TemutheeChallahmet

Yeah, it had a trite take on racism and arguably used Tulsa as a setting for stylistic reasons only, but just structurally speaking the episodes are beautifully crafted, and how the climax unfolded felt exactly like how it felt reading the climax of the graphic novel.

They have lost the creator of the lib Watchmen series, it's over (still a good show formally, btw)

one that's not falling to pieces, whose strings have not snapped and frayed

Yeah, the only thing is loser nerds have the patience and tenacity to follow a blueprint to the end, build things and influence over time, without being swayed by any distractions like changes in popular sentiment. It's what makes these home and private school evangelicals so dangerous, they pinpoint then do what it takes to get into Harvard Law, get into Supreme Court clerkships or grow boring dependable businesses that give them massive financial war chests (see U-Line). Comparatively the left leaning have no long game or discipline.

Agreed but I meant more as a rhetorical tool by leadership, and a talking point dissemination strategy

I think she'll probably become a standard bearer out of touch Dem as she gets richer (a la Patton Oswalt), but will never end up like Brianna Wu trying to do anti-woke stuff for attention because she already has a huge following.

I wouldn't call her post left, she is still miles better than Red Scare or Amy Terese and still making content that gets libs to think a little more leftward

I am sure she said a lot of thoughtful stuff to Hillary that got cut out of the released version like Homer's Poochie speech.

Sure but there is no way to implement a policy that makes people's lives better that doesn't initially go against the will of a ton of people who'd actually benefit down the line. It is never going to be a process where you first convince everyone who'd eventually use something to get on board with passing it, it's always going to be you steam rolling that third of people polarized against it, and then when they find some occasion later to use the benefits you've passed, because "fuck it, they're there anyway," that the benefits become unretractable. There is no path to public welfare that lets you avoid paternalism and believing you know what's better for some people than they do themselves.

I think it is not a matter of punching up or punching down but how either is done. If you straight up tell rural poor people you want to make their lives better and build a better future for all it will simply not connect and perhaps even get you called "gay." If you meet them where they are and tell them their towns aren't shit and they have been voting for shit because they have been too demoralized to pursue what they are owed, they might actually say you are giving the tough talk that is needed and that you aren't mincing words like some bullshitter.

You are less likely to uplift the already downtrodden by starting off with a message couched in positivity and auspiciousness, it just is not how the terms of engagement in such societies are. I have lived in the poorest areas in India, China, Jordan and the US and I know this much to be true. That is not to mention that rural red area politics aren't a monolith, and there are good chunks of people who are liberal but outnumbered, hate the beliefs and policies of where they are, and are forced to hold their tongue due to social pressure, and such people are just waiting for a fearless shit talker left-leaning leader to galvanize them and finally make their displeasure socially acceptable enough to voice.

These people were probably winnable by Obama, but Joe just has no sauce

South Asians and Hispanics are in fact the standard kkk Trump supporters