The left is generally better than the right at producing aesthetically appealing content and that is a problem. The right just slaps some stars or a cannon or the constitution on something and calls it a day. This must change, return to better aesthetics
Sorry to say it but facts and logic alone don't mean much. You're not going to inspire people with sterile power point graphics
I personally really like the retro synthwave aesthetic because it is optimistic, enthusiatic, forward thinking
This was referring to the mainstream right, but I see people whose primary reference to reality is the edgy, unsubtle meme are upset that they were not consulted for this thread. It's a mystery as to why they mostly exist online, powerless, and anonymously
Another telling rebuttal is pointing to the past for validation in the present and future. Basically, we don't have to prove we are better at aesthetics because our ancestors did it for us so now we are entitled to LARP
Most of the people complaining about thread fall into three categories for which I'll use three designs to illustrate: PragerU, National Review, Terror House
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The problem with Trump 2024 is that you're actually just voting to reelect Jared Kushner
with another serving of Ivanka's bossgirl "dad don't do that it's mean and makes me look bad" liberalism
Trump's refusal/inability to govern (without Jared's permission) brought us to where we are now by enraging and empowering our enemies through his pro-corporate, pro-crime policies. If you think things are bad now, it's because we had an ineffective leader for the last four years
"The truth is that the political economy of the United States is no longer capitalism but managerialism, which slit capitalism’s throat sometime in the 20th century." amgreatness.com/2021/02/02/ame… 2/
"Conservatives proclaim the supremacy of self-interest, of anti-social, atomizing individualism even as it facilitates the consolidation of control over our lives by a collective of managerial elites." amgreatness.com/2021/02/12/con… 3/
Yes, because cancel culture is just the inevitable enforcement of mores. Some behavior, speech, etc should be considered unacceptable. Conservatives have simply deluded themselves into believing a morally neutral society is possible or desirable, quitting the field to the left 1/
We should want to cancel people who push woke ideology. We should want to cancel people who teach our children to hate their parents, their country, their ancestors, their religion. Conservatives like Jenna are fundamental useless in this fight 2/
Morally neutral, non cancel culture society is an impossibility, it has never existed in the United States or anywhere and never will, the closest thing would be anarchy 3/
To watch sports today is to subsidize a class of ungrateful, often illiterate, often criminal people who get paid millions of dollars to play a game while lecturing you about how awful are you and your country. It also tends to turn men into spectators in the same way porn does
You're also enriching cynical managers who basically think that the more openly they and their team hate America and its people, the more popular the team will become. What is the upside to this, besides dopamine?
The left, to their credit, will boycott effectively to protest things they view as threatening to themselves. The right, on the other hand, finds every reason to not boycott, to watch another game without the national anthem and with players kneeling
TPPF argues government can't pick winners and losers--bailouts bad. Irony: TPPF receives millions from oil and gas industry donors. So, TPPF is funded by a subsidized, bailed-out industry that government chooses as a winner. In other words, they're frauds 1/
"The US oil and gas industry has received more than $10 billion from the federal government to cushion losses during the pandemic, according to a recent report analyzing federal financial data." Will TPPF return bailout donor money? 2/ qz.com/1936859/the-us…
Conservatives actually love subsidies. They love "socialism"! But only when it benefits their donors in gas and oil, in the defense industry, etc. They're actually fine with the government picking winners--so long as those winners donate to their think tanks 3/
1. Trump calling Buchanan a "Hitler-lover" is enlightening because it explains why Trump, who barks a lot about PC culture, is actually terrified of being publicly perceived as a racist, hence him being a much softer leader than his rhetoric suggests
2. So Trump is actually an arch "movement conservative," in the sense that he takes ideas, doesn't credit people, dilutes their ideas, and turns them into a grift
3. National Review opposed Buchanan for the same ideological reasons they opposed Trump (who was an unserious, incompetent version of Buchanan), which merely reinforces the point that NR truly is the home of invertebrates and not so beautiful losers