|
JeffersonClay posted:Apparently America is full of racists and sexists. But don't worry we have it on good authority they secretly lust for socialism. lots of socially regressive americans love socialist/redistributionist programs when they don't understand that they are socialist/redistributionist. e.g. Medicare, the NFL, etc. and I don't see how you can possibly doubt that America is full of racists and sexists lol
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Maybe, but she did have those advantages. And with the exception of a good relationship with black Americans, so did Trump. As what-if scenarios go, "what if my candidate's opponent had been weaker than they actually were" is a particularly useless one. Yeah, I know. I'm only bringing this up to counter the claims that Clinton necessarily won because people agreed more with her policies/message. There are other reasons completely unrelated to her actual politics/platform that she could have won against Sanders, and the fact that Sanders did as well as he did almost entirely based upon nothing but his message (since he doesn't have nearly the same name recognition as Clinton) says a lot about the popularity of that message itself. edit: Just to be clear, I am not arguing that Sanders should have won the primary or anything like that. Clinton clearly won no matter how you look at it. I'm just arguing about how much his message resonated with Democrats. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Romney ran four years ago, and received a slightly higher share of the popular vote than Trump. Other than Virginia, Trump gained on Romney (more or less as you'd expect with more votes cast) in all the states where votes matter. Of course Trump gained on Romney; he won the election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
emdash posted:lots of socially regressive americans love socialist/redistributionist programs when they don't understand that they are socialist/redistributionist. e.g. Medicare, the NFL, etc. And what does the Republican Party do when democrats propose those policies? 1). Scream socialism! 2). Remind those regressive Americans that lazy brown people will benefit from these policies. So I'm not really understanding how socialists expect to sell "not socialism we promise" to these people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And what does the Republican Party do when democrats propose those policies? We call it socialism. I happen to know some of those people you think are deplorable. They liked Bernie and didn't mind him calling it socialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:We call it socialism. I happen to know some of those people you think are deplorable. They liked Bernie and didn't mind him calling it socialism. You know Americans hate the word socialism, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You know Americans hate the word socialism, right? All hate the word socialism? I mean those polls showing Bernie ahead suggest if there is opposition its not enough to say this country hates it. What AMericans really hate is cowards. Like a dem who retreats when they are accused of socialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Apparently America is full of racists and sexists. But don't worry we have it on good authority they secretly lust for socialism. You can be "racist and sexist" but still support socialism though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Someone just posted the poll here or in another thread, the view on the word "socialism" is like 30% positive. Most of what pisses people off is redistributive policies that give "other" people things they already have. The racism is less the driving force than it is easy post-hoc justification of FYGM; it's fine if minorities get to hop on board with free college tuition because barely anybody has that right now. Food stamps, though, watch out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:You can be "racist and sexist" but still support socialism though? JeffersonClay posted:And what does the Republican Party do when democrats propose those policies? Crowsbeak posted:All hate the word socialism? I mean those polls showing Bernie ahead suggest if there is opposition its not enough to say this country hates it. What AMericans really hate is cowards. Like a dem who retreats when they are accused of socialism. Yes, socialism is slightly less popular than atheism among the American electorate. You keep clinging to these useless pre-convention head to head polls like they're the only thing keeping the neoliberal vampires away. Here's the thing, the polling before this election was deeply flawed. Exit polling showed very low support for more liberal policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:A big difference is Clinton 2008 core demographics are people who have to be convinced not to vote while Sanders 2016 core demographics are people who have to be convinced to vote. True, but a lot of this has to do with age Hillary may well have lost in 2008, despite the economy, if Obama had lost the primary (since it's unlikely the hugely motivated and almost religiously devoted fanbase would have translated to Clinton) And we'd have people online blaming Obama for the Mccain presidency Granted, Sanders is definitely no Obama, his popularity didn't translate into votes because millennials think 1 like is 1 vote or some other reason that lets me blame everything on young people override367 fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:This stupid poo poo again. Well if someone says that then we will tell them that just fixing the economy won't erase racism. Right? I will put this in simple sentences foe you. People pushing a grand narrative are going to sideline one issue or the other. Neither a focus on economic or social justice alone is enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:You can be "racist and sexist" but still support socialism though? Not really. Racist and/or sexist "socialism" turns into theft from those set outside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And what does the Republican Party do when democrats propose those policies? Your post is a really gross oversimplification, but two things: 1) no, people really get quite upset when you talk about taking their Medicare away, even if "lazy brown people" are benefiting from it across the country. 2) Like so much for dems lately, a lot of this is a messaging problem. When conservatives propose racist poo poo and get called out on it, they don't admit or deny it's racist, they deflect and talk about how it's (supposedly) going to benefit their constituents, or make America great again, or whatever. Dems consider this unpleasant and love to try to "do better," but recognizing the GOP hustle and calling it out isn't enough. They have to run their own hustle. There is no room or time for anything else. Dems need ambitious, understandable plans that can be pushed with easy, splashy slogans. Conservatives are going to cry socialism about any dem proposal anyway; they've done so for decades, even with the most blatant anti-socialist stuff like Obamacare. Dems must learn to deflect and talk about the upsides. http://www.mtv.com/news/2955564/skin-in-the-game/ is a related piece Ornedan posted:Not really. Racist and/or sexist "socialism" turns into theft from those set outside. this is just rotten ideological purity semantics. There are undoubtedly racist/sexist socialists in the US, just as there are in European countries, just as there are racist/sexist conservatives and liberals everywhere. The meaningful question here is whether they'll insist on a racist platform from a politician in exchange for their vote. Dramatically fewer socialists and liberals will do that than will conservatives, but they're still going to live their life with prejudices. Hopefully they examine those throughout their life. emdash fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, socialism is slightly less popular than atheism among the American electorate. You keep clinging to these useless pre-convention head to head polls like they're the only thing keeping the neoliberal vampires away. Here's the thing, the polling before this election was deeply flawed. Exit polling showed very low support for more liberal policy. Actually I will note that Sanders is rather popular right now. https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating Also what did "More liberal" mean. Considering that Obama has made his last year being about TPP was that what was more liberal? Was free college? More liberal. Please show me what the people thought was mean by more liberal. Rather then whatever you pull out of your rear end. Also I love this. "Polling was flawed", oh and polling shows everyone hates socialism. Also being that my generation is the future. http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/17/survey-finds-high-support-communism-among-millennials/ (Federalist definitely is not a lover of such a poll) . emdash posted:Your post is a really gross oversimplification, but two things: 1) no, people really get quite upset when you talk about taking their Medicare away, even if "lazy brown people" are benefiting from it across the country. Deflection includes. Why do you want Americans to die? DO you want AMERICAN kids to starve? Why do you want Financial elite to get more handouts while poor Americans suffers? I don't care if its socialism or capitalism, all I want is America to be great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
emdash posted:Your post is a really gross oversimplification, but two things: 1) no, people really get quite upset when you talk about taking their Medicare away, even if "lazy brown people" are benefiting from it across the country. It's been successful because the Democratic party themselves are opposed to the social safety net (although obviously they're way more invested in things like HUD and Medicaid than the Republicans, in that they don't want them gone). Bill Clinton is the one who destroyed welfare, and they have been that way since they became Reagan-Light HRC's turnaround when she realized she had to actually compete with Sanders marks a change in that, Obama has mostly viewed the safety net as something to tear up and use as currency to pass substantive legislation Combined with the Democratic party essentially bailing on unions in the midwest and pretending they wouldn't even vote for Obama in 2014, and a great many Americans who voted D in the past feel like no party represents them at all override367 fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Another problem with idpol (not a bad contraction) is that rather than seek to remedy past wrongs, it seeks to avenge past wrongs by inverting the roles of the parties. It's fashionable for many of its practitioners, over-represented on D&D, to refer to people of unfashionable identity in terms straight out of Der Stürmer. The real problem with idpol is that some people use it to refer to the objective political -interests of various not-strictly economic classes. If you are being beaten up for being gay, threatened with rape as a woman, denied a vote as a minority, then that is not idpol, that is just pol. A more useful division is to say any politics based on a serious attempt to identify and organise groups around the interests they genuinely share is class politics, whether those classes are economic, sexual, racial or anything else directly cornnected to the interests in question. Whereas any attempt to spin bullshit myths and imaginary threats counts as identity politics. Whether that myth is transsexuals invading your bathroom, the glorious Revolution that can only be hastened by making things worse, or just about anything that uses capitalis nouns, puts the J in Jew. Or, of course, all the left-based examples I'm going to skip because I'm a coward when it comes to things not worth fighting over. If you are a peasant working the Earl of Oxbridges estate, and the Duke of Essex cuckolds him, and you care, that is idpol. If you are the Earl's wife, and you risk being impoverished because you didn't dare resist when the Duke ravished you, that isn't. The thing is, we are an economic society, and a biologically homogeneous species. So most things that are objectively true are mostly true because of economics. And we are also a rich society, far away from subsistence constraints. So the most viable forms of making things other they are are also mostly economic. Just not in the sense of 'do something generically sensible and raise next years growth half a percent '.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
When OP says that identity politics didn't impact the hillary campaign negatively is that conclusion reached by assuming that labelling progressive democrats as 'bernie bros' didn't suppress voter enthusiasm or turnout in a really close election?TheImmigrant posted:Another problem with idpol (not a bad contraction) is that rather than seek to remedy past wrongs, it seeks to avenge past wrongs by inverting the roles of the parties. It's fashionable for many of its practitioners, over-represented on D&D, to refer to people of unfashionable identity in terms straight out of Der Stürmer. And I think we've largely overlooked how the identity politics of the 'right' has benefited from the categorizing of "white identity" that has recently been pushed by idpol types for awhile now. Today we are looking at full on white nationalism on the presidential ticket in a (hopefully) tokenistic way. To me it appears as though when these narratives place great emphasis on white culture as a simplified collective it ends up being helpful to white nationalists. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/opinion/sunday/what-the-alt-right-really-means.html White nationalism as a concept is dumb. Black nationalism/pride actually makes sense because if you meet a person from a population that was enslaved and you ask them: 'what part of Africa are you from?' Chances are they aren't going to know because their culture and heritage was stolen from them, (in most cases the only chance of knowing anything on the subject is an ancestry.com test.) When a progressive idpol type collectivizes whites as a unified group, to me they are signalling that they are an ideological tard. There is no white culture actually. There are Poles, Germans, Americans, American born whatevers and whatevers. To apply a universalizing privilege label to a diverse group like that is really common an really ridiculous. It reminds me of when the Witcher was criticized for not having ethnically diverse characters despite taking place in feudal/mythical (for the sake of simplicity) Poland. A bunch of really badly educated people ringing bells screaming that they 'found a racism over by the tree' gets picked up and used to delegit the whole notion of progressive social critique. The solution is to stop being dumb, and for these people that is likely impossible. Sethex fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The flip side of this is that when non-white or non-male candidates take power, it's almost always in the face of disaster. Studies have found that companies are more likely to put women or minorities in the CEO position when the company is facing significant crisis, and similar trends have been observed in politics and law as well. This so-called "glass cliff" means that "always do a stellar job" is poor advice because they're often set up to fail from the start. Thatcher was a natural disaster that befell Britain. The only people who like her live in South England around London, which is where she siphoned all the stolen wealth off to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:59
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
emdash posted:lots of socially regressive americans love socialist/redistributionist programs when they don't understand that they are socialist/redistributionist. e.g. Medicare, the NFL, etc. No, they love socialist/redistributionist programs when they're vague one-sentence hypotheticals rather than actual policy proposals. The journey from "survey question" to "law" is a long and twisted one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Thatcher was a natural disaster that befell Britain. The only people who like her live in South England around London, which is where she siphoned all the stolen wealth off to. Nah, she had 3 terms so more people liked her than that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1l1XGiXgo0
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Sethex posted:When OP says that identity politics didn't impact the hillary campaign negatively is that conclusion reached by assuming that labelling progressive democrats as 'bernie bros' didn't suppress voter enthusiasm or turnout in a really close election? Black people and quers didn't invent or popularize the concept of "white culture" you historically illiterate nitwit. Also I really hesitate to call the demographics that Bernie won the "progressive" democrats, given their socialism seemed to stem more from adopting Bernies beliefs because they supported him than something that was already there. I'm glad that economic leftism is catching on, I really am. But this is some "we've always been at war with East Asia" nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, they love socialist/redistributionist programs when they're vague one-sentence hypotheticals rather than actual policy proposals. The journey from "survey question" to "law" is a long and twisted one. Well, you've got one thing right. That journey is very long and twisted when you focus on the presidency to the exclusion of all else so that you have no legislative power at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Of course Trump gained on Romney; he won the election. Romney had 47% of the popular vote. Trump has around 46%.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
emdash posted:Well, you've got one thing right. That journey is very long and twisted when you focus on the presidency to the exclusion of all else so that you have no legislative power at all. Nah, I mean that actual policies are far less popular in polls than soundbites are, and that opinions change remarkably quickly once a topic enters the real national discourse. There's significant differences between "should government pay for healthcare" and "hundred-page bill advertised as a sweeping overhaul of healthcare", and the latter tends to drag the former down with it if it exists. For example, responses to "is it the responsibility of the government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage" dropped from a high of 69% Yes in 2007 to just 47% Yes in 2010. Preference for a private insurance system over a government-run system jumped from 48% in 2007 to 61% in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, socialism is slightly less popular than atheism among the American electorate. So you're telling me socialism polls as well as Hillary Clinton Homeless Friend fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:So you're telling me socialism polls as well as Hillary Clinton It polls substantially worse. That's the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Black people and quers didn't invent or popularize the concept of "white culture" you historically illiterate nitwit. Also I really hesitate to call the demographics that Bernie won the "progressive" democrats, given their socialism seemed to stem more from adopting Bernies beliefs because they supported him than something that was already there. I'm glad that economic leftism is catching on, I really am. But this is some "we've always been at war with East Asia" nonsense. If what you got from that was me saying blacks and 'quers' invented anything, it's obvious that you're dumb, scared and offended and you can't articulate why. Are you responding to a different comment of a different board? because I don't see how your post relates, at all, to what I said. An i don't understand why you quoted 1984. Sethex fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:Anyway, the answer to the question of the thread is that people seem to mean a million things when they say idpol, but I'd guess that the primary beef with it is that it seems more concerned with appearances, i.e. getting across you're one of the good guys, than actual long-term material results, being the good guy. It basically rings real hollow. People can argue all they want but nobody whose come to a decision on it already is really is going to change their mind and achieve enlightenment imo. TheImmigrant posted:Another problem with idpol (not a bad contraction) is that rather than seek to remedy past wrongs, it seeks to avenge past wrongs by inverting the roles of the parties. It's fashionable for many of its practitioners, over-represented on D&D, to refer to people of unfashionable identity in terms straight out of Der Stürmer. "...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Cis White Male." The flip-side is that idpol will also traffic in formerly prejudiced and abhorrent ideas like "black people think differently than white people" and "there is something essential about an  .It's totally hypocritical. It's bigoted, prejudiced thinking by people who rail against bigotry and prejudice. But they think they have history on their side, or that they're on the side of "Good", so it's uniquely okay for them to engage in the same behaviours and thinking that they hate in the Oppressor. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
A 5 point deficit over Hillary ain't too bad, I never get bringing up low polling socialism as a killer because they're responding to a pretty abstract poll question, not an actual policy. Nor does opposition framing always work like some sort of magic trick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Nah, I mean that actual policies are far less popular in polls than soundbites are, and that opinions change remarkably quickly once a topic enters the real national discourse. There's significant differences between "should government pay for healthcare" and "hundred-page bill advertised as a sweeping overhaul of healthcare", and the latter tends to drag the former down with it if it exists. and in 2016 58% want to repeal the ACA and replace it with "a federally funded healthcare program providing insurance for all Americans"  http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspxpreference for private question seems to be gone, but 51% believe it's gov responsibility. Dunno why you'd try to rely on six-year-old polls. Naturally the horrifically bungled ACA negotiation process reduced support for government-run healthcare (even though it isn't really that), but now it's wrapped around and people want more gov interference
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Black people and quers didn't invent or popularize the concept of "white culture" you historically illiterate nitwit. Also I really hesitate to call the demographics that Bernie won the "progressive" democrats, given their socialism seemed to stem more from adopting Bernies beliefs because they supported him than something that was already there. I'm glad that economic leftism is catching on, I really am. But this is some "we've always been at war with East Asia" nonsense. I'd like to hear your idea of what the thought process of someone who doesn't like socialism or policies pertaining to it, but becomes really interested in Bernie Sanders. Just write out what you think is going through this hypothetical person's head. Homeless Friend posted:A 5 point deficit over Hillary ain't too bad, I never get bringing up low polling socialism as a killer because they're responding to a pretty abstract poll question, not an actual policy. Nor does opposition framing always work like some sort of magic trick. It's especially silly considering, that many of the same people who believe socialist policies cant be sold also believed Hillary was an inevitability. Cynical realpolitiks has been shown to have no basis in reality, and the invention of fantasies like "Trump won because 4 million salty berniebros voted for Gary Johnson, Libertarian" make clear that its a dead end as far as improving its predictions and theories go. There are people who legitimately believe droves of bernie supporters just instantly flock to any politician no matter their stances so long as they legalize The Devils Cigarette. It's the most Old Man Yells At Cloud thing I've seen on these forums. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
reparations are not revenge, you trog
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:A 5 point deficit over Hillary ain't too bad, I never get bringing up low polling socialism as a killer because they're responding to a pretty abstract poll question, not an actual policy. Nor does opposition framing always work like some sort of magic trick. I didn't bring it up, I was responding to someone asserting that socialism is real popular. It isn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
emdash posted:and in 2016 58% want to repeal the ACA and replace it with "a federally funded healthcare program providing insurance for all Americans" Actually that poll is wrong, as socialism polls lower than Hillary clintons
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
like just the idea that its somehow controversial that black americans might have some insight into racial oppression, or that this idea represents the politicization of resentment, is loving laughable and you should be ashamed of that post
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Romney had 47% of the popular vote. Trump has around 46%. At this point I'm not even sure if you're trying to say Trump is a bad candidate or a good one. 47% vs 46% is, on its own, irrelevant. Percentages in this situation can be misleading for a number of reasons. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I'd like to hear your idea of what the thought process of someone who doesn't like socialism or policies pertaining to it, but becomes really interested in Bernie Sanders. Just write out what you think is going through this hypothetical person's head. They just support bernie because that is where the boys are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:reparations are not revenge, you trog paranoid randroid posted:like just the idea that its somehow controversial that black americans might have some insight into racial oppression, or that this idea represents the politicization of resentment, is loving laughable and you should be ashamed of that post
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:39
|
|