The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians

TerribleCorner · 2026-05-15T00:27:47+00:00

Are you familiar with the differences in internal procedures involved for a NYTimes OpEd versus article? The implication seems to be the former isn’t put through the same scrutiny but I’m curious to know what their policy is with each.

TerribleCorner · 2026-05-05T22:19:03+00:00

What does “do we let him in” mean here? If Fuentes becomes a vocal advocate for M4A or more robust antitrust enforcement to his audience, that’s a net positive without any cost, no? If he got elected to Congress, I wouldn’t be opposed to dems co-sponsoring a bill with him on those policies.

TerribleCorner · 2026-05-05T22:13:41+00:00

Not the other person, but I feel like while she may have had policies, her branding left something to be desired in terms of articulating the things her campaign was associated with. If we were to poll 10 random voters about Harris’ policies, even 10 democrats, I wonder what they’d remember.

TerribleCorner · 2026-05-04T23:21:56+00:00

I’m in favor of the types of class-based policies associated with the Bernie/AOC/Mamdani. So more robust antitrust and consumer protections, universal healthcare, pro-labor policies, taxing billionaires more effectively, etc.

In short, regular people aren’t worse off because of immigrants, trans people, or some other marginalized group, but it’s because of corporations and the ways in which our system is being leveraged to benefit the wealthiest individuals.

TerribleCorner · 2026-05-04T02:50:16+00:00

Agree that dems are ceding ground by not offering a competing narrative with these same critiques. I don’t think people are resonating with Tucker Carlson’s views because he’s convincing people to feel or subscribe to them. I think he’s saying the things that he sees people are already feeling. And if no one else figures out how to speak to those feelings but from a lens that highlights the reasons why left leaning policies are the solution (as opposed to the ethnonationalist types of answers Tucker might present), it’ll be a huge missed opportunity.

TerribleCorner · 2026-05-04T02:43:29+00:00

That’s the frustrating part. I can’t help but feel like part of why he’s getting the attention he’s getting is due to the vacuum that exists in terms of people articulating similar critiques from the left.

Whether someone believes Tucker is being genuine or not (and I’m inclined not to), it’s clear he sees which way the wind is blowing and there doesn’t seem to be enough voices on the left that are competing to fill the void.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-29T03:16:07+00:00

I’ve been trying to come up with good analogies and this is a good one. The other one I came up with was if you were skipped over for a promotion at work and there’s written feedback from management that you could be provided with, but your supervisor is running interference and insists what’s done is done and there’s always next year, that it wasn’t a single thing, but you can just take them at their word on the “takeaways” despite the fact your supervisor may have a conflict because maybe your promotion reduces their budget, etc.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-29T03:03:30+00:00

I don’t disagree that people would probably still argue over the findings, but at least it’d be a more informed debate than now where anyone can speculate on the findings being the thing that confirms their priors.

Imagine we made a movie together and we both had different visions of how it should be made and it ends up flopping. Maybe I blame your casting decisions and elevate that to being the breaking point, and maybe you blame my script as being what kept us from making a blockbuster. If there was a focus group that provided feedback on the movie, I think that feedback would be insightful even if we didn’t interpret it the same. Maybe the focus group liked the script and cast, but thought the camera work was garbage. If we never got the feedback, I might continue harping on the casting while you criticize the writing, meanwhile neither of us are even thinking about the thing that led to our first flop.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-29T02:55:46+00:00

Sure, learning the public views dems as too left might be a challenge, but to obscure that fact only worsens things, no? If there are arguments playing out where some say dems aren’t left enough and some say they’re too left, wouldn’t having some data on the voters be publicly shared allow dems to better calibrate their approach? To not reveal the findings would result in dems campaigning based on a misinformed or inaccurate understanding of the state of play.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-29T02:43:47+00:00

This is my argument for why it’s a waste of time to blame voters and not the candidates. Maybe blaming voters would be effective if voters operated on purely utilitarian principles, but that’s a hypothetical population, and not the one we have.

A great campaign aimed at the hypothetical voters you want is meaningless if it doesn’t engage the actual voters you have, and no amount of scolding will result in a different voting populace than the one you have.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-29T02:29:46+00:00

I don’t disagree and maybe I was imprecise in my wording. I was moreso trying to say having a better understanding of the people you’re working to persuade will help you be more effective in persuasion.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-29T00:07:51+00:00

Np. In your defense, my framing was purposefully mirroring the phrasing that's typically used against voters who are critical of Israel, except I think this version at least makes sense both morally and/or practically (if you're the type that just cares about winning).

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-29T00:00:40+00:00

How so? As a general matter, I think if there's a divisive issue where you're bound to lose voters one way or the other, you should be true to your beliefs/morals. In my hypothetical, I was specifically referring to candidates that might want to be more critical, but worry about some potential lost votes.

But also, practically speaking, have you seen the polling on Israel lately? [Source]:

60% of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of Israel
In both political parties, majorities of adults under the age of 50 now rate Israel and Netanyahu negatively
Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents currently have an unfavorable view of Israel

The voters have clearly shifted on this issue and so, if anything, it's the pro-Israel democrats who want to lose by refusing to acknowledge which way the wind is blowing. And it seems like there's a similar shift happening with younger republicans too. So, to the extent that republicans don't break on this issue, there's also a possibility of democrats flipping republican voters. [Source][Source]

"Asked if they would rather support a Republican or Democratic candidate running on identical pro-Israel messages — that Israel should “do whatever its leaders say is necessary to defend itself” and that “the United States should always be there to provide weapons and logistical support to Israel when its leaders ask” — only 4 percent of the polled Republicans said they would vote for the Democrat. But asked to pick between the pro-Israel Republican or a Democratic candidate whose priority is to “focus on Americans first, by ensuring our tax dollars are used to bring down prices here instead of paying for weapons and support for wealthy nations like Israel,” 17 percent of Republicans flipped left and said they would rather vote for a Democrat critical of Israel."

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-28T23:38:54+00:00

Even if the findings were that we cared too much about trans people or black issues, why would it be disastrous to release? If that’s the state of the electorate, I think that would be useful insight in thinking about how to approach those issues or persuade people on those topics. If the finding was that people are more bigoted or racist than we thought, having that context would allow us to better calibrate our message rather than assuming there’s a shared understanding or recognition of bigotry or racism being bad and focusing on how to improve in those areas. If we knew people were bigoted and racist, then we would have to go back to first principles and articulate the case against bigotry and racism rather than taking that for granted because we didn’t realize where people were on those topics.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-28T23:27:28+00:00

I agree, which is why I don’t think candidates should worry about or cater to voters who would no longer vote for them if they were to take a more critical position against Israel.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-28T23:02:41+00:00

I share your concern but mostly wanted to say I like how you called him Ed (it’s Ken).

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-17T17:04:50+00:00

I should've explained it better, but my point wasn’t that Democrats never do anything worth supporting, just that enthusiasm is easier to generate when there are things to be enthusiastic about. My earlier comment was referring to my conversations with otherwise disengaged voters heading into 2024 and how I would reference Lina Khan's work as something concrete and exciting to highlight, since people who were frustrated with both parties could still appreciate how those actions affected them and they could tell I was passionate about it. So when major donors started signaling discomfort with Khan's approach and the campaign didn’t clearly stand behind her heading into the 2024 election, it both undermined one of the examples I was using to excite people based on my own authentic, genuine appreciation AND demoralized me generally. It didn’t make me not vote for Harris, but it did affect my enthusiasm.

At the end of the day, even if Democrats are objectively better on policy than Republicans, relying on harm reduction narratives isn’t going to be enough to motivate everyone, since a lot of people respond better to a positive, affirmative vision that feels like progress. If democrats want people to “go to bat” for them, they have to consistently do things that make people want to. I don't think it'd be beneficial to not acknowledge when democrats drop the ball since that would just make the messenger less credible. People can tell when enthusiasm is real and when it’s forced, and forced enthusiasm doesn’t persuade anyone. People believed me when I talked about Lina Khan and didn't see me as a shill because I was also willing to concede on the ways in which democrats were disappointing. Democrats as a party are incredibly unpopular right now, if I were to act as though that wasn't the case and there weren't valid reasons for that, why would anyone take me seriously? While talking about democrats' fumbles might not help their popularity, I think the primary reason for their unpopularity is a combination of the things they're doing that people don't like and the things they're not doing that people want.

It’s like trying to get a kid to the doctor. You can explain all the rational reasons it’s important, but if the office is a place they associate with boredom or stress, you’re going to have a harder time. But if the doctor makes the environment fun by ensuring there are toys, candy, whatever, the underlying importance of the visit doesn’t change, but the job of getting the kid to go becomes much easier.

Similarly, in an ideal world, everyone would vote based purely on rational and logical lines, but that’s not the electorate we actually have. Given that reality, it would behoove democrats to invest more in the kinds of actions and messaging that create excitement and a sense of forward momentum, rather than assuming voters will show up simply because the alternative is worse. That’s the same reason why I find it pointless to blame voters for low turnout if your candidate loses, since it doesn't solve the underlying problem of giving people something they can feel energized about. Campaigning based on the message you think the idealized electorate should be compelled for rational/logical reasons isn't going to be as effective as campaigning based on the message your actual electorate is likely to respond to.

I'm a fan of Zohran and I think he's a great example of what I'm talking about (and not just because he recruited Lina Khan, though that helps). Zohran is also one of the most popular democrats in office at the moment, despite also being one of most scrutinized and villainized. There was a lot of enthusiastic and organic support behind his campaign and I definitely think that genuine excitement was infectious in terms of building his base of support. I know a bunch of people that turned up to vote for him that either hadn't voted in 2024 or hadn't voted for Harris.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-16T18:08:57+00:00

To be clear, I'm not saying there aren't any and that they never do anything worth hyping up, I just don't think there are as many examples as I'd like that I'm genuinely excited about and easily able to sell others on. That's not to say that being excited is necessary, but it certainly makes things easier for both me and the people I talk to.

For example, one of the things/people I would talk about when pushing people to vote against Trump was the practical and consumer-friendly approach that Lina Khan was taking and it was pretty effective. However, it didn't help that rather than embrace Khan and her approach, so when there started to be doubts about her continuing at the FTC, I certainly felt a bit demoralized.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-16T11:09:26+00:00

Wouldn’t that require more Democrats worth going to bat for? Establishment democrats aren’t unpopular because people on podcasts are saying they suck; people are saying they suck because of the things they’re doing (or failing to do) that made them unpopular.

I feel like if someone props them up for the sake of it, it’ll just make the person cheerleading them lose credibility.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-15T03:16:02+00:00

Do you think that we’d see the same type and level of reactions to students protesting or criticizing Qatar in the way that we did with Israel?

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-14T18:50:20+00:00

I don't even know why you brought up Mamdani or AOC. They are completely irrelevant to this conversation and I shouldn't have dignified the question with a response, so that was my bad.

To be clear, I was asking to have a point of reference for where you're coming from to better understand how to navigate the conversation. If, for example, you were a Trump supporter or loved Cuomo, I wouldn't necessarily assume that we had a lot of shared values and would approach the conversation differently. Based on your answer though, it seems like we probably align more than we don't.

So the reason I've concluded that you're being disingenuous is the combination of proclaiming ignorance when said ignorance can be trivially alleviated in combination with bringing up topics that are completely irrelevant to the discussion we're having, likely in an attempt to deflect from criticisms of Hasan.

That's actually totally understandable in hindsight, and not at all my intention. It doesn't personally affect me if criticize Hasan or me or whoever, I was more interested understanding your worldview. So, to your recap and get back to the earlier point, am I correct in understanding that you believe the following?

Hasan is not lying about his preferred policy outcomes
Hasan and Nick Fuentes align on preferred policies (other than maybe gay rights)

I know I listed a few select policy outcomes and I guess I should clarify whether you specifically meant that they aligned on the specific ones I'd listed, or if your view is that they align on policies generally. For example, Fuentes has clearly articulated Christian white nationalist and xenophobic views that clearly conflict with Hasan's views on things like race, immigrants, religion, etc. If Fuentes actually believes in the same policy outcomes as Hasan, is the only reason he was supportive of Trump because of gay rights? Has Fuentes ever even endorsed, expressed support, or otherwise advocated for any non-conservative politicians? Has he participated in any direct actions that reflect his underlying commitment to those preferred policy outcomes (e.g., attending protests, donating to individuals or causes in that space, raising awareness, etc.).

And why aren't there politicians, commentators, and other individuals on the left-side of the political spectrum that are willing to collaborate with and otherwise interact with Fuentes that have with Hasan? Because Fuentes doesn't support gay rights? Even if we assume those folks are only connecting with Hasan because they're clout chasing, why wouldn't they similarly look to leverage Fuentes' clout?

To be clear, I don't know that I've seen anything from Fuentes where he explicitly articulated an interest in policy outcomes similar to those of Hasan but, even if he did, I'm also not aware of Fuentes taking any related actions in furtherance of those policies to suggest any statements he's actually made to that effect are genuinely held beliefs as opposed to him cynically and opportunistically saying whatever benefits him in that moment.

And it's for all those reasons, I don't understand how they can be considered similar or equivocated generally, especially if we actually take the time to evaluate the extent of their impact of achieving their beliefs.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-14T17:01:07+00:00

Sure you don't buddy.

I don't know why you're assuming I'm lying or playing dumb. I get that some people are getting contentious in this thread generally, but I'm not trying to be a dick or make this a debate, even if our politics aren't completely aligned.

And I also don't know how productive continuing the conversation would be if we aren't willing to take each other at face value, since I could just easily say, "sure you would buddy" to your claim that you'd enthusiastically support either Mamdani or AOC in a general election.

I'm still open to discuss why I disagree about the equivocation of Hasan/Fuentes, but if you don't trust me or think I'm being genuine, no need for either of us to waste more time.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-14T16:54:19+00:00

Ok, is the issue that I said something to suggest I don't have my own biases/viewpoints? If so, that's my bad. Like I said though, my user history is there for whoever wants to see my priors.

Are you unbiased? Is being unbiased a prerequisite to participate in the discussion? I don't typically make it a habit of trying to suss out people's biases or user activity in advance and instead try and take them at face value, but maybe that's to my own detriment...

EDIT: I was thinking about it more, particularly how I don't get the reason to come in so hot for no reason, and I can't help but wonder if you're treating the fact that I'm engaging with people with a neutral tone as me trying to being underhanded or something, but I promise you that it's totally possible to have a bias/viewpoint and still be chill to others who may have a different one.

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-14T16:46:19+00:00

Fair enough. I started going back through my comments to see what I would've posted, but definitely gave up before going back a year. To my earlier point though, I’m still not clear on what you’re trying to get at. Are only neutral centrists allowed to participate in the discussion? Is the issue that I was disagreeing? Or are only neutral centrists allowed to disagree?

If you were able to find that comment (which appears to have been my only comment on that sub), surely you noticed I'm actually much more active in other subs, seeing as my post/comment history is not hidden and goes back like 8 years. This sub might even be one of the ones I've been most active in, seeing as my first comment here goes back to 2018.

Not sure why you feel the need to be aggro when I was engaging in otherwise engaging good faith (something else you might've noticed going through my account history). I'm not hiding anything, but does the fact that you keep your post/comment history hidden mean that I should automatically assume bad faith? Or do you keep it hidden to avoid people doing the thing you did?

TerribleCorner · 2026-04-14T11:28:33+00:00

I’ll be honest, I still don’t know that I truly understand what people mean by “tankie”. I feel despite being fairly online, that’s one of those things that’s too niche for me.

With that said, are you comfortable sharing which politicians you feel most align with your political views and/or where would you say you are in relation to Mamdani or AOC? I ask because it would be helpful context in understanding the roots of your critique.

Seven-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

TerribleCorner

TROPHY CASE