|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Mister Facetious posted:Because it's redundant. By definition, a human regardless of race is a person. If you're adding it as a qualifier, it's because you need to remind yourself that that is what other races are; people.  As members of racist societies, we in fact do need that reminder.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This is another piece of evidence that you're straight- you're getting evasive and defensive over me suggesting that it was not a good idea for you to make a post like that, even if you somehow thought it was innocent fun rather than you capering in joy at the thought of someone getting crushed for opposing Bernie Sanders voters. no, it's actually not those things youre saying. you are saying a queer person is straight based on your *posting impressions* and you don't think it's possible you could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:no, it's actually not those things youre saying. you are saying a queer person is straight based on your *posting impressions* and you don't think it's possible you could be wrong. I'm really sure that you're actually a queer person and not just trying to say that because you're feeling a slight modicum of guilt. I know this because you're freaking out at the idea that straight people can be identified by nonstraight people, which is certainly something a definite non-straight would do. So are you queer because you're "scene" (that means BDSM) or are you queering heterosexuality with a septum piercing, manbun, and threeways?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
*plugs in posting history into an entire wall of 1950s reel-fed computers* eureka, this person i don't know is straight! it's time for me to tell them i know their sexuality/gender identity better than them
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:*plugs in posting history into an entire wall of 1950s reel-fed computers* This is really, really pathetic and you could just own up to the fact that you hate me more than you have good judgement about what kind of posts you can reasonably make. That's sitting right in front of you instead of playing victim in such a contemptible way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
it is not okay to tell a black person they are white because they don't post 'culturally black' enough it shouldn't be that way for queer people either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
"Thanks for coming in today, mister suburban Republican voter. Now over here there's a button that dispenses one nickel in upper class tax cuts every time you press it but somewhere a random person who doesn't belong to your country club will be dragged into an alley and beaten with hammers, and over here we—" "—oh I see. Mmmm very interesting, yes I think we can form a coalition here."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:it is not okay to tell a black person they are white because they don't post 'culturally black' enough But it's okay for a "queer" person to join in with homophobic abuse. Mhm. I think this is a way for you to avoid owning up to doing wrong, to be quite honest. VitalSigns posted:"Thanks for coming in today, mister suburban Republican voter. Now over here there's a button that dispenses one nickel in upper class tax cuts every time you press it but somewhere a random person who doesn't belong to your country club will be dragged into an alley and beaten with hammers, and over here we—" Ah, this is "engaging on the merits"!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This is really, really pathetic and you could just own up to the fact that you hate me more than you have good judgement about what kind of posts you can reasonably make. That's sitting right in front of you instead of playing victim in such a contemptible way. These last pages have been all about you playing the victim. As an hegelian universalist I think it's fair to call everyone a whore as an insult except whores. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Fados posted:These last pages have been all about you playing the victim. As an hegelian universalist I think it's fair to call everyone a whore as an insult except whores. Ah, it's "playing the victim" to oppose being called gay as an insult? How does that work, unless you think it's okay to call someone a human being? EDIT: Like, you can hate me all you want and still not defend the doxxer, transphobe, and racist EugeneJ. There's nothing obligating you to do so!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:But it's okay for a "queer" person to join in with homophobic abuse. Mhm. I think this is a way for you to avoid owning up to doing wrong, to be quite honest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:almost there but get rid of the quotation marks, you wouldn't call someone a "black" person Okay, so would you mind providing an explanation of why it's okay for a "queer" person to join in with homophobic abuse?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
What is a "queer" person? Is that like someone who's not gay enough for you? Seems pretty homophobic for a guy tripping over himself to ensure everyone is aware of their racism (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What is a "queer" person? Is that like someone who's not gay enough for you? But if it's OK to join in on homophobic abuse for one (QUILTBAG) person, surely it is okay for anyone else to do so, ne c'est pas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Really, it's kind of fascinating how people leap to defend insulting someone by calling them gay. It suggests, to me, that most of you have an ultimately skin-deep approach to being pro-gay, those of you who don't believe it's bourgeois degeneracy, at any rate. Sure, you personally wouldn't call someone a fudgepacker, but you certainly will leap to criticize the person called a fudgepacker, insist that the person calling someone a fudgepacker was only joking, snicker about how of course you won't condemn the person using the slur, etc. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
jesus, reading the last few pages, this is...  post election, I guess D&D is even wilder. Brainiac Five, when the therapist tells you to take your medication, it's not a suggestion. Evidently in your case it results in some kind of hallucination wherein you see homophobia everywhere. If there is some, sure, we'd all condemn it, right? I don't believe there's many actual homophobes on SA anymore, though I could be wrong about that., and if there are, gently caress them with a rusty spoon even if their politics are otherwise identical to mine. But you've consistently presented no evidence of the homophobia you're seeing everywhere, only incessantly hurled accusations at people. You don't seem to be reading people's posts as they actually are. I am genuinely concerned about your psychological state. And I'm not saying this in a "lol you're crazy" way, but that you should probably take a step back from message board posting and take some time for self-care. It feels like people have hurt you in the past, and you're projecting that onto the people you're arguing with here, using them as proxies because you can't scream at the actual assholes. I am 100% certain that someone in good health, with a good support network and good self-care habits would not have made the posts you've made in the last day. Get off your computer, take a walk or something, if you have family members or friends, talk to them. Take a shower/bath, eat the food you like. Play video games if you're into that, or read. Don't think about politics for a while. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:jesus, reading the last few pages, this is... EugeneJ posted:Jesus how many STD's did you give them Rodatose posted:what about the queer erasure, braniac five? why have you not apologized for it? Does that mean you want to erase anyone identifying as queer or who fits into a queer category from the world? how soon will it be before you join alongside the chechens who are genociding quiltbag folks? Certainly no homophobia here, and no laughing off homophobia here. This is a pretty good example of skin-deep "allyship", or however you want to call it- sure, you won't stand for homophobia, but calling someone gay as an insult isn't homophobic, you need therapy, medication, etc. etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
If you want to know what the outcome of trying to cater to Romney->Clinton voters will be, all you have to do is look at whom they voted for downticket: Republicans. They voted for Republicans. Yet Trump's campaign perfectly corresponded to the same positions Republicans have been running on for years, only in a brash and crude way rather than a superficially posh and refined sounding way. Romney->Clinton voters agree with Trump about everything, they just want someone to dress it up in a veneer of respectability and make them feel good about voting for fascism. Also there is the slight problem that Romney->Clinton voters weren't enough to get Clinton elected, which brings into question the very viability of a strategy to win with their support by running Hillary Clintons for every elective office.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you want to know what the outcome of trying to cater to Romney->Clinton voters will be, all you have to do is look at who they voted for downticket: Republicans. They voted for Republicans, even though Trump's campaign perfectly corresponded to the same positions Republicans have been running on for years, only in a brash and crude way rather than a superficially posh and refined sounding way. Romney->Clinton voters agree with Trump about everything, they just want someone to dress it up in a veneer of respectability and make them feel good about voting for fascism. Do you have anything that breaks this down further? Because I wasn't aware they'd gotten any further than "5% of romney 2012 went to clinton".
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Certainly no homophobia here, my post wasn't cheering on homophobia, it was mocking specifically the way you pick up on a small mistake (not including a q. not including the q is a real problem that more mainstream/older gay advocacy groups have had in the past, same as some gay marriage advocacy groups and wanting to minimize trans visibility) in a post, instantly think the worst of that person, ask them about it in a really stilted manner, and then catastrophize it into a claim that the other person wants to do violent hate crimes (when it turns out the other person just doesn't want to talk to you because talking to you isn't very enjoyable) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:my post wasn't cheering on homophobia, it was mocking specifically the way you pick up on a small mistake (not including a q. not including the q is a real problem that more mainstream/older gay advocacy groups have had in the past, same as some gay marriage advocacy groups and wanting to minimize trans visibility) in a post, instantly think the worst of that person, ask them about it in a really stilted manner, and then catastrophize it into a claim that the other person wants to do violent hate crimes (when it turns out the other person just doesn't want to talk to you because talking to you isn't very enjoyable) And your other posts cheering on EugeneJ were of course not doing so, because you don't have the goddamn guts to apologize when you hosed up and instead start screaming about how you're the victim here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Look, let me help you guys ignore b5. This guy recently had an interview on chapo, but his article is I think interesting to read, it being relevant to idpol: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/ta-nehisi-coates-racism-afro-pessimism-reparations-class-struggle It is a pretty good article as it looks directly at the economic reasons used by the upper class to divide us all as children of God from our struggle for human dignity. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Do you have anything that breaks this down further? Because I wasn't aware they'd gotten any further than "5% of romney 2012 went to clinton".  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-were-no-purple-states-on-tuesday/
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Look, let me help you guys ignore b5. This guy recently had an interview on chapo, but his article is I think interesting to read, it being relevant to idpol: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/ta-nehisi-coates-racism-afro-pessimism-reparations-class-struggle I think this is a really valuable piece, and I loved his interview on Chapo. It sums up one of the big limitations to how race is discussed in intellectual circles that I've noticed over the years, i.e.: as something completely unique and disconnected from other negative aspects of society. It's one thing to acknowledge that strengthening the American social safety net won't single-handedly "solve" racism in any meaningful sense; racism exists under any and all socioeconomic systems. But it's quite another to explicitly or implicitly oppose strengthening the safety net because it doesn't automatically solve racism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Look, let me help you guys ignore b5. This guy recently had an interview on chapo, but his article is I think interesting to read, it being relevant to idpol: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/ta-nehisi-coates-racism-afro-pessimism-reparations-class-struggle One thing that frustrates me about modern idpol is that the biggest tool is essentially a public shaming, a useful tool for sure, but it totally relies on the other party being shamed into submission which automatically puts a limit on what you can accomplish. Contrast the strike vs the Hardvard reparations case, there is no way to use the methods of the latter to solve the problems of the former, because bad working conditions are not something one can "shame away". It's no wonder why people move away from idpol if it can't be used to solve the problems they face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Well at a certain point it loses its effectiveness especially when the target feels there is degree of hypocrisy (ie classism) involved. I mean the push at the moment is to have two parties of the wealth, but each one users different forms of idpol. It is also why the situation is pretty hopeless since everyone should know by now how little the leadership of the Democratic Party actually wants to change anything (especially considering the signals they seem to give out). Also, I don't think moderate Republicans really give a poo poo about social issues important to Democrats, and even if you talk about something like education, they are going to refuse to pay higher taxes for it. Admittedly moderate Republicans are probably educated enough (usually a BA/BS degree) to know not to be as outwardly racist and mind their language but thats about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
This kind of adds to my feeling that Democrats have stopped caring about anything other than the presidency and then just accomplish everything via EOs and hope that nationally they didn't get kicked out. It probably would have actually worked if it wasn't for the Electoral College.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
Radish posted:This kind of adds to my feeling that Democrats have stopped caring about anything other than the presidency and then just accomplish everything via EOs and hope that nationally they didn't get kicked out. It probably would have actually worked if it wasn't for the Electoral College. Yeah, I mean, there's something to the strategy when the imperial presidency is only going to get more and more powerful going forward. It's just a problem when you, um...don't win that election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:idpol is dissecting a poster's use of the word "blacks" instead of actually calling for antiracist policy, like a $15 minimum wage I could give a poo poo about "idpol", don't loving otherize me in person by calling me a black or my people blacks; racist assholes. gohmak fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, I mean, there's something to the strategy when the imperial presidency is only going to get more and more powerful going forward. It's just a problem when you, um...don't win that election. gohmak posted:I could give a poo poo about "idpol", don't loving otherize me in person by calling me a black or my people blacks; racist assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:idpol is dissecting a poster's use of the word "blacks" instead of actually calling for antiracist policy, like a $15 minimum wage That's a pretty dumb position you're adopting here, dude. Don't call black people "blacks." Rent-A-Cop posted:It makes perfect sense once you realize that the goal is to never accomplish anything and always have someone else to blame it on. Astonishingly "gridlock forever" turned out to be an uninspiring campaign slogan. Eh, I think a lot of these politicians are more ego-driven than you're giving credit. They may not be terribly ideologically committed to things like reducing income inequality, but they do like to win. They just aren't very good at it, because people like Brian "Panera Bread strategy!!!" Fallon are walking textbook definitions of Dunning–Kruger. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, I mean, there's something to the strategy when the imperial presidency is only going to get more and more powerful going forward. It's just a problem when you, um...don't win that election. And as we've seen, even winning the presidency doesn't do your party much good if the other party controls one or both branches of Congress for three-quarters of your term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's a pretty dumb position you're adopting here, dude. Don't call black people "blacks." I didn't and wouldn't. But I don't see how it's terribly productive to shame someone for using the word. In fact, shaming people for their bad word choices seems to offer little to nothing in terms of results. It would be different if his statement actually had some horrific racial undertone but it's literally "Candian doesn't understand American liberal standards for racial discourse" gohmak posted:I could give a poo poo about "idpol", don't loving otherize me in person by calling me a black or my people blacks; racist assholes.  I never called you anything but there are probably more valuable hills to die on than "an ignorant liberal Canadian used a word I don't like"
NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I didn't and wouldn't. But I don't see how it's terribly productive to shame someone for using the word. In fact, shaming people for their bad opinions seems to offer little to nothing in terms of results. Eh there isn't anything wrong with pointing out specific problems of certain speech and trying to correct that behavior, especially if this person is someone your supposing to reason with. Let's call a cigar a cigar and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Eh there isn't anything wrong with pointing out specific problems of certain speech and trying to correct that behavior, especially if this person is someone your supposing to reason with. Sure, if that's what was happening. It just escalates to quote:I could give a poo poo about "idpol" ... racist assholes. And I didn't even use the word "blacks" to describe people of color.... I'm sorry but using a word insensitively doesn't make you as racist rear end in a top hat, as much as hyperliberals in America would like to have you believe NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Gee this Brainiac Five person seems like an rear end and super annoying (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Sure, if that's what was happening. It just escalates to I agree with you but I think this is something one shouldn't even spend any energy talking about or even rebutting. As much as hyperliberals, as you say, make this a hill to die on, and use as an argument regularly to defend corporatists like Hillary who would in fact if elected president much likely have perpetuated the conditions of systemic racism while paying useless lipserve to minorities, it's not a fight worth having.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
The last ten pages are gonna make me go out and vote Republican just out of spite from having read them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So do any of y'all see any inherent conflict between left-wing principles and catering to nativism? If you don't know what nativism means, feel free to ask. This is from a while back, but I think the key misunderstanding here is that "catering to X group" doesn't mean "catering to everything X group wants." When people say "cater to the rural poor" they don't mean "be racist and support cracking down on illegals"; they mean to focus on the actual good things that would benefit that group. So something like revitalizing infrastructure in poor rural/Rust Belt towns is "catering to the rural poor" but doesn't involve agreeing with racism or whatever you're implying. Obviously there will still be a bunch of people who prioritize their racism above other issues and can't be persauded, but at the end of the day the goal isn't to convince most of these people; you only need to persuade a relatively small portion to affect election results. Brainiac Five posted:The majority of people in the middle class as that term is used colloquially, not the definition you cooked up to avoid having to concede anything, are not self-employed. 50% of doctors, for that matter, are not self-employed and are Marxian proletarians. This is correct, though I believe that there's an additional important distinction between "people who make enough money that they have complete financial security and are shielded from any real risk of becoming financially insolvent (assuming no transparently stupid financial decisions)" and "people who are constantly at a reasonable risk of financial insolvency (for example from healthcare expenses, etc)". While the former are still proletarians in a Marxist sense, I believe that they have significantly different political interests than what's generally considered the "working class." Most importantly, these are people who would be worse off under a hypothetical political system where social welfare was dramatically improved. For example, a lawyer making $150k, while technically part of the proletariat, would ultimately have nothing to gain (other than possibly societal stability) from policy enriching the poor/middle classes. As a result, I don't think such demographics will ever be useful allies towards accomplishing the goal of fighting poverty, inequality, etc. Brainiac Five posted:It is, however, creepy to talk as if Americans are mentally inferior to Canadians and intimate that you must rule over us. I get where you're coming from with the "are you saying X people don't know what's best for them", but using that logic literally any democratically elected government at any point in history was technically the best for the people who voted for it (which obviously isn't true). I think that, generally speaking, people are capable of recognizing when a political group is directly malicious towards them (which is why black people generally support Democrats over Republicans), but absent that sort of obvious malice people can be persuaded of a very wide range of ideas (or have ideas instilled in them through cultural osmosis). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
Yes, racism functions most of time politically as an answer to social antagonisms, it's a way conservative politics channel popular rage, what's called in political theory populism. Therefore the best way to fight racism is to channel that rage against the system itself, taking the focus off the alien or the cultural/racial enemy. This is as said not catering to racism, but it's precisely to best way to sublimate it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:00
|
|