|
The biggest barrier to discussing prison slavery is partisanship, honestly. My-team partisanship and the bizarre cults of personality around figures like the Clintons that accompany it makes it impossible to criticize those politicians for supporting the prison industrial complex and the government's complicity or active role committing the exploitation outright if it keeps taxes low on the 1%, because hyperpartisans who would condemn it if Republicans were the only ones doing it jump in and leap to the defense of all these things rather than admit that their idols might support bad things and that by extension they themselves are enabling these atrocities. Then they'll bring up FDR expecting the critics of slavery to flip and start defending it if FDR is doing it, because they think everyone else's politics consist of the same cult of personality and the same doublethink when it comes to the party line.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
like, from the angle you guys are approaching it from I don't think you get what i think the leftist view is: all presidents were shitheads/acab/etc. leftists generally want the disestablishment of systemic oppression, and will give support to people who would enact policies that curb it so long it acts as a means to an end. the person themself is unimportant, and if they start to get in the way of those policies, down the memory hole they go (but with the successful policies of their legacy plucked from their corpse).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Then they'll bring up FDR expecting the critics of slavery to flip and start defending it if FDR is doing it, because they think everyone else's politics consist of the same cult of personality and the same doublethink when it comes to the party line. I was expecting a bunch of deflection and attempts to draw a false distinction and that's exactly what happened? Criticizing prison slavery is great. Criticizing prison slavery by talking only about Hillary rodham clinton is curious. Shockingly, when I criticize prison slavery by talking about FDR, lots of people no longer want to talk about prison slavery! It was so long ago, you see, and the man is dead, so there's no point in discussing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
i worship President Franklin Dave "Frankie Dee" Rosevelt and i will not have him besmirched in this thread or any other
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I was expecting a bunch of deflection and attempts to draw a false distinction and that's exactly what happened? A dead man who will not be running for president is not why we still have prison slavery, we still have prison slavery because living politicians support it and people like you can't countenance any criticism of your idols. Every time you bring that up I say "yeah FDR was wrong for that" and you pretend not to hear it because you want to believe everyone else has the same cult of personality for politicians that you do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:A dead man who will not be running for president is not why we still have prison slavery, we still have prison slavery because living politicians support it and people like you can't countenance any criticism of your idols. Please understand this JC. FDR was good in some ways, but nobody is propping him up as great on prison labor. I may agree with you about HRC, but this line of reasoning is not very convincing. If you were just going for a reaction you could have chosen a better and more recent example than FDR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
The draft is slavery IMHO. roosevelt used slaves to fight WW2
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:The draft is slavery IMHO. roosevelt used slaves to fight WW2 Not wrong. I think we all agree Calibanibal is the official best poster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
It's hard to choose a more recent example because the far left has been the most vocal critics of the military and prison industries for decades, and liberals are used to sneering at them because don't you know, wars are how you get elected and you have to be tough on crime because if prisons aren't inhumane hellholes then superpredators would be emboldened obviously. You have to go pretty far back to find a figure you can use for whataboutism, FDR works great for that because internment was inhumane and that makes modern slavery okay somehow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's hard to choose a more recent example because the far left has been the most vocal critics of the military and prison industries for decades, and liberals are used to sneering at them because don't you know, wars are how you get elected and you have to be tough on crime because if prisons aren't inhumane hellholes then superpredators would be emboldened obviously. I mean Obama chose not to free the 17,000+ slaves he used to fill holes in the budget, so yeah going straight to FDR is odd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
jeffersonclay's posting is tainted with prison failaids blood
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The number of households who scrape by on less than two dollars a day or less - we're talking hundreds of thousands of people here, primarily women and children - has doubled, even taking into account SNAP and other in-kind benefits. The number of people who go to bed hungry every night - and now we're talking tens of millions of people - more than doubled since the 1990s. Both these statements are objectively wrong. Your data doesn't show a doubling in extreme poverty when we take into account SNAP and other benefits. Food insecurity has returned to the levels we saw before 2007 before the great recession. As I've repeatedly stated, you dullard, extreme poverty and food insecurity are not things we should ignore. But we also shouldn't ignore the tens of millions of people that have been lifted out of poverty by the safety net. 200,000 people really is a small population when compared to 20,000,000. quote:Other than grossly trying to downplay these numbers or pretend it's just "a small number of people" ( That's literally what welfare reform did in the 90's. It took away direct assistance to the poor and redirected it towards wage supplements for the working poor like the EITC. I'm sorry the depth of your ignorance on this subject is impeding our discussion. quote:Anti-minimum wage arguments rely on a supply and demand model of labour markets and have absolutely no relation to this argument. I guess you intuitively know you're on weak ground here because you are desperate to shift the conversation to something else. I'm not making an argument about employment wrt the minimum wage. I'm making an argument about prices. People out of the labor force, by definition, do not benefit from increased wages. Minimum wage increases are, at least in part, paid for with price increases. So poor people out of the labor force are unambiguously harmed by minimum wage increases. If you only focus on the bottom 1%, minimum wage hikes look like bad policy. That's why we should consider the impacts of policy on both the working poor and the nonworking poor, which you refuse to do. quote:And again, we're not even debating specific policies here. We're debating your ridiculous claim that the government has never done a better job of taking care of people than it has done in the last ten years, a claim that seems both absurd and cruel once you know that the number of people going to sleep hungry has increased by more than half since the late 1990s. Do you understand what a comparison is? I'm comparing the welfare state as it existed at the end of the Obama administration with the welfare state 20, 40, or 60 years ago. It's not enough to say "people are going to bed hungry", because that was happening 20, 40, and 60 years ago, too. The welfare state has never been sufficient. To win this argument, you need to defend some other point in history as having a better welfare state than we did at the end of the Obama administration. Here's why you will continue to fail at this: 1) You don't understand the nature of the argument and will continue to talk about how the welfare state is bad -- which it is -- instead of talking about how it's worse than before, which it isn't. 2) You cannot identify a metric that we could use to make a direct comparison about the efficacy of the welfare state over the past 80 years. I don't think a better one than the supplemental poverty measure exists, but even if it did I'm not real worried that you'll be able to find and understand it. Here is your challenge. Find a metric that allows us to compare the welfare state in 1968, 1993, and today, that indicates that the welfare state started failing in 1996, and which also indicates the great society programs worked in any meaningful way in the first place. If you can do that, and the metric indicates that welfare reform really did make the safety net less effective at lifting people out of poverty, we can have a debate about which metric is better. I won't hold my breath.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:28
|
|
) your only substantive reply is to suggest that somehow the tens of millions of hungry people or the hundreds of thousands of people living on $2 a day were the necessary cost of lifting everyone else out of poverty.
|
Trabisnikof posted:I mean Obama chose not to free the 17,000+ slaves he used to fill holes in the budget, so yeah going straight to FDR is odd. Obama is also part of the Democratic establishment, so hyperpartisans would never bring that up because that reflects on the modern-day party as much or more than the Clintons do. The entire point of whataboutism is to bring up something completely unrelated and then say "why aren't you spending 100% of your time talking about this bad thing, instead of the bad thing we are doing, clearly you don't really care and you're just criticizing our actions because of a personal dislike on your part." Defenders of apartheid in my country argued the same way: other bad people do bad things so if you ever bring up what we are doing then you're not using this time to talk about something else, so you must just irrationally hate us and therefore apartheid is not actually bad. It's not too convincing to third parties, but it helps the bad actor rationalize what they're doing because it's a catch-all response to anyone who ever criticizes their actions, ever, at any time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:
Don't put me on a pedestal... there is a sickness in me. if you knew it, you would be wary
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Please understand this JC. FDR was good in some ways, but nobody is propping him up as great on prison labor. I may agree with you about HRC, but this line of reasoning is not very convincing. If you were just going for a reaction you could have chosen a better and more recent example than FDR. You're misinterpreting my purpose here. I don't think it makes any sense to focus all prison slavery arguments about FDR 70 years ago and I don't think it makes any sense to focus all prison slavery arguments about HRC 30 years ago. If someone sat around posting about FDR being a slaver all the time, but refused to talk about republicans who promote prison slavery, I'd think hmm, maybe that person is just using prison slavery as a cudgel. I've just tested my hypothesis here and-- shockingly -- many of the people who can't stop talking about HRC's ties to prison slavery don't want to talk about FDR's prison slavery, which leads me to believe some of their reasons for constantly talking about Hillary owning slaves are not, in fact, about prison slavery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
isn't it, uh, because her slave-keeping made a news splash recently?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's hard to choose a more recent example because the far left has been the most vocal critics of the military and prison industries for decades, It's actually hard to choose a more recent example because the far left has not elected a governor or president ever. Calibanibal posted:isn't it, uh, because her slave-keeping made a news splash recently? All the HRC criticism is based on a book that was literally published 20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I've just tested my hypothesis here and-- shockingly -- many of the people who can't stop talking about HRC's ties to prison slavery don't want to talk about FDR's prison slavery, which leads me to believe some of their reasons for constantly talking about Hillary owning slaves are not, in fact, about prison slavery. No you are lying. Every time you've brought it up, including this time, I agreed that what FDR did was wrong, and the party should not endorse it and should never run someone who shares his views on internment. FYI this is exactly that tactic apartheid supporters used to use. "Whataboutwhataboutwhatabout other bad things they exist, therefore anyone who criticizes what I do is just using it as a cudgel against me, if they really cared about justice they'd spend all their time criticizing others and never me."
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Nobody talks about the GOP's stance on things because it's well known that they are complete poo poo. It's like getting pissy about us not taking into consideration flat-earthers in a discussion about the orbit of the ISS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Also lol at the idea that leftists don't attack Republicans. We attack Republicans all the time, don't want to get attacked too, stop agreeing with Republicans on prisons, wars, wages, labor, and welfare!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
yeah but the slavery in the book made a news splash recently because somebody finally decided to read it. right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No you are lying. Every time you've brought it up, including this time, I agreed that what FDR did was wrong, and the party should not endorse it and should never run someone who shares his views on internment. You did a great job and passed the test vitalsigns! These posters did not. Rodatose posted:politicians who lived in times with different values are all going to be bad, WampaLord posted:FDR died before any of us were born you loving moron. BadOptics posted:Did you know that Karl Marx invested money in STOCKS?!?! Why aren't we talking about that guys??? VitalSigns posted:If FDR ran, or if someone else ran for president on his legacy and wrote a book where they said "at first I was scared to be near Japanese internees because what if they attack me, but after I got to know them I realized that the troublemakers were easy to control and the rest were fine workers whose free labor was great for the state budget!" I promise you it would come up. Wait sorry that last one was you minimizing the influence of FDR's racism on FDR's slaving.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
goddamn it vitalsign ya done hosed up
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
if you had passed the goblin's test he would have been banished back to the dark dimension
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Wait sorry that last one was you minimizing the influence of FDR's racism on FDR's slaving. I did no such thing. You're just lying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:yeah but the slavery in the book made a news splash recently because somebody finally decided to read it. right? lol it takes a village sold around 700,000 copies, was on the bestseller list for 18 weeks and won a grammy
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Did you read the post that it was quoted or are you incapable of basic reading comprehension? And your response to that was to compare the left, writ-large, to Nazis, after you've spent months talking about how much you hate the left. And yet you continue to whine about how unfair and mean we are. You keep doing you, Loam. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
It's relevant bc hillary is still an influencer or emblematic of the way many in the party act now, showing they havent changed but need to. If california dems werent defending the use of inmates to fight fires as something ~☆men and women both do☆~ you might have a point that we should move on. But you havent, policy-wise. Or in any other way, as shown by you trying to defend its use by parroting a justification about black inmates lacking emotional intelligence
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You did a great job and passed the test vitalsigns! These posters did not. Interment was loving terrible. FDR was a bad bad man for doing it. He also did a lot of good things, because people are complicated and very few people are all good or all bad. Can we move the gently caress on?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I did no such thing. You're just lying. E: i mean at least quote a complete sentence next time, the comma still being there at the end is a giveaway that youre doing a bad spin job Rodatose fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Oct 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:lol it takes a village sold around 700,000 copies, was on the bestseller list for 18 weeks and won a grammy Sounds like her fans have a pretty massive racial blind spot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You did a great job and passed the test vitalsigns! These posters did not. At LAST!! After 10,000 years I finally have mproof that Bernie Bros are the real racists!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
i will bite off my tongue before i denounce a single hair on FDR's head. I will NEVER
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Unfortunately we cannot move on, because if anyone says that prison slavery is wrong and the Democratic Party ought to reject it and anyone who defends it needs to change or be primaried, FDR will inevitably be brought up to "prove" that no one is really against slavery, and anyone who says "slavery is bad and should stop" must just hate the Democrats for inscrutable, probably unsavory reasons. Interestingly it's exactly like talking to a Republican about, well anything. "Well I only use morality as a cudgel to attack others for things that are okay when my side does it, so everyone else must be just as cynical and amoral as me!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory Bitch mode bitch mode bitch mode quote:But in 1860 Herbert Spencer formulated a counter-argument that has remained influential throughout the 20th century to the present: Spencer said that such great men are the products of their societies, and that their actions would be impossible without the social conditions built before their lifetimes. Why does all the good poo poo never get repeated yet we have loving nazi frogs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I did no such thing. You're just lying. "People would talk about Japanese internment more if FDR had written about his racist motivations for enslaving Japanese people!" (he did) Rodatose posted:It's relevant bc hillary is still an influencer or emblematic of the way many in the party act now, showing they havent changed but need to. If california dems werent defending the use of inmates to fight fires as something ~☆men and women both do☆~ you might have a point that we should move on. But you havent, policy-wise. Or in any other way, as shown by you trying to defend its use by parroting a justification about black inmates lacking emotional intelligence The absolute dumbest part of this debate is people earnestly arguing that convicted murderers do not have emotional intelligence deficits. Maybe someone wants to take another stab at blaming their culture?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Yep you have not moved on from your phrenology, keep loving that watermelon
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Unfortunately we cannot move on, because if anyone says that prison slavery is wrong and the Democratic Party ought to reject it and anyone who defends it needs to change or be primaried, FDR will inevitably be brought up to "prove" that no one is really against slavery, and anyone who says "slavery is bad and should stop" must just hate the Democrats for inscrutable, probably unsavory reasons. I agree, if people were criticizing Hillary Clinton's (or any other democrat's) existing policies on prison reform rather than posting "Hillary owned slaves", I'd have nothing to complain about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"People would talk about Japanese internment more if FDR had written about his racist motivations for enslaving Japanese people!" (he did) No dude, I said that if FDR was the Democratic party's presidential candidate last year, or if the Democratic establishment's choice for the candidate wrote a book about how great that free labor was from internment people would definitely talk about it, just like we've discussed modern-day slavery perpetrated by other American politicians not named Hillary Clinton in this thread and in USPOL (which the usual suspects also tried to shut down because it makes the Democrats look bad, and what else are we supposed to do, raise taxes to pay for goods and services, people hate taxes!) Is slavery good, JeffersonClay? Do the tax savings and corporate profits from free labor justify enslaving prisoners and finding ever more excuses to imprison the highest percentage of people compared to any other country (except North Korea)? If the answers to these questions are no, what do we do about politicians who support them? Do we criticize their positions and support challengers to them if they refuse to change their stance? Or do we stay silent about the ones on our team for fear of making Democrats look bad and take the baldly hypocritical stance that it's okay when we do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I agree, if people were criticizing Hillary Clinton's (or any other democrat's) existing policies on prison reform rather than posting "Hillary owned slaves", I'd have nothing to complain about. Hillary owned slaves
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:13
|
|