Wuorg

It is deeply frustrating that the vast majority of Americans agree on most things (at least we did a few years ago), and yet we fight each other over arbitrary nonsense anyway.

I'd also mention that the Dems are profoundly unpopular right now. I can't tell you many Trump voters I've talked to the past few weeks that have a short circuit when I tell them that I hate the Dems too, probably more than they do. Many Trump voters (and non-voters for that matter) are as Anti-Dem as they are Pro-Trump, if not moreso.

I'm not sure how to convince these people to vote for a Democrat in the short term. Even if in the long term the goal is a new party or a radical restructuring of the current one.

Seeing the numbers laid out, even though I already knew it was bad, is profoundly depressing.

They want to go back to a past that doesn't exist except in their minds.

I hate that Americans are so "war on terror" pilled that all we need to be ok with civilian casualties is that there was a single guy that the government says was a terrorist there.

Terrorism is...checks notes...taking material actions to stop a genocide (as required by international law)?

So, what you are describing is the false dichotomy that proponents of scientific racism rely on to convince people.

The accepted scientific consensus agrees with your take. It isn't radical to say "there are biological differences between men and women, including in how they think." Quite the opposite. The issue is science isn't very good at promoting itself (partly due to how precise scientific studies are--"men are better at spatial awareness in this specific circumstance, with these specific parameters, but our study is not conclusive in the general case. More work is needed." That kind of thing. People want more concrete answers than "hormones definitely affect how we think, but figuring out precisely how is more difficult."), so grifters come in with half-truths and "common sense" takes that convince people that don't know any better that scientists are dumb.

More to the point with regards to race, there are differences between ethnicities. They just aren't what proponents of scientific racism say they are. The actual differences are mostly aesthetic or related to things like body type, eye/hair color, and height, that kind of thing (I should also mention that even defining a specific "race" is a significant hurdle in and of itself--we say race is a social construct for a reason). And, to reiterate, this isn't a radical stance in the actual scientific community. "Scientific racism" is a misnomer--there's nothing scientific about it beyond aesthetics.

Edit: I've edited this with clarifying statements like a dozen times already, so I should stop lol. I hope you all get my meanings.

Nailed it.

Is this the fabled past Republicans were hoping for?

Who am I kidding, at this point they'd probably say "yes."

Hell yeah. I might not agree with every single thing Jasmine says or does, but this is exactly the energy the Dems need to be putting forward.

Worth mentioning this one probably has nothing to do with what you think it does. See here.

Also worth mentioning that hacking machines isn't the only way to interfere with an election. (I shouldn't need to mention the potential for corruption when a small handful of people control voting blocs this large and important, but even that notwithstanding there's good ol' fashioned voter suppression that was applied liberally in 2024).

Thanks. Frustrating that that is basically what I had assumed, but thanks.