|
gradenko_2000 posted:There's no
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 00:33
|
|
big enough. I had a debate with some Facebook contacts a couple months back about how back in the mid-terms there was a dare to find video of overt racism in a Tea Party gathering but no one ever stepped up. I guess I should call it in now.
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There's no The most popular speech during the 2012 primaries being Newt Gingrich talking about black people being lazy doesn't count as "overt racism" anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:You will never win that bet. Think back to OWS. Remember the reports that a woman was raped at the Atlanta OWS? What was your response? "That rapist scumbag was not part of the movement, and he doesn't represent OWS." This person will do the same thing. "That racist guy is not part of the Tea Party." With social movements like these, it's downright impossible to pin anything bad on them, because they define themselves to be good. edit: Though you can't exactly compare the two. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Mar 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That makes sense, because just someone doing something in the general area is enough to brand you as condoning it, well that obviously makes it rather easy to dismiss any group. Of course not. And not just because racist dude's views do reflect the Tea Party's views. It's just that there's far too much deniability to ever prove it to someone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:The most popular speech during the 2012 primaries being Newt Gingrich talking about black people being lazy doesn't count as "overt racism" anymore. The way the people in question define "overt racism" is "every single black person is inferior to whites and I hate them all." Most racists legitimately think that liking a single black person means that they cannot possibly be racist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The way the people in question define "overt racism" is "every single black person is inferior to whites and I hate them all." Most racists legitimately think that liking a single black person means that they cannot possibly be racist. "I have a black friend" is like a get out of jail free card for being racist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:You will never win that bet. Think back to OWS. Remember the reports that a woman was raped at the Atlanta OWS? What was your response? "That rapist scumbag was not part of the movement, and he doesn't represent OWS." This person will do the same thing. "That racist guy is not part of the Tea Party." With social movements like these, it's downright impossible to pin anything bad on them, because they define themselves to be good. It wasn't even my bet! He said it was I think Andrew Breitbart that brought it up a couple of years ago and offered a 100k USD bounty, even. A quick google brings up: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/cspanjunkie/how-dare-they-call-us-racist-andrew-br from 2010
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The way the people in question define "overt racism" is "every single black person is inferior to whites and I hate them all." Most racists legitimately think that liking a single black person means that they cannot possibly be racist. Mitchicon posted:"I have a black friend" is like a get out of jail free card for being racist. I may have to use that in my next debate. "I have capitalist friends and don't think literally every capitalist out there eats babies with relish. How can you possibly say I'm anti-capitalist?" "Why do you think I hate America? I have American friends, I am American!" "I can't hate the military, I've got a cousin in the Army and my dad's drawing a VA disability pension." That should be nearly as much fun as taking advantage of their "No Political Correctness" stances to tell them exactly what I think of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:"I have a black friend" is like a get out of jail free card for being racist.  My black friend shares all my political views!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
The racist guy has a point in as much as capitalism is hard on poor white males (harder on poor black males obviously), but talking about class seems pretty much off limits for mainstream (D, R, tea baggers) politics. Without the correct tools to analyse the system it's impossible to understand why it does what it does, and people will resort to talking about race and nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:The racist guy has a point in as much as capitalism is hard on poor white males (harder on poor black males obviously), but talking about class seems pretty much off limits for mainstream (D, R, tea baggers) politics. Without the correct tools to analyse the system it's impossible to understand why it does what it does, and people will resort to talking about race and nationalism. Oh, it's perfectly fine to talk about class, as long as you're saying the right things about class. Class warfare per se isn't taboo in American politics, it's class warfare of the poor against the rich specifically that you're not supposed to talk about. The American political narrative is basically that everyone can be successful in America if they just work at it, so everyone who is not successful must obviously be a lazy worthless moocher who refuses to do their part for society and deserves, at absolute best, pity and scorn. American class relations have successfully been defined in mainstream politics as a struggle between the productive class and the moocher class - ordinarily a typically socialist worldview, it's just been turned on its head. The extremely wealthy who control most of the capital and the means of production are seen as the productive class, hence 'job creators', while the people who actually work for them are seen as the moocher class, insufficiently grateful for the gifts so selflessly bestowed upon them by the wealthy elite. Mister Bates fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Mar 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Oh, it's perfectly fine to talk about class, as long as you're saying the right things about class. Class warfare per se isn't taboo in American politics, it's class warfare of the poor against the rich specifically that you're supposed to talk about. The American political narrative is basically that everyone can be successful in America if they just work at it, so everyone who is not successful must obviously be a lazy worthless moocher who refuses to do their part for society and deserves, at absolute best, pity and scorn. American class relations have successfully been defined in mainstream politics as a struggle between the productive class and the moocher class - ordinarily a typically socialist worldview, it's just been turned on its head. The extremely wealthy who control most of the capital and the means of production are seen as the productive class, hence 'job creators', while the people who actually work for them are seen as the moocher class, insufficiently grateful for the gifts so selflessly bestowed upon them by the wealthy elite. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Progressives and basically anyone to the left of Reagan can never succeed in American politics. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Oh, it's perfectly fine to talk about class, as long as you're saying the right things about class. Class warfare per se isn't taboo in American politics, it's class warfare of the poor against the rich specifically that you're not supposed to talk about. The American political narrative is basically that everyone can be successful in America if they just work at it, so everyone who is not successful must obviously be a lazy worthless moocher who refuses to do their part for society and deserves, at absolute best, pity and scorn. American class relations have successfully been defined in mainstream politics as a struggle between the productive class and the moocher class - ordinarily a typically socialist worldview, it's just been turned on its head. The extremely wealthy who control most of the capital and the means of production are seen as the productive class, hence 'job creators', while the people who actually work for them are seen as the moocher class, insufficiently grateful for the gifts so selflessly bestowed upon them by the wealthy elite. While that might've been true in the past, I think the biggest thing that OWS accomplished was turning the conversation around, or at least getting the ball rolling. In 2006, if you'd said the 99% or the 1%, people would say "One percent of what?" Everyone knows about the wealth disparity in America now, and after the bailouts in 2008/2009, even the Tea Partiers are loathe to straight up defend a banker. They'll do everything that banker wants and support everything about that banker, but if you actually say it's for a banker or someone on Wall Street, their lip will curl. The original Tea Party movement started with Rick Santelli on the floor of the stock exchange. Of course, it turned out to be astroturfed by those bankers themselves, but for about one month before the marching orders had time to percolate down, it was about anger over the bailouts. Of course, there's the parallel framework that you speak of that still exists, the one between moochers and producers, but it's now on equal footing, rhetorically, with the viewpoint about wealth inequality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Actually that does strike me as being strange, should the Tea Party have been very much behind the idea of OWS?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:Actually that does strike me as being strange, should the Tea Party have been very much behind the idea of OWS? No, because it was founded and is at least somewhat controlled by the interests OWS opposes. Their basic memes are propagated and reinforced through channels controlled directly by the right-wing elites who are most in opposition with OWS, and their exposure to OWS was primarily through those channels. The bailout rage was redirected into Obama rage. Everything else has been fitted into pre-existing dirty-hippie and welfare-queen imagery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Well that's not quite true: class warfare between the rich and poor is a perfectly fine thing to talk about. In the context of "these crazy democrats are trying to encourage unjust class warfare against the rich because they're jealous and lazy and embarrassed they aren't as successful!" That's the only way class warfare is ever brought up - as a scummy strategy the Liebrals pursue to get uninformed, angry voters on their side. It is shameful of the Libtards to do this, because of course the rich deserve their power: - They Worked Hard - Assumed Risks - Drove An F-150 Instead of a Mercedes - Invested Instead of Buying Spinning Rims These are seriously the four basic arguments that the conservative underclass will use to argue for the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:That's the only way class warfare is ever brought up - as a scummy strategy the Liebrals pursue to get uninformed, angry voters on their side. It is shameful of the Libtards to do this, because of course the rich deserve their power That's how the conservatives paint it, but they don't have the stranglehold on the dialog like they used to. Class warfare as in the rich attacking the poor is a pretty common thing to hear in the mainstream nowadays. MSNBC, CNN, and the Daily Show bring it up often, and newspaper editorialists assume readers are familiar with this. Hell, Elizabeth Warren is a Senator now. She was elected entirely based on her fight against class warfare. It's a topic that is very close to the public ear. Sir Rolo posted:Actually that does strike me as being strange, should the Tea Party have been very much behind the idea of OWS? VideoTapir posted:No, because it was founded and is at least somewhat controlled by the interests OWS opposes. Their basic memes are propagated and reinforced through channels controlled directly by the right-wing elites who are most in opposition with OWS, and their exposure to OWS was primarily through those channels. The bailout rage was redirected into Obama rage. Everything else has been fitted into pre-existing dirty-hippie and welfare-queen imagery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:Haven't seen this posted yet. My mother-in-law is collecting from her deceased husband's social security right now even though she's never paid into the system, so that's total bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
I'm so glad my husband's brother unfriended me. I don't miss the daily screeds. But unbeknownst to us, their was a family meeting, where the decision was made. All because, I sometimes did not agree with him and commented with another viewpoint. It makes it harder to harvest nuggets of wisdom, (for this thread.) But I hit pay dirt today.    A couple of those come from Mr. Conservative. Please tell me, that's a parody site. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Obviously there is no legitimate reason the man in the most powerful office in the world wouldn't just put any random thing passed his way into his mouth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
Radical Griff posted:Obviously there is no legitimate reason the man in the most powerful office in the world wouldn't just put any random thing passed his way into his mouth. Obama does something every president has done. THIS IS BAD!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:Haven't seen this posted yet. Let me know which bank offers 5% ROI, I'll sign up tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
THE GAYEST POSTER posted:Obama does something every president has done. THIS IS BAD! TELEPROMPTERS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
Radical Griff posted:Obviously there is no legitimate reason the man in the most powerful office in the world wouldn't just put any random thing passed his way into his mouth. He's elitist for not letting the good white folk have a go at killing an uppity friend of the family.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Radical Griff posted:Obviously there is no legitimate reason the man in the most powerful office in the world wouldn't just put any random thing passed his way into his mouth. It's actually true? Obviously the secret service would be concerned and vigilant regarding poisoning attempts but I figured they just had ironclad chain of custody over his food.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
Phone posted:Let me know which bank offers 5% ROI, I'll sign up tomorrow. The US Government also pays far less than 5% to borrow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Isn't it pretty much a given that the development of class consciousness in the USA has been completely stymied by race paranoia? Isn't that like half the emails in this thread, at least?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:That's how the conservatives paint it, but they don't have the stranglehold on the dialog like they used to. Class warfare as in the rich attacking the poor is a pretty common thing to hear in the mainstream nowadays. MSNBC, CNN, and the Daily Show bring it up often, and newspaper editorialists assume readers are familiar with this. Hell, Elizabeth Warren is a Senator now. She was elected entirely based on her fight against class warfare. It's a topic that is very close to the public ear. The "moochers" rhetoric was in Santelli's speech. He called the recipients of the crap mortgages "losers" while bankers literally jeered in the background, and then he called for a Tea Party to defend said jeering bankers. Am I the only who, on seeing this and Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck leading the party, felt the same way at the start of the Tea Party that most Democrats did after Romney's 47% speech? The difference between the Santelli rant and the 47% speech was that Santelli's insults were meant to get the "losers" themselves, not wealthy donors, to side with him. Plus, the Tea Party didn't have gerrymandering, voter suppression, or Romney's relative sanity. Am I politically naive for thinking the Democrats could have crushed them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Am I politically naive for thinking the Democrats could have crushed them? Democrats are a party for the rich, too. I doubt their backers would appreciate populism aimed against them. http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 "Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry"
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Isn't it pretty much a given that the development of class consciousness in the USA has been completely stymied by race paranoia? Isn't that like half the emails in this thread, at least? I've never really thought about such a thing directly before, but this seems correct to me. After all, when Europe as a whole was awakening to class issues, the US was dealing with the Civil War and Reconstruction. Not for nothing, I think, did both MLK Jr. and Malcolm X turn their focus on economic issues late in their careers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:Haven't seen this posted yet. [social security rant] quote:Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my social security insurance!  The government is funded by your tax dollars!!!!11!Actually, I really don't understand the Social Security argument from the right. They look down on "entitlement" spending, then they complain about Social Security being called an "entitlement" because they paid for it with tax dollars... who are they arguing with, here?  Mister Bates posted:American class relations have successfully been defined in mainstream politics as a struggle between the productive class and the moocher class - ordinarily a typically socialist worldview, it's just been turned on its head. The extremely wealthy who control most of the capital and the means of production are seen as the productive class, hence 'job creators', while the people who actually work for them are seen as the moocher class, insufficiently grateful for the gifts so selflessly bestowed upon them by the wealthy elite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
Social Security and Medicare are absolutely entitlement programs. The problem is when the right (or whoever) wants to use "entitlement" as a pejorative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:
It's a symptom of the right wing rhetorical framing so clearly dominating public discourse. We've gotten to the point where "entitlement spending" is a poisoned word, where "entitlement" literally means "a bad thing" rather than what it says on the tin - money that someone is entitled to (because they paid into the system). This comes up in D&D threads periodically when people try to re-contextualize SSA retirement and disability insurance programs as "earned-benefits". EDIT: drat you, Myron.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:It's actually true? Obviously the secret service would be concerned and vigilant regarding poisoning attempts but I figured they just had ironclad chain of custody over his food. I have no idea, it's probably not true, I just like pointing out the fact that even if half of these crazy claims were factual, they're still reasonable if looked at critically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
My mother-in-law is collecting from her deceased husband's social security right now even though she's never paid into the system, so that's total bullshit. [/quote]I think the point in that section was that she was getting paid out of her own, while her two husbands' SS was never collected. She's rhetorically asking where that money went. What's sickening is the implication that this money has been used for other things, not understanding that it's not like it disappears or anything. Letting it sit in a pile when you can borrow against it or use it otherwise doesn't make sense, though that's assuming it's managed properly (unlike most of the pension accounts I've heard about. Whoops, looks like all your money is gone! *flies off in company jet*)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
I thought I would chalk it up to my friend being a dumb racist, and I would leave it at that, but a week later and one of his dumb racist friends came out of the woodwork. And both of the articles in question: http://takimag.com/article/tackling_asian_privilege_gavin_mcinnes http://takimag.com/article/tackling_white_privilege_gavin_mcinnes Of course, the guy that posted the last response that is a white guy who gets to enjoy the privileged of not acknowledging his privilege. The thing I hate about Facebook squabbles is that many times it involves expressing a whole different worldview which is impossible to convey in a Facebook post. To deny that privilege exists and chalking it up to some sort of racial or cultural superiority takes a lot of willful ignorance. Also shame on me for thinking that the first article was a sly re-framing and not a race supremacist circle-jerk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
That was the point of the article though. It was making fun of the concept of privilege, not... whatever satire you think it was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
quote:Chinese, who have the shortest history in the US of any minority- 1820. The Chinese started trickling in around 1820.  Amarkov posted:That was the point of the article though. It was making fun of the concept of privilege, not... whatever satire you think it was. The concept of white people being the group that trumpets against the existence of privilege is so funny to me. Digi_Kraken fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Check out this blog on asian poor in  .http://thisisasianprivilege.tumblr.com/
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
This was posted on my news feed. What do I do with it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 02:18
|
|
