|
Squalid posted:the entire concept of a "right-wing" is meant to be a vague catch all term just as much as "left-wing". In the context of political upheaval in revolutionary Kampuchea and Maoist China it simply means people who opposed single-party rule, collectivization, and state ownership of the means of production, or who at least benefited from the pre-revolutionary economic system. It's not hard to see why some would associate them with modern Republicans, who also oppose increases in state intervention in the economy, even if in practice they differed deeply on fundamental beliefs. Right, but the comparison is still devoid of establishing causality to cardinality. For instance, people who call for nazi punching are not doing so because of a nazi's stance on economic intervention. This is important if you are trying to create an equivalency between the usage of chud and revolutionary violence. Doubly so because the imagery associated with the term seems more demeaning than dehumanize, anyway.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
To the Republicans Nancy Pelosi is a blood-sucking parasite who exists only to siphon the very life essence from a powerful, successful predator that embodies everything strong about the sea is rules over. But to the left Nancy Pelosi is a necessity to the shark, cozily swimming alongside it and carefully protecting it from any kind of rot in exchange for a pittance of nourishment that serves only to keep her alive, and as she aids it the shark grows ever larger and deadlier, providing her all the protection she needs to keep living her life free from consequences the other fish wish to inflict on her. Guys I think Ben Garrison is a secret genius.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
Squalid posted:This entire post is like a honeypot for my compulsive pedantry, but I'll limit myself to this paragraph. There's a perfectly good term for liberals who are not social democrats: liberal democrats. I don't think there's a social democrat on earth who calls themselves a liberal, and this is amply demonstrated by how he term liberal is used itt. I'm not really seeing where the hard distinction is between social democrats and liberal democrats here, other than the degree to which the government intervenes to support a welfare state and economic/social equality (and actually I don't think the definition of "liberal democracy" is even really related to that). In both cases you're talking about capitalist systems. Your third line is exactly what I meant; those things are obviously part of politics/ideology but aren't covered by the labels liberal/social democrat/socialist. LividLiquid posted:I'm so loving tired of this argument, and I'm even more loving tired of the left's circular firing squad. No one was discussing the topic of voting? I think it would be a good idea to try directly engaging with what people are saying, because I feel like a lot of the time you guys sorta fall back to treating any criticism/attacks against the center-left/Democratic Party as "a decision to not vote," and whether you realize it or not I think this is because you don't really have any other way of contesting what they're saying. Also, the general election is already over. If not now, when can this be discussed? I really don't understand the source of the obvious irritation/frustrating you're displaying in this post. I can assure you that the left is not particularly responsible for depressing Democratic turn-out (or at least they're certainly not more responsible than the politicians themselves).
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:09
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:hey ya'll lets get slightly back on topic with uspolitics and not, you know, the history of nazi germany and which centrist was at fault or eating people cause i'd like to come back to this thread in the morning and not be absurdly creeped the gently caress out And just like that my grandma's recipe for Nazi centrist human once again doesn't get it's day in the sun. Sanguinia posted:To the Republicans Nancy Pelosi is a blood-sucking parasite who exists only to siphon the very life essence from a powerful, successful predator that embodies everything strong about the sea is rules over. I know I'm in the minority, but I think Garrison has solid artistic talent. Too bad he's a shithead. 1glitch0 fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
why did Hillary win the minority vote during the 2016 primaries? why didn't this matter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:why did Hillary win the minority vote during the 2016 primaries? Because the virulence of Republican racism and Trump makes choosing the side that just intends to lock you up and return you to slave labor the sensible choice. And white people wonder why they have such a hard time empathizing with the plight of minorities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:I'm so loving tired of this argument, and I'm even more loving tired of the left's circular firing squad. There is a lot I want to address in this post. But rather than taking my usual tack and tone I'm going to go into some underlying concepts that are fundamental to successfully fighting in any conflict, no matter the arena that conflict happens to be playing out in. First of all as a quick aside let me just quickly state that the kind of unity you are looking for cannot and does not exist in any healthy political organization or ideology. Constant internal conflict over ideas is not only a given, but it's an important necessity. 1.)it's what prevents the left from going down the path right has; the reason no charismatic authoritarians have appeared on the left is because such an individual would be undercut and destroyed long before they gained a significant following, and 2.) yhe way the ideas and thinking of an ideology is shifted is through constant internal fighting like we are now experiencing. (Case in point- look at how far this forums opinions on Hillary Clinton have shifted over the past two years.) Now setting that aside let me get into a really fundamental concept of conflict that your post is completely oblivious too. If you are going to fight, then fighting on anyone's terms but your own is a great way to guarantee defeat. It doesn't matter if you're changing the terms that you fight on for your enemies sake or an ally sake, if you do it you have guaranteed your efforts will be wasted. You will simply never achieve the desired effect if you fight in a time, place, or manner that has been designated as acceptable by someone else. This is a fundamental concept of conflict that holds true no matter whether it's in the social arena or a game of Go- fighting on someone else's terms guarantees defeat. To bring this concept into the topic at hand, you want people like myself to only fight to drag the party left during primary season. Well that's about 4 months every two years, but lets generously say it's 6 months every two years. So one quarter of the time I'm allowed to fight to drag the party left, and then I must sit silently and wait until the next opportunity. This strategy would absolutely guarantee defeat no matter how vigorous or enthusiastic my efforts were in those six months. The reason for this is because those other 18 months The Establishment is going to be fighting to have its voice heard, and considering its institutional advantages and the silent acquiescence of leftists like myself in this scenario- they are certainly going to win. So if I accept your advice dear ally- I will absolutely never be able to achieve victory. All I will accomplish is exhausting myself and becoming bitter and jaded. I will have surrendered any potential for accomplishing my goals in anything but a token sense before the first primary ever occurred, and I will have done so as a result of the advice of an ally that regards themselves as well intentioned. So I'm not going to do that. In fact what I'm going to do is double down, because whenever someone tells you to sit down and stop rocking the boat the only rational reaction is to start doing jumping jacks until they change their attitude. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Because the virulence of Republican racism and Trump makes choosing the side that just intends to lock you up and return you to slave labor the sensible choice. And white people wonder why they have such a hard time empathizing with the plight of minorities. As pleasantly performative as this is, this is not even remotely an accurate answer to the question. bernie has gone a long way towards correcting his issues there and also it is very unlikely he will be running against Bill Clinton's spouse unless Bill succumbs to his long and forbidden desire for Beto O'Rourke
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm not really seeing where the hard distinction is between social democrats and liberal democrats here, other than the degree to which the government intervenes to support a welfare state and economic/social equality (and actually I don't think the definition of "liberal democracy" is even really related to that). In both cases you're talking about capitalist systems. mmHm in hindsight I might have mentally transposed 'social democracy' with democratic socialism, which has a harder distinction. OK I was probably wrong there, social democracy is a subset of liberalism. Foiled again by vague and muddled jargon! archangelwar posted:Right, but the comparison is still devoid of establishing causality to cardinality. For instance, people who call for nazi punching are not doing so because of a nazi's stance on economic intervention. This is important if you are trying to create an equivalency between the usage of chud and revolutionary violence. Doubly so because the imagery associated with the term seems more demeaning than dehumanize, anyway. I think they were making an argument about slippery slopes, but I'm not going to put words in their mouth and its too difficult tracing this conversation back through all the strings of replies to figure out exactly what everyone meant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm not really seeing where the hard distinction is between social democrats and liberal democrats here, other than the degree to which the government intervenes to support a welfare state and economic/social equality (and actually I don't think the definition of "liberal democracy" is even really related to that). In both cases you're talking about capitalist systems. When you're trying to classify political groups it's usually best to ignore foreign policy unless it's a primary focus of that specific group (interventionalism / isolationism) and focus on their relationship to the economy and the fundamental workings of the state. Fascism, for example, is a nationalist identity defined around an autarkic economic system with a strong authoritarian national government. The foreign policy goals are unimportant, since they aren't the major focus of that group.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:33
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:To the Republicans Nancy Pelosi is a blood-sucking parasite who exists only to siphon the very life essence from a powerful, successful predator that embodies everything strong about the sea is rules over. Nah you don't get it, Republicans and Garrison see "corporations" and think of the (((corporations))) that expose themselves as controlled by the SJewS by cracking down on alt-righters that get too obvious with the racism, posting meaningless vague pro-equality platitudes ("virtue signaling") and donating lots to Democrats and Republicans they don't like (but please ignore when these corporations donate lots to Republicans we do like, that's totally different).
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
Squalid posted:mmHm in hindsight I might have mentally transposed 'social democracy' with democratic socialism, which has a harder distinction. OK I was probably wrong there, social democracy is a subset of liberalism. Foiled again by vague and muddled jargon! Social democracy is a democratically focused government with a heavier emphasis on wealth distribution and economic regulations, as well as focusing on general welfare. They work within the capitalist system, however. Democratic socialists lean more towards a mixed or command economy that involves ownership of the means of production that also tries to adhere to a democratic style of government, rather than the party rule that you would see in Marxist or communist states. DemSoc is basically a rejection of Soviet methods, but is otherwise ideologically similar. I had to bust one of my books out for that one  E: tl;dr demsoc = change. Socdem = reform Grapplejack fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
market socialism is also well within the democratic socialist basket the workers own the corporations but it otherwise vaguely resembles very thoroughly regulated capitalism I guess that might be a mixed economy though
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:why did Hillary win the minority vote during the 2016 primaries? I was baffled by the argument Sanders had a problem with black voters. I'm not saying he didn't, but I think it was more about name recognition than anything else. Bill Clinton had the whole "the first black president" gimmick on his side regardless of facts and maybe that translated to Hillary? I was never on the Sanders bandwagon, but when he was up in Seattle giving a speech BLM activists commandeered the stage and took the podium from him and he was like "Okay". Try getting that deal from another major candidate running for president. I never understood the heat he got for not connecting with minority voters and was never sure how much of it was a media pushed narrative that gained traction and how much of it was truly organic. But the LBGT community appeared to embrace Obama even though he ran for president being against gay marriage so I dunno. Low information voters are gonna low information vote, I guess? The Sanders thing always seemed strange to me, but game show host and WWE Hall of Famer Donald Trump won the presidency so I'm pretty sure I don't have my finger on the pulse of the voting public of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:When you're trying to classify political groups it's usually best to ignore foreign policy unless it's a primary focus of that specific group (interventionalism / isolationism) and focus on their relationship to the economy and the fundamental workings of the state. Fascism, for example, is a nationalist identity defined around an autarkic economic system with a strong authoritarian national government. The foreign policy goals are unimportant, since they aren't the major focus of that group. Fascism is probably the single worst example you could have picked, because the ideology is totally obsessed with foreign matters to the subordination of basically everything else, and views the world as a permanent life-or-death struggle between nations. More broadly though I don't think you can write off the IR side of a political party, it's both telling and consequential, even if it's arguably the part of politics which sees the most flexibility. E; maybe racial minorities can actually make their own judgments on the candidate that would be best for them and don't really need us white folks second-guessing or calling them low information voters. Like I am a known gay and I am not super inclined to try and patiently lay out why I still preferred Obama, but in short, I would rather have the guy who seems not especially wedded to opposing us, still says SOME good things, and is not aligned with the theocratic fanatics who want us all dead. Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
I think the thing we need to do is actually pretty simple and builds on Prester's last post there. Scream bloody murder for change and equality all year every year, and then bite down and vote as well as you can for one day every other year. There should pretty much never be a call to sit down and shut up for party unity during times when elections are not imminent. This is the time to shift the narrative, right now, so that it's already shifted when it comes time to vote again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:48
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:As pleasantly performative as this is, this is not even remotely an accurate answer to the question. Fair point with Bernie, I was mostly just referencing the general. Unfortunately Bernie had to overcome a couple of missteps (whether real or perceived is immaterial) and the impact of "devil you know" effect in minority (especially black) voting (that Hillary played early and had spent many public years building capital). Let's just really hope she never runs again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:I was baffled by the argument Sanders had a problem with black voters. I'm not saying he didn't, but I think it was more about name recognition than anything else. He had nothing to offer black voters, and black activists nationwide noticed that he kept arguing Economic Equality = Racial Equality. That message not only didn’t connect, it got a wave of FOH from what I saw and experienced. As a result, his problem with black voters was that black voters didn’t vote for him. His message connected with white leftists. Then he was used as a wedge to keep leftists home, whether by internal rage or external disinformation warfare. And now it’s two years later and no one has ever admitted they were wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:He had nothing to offer black voters, and black activists nationwide noticed that he kept arguing Economic Equality = Racial Equality. That message not only didn’t connect, it got a wave of FOH from what I saw and experienced. More Bernie voters voted for Hillary than Hillary voters voted for Obama in 2008. It's weird this has to be repeated over and over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
"Bernie has a problem with black voters" was just Clinton-ite ratfucking, the same way "Bernie Bros" was just a repackaging of "Obama boys" or whatever in 08, hth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Fascism is probably the single worst example you could have picked, because the ideology is totally obsessed with foreign matters to the subordination of basically everything else, and views the world as a permanent life-or-death struggle between nations. More broadly though I don't think you can write off the IR side of a political party, it's both telling and consequential, even if it's arguably the part of politics which sees the most flexibility. Ehhhh both Mussolini and Franco were obsessed with their standing in Europe, but Mussolini was much more openly interventionist and wished to expand his empire, while Franco was more isolationist and only focused on keeping his current colonies rather than expanding. (Yes I know Franco barely counts and reversed his move to an autarky after the civil war)
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:05
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:More Bernie voters voted for Hillary than Hillary voters voted for Obama in 2008. It’s not germane to the point. Black voters didn’t vote for Bernie, so why are you quoting me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:11
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:It’s not germane to the point. Black voters didn’t vote for Bernie, so why are you quoting me? Because you spun some dumb poo poo about Bernie being used to keep leftists home into your already dumb statement. Tho I'd love to hear how "hopefully not dying in miserable poverty, likely from a treatable illness they cant afford to treat" is "nothing."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:I was baffled by the argument Sanders had a problem with black voters. I'm not saying he didn't, but I think it was more about name recognition than anything else. Bill Clinton had the whole "the first black president" gimmick on his side regardless of facts and maybe that translated to Hillary? I was never on the Sanders bandwagon, but when he was up in Seattle giving a speech BLM activists commandeered the stage and took the podium from him and he was like "Okay". Try getting that deal from another major candidate running for president. I never understood the heat he got for not connecting with minority voters and was never sure how much of it was a media pushed narrative that gained traction and how much of it was truly organic. But the LBGT community appeared to embrace Obama even though he ran for president being against gay marriage so I dunno. Low information voters are gonna low information vote, I guess? The Sanders thing always seemed strange to me, but game show host and WWE Hall of Famer Donald Trump won the presidency so I'm pretty sure I don't have my finger on the pulse of the voting public of the United States. Hillary had many years of highly visible targeted political interaction with the black community, while Bernie was a senator from Vermont who had not spent much time building his Presidential campaign capital in identity politics. The black voting community is highly organized and highly apprehensive. But all we have to go on for Hillary v. Bernie are a few primaries so we can't perfectly predict how far the minority vote will shift; I doubt a rematch that happened today would be as skewed in Hillary's favor. I would be careful with the "low information voters" narrative though, because as I mentioned earlier, the black voting bloc has high levels of organization and the Hillary support was strong among the connected leadership (the opposite of 'low information'). It is heavily paternalistic to suggest that minority groups must be suffering from "low information" just because they may not agree with who you believe their correct choice should be. This type of attitude is a driving force behind the "high apprehension" factor that influences the organizational direction of black voting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Ehhhh both Mussolini and Franco were obsessed with their standing in Europe, but Mussolini was much more openly interventionist and wished to expand his empire, while Franco was more isolationist and only focused on keeping his current colonies rather than expanding. (Yes I know Franco barely counts and reversed his move to an autarky after the civil war) Francisco Franco Did Nothing Wrong Other Than Murdering A Shitton Of Leftists And Miring His Country In A Nightmare Hellscape Until Juan Carlos I Was Inexplicably Pretty Cool
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:19
|
|
|
Bernie lost among black primary voters I think largely because his response to racism was "economic equality is social equality" which, regardless of how sincere or correct it is (and I think it was sincere but kind of a naive and not entirely correct view) is really not a popular message among African-Americans who've been hearing that line from white Democrats for decades and gotten little out of it. Also, "Low information voters" is a super dogwhistley term
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:19
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:He had nothing to offer black voters, and black activists nationwide noticed that he kept arguing Economic Equality = Racial Equality. That message not only didn’t connect, it got a wave of FOH from what I saw and experienced. I'm happy to have the conversation because I don't really get it. If it was purely a difference in their political platforms what was Clinton offering to black voters that Sanders wasn't?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:19
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:I'm happy to have the conversation because I don't really get it. If it was purely a difference in their political platforms what was Clinton offering to black voters that Sanders wasn't? From my observations? A belief that she'd owe them loving big because she wasn't going to accomplish her ambitions without their support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:22
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:From my observations? A belief that she'd owe them loving big because she wasn't going to accomplish her ambitions without their support. Well that's certainly always paid off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:23
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Well that's certainly always paid off. I'm not going to make a judgment on it. It's a function of a lot of bad poo poo in American politics that ended up with the Clintons being unique among national-level politicians in their support of black communities even if that investment was purely transactional on their part. If you're drowning and two folks are offering you a hand, you're probably gonna take the hand of the person you know that needs you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Psythor/status/1056811593177227264 https://twitter.com/Entrepreneur/status/1051564561290207238 ah capitalism
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:29
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Because you spun some dumb poo poo about Bernie being used to keep leftists home into your already dumb statement. I mean, are you arguing that Bernie actually did have black voters carry him in primaries, because that’s empirically wrong Economic inequality does not translate to racial equality, especially if that’s your rhetorical line with an emotional impact. At the time, it was perceived as whitewashing black issues. I remember that particular fight quite clearly, because again, it’s been two years and nobody has ever admitted fault in the never ending Bernie Hillary Holy War. I don’t know who won, but one thing I know, it wasn’t you or me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:I mean, are you arguing that Bernie actually did have black voters carry him in primaries, because that’s empirically wrong Rich people. Rich people won, in convincing folks that economic equality has no function in racial equality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Rich people. It doesn’t matter if it’s true if you can’t make anyone believe it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:33
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:I'm happy to have the conversation because I don't really get it. If it was purely a difference in their political platforms what was Clinton offering to black voters that Sanders wasn't? It would be a mistake to focus on a simplistic or facile platform comparison, and again I will allude back to the "high apprehension" quality of the black vote. The easy example of this is how the black vote improved greatly for Bernie after he amended certain economic platform discussions by tying in identity politics, even if the position itself was functionally no different. Minority groups, and the black voting organization specifically, have witnessed first hand how easily they can be locked out of or limited access to broad and "equal" economic policies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:37
|
|
|
Racial equality is impossible without socialism. Liberal cosmopolitanism is not enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:38
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:There is a lot I want to address in this post. But rather than taking my usual tack and tone I'm going to go into some underlying concepts that are fundamental to successfully fighting in any conflict, no matter the arena that conflict happens to be playing out in. What absolute horseshit Just utterly meaningless argumentation
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:42
|
|
|
Wait PPJ told us to post well We cannot possibly have responded with 2016 PRIMARY CHAT
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Rich people. This is definitely true. quote:Rich people won, in convincing folks that economic equality has no function in racial equality. This is not a correct view of the narrative. The narrative was simply "id pol is important too" as demonstrated by the uptick in black vote for Bernie after his early corrections. And it is also a correct understanding of ground reality in politics. But it is also a relatively easy solve that was only impactful because of timing and circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
archangelwar posted:This is definitely true. That's true and fair. But I'm also largely of the mind that it was irresponsible at best and malicious at worst of any any parties that worked to push poo poo in line with the "breaking up the big banks" horseshit that very much had the intent of minimizing the importance of economic equality in folks heads behind it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 08:52
|
|