|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Brainiac Five posted: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. Go ahead and elaborate.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
Peachfart posted: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 00:47
|
|
|
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. rudatron posted:gonna be honest, i feel like if my workplace was passing around naked photos of coworkers, i'd immediately copy that poo poo to my thumbdrive, then report it anyway 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Trump won the election because of white idpol if you only analyze on aspect of politics in America. So what aspect should we be looking at? He lost the working and lower classes and his support was strongest with the middle class and the upper class, which perforates the idea that he was the anti-elitist candidate. Maybe you're arguing that Americans aren't moral actors capable of deciding whether or not to vote for the raging racist and confessed rapist?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Go ahead and elaborate. If white people being racist because they benefit from white supremacy is unacceptable idpol, so is the idea that the bourgeoisie are capitalist because they benefit from capitalism. The train of logic is identical, but the only difference is that the one makes you feel icky in your tummy and the other stokes your thirst for blood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Peachfart posted: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! Do you really think anyone in this thread wants to "completely ignore racism". Do you think that's what it means to not immediately purge anyone who doesn't use the right pronouns and declare any Bernie supporter an ultra racistsexist? This actually agrees with me more than it disagrees but keep ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that these were the two least likable candidates in modern American politics and it was lost by the Democratic base not turning out for HRC, not won by Donald Trump for achieving the same number of votes as Mitt Romney and John McCain, noted losers of presedential elections.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
stone cold posted:hmmmm Yes the poor are the middle class. I mean I should tell the people i worked at walmart for two years and were on foodstamps despite being 40 hours a week workers they had it so good. Also effectronica I can say I don't suffer from that but thanks for your concern.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yes the poor are the middle class. I mean I should tell the people i worked at walmart for two years and were on foodstamps despite being 40 hours a week workers they had it so good. the poor voted for hillary sorry you can't read
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:If white people being racist because they benefit from white supremacy is unacceptable idpol, so is the idea that the bourgeoisie are capitalist because they benefit from capitalism. The train of logic is identical You can't choose your race but you can choose your class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Do you really think anyone in this thread wants to "completely ignore racism". Do you think that's what it means to not immediately purge anyone who doesn't use the right pronouns and declare any Bernie supporter an ultra racistsexist? quote:Economic hardship. Notably, while only marginally significant at conventional levels (P<0.1), being in fair or poor financial shape actually predicted support for Hillary Clinton among white working-class Americans, rather than support for Donald Trump. Those who reported being in fair or poor financial shape were 1.7 times more likely to support Clinton, compared to those who were in better financial shape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Do you really think anyone in this thread wants to "completely ignore racism". Do you think that's what it means to not immediately purge anyone who doesn't use the right pronouns and declare any Bernie supporter an ultra racistsexist? The fact that you mock the idea of equality for QUILTBAG people and are effectively whining about SJWs does lead me to question your commitment to antiracism, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
stone cold posted:the poor voted for hillary sorry you can't read not as much as they voted for Obama unfortunately. namely because she was a bad candidate
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
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. It doesn't explain the totality of racism, yes, but it's pretty clear that there's a connection between economic classes and racism, that one is used to sustain the other. That suggests that there's hope in realizing the nebulous fight against racism in a concrete fight against class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
stone cold posted:the poor voted for hillary sorry you can't read Enough stayed home or for Trump to win. Maybe they didn't want to vote for Mrs. Super Predators.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:You can't choose your race but you can choose your class. Such leftism. Very non-sequitur.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The fact that you mock the idea of equality for QUILTBAG people and are effectively whining about SJWs does lead me to question your commitment to antiracism, yes. I mock the idea of equality? Perhaps you'd like to show me where. I think the idea that we should vigorously police the language of anyone participating in a debate about race or racial politics to the point of declaring them "racist" because they used the wrong word is stupid, that's about it. I'm not saying we shouldn't write someone off as racist, but I don't think because someone says "blacks" they should be declared untouchable and banished to Trump tower
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
If we accept that white people are racist because they structurally benefit from racism, what kinds of policies should be pursued to curtail that the same way one would wealth inequality or capitalism itself?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:It doesn't explain the totality of racism, yes, but it's pretty clear that there's a connection between economic classes and racism, that one is used to sustain the other. That suggests that there's hope in realizing the nebulous fight against racism in a concrete fight against class. No, not really, because you could argue that racism would prevent a classless society and would merely lead to a caste system instead of socialism/communism, especially if you leave racial prejudices and structural inequalities intact or unchallenged, leaving the idea of natural racial inequality as strong as ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:If we accept that white people are racist because they structurally benefit from racism, what kinds of policies should be pursued to curtail that the same way one would wealth inequality or capitalism itself? Reperations and favorable education options. Beyond that I lack the imagination unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Ah were back to the economics vs race led to Trump argument. This is like endless regression. I'll post this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY Trump won because racism only works if you ignore the global phenomenon that's taking place across the western world, with established parties which are all landlocked in the ideological center unable to present solutions, and extreme parties cropping up, filling the shoes by presenting something that is at least different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Enough stayed home or for Trump to win. Maybe they didn't want to vote for Mrs. Super Predators. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm quote:Except Sanders failed to "stand tall" against the popular fight in 1994. He sided with the majority of Democrats when he was a member of the House and voted for the crime bill that Bill Clinton signed into law. When Sanders tried last week to explain his support for the 1994 bill, he cited the bill's ban on assault weapons as part of his reason—except the initial House version that he voted for didn't include the assault weapons ban, a provision added by the Senate. quote:The only problem? Sanders voted for the measure. It was part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that passed as part of the defense appropriations bill that year. hmmmmmmmmm quote:“Many supported the crime bill because of the circumstances at the time. Sen. Sanders voted for the bill. He has not acknowledged or apologized for his vote. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has acknowledged the racially disproportionate impacts of overly harsh crime policy for many years, and worked in the Senate to reform the criminal justice system,” Holder said in a statement to The Washington Post. "As Attorney General, I worked with President Obama to address mass incarceration, and I know Hillary Clinton is the one to continue that work and get it done. She knows our criminal justice system is broken and will make real reforms." quote:South Carolina House Democratic Leader J. Todd Rutherford said Sanders “has not always had our back” on criminal justice issues. “He voted for the 1994 crime bill. We have yet to receive an apology from Sen. Sanders," Rutherford said. "Sen. Clinton has spent her entire life fighting for criminal justice issues.” but yeah let's relitigate the primary that's not totally tedious
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I mock the idea of equality? Perhaps you'd like to show me where. Okay, so when you sneered about pronouns you were doing so in a respectful degree of contempt. And you believe that I'm murdering/imprisoning/forcing people to vote Republican, or else you're demanding people be free to use racist language without criticism. I know what Chairman Mao would call the latter!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Ah were back to the economics vs race led to Trump argument. This is like endless regression. which is why france overwhelmingly elected le pen and she took every department right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I mock the idea of equality? Perhaps you'd like to show me where. -not a black person
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so when you sneered about pronouns you were doing so in a respectful degree of contempt. And you believe that I'm murdering/imprisoning/forcing people to vote Republican, or else you're demanding people be free to use racist language without criticism. Actually ironically enough I think America could actually really use some hate speech laws. While I don't really care if some canadian dude says "blacks" in the thread, the idea that you can hop in your car and drive down the street shouting "gently caress you friend of the family" (and yes, I've seen this before in person) and not be breaking the law is a travesty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Donald Trump, who didn't win with a coalition meaningfully different from the existing Republican one, and whose policies are almost entirely in line with mainstream Republican ones, is a maverick who won because of offering an ideologically distinct position from the Republicans, who are a centrist party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
stone cold posted:hmmmmmmmmmmmmm I do not see what Bernie has to do with Clintons horribly racist comments that she when confronted with them had a proud and brave activist chucked out of an event. I think you changing the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Donald Trump, who didn't win with a coalition meaningfully different from the existing Republican one, and whose policies are almost entirely in line with mainstream Republican ones, is a maverick who won because of offering an ideologically distinct position from the Republicans, who are a centrist party. He won because he ran on being an "outsider". That's literally all it took this year. It's also why, yes, Bernie would have won.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
So how many people here would choose death over keeping quiet about how much they hate Hillary Clinton for five minutes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
stone cold posted:which is why france overwhelmingly elected le pen and she took every department the fact that a party started by a holocaust denialist even came close to getting the presidential seat should be a grave concern. the factors that led to their rise are still there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No, not really, because you could argue that racism would prevent a classless society and would merely lead to a caste system instead of socialism/communism, especially if you leave racial prejudices and structural inequalities intact or unchallenged, leaving the idea of natural racial inequality as strong as ever. I think that having white and black people join together in solidarity against the rich would challenge racial prejudices, just as integration and anything else that brings people together for a common cause challenges prejudices. Is this unreasonable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:He won because he ran on being an "outsider". That's literally all it took this year. It's also why, yes, Bernie would have won. Nope. Your Great Maple Hope would also probably have lost too, sorry. Prove me wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So how many people here would choose death over keeping quiet about how much they hate Hillary Clinton for five minutes? Why do you constantly see death around every corner? Do you live in the world of John Wick?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I think that having white and black people join together in solidarity against the rich would challenge racial prejudices, just as integration and anything else that brings people together for a common cause challenges prejudices. Is this unreasonable? Well, how are you getting people to join together in solidarity when one group generally views the other as inferior? How are you convincing white people generally to engage in solidarity instead of demanding subordination and unquestioning support from racial minorities? It seems to me like you're just begging the question, assuming that racism has been eliminated as a factor to start with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So how many people here would choose death over keeping quiet about how much they hate Hillary Clinton for five minutes? i dunno. we aren't actually talking about her? All conversations seems to be about how terrible everyone around her is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
White Rock posted:the fact that a party started by a holocaust denialist even came close to getting the presidential seat should be a grave concern. which is why the front national was founded last year and definitely jean-marie never made it to the second round right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Brainac, do you think Hillary Clinton is a good politician? Does she represent your values?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Why do you constantly see death around every corner? I'm curious why y'all can't stop bringing her up. Do you wanna gently caress her instead, like the weirdo in the last incarnation of this thread who confessed to fantasizing about her sexually assaulting them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Nope. Your Great Maple Hope would also probably have lost too, sorry. Prove me wrong. Why? Who cares? Bernie was a better choice for anti-racist policy than Hillary was. Probably because he wasn't actually a racist. Like that's what really gets me, for all this talk of racism and how bad it is, you have people like stone cold who unironically want the lady who coined the term "superpredators" to win over the guy that marched with MLKjr. I guess I just don't get how, if racism is such a problem in America, choosing the candidate with the more racist views was the "right" choice?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
White Rock posted:the fact that a party started by a holocaust denialist even came close to getting the presidential seat should be a grave concern. and they sure as hell won't go away under the reign of a corporatist liberal. expect someone even worse than le pen to take his seat next election
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 01:07
|
|