"Reactionaries on the left" is one of the dumbest things written on this site while trying to sound smart. You either don't have know how to properly apply that term, or you're engaging in some super ridiculous equivocation/newspeak.
Don't you claim to be an academic?
Reactionism is a desire to maintain the status quo for a political ideological position. Traditionally this has been applied to only the right, and for good reason as they have been trying to remake the system in their ideological perspective for decades. You may think that reactionism exists only on the conservative side of the aisle, but it is becoming increasing evident that there are reactionaries on both sides of the aisle. As the right manages to claw back rights or remake the state or federal government in their favored image, progressives are now becoming reactionary in their positions of maintaining or demanding the return of female reproductive rights, immigration and human rights, rights for homosexuals, and expanding protections for trans people. The term is valid, just as "reactionary centrism" is now a term being used to describe a group of Liberals (neoliberals/neoliberalism) by the extreme left, and "regressive left" being applied to leftists who are willing to pick and choose when to compromise their liberal values for the sake of political correctness, multiculturalism, and identity politics.
Part of being an academic is understanding traditional terminology, but also understanding the evolution of terms within the field and discussion. Terminology is not rigid and evolves. These are terms being used in discussions these days in political science, political philosophy, and political psychology. The body of knowledge is always expanding as is theory. Reactionism on the left has found its way into the discussion and publication.
On the debate last night, I thought Vance won handily. He was able to get the most lies out there and not be countered by Walz with any force or clarity. Vance forwarded his message and came off as not being overly weird. Vance took a couple of really good body blows that will be memorable (on experts and who won in 2020). Those should be sound bites used by the Harris campaign non-stop. Vance's lies went unchecked for the most part and Walz's half-truths were poor defended. I doubt this tips the tables in any meaningful way.
Reactionism is a desire to maintain the status quo for a political ideological position. Traditionally this has been applied to only the right, and for good reason as they have been trying to remake the system in their ideological perspective for decades. You may think that reactionism exists only on the conservative side of the aisle, but it is becoming increasing evident that there are reactionaries on both sides of the aisle. As the right manages to claw back rights or remake the state or federal government in their favored image, progressives are now becoming reactionary in their positions of maintaining or demanding the return of female reproductive rights, immigration and human rights, rights for homosexuals, and expanding protections for trans people. The term is valid, just as "reactionary centrism" is now a term being used to describe a group of Liberals (neoliberals/neoliberalism) by the extreme left, and "regressive left" being applied to leftists who are willing to pick and choose when to compromise their liberal values for the sake of political correctness, multiculturalism, and identity politics.
Part of being an academic is understanding traditional terminology, but also understanding the evolution of terms within the field and discussion. Terminology is not rigid and evolves. These are terms being used in discussions these days in political science, political philosophy, and political psychology. The body of knowledge is always expanding as is theory. Reactionism on the left has found its way into the discussion and publication.
On the debate last night, I thought Vance won handily. He was able to get the most lies out there and not be countered by Walz with any force or clarity. Vance forwarded his message and came off as not being overly weird. Vance took a couple of really good body blows that will be memorable (on experts and who won in 2020). Those should be sound bites used by the Harris campaign non-stop. Vance's lies went unchecked for the most part and Walz's half-truths were poor defended. I doubt this tips the tables in any meaningful way.
This did not help the “dumb thing written to sound smart” perception.
“Reactionary” is not maintaining the status quo. It’s returning to a previous societal state. And suggesting protecting productive rights (for example) is a “reactionary left” position is one of the silliest things I’ve ever seen someone pretending to be an academic make up.
You really shouldn’t make fun of google so much. You need it.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
LOL. So left wing “reactionaries” who want to maintain women’s rights are causing the pendulum swings to be more extreme? That’s what you’re saying? Never mind the fact that you’re bringing American issues (abortion) into a Canadian context where they’re not relevant.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
LOL. So left wing “reactionaries” who want to maintain women’s rights are causing the pendulum swings to be more extreme? That’s what you’re saying?
That's the discussion being had. Just as the right is being labelled as reactionary their side does the same to the left. The agenda being forwarded and entrenched in blue states is strongly supported by the RW media and anything that could alter that, maintaining what is viewed as immoral legislation, is considered reactionary and radical. To the right this agenda is extreme just as the agenda being proposed by Trump and the Heritage Foundation. Which do I prefer? Liberal policies. But they are p[ercieved by half the country as radical just like the other half views the conservative policies as radical.
Quote:
Never mind the fact that you’re bringing American issues (abortion) into a Canadian context where they’re not relevant.
That's a condition of the political climate, not saying it's right or wrong. Saying they indicators of the #### happening in the United States and those same indicators beginning to rear their heads in Canada. You can say abortion may not be an issue now, but it can become a wedge issue as conservatives take control and lean into the evangelical base. The same playbook that has helped the right become more radical in the US is the same one conservatives will use in Canada, just like in other countries around the world. Or are you ignoring the traction these RW agendas are making around the globe?
Vance’s answer to the question ‘did Trump lose the 2020 election’ and Corey Lewandowski’s CNN interview afterward reminded me of this exchange on evening news.
Imagine a news anchor says, “Here with the weather is Mike. Mike, what’s tomorrow’s forecast?”
Weather guy Mike: “Who cares about the weather? Did you see that game last night? Dustin Wolf stood on his head and won that game for us.”
Need anchor: “It’s a long weekend and people are traveling. What can we expect for weather?”
Mike: “That goal by Backlund was crucial. He’s really coming along.”
Anchor: “You’re dodging the question. You’re the weather guy. Will there be snow?”
Mike: “No one cares about the weather. Zary’s shootout goal showed what the guy has. I’m looking for big things from this player.”
The Following User Says Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
That's the discussion being had. Just as the right is being labelled as reactionary their side does the same to the left. The agenda being forwarded and entrenched in blue states is strongly supported by the RW media and anything that could alter that, maintaining what is viewed as immoral legislation, is considered reactionary and radical. To the right this agenda is extreme just as the agenda being proposed by Trump and the Heritage Foundation. Which do I prefer? Liberal policies. But they are p[ercieved by half the country as radical just like the other half views the conservative policies as radical.
That's a condition of the political climate, not saying it's right or wrong. Saying they indicators of the #### happening in the United States and those same indicators beginning to rear their heads in Canada. You can say abortion may not be an issue now, but it can become a wedge issue as conservatives take control and lean into the evangelical base. The same playbook that has helped the right become more radical in the US is the same one conservatives will use in Canada, just like in other countries around the world. Or are you ignoring the traction these RW agendas are making around the globe?
Never mind the fact that you’re bringing American issues (abortion) into a Canadian context where they’re not relevant.
Abortion isn't relevant? I'm not an expert, but I recall reading about access issues in Atlantic Canada. What about in the hospitals Smith is selling to Covenant Health?
"October Surprise#
The Virtual Tout® now provides minute-by-minute forecasts, updating this site when there is a change in forecasted electoral votes.
We will be posting forecasts until election day, November 5, 2024.
The current electoral vote forecast (270 needed to win):
Democratic: Harris/Walz (302)
Rebublican: Trump/Vance (236)
The vice presidential debate had a small influence on forecasted electoral votes, with Vance showing a slight advantage over Walz. This influence was revealed around midnight in the evening of the debate.
Recent end-of-day forecasts:
September 30: Harris/Walz (308), Trump/Vance (230)
October 1: Harris/Walz (302), Trump/Vance (236)"
"In August 2020, The Virtual Tout® moved from sporting event forecasting to political event forecasting. Drawing on betting data from prediction markets hosted by PredictIt, The Virtual Tout® correctly predicted the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. See The Virtual Tout® Archive and In the Media.
Shortly after the 2020 presidential election, Tom Miller invented prediction surveys, methods used to correctly predict results in the two Georgia senatorial runoff elections in January 2021.
Tom Miller is the person behind The Virtual Tout®. He is faculty director of the graduate data science program at Northwestern University. Tom holds a doctorate in psychometrics and master’s degree in statistics from the University of Minnesota, as well as master’s degrees in economics and business from the University of Oregon."
Listened to Walz's responses again - his performance wasn't as bad as I initially thought.
But he did miss a lot of opportunities. He didn't say a number of things I was hoping he would say. He also wasn't emphatic in his delivery, and I thought it hurt him.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
Abortion isn't relevant? I'm not an expert, but I recall reading about access issues in Atlantic Canada. What about in the hospitals Smith is selling to Covenant Health?
I was talking about within the context of talking about reactionaries. Even the most liberal definition of a reactionary that includes people on the left, the definition of it is still someone who wants to return to a previous state of politics and society. Normally that refers to conservatism wanting to return to a perceived golden age, or wanting to roll back rights that have been won (same sex marriage, abortion, etc.)
So I guess you could argue that people who want abortion rights restored in US states are left wing reactionaries in that they want their rights back. But that doesn't apply in Canada, where abortion is still totally legal. It doesn't mean it's not an issue, but the term "reactionary" is wholly inappropriate when talking about people who want to maintain the existing status quo.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Listened to Walz's responses again - his performance wasn't as bad as I initially thought.
But he did miss a lot of opportunities. He didn't say a number of things I was hoping he would say. He also wasn't emphatic in his delivery, and I thought it hurt him.
I maintain that Walz is the platonic ideal politician. He is in politics to help people and I think he's honest - in this case to a fault. Him admitting he mis-spoke about Tiananmen Square was curious. He was clearly uncomfortable trying to dodge the question and then his admission is seen as weak in a debate context, but it demonstrates his high moral compass and EQ.
It was probably a poor choice to try and find common ground with Vance given how the entire GOP is based around gaslighting, but if you look at it from that lens, Walz did what almost no politicians do anymore, he was trying to prove a point that if elected he has a responsibility to listen to the other side and try to find ways to compromise and move forward. It's always how he's been, like he was in congress:
We should actually celebrate that, but politics is so broken.
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to kermitology For This Useful Post:
Listened to Walz's responses again - his performance wasn't as bad as I initially thought.
But he did miss a lot of opportunities. He didn't say a number of things I was hoping he would say. He also wasn't emphatic in his delivery, and I thought it hurt him.
Can I offer you some advice? Don't pay attention to this race until November 5. Your responses to Walz's performance last night come off as being pretty devastated. But why? My assumption is that in your mind last night was going to be "the end Trump's chances". Walz was gonna do great, Vance was gonna be a debacle, and that was going to put a wrap on Trump's chances. Except, even if that happened, it wasn't going to change anything. And even though Vance won and Walz wasn't great, that also changes nothing.
Nothing is going to change this race meaningfully between now and election. So just chill, don't worry about the fact this will be tight until the end, and quit hoping for the "end of Trump's chances" moment, cause it just isn't happening.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Walz seemed like he'd had way too many cups of coffee. He was amped up and wouldn't even let the moderators speak before going into his arguments. Quite the opposite of the gravitas that Obama was so good with. Even Vance had a better sense of timing. If Walz had been able to relax, let the question be asked and just add some filler (thanking the moderator, blah blah, then answer the question) he would have been more effective.
This type of venue was clearly not in the Walz wheelhouse. However it's good to know he continues to destroy on the campaign trail while Vance is utterly useless in that domain
Remember when every one of his lies would be reported on and then analyzed by the mainstream media when Trump first appeared on the political scene? It was tiring and left people shocked given the frequency of his lies, but they don't even get covered anymore. I'm not sure how any of his supporters can actually believe this stuff but think that most of them don't, they know he's lying, but it doesn't matter since it's anyone but the Dems for them, similar to the other side being anyone by the GOP.
I'm not sure how any of his supporters can actually believe this stuff but think that most of them don't, they know he's lying, but it doesn't matter since it's anyone but the Dems for them, similar to the other side being anyone by the GOP.
In fairness to the Dems, there isn't another sane viable option for America at this time.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Can I offer you some advice? Don't pay attention to this race until November 5. Your responses to Walz's performance last night come off as being pretty devastated. But why? My assumption is that in your mind last night was going to be "the end Trump's chances". Walz was gonna do great, Vance was gonna be a debacle, and that was going to put a wrap on Trump's chances. Except, even if that happened, it wasn't going to change anything. And even though Vance won and Walz wasn't great, that also changes nothing.
Nothing is going to change this race meaningfully between now and election. So just chill, don't worry about the fact this will be tight until the end, and quit hoping for the "end of Trump's chances" moment, cause it just isn't happening.
I'm well aware that this is going to be an extremely close race right up to the finish line, and nothing that happened last night was going to change that fact. I was never under the impression that there was any possibility of a "Trump is finished" moment at this debate, nor any time before the election.
That said, this is the most consequential election in the history of the modern world, arguably the most important in the entire history of our species. And with the margins being razor-thin as they are, everything matters. If the VP debate influences even a few votes, it matters. If Walz having a better performance meant moving a few more votes into the Harris/Walz column, it matters.
I still think most people in the US don't have a true, deep understanding of the gravity of this situation. If Trump gets back into power, there won't be any meaningful checks or balances against what he wants to do to the country and the world. A lot of people have a false sense of security based on the fact that Trump was president before. What they don't realize is that there are worlds of difference between a Trump who stumbled and bumbled his way into a presidency he was not expecting, took a long time to learn the ins and outs of the job, his WH was staffed with people who shielded the country against his worst impulses, and it took time for him to stack the courts in his favor... vs a 2nd Trump term where he hits the ground running from day 1 with Project 2025 in hand, has the courts already stacked in his favor, and will staff the WH and govt departments with extreme MAGA loyalists.
My honest opinion is this: if Trump wins, humanity has no future. And by that I mean, sure, people in North Korea technically have a future, in the sense that they're allowed to live as mindless work drones, devoid of freedom or independent thought. They're "free" to worship the god-king, and do their daily tasks like robots. But they are not truly free to actually live, to think freely and speak their minds the way we do here in western nations. They do not live lives of self-determination, only self-preservation. Same kind of thing in Russia, where the people are not free to speak out against the Putin regime, nor against the Ukraine invasion. They are also not free to choose their government representatives. Russia's sham "elections" are not actual elections.
The kind of world that Trump, Vance, MAGA, and Heritage Foundation want to usher in... I have to be honest with you, I don't think I want any part in it.
So for the idea of checking out and not paying attention until November 5, I don't think that's in the cards for me.
I mean for your own well being I hope you check out. Spending the next 34 days watching more "Trump is the end of humanity" videos surely won't be good for you.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
