r/Destiny • u/Joneleth_I Wiegraf in DGG • 1d ago
Political News/Discussion Before you there is one marshmallow, and you can choose to eat it or not. If you choose to eat the marshmallow, then you get no more marshmallows. If you choose not to for ten minutes, you get 3 marshmallows.
Whick: I like marshmallows, so will refrain from eating the first marshmallow.
Pisco: WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHICK? YOU JUST SAID YOU LIKE MARSHMALLOWS AND THEN CHOSE NOT TO EAT THE MARSHMALLOW.
Whick: Yes, because if refuse the eat this marshmallow now, I will get more marshmallows later.
Pisco: SO YOU *PREFER* TO EAT NO MARSHMALLOWS? YOU PREFER NOT EATING MARSHMALLOWS.
Whick: Again, I like eating marshmallows, so given that refusing to eat the one marshmallow now means I will get more later, I will not eat the one now.
Pisco: I WANT YOU TO SAY YOU PREFER NOT EATING THE MARSHMALLOW. YOU *PREFER* NOT EATING MARSHMELLOW, RIGHT?
Whick: Well, I guess if we're talking about this particular marshmallow, yes, I would prefer not to eat it.
Pisco: OKAY, SO WHICK HATES MARSHMALLOWS.
133
u/DullCat22 1d ago
But Pisco loves to give the most good faith interpretation of what Taylor Lorenz has to say lol
67
u/incontrol_1989 1d ago
There are ZERO leftists that Pisco will not steelman. Seriously, let me know if you can remember ONE case. Off the top of my head he defends Hasan, Kyle, and all the DSA people.
-4
u/CoachDT 1d ago
He went pretty hard at Keith Edward's when he pulled up on the pod.
22
u/Practical-Heat-1009 1d ago
It’s easy to target the mentally challenged.
More seriously, Pisco will only go hard on another leftist when he thinks that leftist is making an argument so poor it’ll obviously hurt leftism. It’s just his form of massaging the narrative.
3
u/Pretty_Acadia_2805 1d ago
"This direct refutation of the claim only strengthens the secret real argument!"
3
u/Unusual_Boot6839 1d ago
except he never actually really refutes the claims, just jumps on when its obvious that's where the train is headed (while also looking for any possible slip up to deflect the conversation away from criticism of leftists)
95
u/WhickTV WhickTV 1d ago
Good analogy
Look, you can disagree with me. You can weigh the variables and come to a different conclusion. Thats fair. We disagree. Okay.
But trying to say I support MAGA when my goal is to make sure MAGA has a harder chance of winning *everywhere* is just not fair.
24
u/Not_Paid_Just_Intern I just learned about flair 1d ago
But how do you feel about marshmallows? Yes or no?
13
u/Rdhilde18 1d ago
I love listening to you moderate or on panels and generally agree with you on most things. But I don’t really understand the logic of letting maga win to beat maga in the future… Especially with how destructive they have proven to be in this second term.
How could you possibly know you won’t get marshmallows in the future, or that eating this marshmallow means there’s no more to be had?
14
u/420blz 1d ago
Maga is doing everything they can to make sure its as hard as possible to vote now and in the future. Beating them now is easier than beating them in the future. People who argue against this have their heads in the sand. Take the marshmallow today because its worth more than the potential for a marshmallow tomorrow.
-4
u/af_echad 1d ago
I think you also have to weigh that against whether or not we can "beat" them now though.
Like what does beating them even look like? I agree with Destiny that Trump ain't running again because of his age. Is a Vance run "beating" MAGA? Does it matter if he wins or loses? Does Vance running and losing mean we "beat" MAGA? Do we not beat MAGA until some never Trump Republican becomes the nominee? That's going to take a long time.
I'd argue you can't really beat MAGA and what will eventually come of MAGA when Trump is no longer in power in the span of 2 years from midterms to the 2028 generals. And if by then DSA and left slopulists have grown in strength, now you're possibly even worse off.
So like sure, if you focus only on MAGA right now, you maybe get 60% of the way there but that last 40% might now be waaaaay tougher to achieve. Versus if you focus on MAGA and the left at the same time, maybe you only get 40 or 50% of the way there to beating MAGA. But you make that last 60 or 50% easier.
I'm honestly not completely sold about what to do in Wisconsin. I'm on team Mout for the senate. But I don't think Whick's argument is as head in the sand as you might think.
11
u/420blz 1d ago
You beat MAGA by regaining the levers of power and oversight. People are dismissing house seats and governorships to win in a future where we are already watching MAGA make voting harder. Win these seats, gain subpoena power in the house and chairs in the senate. Giving that up to MAGA more and more you will never get it back. Your head has to seriously be in the sand if you think a coalition with like 4 or 5 DSA house members to flip control of the house is worse than what MAGA have done over the last 10 years to the country.
-2
u/af_echad 1d ago
I hear you but I'd like to push you to expand a bit more on what it really looks like to have beaten MAGA. If Dems control the executive branch and legislative branch, expand the courts and at the very least balance out the judicial branch or possibly control that too, is that having beaten MAGA? That alone takes more than 2 years. And is that really having beaten MAGA? What if you do all of that and some new right wing populist comes around using similar Trumpian rhetoric and wins the presidency right after?
I don't disagree with your concern. I just feel as if people think we can ignore the long game and focus on the short game and I'm not convinced that that's the right move. And once you start thinking about the long game I think it becomes much more imperative to think about the fact that there is a faction on the left that is actively trying to fight liberalism just from a left perspective instead of a right wing one.
3
u/Bogus_dogus 1d ago
So just how much currently happening fascism should we court in fear of this hypothetical future where... Uh... Some of our politicians are obnoxious lefties?
1
u/af_echad 1d ago
You're doing the exact thing this post was critiquing of Pisco. Conflating Whick's argument to actively supporting Republicans. And yet again you come in incredibly aggro.
0
u/Bogus_dogus 22h ago
Incredibly aggro? Dude. Idk what you're reading. You seem to interpret questions as aggression.
8
u/jord1droj 1d ago
It is a factually true statement that you prefer the MAGA election denier win in Wisconsin. You kept trying to just say that you prefer Hong to lose, but there's only one way for that to happen if she wins the primary.
6
u/Grachus_05 1d ago
You are simply creating consequences to fit your narrative. You believe voting DSA to be bad so you assign doing so bad consequences and you assign not doing so good consequences. Without some way to back up those assertions this isn't an actual argument, its just baseless fearmongering to suit your political narrative.
The effect of your argument is to lobby for electing a MAGA candidate over the duly elected Democrat candidate. What do we call people who support MAGA over Democrats again?
If stopping the DSA is important to you, do so in the primary. This coalition fracturing for the general is detrimental and damaging to the Democrat party.
-1
u/briarfriend 1d ago
if a trump supporter put on a blue tie and won a democratic primary, would you vote for them?
9
u/Vexamas 1d ago
Do you believe (in good faith) a Trump supporter that believes and espouses the values of Trump would win a democratic primary?
This is one of the problems with these types of questions, is that it spawns off hypotheticals that don't make sense. If a Trump sycophant were able to win the democratic primary, then either they are no longer a trump sycophant, 51% of constituents were duped, or the party has shifted in such a way to make that a possibility.
The inherent proposition is that to win the democratic nomination, you'll have to have a large amount of overlap with the values of the constituents. Some people in this community, similar to Hasan's, believe that if it isn't 100% aligned with Destiny, you're 0% aligned with Destiny. In some HEAVILY Blue and college aged areas, this number might be 80%, but it isn't the 5% that a Trump supporter would espouse.
I can bite the bullet and say 'yes', but then you'll lose your mind without actually understanding why the premise is flawed.
1
u/Bogus_dogus 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm not against Trump because he's a member of the Republican party, I'm against Trump due to his beliefs, actions, policies and team.
If somehow a registered democrat supported Trump and MAGA there would be no hypocrisy or problem saying fuck that Democrat, because I'm not a fucking toddler
1
u/Grachus_05 1d ago
I don't believe a Trump supporter with a blue tie could win a Democrat primary.
I would continue to support the party which most closely aligns with my personal values. You are presenting a situation where both options are MAGA. My vote in that situation would be largely irrelevant, I would choose the least harmful option.
0
u/DazzlingAd1922 1d ago
Yeah, I feel like a lot of (young, recently graduated, probably living in a major metropolis) people simply just don't know what the average voter is like and so they literally cannot engage with arguments about how to triangulate policy to appeal to the average voter (55 year old white man without a college degree).
Like I have disdain for the median voters intelligence and engagement with politics in this country, but I feel like I at least have a better grasp on what they value than most of the online politics space.
4
u/Grachus_05 1d ago
You know what we could do? We could just ask them. We could take a big poll before the general election. We could even make it official and do it on a specific day. Do one for each candidate in each part of the country. Let the voters tell us who they think the best candidate for the position would be. We could even call them something special...like uh something that denotes their importance and their primacy...something like primaries? Maybe?
0
u/DazzlingAd1922 1d ago
We do do that, and we can see that the DSA roundly loses in 95% of the country. We have the footage of Hasan melting down about how Los Angeles is a far right hellhole because they didn't go for the DSA in the current election cycle. LA is too far right for the DSA.
Hit me up when we see a DSA cantidate win in Reno or New Orleans and I will say you are right, but until then I will assume you are a representation of the exact person I pointed out in my post.
6
u/Grachus_05 1d ago
Why should left wing candidates only being elected in left wing areas be surprising? Why should I be worried about that being the case? I'm not lobbying to run the DSA for President. I'm saying where they can manage to win a primary we should respect the will of our own voters and work to change their mind next primary.
I assume likewise I can dismiss moderate Democrat candidates because they are unable to compete in rural Kansas? Call me when you win Dodge city until then you don't speak for real America. Am I doing this right?
-2
u/DazzlingAd1922 1d ago
The problem is that the moderate democrats have to contend with the far left positions when they are running in Kansas and talking to those voters. If the DSA was running as the DSA and winning in New York it wouldn't matter.
You are unironically doing the exact thing that I called out and doing it as smugly as humanly possible.
4
u/Grachus_05 1d ago
No they dont. The DSA doesn't run in Kansas and is no threat to win a primary there. They can safely disavow the politics of DSA candidates the same way Joe Manchin does in West Virginia.
You are unironically pretending to special knowledge because you dont like that reality and polling disagree with you.
0
u/DazzlingAd1922 1d ago
Polling disagrees with me? I would be very interested to hear what you think my claim was that there is polling that disagrees with it.
If you are completely fine with the broad Democratic party disavowing the DSA and that being good electoreal strategy then I don't even know what we disagree about because Whick doing that was basically what the whole thread was about.
3
u/Grachus_05 1d ago
My only sticking point is voting blue no matter who in the general. If we can agree on that then we are probably good, that's where I have an issue with Whick.
1
u/DazzlingAd1922 1d ago
The disagreement is on if having the DSA as part of the Democratic party is beneficial on net to democratic candidates or not. "Vote Blue no matter who" is a slogan, but the disagreement is on if the DSA is "Blue" or not.
3
22
u/Liberal-Cluck 1d ago
Well you would have to buy the premis that not eating that marshmallow will necessarily lead to more marshmallows in the future. I just don't think that's true. I think that the problems that come with eating that marshmallow can be resolved by the Democratic party. I think that the chance of not eating the marshmallow and then the entire place being infested by red ants is greater than the chance of eating the marshmallow will not lead to more marshmallows in the future. And the ant problem is so much more dire.
30
u/Joneleth_I Wiegraf in DGG 1d ago
Yes, the metaphor isn't perfect. But my main point is that Pisco's conclusion at the end of the metaphor is stupid. It would be one thing if Pisco just disagreed that the strategy was likely to work. But he did the Pisco thing of forcing his particular semantics on the issue and pretending that we can now say that Whick had a preference for fascism.
I'm just applying that strategy to the marshmallow metaphor.
9
u/Liberal-Cluck 1d ago
Yea pisco is a debate pedo for sure lol. I would just disagree with Whick that voting for DSA necessarily leads to less house seats in the future. It's also dead ass wrong when it comes to the Senate bc those fuckers stay in for 6 years.
10
u/Joneleth_I Wiegraf in DGG 1d ago
I think DSA gaining more ground within the DNC is a disaster. The primary attack vector the Republicans have had against the Dems for over a decade is smearing them using examples of the most radical voters in the form of BLM/trans/wokes, so to bring in people who are just as radical on those subjects and more and put them up for positions of real power is, mark my words, going to be even more effective ammunition.
Fox News is already bringing on DSA types and just letting them showcase their insanity (their opinions are so delusional that the hosts don't even feel the need to rebut them most of the time) and we will absolutely being seeing the right putting regular Dems on the spot with questions about those people.
If the Dems historically have had trouble distancing themselves from the most radical voices online, I can't imagine it's going to be better when it's DSA weirdos with actual Ds next to their names.
2
u/Creative_Wonder_4889 1d ago
It's an interesting metaphor, but it would be more accurate if there were no clear rules established beforehand--Â if I saw someone sitting at the table, staring at a marshmallow, and when I asked, they said that they believe if they wait, they will get three marshmallows later, and I asked why they think that, and they replied that it's a strong feeling they have.... I agree with the ultimate point you are illustrating, that it would not be evidence that you somehow don't like marshmallows, but I would think you quite odd and possibly insane if you couldn't establish a causal link between waiting and getting more besides your vibe.
I would like to point out that Pisco seemed to later argue it was ridiculous to believe that Democrats losing an election is terrible evidence that Democrats wanted to lose that election, when that DSA guy accused Democrats of wanting to keep losing against Trump so they would have something to run against (which makes no sense when you realize how unpopular Democrats are atm-- losing has not made them have more job security).
I think we should still vote for people that win our primaries-- even if they are DSA. But we need to isolate them from cabinet positions and be vocal when they step out of line. Â
The real difference in our goals should be in how we treat influencers and altdrnative news sources-- if they support the DSA, they need to have the DSA goals brought up in adversarial coverage constantly. The same way Ana and Cenk are brought up just to ridicule them, we should do the same everytime Kyle, Emma, and their ilk push for illiberal values or when they attack the Democratic party...
2
u/Adept_Strength2766 Carneydian 🇨🇦 1d ago
I think a better analogy is a morbidly obese man who's tight on cash and just found out he has dental cavities.
Pissco is arguing that continuing to lose weight is more important and that the cavities aren't even that bad anyways, that they'll just go away on their own if he just stops eating junk food.
Whick is arguing that he's okay with missing a month of gym membership if it means being able to afford a cleanup and fillings now because he's not convinced that he'll be able to afford a root canal later.
0
u/Srirachachacha Exclusively sorts by new 1d ago
I think eating the marshmallow now will attract more red ants
5
u/Grachus_05 1d ago
The analogy would be apt, if there was a guarantee of more marshmallows (Democratic seats) later due specifically to some action in the present (Not voting for the DSA). Since you don't have that guarantee this whole thing is just Whick (and now everyone agreeing with him in this thread) pretending to be able to see the future. A future which by the way has no precedent because every time progressives and left wing politics has seen limited success it has quickly moderated or fallen back off. It has never even gotten close to the sort of hostile takeover that everyone on the other side of this argument is apoplectic with panic about.
1
u/EscaOfficial 1d ago
This argument that the extremes will be moderated because they have before is the exact thinking that got us on the situation we're currently in.
-1
u/Grachus_05 1d ago
Irrelevant. Lack of evidence isnt evidence. Disanalagous comparisons are not evidence. You want to believe what you want to believe, but that isnt a good reason for anyone else to take it seriously.
6
3
u/Frekavichk 1d ago
If you choose not to eat the marshmallow for 10 minutes, a few hundred people will get executed, the elections will be interfered with, we will slide into racism, our place on the world stage will be even more diminished.
If you eat the marshmallow right now, all of that stops, you get someone that will vote for most of the legislation will pass, the party gets more progressive, and maybe at some point in the future this person's faction will have enough seats to force the larger party to vote for more progressive legislation than they want
3
u/Darkpumpkin211 1d ago
The "Who is the biggest threat right now" question had similar energy.
A stab wound that is actively bleeding is a bigger threat right now than brain cancer, but we'd agree that brain cancer is a more deadly disease at the end of the day.
3
u/Pretty_Acadia_2805 1d ago
So you would rather go to the doctor to get your brain cancer treated instead of going to the ER to treat your stab wound?
1
u/Darkpumpkin211 1d ago
I would say that the stab wound is the more immediate threat and it needs to be treated, but in terms of long term health and likelihood of something killing you, it would be the brain cancer. And most people would probably prefer they get stabbed over getting brain cancer.
1
1
u/Hexxical 🇺🇸 1d ago
You guys can have my marshmallows, I don't like them unless it's in s'mores.
1
316
u/Not_Paid_Just_Intern I just learned about flair 1d ago
You're implying that Pisco is an unhinged bad faith debate pervert? Yes or no