SkepticalButOpenMinded

This discussion is going off the rails. Most of these points are wild digressions.

It’s funny that you think Biden is some step above Obama when it was Obama who joined the Paris agreement in the first place

How does that argument even make sense in your brain? Obama was president at that time, so it was impossible for Biden to be the one to join it. Joining the Paris agreement is absolutely empty without actions. Unlike Biden, Obama passed no major legislation to support it and did not make climate a priority.

The economic recovery is on paper... The US is standing tall because the other countries are simply doing worse.

You're missing the point. The US is doing better during a worldwide recession because progressive policies work. Left leaning economists like Joseph Stiglitz argue that the generous covid stimulus programs is why the US has avoided a recession, whereas Europe is suffering for their economic conservatism.

Biden eliminated $130 worth of student loans after helping create the $1.7 trillion student loan crisis we have now:

Biden was a centrist senator, but please stay on topic: we're talking about his current presidency not what he did 20 years ago. As Sanders said, "I think he is a much more progressive president than he was a United States senator".

The actual topic:

You made the ridiculous assertion that Democrats and Biden are "Republican-lite". You haven't addressed that point at all, because it's utter indefensible bullshit and you know it. People like you are why progressives keep losing. If progressives don't know and can't recognize when their policies are being passed, then progressive policies will never be passed.

No. This is extremely lacking in nuance. I am not defending all compromise. Some compromises are garbage. But being against any compromise, and praising the Tea Party, is a lazy ignorant position. Obama was an overrated moderate president, unlike Biden who has tried very hard to pass progressive policies.

Even with a Republican president and senate, House Democrats somehow managed to pass some of the most generous and progressive Covid relief in the world (even more than Scandinavian countries), including expanding child benefits and Medicare, and the US is benefiting from the strongest economic recovery in the world because of it. Biden has eliminated $130 billion worth of student loans. The Inflation Reduction Act was the biggest environmental legislation in a generation, and recommits the US to the Paris agreement. You know who voted for all these good compromises? Bernie Sanders.

Calling that "Republican-lite" is straight up ignorant. Republicans wouldn’t do any of that.

This shows you don’t understand the US political system at all. The US system is intentionally designed to require compromise. The US also has extremely weak party discipline. Voting against your own party is unheard of in most parliamentary systems, but it’s normal in the US. That means there needs to be compromise even within a single party. If you want progressive policies, more progressive Dems need to be voted in.

There are people like you on the Republican side too. People who would rather the government shut down than compromise with Democrats.

Edit: if you seriously think a president Bernie Sanders wouldn’t also compromise with Republicans, then you don’t know the first thing about how legislation is passed.

Exhibit A. That is exactly what they are not doing. Anyone who thinks they are Republican lite is not paying attention.

The progressive vote is hardly guaranteed. It's fickle, hyper critical, divided, which enervates us as a voting bloc. Conservatives are the most reliable voters, and, surprise surprise, they wield outsized political power.

Totally agree. But pressure is both positive and negative. It means rewarding good policy, not just criticizing everything. Biden has made many moves to satisfy progressives. But if none of it matters electorally, why even try? Why not go back to pandering to centrists and conservatives?

Look, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a low information voter. People are busy, and reading endlessly about politics is an unproductive hobby, just one of many out there.

But it is absolutely true that the most critical people on the left tend to be extremely vague on the specifics. Because they don't know the specifics. And being baseline critical allows them to protect their ego. "Those powerful elites won't fool me!" And don't get me wrong, powerful elites are trying to fool you. But one of the ways they do that is by convincing you that nothing ever gets better. Nothing is worth supporting. That every policy is as bad as any other. Everything that looks good is actually secretly bad.

Here's an example. Lack of competition and enshittification is frequently in the news. Inevitably, someone will comment that "both sides" are corporate shills, and it'll get a ton of upvotes. Anyone who knows anything about the current FTC knows that that's insane. In a shocking move, Biden appointed a young progressive firebrand as the head of the FTC, Lina Khan. She literally wrote the academic article starting the super progressive New Brandeis school of anti-trust. This new FTC has been sometimes clumsy, but super aggressive against corporations. This was an olive branch to the far left. And it's one of the many reasons why progressives who are paying attention begrudgingly appreciate Biden.

You're gaslighting yourself in the other way. There are two kinds of low information voters. The first kind uncritically worship their "side" because they're misinformed about the vices. The second kind are cynical and critical no matter what, even when policies help them, because they're misinformed about the virtues. The right tends to do the first, the left tends to do the second.

There's a reason why the most informed left leaning people are the most strongly in support of Biden. Including people like Bernie Sanders and AOC, both of who have praised him for governing progressively.

You’ve misunderstood so many of my points, this is exhausting.

You insist on gatekeeping the term “raceswap”. Fine. Call it “reimagining an existing character as another race”, if you want. You would have to be delusional to deny that Miles Morales is a Black-Latino version of Spider-Man.

The article I linked to mentions the backlash and controversy about political correctness and Morales. I’m a little surprised you missed the point there.

I’m not sure what specifically you’re on about with the “usual crowd” paragraph. I know that lots of non-racists are also against “reimagining an existing character as another race”. I agree that race swaps can go wrong a lot.

Please read this carefully: The specific claim I am contesting is OP’s strong thesis that raceswapping is always bad. I gave examples of it sometimes being good. Miles Morales is certainly an example, down to the criticisms of too much political correctness, racists complaining, fan “controversy”, claims that it’s a cash grab, etc.

My point was not that the multiverse is bad like elf slavery is bad. I am saying that your explanation gets things backwards: the multiverse doesn’t show how it’s not a race swap. On the contrary, the race swap is the reason why they needed to use the multiverse as a narrative tool. Forget the analogy to elf slavery if you don’t get it. The point is that some writer wrote a multiverse storyline in order to justify the existence of a Spider-Man of a different race.

Everyone likes him because the storytelling is good, which proves my point: Race/gender swaps are fine when done right. But when Miles Morales was first introduced, it was considered a race swap, and the usual crowd definitely moaned about it.

The multiverse explanation reminds me of people saying “But the elves liked being slaves!” in Harry Potter. Yeah, they were written that way, and they could have been written another way. The multiverse is being used to narratively justify a black Puerto Rican Spider-Man.

Kind of. Excerpt from this article by Ridley Scott:

“I think the idea actually came from Alan Ladd, Jr. I think it was Alan Ladd who said, ‘Why can’t Ripley be a woman?’ And there was a long pause that, at that moment, I never thought about it. I thought, why not? It’s a fresh direction, the ways I thought about that. And away we went.”

This was the late 70s. “Man” was still so powerfully default that Ridley Scott had not even thought of the possibility of casting a leading woman action hero before a meeting with an exec. That, to me, is clearly a gender swap moment, because until that moment, it was a given that Ripley would be a man. The gender-neutral script just allowed for the possibility.

It’s hard to do well, but I disagree that it’s a slap in the face or a low blow. The gender swap of Starbuck from Battlestar Galactic was seen as sacrilege by fans, but she became one of the highlights of the show. Miles Morales was a creative way to do a race swap for Spider Man, and the narrative is richer for it. Jason Mamoa turned Aquaman from white to Polynesian, and the depiction was better than ever. Would Nick Fury be better as a white guy, as he was originally for decades, instead of Samuel L Jackson?

And then there are all the “swaps” that happen before the first day of filming, like Ellen Ripley, Sigourney Weaver’s character in Alien, who was originally (edit) going to be cast as a man. This was “controversial” at the time, with people decrying “political correctness”. I would not take “causing controversy” as a reliable indicator for whether something sucks.

Edit: point taken about gender neutral script. See discussion below.