|
Peven Stan posted:Bullshit, no white liberals have ever stood up for asian people, who are the "model minority" and therefore ok to attack. The obsession with known annoying person Lena Dunham on this forum will never cease to amaze me. Ok, so aside from the Hollywood example, what are the issues facing Asian-Americans that white liberals have "never stood up for"? One that I've read was that they're denied public assistance based on stereotypes of being 'successful,' which seems like something that any liberal would get behind. Is it the admissions offices of universities changing the rules to stop Asian American acceptance rates harming white students? It seems like "white Liberals" is an odd target of specific ire from a lot of folks here. Not 'white moderates' or even 'white conservatives' but actual Liberals who at least supposedly support equal rights, feminism, etc. Is it an implied statement that real "white Liberals" don't exist, and are just Republicans in disguise or somesuch?
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Basically that you don't effect change by reasoning with single people, you do it via societal and political pressure. Telling someone to go gently caress themselves doesn't have much of an effect on that. But the standard idpol activist strategy of alienating potential allies, conducting useless gestures for virtue signaling, and generally obnoxious behavior, has led to president Trump, so I'd hazard a guess that that societal and political pressure is not going to go in the direction you want it to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
This election has made us go collectively mad it would seem. Rather than circling the wagons, we here in the online sphere are seemingly backbiting one another and doing everything in our power to break the coalition for good. If we do that, the reign of far right lunacy will have only begun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
All I doing is inverting tesseration's logic. His claim was that, since talking doesn't solve anything, we're seceding that agency to the abstract trends and forces of social pressure, that absolves you of acting respectfully. Even leaving the first, really dubious assumption intact, that talking doesn't solve anything, what is social pressure but the aggregate of individual actions? Worse, what makes you think acting like a douchebag is going to pressure someone in the direction you want? If they have a backbone, they're not going to take that lying down, they're gonna react against you, find others who share that same animosity of you, and work with them. In light of recent events, which possibility seems more likely? Given that the unthinkable has happened, it's it time that the unquestionable assumptions being presented here get questioned?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Bullshit, no white liberals have ever stood up for asian people, who are the "model minority" and therefore ok to attack. whats your opinion on data disaggregation, my friend because chinese in particular can't expect anyone else—white liberals, black folk, latino folk, non-asian chinese folk—to stick up for us when we only give a poo poo about hollywood (or for some, whining about white dudes dating asian women or why asian dudes can't land a date that hawt 10/10 blonde cheerleader), can't even condemn those within our community who march for "justice for peter liang" or who lobby against data disaggregation bills that southeast asians and pacific islanders fight hard for, etc. makes us all look like selfish twits not worth anyone's time, you know? doesn't help that it tarnishes the credibility of non-chinese asians either Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:All I doing is inverting tesseration's logic. His claim was that, since talking doesn't solve anything, we're seceding that agency to the abstract trends and forces of social pressure, that absolves you of acting respectfully. Even leaving the first, really dubious assumption intact, that talking doesn't solve anything, what is social pressure but the aggregate of individual actions? Worse, what makes you think acting like a douchebag is going to pressure someone in the direction you want? If they have a backbone, they're not going to take that lying down, they're gonna react against you, find others who share that same animosity of you, and work with them. A protest is not a sum of individual actions. I mean, it is if you want to be pedantic about it. But it's not in the way that not every single person in the protest has had to bridge the gap between racist and not-racist or not-caring and not-racist or had to be taught about antiracism. They just have to show up in sufficient numbers (which can be an extremely small number when compared to the general population) to exert political pressure. And if it doesn't work then they can ramp it up, the very same people, until something gives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:whats your opinion on data disaggregation, my friend Just read up a bit on data disaggregation, and holy poo poo is that needed. What's going on that so many kids from southeast asia are having that drastic of a graduation disparity?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:even condemn those within our community who march for "justice for peter liang" Back when this was a big issue my Chinese coworker (who immigrated here about 8 years ago) mentioned that he was going to some sort of protest related to it. After reading about the issue I was kind of mixed; on one hand the guy obviously deserves to be punished, but there's also a valid point there about the fact that he was punished while white cops who did the same thing weren't punished. So it sort of depends whether you're protesting because you think he shouldn't have been punished, or whether you're protesting the hypocrisy of him being punished while white cops go free for similar (or worse) crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Just read up a bit on data disaggregation, and holy poo poo is that needed. What's going on that so many kids from southeast asia are having that drastic of a graduation disparity? I imagine it's at least partly due to the conditions leading various Asian sub-groups to immigrate to the US being different. Like, immigration seems to frequently be an upper class thing when East Asians (Chinese/South Koreans/Japanese) do it, possibly because their own countries are developed enough that it becomes more of an "unnecessary" thing (that is, people aren't driven to immigrate due to the desperation from not being able to find good economic opportunities as often). Maybe some Southeast Asian countries have different things pressuring immigration; for example maybe some people immigrate due to a lack of economic opportunity in their own countries, which might result in a significant socioeconomic divide between these groups in the US. edit: Also, isn't at least some portion of the Southeast Asian population in the US made up of refugees from the Vietnam War? edit2: By the way, Koalas March, how are you able to always find relevant gifs so fast like that? This isn't some sort of sarcastic question, I'm legitimately curious. Do you store them in some directory by topic, or do you just have a really good memory and can remember if you have a gif representing a particular thing. Or is there maybe some sort of web tool for finding them? Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Pevan Stan knows what's up. Isn't separate ethno states what any proponent of a two state solution to Israel Palestine conflict endorses? Retarded in the united States yes but not as a solution to ethnic conflict full stop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
flashman posted:Isn't separate ethno states what any proponent of a two state solution to Israel Palestine conflict endorses? Retarded in the united States yes but not as a solution to ethnic conflict full stop. I read that as a modest proposal style extension of the logic that only a given ethnic group can be entitled to have an opinion on matters pertaining to them. But I guess they've been probated now so we'll never find out which is one heck of a relief.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
flashman posted:Isn't separate ethno states what any proponent of a two state solution to Israel Palestine conflict endorses? Retarded in the united States yes but not as a solution to ethnic conflict full stop. The difference is that Israel-Palestine is already a de facto dual state (with Israel illegally occupying Pal. terr.) where the dominant state entity suppresses the sovereignty of its charge, while the US is an integrated nation state, so unless you are going to make a sort of China Mieville City & The City scenario come true, there is no way to form ethnic states. That is also ignoring the issue of effectively removing the underprivileged groups forever from their alienated product by putting it across a national border.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:whats your opinion on data disaggregation, my friend Haha this is a retarded ad hom attack. I don't think any fancy asians are opposed to disaggregating the data so jungle asians get their disparities highlighted. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Just read up a bit on data disaggregation, and holy poo poo is that needed. What's going on that so many kids from southeast asia are having that drastic of a graduation disparity? I'd imagine most of their families came to America as refugees with, at best, a few things that weren't the clothes on their backs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Haha this is a retarded ad hom attack. I don't think any fancy asians are opposed to disaggregating the data so jungle asians get their disparities highlighted. Jesus Christ dude, how can you even speak loudly enough through all this straw to accuse someone else of ad homs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
rudatron posted:In light of recent events, which possibility seems more likely? Given that the unthinkable has happened, it's it time that the unquestionable assumptions being presented here get questioned?  "Behave better and you'll win more people over" ain't exactly a new argument, man. Thing is, I don't entirely disagree with the 'marketing is important' approach. Trump ran on a platform of (among other things) defunding Planned Parenthood and repealing Obamacare. Now that he's a week away from being sworn in, some of his voters are expressing concern about his shocking plan to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal the ACA (which it turns out is the same thing as Obamacare). Does that sound like an election that was decided on the basis of sober policy analysis? So marketing does matter when you're trying to sell something. However, there seems to be this unspoken assumption that the most successful marketing--purely coincidentally--happens to perfectly align with with the policy priorities of Freddie deBoer, the staff of Jacobin, and whoever they choose to anoint as the true Leftist of the 2020 primaries. And while I don't think it's particularly controversial that ad buys in the rust belt are more effective focusing on employment and income inequality rather than the range of your transition team's personal pronouns, you do realize that the name on those could just as easily be 'Corey' or (god help us) 'Andrew' rather than 'Bernie,' right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Hey KM, you still think Peven Stan "knows what's up?" I don't know what you have against Jacobin, nor why you thought that was relevant, but let me clarify. I am not and have never made the argument that protest must be nonviolent, the threat of violence isn't a part of political change, or whatever other misrepresentation you care to use here. My claim had been very straightforward - That the philosophy and strategy used by activists is alienating potential allies and undermining actual movements, because they are directing the aggressive energy inwards and towards neutral parties/allies. This is not how movements usually operate, but it is how things operate now. In particular, in the area of racial justice, all white people are assumed to be, and treated as, someone who is personally oppressing all non-whites. That 'something gives' may not end up in the direction you want, and in fact, if you intentionally create animosity between the general public and yourself, it won't go the way you want. That's the 'aggregation' I'm referting to, not how many bodies you cajole into marching. rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jan 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Fredrik DeBoer made a relevant blog post on this point lately:quote:Scott Alexander wrote a piece in the middle of last year that I think is as essential as anything I’ve read in ages about how we argue now. His point is pretty simple: as political segregation increases, with people from dramatically different political camps less and less likely to interact, the really bitter political arguments are intra-group, not inter-group. That is, the battles that are most personal and toxic stop being Democrat-Republican but left-liberal, alt-trad, insurgents-establishment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The difference is that Israel-Palestine is already a de facto dual state (with Israel illegally occupying Pal. terr.) where the dominant state entity suppresses the sovereignty of its charge, while the US is an integrated nation state, so unless you are going to make a sort of China Mieville City & The City scenario come true, there is no way to form ethnic states. This is also sidestepping glaring problems like A) Who, precisely, is going to separate the ethnic groups into "equitable" sections of the former territory and B) What on god's green earth makes you think that carving up a body like the US into ethno-states wouldn't just lead to a revanchist war of aggression by the ethno-state comprised of the formerly politically and economically empowered group on all the others, leading to an even worse setup than before? The reality is that the hosed up situation we have is what progress looks like. Endlessly frustrating and under constant assault, but progress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
If you want to know what dividing the US up into ethno-states would look like, just look at reservations for a preview.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't know what you have against Jacobin, nor why you thought that was relevant, but let me clarify. I am not and have never made the argument that protest must be nonviolent, the threat of violence isn't a part of political change, or whatever other misrepresentation you care to use here. quote:That 'something gives' may not end up in the direction you want, and in fact, if you intentionally create animosity between the general public and yourself, it won't go the way you want. That's the 'aggregation' I'm referting to, not how many bodies you cajole into marching. (And I dislike Jacobin because I view them as a clique of sheltered coastal elites who hold themselves superior because they genuflect towards the altar of economic inequality for absolution for their elevated standard of living, unlike that other lesser clique of sheltered coastal elites who prefer the altar of minority rights. But fair enough, I apologize for conflating you with them. I've been reading so many of these debates that the arguments started to blur together.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:no white liberals have ever stood up for asian people This is a really perfect example of dumbass language that serves absolutely no purpose besides promoting infighting, even as someone who usually rolls my eyes when people bring that up. Here's two statements: 1) "White liberals rarely stand up for Asian people" 2) "No white liberals have ever stood up for Asian people" The first is a reasonable, accurate observation and the first sentence of a valuable dialogue. The second doesn't add anything except the bonus chance of alienating those white liberals (famous or not) who agree with your point and do stand up for Asian and Asian American rights and representation. There's one reason why, of course: the hyperbole is you venting at the white liberals who make you furious because it makes you feel better. That's important, sometimes. As a queer person, I do it from time to time. But it's fundamentally selfish, because it's about making you feel better and not about promoting Asian American causes. Almost everything wrong with the United States in the 21st century is the byproduct of a culture of radical selfishness that people rationalize alternately as "natural", "ethical", "just", or "revolutionary" depending on their identity and greater politics, but which all ultimately boils down to "I take care of me and gently caress everybody else". No progress is possible in that situation, because the ingroups just keep getting smaller and the intragroup fights just keep becoming more personal until everybody lives in an ingroup of 1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Rangpur posted:Is real easy to misinterpret when tempers run high. The number of successful protests that didn't create animosity between the general public and the protestors is, I would imagine, pretty close to zero. Moreover, we have the added wrinkle that thanks to advances in communication, the craziest rant that goes viral on social media becomes the face of the movement, e.g., people who believe that BLM's message of 'the police need to stop killing us' is a call for white genocide because their great aunt retweeted the footage Fox News got of the guy chaning 'kill the pigs.' To put it another way, I agree that the perception that opposition to Trump consists of insufferable college students trying to out-woke each other is harmful to left-leaning policy goals. But I don't agree that perception accurately reflects reality. I had decided to bow out of posting in this thread because it seemed a lost cause but I can't resist replying to a reasonable post. I think that here is an important swivel point for the argument. I totally agree that pissing people off for a purpose, or in the process of getting things done is just gonna happen. It's not vitally important to avoid pissing people off, but it is important to only piss people off when you're doing it for a purpose. Pissing people off has a cost, so you need to make sure you're getting something of worth out of doing it. So yeah, just want to clarify that there's no argument against protesting. The "kill the pigs" thing is an interesting point because you're right that it happened like once from a small group and BLM shut that poo poo down as soon as they could and it still went viral. But if they didn't shut it down and it continued on and on I really think we'd be seeing a very different and very much worse reaction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I had decided to bow out of posting in this thread because it seemed a lost cause but I can't resist replying to a reasonable post. I think that here is an important swivel point for the argument. I totally agree that pissing people off for a purpose, or in the process of getting things done is just gonna happen. It's not vitally important to avoid pissing people off, but it is important to only piss people off when you're doing it for a purpose. Pissing people off has a cost, so you need to make sure you're getting something of worth out of doing it. So yeah, just want to clarify that there's no argument against protesting. This seems like a post that's almost impossible to disagree with, well put.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
Higsian posted:The "kill the pigs" thing is an interesting point because you're right that it happened like once from a small group and BLM shut that poo poo down as soon as they could and it still went viral. But if they didn't shut it down and it continued on and on I really think we'd be seeing a very different and very much worse reaction. Yeah we might have elected an insane billionaire on a platform of sectarian and racial nationalism or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Yeah we might have elected an insane billionaire on a platform of sectarian and racial nationalism or something. This is not the thread to discuss Hillary's inability to turn out the same #BLM demographics that swept Obama into office twice. Seriously, posts like this are hilarious.  "Maybe instead of flailing and shrieking at everyone you should be strategic about it and only do it when the benefits outweigh the costs." "Oh yeah that would be a great idea but have you considered my team lost the last election?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 11:51
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that:
For example, this is what essentially all of JackGladney is doing. Then, these people will not have meaningful engagements with that other group who are mainly concerned about effective engagement; that is, those who are not so much interested in who is morally in the wrong and who in the right, but how one can effectively chance the situation. For this purpose, it might be irrelevant or even harmful to consider who is morally correct. E.g., to really simplify it: People like JackGladney: It is good to yell at this person because they deserve it on virtue of being a racist. Answer: But this might not actually make the world better. People like JackGladney: Who cares? I am morally in the right when punishing bad behavior; in fact, not punishing bad behavior is in turn bad. Answer: But this might not actually make the world better. etc etc
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
I haven't had the chance to read the entire thread, but has anyone watched any Johnathan Haidt videos, or read his book "The Righteous Mind"? He speaks a great deal about the culture wars in the United States, and how both sides Left and Right tend to 'make sacred' certain things, which tends to blind them to the other side's perspectives. For the Left, 'the victim' has been made sacred, therefore you cannot question the victim, their motives, their actions, etc, because to do that would be 'blaming the victim',(This cartoon, posted right at the beginning is pretty spot-on for that feeling) for the right meanwhile, 'bootstrapping' and 'level playing field' have often been made sacred, so anything that might affect a level playing field today (Such as affirmative action, or welfare, even if those policies are to make up for past inequities) are unjust and violate those sacred principles. In other words, the right can often make bootstrapping so important they blame a victim, or someone in unfortunate circumstances for ALL of their problems, even those that have compounded over generations, whereas the Left might not want to blame the victim for any of their problems, even those they themselves might have caused by choice. I think the OP is a good example of this. When starting the thread, the "progressive concerns" were all stated matter-of-factly, while the "deplorable concerns" where constantly criticized, exaggerated, or made strawmen. The OP clearly sacralizes one side's concerns and treats the other with contempt. One point of contention is the assumption that progressives care about fairness while conservatives don't. For the purposes of this thread I will be honest and say I lean social conservative, for future reference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:I haven't had the chance to read the entire thread, but has anyone watched any Johnathan Haidt videos, or read his book "The Righteous Mind"? He speaks a great deal about the culture wars in the United States, and how both sides Left and Right tend to 'make sacred' certain things, which tends to blind them to the other side's perspectives. For the Left, 'the victim' has been made sacred, therefore you cannot question the victim, their motives, their actions, etc, because to do that would be 'blaming the victim',(This cartoon, posted right at the beginning is pretty spot-on for that feeling) for the right meanwhile, 'bootstrapping' and 'level playing field' have often been made sacred, so anything that might affect a level playing field today (Such as affirmative action, or welfare, even if those policies are to make up for past inequities) are unjust and violate those sacred principles. In other words, the right can often make bootstrapping so important they blame a victim, or someone in unfortunate circumstances for ALL of their problems, even those that have compounded over generations, whereas the Left might not want to blame the victim for any of their problems, even those they themselves might have caused by choice. I like Haidt's one-sentence summary of the "Conservative Ethics": right wingers want the world to be so that Karma Is Real. Everyone should get what they deserve, and if somebody gets something, it's probably cause they deserve it. I personally do not subscribe to that belief, but I also believe the normative part is not objectively false - I just happen to have different values; and the descriptive part is not known to be overwhelmingly false (because society is complex and knowledge fallible).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Sorry OP, but you said that the "progressives" wanted to deal with wealth inequality. Actually all that identity politics stuff is used as a smokescreen by the democratic elites so they don't have to challenge wealth inequality. Because you realise that millionaires and billionaires are the ones putting money in everyones pockets, right? Everything you hear, from the media, or from any politician but Bernie Sanders is going to be something that a rich person wants you to hear for their own economic interests. This is the same reason why the entire media was dumping on Trump and blowing air up Hillary's rear end for the whole election campaign. Brexit and Trump in one year has really been a stunning defeat for the elites who control our national conversation. Of course, they still have the power of the media so they will continue with the old strategies of attacking the working class for being racist when in fact all they're doing is opposing neoliberalism in their own economic interests. Once the people of the west finally wake up to the false dichotomy of left and right they've been sold over the past few decades, while the corrupt "left" and "right" parties have constructed a crony capitalist, neoliberal matrix on behalf of their donors, maybe things will finally start to change in favour of the average person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
You can't confront class inequality without also confronting racial, gender and LGBT inequality. Similarly you cannot do the reverse either, as liberals have tried to do. This false dichotomy of class vs. identity is bullshit and you cannot hope to make progress if you abandon one for the other. Also, if you think Brexit and Trump were anti-elitist victories you're truly delusional. One is a corrupt, authoritarian millionaire filling up the benches with his own friends and cronies from among an establishment-adjacent elite and the other was a successful ploy by the non-dom billionaires who own the British press (along with their pals in big business) to beggar the country and set the stage for buyouts, privatisation, repeal of labour laws and human rights protection and massive tax evasion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:You can't confront class inequality without also confronting racial, gender and LGBT inequality. Similarly you cannot do the reverse either, as liberals have tried to do. This false dichotomy of class vs. identity is bullshit and you cannot hope to make progress if you abandon one for the other. The whole point is that in the modern world, class politics is the ONE thing you aren't allowed to push forward. That's why I make such a big deal about it. The elites are more than happy to have superficial identity politics so that young people can pat themselves on the back for how progressive the world is now and how things are getting better. But they aren't. Inequality is ever-worsening, and it's worsening along racial lines most of all, because the ruling class is overwhelmingly white. For this reason, class has to be at the forefront of the conversation, otherwise it will continue to be buried. Whenever you see a liberal hillary supporter say something like "Would breaking up the big wall street banks end racism or sexism??" you're seeing the deliberate use of identity politics to distract from wealth inequality and class struggle - Something that ID politics has been used more and more for in the past few years. That's why I've been so turned against it. It's been used by the rich and their media outlets to distract and divide the workers. quote:Also, if you think Brexit and Trump were anti-elitist victories you're truly delusional. One is a corrupt, authoritarian millionaire filling up the benches with his own friends and cronies from among an establishment-adjacent elite and the other was a successful ploy by the non-dom billionaires who own the British press (along with their pals in big business) to beggar the country and set the stage for buyouts, privatisation, repeal of labour laws and human rights protection and massive tax evasion. As opposed to the corrupt, authoritarian millionaire in Hillary Clinton who we had on the other side? Or the British Chamber of Commerce, with David Cameron, Nick Clegg and George Osborne calling for us to remain in the EU? Both sides have their rich twats at the top, of course. You can't succeed without some support from the elite in the modern world. But the vast majority of the establishment in the USA and UK didn't get what they wanted for once. That's a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Backing the lesser evil to destroy the greater is morally compromised enough, but what you're advocating is backing the greater evil to destroy the lesser. Playing into the hands of oligarchs and demagogues that even the rapacious establishment we already had disavowed for being too greedy, too extreme, too cynical and too authoritarian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Backing the lesser evil to destroy the greater is morally compromised enough, but what you're advocating is backing the greater evil to destroy the lesser. Playing into the hands of oligarchs and demagogues that even the rapacious establishment we already had disavowed for being too greedy, too extreme, too cynical and too authoritarian. Donald Trump is simply a dick. People don't like a dick, but everybody understands how dicks work. Everybody knows a handful of dicks, dicks are not a mystery, and they can be managed. A bunch of billionaire pedophiles who never seem to do any work yet have all of everything and for some reason still want to steal the tiny bit I have are a mystery. They have spent my entire life doing only evil and I don't know how they work, I don't know how to deal with them, and they're scary. In that context, Donald Trump is an obviously better choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Who is the lesser evil is an entirely subjective thing. In my eyes, the globalist neoliberalism that Obama and Clinton support is a far greater evil than Trump's nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Who is the lesser evil is an entirely subjective thing. When you say billionaire paedophiles do you mean the establishment as-is or the guy who implied on a radio show that he wouldn't mind overmuch sticking his dick in his own daughter and bragged openly about getting away with sexual assault? Can't wait to see just how manageable you think Trump's gonna be, considering that there'll be very few checks and balances against him in implementing the same old republican policy just turned up to 11 this time and aligned with hard-right tea party nutters and far-right neonazis and a whole smorgasbord of other reactionaries. The man's not just a dick, he's rich, power-hungry, narcissistic dick whose entire schtick seems to be taking every terrible American social, economic and foreign policy of the past 50 years to it's most undesirable conclusion to the detriment of the most people possible. The Saurus posted:In my eyes, the globalist neoliberalism that Obama and Clinton support is a far greater evil than Trump's nationalism. If you think Trump's gonna give you a fairer economic system when one of the first things that's happened since his win is a motion for the repeal of the affordable care act I really don't know what the gently caress to tell you. There's a degree of weaponised stupidity in play here that I can't actually comprehend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:In my eyes, the globalist neoliberalism that Obama and Clinton support is a far greater evil than Trump's nationalism. Surprise! He's both. Goldman Sachs owns the country now, plus there will be concentration camps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:In my eyes, the globalist neoliberalism that Obama and Clinton support is a far greater evil than Trump's nationalism. They are not that separated, you needed 40 years of centrist milquetoast liberals selling the working class downstream to get Trump
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
Fados posted:They are not that separated, you needed 40 years of centrist milquetoast liberals selling the working class downstream to get Trump And now the milquetoast liberals are crying and screaming at the working class for ruining things while they were going so well. Jack Gladney posted:Surprise! He's both. Goldman Sachs owns the country now, plus there will be concentration camps. Case in point. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 21:23
|
|