|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That was the plan of early 20th century social democrats too. Look where that got us. If one failure was enough to deter, then socialism and communism would have been abandoned long ago. And like I said, if you/effectronica don't care for this aplroach, then now is the time to preach a different viable strategy.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually it was HRC who suggested that because fighting economic inequality would not by itself end the problems we should not touch them. Really? This should be amusing. Please link this, and don't try and quote one sentence out of context. That would be too embarrassing for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That was the plan of early 20th century social democrats too. Look where that got us. So you're going to go the "playing dumb" route, instead of telling me, openly and honestly, what sufferings I should inflict upon myself to expiate the crime. I don't recall the PolitBuro being 50% women. Is that because they were a "deformed worker's state", or whatever the leftcom/anarchist child equivalent is? Is there any true attempt at socialism? Because even Allende and Sankara never achieved even the beginnings of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Really? This should be amusing. Please link this, and don't try and quote one sentence out of context. That would be too embarrassing for you. This is a bizarre attitude to have when that exact sort of thing has happened....from the pro-ID side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This is a bizarre attitude to have when that exact sort of thing has happened....from the pro-ID side. Ok link that then. I have never seen anyone say that economic issues shouldn't be touched. Only that they're insufficient when trying to tackle some problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If one failure was enough to deter, then socialism and communism would have been abandoned long ago. Brainiac Five posted:So you're going to go the "playing dumb" route, instead of telling me, openly and honestly, what sufferings I should inflict upon myself to expiate the crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They're the same drat thing - in both cases, it's people who aren't white males being treated unfairly and unequally because they're not white males. Discrimination is bad, period. Which one would motivate more? The one that directly affects the group your trying to reach the most.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Ok link that then. I have never seen anyone say that economic issues shouldn't be touched. Only that they're insufficient when trying to tackle some problems. I was referring to the "out of context" part. Bip Roberts on Sander's participation in the crime bill, and [unmemorable poster] chopping up posts to suggest I want to ignore social leftism are two notable examples.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's blatantly obvious on its face that it's a losing strategy though. Leaving power in the hands of people who want to destroy your ideology is not going to get you to the finishing line. And yeah, you shouldn't try the Russian approach either. You need to take the power out of the hands of capitalists, AND put it in the hands of the people. The social democrats failed at the former, the soviets at the latter. The thing is that failure isn't guaranteed, and even a mild failure results in relief for all workers. I doubt its controversial to say that social capitalism is better than austrian capitalism, and only slightly more controversial to say its easier to progress to a state free of capital from the former than the latter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Ok link that then. I have never seen anyone say that economic issues shouldn't be touched. Only that they're insufficient when trying to tackle some problems. Here it is. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ORWM0ukT-Xw Also if you really want bad identity politics there is nothing worse then claiming cultural appropriation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Which one would motivate more? The one that directly affects the group your trying to reach the most. What, do you think employment discrimination and glass ceilings don't affect poor people or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Here it is. Yep, exactly what I figured. Clinton saying that economics is important but that it isn't enough by itself. Remember how you originally described it as her saying "we should not touch them"? Did you think no one would actually click the link or remember what you wrote an hour ago?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Byolante posted:Because neoliberals use it as a wedge issue to divide classes so they won't unite on economic issues (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Here it is. Hillary: "Not everything is about an economic theory, right? If we broke up the big banks tomorrow -- and I will if they deserve it -- if they pose a systemic risk, I will -- would that end racism?" Crowd "no" Hillary: "would that end sexism?" Crowd "no" Hillary "would that end discrimination against the LGBT community?" Crowd "no" They're right!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I was referring to the "out of context" part. How can a vote be "out of context"? He voted for it and people suffer today. I'm glad he "feels bad". That helps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which frankly I find difficult to credit as the position of someone who is genuinely interested in the concerns raised by proponents of idpol. Idpol exists because the things it talks about simply are not discussed elsewhere satisfactorily, if you want an economic leftist platform to be accepted by idpol proponents you need to entirely assimilate idpol into it. You need to approach it from a perspective of proper understanding in both areas and without the desire to keep saying "idpol is bad because it distracts from the importance of economics" because that is completely incorrect. Idpol is important because it affirms the importance of things that economics do not cover. Do you accept Five and stone cold's explicit rejection of the struggle of white homosexuals as valuable allies? You all are so eager to alienate your allies that it is impossible to acknowledge you as anything but alt-right provocateurs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
As iniquitous as things already are, I don't foresee teaching white people the language of identity politics ("own your whiteness!!") is going to work out very well for anyone except white people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:What thread have you been reading? We've stated again and again that we can fight for the two goals simultaneously, hell, that we even need to do so as they go hand in hand, only to be told by you, Five, and stone cold that we are secretly conspiring against the movement toward social justice. You're projecting. lol five is a white gay person. Just because one goes "I'm a gay socialist" does not make them the spokesperson for gay people. Also glad you only care about white gay men, not all white LGBT, once again betraying your priorities. E: accidental double quote
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:What thread have you been reading? We've stated again and again that we can fight for the two goals simultaneously, hell, that we even need to do so as they go hand in hand, only to be told by you, Five, and stone cold that we are secretly conspiring against the movement toward social justice. You're projecting. Did your parents drop you on the head when you were very small?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
stone cold posted:lol five is a white gay person. Just because one goes "I'm a gay socialist" does not make them the spokesperson for gay people. Also glad you only care about white gay men, not all white LGBT, once again betraying your priorities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Let's recap here: I said that white gay men are not oppressed by other LGBT people. According to Dickless here, that means I want to kill all the white gays. I suppose that's a step up from people wailing about white-knighting, in a way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:As iniquitous as things already are, I don't foresee teaching white people the language of identity politics ("own your whiteness!!") is going to work out very well for anyone except white people. We usually do this in college, and the college educated voted for democrats, so there's every reason to think it could work if we teach it to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
As a minority, what political party should I identify as so I can vilify the other? also Cugel the Clever posted:Guys, take a breath. Literally no one in this thread is saying that gender equality, racial equality, or LGBT issues aren't essential to the future we want to build. I can sympathize with your fear and frustration. There remain huge segments of American society that would deny you your right to exist, but the majority of people on these forums and in the broader left have your back. Can we not slap labels on other posters to invalidate their concerns? Rexicon1 posted:Maybe don't quote Shmorky when trying to prove your point about not being dumb and crazy. I can't imagine why someone like Shmorky wouldn't feel comfortable around here, and in a thread on identity politics of all things. In fact, I couldn't imagine any minor feeling like their voice matters with this kind of vitriol. MageMage fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Let's recap here: I said that white gay men are not oppressed by other LGBT people. According to Dickless here, that means I want to kill all the white gays. I suppose that's a step up from people wailing about white-knighting, in a way. Brainiac Five posted:But here's the thing. There's no loving oppression of white gays going on. None. The most that might happen is them getting their feelings hurt by a 17-year-old kid on Twitter. If that's oppression, what's gaybashing? Super oppression 64?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
stone cold posted:lol five is a white gay person. Just because one goes "I'm a gay socialist" does not make them the spokesperson for gay people. Also glad you only care about white gay men, not all white LGBT, once again betraying your priorities. The only other people in america who act this morally superior are evangelicals. The dumb poo poo you spew doesn't convince anyone, it's just you getting high off of your own smug righteousness. I think most posters in this thread believe identity politics and fiscal policy are both social goods worth fighting for, but you are poison to progressivism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:What thread have you been reading? We've stated again and again that we can fight for the two goals simultaneously, hell, that we even need to do so as they go hand in hand, only to be told by you, Five, and stone cold that we are secretly conspiring against the movement toward social justice. You're projecting. I don't follow Brainiac Five's argument so I don't know whether I agree with them or not, and I don't see a reason to exclude white gay people, though of course that doesn't mean they're going to be afforded primacy either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Not what you said: Ah, quoting someone out of context, and no link to the original post so people are unable to see that it was in the context of "tumblr" oppressing people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Tiberius Christ posted:The only other people in america who act this morally superior are evangelicals. The dumb poo poo you spew doesn't convince anyone, it's just you getting high off of your own smug righteousness. I think most posters in this thread believe identity politics and fiscal policy are both social goods worth fighting for, but you are poison to progressivism. Please tell me more about how I am poison to progressivism for supporting basic income and human rights for all, not just poor whites. The only ones smugging it up in here are the "no war but class war" marxoteens. Cugel the Clever posted:Your persecution complex is showing. Stop projecting your own ill-will onto others. You go ahead and keep helping the "economically anxious" murder the Vincent Chins of America, pig.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Hillary: "Not everything is about an economic theory, right? If we broke up the big banks tomorrow -- and I will if they deserve it -- if they pose a systemic risk, I will -- would that end racism?" She should not say if. They should be broken up. Period. Also why not instead say I'll do it and support everyone when you are denied equal pay. When they say your lifestyle prevents them from renting to you. When they say your gender means they cannot provide your health.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Ah, quoting someone out of context, and no link to the original post so people are unable to see that it was in the context of "tumblr" oppressing people. You are an alt-right troll deliberately trying to provoke internecine struggle on the left. The only way the American left can make the progress this country needs is by working together and every word you write is against finding a common cause.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:She should not say if. They should be broken up. Period. Also why not instead say I'll do it and support everyone when you are denied equal pay. When they say your lifestyle prevents them from renting to you. When they say your gender means they cannot provide your health. They should not be broken up, but instead should be nationalized, Distributist dipshit. Cugel the Clever posted:Here you go. There is nothing in the context that somehow explains away your homophobic attack. This thread has consisted of people arguing that the left must work together and pursue both social and economic justice, except for you and stone cold screaming that we're secretly plotting to abandon LGBT issues and that economic issues have no place in the discourse. "This is also ignoring that there has been a strong streak of socialism in the history of LGBQT culture. It's not a case of "don't make corporations change things, don't scare white people", it's "don't oppress one side of your own group because you're terrified they might oppress you". White people are not enemies of leftism, let alone change." What exactly is "don't oppress one side of your own group" supposed to refer to here, Dickless?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't follow Brainiac Five's argument so I don't know whether I agree with them or not, and I don't see a reason to exclude white gay people, though of course that doesn't mean they're going to be afforded primacy either. I can't believe somebody paid actual money to let the world know about your terrible opinions on wallpaper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:She should not say if. They should be broken up. Period. Also why not instead say I'll do it and support everyone when you are denied equal pay. When they say your lifestyle prevents them from renting to you. When they say your gender means they cannot provide your health. Certainly the woman who wants to raise wages, agitated for UHC, spied on Arkansas schools that were resegregating, ensured disabled kids could get an education, and made it so that Transgender people could get federal documentation with their preferred gender is an evil alt-right hag, we should've supported the man in hock to the big banks! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:She should not say if. They should be broken up. Period. Also why not instead say I'll do it and support everyone when you are denied equal pay. When they say your lifestyle prevents them from renting to you. When they say your gender means they cannot provide your health. Ok sure. But "I wish she had used stronger language" is a pretty far cry from "She suggested we not touch economic issues at all".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:I can't believe somebody paid actual money to let the world know about your terrible opinions on wallpaper. I don't have opinions on wallpaper except that I prefer paint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually it was HRC who suggested that because fighting economic inequality would not by itself end the problems we should not touch them. Crowsbeak posted:She should not say if. They should be broken up. Period. Also why not instead say I'll do it and support everyone when you are denied equal pay. When they say your lifestyle prevents them from renting to you. When they say your gender means they cannot provide your health. So can you admit you were wrong to claim she said "we should not touch them"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
The problem with pushing about diversity among elites is that the elites can just find people like Margaret Thatcher and Clarence Thomas that will check that box while still completely enforcing the status quo, which is incidentally what Trump is doing right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So can you admit you were wrong to claim she said "we should not touch them"? If deserved means she wasn't. OneEightHundred posted:The problem with pushing about diversity among elites is that the elites can just find people like Margaret Thatcher and Clarence Thomas that will check that box while still completely enforcing the status quo, which is incidentally what Trump is doing right now. No that's equivalent to ensuring people of darker skin color or sexual minorities cannot be discriminated against in housing or employment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:The problem with pushing about diversity among elites is that the elites can just find people like Margaret Thatcher and Clarence Thomas that will check that box while still completely enforcing the status quo, which is incidentally what Trump is doing right now. Thomas was approved on a 52/48 senate vote, and all the democrats who voted for him were blue dog southern democrats. The idea that the people pushing for diversity are interested in any POC or woman wasn't true then, and it certainly isn't true now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:They should not be broken up, but instead should be nationalized, Distributist dipshit. Yeah this is why I think that poster is right. No one could be this obsessed with people who disagree with them in small areas. You are some alt right troll. Go back to the daily stormer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:30
|
|