|
Al! posted:thats the problem Except no one actually thinks it as far as I can tell you just ascribed it to them. Should I pretend to be you adding "working families and stay at home parents" to my enemies list now? Is that how this works? That actually seems really dumb and tedious though so I think I'm just gonna ask instead: Do you actually have something against women who want to stay at home and take care of their kids? Do you think the work they do is less valuable than working for a corporation or running a business? Are you opposed to supporting them? BALLS, ED
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Lastgirl posted:what kind of gun are you packing? C96 is a work of art
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:Our message should be gently caress the rich but the rich hijacked our party, there's a reason Bernie Sanders was so popular despite every odd stacked against him. Bernie Sanders wasn't the only person to find resonance with that message. Barack Obama's 2012 campaign (and to a lesser extent, 2008) was built on that, and he's one of the most popular Democrats alive. Don't sell economic populism short.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:They're a minority who shouldn't be pandered to because they're literally the oppressors, they can't be ignored because they're what's holding back actual progress by defining what's "important" and shaping the narrative, I dont know how to better explain it. thats cute, can I get a pumpkin spice latte to go did I sum that up, like with the condescension and the mindless consumerism kind of gimmick there or what people really do like to pay attention to people who are rich because it channels the idea of "success" so I kind of get what you're going on there, that people like Dunham gets exposure and listened to because money buys power kind of schlock going on but I don't see how that's in the way of progress because I kind of refuse to believe people are that dense to not scratch their head at it. It's not like everyone's strapped into an idiot box where the rich whites are transmitting every perceived right think over it and people are furiously taking notes because of their status and believe that if they emulate it, they will obtain success. I think the progress is slow because of dumb infighting and bickering and all the white noise associated with it that makes it so hard to discern what kind of direction to take with it. "Rich whites" are just a small loud part of the chewed up wads of gum of information thats been tacked on by everyone tugging at its seams. Also I was assuming rich and white would be somewhere like 100k but even thats perceived rich to me because I'm a poor white and even I think people could get on by with 50k just with the necessities but that's not likely within 10 years I feel. That's exactly what I mean by trying to measure people by status or race as well, its like so broad that everyone has a different concept of what that really is. And you described a literal minority  I'm on board with eat the rich but 250k? that's a weak ineffectual target even, That's just literal socialites being bored out of their own minds and wandering around in the twitter maze trying to get as much followers as possible. I'm talking about billionaires, they're the real titans you wanna bring down. They're the ones that have the power that you fear about halting progress because of propaganda outlets espousing what is supposed to be expected if you want to be successful, so buy these products to support #feminismparanoid randroid posted:big mosin obrez fan here she's a beaut capt'n 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
People that don't want to strive towards a society in which we actively try not to hurt each other on an institutional level are the enemy. At least, that's how I see it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Bernie Sanders wasn't the only person to find resonance with that message. Barack Obama's 2012 campaign (and to a lesser extent, 2008) was built on that, and he's one of the most popular Democrats alive. Don't sell economic populism short. economic populism works the issue is in electing an actual economic populist
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
This is the most "white feminism" twitter account. https://twitter.com/sadydoyle/status/810989534024519680
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
NumberLast posted:People that don't want to strive towards a society in which we actively try not to hurt each other on an institutional level are the enemy. Define "each other".
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Except no one actually thinks it as far as I can tell you just ascribed it to them. no, i think a robust gmi that can provide adequate material support to each individual should be applied across the board without means testing (including "ability to work"). but i can see several scenarios why some feminists in the 70s might have argued against this (while other feminists in the 70s, many many more of them were actually stridently arguing for the recognition of the domestic work women were still by-and-large yoked to). for example, there could have been the legitimate fear that this income would be immediately seized in patriarchal households (which at the time was p much all of them) and would actually only provide a source of independent income for women who already lived in households that practiced forms of gender equality. or perhaps, maybe their goal was to put more women in the workplace, in order to dissolve gender divisions in labor (which were much, much worse in the 70s as lg pointed out). what you said was "feminists" (which you edited to say 70s feminists, i saw) argued against this concept which is tarring everyone who self-identifies as feminist with a broad brush to accomplish... i guess the demonization of white feminism? i don't really know, because you didn't say specifically who was making that argument or why.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:C96 is a work of art slap a scope on that bad boy and you got a good ol fashioned greedo killer
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
this is like watching AVALANCHE bomb the sector 5 reactor instead of watching Aeris cast Holy on the Lifestream 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
freckle posted:Define "each other". Uhhhhhhh Republicans
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:she's a beaut capt'n i love it b/c its such a russian concept if i saw barrel from rifle, i have pistol that also sets man on fire from muzzle flash. maybe also it explodes and kills me. da, good. both outcomes have benefits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Being rich is fine. Using that status to make yourself more rich at the expense of people who are not rich is not. That's my meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:thats cute, can I get a pumpkin spice latte to go The megabillionaires don't make up enough of the population to effectively control society so they rely on the less wealthy but still rich to act as their agents, the Democratic party currently panders to these "small business owners" and "entrepreneurs" who in reality are completely outside of the actual working class. Btw you saying 50k is "enough to get by with the necessities" is funny because that's the median household income in America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Being rich is fine. Using that status to make yourself more rich at the expense of people who are not rich is not. Being rich is fine. Having any more money, drugs or children than anyone else is not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:And you described a literal minority this is why the economic populists keep talking about the "millionaire and billionaire" class and it works. 250k seems like a lot, and it most definitely is a lot to poor people like me (I was laughing about 120k being sold as not a lot lol), but in the end, those people are in the same class of have-nots as the rest of us. the gap between the so-called "upper middle class" and the millionaires and billionaires is only gonna get more pronounced as technology advances as well. take aim at the true enemy and do your best to convince the "upper middle class" that we're all in the same boat, but good luck with that
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Feminism is good, but feminists are only human, and the only way good things stay good (and this is way beyond feminism and more for everything) is if we keep trying to improve and acknowledge the things we have done in the past and probably are still doing are actually kind of lovely for some people and we always need to get better and move further. I think its worth keeping all of this in perspective - Second-wave feminism had a lot of subsections that had a lot of differing ideas and about how to gain progress for women, and in some cases what form the end goals should even take. Marxist feminism was arguably smaller in terms of proponents throughout the US, and criticisms of ideas like paid motherhood from the left did not cause them to drop the idea. I probably should have gone into a bit more detail in my original posts, but I type slow and the thread moves quickly. You can't blame feminists for killing the idea, really - the late 70s and 80s hit and the backlash against feminism was intense during the Reagan years. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans of the day would have given the idea the time of the day during the Carter years, let alone after. Some second-wave moves were definitely political calculation and deeply cynical (early exclusion of lesbians, for example) but most of the criticisms of paid motherhood came from genuinely felt ideals rather than cynicism or greed. Its unfair to blame the failure of the idea to catch on on feminism itself, since that is the same movement and atmosphere that encouraged the exchange of ideas that lead to the idea itself. Feminism gets blamed for a lot of things, so people (myself included) can be touchy about it being attacked from the left. I don't think you were trying to anger anyone or that you did it especially harshly, just remember the real enemy!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
it's me i'm the carlos slim of america
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Being rich is fine. Using that status to make yourself more rich at the expense of people who are not rich is not. Being rich is not fine, at least not as rich as the ruling class currently is, their wealth is derived from the exploitation of others, see: Marx's Labor Theory of Value.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Since someone brought it up, here is Ellison's pick on the Florida DNC race; http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nake...deep-organ.html With quote: quote:Bittel confirmed that Ellison was backing him on Thursday. Bittel's team that is helping him seek the state party chair post issued a statement from Ellison today: So it looks like for Ellison it's what he can do over his ideals?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:economic populism works Yeah, that's a key piece, but I also think that the Sanders/Obama comparison also is interesting because of how differently the two men are perceived. It's not just about the policy, it's also about the messenger and the message's ability to touch everyone in the broad Democratic coalition. Edit: I think it's also good to mention that Republicans, being largely homogenous, operate what amounts to a central strategic position, which is a luxury over a more diverse Democratic coalition. Democrazy has issued a correction as of 18:43 on Dec 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Al! posted:no, i think a robust gmi that can provide adequate material support to each individual should be applied across the board without means testing (including "ability to work"). GMI is inherently means-tests, did you mean UBI? Al! posted:but i can see several scenarios why some feminists in the 70s might have argued against this (while other feminists in the 70s, many many more of them were actually stridently arguing for the recognition of the domestic work women were still by-and-large yoked to). for example, there could have been the legitimate fear that this income would be immediately seized in patriarchal households (which at the time was p much all of them) and would actually only provide a source of independent income for women who already lived in households that practiced forms of gender equality. or perhaps, maybe their goal was to put more women in the workplace, in order to dissolve gender divisions in labor (which were much, much worse in the 70s as lg pointed out). what you said was "feminists" (which you edited to say 70s feminists, i saw) argued against this concept which is tarring everyone who self-identifies as feminist with a broad brush to accomplish... i guess the demonization of white feminism? i don't really know, because you didn't say specifically who was making that argument or why. Maybe you should ask instead of just jumping to the worst case scenario and maybe I guess I should have gone back and edited in even more clarity but I was referring specifically to the specific feminists from the specific conversation in their specific argument with other specific feminists, because I think it's something we should be doing and the thing Lastgirl said reminded me rightly or wrongly of that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Abrasive Obelisk posted:Since someone brought it up, here is Ellison's pick on the Florida DNC race; http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nake...deep-organ.html Purge him!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
The idea of it being ok to be super wealthy as long as there aren't poor disenfranchised Americans is only possible if you're ok with the third world getting exploited even more than it currently is to make sure the super wealthy in America don't have to give up their 5th vacation home to pay their workers fairly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
purge the thread imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:The megabillionaires don't make up enough of the population to effectively control society so they rely on the less wealthy but still rich to act as their agents, the Democratic party currently panders to these "small business owners" and "entrepreneurs" who in reality are completely outside of the actual working class. Ok so first order of democrats shifting to progressives. Define what the new richy mcrich is, then eat them. Ya I'm aware of that, and it's gonna be thin at this rate. Keep your bottle caps. Serf posted:this is why the economic populists keep talking about the "millionaire and billionaire" class and it works. 250k seems like a lot, and it most definitely is a lot to poor people like me (I was laughing about 120k being sold as not a lot lol), but in the end, those people are in the same class of have-nots as the rest of us. the gap between the so-called "upper middle class" and the millionaires and billionaires is only gonna get more pronounced as technology advances as well. Ah yea, the FYGM crowd Bu-but I'm supposed to be one of them!!  [gets kicked out of the club for elites]That's the only thing we'll actually see is that we are going to have to ugh, wait for. The divide for the upper middle class and the wealthy to be so extreme that they're going to be on board. People voted in their self interest, which is why TRUMP. It's not gonna happen until things get extreme. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
I for one will not be purging Komrade Keith just yetAce of Baes posted:The idea of it being ok to be super wealthy as long as there aren't poor disenfranchised Americans is only possible if you're ok with the third world getting exploited even more than it currently is to make sure the super wealthy in America don't have to give up their 5th vacation home to pay their workers fairly. I'm all for a one-world socialist government, but we gotta start somewhere
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:what kind of gun are you packing? Main:  Sidearm:  i wish...pls buy us new guns for our nation building mr. trump  | / |/
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:purge the thread imo Purge half the thread and perpetually convince the other half they will be executed next week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
purge my neolib rear end
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dril/status/791226388997087232
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:purge my neolib rear end  Let's go purge each other under the bleachers
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
NumberLast posted:Purge half the thread and perpetually convince the other half they will be executed next week. Gotta be smart about that though, if you purge day crew and leave nite crew they'll just laugh it off with death is certain memes
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Gotta be smart about that though, if you purge day crew and leave nite crew they'll just laugh it off with death is certain memes nite crew always gets purged first
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
tower time posted:I think its worth keeping all of this in perspective - Second-wave feminism had a lot of subsections that had a lot of differing ideas and about how to gain progress for women, and in some cases what form the end goals should even take. Marxist feminism was arguably smaller in terms of proponents throughout the US, and criticisms of ideas like paid motherhood from the left did not cause them to drop the idea. I probably should have gone into a bit more detail in my original posts, but I type slow and the thread moves quickly. You can't blame feminists for killing the idea, really - the late 70s and 80s hit and the backlash against feminism was intense during the Reagan years. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans of the day would have given the idea the time of the day during the Carter years, let alone after. Some second-wave moves were definitely political calculation and deeply cynical (early exclusion of lesbians, for example) but most of the criticisms of paid motherhood came from genuinely felt ideals rather than cynicism or greed. Its unfair to blame the failure of the idea to catch on on feminism itself, since that is the same movement and atmosphere that encouraged the exchange of ideas that lead to the idea itself. Yeah I tried to say that afterwards that I don't think it would have worked at the time, that I'm not even saying it was bad at the time to not shoot for it, just that I didn't particularly like the justifications given for essentially leaving those people behind even if I could understand them nor do I like the fact that it mostly seems to have been forgotten at least in my experience and it was part of a lovely attempt on my part to reiterate that maybe we should revisit that idea because I'd much rather talk about good leftist poo poo we should be doing than attacking each other for imprecise criticisms, but then I went and made it worse so gently caress me I guess. Remember that those whole thing started with a country essentially being called a regressive hellhole with one of the reasons being because they wanted to do exactly this, so I guess my real original point of contention was concern over the fact that it felt like people were acting as if supporting families and parenthood and raising children was somehow a bad thing, and I want it to be seen as a good thing, and boy did I gently caress up communicating that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:Ah yea, the FYGM crowd once the ultra-wealthy have genetically-engineered children that are faster, stronger and more resilient than us and live in their orbital habitats while the land is swallowed up by acidified ocean water, then the "upper middle class" will finally be on our side
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
everyones a millionaire in Zimbabwe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9tXP_Rw3fg
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Serf posted:once the ultra-wealthy have genetically-engineered children that are faster, stronger and more resilient than us and live in their orbital habitats while the land is swallowed up by acidified ocean water, then the "upper middle class" will finally be on our side "I'm so close to having a super baby and my own pod on the space station, if only my taxes weren't so drat high!!!!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Al! posted:that's reasonable, it was designed to i have been corncobbed, so hard
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 18:50
|
|
