Any Gaming sites that aren’t all so left wing? Rowling & Other Catastrophes

[Grizzly]

It should be noted that NYT being aligned with the US’s opposition right now is more of an example of how far right the Trump administration is. The NYT previously uncritically supported the Bush administration when it came to, say, the invasion of Iraq. You can be a conservative and still oppose fascism (see also: The UK declaring war on Nazi Germany when they invaded Poland whilst being led by the Conservative party).

[LexW]

You can be a conservative and still oppose fascism (see also: The UK declaring war on Nazi Germany when they invaded Poland whilst being led by the Conservative party).

Well quite - as has been pointed out recently in Britain, in terms of major social beliefs, Hitler and Churchill aligned extremely well on most of them (extreme racism, inferior and superior races, white man intended to dominate the world, empire is necessary for a great power, etc.). But Churchill didn’t like outright fascism (at least as directed at white people) much, nor did others in his party (indeed nor other parties in the UK).

And yes the Iraq war is a supreme case of centrist neoliberal policy making (it also appealed to neoconservatives, but there’s considerable crossover between the two, primarily in the feeling the capitalism is relentlessly glorious, invading other countries necessary and justifiable (even without “war”), and that individual freedom, even if it’s the freedom to starve to death in the street, is pretty great).

[alms]

Uhm, I don’t get how that’s different from what I said (something in my phrasing perhaps?)

You wrote “I doubt the milk being raw counts” because of the very long aging (1+ to 2 years). The gist of my reply is that cheese made from raw milk doesn’t necessarily need that long a time.

believe it or not different kind of cheeses even when they are very similar is usually serious business here italians usually being the food snobs that they are

Being a snob is a decision, so food snobs exist elsewhere as well. Not everybody decides to be one.

Last of my posts on raw milk, or I’ll have to suspend myself again.

[alms]

You can be a conservative and still oppose fascism

Or be a conservative and not a transphobic dick, or a conservative and not a Rowling / wealthy bully apologist, and so on, like I said in a previous post, but I noticed that part has gone conveniently ignored.

That’s the sad thing about conservatism having jumped the shark.

[LexW]

Or be a conservative and not a transphobic dick, or a conservative and not a Rowling / wealthy bully apologist, and so on, like I said in a previous post, but I noticed that part has gone conveniently ignored.

That’s the sad thing about conservatism having jumped the shark.

To be fair liberalism has pretty much jumped the shark since neoliberalism became the default form, too. The idea that people not wanting to buy your stuff because you said or did things they don’t like = oppression is pretty astonishing, but apparently held by a lot of people who regard themselves as “liberals”. I was always under the impression that one was intended to be free to not buy someone’s stuff, and to say that they were a dick, under liberalism, but this whole “OMG OPPRESSION!!” deal seems to suggest I was deadly wrong.

It’s like I’ve moved into an alternative universe where liberal no longer means free to choose, nor free to speak your mind and others are free to same you’re dumb wanker who no-one should listen to, but some kind of utterly rigid system where only certain people are allowed to speak meaningfully, and where one isn’t allowed to publicly criticise them, or to suggest not buying their products, because that’s some sort of violation (?!).

Only way I know it’s not an alternate universe is that history shows it isn’t, and this whole “But you mustn’t suggest not buying my products!!!” deal is very recent, and only since certain “liberals” realized they were on the wrong side of various cultural issues.

Bonus points to the NYT being run by morons given the guy they let right the article basically calling for civil war has now come out attempting to claim the founding fathers of the US viewed slavery as a “necessary evil”, which is just outright lie as well as being horrific.

US senator defends remarks on slavery

Several founding fathers are on record as seeing chattel slavery as an outright good, and I can’t even think of one who supported it but clearly only as a “necessary evil” (which it manifestly was not), though some did oppose it and got overruled (generally ones we don’t hear much about now, I note). Certainly it’s very misleading to claim that was the general view expressed.

Also what he actually said was even worse:

“As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as [Abraham] Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction.”

He’s now backtracked and claimed he was merely relaying what they said, but “as [they] said, it was a necessary evil” strongly implies you agree. Furthermore, he said this in the context of literally trying to stop our good friends at the NYT receiving any funding for the 1619 project, which is basically an attempt to go over in detail the history of slavery in the US, which kind of further implies he does absolutely agree. Whether the 1619 project is open to criticism is another story of course (I’d suggest it’s largely an attempt to seize the zeitgeist and has some issues with historical accuracy), but he’s claiming the US hasn’t been racist since early days, and that’s not a viable proposition.

(There is some interesting/accidentally funny full-on-socialist criticism of it out there on the web which basically boils down to failure to take a Marxist approach to history, some of which itself pretty easy to criticise - one bit which seemed very academic and pleased with itself basically got into “Lincoln had black friends so he couldn’t have been racist!”, which was just like… wow.)

[Det.Bullock]

Uhm, I don’t get how that’s different from what I said (something in my phrasing perhaps?)

You wrote “I doubt the milk being raw counts” because of the very long aging (1+ to 2 years). The gist of my reply is that cheese made from raw milk doesn’t necessarily need that long a time.

believe it or not different kind of cheeses even when they are very similar is usually serious business here italians usually being the food snobs that they are

Being a snob is a decision, so food snobs exist elsewhere as well. Not everybody decides to be one.

Last of my posts on raw milk, or I’ll have to suspend myself again.

I mean that on average Italians tend to be food snobs with an alarming frequency, in Camilleri’s novels one of the things used to make Mimì Augello look like a bit of a doofus is that he puts cheese on pasta with clams.
Of course the thing is still relative since sometimes a lot of the snobbishness is relative to native food and a Sicilian that might cringe at Augello’s taste might also be fine with cream on a carbonara which would be revolting to any self-respecting Roman.
But still the importance Italians give to “good and traditional food” is borderline insane at times.
It’s a choice more or less like being a football fan in England or Italy itself, there might be weirdos like me that are somehow immune to whatever allure watching people kicking a ball might have but by and large most are fans to an extent.

Fair enough about the cheese, I guess.

[alms]

But still the importance Italians give to “good and traditional food” is borderline insane at times.

Sure, the UK and Germany didn’t have a food culture that could truly compare to France’s or Italy’s, but they do not live in a bubble, rest assured.

Wealthy people in general have more chances to become snobs than those who aren’t, and the average per-capita income of Italy is not at all impressive.

It’s hard to be picky when you have to make do, or, as the saying would have it: beggars can’t be choosers.

there might be weirdos like me that are somehow immune to whatever allure watching people kicking a ball might have but by and large most are fans to an extent.

Football is certainly the focus of immense cultural / peer pressure in countries like Italy and the UK.

[LexW]

Football is certainly the focus of immense cultural / peer pressure in countries like Italy and the UK.

I mean, have you lived in the UK @alms, because I can’t speak for Italy, but I feel like the popularity and importance of football here is often overstated outside the UK (moreso than tea, actually)? At least in my lifetime. Before that it does sound like it was more extreme.

I mean, I’m not really a football fan. I grew up in an Arsenal area, and I collected football stickers in sticker albums when I was a kid, because it was fun (my first introduction to “collecting” luckily it never quite stuck for me - I also had ones for Star Wars stuff), and obviously I played plenty of football at school, but no-one like ever peer-pressured me about football. There was never a genuine demand that I pick a team, or care about a team, and loads of people don’t - maybe most people even (certainly outside the working class - and most people are middle class culturally here). People have opinions, but most people don’t attach an awful lot of weight to them. I’ve never even seen football hooliganism or a even a fight in a pub over football, or even heard a first-hand account of either (from inside my lifetime). I don’t know who our current football-mans are nor does not knowing this cause me any social difficulties (indeed, in my larger friend-circle, I’d say it’s like a 40/60 split between care and don’t care about football - better than cricket, no-one cares, and about the same as national-level rugby).

The world cup was a little different, but you weren’t expected to care, but I did find myself caring until we lost dismally enough times. I’m just not sure it’s that we care more than other countries.

But I see these portrayals of Brits on the media of other nations, esp. the US, which seems to think it’s some sort of essential national characteristic, in all classes and backgrounds of British person, particularly English people. I daresay tea is a more genuine stereotype. Whilst a lot of British people drink coffee primarily, there’s something about the whole cup of tea ritual that’s a bit different and more calming and stuff, and it’s spread through all social classes in way strong opinions about football aren’t, quite.

[alms]

but I feel like the popularity and importance of football here is often overstated outside the UK (moreso than tea, actually)?

I can certainly drop the UK from my post, however I do seem to recall you mentioned, too, football being an essentially mandatory water cooler topic and perhaps finding it somewhat annoying or otherwise not great.

But I see these portrayals of Brits on the media of other nations, esp. the US, which seems to think it’s some sort of essential national characteristic, in all classes and backgrounds of British person, particularly English people. I daresay tea is a more genuine stereotype.

Peace! I’m not trying to bash anybody’s head in with stereotypes.

I do drink my fair share of tea, everything is OK with the world.

[LexW]

I can certainly drop the UK from my post, however I do seem to recall you mentioned, too, football being an essentially mandatory water cooler topic and perhaps finding it somewhat annoying or otherwise not great.

I dunno, I don’t think it’s ever seemed like an essential one or particularly annoying to me, but I can’t say I definitely never said that. Some guys definitely want to know if you do support a team, and if you admit to supporting one, then they want to make you part of their sort of “football mockery circle”, which is basically just the guys (and occasionally women) who actually support teams going “Haha your lot sure lost last night didn’t they!” and so on. I sometimes say my parents support Arsenal which gets me “Your dad must not be very happy!” and so on and I’m like “I guess… :)” which seems to satisfy the ritual. But if you just point-blank deny football, they will pass you by.

Now I’m going to make a cup of tea though even though it’s clearly later at night than one should because that’s who I am though!

[LexW]

Because I can’t, apparently, drop this, here’s another example of a real person losing their media job due to untoward pressure:

I lost my column for keeping Charlottesville police accountable. I'd do it again...

Oh look, it’s not someone being “cancelled” by “the twitterati” or whatever, it’s a legal threat against a journalist, by and wealthy and locally powerful organisation, and none of the people who are “so upset” people getting cancelled say anything about this kind of thing.

What’s more likely to get you fired? Offending literally millions of people on Twitter, or offending one sufficiently rich and unfraid-to-be-political organisation or person? I’m going to go with the latter. Bari Weiss had to troll for years and years, and to actively suppress the free speech of others to get fired. This lady made it six non-troll columns before getting shut down due to “unacceptable” opinions (which weren’t even hers originally).

[Zephro]

Eh most people in the west still are liberals no matter how much they say they’re rejecting it. Sure nobody but the very right bits of the Tory party are neo-liberals at this point. But most of the left still discuss rights at the drop of a hat, freedoms of expression, from oppression etc. They seem to think Democracy is good. So they sure as shit behave a lot like Liberals. Not free market neo-liberals, but recite a bunch of Mill to them and you’d just get agreement.

Walks like a liberal. Talks like a liberal. Is a… apparently some other thing. Or people are just defined by what they’re not now.

But we’re still in pluralist liberal democracies and I don’t really see anyone other than the far right suggesting otherwise. A more socialised version of capitalism but not much more than that.

[LexW]

Sure nobody but the very right bits of the Tory party are neo-liberals at this point.

???

Do you mean “everybody but” rather than “nobody but”?

Neoliberalism

Since Tony Blair, pretty much the entire centre in the UK, including most but not all Tories, has been neoliberal. The left-of-centre and right-of-centre tend not to be. Oddly the LDs have had a lot of non-neoliberal liberals in them too, but it’s still mostly neoliberals at this point. Clegg couldn’t have been more of a neoliberal, and I’m not using it as a cheap insult - it genuinely matches up with what he had real enthusiasm for (which was clearly not political reform, but things like making higher education into a market).

But most of the left still discuss rights at the drop of a hat, freedoms of expression, from oppression etc. They seem to think Democracy is good. So they sure as shit behave a lot like Liberals.

Paying lip service to things and actually believing them are very different things. Tories will happy say how great JSM is whilst selling bombs and airplanes to ultra-oppressive regimes (as would nuLabour), for example. And whilst increasing state power in terms of controlling, monitoring and oppressing people, but decreasing its ability to support or help people. They’re staunch friends of dictators of the sickest kind, so it’s hard to take any commitment to “democracy” seriously, especially as neoliberals seek to control, rather than reform, the democracy in their societies. Neoliberalism has two creeds above all else:

1. Free-market capitalism at all costs (including leaving the free market, hilariously). Not necessarily a true free market, note, if has controls that benefit elites more than everyone else, and centralizes wealth in an ever smaller number of people, that’s a feature not a bug.

This extends often into a psychotic and totally evidence-free faith-based belief that turning anything into a “free market” improves it. This has been absolutely rife since the 1980s, and still the same fucking moronic mistake is being made (most recently with the probation service here).

No amount of evidence can fight holy faith like the faith in free markets (which do hilariously, have some value, just like not remotely as much as neoliberals think they do).

Everything is a market, everyone is a consumer.

2. Individual rights are everything, except when it’s mildly inconvenient for the state or elites, or get in the way of the holy free market.

The result is that only convenient rights, belonging to convenient people, are particularly well-protected. Others are protected, but at the minimum non-riot inducing level (or a bit below occasionally, c.f. 2011).

This is very different from older liberalism. For starters it puts the free market at the heart of things, and above everything else. It doesn’t rate democracy particularly highly, and if democracy results in a society it doesn’t approve of, it is not averse to smashing said society. It always looks to minimize the state. Now, some people have a larger idea of a “minimum” size than others (Tony’s minimum was higher than Maggie’s, for example), but it’s still trying to minimize it, whereas trad liberalism merely tries to minimize state interference and control in people’s lives, which is rather different, and asked for economic freedoms which were long exceed by pretty much the early 20th century.

TLDR: Neoliberalism is basically Ferengi Warhammer 40K.

(Of all the races in Star Trek, it’s turning out those big-eared jerks are who we actually are. Let’s hope for a last-season revolution like on DS9.)

[alms]

That’s obvious but not relevant. My interpretation of the discussion was that NYT pulled the readership to the right based on a couple of examples: the Cotton op ed, Bari Weiss and that other guy. All I’m arguing is these are the exceptions, not NYT’s default. Their position on the political spectrum relative to what centrist means in the US is perfectly sufficient. I don’t need NYT to be straight up socialist for the inital point to be v

I’m sorry?

you guys seem to suggest it acts like some kind of gateway to fascism/the political right

If a newspaper is pushing a political right agenda, of course your slapping a ‘left-of-Trump’ label on it and calling it a day is going to prompt exceptions.

The system sliding increasing towards the right, and, I’m sad to say it, even towards fascist-like positions on a growing number of matters, may provide a convenient goalpost shifting, but it’s just an exercise in spinning.

Like saying 'global warming" instead of ‘climate change’ to make it seem like something natural, acceptable. Normalize it.

[Risingson]

Just to add a note: I understood the “snobbery” claim because I’ve had many troubles with Italians and Spanish on that respect. It is not that there is more culinary culture (though there is), but the fact that everyone has The Real Recipe on their minds and any deviation is sacrilege and deserving public humiliations. Examples: what ingredients are ALLOWED on a pizza, pasta can ONLY be consumed fresh, what is the REAL paella (what kind of rice is allowed, to a point that some say that only the rice that this guy on that town sells is the pure one) and mostly a lot of guys talking about the real recipe because that is the one their mothers and grandmas cooked (ignoring the fact that cooking is as opportunistic as creative, so maybe your grandma only made paella with rabbit because that was available and cheaper) and making up claims of centenary recipes. UK has actually taught me to cook in many ways (London in particular is fantastic for its blend of dishes), being braver at the use of spices, adding vegetables that I usually only ate in two specific ways (one of them grilled) and getting away from that “the simpler the better” attitude that can be a bit toxic. And whenever I upload anything to Instagram there is always someone, SOMEONE that says “what the f., that is not a real [whatever], [whatever] never has [ingredient]”.

That was my useless footnote, thanks.

[Skalpadda]

The system sliding increasing towards the right, and, I’m sad to say it, even towards fascist-like positions on a growing number of matters, may provide a convenient goalpost shifting, but it’s just an exercise in spinning.

It’s gotten to the point where I’m completely comfortable calling the current US administration and virtually all of the GOP actually fascist.

They don’t want democracy and are doing their best to undermine and do away with it. Gerrymandering, voter roll purges, strategic closing of polling stations, insecure voting systems, refusal to take any action to defend the integrity of the vote from foreign and domestic threats and a leader who doesn’t want to commit to respecting the result (!). They are no longer a democratic political party in any way.

Racists and ultranationalists who want the populace to be subjects of the state and oligarchy.

Fetishisation of violence.

Disdain for basic human rights.

Personality cult around a perceived strong man leader.

Vilification and sowing distrust of leftists, liberals, intellectuals, educational institutions and independent media. Also anyone else seen as deviating from the state’s ethnic or “moral” ideals, like being LBGTQ, having the wrong skin colour or religion.

Branding anti-fascists terrorists and enemies of the state (with a broad enough definition of anti-fascist that it can apply to anyone they don’t like).

Violent suppression of dissent and calls for using military on one’s own population.

Suppressing organised labour.

Takeover and subversion of the justice system.

Goddamned extrajudicial concentration camps.

Unidentified secret police kidnapping people off the streets as an intimidation tactic.

They’re just outright fascist now and occasionally raising a disapproving eyebrow does not make anyone a “leftist” or “left of centre”.

[LexW]

Ugh, @Skalpadda it is very hard not to see it is outright fascism. Certainly Trump’s administration has done all of that.

Curiously in the UK, Boris is only about equally fascist to Theresa May right now, because where he adds cult of personality and so on, she had tons of suppression of the judiciary, disdain for human rights (which I honestly don’t think BoJo shares - though I suspect Cummings does), and so on. We’ll see if he veers further right though. The most worrying thing about his majority is that it’s full of nouveau-Tories, who I suspect are considerably to the right of Ye Olde Tories on issues like human rights.

[Sarfrin]

In the US the pro-raw-milk crowd aren’t scientists or doctors, note, or even really cheese-makers or the like, they’re hippies and conspiracy theorists who attribute magical properties to raw milk.

Wasn’t there a ‘raw water’ movement at one point that advocated drinking untreated water out of random streams? (I know, mineral water, but that’s tested)

[Skalpadda]

I’m usually very against calling far right people and parties fascist unless they’re neo nazis or something but I can’t think of any criteria the Republicans don’t meet. I’ve voiced the same to some Americans and the best argument against it they’ve come up with is that they’re not in full control of all of the government, as if fascists only become fascist when they actually achieve a complete dictatorship.

I wouldn’t have said this four years ago. They’ve always ticked a lot of totalitarian boxes but there just doesn’t seem to be any real dissent left in the US right. All the supposed moderates have either shut up and fallen in line, retired or left the party. Mitt Romney occasinally saying something not completely insane from his safe mormon seat isn’t enough to save them.

I’m also stunned by how timid and useless the opposition from Democrats and others has been. I used to be more optimistic but I was clearly just wrong. They’ve had 3½ years and bungled every attempt at attacking this lunacy in a unified and effective way. AOC is cool, but that’s all you’ve got?

As for the general population it took a pandemic and a man getting tortured to death by authorities on video for any kind of significant protest to happen, and even that failed to reach any real momentum outside a few hotspots. And the Trump admin still sits at a 40% approval rating.

If the US doesn’t magically make a heel turn I’m at the point of just writing them off as lost. Even with a new administration it’s going to take miraculous concerted effort to fix what’s broken before it descends into madness again. I doubt the Democrats have the stamina and unified conviction to do it, especially under Biden. I doubt they’ll have enough public support to do it even if they win the election.

That turned a bit ranty, but on topic, the UK and the Tories are not that. It’s a mystery to me how Boris became PM and your election system is crap, but I haven’t gotten the impression the Tories are actively trying to get rid of democracy and there still seems to be room for a pluratlity of voices. I also don’t think the UK population is nearly as timid and feckless as the Americans.

[alms]

As for the general population it took a pandemic and a man getting tortured to death by authorities on video for any kind of significant protest to happen, and even that failed to reach any real momentum outside a few hotspots. And the Trump admin still sits at a 40% approval rating.

Broadly speaking, society is too money-hungry and scared to muster a healthy response.

It’s not really a coincidence that the major social upheavals came out from the 60s after the massive economic growth that followed WWII.

The more the 1% beats John and Jane Doe into financial submission, the more pliable they are.

To close the circle, back to the rise of Fascism that led to WWII, the basic underlying cause was masses that were poor, beaten up, hurt, humiliated, dejected and so on.

Things aren’t that bad, today, hopefully, but the parallels are there. Income stagnation for 50 years, social mobility nearby lows, and a host of other problems that essentially boil down to the tide changing in the 70s.

Wasn’t there a ‘raw water’ movement at one point that advocated drinking untreated water out of random streams? (I know, mineral water, but that’s tested)

People sometimes go pick up water from certain public sources because the water is good quality – usually in the mountains – but I’m not sure this is what you’re referring to?

Of course you can find always find a kook or two that suffers from this or that delusion, but we should refrain from throwing everything in the same bucket.

Raw milk, like I said, even though it’s definitely a lot less safe than pasteurized is not a lunacy. It can certainly turn into one, if someone argues it has magical properties, because that’s a thing that happens with magical thought, independently of milk, raw or not.

Raw foodism in general has some problems IMO, though there may be more and less acceptable positions, so I’d be wary of throwing away the baby with the water, even though nobody’s ever going to convert me.

Just to add a note: I understood the “snobbery” claim because I’ve had many troubles with Italians and Spanish on that respect

Oh yes, I know about food purists of course.

IMO though it is largely an off-shoot of the successful, commercial attempts to turn regular food into Value Added Food, it then percolates on the people who are sensitive to those narratives, usually part of a brand or “cool” image they want to project on themselves.

And if you want to tie this to the discussion about Fascism, call to (imagined, made up) traditions is something that happens with food etc.

That was my useless footnote, thanks.

I enjoyed reading your post, and this topic has been all over the place for a while, so why not.

PS: Just a post written in haste, please do not nit-pick too much.