|
I agree that identities do not exist in a frictionless vacuum, but I also don't think that achieving universalism is as simple as pretending that identities don't exist and aren't significant. Maybe if you went back in time and undid the racial conditioning inflicted on the working class to keep it from unifying, but short of that you really have no way of removing that friction.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Ocrassus posted:That is not what he is saying. He is making the argument that identity politics has mutated from fighting to all be part of one society, one social class, to a tribalistic form of aggression that prevents the former from happening. This has kinda been my opinion. identity politics isnt bad thing at all, As someone who has chronic physical disabilities, i know what its liked to get hosed over by people/environment/society. not as much as others sure. But i dont want some well off white guy telling me what i should consider ableist and whats not, or how i should be offended by tv or poo poo. because they sure as gently caress wont listen to me when the actual disabled person has real complaints like how about add automatic doors and fix sidewalks so they dont have massive loving pot holes in them. no that would be to loving hard "dapper" we should talk about how you are represented in the media or how about we build a room so you can cry after reading all the awful poo poo in your history class. I dont care about that poo poo, instead of that lets focus on that fact that i am hosed after my next birthday and have to find insurance that will pay for my needs. but no that would be to loving hard. people who focus on this poo poo are well intention but lazy. they think that if you just say the write words or cover up stuff then the problems will go away instead of actually trying to fix them. it depresses me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
rudatron posted:And with what, exactly, will you build confidence? Will you spend resources you don't have? Will you spread propaganda they won't believe, because you're a 'great white hope'? Without trust, you have nothing. Do you not think that minority groups have experiences in common within their group that they feel are more relevant than their class interests? Look at the Ferguson report from the DoJ and see if the police harassed working class whites as often as working class blacks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The biggest predictor of Trump supporters I've found, has been this loving poll right here: Please explain this chart to me, as I do not understand it. These numbers don't add up to 100%.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:I agree that identities do not exist in a frictionless vacuum, but I also don't think that achieving universalism is as simple as pretending that identities don't exist and aren't significant. Maybe if you went back in time and undid the racial conditioning inflicted on the working class to keep it from unifying, but short of that you really have no way of removing that friction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
The NY Times ran an opinion piece yesterday asking this very question: Why Trump Now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I've never made that claim, Not in those words, no, but that's what your #AllTribesMatter rhetoric leads to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Please explain this chart to me, as I do not understand it. These numbers don't add up to 100%. It's saying that if a person says "people like me don't have any say", they're x% more/less likely to prefer that candidate. What this means is that if 10% of voters prefer trump, 18.9% prefer him if they also answer "People like me don't have any say". It's flawed because you don't know the base percentages. If 30% of people overall prefer Hillary, then (using that same graph) 32% of "no say" people prefer her as well. Or maybe she also has 10% overall support, so 10.7% of "no say" people support her. You really don't know, which is why using that graph is bad. The other uniquely hosed up thing Rudatron did is that imply that Hillary is in trouble for some reason because of that graph. In reality, that graph tells us that people are more likely to support Hillary if they feel like they have no say in politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
rscott posted:I'm most familiar with Ha Joon Chang but that seems like a pretty uncharitable reading of what he's published, mostly because the top down enforcement of those institutions by the IMF and the World Bank have been set up specifically to preclude any notion of developmental industries that are protected by the state. It also ignores the fact that countries like Singapore and South Korea didn't have very many of those things at all when they began their endeavor, and countries that industrialized in the 19th century certainly did not, possibly because you're ignoring the causal argument that is being made. Those stable institutions are cultivated by a more educated, wealthier labor force that is the result of building a more advanced and versatile economy, not the other way around and that is why top down imposition of such institutions has been largely a failure. And thats the dilemma when it comes to protectionism, which emphasises my point. Developmental States have never been solely national projects - there has always been an international dimension to them. And matters are complicated further by significant changes in modes of production since the 1970s - the development of global commodity chains, outsourcing to local subcontractors/informal producers, etc, which significantly weaken the power and leverage of the state. This is why I argue policy alone is insufficient - institutions, context and politics also matter. I don't think we really disagree on this. You acknowledge that the external context is currently unfavourable. I think where we disagree the most is that I firmly reject the causal argument: ie: industrialise first then everything else comes afterward. The main arguments I've read on this have been based around revisits of modernisation theory and the notion of a linear path to development. In my view (and I've worked for several bilateral and multilateral development agencies active in this area for the past 15 years) none of the conditions I mentioned - strong state capacity, an effective public service, and most importantly political commitment on the part of key elites to development, etc, require industrialisation/'take-off' as a prerequisite. Yes, sustained economic growth undeniably helps reinforce them - but in most cases of successful development, countries already had many of these conditions in place, and they played a key factor in enabling this growth. So, whilst you lobby for favourable change in the international context, what do you do? Develop these and other institutions (and not to Western standards - "Good Enough Governance" is a thing) whilst working toward a change in the external context. Anyway, we'll probably still disagree on the issue of causation, but this tangeant is becoming pretty much totally irrelevant to the topic, so I won't respond further after this (only responded to this as you seemed to be implying that I was arguing something very different to what I have actually said/meant to get across).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:to rephrase, rudratron, why is it "universalism" when we do everything your way, but "negotiated tribalism" when we seek to incorporate things other than smashing the parts of the system that you particularly dislike. Some people see the big picture, some people don't. The left constantly doesn't. Constantly grassroots leftist activism is co opted by every minor identity issue imaginable. Occupy wall street got tied up about pizza donation requirements and speakerphone privileges so the people who were there to protest economic inequality got tied down with having to go hungry for animal rights and silent for their privilege. BLM is supposed to be about systemic violence and is now tied up with anti capitalistic measures far removed from the actual issue to the point they believe picketing malls is an effective response or is part of the splinter protest against police militarization, which is a totally separate issue again. Whether fighting for animal rights or against racism, capitalism, or the military industrial complex are good things are irrelevant if the fight doesn't actively contribute to furthering those goals and actively hinders other worthwhile attainable goals. If occupy had the solidarity of the tea party, maybe some executives would've gone to jail with a democratic party stacked with occupy sympathizers after an election when public anger was at an all time high against financial executives. (How those salary and bonus caps go after the election?) Who's life was made substantially better by boycotting pepperoni pizza, or not shopping for a day? Did anybody they engage with walk away thinking "wow I learned a lot today" or did they walk away crying inside like those primary school kids who had to pretend to be jewish for a day and came away with nothing but: "It made me glad I'm not jewish". Or did it help a group of protesters with a legitimate grievance cynically feel better about an insurmountably racist system? Of course, overwhelmingly when the average voter attempted to engage these movements found them to be incredibly hostile. Rightfully or not. Did making those movements exclusive help those movements? Identity politics is all about what you like and not what you do. Hillary likes the BLM movement, vote Hillary! Here's the list of things Hillary is going to do for the BLM movement: This is going to bite her hard in the general because Trump is a guy who will do things. We don't know what but even here people are convinced he's actually going to do real tangible things. Clinton was part of an obstructionist government, whether on the justified side or not. The "do" things part of her resume is incredibly soft with even her hardline half measures in Libya leaving the mess tougher to unravel than before. Hillary's most electable area is supposed to be her tough-style foreign policy experience and it looks like she's going to get destroyed by Trump's fairyland real talk and business acumen. (The Putin strategy, Mexican paid wall.) So what did all this grandstanding about big issues like race and poverty in the name of a middling rightwing "centrist" who's sole intention is to sell out every single one of their core values to her top ten biggest donors actually do? It sure as gently caress isn't helping anything any of those people we are talking about. It got a lot of money and views for an establishment, one which even at best under Clinton would continue the slow economic and social regression we've seen under Bush and Obama. At worst get the US even more entangled in Syria and into dick waving contests with the Russians and the Iranians. Is that worth a shout out to the BLM in a state of the Union? Because that's the max you can expect from Hillary on this issue. Protestors would be better served providing services to the community rather than engaging in "raising awareness" (For the cause and themselves.) online and IRL. Stop attempting to co opt movements with other movements in the name of justice. It's not justice, it's authoritarian ideological purity. Social morality has become bigger value than democracy. Democracy is supposed to being about finding a middle ground even with people you believe are wrong because you both support democracy. But now anything other than the pure unrestrained extremist lines is met with extremist rhetoric. Democracy ground to a halt. Two sides demonized each other so thoroughly in the culture war divided neatly into the two party system nothing could be done. Congressional approval rating is down to 9%, and it's everybody's fault. Here we are, demonizing more people again. Only now everybody is demonized. It doesn't mean anything. Cruz said this, Christy did that, Rubio walks like this, and Ben Carson has to be this crazy. Everybody is racist, and maybe they really are, so now what? Is there a higher level of racism, is there super racists? Bernie's racist, Cruz and Rubio are racist, Hillary s racist, Trump is racist. "Don't vote for the racist" may as well mean "Don't vote." If every candidate is racist, than it doesn't really matter, a racist is going to be elected no matter what. Which brings us back to: rudatron posted:The biggest predictor of Trump supporters I've found, has been this loving poll right here: Hardly seems like a tough sell considering republican governers are falling all over themselves to do the same and it could easily be spun into a pro-protectionist policy to engage blue collar dixiecrat voters. (Terrorists want your jobs! The perfect political message for today's age.) computer parts posted:The other uniquely hosed up thing Rudatron did is that imply that Hillary is in trouble for some reason because of that graph. In reality, that graph tells us that people are more likely to support Hillary if they feel like they have no say in politics. But not as likely as they are to vote for trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's saying that if a person says "people like me don't have any say", they're x% more/less likely to prefer that candidate. What this means is that if 10% of voters prefer trump, 18.9% prefer him if they also answer "People like me don't have any say". I knew I should have PM'd you. Ugh. I want him to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:But not as likely as they are to vote for trump. Oh they still might be more likely to vote for Hillary. That's the problem, we don't know the base data. If Hillary is preferred by 20% of overall voters and Trump is preferred by 10% of overall voters, even with that jump Hillary would be more highly preferred than Trump. All we know is that the growth is higher for Trump, which could mean Trump is very popular among this subset or Trump is very unpopular among people in general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
I really genuinely don't understand what that graph is measuring. I know it doesn't matter but I just can't parse that bullshit phrasing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
In terms of raw numbers in primary elections Trump has been drawing in roughly the same numbers as Clinton I believe,due to increased turnout at republican primaries. Certainly not enough to wipe out the 10x difference between relative likelihood to vote for that candidate based on that factor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
rscott posted:In terms of raw numbers in primary elections Trump has been drawing in roughly the same numbers as Clinton I believe,due to increased turnout at republican primaries. Certainly not enough to wipe out the 10x difference between relative likelihood to vote for that candidate based on that factor. That's not based on raw numbers in the primary, it's based on an internet poll.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Some people see the big picture, some people don't. The left constantly doesn't. Constantly grassroots leftist activism is co opted by every minor identity issue imaginable. Occupy wall street got tied up about pizza donation requirements and speakerphone privileges so the people who were there to protest economic inequality got tied down with having to go hungry for animal rights and silent for their privilege. BLM is supposed to be about systemic violence and is now tied up with anti capitalistic measures far removed from the actual issue to the point they believe picketing malls is an effective response or is part of the splinter protest against police militarization, which is a totally separate issue again. pretty much. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's not based on raw numbers in the primary, it's based on an internet poll. If anything Trump polls better than his vote share though. I don't think disaffected white people voting for Trump are going to be enough to defeat Hillary unless something really ugly happens to depress turnout for democrats but I'm not sure your criticism holds up given the context of the wider data we do have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:This has kinda been my opinion. identity politics isnt bad thing at all, As someone who has chronic physical disabilities, i know what its liked to get hosed over by people/environment/society. not as much as others sure. But i dont want some well off white guy telling me what i should consider ableist and whats not, or how i should be offended by tv or poo poo. because they sure as gently caress wont listen to me when the actual disabled person has real complaints like how about add automatic doors and fix sidewalks so they dont have massive loving pot holes in them. no that would be to loving hard "dapper" we should talk about how you are represented in the media or how about we build a room so you can cry after reading all the awful poo poo in your history class. I dont care about that poo poo, instead of that lets focus on that fact that i am hosed after my next birthday and have to find insurance that will pay for my needs. but no that would be to loving hard. people who focus on this poo poo are well intention but lazy. they think that if you just say the write words or cover up stuff then the problems will go away instead of actually trying to fix them. it depresses me. Who is this well-off white guy telling you that you don't need automatic doors or wheelchair access but you do need crying rooms. Name one politician with this platform. I can tell you which politicians oppose access for disabled people categorically and surprise they're well-off pro-business Republicans like my state governor and attorney general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I really genuinely don't understand what that graph is measuring. I know it doesn't matter but I just can't parse that bullshit phrasing. That graph is measuring the percent change in favorability if they answer "I am ___". Here's a simple example - Hillary won the South Carolina Primary 73-26. She won the black vote 86-14. The difference in favorability is 13 points (86-73 = 13). 13 points out of 73 is about 18% (13/73 = 17.8). In other words, if you're a black voter, you're ~18% more likely to favor Hillary versus a random voter. That's what the graph is measuring. rscott posted:If anything Trump polls better than his vote share though. I don't think disaffected white people voting for Trump are going to be enough to defeat Hillary unless something really ugly happens to depress turnout for democrats but I'm not sure your criticism holds up given the context of the wider data we do have. The wider data we have shows that Trump has very high unfavorables, even among his own party. It's not unreasonable to assume that he might have low favorables in this poll.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
I'm currently reading Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians. It was written as an accessible summary of an academic's work on the topic of authoritarianism for people who don't want to have to sit through pages of statistical analysis to get an idea of the facts that have been discerned so far. For people who don't know, studies have suggested Trump's supporters may score highly on tests for authoritarianism. Take that with a grain of salt because it's not a very rigorous study, but read on. This part jumped out at me, and might explain why the right wing might be more willing to support some random guy who comes out and says he supports their causes than the left (yes, the left is rallying around Bernie a bit, but Bernie has a better record of genuinely believing what he says and acting on his beliefs than Trump). RWA stands for "right wing authoritarianism" and a "high RWA" is someone who scores highly on the test for RWA (Altemeyer says left wing ones exist but are comparatively powerless right now). By "ethnocentrism" he means all "in-group/out-group" mentality, not just forming in-groups based on ethnicity.* The Authoritarians, p.95 posted:The ethnocentrism of high RWAs makes them quite vulnerable to unscrupulous manipulators. Suppose your city is electing a new mayor and the big issue becomes how to handle urban crime. Suppose further that a poll shows the citizens of your fair burg strongly favor a “tough, law and order” approach to the problem. After the poll is released, one of the candidates steps forward and fearlessly endorses a “tough, law and order”approach to crime. Can you trust him? I’d say there’s room for doubt, since he might simply be saying whatever will get the most votes. It would be more convincing, wouldn’t it, if he came out for law and order after polls showed only half the voters favored that course, while the other half wanted a “community development” approach aimed at eliminating the causes of crime. Ironically, this might be why there are left-wingers in this thread who want to protest vote Trump, but for the opposite reason. They are low RWA individuals who are skeptical of people who claim to support something if their actions say otherwise. Hillary saying "I am the candidate of the people and of worker's rights" doesn't fool them, because they've looked at her record and know it isn't up to their standards. Trump has no (political) record to immediately disprove what he says, so if it's a contest between him and Hillary, they'd rather take a chance on him even though they probably know deep down that he is unlikely to deliver. Elsewhere, Altemeyer also writes that people with a high RWA score tend to say they agree with almost anything, whether it describes a traditionally left or right wing view, as long as it is phrased as a feelgood platitude. So the fact that Trump is making some vague gestures towards left wing policies (tariffs and reproductive rights) does not bother them, chiefly because Trump is very good at doing it in a way that doesn't make alarm bells go off in their heads. When Cruz responded to what Trump was saying about healthcare with "so it's socialism", it was a good idea of his, because he was invoking a word that strikes fear into most of Trump's supporters. But Trump's "we're not going to let people die in the streets" answer was great because it invoked the positive spirit of socialist policy without conceding the scary word itself. The same applies to most other things Trump talks about. The fact that some of the agreeable platitudes seem contradictory doesn't even occur to most of his supporters, because people are great at compartmentalization (and yes, having a high RWA score does apparently make them even better at it than the average person). As to why now and not some other time, there are things (such as the refugee crisis) that can raise rates of RWA in people who are not habitually authoritarians. For a more dramatic example, this happened after 9/11, and people were more willing to support the war, wiretapping, and torture as a result. The events that are scaring people now are not as extreme, but they also now have this person on TV who is skilled in manipulating them psychologically. *Sometimes Altemeyer insists on using terminology that has an imprecise meaning, because he wants the eBook to be readable, unlike some social science texts that prize precision above accessibility. This leads to things like him saying that people who grew up in the USSR and are loyal to the CCCP count as right-wing authoritarians, because "right wing authoritarianism" is actually defined by conformity and submission to established authorities rather than political beliefs. I grumbled about this because I'm sure you can think of a better word than "right wing" to describe that, but whatever, you get the general idea of what he's saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Some people see the big picture, some people don't. The left constantly doesn't. Constantly grassroots leftist activism is co opted by every minor identity issue imaginable. Occupy wall street got tied up about pizza donation requirements and speakerphone privileges so the people who were there to protest economic inequality got tied down with having to go hungry for animal rights and silent for their privilege. BLM is supposed to be about systemic violence and is now tied up with anti capitalistic measures far removed from the actual issue to the point they believe picketing malls is an effective response or is part of the splinter protest against police militarization, which is a totally separate issue again. A good post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
This thread is, admittedly, pretty good at answering its own question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
I am kind of happy that my thread got so many responses, although it seems to have devolved into Reddit versus LF. So here is a relevant question: by wide acclaim of stereotyping, the usage of social media, and the usage of social media on mobile devices, is the hallmark of the millenials, while the baby boomers, especially the more conservative amongst them, are sitting in their recliners watching Fox news. What role does social media play in right-wing populism (not limited to the Donald Trump campaign). Would it still exist without social media? How much of right-wingers ability to be enraged by social media is due to the fact that unlike us, they haven't been numbed to its effects? Will there be a point when they will develop immunity to right-wing outrage politics and "like if you agree",. and move onwards?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Also re: the "people like me" poll-- Call me crazy, but I have a sneaking suspicion the Trump people who say that phrase mean something very, very different from the liberal/moderate types who might (or might not for that matter). Think hard about what that difference could actually be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Some people see the big picture, some people don't. The left constantly doesn't. Constantly grassroots leftist activism is co opted by every minor identity issue imaginable. Occupy wall street got tied up about pizza donation requirements and speakerphone privileges so the people who were there to protest economic inequality got tied down with having to go hungry for animal rights and silent for their privilege. BLM is supposed to be about systemic violence and is now tied up with anti capitalistic measures far removed from the actual issue to the point they believe picketing malls is an effective response or is part of the splinter protest against police militarization, which is a totally separate issue again. Your point about the weaknesses of leftist movements is solid. But the solution is actually something Hillary has talked about, in that meeting with the BLM. It's assessing a problem realistically, not idealistically; then forming a concrete proposal, a concrete agenda, sticking to that, and working with a pragmatic politician towards enacting that (and, if that's impossible, voting in the politician first - before Bernie fans jump at me, *starting from the bottom of the ladder*: it's the idea of lower-level government units being the laboratories for testing solutions). It's altering the system, not trying to change hearts, precisely because a lot of people have an innate resistance to change and anger at people who try to change hearts. Funnily enough - once again, Hillary actually *gave BLM the option to work with her*, to tell her their concrete demands. If they squandered this chance because they decided to go against her advice, that's on them. But at the same time, it appears that the Five Mothers did not - that they did have their input in what they would like to achieve. And then, the black community gave her a strong mandate to do these things. And because she wants to be reelected, she will work her networks to achieve them. This is how politics works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/140353736681/a-letter-to-donald-trump-from-a-voter-not-me Steve Schlabach Troy Morton • 8 hours ago Thank you Troy, I think you have absolutely hit on a deep truth. This country has been without a ''father figure'' in government for a long time...since Ronald Reagan. All the Presidents since then have been mere boys who are more or less self-absorbed, without the wisdom, strength or desire to properly look after their "family" . Donald Trump is a strong, confident, and competent man...Maybe even a modern day George Washington or Lincoln.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
LOL @ the idea that Trump will, through tariffs and trade wars bring back lovely environmentally polluting and dangerous factory jobs. Those jobs went to the Periphery and they're staying there. Only way they come back is if workers accept being virtual slaves, but yeah, they ain't coming back with unions and re-vitalized rust belt I'll tell you that much. The evil genie is out of the bottle and destroying Bangladesh, only by becoming that ourselves will he come back to our bottle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I am kind of happy that my thread got so many responses, although it seems to have devolved into Reddit versus LF. That's one of the questions of our time: to what extent does modern media feed extremism by allowing people to go find whatever information they want and group with other like minded people. As opposed to the past where information was funneled primarily through a handful of mainstream channels that everyone shared. I'm not really sure the answer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
meristem posted:Research shows that the authoritarian parts of the society are scared even by social change that absolutely does not economically or legally affect them, such as gay marriage, though. Should these people be appeased? Some people just are racist, you know. It can be measured. Some points of view should not be validated, because they do not deserve validation. At times, this is even when the 'good' wars are fought - the anti-slavery US Civil War, or the anti-fascism Second World War. Agreed. Liberal movements must learn to counter the hyper-conservatives through organization and reason rather than depend on the same temper-tantrum antics that so quickly dissolve. Some opinons also should be marginalized if they provide nothing of value. Cardboard Box A posted:http://blog.dilbert.com/post/140353736681/a-letter-to-donald-trump-from-a-voter-not-me Conservatives flat out admitting that they're looking for a father figure (such as the Most Holy Regan) to pat them on the head and tell them everything's going to be alright is a strange sort of self-awareness. Self-awareness that is quickly lost when they push Trump into that mold. I guess loud, angry racist egomaniac dad is good enough for them. Geostomp fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
You definitely get a bit of both, echo-chamber reinforcement and then the cross-pollinating. I think we'd all prefer more of the later than the former. Polls have shown political polarization growing over the past couple of decades, but I'm not sure that's due to the internet, as much as it is economic stagnation. But that's just gut feeling. Geostomp posted:Conservatives flat out admitting that they're looking for a father figure (such as the Most Holy Regan) to pat them on the head and tell them everything's going to be alright is a strange sort of self-awareness. Who What Now posted:Not in those words, no, but that's what your #AllTribesMatter rhetoric leads to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No it doesn't friend, I'm dismantling all tribes + affiliations, even if I have to do it alone. lol if you think you're actually accomplishing anything. That's just precious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:lol if you think you're actually accomplishing anything. That's just precious. No need to be a dickbag, even if it's naive. Guy's trying to do something positive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:No need to be a dickbag, even if it's naive. Guy's trying to do something positive. And by tilting, I mean voting for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Internet Don Quixote, tilting against tribalism, one of the most fundamental aspects of human nature. This virtually always tends to be a spurious argument based on faulty reasoning. Do you honestly believe that human beings necessarily need to otherise another group of human beings?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:This virtually always tends to be a spurious argument based on faulty reasoning. Do you honestly believe that human beings necessarily need to otherise another group of human beings? You could probably extend it to other sapient beings, but those don't exist. Every group of people otherizes other groups of people, at differing degrees. This can be D&D saying "I wish Sherman would torch the entire South again" or Southern and Northern California hating each other or your favorite sports team going up against your least favorite sports team. Like I know asking this is trying to prove a negative, but can you think of a group of people that doesn't do this to some degree or another?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:This virtually always tends to be a spurious argument based on faulty reasoning. Do you honestly believe that human beings necessarily need to otherise another group of human beings? I don't even think it needs be a biological certainty, it can just be "something that seems to be automatic in industrial societies" Whether or not it's innate is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
menino posted:I don't even think it needs be a biological certainty, it can just be "something that seems to be automatic in industrial societies" Well no, if it isn't innate we can suggest that it's something that everybody ought to avoid. Us and Them to a degree is philosophically necessary, at an individual level I am an 'us' and you are a 'them', but when specifically dealing with groups of people, it would probably be better if we all had a common and shared identity first and over the concerns of any one group.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:This virtually always tends to be a spurious argument based on faulty reasoning. Do you honestly believe that human beings necessarily need to otherise another group of human beings? Yeah, I was a bit flip I suppose. I'm think behavioral anthropology is BS ("I HAD to have an affair, as a male my genes demanded it!"), but I recognize that some things are fundamental. Even monkeys have tribes. Tribalism is what makes sports so fun, it's why nationalism is such an effective way for a jackass to maintain power, and media making money off of it is a large part of why politics is so hosed at the moment. It's even see it between the military branches, where human nature is shaped to the maximum extent practicable. It's your right to say all tribalism is bad, and as rational creatures we should struggle against it I suppose. But that's more a recipe for righteous masturbation. Working within human nature is how you get stuff done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:Well no, if it isn't innate we can suggest that it's something that everybody ought to avoid. Us and Them to a degree is philosophically necessary, at an individual level I am an 'us' and you are a 'them', but when specifically dealing with groups of people, it would probably be better if we all had a common and shared identity first and over the concerns of any one group. Well no. Not if it's impossible to avoid given that basically every society has transformed into an industrial one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I am kind of happy that my thread got so many responses, although it seems to have devolved into Reddit versus LF. Despite the stereotypes of millienials vs boomers, I find that uninformed people on social media of all ages and political stripes seem to absolutely love dumb political memes. For that reason, I don't think the effectiveness of social media is going to lessen any time soon among the left or right wing. On the upside, I think there's virtue in being able to simply and concisely convey a political message in a way that can easily reach the masses with very little expense to the creator or consumer. On the downside, there's basically infinite room for abuse and manipulation by the usual suspects. For example, I think the future spread of right-wing populism might likely come from poo poo that's similar to this:  As a side remark, I'd also really like to see researchers explore how memes affect political campaigns. I have an unfounded suspicion that the explosion of Trump/Bernie memes on social media and elsewhere on the internet reflects a direct correlation to millenial interest in those candidates. It seems to me as if exciting (not necessarily good) politicians have a certain meme-friendliness to them that allows them to cash in on free media attention, basically. I feel like future super PACs might decide to pour some money into making "dank meme" factories on behalf of their candidate, and society in general will be made worse for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:06
|
|
