Remember 2 years ago in 2022 when people were complaining about the price of gas and every Democrat was like "OH YOU DON'T GET IT, THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T CONTROL THE GAS PRICES YOU UTTER MORON!!!".

Kamala's plans literally are like, "the President is going to make groceries cheaper." Which one is it guys? Do you control prices or do you not? Of course the response is going to be technocratic mumbojumbo that's half lying anyway. Because the truth of it is that whatever they can take credit for they will even if they didn't explicitly have anything to do with it. They can't actually do anything because that makes their donor class nervous.

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Hobbes is so fucking annoying because he just needs to be right all the time. Doesn't matter the actual content of things.

He must feel great and right at home at Bluesky. It's a fantastic echo chamber for libs. The Bluesky version of the word solidarity is coalition. It's pretty funny for libs to say that with a straight face. They aggressively mute/block leftists. I couldn't resist so I used my commenting account and replied to him. ~1 hour later when I was looking at my own replies - I learned I was muted.

[–] _pi@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I dunked on him on the IBCK Patreon after their last nonsensical "media criticism" episode and he blocked me. He can't even put his ego aside to secure the bag.

This is what I wrote:

"I have a lot of friends who have a lot of opinions about Michael Hobbes because they're also annoying New Yorkers.

A constant opinion among people who I would describe as more "nerdy", around Maintenance Phase is the fact that Michael Hobbes is a critic but does not offer solutions or alternatives. You can call this kind of parlance "Michaelisms". Things that feel like it's about the debate, not about the content, not about the solution to the problem, but about winning.

My defense of Michael's Maintenance Phase work is that Michael is not a scientist, he cannot offer alternatives, he can only compile, analyze and weight studies that have already been done by others.

This episode is rife with the worst "Michaelisms" and gotchas, things that make you feel that it's not about improving the media or providing an objective lens but about Michael (and Peter TBH) proving he's right -- I feel that it's indefensible here. Michael is able and qualified to offer solutions and alternatives because in our media the only qualification you need to be able to explain how things should be is podcaster."

[–] Flyberius@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago

I had to stop listening to that podcast after they listed off a bunch of wars that happened post ww2, as evidence that the world was not infact getting more peaceful (all well and good), but didn't mention one US war. I thought to myself, fuck these liberals.