|
I need for trump to keep losing his filters and talking about black people and immigrants out loud as i give my most soul-dead gaze over the tops of my glasses to the people trying to tell me he's the harm reduction candidate Bonus points if we get him blabbering about anyone who ain't straight
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2024 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:57 |
|
Kanos posted:The first half of the original post that you first quoted has me acknowledging that even if you addressed the material concerns of Trump voters, they would simply move the goalposts, which is functionally admitting that material concerns are not the primary motivation of the people in question. Except, as has now been stated three times, that's not actually attracting people. You are the only person falling for the "smokescreen" in question.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
Material concerns and racism are not mutually exclusive motivating forces. If you look at the demographics of trump supporters they're mostly relatively well off, older people who also are for some reason or other disappointed with their lives and economic situation. They often shouldn't be, but that doesn't make their sense of grievance less real, only less justified, which is not the same thing. People who have actual problems tend to be less likely to fall for bullshit solutions and prefer real attempts to address their problems. People who are whining about fake problems are more likely to fall for con artists peddling fake solutions. None of this is particularly counterintuitive or surprising. Of course trump supporters are wealthy racist morons. Just think of every trump supporter you've ever met. They all think the whole world is against them for all kinds of bullshit reasons because the alternative is admitting that everyone hates them because they're giant assholes who deserve hatred. Obama didn't make your kids stop talking to you, you did, but it's a lot easier to blame Obama than yourself. Kanos posted:. They're also a really good way to attract people who might not initially share your awful beliefs to give you a hearing. Yeah, addressing material concerns is prophylaxis and prevention, not cure, for fascism. It also, you know, helps people, which is nice. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Feb 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
I’m not going to post the link for obvious reasons, but a US servicemember in uniform set himself on fire in front of the Israeli Embassy in DC
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2024 23:21
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’m not going to post the link for obvious reasons, but a US servicemember in uniform set himself on fire in front of the Israeli Embassy in DC Username post combo
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’m not going to post the link for obvious reasons, but a US servicemember in uniform set himself on fire in front of the Israeli Embassy in DC The cops drew guns on him while on fire lmao quote:Law enforcement responded, putting out the fire with three fire extinguishers. Law enforcement also drew a gun on the burning man during the incident.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2024 23:50
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:The cops drew guns on him while on fire lmao skin was becoming black, making him an active threat to the officers
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:skin was becoming black, making him an active threat to the officers Woof my dude. You ain't wrong though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 01:29
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:skin was becoming black, making him an active threat to the officers Perfect. No notes. Also a creepy reminder of how pointing weapons is just the default response by so many chud cops. If these guys are called to help in dealing with a house fire they'd be shooting at the loving flames.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 01:33
|
|
|
The sorry truth is that almost no one on this planet is actually driven, politicallt, by material concerns in any real way, nor have they ever been, and the idea itself is sort of ludicrous if you've ever had to actually deal with people. The ones who are are the rich and powerful folks who you really would rather weren't (and even for them the material concerns are actually surprisingly secondary often enough) It has pretty much never been anything but a fig leaf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The sorry truth is that almost no one on this planet is actually driven, politicallt, by material concerns in any real way, nor have they ever been, and the idea itself is sort of ludicrous if you've ever had to actually deal with people. The ones who are are the rich and powerful folks who you really would rather weren't (and even for them the material concerns are actually surprisingly secondary often enough) The French and Russian Revolutions were pretty explicitly about material concerns… e: Chinese Revolution too. And also the American Revolution. To say nothing of all the historical wars of conquest that were about grabbing resources or securing borders or preemptively striking against a threatening adversary. Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Feb 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 02:11
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:skin was becoming black, making him an active threat to the officers
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 02:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The French and Russian Revolutions were pretty explicitly about material concerns… Yeah. Politics when you're starving are always materialistic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 02:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Except, as has now been stated three times, that's not actually attracting people. You are the only person falling for the "smokescreen" in question. I'm not honestly sure why you're coming at me here. What do you think I believe that you're arguing so fervently against? You've already tried to pin a belief I stated the opposite of on me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 03:56
|
|
Kanos posted:I'm not honestly sure why you're coming at me here. What do you think I believe that you're arguing so fervently against? You've already tried to pin a belief I stated the opposite of on me. The problem is the thing you're saying you believe the opposite of is the thing I quoted you saying. Kanos posted:I do think that basic human economic concerns are a huge part of why fascist rhetoric works as well as it does, though. Claiming that you're poor and miserable because The Enemy is keeping you down and promising that if they support you you'll lead them against The Enemy is the classic approach for a reason.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 04:45
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:skin was becoming black, making him an active threat to the officers  His name is Aaron Bushnell
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 04:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The French and Russian Revolutions were pretty explicitly about material concerns… The only real "material concern" to play a major role in the American Revolution was opposition to the abolition of slavery, which along with your other examples just supports my point that the people making political decisions for material concern reasons tend to be the last ones you'd want doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/maitelsadany/status/1761959049568940188?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:02
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Perfect. No notes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The only real "material concern" to play a major role in the American Revolution was opposition to the abolition of slavery, which along with your other examples just supports my point that the people making political decisions for material concern reasons tend to be the last ones you'd want doing it. Please don't erase the crushing material concerns of paying for the little war with France we set off. The outrageous taxation to pay for our own actions could not stand!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:08
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The only real "material concern" to play a major role in the American Revolution was opposition to the abolition of slavery, Not true at all. "No taxation without representation" was one of the rallying cries of the uprising. New taxes levied to pay for the UK's military budget was one of the major causes of the war. Also, it hopefully goes without saying, opposition to the abolition of slavery had a significant material component to it. quote:which along with your other examples just supports my point that the people making political decisions for material concern reasons tend to be the last ones you'd want doing it. I was responding to your claim here: GlyphGryph posted:The sorry truth is that almost no one on this planet is actually driven, politicallt, by material concerns in any real way, nor have they ever been, and the idea itself is sort of ludicrous if you've ever had to actually deal with people. The ones who are are the rich and powerful folks who you really would rather weren't (and even for them the material concerns are actually surprisingly secondary often enough) Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Feb 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Not true at all. "No taxation without representation" was one of the rallying cries of the uprising. New taxes levied to pay for the UK's military budget was one of the major causes of the war. Outside of Massachusetts, those cries were perfunctory at best. After the Stamp Act Congress had achieved its goal of influencing repeal, just about everyone else would have been willing to grumble a bit what came next had not Parliament overreacted and sent more troops to Boston, closed the port down, and called in the Massachusetts colonial charter to be re-written. It's only after that point that the rest of New England and progressively the rest of the colonies moved closer and closer to a break with Britain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:21
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Outside of Massachusetts, those cries were perfunctory at best. After the Stamp Act Congress had achieved its goal of influencing repeal, just about everyone else would have been willing to grumble a bit what came next had not Parliament overreacted and sent more troops to Boston, closed the port down, and called in the Massachusetts colonial charter to be re-written. It's only after that point that the rest of New England and progressively the rest of the colonies moved closer and closer to a break with Britain. Those are all material factors leading up to the war, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Not true at all. "No taxation without representation" was one of the rallying cries of the uprising. New taxes levied to pay for the UK's military budget was one of the major causes of the war. "No taxation without representation wasn't a material issue, it was an issue of political power distribution. The problem wasn't that the taxes were hurting their material conditions, the problem was that they believed that the distant Parliament they held no representation fundamentally did not have the right to impose any taxes on them at all. As Samuel Adams put it: quote:For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves – It strikes our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves? Their objection was not "these taxes are hurting our material conditions", it was "taxes we can't vote against might as well be slavery". It was a disagreement over who should have the political power to impose taxes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Those are all material factors leading up to the war, though. They are not. There was no material impact of most of that on the people who agitated for and eventually convinced the colonies to revolt, or on the individuals who fought the war. Even then, the cry wasn't "No taxation!", it was "No taxation without representation!" - That is not a material conditions warcry, that is a political representation warcry. That is jockeying for power and influence, it has nothing to do with people needing to feed their families or hoping for better material conditions as a result. They hated the tax because it was insulting and disempowering far more than they hated it costing them money (although they certainly weren't happy about that). Majorian posted:I was responding to your claim here: Yes, perhaps you should read the whole paragraph where I said the few people are driven by material concerns and the ones who are tend to be the wealthy and powerful? But even then, they don't convince the rank and file to die for them on basic material concerns, they use shame and status and nationalism and religion and especially spite, a whole lot of spite, and all sorts of things that the common folk actually care about. When have they ever sold a war on "and when we conquer this territory, you'll all be a lot richer!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:50
|
|
|
A much more actual material condition was British resistance to allow settlers to continue to venture further west, into the continent's interior, to avoid further wars with native americans
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:50
|
|
|
I think “material conditions” can be a confusing term in a conversation like this. Y’all should define it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"No taxation without representation wasn't a material issue, it was an issue of political power distribution. The problem wasn't that the taxes were hurting their material conditions, the problem was that they believed that the distant Parliament they held no representation fundamentally did not have the right to impose any taxes on them at all. As Samuel Adams put it: What you're describing still boils down to "who has control over things like taxes and tariffs that directly affect our material conditions (ie: our profits)," though. Whether or not those taxes were actually ruinous to the merchant or planter classes is irrelevant; they didn't rebel over lofty ideals like all men being created equal. They rebelled because they wanted a freer hand to do business. We are getting lost in the weeds, however. If people here don't like the example of the American Revolution, fine, I withdraw it. I'd like to know how the people involved in the French, Russian, and Chinese Revolutions weren't driven by material concerns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:53
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yes, perhaps you should read the whole paragraph where I said the few people are driven by material concerns and the ones who are tend to be the wealthy and powerful? I read your whole post. Your claims strike me as completely ahistorical, though. The mob of Paris or the 1917 bread riots in St. Petersburg were not led by the wealthy and powerful; they were led by the starving poor, who were very much driven by material conditions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 05:56
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Exactly right. "Economic anxiety" is just another word for what they perceive as a misalignment of the inevitable hierarchy of things. One of the core tenets of the fascist mindset is that the world consists of natural hierarchies that we should embrace rather than resist. This definitely includes racial, religious, and gender pecking orders and poor white fascists see themselves as victims of a system actively favoring minorities via unfairly granting them advantages. This is why they hate "welfare queens" while collecting welfare themselves. They deserve the welfare. Those filthy [insert minority here] don't. Ah the best is when they are so consumed by the ideology that they refuse to request or take assistance because "we aren't those kind of people". While their family suffers ... to own the libs I guess?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 06:04
|
|
|
as a politician you never want to be seen as the killing women and children candidate. voters don't like that kind of thing in my experience. when voters light themselves on fire to protest your policies perhaps you need to rethink what you are doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 06:13
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:They are not. There was no material impact of most of that on the people who agitated for and eventually convinced the colonies to revolt, or on the individuals who fought the war. For what it’s worth, you’re fundamentally misunderstanding how “no taxation without representation” was understood in its day. It was intended and understood to be an argument that the Crown had no legal authority to tax the colonies, not a rhetorical basis to gain representation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 06:16
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:For what it’s worth, you’re fundamentally misunderstanding how “no taxation without representation” was understood in its day. It was intended and understood to be an argument that the Crown had no legal authority to tax the colonies, not a rhetorical basis to gain representation. I do actually understand that representation wasnt actually the goal of anyone involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 06:30
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:skin was becoming black, making him an active threat to the officers Tiny Timbs posted:The cops drew guns on him while on fire lmao FlamingLiberal posted:I’m not going to post the link for obvious reasons, but a US servicemember in uniform set himself on fire in front of the Israeli Embassy in DC wet_goods posted:Username post combo very well done people much like aaron
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 06:36
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I do actually understand that representation wasnt actually the goal of anyone involved. Then you understand that it is not a political representation warcry, or at least not primarily so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 06:37
|
|
|
downout posted:Ah the best is when they are so consumed by the ideology that they refuse to request or take assistance because "we aren't those kind of people". While their family suffers ... to own the libs I guess? It has nothing to do with owning the libs. It's part of our deeply ingrained and hosed up obsession with the protestant work ethic and respectability. They'd rather starve and die than take a hand out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 06:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The problem is the thing you're saying you believe the opposite of is the thing I quoted you saying. You keep ignoring the first half of the post you're quoting. Kanos posted:Oh, trust me, I largely agree with you. I'm not trying to make the case that if we just suddenly instituted UBI or something it would instantly solve bigotry, because it won't - the issue will then shift to "well the UBI checks of REAL AMERICANS could be bigger if it weren't for all those illegals leeching off the system" or some poo poo. If I believed that Trumpists support Trump primarily because of economic anxiety, I wouldn't have said outright that addressing their economic anxiety directly would have no actual effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 06:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What you're describing still boils down to "who has control over things like taxes and tariffs that directly affect our material conditions (ie: our profits)," though. Whether or not those taxes were actually ruinous to the merchant or planter classes is irrelevant; they didn't rebel over lofty ideals like all men being created equal. They rebelled because they wanted a freer hand to do business. By that definition, any political reforms by definitions are also material conditions reforms, because increasing a group's political power also increases their ability to push for policies affecting their material conditions. In the French and Russian Revolutions, material conditions were actually a side issue: the primary focus of both revolutions was around dismantling social and political barriers, typically a backlash against the extremely rigid class structures of feudalism. Cultural developments and changing economic patterns had rendered those rigid class systems increasingly outdated and obsolete, but the social elite clung fiercely to those privileges and barriers (and the political dominance they held as a result) even as the populace became increasingly dissatisfied with them, and poor performance in wars gave the populace a strong sense that reforming the state was desperately needed to fend off foreign foes. In both cases, material conditions helped to push things over the edge, but both countries had been substantially unstable for years beforehand as the various classes fought over the various inherited privileges and obligations of various classes in society. They'd been teetering on the edge of political collapse, and wars and famines were just that last push to nudge them over the edge and cause the cracks in their political system to burst open. In China, as far as I can tell, the initial 1911 revolution was primarily motivated by ethnic resentment against the Manchu elite and nationalistic resentment against foreign involvement in China, as well as a reaction to the failure of various attempts at political reform. Captain Oblivious posted:For what it’s worth, you’re fundamentally misunderstanding how “no taxation without representation” was understood in its day. It was intended and understood to be an argument that the Crown had no legal authority to tax the colonies, not a rhetorical basis to gain representation. It was intended and understood to be an argument that the Crown had no legal authority to tax groups that were not represented in Parliament. It wasn't just a rejection of taxes, it was a rejection of Parliamentary authority that did not come hand in hand with political power of their own. It's certainly true that neither side seems to have seriously thought that having the American colonies represented in Parliament was actually practical, which was presumably part of why the Americans never really demanded representation and the British never bothered to offer it. But the colonies were, by that point, feeling that they were politically subordinate to Britain (and particularly that the American elite were subordinate to the British elite) and substantially resented it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:57 |
|
You said:Kanos posted:I do think that basic human economic concerns are a huge part of why fascist rhetoric works as well as it does, though. This has been demonstrated to be false. At best, you have constructed a way of justifying a policy shift that is already independent of reality, and made a claim that is both false and unfalsifiable by presenting it in terms of the opposing element's rhetoric. It's less than worthless; it's actively, knowingly internalizing the false framing of a lie. In order for your claim that the rhetoric works to be valid, the thing you have already asserted was true, then had disproven, repeatedly, then acknowledged was false, to be true. fascist supporters do not see themselves in terms of, are not appealed to in terms of, do not respond to rhetorics in terms of, the economic amelioration that the Democrats are already offering. edit: god drat it, let's try a fifth loving time. You said: Kanos posted:I do think that basic human economic concerns are a huge part of why fascist rhetoric works as well as it does, though. This has been demonstrated to be false. The people who associate with fascists do not do so on the basis of such rhetoric, and are not actually impacted by the economic arguments in question. This has been demonstrated repeatedly, and in the first half of the post you keep alluding to, you already acknowledged it. By internalizing the idea that this element of the rhetoric is a part of what makes it effective, you construct a scenario where there is a fascist appeal rooted in economic arguments, which means that actual arguments about economic policies offered by either fascists or by Democrats stop being relevant; your argument becomes false (because it misrepresents the actual basis of the fascist appeal), and unfalsifiable (because it cannot be corrected by reference to actual policies or outcomes). It also internalizes the fascist framing of economics as a function of status, the very conspiratorial redirection you identified. It is doing this despite already acknowledging that the fascist does not care about actual policy. It's internally incoherent and detached from reality on every level. You are saying "I know this isn't how it works, but it's how it works," and simultaneously, "I know they are lying, but they are telling the truth." Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Feb 26, 2024 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2024 07:13
|
|