|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
William Contraalto posted:I believe that all this bullshit about whether I'm a rereg or not is a disgusting attempt at intimidation, and that your indifference to it points to a severe problem in how you conceive of conversation.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
can't be effectronica, not enough references to torture
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:haha nope You see, Condiv, you want a conversation to happen while guys like this are constantly hooting and hollering and cheering. Do you really believe that that's possible?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:You see, Condiv, you want a conversation to happen while guys like this are constantly hooting and hollering and cheering. Do you really believe that that's possible? my discourse!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
deflecting someone by demanding that they first condemn every other random shitposter in the thread IS classic effectronica. im actually kinda convinced
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:deflecting someone by demanding that they first condemn every other random shitposter in the thread IS classic effectronica. im actually kinda convinced Well, alternatively he could stop wanting things he can't have, like conversations, and focus on more achievable goals like pet unicorns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:I believe in materialism as praxis. I believe in looking at things and analyzing them. I believe that banking on white people becoming less likely to support white supremacy because you've promised them economic benefits is extremely suspect at best, and actively detrimental to anti-racism at worst. like i said, i don't think most people in the thread are banking on winning trump voters, rather non-voters. i certainly am. but if they were, why would that bother you more than dems literally banking on racist standard republicans (much like trump himself) during the 2016 election? and yes, anyone who's arguing that social justice can be wholly replaced with focus on economic justice is being a fool. we have to focus on both to achieve true justice. quote:I believe that all this bullshit about whether I'm a rereg or not is a disgusting attempt at intimidation, and that your indifference to it points to a severe problem in how you conceive of conversation. people are going to claim bullshit about you in threads will. just today shrike was trying to pretend i moved away from the us in response to trump's election. begging others to defend you is a bad look
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:like i said, i don't think most people in the thread are banking on winning trump voters, rather non-voters. i certainly am. but if they were, why would that bother you more than dems literally banking on racist standard republicans (much like trump himself) during the 2016 election? Why would bad leftism bother me more than bad non-leftism? Indeed, why would anyone engage in criticism at all when there are still liberals around? This is sounding eerily like the Socialist Worker's Party over in the UK, which brings up the need to voice criticism as loudly as possible to forestall the kinds of abuses that they committed and covered up. Thing is, there's this little thing called structure. If you really want conversation, you'd do it where it's structurally possible. Which it isn't in this thread. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:I believe that all this bullshit about whether I'm a rereg or not is a disgusting attempt at intimidation Oh noooo, not a disgusting attempt at intimidation in the Dems are a waste thread!  You tipped your hand too much there, bro.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh noooo, not a disgusting attempt at intimidation in the Dems are a waste thread! Do you have brain damage? Between this post and the one where you said a socialist-reactionary coalition dominated American politics between 1932 and 1968, I really have to wonder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:I believe that banking on white people becoming less likely to support white supremacy because you've promised them economic benefits is extremely suspect at best, and actively detrimental to anti-racism at worst. Look at the economy in the 50s and 60s, then look at the civil rights movement, and then ask yourself if, perhaps, the success of one fed into the success of the other. The North had a per-capita income of 2-to-1 against the South (not including slaves) pre-Civil War. (Gavin Wright - Slavery and American Economic Development). Isn't it weird how the poorer region loved white supremacy while the richer region was much more willing to break it? But this is all irrelevant. I will echo what people keep telling you: the point here is to activate the enormous number of people (45%) who did not vote because they feel they aren't going to be helped. Not flip Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:Do you have brain damage? Between this post and the one where you said a socialist-reactionary coalition dominated American politics between 1932 and 1968, I really have to wonder. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Look at the economy in the 50s and 60s, then look at the civil rights movement, and then ask yourself if, perhaps, the success of one fed into the success of the other. This is the real point. I was talking with the clerk at a gas station I go to for ben and jerrys once a month, and she said she wanted the rich to pay, but that she couldn't vote because no one represented her. Those people are who we need to get out to vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Look at the economy in the 50s and 60s, then look at the civil rights movement, and then ask yourself if, perhaps, the success of one fed into the success of the other. The Civil Rights Movement never held a majority of white support until after it was effectively over, and the poorer Southerners were more likely to support the Republican Party during Reconstruction. Okay, so we can ask whether non-voters don't vote because they're not being advertised to, or whether they don't vote because of massive voter suppression efforts, or whether they don't vote because they're indifferent to politics, or whether they don't vote because they're socialists, and what proportion each answer makes up of the total non-voting population. Since that's fairly important. Crowsbeak posted:This is the real point. I was talking with the clerk at a gas station I go to for ben and jerrys once a month, and she said she wanted the rich to pay, but that she couldn't vote because no one represented her. Those people are who we need to get out to vote. Okay, Thomas Friedman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:The Civil Rights Movement never held a majority of white support until after it was effectively over, and the poorer Southerners were more likely to support the Republican Party during Reconstruction. Hey' you're the one who hates the poor. Also. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Go away, Eff. You were perma-ed for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:The Civil Rights Movement never held a majority of white support until after it was effectively over, and the poorer Southerners were more likely to support the Republican Party during Reconstruction. I'm editing this a bit, but this is absolutely the way a certain perma-banned poster used to argue: with de-contextualized facts and obfuscations, peppered with insults. Whether or not William is them is irrelevant: it's not productive to respond to this person. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Sep 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Ok, I wasn't sure before but you're absolutely Effectronica. You give yourself away too easily, this is EXACTLY the kind of poo poo you do. Get help. Telling someone they're insane, or that they're some boogeyman poster, because they don't agree immediately with your theory that racism is caused by poverty, is rather unusual as a response. I hope you get help for your clear post-traumatic stress disorder. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I'm editing this a bit, but this is absolutely the way a certain perma-banned poster used to argue: with de-contextualized facts and obfuscations, peppered with insults. Whether or not William is them is irrelevant: it's not productive to respond to this person. Okay, so what's the context which proves racism is a function of being poor, then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
One last time: racism is hugely exacerbated by poverty, not caused by it. That's it. Bye.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:One last time: racism is hugely exacerbated by poverty, not caused by it. That's it. Bye. I don't think that this is the case, since the poorest white people do lean Democratic even with all the neoliberalism. This would also seem to suggest that the Koch Brothers are some of the least racist people in America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:I don't think that this is the case, since the poorest white people do lean Democratic even with all the neoliberalism. This would also seem to suggest that the Koch Brothers are some of the least racist people in America. Except none of this logically follows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
lol we had JC last week and effectronica this week, who's on next week? does MIGF still post?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Except none of this logically follows. Maybe you could, while explaining the flaws in the logic, lay out stronger evidence for the idea that racism is primarily caused by being poor. Because if racism is exacerbated by poverty, you would expect the poorest white people (I am not going to pretend that any of you were thinking about people of color when you wrote "racism is exacerbated by poverty") to vote most strongly for the most white supremacist party. Even if it's somehow a flat effect, you would expect all poor white people to vote similarly. But this is not the case. Going back to the TNC article, if we understand white supremacy's promise of solidarity breaking down when people are in destitution, this is easily understandable. We can also point to other potential factors, such as the poorest whites potentially being more likely to live in integrated communities. Which goes back to understanding racism as a materialist phenomenon, where people's racist ideology is reinforced by a racist structuring of society, which can best be alleviated through the use of power to force material equality through integrating schools, neighborhoods, encouraging POC-owned businesses, shifting the renter/owner differential in wealth, etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:Maybe you could, while explaining the flaws in the logic, lay out stronger evidence for the idea that racism is primarily caused by being poor. You're both confusing, "exacerbate," with, "causes," and assuming racism is a one or two variable problem. I'll admit to only skimming the previous discussion but I thought this -- quote:racism is hugely exacerbated by poverty, not caused by it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:You're both confusing, "exacerbate," with, "causes," and assuming racism is a one or two variable problem. This is just Russell's Teapot. If poverty is the primary driver of racism but we cannot see that empirically, we are relying entirely on axioms. And we should ask why we must believe in these axioms. And you're not providing any explanation as to why there's a meaningful difference between "heavily exacerbated by" and "primarily caused by" beyond pure pedantry. Because both are not claiming a singular cause, but both are claiming that it's the primary factor involved, in order to make the argument that a general improvement in prosperity without addressing structural racial disparities will (be the most important factor to) end racism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:This is just Russell's Teapot. lol quote:If poverty is the primary driver of racism Was this claimed? Like I said, I skimmed. I'm working off the statement of his which I quoted. quote:And you're not providing any explanation as to why there's a meaningful difference between "heavily exacerbated by" and "primarily caused by" beyond pure pedantry. "Primarily caused," implies poverty's sufficient for racism and substantially necessary for racism. "Heavily exacerbated," does none of that. It is a very different claim. Edit: Personally, I think racism's overdetermined. Lots of causes. And while I haven't researched racism and its origins before, my family's very right wing and racism's part and parcel to how the biggest gently caress ups synthesize pride. This biases me to take claims it exacerbates racism at face value because I've seen it do as much in a number of people. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Sep 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:lol Okay, so pedantry and a refusal to address the central argument, which is, no matter whether you use "primary driver" or "heavily exacerbated" or "the primary cause of", that the position, as you have stated it, relies on the invisibility of its claim to empirical evidence. Since we have abandoned rationality, it's probably worth asking why it's so important to you to believe that poor people are more racist than you are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Would racism still be a problem in a post-scarcity society, to the extent that it is a problem in ours?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Would racism still be a problem in a post-scarcity society, to the extent that it is a problem in ours? I would think that depends on the particulars of the society, since if absolute equality is freely available with no one able to limit access to resources, then of course racism would be much reduced as a problem, but that doesn't mean that poor people are more racist, or that if they are more racist, it's because poverty makes you more racist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:Okay, so pedantry and a refusal to address the central argument, which is, no matter whether you use "primary driver" or "heavily exacerbated" or "the primary cause of", that the position, as you have stated it, relies on the invisibility of its claim to empirical evidence. Illiteracy has trapped you in a strange, confusing world
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Illiteracy has trapped you in a strange, confusing world You said: Accretionist posted:and assuming racism is a one or two variable problem. As a response to William Contraalto posted:Maybe you could, while explaining the flaws in the logic, lay out stronger evidence for the idea that racism is primarily caused by being poor. Which would mean that it's a counter to the argument. Which would mean that your argument, which counters evidence by saying "well the effects are swamped by other factors", without providing any further evidence, requires that this proposition be taken as an axiom. Maybe you have misspoken. You are free to correct or clarify at any time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Would racism still be a problem in a post-scarcity society, to the extent that it is a problem in ours? “If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power. Racism gets its power from capitalism. Thus, if you're anti-racist, whether you know it or not, you must be anti-capitalist. The power for racism, the power for sexism, comes from capitalism, not an attitude.” --Stokely Carmichael
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
It must be very lonely behind these walls of indecipherable speech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:It's not. You appear to be strawmanning then misconstruing statements to that effect as the extent of the opposition's position. Okay, so you made a meaningless aside that was meant to look as if it was a response to something. Guess we're done here. EDIT: Ah, and you edited it to be even more condescending. Charming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:It must be very lonely behind these walls of indecipherable speech. Its B5, the thread might stop being about his mental illness once mods do something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:“If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power. Racism gets its power from capitalism. Thus, if you're anti-racist, whether you know it or not, you must be anti-capitalist. The power for racism, the power for sexism, comes from capitalism, not an attitude.” So, the cool part of this post is that it's being used to support an argument that the proletariat are more racist than the bourgeoisie, which is pretty funny but also pretty worrying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:So, the cool part of this post is that it's being used to support an argument that the proletariat are more racist than the bourgeoisie, which is pretty funny but also pretty worrying. Not true, but since you literally thought what I was saying was "wealth is the universal cure for racism" I'm not gonna waste my time. Not productive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Not true, but since you literally thought what I was saying was "wealth is the universal cure for racism" I'm not gonna waste my time. Not productive. No, I thought you were saying that you believed that general prosperity is what leads to victories for anti-racism, and because you have consistently defended the inane proposition that poor people are more racist than middle-class or rich people, I believe I think correctly. Your argument is theoretically justifiable, as well, but it would be focusing on prosperity of color, as it were, rather than the status of white people. I doubt it would necessarily prove correct, but it's arguable rather than risible. Anyways, I'm not surprised that you demand that the person you're talking to does all the interpretive labor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:I would think that depends on the particulars of the society, since if absolute equality is freely available with no one able to limit access to resources, then of course racism would be much reduced as a problem, but that doesn't mean that poor people are more racist, or that if they are more racist, it's because poverty makes you more racist. William Contraalto posted:So, the cool part of this post is that it's being used to support an argument that the proletariat are more racist than the bourgeoisie, which is pretty funny but also pretty worrying. Post-scarcity makes it harder / impossible for the bourgeoisie to do that, if they even exist. The same can be said of socialism if in muted form.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The bourgeoisie is in a better position to stoke racial division and animosity among the proletariat in the interest of preventing class consciousness and solidarity from emerging there. It's the job of the left to fight that, and in the process it sounds like we're making excuses for racists - in effect we are. It's not a good look, but you gotta do what you gotta do. This is an extremely vulgar Marxism that amounts to a conspiracy theory. Do you really think that the bourgeoisie don't believe in capitalism? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
Man, Verrit is nakedly hostile to the progressive wing:
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:56
|
|