|
Somfin posted:Yeah, and I'd recommend that you read further than the opening line of that wikipedia article because it goes into some detail about why the two are very similar, I want to know what part of our discussion requires whatever specific distinction you wish to draw beyond naked pedantry Then you should really go back and carefully re-read the thread. I assure you I didn't make this post just for kicks. The whole subject was even brought up by another poster how the use of the word "liberal" became confusing earlier in the thread. I'm trying to clear up that misunderstanding. Folks should have really used the term neo-liberal earlier because if you're unfamiliar with this term the moment you read any articles or anything in academia you are going to be super confused. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 04:18 on May 5, 2020 |
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
Ershalim posted:That reminds me, there were a lot of people playing demographics as destiny at the time as well. The cyclical nature of the whole thing kinda sucks. I don't remember many people saying that not voting was the correct option, but there were a few vote-swaps proposed for safe blue state goons to "send a message" by voting third party in exchange for someone in an at-risk state voting for Hillary. I think. I feel like that doesn't make any sense, but I remember it being a thing. It was only as we got later into the race and polls had tightened, and it was clear the entire Republican Party bowed to Trump that the whole not voting at the top of the stick to send a message began to fall out of favor with some. There is a lot less focus on demographics is destiny this time around.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I fully expect that four years from now we will be having the exact same conversation about how the nominee is among the worst people to have ever lived, and is somehow even worse than Biden the rapist. I'd bet if we got in a time machine, went to any place that had elections and ask people in that era what they thought about whomever was running you'd immediately be bombarded how every politician running simply isn't good enough for a vote. Or the two or even three party system suck what we really need is an alternative!  Politics is frequently a choice between the lesser evil. That's just politics.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:I'd bet if we got in a time machine, went to any place that had elections and ask people in that era what they thought about whomever was running you'd immediately be bombarded how every politician running simply isn't good enough for a vote. Or the two or even three party system suck what we really need is an alternative! And it's worked so well
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:26
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:I'd bet if we got in a time machine, went to any place that had elections and ask people in that era what they thought about whomever was running you'd immediately be bombarded how every politician running simply isn't good enough for a vote. Or the two or even three party system suck what we really need is an alternative! HOW THE gently caress HAS THAT WORKED OUT FOR US SO FAR, DIPSHIT?! I'm so tired of 'uh that's politics sweetie' nonsense. Look where 'lesser evil' poo poo got us! The system is failing and you're just cranking off going 'uh but...it's the system????' as if that should have inherent worth! What tangible good to the population does voting for the 'lesser evil' get here? We swap out a vulgar racist imperialist rapist for a more incomprehensibly rude one?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
'help I'm dying and no one in power cares' 'uh that's a politics, baby, maybe join us in the real world...why won't you prole idiots vote for me???'
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
If people under 40 voted at the same rate as those 40+ then demographics would indeed be destiny. Gotta vote, kids!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:30
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Then you should really go back and carefully re-read the thread. I assure you I didn't make this post just for kicks. The whole subject was even brought up by another poster how the use of the word "liberal" became confusing earlier in the thread. I'm trying to clear up that misunderstanding. Yeah, you clearly aren't taking what I'm saying on board about why you feel the need to make a distinction here. Like, the third paragraph of the wikipedia article you linked talks about how neoliberalism is an attempt to revive classical liberalism after it drat near killed the world. Is this really just "well Americans get confused when you talk about football, can't you just call it soccer" again How are u posted:If people under 40 voted at the same rate as those 40+ then demographics would indeed be destiny. Gotta vote, kids! If that were as easy an option for people under 40 as you seem to think it is, they would.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:32
|
|
|
How are u posted:I remember that during the campaign Hillary released basically the same plan as Biden today and it caused the stock values for all the private prison players to tank. I suspect that 4 years of a Dem administration walking away from private prisons would be disastrous to their ability to operate, even if they knew a Republican admin would bring it all back. hey could you extrapolate this to insurance company stocks skyrocketing after Biden became the apparent nominee tia
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:hey could you extrapolate this to insurance company stocks skyrocketing after Biden became the nominee tia Investors don't expect Biden to fight for the dismantling of the for-profit insurance industry? No poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:38
|
|
|
Neoliberalism is the application of market principles (competition, private ownership, for profit, the "freedom" to choose) to political and economic problems regardless of any empirical evidence of its actual effacy in distributing resources in an equitable fashion. Charter schools, private healthcare, deregulated utilities, these are all examples of the application of neoliberal principles to solve problems, real or perceived. There are other examples, various social media concepts are examples of neoliberal principles being applied to social interaction, the idea of money being equivalent to speech wrt political activity is an example of applying neoliberal principles to campaigning for political office, etc. e: the end result of this, as in all markets with private ownership is to funnel wealth upwards, which is kind of the whole point of neoliberalism in the end rscott fucked around with this message at 04:42 on May 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
Wouldn't Biden lowering the age by 5 years help insurance companies anyway, since that's an age group that's more likely to cost money than anything else?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
How are u posted:If people under 40 voted at the same rate as those 40+ then demographics would indeed be destiny. Gotta vote, kids! Absolutely gobsmacked that people of child-raising age and younger can't find the time to vote between 7a-7p on a weekday as consistently as empty nesters and retirees. It definitely never sounds patronizing and somehow also infantile when this is brought up as an "own" on the young people being disenfranchised by both parties at all times. Nope.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:HOW THE gently caress HAS THAT WORKED OUT FOR US SO FAR, DIPSHIT?! If politics is a game, it's a game of inches. You move forward a little bit, you move backwards a little bit. Rarely, you get some super cool opportunities like the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s but even then that was especially brutal, extremely risky and despite a great outcome the success was paid in blood.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
How are u posted:If people under 40 voted at the same rate as those 40+ then demographics would indeed be destiny. Gotta vote, kids! Yeah if they were allowed to vote, they would! But for some reason polling places keep getting closed and understaffed and l changed around and it gives cover for disingenuous dipshits to go "heh guess they just didn't want to vote  "
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:41
|
|
|
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Liberals are the Wimp Lo of politics.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:If politics is a game, it's a game of inches. You move forward a little bit, you move backwards a little bit. Rarely, you get some super cool opportunities like the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s but even then that was especially brutal, extremely risky and despite a great outcome the success was paid in blood. Sounds like sitting out this election so I won't have to vote for a rapist isn't a big deal after all, thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Is this really just "well Americans get confused when you talk about football, can't you just call it soccer" again The way the word liberal has been used by many of the "leftist" posters in this thread - I don't mean this as a pejorative is incorrect. Neo-liberal is exactly what they are describing when they used the term liberal. It's wrong and no one anywhere else from mass media to academia will you find it used in such a way because that isn't what it means. Unless you have something specific to discuss about the definition, then I guess we will have agree to disagree.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:If politics is a game, it's a game of inches. You move forward a little bit, you move backwards a little bit. Rarely, you get some super cool opportunities like the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s but even then that was especially brutal, extremely risky and despite a great outcome the success was paid in blood. You patronizing dick, that blood came from people finally sick of "a game of inches", while people like you clicked their tongues and asked why oh why won't that uppity reverend understand political reality. You don't get to use them to look down on people in pain, you'd have been writing handwringing articles about how violent and thuggish they were.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:If politics is a game, it's a game of inches. You move forward a little bit, you move backwards a little bit. Rarely, you get some super cool opportunities like the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s but even then that was especially brutal, extremely risky and despite a great outcome the success was paid in blood. That's ... uh. An interesting way to phrase that. Son of Thunderbeast posted:Yeah if they were allowed to vote, they would! But for some reason polling places keep getting closed and understaffed and l changed around and it gives cover for disingenuous dipshits to go "heh guess they just didn't want to vote To be fair, voter apathy is also a problem, and there is an argument to be made that the barriers to entry wrt to being informed are probably too high and our education system is woefully inadequate at explaining to people not only how or system functions, but why anyone should care. But yeah, people are way too quick to just be like, "young people don't vote" as a full stop to the discussion. You'd think a huge systemic issue like "50% of the population doesn't participate in their own governance" would be cause for some measure of investigation, but ... no, I guess not. e: vvv thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
*Extremely 'has never wondered if they'd die before being an equal citizen in their home' voice* Super cool opportunities like the civil rights movement
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:The way the word liberal has been used by many of the "leftist" posters in this thread - I don't mean this as a pejorative is incorrect. Neo-liberal is exactly what they are describing when they used the term liberal. It's wrong and no one anywhere else from mass media to academia will you find it used in such a way because that isn't what it means. You've talked a lot about neoliberalism, what do you mean when you say "liberal?"
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 04:59
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:You patronizing dick, that blood came from people finally sick of "a game of inches", while people like you clicked their tongues and asked why oh why won't that uppity reverend understand political reality. You don't get to use them to look down on people in pain, you'd have been writing handwringing articles about how violent and thuggish they were. I'm not trying to patronize anyone, it's just how things tend to work out of the majority of the time and lets face it most people don't want a revolution! Why? Because they know there have been plenty of times in history that even well meaning revolutions have ended up being completely destroyed with their leaders in jail, dead, etc. and several feet back from where they started. If anything, I assure you at least 1960s Civil Rights marches would shocked to here anyone claiming the way to political reform is through not voting.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:I'm not trying to patronize anyone, it's just how things tend to work out of the majority of the time and lets face it most people don't want a revolution! Why? Because they know there have been plenty of times in history that even well meaning revolutions have ended up being completely destroyed with their leaders in jail, dead, etc. and several feet back from where they started. It would be totally crazy if there were black-led communist movements that believed upholding a system that continues to oppress them despite all the Super Cool opportunities they've had to get murdered for an inch of progress was inherently wrong; you've obviously put a lot of thought into this.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:I'm not trying to patronize anyone, it's just how things tend to work out of the majority of the time and lets face it most people don't want a revolution! Why? Because they know there have been plenty of times in history that even well meaning revolutions have ended up being completely destroyed with their leaders in jail, dead, etc. and several feet back from where they started. imagine talking about revolutions ending with their leaders in jail or dead and then talking about the Civil Rights movement without a hint of self awareness
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:I'm not trying to patronize anyone, it's just how things tend to work out of the majority of the time and lets face it most people don't want a revolution! Why? Because they know there have been plenty of times in history that even well meaning revolutions have ended up being completely destroyed with their leaders in jail, dead, etc. and several feet back from where they started. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:That's ... uh. An interesting way to phrase that. Don't get me wrong, the 1960 Civil Rights Movement was awesome. Go America!  Even so , any kind of major revolution carries a ton of risk. Generally speaking people don't want to put their necks on the line even if their lives already suck and not to mention people get pissed if their forcefully volunteered. And again, many revolutions haven't succeeded either.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:It would be totally crazy if there were black-led communist movements that believed upholding a system that continues to oppress them despite all the Super Cool opportunities they've had to get murdered for an inch of progress was inherently wrong; you've obviously put a lot of thought into this. May you expand upon this in greater detail? I am in no way arguing the Civil Rights movement had a perfect rosy outcome.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:12
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Don't get me wrong, the 1960 Civil Rights Movement was awesome. Go America! We're not asking you to storm the capital and start blasting, we're asking you to not vote for a rapist who probably hates most minorities and poor people
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:12
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Don't get me wrong, the 1960 Civil Rights Movement was awesome. Go America! Scientist Al Gore posted:Why? Because they know there have been plenty of times in history that even well meaning revolutions have ended up being completely destroyed with their leaders in jail, dead, etc. and several feet back from where they started.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:even well meaning revolutions This is a really weird just-world phrasing my dude
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Then you should really go back and carefully re-read the thread. I assure you I didn't make this post just for kicks. The whole subject was even brought up by another poster how the use of the word "liberal" became confusing earlier in the thread. Can you sum up what line you are drawing between neoliberalism and liberalism, and why you believe the democrats are on one of those sides? Is it state market manipulation? Is it deregulation? Is it trust busting? Because it is rapidly looking like you made a claim you don't understand, and are now furiously backpedaling instead of admitting a mistake.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:May you expand upon this in greater detail? I am in no way arguing the Civil Rights movement had a perfect rosy outcome. Black people who marched in the civil rights movement often continue to be civil rights activists to this day. The unsung story of MLK Jr. was that he was also a champion for the material needs of the people, and so suffrage was far from the only point. Also he was far from the only person involved in the whole thing, and there were many competing concepts for what the right thing to do was. I can't explain to you the entire Civil Rights era. But you act as though you believe it was a moment in history. It wasn't. It was, and is, a continuing struggle that permeates through every single aspect of society in every field in every life. To suggest that it presented an opportunity is facile at best, because what you're basically saying is that "well now that that's over we're good to go." Many people who were active during the 60's are still active. Many of them are now anarchists, largely due to the events in question. To say that the leaders of the civil rights movement would be upset at someone opting not to vote is jingoistic, and is in fact one of the paternalistic arguments that black people often get shoved in their faces when they don't vote (or don't vote the "correct" way).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
Somfin posted:This is a really weird just-world phrasing my dude Why? Not every revolution in human history has yielded positive results and some people just did it to simply take political power out of opportunity and their own greed.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Why? Sure, but that's quite obviously not what I was criticising about what you said. Please respond to some of the other posters.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:Black people who marched in the civil rights movement often continue to be civil rights activists to this day. The unsung story of MLK Jr. was that he was also a champion for the material needs of the people, and so suffrage was far from the only point. Also he was far from the only person involved in the whole thing, and there were many competing concepts for what the right thing to do was. Agreed entirely, if anything I kind of feel like Malcom X was severely underrated. Crazy life story, too bad it was cut short.  Ershalim posted:I can't explain to you the entire Civil Rights era. But you act as though you believe it was a moment in history. It wasn't. It was, and is, a continuing struggle that permeates through every single aspect of society in every field in every life. To suggest that it presented an opportunity is facile at best, because what you're basically saying is that "well now that that's over we're good to go." When I referred to the Civil Rights Movement, I am of referring to the era! Of course, the battle for Civil Rights will never truly end as it's a ever lasting battle. I don't understand how you have the impression that I think that it's over and this the best it'll ever get because that's not my intent nor do I believe that at all. Ershalim posted:Many people who were active during the 60's are still active. Many of them are now anarchists, largely due to the events in question. Many of them are anarchists? Source? Ershalim posted:To say that the leaders of the civil rights movement would be upset at someone opting not to vote is jingoistic, and is in fact one of the paternalistic arguments that black people often get shoved in their faces when they don't vote (or don't vote the "correct" way). Voting was one of the main priorities of the movement and the 1965 Voting Rights Act literally came out of it. There's a big difference between Jingoism and being a responsible citizen partaking in civics.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Agreed entirely, if anything I kind of feel like Malcom X was severely underrated. Crazy life story, too bad it was cut short. Ashanti Alston, many former members of the BPP, the people who went on to form BLA, Martin Sostre... there's loving tons of them. Like, you can't point to Malcolm X as someone who was underrated and in the same breath go "who were the anarchists?!" He advocated for black liberation from below and believed 100% that black people could never be part of this establishment. That he wasn't anti-statist in general doesn't mean he would have ever advocated for people to vote in this election -- he wanted a revolution to break up the US. You seem to be subscribing the to myth that all black people of the era were totally nonviolent and white people totally listened to them, and you should really really consider reading a lot more into some of the figures of the age. And this age. And in general. Your reading of history is like you skimmed a high school history book and then decided that the end of history was real and have since decided to justify all things from that angle. e: changed a phrase double edit: if you don't get what I mean by end of history, read that, too. The idea that incremental progress and inch-by-inch movements are the sensible and mature thing to do is the position that well-off people with privilege and status have, and placing that perspective onto everyone else is seriously misguided, as Marie Antoinette once famously discovered. Ershalim fucked around with this message at 05:53 on May 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:45
|
|
|
The USA is about to open back up and feed people into the maw of capitalism to sate The Market. But HEY vote for Biden.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:53
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:If politics is a game, it's a game of inches. You move forward a little bit, you move backwards a little bit. Rarely, you get some super cool opportunities like the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s but even then that was especially brutal, extremely risky and despite a great outcome the success was paid in blood. I'm amazed that no one has quoted the Letter from Birmingham Jail in response to this already, but I guess that means I get to. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr posted:I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. Though I suppose there's another relevant quote from that time period, one that even talks about "inches" and progress: Malcolm X posted:If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there. Your outlook expressed in the quoted post is something that was recognized back in the Civil Rights Movement, as one of the biggest problems it faced. That you're citing that same movement in defense of the kind of thought that stymied them then and continues to thwart progress now is some amazing irony. TL;DR:
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
It's actually rather simple. The people who effect change? They die. The sellouts and sycophants, whether it's the National African Congress, the CBC, or Bernie Sanders? They live, play the good cop, and persist with the same lack of accountability as the crooks they sit with.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 06:02
|
|
