|
Hey question how would positive economic messaging and a jobs program kept Sandra Bland alive?
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
Mnoba posted:I honestly fear for some of your guys/gals well-being, but ya post history call outs and red titles are SA's version of identity politics. Oh, so they're good as hell? Anyways, if your friend did what Business Gorillas did, would they stay your friend, would you join in on harassing women, what? radmonger posted:I never said anything about rentiers. Middle-class just in the sense of people who have personal wealth in excess of a years wages, but not sufficient to never work again. "A classless middle-class society is much more immediately plausible, because only easily-teachable skills are needed to keep money once you have it. All you really need to do is redistribute the wealth in the first place; and Trump's personal wealth alone would be enough to make a measurable difference. Just tax the richest ten thousand (or fine them for whatever crimes they have committed) and you'd be most of the way there." What is this money getting invested in, such that you can "keep money once you have it", when nobody works? Because you can't get returns on capital without renting it out unless you work using it. So yes, this does depend on a society of rentiers with no one renting. I don't believe that Jim Crow and sundown segregation are meaningless as a cause of continued deprivation, no. I also look at the disparity in wealth across racial groups with similar incomes, the disparity in housing quality, etc. and I conclude that your argument is just because you want to expropriate Oprah's money ahead of Bill Gates's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I too describe calling out people who think that that trans people aren't people as whining. And he never said that. zegermans posted:Hey question how would positive economic messaging and a jobs program kept Sandra Bland alive? And no one ever said that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:And no one ever said that. but having a strong anti-lynching position is identity politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
zegermans posted:but having a strong anti-lynching position is identity politics. Well it's good id politics unlike arguing over cultural appropriation or acting like some white female republican heading a financial company on wall street is good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Hot take-- people that hate identity politics are real bad at identity politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Hot take-- people that hate identity politics are real bad at identity politics. If this election is anything to go by they're actually really good at it, but white identity never comes up in these discussions for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:If this election is anything to go by they're actually really good at it, but white identity never comes up in these discussions for some reason. Well it's a lot harder to poo poo on (non-white) identity politics if you recognize it's a reaction to white identity politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well it's good id politics unlike arguing over cultural appropriation or acting like some white female republican heading a financial company on wall street is good. Actually, it is good for women to have the same opportunities as men. What's your next hot take, that DADT was good because you don't believe in military service?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Hot take-- people that hate identity politics are real bad at identity politics. Hot take: all of this is a reaction to berniebros being pointed out that their beloved weed wizard was about as popular as the clap with minorities when it came time to vote in the primary. e: half serious tbh. Schizotek fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Actually, it is good for women to have the same opportunities as men. What's your next hot take, that DADT was good because you don't believe in military service? It's good. Let's start by ensuring equal pay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:It's good. Let's start by ensuring equal pay. If only Hillary had talked about this!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:If only Hillary had talked about this! That was the big flaw in the dems plan imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:If only Hillary had talked about this! Not enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Well it's a lot harder to poo poo on (non-white) identity politics if you recognize it's a reaction to white identity politics. Identity politics are not a reaction to white identity politics as a matter of historical fact and it's not obvious that even if they were it would make sense to justify them on that basis. To say the least it's a stretch to suggest that the petty advantages engendered by white identity politics as practiced by the right could possibly be reproduced in some kind of anti-racist counterpart, and besides that such a politics haven't appreciably improved the lives of poor white Americans in any other way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Identity politics is problematic at its simplest because it divides people up into groups of us vs. them and encourages people to think in those ways, and people who get rapped up into us vs. them have a really hard time during elections arguing why we all need to come together and support something. This isn't to say that race/groups don't exist and don't have specific needs or issues that should be focused on, but when you focus on that to exclusion of issues that all groups/races can relate to and support you end up alienating people or turning them against you and towards another candidate. And Democrats in the U.S. this election did a really good job of alienating the biggest voting bloc of all (white people), largely because they thought they could write them off and just say "demographics is destiny" and that would win them the election. You need to push issues that people to everyone, alongside (But not behind) issues that appeal to specific groups. Progressive issues can win the day, but identity politic issues cannot be the main front issues of a political party, especially if they don't motivate the majority of voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Identity politics is problematic at its simplest because it divides people up into groups of us vs. them and encourages people to think in those ways, and people who get rapped up into us vs. them have a really hard time during elections arguing why we all need to come together and support something. This applies equally well to class politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This applies equally well to class politics. Yeah but people who work and aren't rich are a majority, which means you get enough votes to win the election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Hot take: all of this is a reaction to berniebros being pointed out that their beloved weed wizard was about as popular as the clap with minorities when it came time to vote in the primary. It's amusing whenever you post because I always imagine your avatar pic saying it in a grumpy fashion. Where is your avatar from anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Identity politics is problematic at its simplest because it divides people up into groups of us vs. them and encourages people to think in those ways, and people who get rapped up into us vs. them have a really hard time during elections arguing why we all need to come together and support something. Thank you for the Reason.com link, tagline 'Free minds and Free marke... *shoots self*'. Yet again we are back to this problem of white people claiming to be alienated because Democrats did not put their problems at the forefront. Its not even identity politics that's at fault under that basis, if anything it was the lack of consideration of the democrats for white identity politics. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:It's amusing whenever you post because I always imagine your avatar pic saying it in a grumpy fashion. Where is your avatar from anyway? It's one of a series of redtexts I got immediately after the election, like a bunch of the redtexts that are around right now. I'm actually not entirely sure which post this one is for, but it's from some Seth Rogan pixarlike that came out this year. I didn't know what it was from until someone else pointed it out for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJJWEqVdt_4&t=57s The movie itself looks...painful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:It's good. Let's start by ensuring equal pay. Excuse me, I have been told that that is "identity politics" that the Dems should ignore completely, and that all women's problems with being relegated to inferior jobs by a misogynistic society will be solved once we abolish money forever! Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Identity politics is problematic at its simplest because it divides people up into groups of us vs. them and encourages people to think in those ways, and people who get rapped up into us vs. them have a really hard time during elections arguing why we all need to come together and support something. That doesn't actually happen, though. There's no legion of minority advocates shouting that economic problems and wars don't matter. It's a fairy tale made up by people whose victimhood complex feels threatened by the fact that too much attention is being paid to problems they don't have, used to justify dismissing other groups' problems without seeming too obviously dismissive of their problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
radmonger posted:Yeah but people who work and aren't rich are a majority, which means you get enough votes to win the election. And yet mysteriously, the situation doesn't reflect this reality and more-or-less never has.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Excuse me, I have been told that that is "identity politics" that the Dems should ignore completely, and that all women's problems with being relegated to inferior jobs by a misogynistic society will be solved once we abolish money forever! You obviously are lying and or deliberately mistating people's opinions. But it's typical of third way liberals who don't want their taxes raised to fund paid leave for mothers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:What is this money getting invested in, such that you can "keep money once you have it", when nobody works? Because you can't get returns on capital without renting it out unless you work using it. So yes, this does depend on a society of rentiers with no one renting. Where do you get the idea that no one works? Middle class people work, they are just in a better bargaining position to get a better wage because it is not 'work or starve', merely 'work or be poor'. Moving Trump's money into different people's pockets doesn't change anything about the balance between labour and automation, or whatever. Sure, some may not work, and just eat the seed corn. Matter of taste what the balance is between paternalism, let them stay poor if they insist, or try again later. quote:I don't believe that Jim Crow and sundown segregation are meaningless as a cause of continued deprivation, no. Fair point, to the extent I didn't explicitly name those as examples of what I am talking about.I'll add sharecroppimg and redlining as other historical practices, now rare, that nevertheless leave a legacy in the pattern of intersection of class and race. quote:I also look at the disparity in wealth across racial groups with similar incomes, the disparity in housing quality, Hence the plan to change that by redistributing wealth to those who don't have it. quote:etc. and I conclude that your argument is just because you want to expropriate Oprah's money ahead of Bill Gates's. You do know are just making stuff up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
radmonger posted:Where do you get the idea that no one works? Middle class people work, they are just in a better bargaining position to get a better wage because it is not 'work or starve', merely 'work or be poor'. Moving Trump's money into different people's pockets doesn't change anything about the balance between labour and automation, or whatever. What is this money getting invested in? Or is it just a one-time gift of a year's money that will eventually run out and disappear? How do people avoid starving without a source of income? Are we suggesting a basic income? That is, your communism is all about preserving the bourgeoisie structure but just altering it slightly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:And yet mysteriously, the situation doesn't reflect this reality and more-or-less never has. 2 party systems have 2 parties. But between FDR and Reagan both of those parties were to the economic left of Clinton and probably Sanders. Eisenhower, a Republican, set taxes on the rich at 90%. Which paid for a society so rich Soviet Communists took one good look and collectively gave up. How Reagan broke that concensus is an interesting topic that's unusual in US politics in being only _mostly_ about race.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
So a few months ago, before election night, I was at one of the major Intel campuses for a work thing. In their lobby, they had a giant mural that looked like it was drawn in crayon that said "Outsource everything except love and diversity", with a heart. (If you werent aware, they've had some layoffs this year) Looking at that in the lobby, in that moment, I knew Trump had a shot at winning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
radmonger posted:2 party systems have 2 parties. But between FDR and Reagan both of those parties were to the economic left of Clinton and probably Sanders. Eisenhower, a Republican, set taxes on the rich at 90%. Which paid for a society so rich Soviet Communists took one good look and collectively gave up. There's never been a point in which class consciousness has been a national thing. Republicans were pro-labor in 1856 and 1860, but immigrant workers voted for Democrats, because Republicans absorbed the Whigs and also were pro-farmer because they were initially more of an Old Northwest party. There have been attempts, like the Populist coalition, to unite whites of the working class nationally, and attempts like Fusion tickets to unite working-class white and black voters locally, but national class-based politics are more or less absent. You could point to the New Deal Coalition, which unfortunately was across Marxian classes and ordoeconomic ones, and specifically didn't unite people on class. Your statements here are also really strange. Like, crediting US tax structure with defeating the USSR in 1954...? Or, hell, arguing that American economic hegemony was because of our tax structure and not because of our dominant position as a manufacturer in the aftermath of the destruction of most of the rest of the world's industry, the opening up of captive markets with decolonization, and the use of the presumed Soviet menace as a means to tightly tie the world economy to the American one. Eisenhower's tax structure also was filled with loopholes, but never mind that. You're insisting that Keynesianism is some radical-left thing. I mean, goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Hot take: all of this is a reaction to berniebros being pointed out that their beloved weed wizard was about as popular as the clap with minorities when it came time to vote in the primary. I guess when it comes to the idpol types there is a clear hate on for economically progressive politicians and a complete lack of acknowledgement of how the system and the media (through Bernie blackout) and the sabotaged the primaries (e.g. NY democrats had to be registered democrat in like September to vote in November lol) for anyone other than Hillary. some guy posted:You have to remember that the last 2 years especially have been incredibly filled with the ever dreaded OUTRAGE. And no one will admit it but every liberal leaning article talking about identity politics that gets passed around Facebook with thousands of shares usually sounds something like "gently caress all white people for being lovely trash." It's sensationalism but it's what people see. There are tons of liberals who write and speak about issues in a reasoned manner, but the ones that get attention are not those ones. We sit here now going "all we wanted was to have total equality how is that message too tough to swallow?!!!!" While totally ignoring the condescending and hostile tone that popular social media liberalism has taken. I think this conclusion is confirmed by 17 pages of idpol folks throwing around 'cishet' an 'white str8' ironically. lmao if you are one of these people. Sethex fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I guess when it comes to the idpol types there is a clear hate on for economically progressive politicians and a complete lack of acknowledgement of how the system and the media (through Bernie blackout) sabotaged the primaries for anyone other than Hillary. quote:I think this conclusion is confirmed by 17 pages of idpol folks throwing around 'cishet' an 'white str8' ironically. 'Idpol folks'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Well it's a lot harder to poo poo on (non-white) identity politics if you recognize it's a reaction to white identity politics. so what you're saying is identity politics have ruined everything, because out-reactonarying the reactionaries turned out to be a bad idea
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:00
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Criticism of identity politics is usually criticism of bad identity politics, and criticism of mainstream liberalism attitudes. Criticism that is quite well deserved. The impression that a lot of mainstream liberalism gives off is the impression that a lot of the hard work had been done, attitudes had already changed (or were going to change eventually because 'we are in the right side of history', anyway), and we were now free to be in the phase where we just scold others for not getting on with the program and enjoy our progress. The results of the election are a pretty brutal rebuke of that notion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Do you think that Bernie had any kind of genuine problem appealing to racial minorities (especially black people) or are you going to continue to chalk his failure to win the nomination to conspiracy? Does his massive under-performance in the south have any meaning at all? It probably has less meaning than Hillary's catastrophic general election loss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:The results of the election are a pretty brutal rebuke of that notion. Which part? The low turnout or the majority of votes going for the supposed "bad idpol" candidate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:It probably has less meaning than Hillary's catastrophic general election loss. *loss may include winning the popular vote by several million
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
botany posted:*loss may include winning the popular vote by several million She lost many states the Democrats hadn't lost in ages, and lost them against a loving moron. It was a complete disaster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Which part? The low turnout or the majority of votes going for the supposed "bad idpol" candidate? The part were liberals had already won and it was now time to reap the rewards. Most liberals saw this as a coronation. They thought Obama has good approval ratings and he's been a great president. Clinton worked with Obama and she's redeemed now, and she's smart. We've had the first black president, now we'll have the first woman president. Meanwhile the Republicans are just dumb, they haven't adapted to a changing world, they'll all die off soon anyway, and the party is practically dead. Clinton will win in a landslide. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:It probably has less meaning than Hillary's catastrophic general election loss. As has been said, under any sane electoral system Clinton, poo poo or not (and she was poo poo), would have won. In any event Sanders didn't beat her and as much as people are loath to admit that was largely because he had trouble portraying himself as attuned to the interests of the identity groups that made up the Democratic electorate. Bemoaning identity politics is pointless, it is an integral part of politics in America and everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:The part were liberals had already won and it was now time to reap the rewards. None of this is idpol so why were you pretending idpol was the issue?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:24
|
|