanks, guys.

[Ferguson97]

I initially entertained the idea that dog whistles did exist, but in 2016 I realized that all accusations of dog-whistlism during the presidential primaries that year, both on the Democratic and Republican sides (Hillary and Bernie supporters both launched accusations like this at their opponents, as did Trump and Cruz supporters), were extremely fake, with the candidates obviously saying what their real positions were. Further examination led me to the conclusion that this seems to be true everywhere. I think people who believe in dog whistles are either accepting their culture's conventional wisdom (which is almost always that these exist, since that makes it easier to demonize whoever your culture dislikes) or -- more commonly -- simply don't have enough exposure to people who aren't very much like them.

Belief in dog whistles is often incredibly harmful, too -- not to Godwin this conversation, but during the rise of the Nazis English-language media at least believed their 'kill the Jews' rhetoric was a dog whistle for economic populism. Of course, it wasn't, because dog whistles don't exist, and they went on to enact a genocide. This is the most common way genocidal rhetoric goes unnoticed.

Anyway, no, I've been saying this for 7 or so years on a variety of platforms and in different languages..

You are literally the only person I have ever known to reject dog whistles as a concept. I would genuinely like to know what qualifies you to hold this perspective. What makes you smarter than the 99.99999% of people who do agree that they exist?

When a Republican politician says something like "people in this suburban town don't want public transit because it will bring in crime from the city", what they're actually saying is "they don't want to see Black people". That's a dog whistle.

[T'Chenka]

Massive HP. If his economic beliefs are stated in good faith, then maybe I would consider him an FF one day if he woke up from his delusions about the outcomes of those policies. If his beliefs are stated in bad faith and he KNOWS deep down how morally reprehensible his economic policy preferences are due to their real world outcomes, then he's is a titanium HP.

[Cassius]

I initially entertained the idea that dog whistles did exist, but in 2016 I realized that all accusations of dog-whistlism during the presidential primaries that year, both on the Democratic and Republican sides (Hillary and Bernie supporters both launched accusations like this at their opponents, as did Trump and Cruz supporters), were extremely fake, with the candidates obviously saying what their real positions were. Further examination led me to the conclusion that this seems to be true everywhere. I think people who believe in dog whistles are either accepting their culture's conventional wisdom (which is almost always that these exist, since that makes it easier to demonize whoever your culture dislikes) or -- more commonly -- simply don't have enough exposure to people who aren't very much like them.

Belief in dog whistles is often incredibly harmful, too -- not to Godwin this conversation, but during the rise of the Nazis English-language media at least believed their 'kill the Jews' rhetoric was a dog whistle for economic populism. Of course, it wasn't, because dog whistles don't exist, and they went on to enact a genocide. This is the most common way genocidal rhetoric goes unnoticed.

Anyway, no, I've been saying this for 7 or so years on a variety of platforms and in different languages..

You are literally the only person I have ever known to reject dog whistles as a concept. I would genuinely like to know what qualifies you to hold this perspective. What makes you smarter than the 99.99999% of people who do agree that they exist?

When a Republican politician says something like "people in this suburban town don't want public transit because it will bring in crime from the city", what they're actually saying is "they don't want to see Black people". That's a dog whistle.

There’s polling to back up 99.99999% of people agreeing that ‘dog whistles’ do exist?

[Dr. MB]

Quite a character

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

People give him too much grief. He is considerably post-Soviet-influenced in his way at looking at things and that's part of his frame of reference. We all have a frame of reference biasing us in some way...not just Vosem.

[Devout Centrist]

A Trot but from the political right

[Ferguson97]

There’s polling to back up 99.99999% of people agreeing that ‘dog whistles’ do exist?

I would doubt it, for the same reason that I would doubt that there are pols asking people if they agree "sarcasm" exists. It's just not something that's up for debate.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I voted FF and stand by that, but I guess one pet peeve I have is that Vosem never explains how eliminating the social safety net will help poor people or why tax cuts for the wealthy are good for the lower classes. It's impossible to have a reasoned debate about that if we are only arguing from our own predispositions without any attempt at persuasion. And again, with no disrespect intended, Vosem's political instincts are comically bad and nobody who runs on privatizing Social Security or Medicare will ever be elected president.

[It’s so Joever]

People give him too much grief. He is considerably post-Soviet-influenced in his way at looking at things and that's part of his frame of reference. We all have a frame of reference biasing us in some way...not just Vosem.

Cool. From my frame of reference he’s an idiot and I do only care about my own frame.

Anyways HP but probably a good guy irl.

[All Along The Watchtower]

A Trot but from the political right

Nah not quite, Vosem is too friendly for that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

FF, all things considered.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Sounds super interesting in theory. But I usually only read his posts when other people reply to them.

[TheReckoning]

Sounds super interesting in theory. But I usually only read his posts when other people reply to them.

Why do you have so many people on ignore?