|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Ytlaya posted: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. Ytlaya, my prolix friend, nobody has suggested appealing to moderate Republicans with tax cuts either. The point is that it's not obvious, from my perspective, that nativist people will be willing to vote for Democrats if they're pro-immigrant, just like Republicans are willing to let bridges collapse before voting for anyone that isn't pro-tax cuts. The point is the asymmetry where racism, like Fados has so helpfully said, is not ideological but is instead the natural human condition of people in poverty and can only be addressed by eliminating poverty. This ties in very well to posts about how language can never be racist and people who think it is are hypersensitive SJWs.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
I've said no such thing, if anything i've said that the political results of poverty are actually always mediated by ideology. I don't believe in clear cut distinction between instinctive 'human nature' and ideology. That's the conservative view point if anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Fados posted:I've said no such thing, if anything i've said that the political results of poverty are actually always mediated by ideology. I don't believe in clear cut distinction between instinctive 'human nature' and ideology. That's the conservative view point if anything. Insisting that people are racist because they're poor requires a belief in human nature, since ideology is something that must be transmitted. I mean, it's also self-evidently ridiculous but it's also self-evidently not meant to hold up to any scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Insisting that people are racist because they're poor requires a belief in human nature, since ideology is something that must be transmitted. It requires a belief that everyone is susceptible to ideological prejudices and that poor people are susceptible to different ideological traps than middle-class or capitalists due too their class. But it's too simple to say that poor people are racist because they are poor and I'm not saying that. It's clear rich people can be pretty racist. Racism in poor people or rich people function in different ways: in poor people it's a way to justify their lower position, in rich people it's precisely the opposite. But you can build other narratives for why they are poor, narratives that build solidarity across all types of poor or discriminated people. Unfortunately it doesnt work if the group whose struggle we should share should include Wall Street like Hillary wanted. They don't get to join us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Fados posted:It requires a belief that everyone is susceptible to ideological prejudices and that poor people are susceptible to different ideological traps than middle-class or capitalists due too their class. But it's too simple to say that people are racist because they are poor, it's clear rich people can be pretty racist. Racism in poor people or rich people function in different ways: in poor people it's a way to justify their lower position, in rich people it's precisely the opposite. But you can build other narratives for why they are poor, narratives that build solidarity across all types of poor or discriminated people. Unfortunately it doesnt work if the that group whose struggle we should share must include Wall Street, like Hillary wanted. They don't get to join us. Okay, you managed to avoid figuring out that since racism isn't a function of socioeconomic status, there's absolutely zero loving reason to believe poverty relief makes people less racist on an aggregate level, as you previously suggested. I do appreciate that it's only bankers among the bourgeoisie that are class enemies. CEOs are our friends in the battle against George Soros and the Rothschilds...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Ytlaya, my prolix friend, nobody has suggested appealing to moderate Republicans with tax cuts either. The point is that it's not obvious, from my perspective, that nativist people will be willing to vote for Democrats if they're pro-immigrant, just like Republicans are willing to let bridges collapse before voting for anyone that isn't pro-tax cuts. The point is the asymmetry where racism, like Fados has so helpfully said, is not ideological but is instead the natural human condition of people in poverty and can only be addressed by eliminating poverty. This ties in very well to posts about how language can never be racist and people who think it is are hypersensitive SJWs. I think you're oversimplifying/overgeneralizing things. Racism doesn't have to be caused by poverty for it to be influenced by poverty, and we know that poor people are generally at least somewhat more likely to hold racist views, so unless you want to assert that racism is the cause of their poverty it stands to reason that there are factors other than innate evil/ingrained ideology that cause people to be racist. Think of it this way; if just 10% of racist people have racist that is dependent upon material conditions, it would be correct to say both "improving materials conditions for poor people will reduce racism" and "improving material conditions for poor people won't stop most of them from being racist." At the end of the day we're discussing demographics of millions of people, so "X people believe Y on average" is meaningless as an argument against a strategy that would attempt to persuade a minority of X people. By the way, there is a question unrelated to this specific post that I've been meaning to ask. What anti-racist (or anti-bigotry in general) policies/strategies are you in favor of that you believe the people in this thread are not in favor of? Because I can't help but get the impression that you never make this explicit because you know full well that most of the people in this thread would also support whatever it is you support (and maybe you'd assume that people would be either lying or not considering such policies a high priority when they agreed with you?). The only thing I can think of that some people would disagree with is the focus on "identity politics" in political rhetoric, but even then probably at least half of this thread, including myself, has no problem with "identity politics" (or at least the "talking about racism/sexism/bigotry" portion of it; I think what bothers many people is the contrast of talking about those issues but never actually doing anything that would make significant progress towards fixing them). I agree that the "racism is just the result of class conflict" people are dumb, but I don't think there are many people making that argument in these threads (and when people do make that argument there are usually other leftists who argue against them). I feel like these discussions would be a lot more productive if you (and some of the other similar posters) just flat out said "This is what I think Democrats should do, and I think it's better than what you think Democrats should do because X, Y, and Z").
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think you're oversimplifying/overgeneralizing things. Racism doesn't have to be caused by poverty for it to be influenced by poverty, and we know that poor people are generally at least somewhat more likely to hold racist views, so unless you want to assert that racism is the cause of their poverty it stands to reason that there are factors other than innate evil/ingrained ideology that cause people to be racist. Think of it this way; if just 10% of racist people have racist that is dependent upon material conditions, it would be correct to say both "improving materials conditions for poor people will reduce racism" and "improving material conditions for poor people won't stop most of them from being racist." At the end of the day we're discussing demographics of millions of people, so "X people believe Y on average" is meaningless as an argument against a strategy that would attempt to persuade a minority of X people. I straight up don't believe that absolute poverty has any meaningful relationship to racism, since otherwise Asian-American people and white people would be the least racist and black and American Indian people would be the most racist. I believe that higher levels of expressed racism among poor whites can be understood as arising from well-off people being better at hiding their racism, and by poor whites being in a worse relative position with regards to racial minorities, and unless poverty relief programs are expressly racist they won't affect the latter phenomenon. The thing is, Ytlaya, is that I don't put what people say as more revealing of their thoughts than how they act. I believe that unconscious actions and framings are important rather than irrelevant. So I can say, "reparations", or "forcible integration of housing", and you can say that you agree with those things, but if your first example of antiracism earlier was colorblind rising-tide-lifts-all-boats policies, then I won't find it credible that you do. In addition, if you say at one point that people shouldn't be bound by what is considered possible, and then at another point say that reparations are impossible, that also damages your credibility. I am using "you" as a general term here. Furthermore, as I don't have anyone willing to engage in lengthy apologetics on my behalf, whereas everyone arguing against me does have multiple persons willing to do so, putting forward positive proposals would be an inane idea even if you fuckers didn't make endless GBS-quality posts about how much you hate me and want me to... well, you don't actually believe in political revolution, so I guess you want me to vaguely suffer in the way y'all want "Wall Street" to suffer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Furthermore, as I don't have anyone willing to engage in lengthy apologetics on my behalf, whereas everyone arguing against me does have multiple persons willing to do so, putting forward positive proposals would be an inane idea even if you fuckers didn't make endless GBS-quality posts about how much you hate me and want me to... well, you don't actually believe in political revolution, so I guess you want me to vaguely suffer in the way y'all want "Wall Street" to suffer. So you're too scared to just admit what you want to see happen in the world and think that insulting every option you view as bad is a better way to get poo poo done? Also, no one here wants you to suffer, although I'm sure one of the less PC goons will make a joke claiming that they very much do want that, which I disavow preemptively.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
B5 is right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Poster who has 10 bans for wishing death upon others is scared to share his opinions because people will be too mean. There's nobody who's been more caustic in this thread than B5 and he has the audacity to claim people will just dogpile his ideas so why waste time? Like dude I don't wish for you to suffer, I wish for you to get the help you so obviously need. You're being what you're so afraid of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
I just wish effectronica would send checks directly to Lowtax's children for their college fund.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
If you don't want to talk about your political Ideas then why are you posting on the forum that's all about discussing political ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Poster who has 10 bans for wishing death upon others is scared to share his opinions because people will be too mean. There's nobody who's been more caustic in this thread than B5 and he has the audacity to claim people will just dogpile his ideas so why waste time? I didn't say anything about being mean, I'm saying you all are incapable of arguing in good faith because your positions warp and shift continuously, and additionally that you make an endless ocean of shitposts that the good-cop Majorians and Ytlayas and so on don't dare condemn, putting their professed desires for constructive discourse in a different light. As indeed, you have just ignored the positive proposals I made in order to cackle and gibber. In any case, I also wish you'd get the help you need desperately, although I don't think you'd appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
The alt-left being disingenuous is nothing new.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I straight up don't believe that absolute poverty has any meaningful relationship to racism, since otherwise Asian-American people and white people would be the least racist and black and American Indian people would be the most racist. Brainiac Five posted:The thing is, Ytlaya, is that I don't put what people say as more revealing of their thoughts than how they act. I believe that unconscious actions and framings are important rather than irrelevant. So I can say, "reparations", or "forcible integration of housing", and you can say that you agree with those things, but if your first example of antiracism earlier was colorblind rising-tide-lifts-all-boats policies, then I won't find it credible that you do. In addition, if you say at one point that people shouldn't be bound by what is considered possible, and then at another point say that reparations are impossible, that also damages your credibility. I am using "you" as a general term here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If all classes of white people are equally racist, then appealing to suburban whites is pointless because they don't care/actively hate what you're selling and you have nothing else to offer them because all they want is tax cuts. Seems like poor people are a better strategy because even if they hate antiracism they could still be persuaded by the part of the platform that materially benefits them (and in fact this is the case, the white working class does vote Democrat at higher rates than the white middle class) Why are y'all unable to understand the idea of an analogy? I give, at this point, negative fucks about you harping about suburbanites, I care about how you deal with bigoted attitudes without compromising left-wing values. Saying "well racism is inevitable and immutable hurr hurr hurr" is certainly not an encouraging answer. quote:Isn't that what you're attributing to Ytlaya here identical to Hillary Clinton's position on reparations and bussing? Hmm, and if it was, if I was saying that you were being Clintonish, what might that mean? What might be the meanings behind that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
The belief that white people are racist, by virtue of being white, is pure idpol. It has no explanatory power and no empirical basis. It's essentializing garbage. If we want to actually talk maturely about the problem, you have to start from universalism, and work from there. The causes of racism amongst any community are the same - an attempt to secure one's own safety through the exclusion of others, by falling back on archaic in-groups and out-groups. That the people who are in the most precarious position, who are acutely aware of how insecure they are, would fall back on racism, is neither a surprise nor a condemnation. That a smug and self righteous group of professionals, having no insecurities or threats to their status, are committed to disempowering the former as much as possible, for their lack of virtue, is a perverse joke. That you believe fully that the self-serving rationalizations of said professionals, constitutes a 'structural' approach against racism, is disgusting, and shows a lack of rigor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
The idea that the bourgeoisie, by virtue of benefiting from their ownership of capital, are inherently capitalist, is pure idpol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I straight up don't believe that absolute poverty has any meaningful relationship to racism, since otherwise Asian-American people and white people would be the least racist and black and American Indian people would be the most racist. The relationship between poverty and racism is what you admit in this very post: that black people are poorer. Poor white people are led to believe that "liberal elites" only care about the poverty of black people. It's a wedge that's purposefully used to prevent the two groups from working together by getting poor black people to side with the "liberal elites" and poor white people to side against them. The racism of rich white people is a result of them attempting to justify their position in society by claiming that it's a meritocracy. Since it's a meritocracy, groups that underperform must have some sort of defect, etcetera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:The alt-left being disingenuous is nothing new. nazibeak is a straight up nazi, and i think raw and nfs prefer to be called the dirtbag left
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:As indeed, you have just ignored the positive proposals I made in order to cackle and gibber. quote:So I can say, "reparations", or "forcible integration of housing", and you can say that you agree with those things Ironically enough, I do agree with those things. That's not much of a "positive proposal" though, it's two things followed immediately by the suggestion that anyone who agrees with you is just doing so to win some argument. It's just bullshit that you'll sit here for pages and poo poo all over everyone and the best you can do for a positive suggestion is "reparations". Well yeah, no loving duh. stone cold posted:nazibeak is a straight up nazi, and i think raw and nfs prefer to be called the dirtbag left I don't know what the dirtbag left is but I lean towards more authoritarian strains of leftism if that's what you mean. lol at trying to deal with climate change in any meaningful way from the bottom up
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
stone cold posted:nazibeak is a straight up nazi, and i think raw and nfs prefer to be called the dirtbag left Who is this nazibeak you speak of? Also why to ayone here should we ot concentraitnon getting out the disempowered poor? They are significantly minority, they tae up alot of supposedly red districts and they want a voce. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jun 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:The relationship between poverty and racism is what you admit in this very post: that black people are poorer. Poor white people are led to believe that "liberal elites" only care about the poverty of black people. It's a wedge that's purposefully used to prevent the two groups from working together by getting poor black people to side with the "liberal elites" and poor white people to side against them. No, I don't think that follows, since poor whites are still white and still part of the racial elite. Looking at it as resentment against white liberals is just a way to avoid looking at race.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Ironically enough, I do agree with those things. That's not much of a "positive proposal" though, it's two things followed immediately by the suggestion that anyone who agrees with you is just doing so to win some argument. The actual positive proposals are different, and intriguingly, many people have managed to figure out what they were while you stumbled around. Hell, even rudatron, a man so proverbially dumb they're putting him in the thesauruses, figured it out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No, I don't think that follows, since poor whites are still white and still part of the racial elite. Looking at it as resentment against white liberals is just a way to avoid looking at race. Actually, politics in America can be analyzed in more than one way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
It would probably help if people didn't turn on the TV or hop on the internet these days and see the visible manifestation of the left as those retards at Evergreen college, or the dipshits in Portland trying to force all ethnic food places to close. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No, I don't think that follows, since poor whites are still white and still part of the racial elite. Looking at it as resentment against white liberals is just a way to avoid looking at race. But avoiding looking at race is basically how the alt-left exists so...
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The actual positive proposals are different, and intriguingly, many people have managed to figure out what they were while you stumbled around. Hell, even rudatron, a man so proverbially dumb they're putting him in the thesauruses, figured it out. Can you quote them for me? Because I see no other positive proposals from you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Actually, politics in America can be analyzed in more than one way. This is a pretty ironic statement, I must say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:But avoiding looking at race is basically how the alt-left exists so... along with kvetching about idpol and ignoring that trump is president because of white idpol love that alt-left branding how many people here got personally "assaulted" by maxine I wonder
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
stone cold posted:ignoring that trump is president because of white idpol lol  Trump's president because the two worst choices each won their primary and the GOP base turns out without needing any incentive. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jun 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
stone cold posted:along with kvetching about idpol and ignoring that trump is president because of white idpol Maxine Waters triple suplexed me and then delivered a Frankensteiner, before she violated the NAP against Michael Tracey.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This is a pretty ironic statement, I must say. No, not really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
stone cold posted:ignoring that trump is president because of white idpol  Nice to know people are still refusing to acknowledge Hillarys terribleness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
stone cold posted:along with kvetching about idpol and ignoring that trump is president because of white idpol You see, if we completely ignore racism, we can fix income inequality and then racism will go away! This stance lets me poo poo on Democrats and I get to ignore thorny issues like racism and focus on economic slogans that even my Republican family likes!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
It would be nice if people proffered some reasons why they disagreed instead of leaving it to ESP to determine why Donald Trump was the real leftist candidate in the 2016 election. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol hmmmm quote:Identification with the Republican Party. Identifying as Republican, not surprisingly, was strongly predictive of Trump support. White working-class voters who identified as Republican were 11 times more likely to support Trump than those who did not identify as Republican. No other demographic attribute was significant. sorry, swing and a miss but, please, keep valiantly defending the white middle class, you traitor that people who support the bourgeois and make excuses for them call themselves leftists makes me sick
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Idpol encultures idpol, the people who are excluded will naturally congregate among thier own pretty tribalism. Idpol has typically been the domain of the right, its embrace on the left represents an existential threat to universal emancipation. It is garbage, and has always been garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Trump won the election because of white idpol if you only analyze one aspect of politics in America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Idpol encultures idpol, the people who are excluded will naturally congregate among thier own pretty tribalism. Idpol has typically been the domain of the right, its embrace on the left represents an existential threat to universal emancipation. It is garbage, and has always been garbage. The belief that the bourgeoisie are capitalist because they benefit from owning capital is idpol according to your chain of thinking, Rudatron the rape apologist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:45
|
|