|
Smudgie Buggler posted:That's not my point at all. Either America will move in a direction that is to the advantage of white people and their ability to control it, or there will at some point be a war. So what you are saying is that white people are inherently violent and will inevitably riot if not granted a special position of privilege in society. I do not think you are being the advocate for white people that you believe. You make them sound like unthinking brutes that cannot peaceably co-exist with any other groups. By the way, "White People" is an artificial construct that has constantly shifted over time. The Irish and Slavs were once excluded from the white club, so your declarations that white people are some sort of hegemonic group with an inherent identity and agenda is ignorant of the most basic facts of history. So to summarize you want to be a special snowflake that is part of the special group that we must either allow to be in charge by right of birth or else this group will destroy everyone else in a pique of rage. You want to live in a fantasy and have the rest of us play along with your delusions and you are willing to threaten violence on a mass scale if you do not get your way. You are a garden variety selfish rear end in a top hat latching on to whatever justifications for your selfish behavior are convenient, not a person with a legitimate complaint. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Nov 14, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
Hollismason posted:I think that Trump is going to use the immigrants he imprisons to literally build a wall through prison labor then he will say " See Mexico paid for the wall with labor". Guy Goodbody posted:Am I crazy, or are a lot of people making this mistake lately? Hollismason posted:That's the word. I don't like Dynastic Politics. Like yeah I can understand spouses going into politics but I really don't like it and if it came up where I had the choice of two politicians where one was the son of another politician I would vote against them all things being equal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:
Drunken Whites' Elephants of Bile
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I hate to do this but I disagree. I think his premise that white people won't let white supremacy go without a fight, and that pure economics won't be good enough, are important to consider. Also remember that young white people are still overall trending conservative. Young people are just overall less white. yes, smudgie buggler has some very sage views on race  you're agreeing with more than an rear end in a top hat lightning knight
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:I don't know if you're a fellow Mike Duncan fan, but if there's nothing else we should have learned from Rome it's that you never choose your next leader based on bloodline, only on merit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I feel like this distinction will matter a lot less to the minorities white progressives need to vote for them. Wait, what? Honest question here.. Wasn't a huge part of the campaign focusing on how Trump is a misogynistic, racist shithead? Trying to stick up for Muslims, immigrants and other minorities? How did progressives abandon social justice?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
 Glad I didn't sound off at the pages and pages of 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
If anything Clinton's campaign relied too much on the message of social justice. It wasn't ignored whatsoever this election cycle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
GladRagKraken posted:I don't know what to tell you if this election nailed the coffin shut for you on the myth that merit isn't the inherence of wealth with better PR "I'm sorry everything is so poo poo"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yes, smudgie buggler has some very sage views on race I mean his wider argument is stupid. I didn't realize that "white people will fight for white supremacy in spite of their own economic interests" was a controversial statement in light of history tho.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Wait, what? Honest question here.. Wasn't a huge part of the campaign focusing on how Trump is a misogynistic, racist shithead? Trying to stick up for Muslims, immigrants and other minorities? It was. Right now there are growing pains because in general, white male progressives are pushing for a stronger focus on economic issues and minorities rightfully view that suspiciously as a push to potentially ignore social issues. If we can't figure out a way to push both, we're doomed. Edit: As an example, people itt discussing adopting limited anti-immigrant policy or rhetoric to satisfy the white working class. That poo poo isn't going to fly. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:"I'm sorry everything is so poo poo"? Everything is poo poo, I'm so sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It was. Right now there are growing pains because in general, white male progressives are pushing for a stronger focus on economic issues and minorities rightfully view that suspiciously as a push to potentially ignore social issues. If we can't figure out a way to push both, we're doomed. Bernie was taken to task, rightfully, for the "economic issues are social issues!" But what if social issues are economic issues? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean his wider argument is stupid. I didn't realize that "white people will fight for white supremacy in spite of their own economic interests" was a controversial statement in light of history tho. it's controversial because it's still open to debate based on current history. some people think that hillary's weak economic message and poo poo campaigning depressed her turnout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's controversial because it's still open to debate based on current history. some people think that hillary's weak economic message and poo poo campaigning depressed her turnout. And endless, foreseeable scandal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
fosborb posted:Bernie was taken to task, rightfully, for the "economic issues are social issues!" They are. Black people experience crushing poverty too. But black poverty is tied to centuries of explicitly racial oppression and the same programs that helped white people out of poverty in the 20th Century were often denied to black people. Attempting to litigate issues purely on the basis of economics will allow racial minorities and women to fall through the cracks. Condiv posted:it's controversial because it's still open to debate based on current history. some people think that hillary's weak economic message and poo poo campaigning depressed her turnout. No, it's not. Stop thinking in terms of just this election. Unions didn't die in this country because Democrats abandoned them. Unions died because white people voted for conservatives who promised to halt desegregation - and who then implemented anti-union legislation. You cannot erase the history of white people choosing race over class and you are doomed to failure if you try.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:No, it's not. Stop thinking in terms of just this elections. Unions didn't die in this country because Democrats abandoned them. Unions died because white people voted for conservatives who promised to halt desegregation - and who then implemented anti-union legislation. You cannot erase the history of white people choosing race over class and you are doomed to failure if you try. no, i'm pretty sure dems abandoned them lightning knight like literally in wisconsin
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Like, the message was delivered with a wet noodle, in the name of optics and targeting crossover votes we never got to see her seething hatred of the GOP surface, and good loving lord the inconsistency on left-leaning policy. None of that probably adds up to the simpler and more profound damage of scandal, however invalid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, i'm pretty sure dems abandoned them lightning knight They did after that. Do you literally not know what the Southern Strategy was? Have you literally never heard of Ronald Reagan? Like Jesus this isn't even old history, we're not talking about the loving 1700s here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Like, the message was delivered with a wet noodle, in the name of optics and targeting crossover votes we never got to see her seething hatred of the GOP surface, and good loving lord the inconsistency on left-leaning policy. imo the damage from the emails was amplified by hillary's behavior throughout the race. she hid her wallstreet speeches although drat near everyone wanted her to release them, Lightning Knight posted:They did after that. Do you literally not know what the Southern Strategy was? Have you literally never heard of Ronald Reagan? Like Jesus this isn't even old history, we're not talking about the loving 1700s here. of course the republicans attacked and dismantled unions lightning knight. we helped them along by abandoning a lot of states (my dem party is literally a skeleton at the moment and the libertarians were running more candidates), and specifically abandoning unions (nafta was specifically a knife in the back)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:of course the republicans attacked and dismantled unions lightning knight. we helped them along by abandoning a lot of states (my dem party is literally a skeleton at the moment and the libertarians were running more candidates), and specifically abandoning unions (nafta was specifically a knife in the back) Yes, the Democratic Party abandoned unions - after they stopped voting for us. That is an important point. Democrats should've kept fighting for union rights anyways, but Democrats were also largely pushed out of power after Nixon and Reagan. It wasn't the Democrats who killed the FAA strike, it was Reagan. Frankly, it wasn't the Democrats who designed and drafted NAFTA either, it was George H. W. Bush. Bill Clinton was elected on his conservative platform precisely because the Democrats were destroyed by Reagan's strategy of poaching the white working and middle class through racist dogwhistles. They voted for NAFTA because of race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
When the party that has fought for social issues has also, for 40 years, simultaneously had the stance on economic issues of "We'll take Wall Street's money, and enact legislation that benefits them and not the working class." then I kind of understand where people are coming from when they say "screw your social issues, you've abandoned us". Now, obviously that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I don't think its unreasonable to ask that economic issues take a front seat for the next few election cycles until we wash off the stink of President Trump. I don't think that necessarily means that you ignore social issues, especially since the two are so linked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:lmao, is that what you think I'm saying? Well its quite simple the dems should be the party, of all Americans. Of course my conclusion is that we should talka bout we are all one, and not let our color divide us. ALso if white people hate economic distribution why did they vote for Obama? To me it seems like you're being very dishonest. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:When the party that has fought for social issues has also, for 40 years, simultaneously had the stance on economic issues of "We'll take Wall Street's money, and enact legislation that benefits them and not the working class." then I kind of understand where people are coming from when they say "screw your social issues, you've abandoned us". Now, obviously that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I don't think its unreasonable to ask that economic issues take a front seat for the next few election cycles until we wash off the stink of President Trump. I don't think that necessarily means that you ignore social issues, especially since the two are so linked. Regardless of what you mean, this rhetoric screams "minority rights aren't as important to us anymore" to minorities. Black people have been waiting for justice for 500 years. Why should they have to keep waiting? Nevermind all of human history re: women. I don't disagree with this post in the broadest sense but please don't phrase it that way or even imply that. We do not and should not have to abandon minority social justice for the sake of running on raising the minimum wage and unionization. They aren't mutually exclusive or even rhetorically opposed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Yes, the Democratic Party abandoned unions - after they stopped voting for us. That is an important point. Democrats should've kept fighting for union rights anyways, but Democrats were also largely pushed out of power after Nixon and Reagan. It wasn't the Democrats who killed the FAA strike, it was Reagan. Frankly, it wasn't the Democrats who designed and drafted NAFTA either, it was George H. W. Bush. Bill Clinton was elected on his conservative platform precisely because the Democrats were destroyed by Reagan's strategy of poaching the white working and middle class through racist dogwhistles. you realize one of the states we just lost in this election was a state with higher than average union membership? we did not abandon unions after they stopped voting for us you muppet. they've been voting for us and we needed them to continue in order to win this election. also bush drafted it, but bill clinton signed it and approved of it. last i checked, conservative as he may be, bill clinton was in fact a democrat and fully capable of abandoning unions Condiv fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Check this out *lowers sunglasses* You're doing the bougeroisie's work for them by trying to find working class scapegoats and dividing on racial lines *does a sick kickflip while skateboarding away*
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:When the party that has fought for social issues has also, for 40 years, simultaneously had the stance on economic issues of "We'll take Wall Street's money, and enact legislation that benefits them and not the working class." then I kind of understand where people are coming from when they say "screw your social issues, you've abandoned us". Now, obviously that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I don't think its unreasonable to ask that economic issues take a front seat for the next few election cycles until we wash off the stink of President Trump. I don't think that necessarily means that you ignore social issues, especially since the two are so linked. This was all true when Obama won 2 terms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you realize one of the states we just lost in this election was a state with higher than average union membership? we did not abandon unions after they stopped voting for us you muppet. they've been voting for us and we needed them to continue in order to win this election. When have I ever said we shouldn't support unions? How is that what you're getting out of what I'm saying? What I'm saying is, do not expect a purely economic platform to be sufficient because we won't be able to win all white working class people even with an awesome economic justice platform. We need minorities too. We didn't lose Wisconsin because union workers didn't show up, we lost Wisconsin because 300,000 black and Latino voters were denied the right to vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Check this out Neoliberals need the money they get from donors and talking about helping all the poor doesn't rake in donor money. Also I think Badger is a preety racist person. Suggest I as a white person and all others are all violent people whose only concern is dominance. That is racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Regardless of what you mean, this rhetoric screams "minority rights aren't as important to us anymore" to minorities. Economic justice and social justice are linked, actually, unless you're some spineless upper middle class white person who counts their social progress in the number of PoC or LGBT people you can have sex with in the new Mass Effect game
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Regardless of what you mean, this rhetoric screams "minority rights aren't as important to us anymore" to minorities. Because apparently the alternative is President Trump. Not to mention a Republican Congress that will only give you racial progress when you pry it from their cold dead hands. It comes to idealism vs realism in my mind. We can't afford to focus on what we SHOULD be focusing on, because if you're not in power, you can do gently caress all for racial progress. Not only that, but you have to fight tooth and nail to prevent the undoing of years of progress from the other side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:They did after that. Do you literally not know what the Southern Strategy was? Have you literally never heard of Ronald Reagan? Like Jesus this isn't even old history, we're not talking about the loving 1700s here. History is generally taught chronologically in the US unless kids take AP US History or something like that--so the last century or so is a mad dash to finish the book, glossing over stuff like the southern strategy etc. It was true when I was in school and it appears to be true now (with the abhorrent lack of historical knowledge with some of my younger friends).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:When have I ever said we shouldn't support unions? How is that what you're getting out of what I'm saying? you're pretending we didn't abandon them, which to me means you don't really support them. and no-one other than mahoning is talking about a purely economic platform (and even he makes exceptions to that). why don't you stop pretending that progressives are mega-racists and calm yourself
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This was all true when Obama won 2 terms. And don't think people didn't realize that. Its why Trump likely won many voters who voted for Obama once or twice, especially in the states that mattered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Because apparently the alternative is President Trump. Not to mention a Republican Congress that will only give you racial progress when you pry it from their cold dead hands. Social justice didn't lose us the election, Hillary Clinton the candidate and her campaign did, full stop. This is incredibly wrong-headed. Business Gorillas posted:Economic justice and social justice are linked, actually, unless you're some spineless upper middle class white person who counts their social progress in the number of PoC or LGBT people you can have sex with in the new Mass Effect game Economic justice will not bring about social justice in and of itself, and gently caress off with your strawmen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you're pretending we didn't abandon them, which to me means you don't really support them. I literally said that we abandoned them and that, that was wrong. Pointing out that the reasoning for this included racism as well as Democratic incompetence is apparently hating unions now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:And don't think people didn't realize that. Its why Trump likely won many voters who voted for Obama once or twice, especially in the states that mattered. No. Those voters just hated Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I literally said that we abandoned them and that, that was wrong. Pointing out that the reasoning for this included racism as well as Democratic incompetence is apparently hating unions now? quote:Unions didn't die in this country because Democrats abandoned them unions did die because we abandoned them. you're literally wrong on this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Economic justice and social justice are linked, actually, unless you're some spineless upper middle class white person who counts their social progress in the number of PoC or LGBT people you can have sex with in the new Mass Effect game Raising the minimum wage won't make cops stop poaching African Americans for sport or suddenly make companies hire minorities. Economic justice is a lot more important when you are not in prison and can actually get a job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Social justice didn't lose us the election Literally nobody made this argument. (Since you did happen to mention strawmen)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:36
|
|