|
Brainiac Five posted:I know. You are a cut above the 4chan cockroaches and can rephrase sentences, such that the insistence on how the loving DLC imposed artificial political beliefs on about a tenth to a quarter of the country managed to avoid the more obvious terms. So you do believe that Chomsky's propaganda model is antisemitic?
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Pretty much the entire media has been using this "elites" rhetoric for most of this election cycle, did the media suddenly become alt-right Nazis using coded anti-semitic arguments? Are you unable to understand that there are specific approaches that are antisemitic? Kingfish is a GBS poster so it's obvious he's a Nazi, but I'm curious if you're some dipshit Marxoteen or a fellow fash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
So, affirming that people who are in a position of relative power are doing what they can to keep their privileges is antisemitic. Therefore, accusing the white working class of being racist is antisemitic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:So, affirming that people who are in a position of relative power are doing what they can to keep their privileges is antisemitic. Therefore, accusing the white working class of being racist is antisemitic. No one has said the things you are saying except for you. You have inferred them, because the moral character and mental abilities of white Europeans are as thin and fragile as ricepaper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
This entire argument started with the proposition that 1) "moderate" right-wing beliefs are only held by political elites and are inauthentic ones meant to manipulate religious people. There's a gigantic difference between "there is an elite that has no actual ideological beliefs beyond wanting to hold power for shits and giggles" and "there is an elite." Fairly crucial to Marxist and left-wing politics is that the political elite has clear ideological beliefs which broadly determine the actions they take! I'm not surprised people like the Kingfish reject that notion, but it's extremely funny how many other people are doing so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Nobody said any of that crazy poo poo. Nice meltdown though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Nobody said any of that crazy poo poo. NICE MELTDOWN M8 .... for a clown... to wear???? At the CIRCUS! Bahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton draws a straight line between gay rights and support for Isreal but its definitely just poor white republicans who are the idiots being duped by cynical elites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Hillary Clinton draws a straight line between gay rights and support for Isreal but its definitely just poor white republicans who are the idiots being duped by cynical elites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
I feel kind of awkward expressing this opinion, but I honestly think that liberals ignoring economic reform in favor of social progress (which is kind of inherently limited without also including the former) actually is a serious problem. But this doesn't mean the things liberals do regarding diversity/social issues aren't still good and important; it's not like these things are mutually exclusive. The problem is that many of the people who make this same complaint seem to think they are, which then leads liberals to generalize all leftists as also thinking that social issues aren't important. I think a more difficult (and hopefully unnecessary) question is which of those two things to focus on if you actually did have to choose between the two. On paper the economic issues are more important, but in practice minorities are likely to be excluded from the benefits of such policy. I think the main cause of this is the fact that many rich people (who ultimately are the power brokers of both major parties*) don't really have anything to lose from increasing diversity. A rich person isn't going to suffer any concrete downsides from companies encouraging diversity. He/she might have a personal opposition stemming from bigotry, but there's nothing actually built into our political/economic system that stands to make diversity harm their material interests. But economic reform is different. It has the potential to actually have a concrete impact on the wealthy. There are many wealthy liberals who are willing to offer some concessions in this regard, but that is only because things are currently stacked so drastically in their favor that they'd still be in an unassailable position even after, for example, increasing the minimum wage (and even then you still see opposition). My general feeling about the Democratic Party/liberals is that they will improve the country, but that there's a hard limit to how far that improvement will go. The minute any change actually significantly threatens the position in society of the wealthy, it is likely to face strong opposition from both wealthy conservatives and liberals. *not the same specific people, but just the economic class of "the wealthy" in general
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I feel kind of awkward expressing this opinion, but I honestly think that liberals ignoring economic reform in favor of social progress (which is kind of inherently limited without also including the former) actually is a serious problem. But this doesn't mean the things liberals do regarding diversity/social issues aren't still good and important; it's not like these things are mutually exclusive. The problem is that many of the people who make this same complaint seem to think they are, which then leads liberals to generalize all leftists as also thinking that social issues aren't important. I think a more difficult (and hopefully unnecessary) question is which of those two things to focus on if you actually did have to choose between the two. On paper the economic issues are more important, but in practice minorities are likely to be excluded from the benefits of such policy. Diversity does harm their material interest, though, because if you actually eliminated the racial and sexual disparities that currently exist without changing anything else about wealth and income distribution, the current capitalist system would collapse because the reserve army of labor is heavily racialized and sexualized and racial and sexual discrimination forces people to perform tasks that are highly demeaning but necessary for the current system to function. What is more relevant is that the ideology of the upper class supports moral and practical arguments against racism and sexism to a much greater extent than the arguments against the class structure (for obvious reasons). Like, interact with one of the upper class or read a magazine targeted at them and it becomes apparent that they operate far more on ideological beliefs about how it's possible to save your way out of poverty than out of any understanding of how economic class functions. Not to say that nobody in the upper class is cognizant of this, but far more of them operate on false consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Be super prepared to be all kinds of racist. I've presented arguments from groups like the Black Panthers and been told that I'm crazy racist because, evidently, white folks on the internet are a better source for what black people want than black people. I appreciate that anti-racist has finally penetrated the left in a meaningful way. I feel like right now it's a case where the pendulum has swung too far. For most people, including minorities, "It's the economy, stupid" is a solid argument. Historically, particular arguments like police violence or migrant worker rights, have been either ignored or *picture of Ronald Reagan eating grapes*. There is a meaningful reaction to the old white left and this is a good correction. But the gay rights movement spearheaded a "well-funded" "identity politics for identity politics" that is now a wedge that forces "leftists" to say that Goldman Sachs is awesome because they are super progressive on gay rights and if you don't agree that Goldman Sachs is awesome then you are a racist. It's a good thing, since it's the neo-liberal Clinton coalition folding ultra-money fucksticks into the Democrat fold and money talks. But people actually believing it as opposed to treating it like a cynical move is super sad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
If it attacks monied interests in the democratic party, it is racist. (literally no political figure wants to do the things that attack racist interests but cost some rich gently caress some money.) Edit: this is when computer parts comes in and says "you folks are racist" and uses that for a reason not to consider this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I appreciate that anti-racist has finally penetrated the left in a meaningful way. I feel like right now it's a case where the pendulum has swung too far. For most people, including minorities, "It's the economy, stupid" is a solid argument. Historically, particular arguments like police violence or migrant worker rights, have been either ignored or *picture of Ronald Reagan eating grapes*. I wouldn't say the pendulum has swung too far. Heck, it still hasn't really swung far enough - our society is still super bigoted and there's a huge difference in outcomes between different ethnic groups. The problem is mostly that most liberals tend to focus solely on those issues to the extent that they effectively define the party (if asked what the biggest difference between the political parties is, most people would probably mention social views). So the focusing on issues like diversity isn't a bad thing; it's just that it's used an excuse to ignore leftist economic ideas. Actually, I might go further and just say that the Democratic Party/liberals are't really leftist to begin with and that it's a little weird for me to even expect leftist politics from them. That being said, if Clinton is elected and actually makes an effort towards implementing a lot of the stuff on her platform (which is statistically likely from what I understand), it will represent a significant left-ward shift for the party. A small step to be sure, but certainly better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
I agree our society is still super bigoted. Our society is also crazy inequal. Both need to be addresses. Clinton's current platform of "Let's keep black lawyers physically safe" is probably better than the old left "Let's keep (mostly white) Union jobs alive." I'd like a synthesis and neoliberalism ain't it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Diversity does harm their material interest, though, because if you actually eliminated the racial and sexual disparities that currently exist without changing anything else about wealth and income distribution, the current capitalist system would collapse because the reserve army of labor is heavily racialized and sexualized and racial and sexual discrimination forces people to perform tasks that are highly demeaning but necessary for the current system to function. What is more relevant is that the ideology of the upper class supports moral and practical arguments against racism and sexism to a much greater extent than the arguments against the class structure (for obvious reasons). Like, interact with one of the upper class or read a magazine targeted at them and it becomes apparent that they operate far more on ideological beliefs about how it's possible to save your way out of poverty than out of any understanding of how economic class functions. Not to say that nobody in the upper class is cognizant of this, but far more of them operate on false consciousness. Okay but wealthy elites definitely aren't abandoning their interests over some imaginary liberal susceptibility to moral arguments about diversity. I mean, that is some real rational discourse poo poo to be smoking for a self-identified Marxist. Frankly, I don't see any signs that there was ever a disagreement in the first place. The current strain of millennial "woke-ism" about race and gender is perfectly consistent with the same liberal multiculturalism and radical individualism that have been pillars of capitalist propaganda for decades. Leftists recognize bourgeois entryism when they see it but you don't really need to be a leftist to see why corporate america is happy to welcome the dumbshit wearing a twitter t-shirt to his public arrest into the club. Oh heavens how will we ever fight back against these dangerous radicals who showed up to the protest armed with sick branding and corporate sponsorship? The real mystery is how this shift was engineered in race- and gender-line movements that used to see themselves as anti-capitalist, however fraudulent that commitment has historically been. And actually its not much of a mystery when you consider neoliberal policy as an end-run around labor issues. It's not like you can outsource blackness, right? Well fine, commodify it instead. So are liberal identitarian movements a real threat to which elites ultimately had to accede on moral grounds? Lol loving no of course they aren't because you still get all the exploitation you can eat from women and immigrants and minorities, just on the condition that they're still poor. And if you've got a whole intellectual class made up of collaboraters who appointed themselves as "community leaders" saying "we're going to be capitalists just to spite those loving white males" well, gee, what are the odds that the poor ones stay poor and get into big stupid arguments about how electing more Democrats will really stick it to white supremacy this time? Edit: the point of left opposition to identity politics isn't that they interfere with class politics by dividing the attentions of the ruling class on social and economic issues. That's bullshit. They don't care about either. The point is that identity politics have a weird way of becoming arguments for equitably distributed poverty (and scandalous wealth), which addition to just being every bit as horrifying as the old school race realism and liberal essentialism that took up the exact same project, its just blatant rear end-kissing on the part of cynical hacks who think they ought to be power brokers and "diversity consultants" between monolithic communities defined along identitarian lines and their bosses. This isn't something elites had to find a way to agree on. The material conditions engendered by neoliberal transformations made it a perfectly logical next step. spotlessd fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Okay but wealthy elites definitely aren't abandoning their interests over some imaginary liberal susceptibility to moral arguments about diversity. I mean, that is some real rational discourse poo poo to be smoking for a self-identified Marxist. Nope. The bourgeoisie aren't some imaginary hyper-rationalists that all perfectly understand their self-interest and act on it. Socialist opposition to "identity politics" is a collection of multiple beliefs over decades, and Eric Hobsbawm arguing that left-wing nationalism is a risky proposition is highly distinct from somebody arguing that gay marriage is reactionary. The fact is, being a communist hasn't ever meant you were free from the clouded vision of life under racism and sexism and homophobia and transphobia and so there are plenty of examples of people with radical left-wing politics economically being horrible little shits on something else. What is fascinating is the perpetual false belief among socialists that liberal ideology is something they totally oppose, such that unless antiracism is socialist in orientation it is useless. It is of course false because the majority of people who hold it aren't interested in annihilating civil liberties for the purpose of annihilating civil liberties, but it also does imply that any political actions by socialists are useless unless they're causing the revolution right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:What is fascinating is the perpetual false belief among socialists that liberal ideology is something they totally oppose, such that unless antiracism is socialist in orientation it is useless. It is of course false because the majority of people who hold it aren't interested in annihilating civil liberties for the purpose of annihilating civil liberties, but it also does imply that any political actions by socialists are useless unless they're causing the revolution right now. Do you actually understand that "liberalism" is an economic term in direct opposition to socialism or are you just rambling again e; I'm not against calling an idiot an idiot and your personality disorder is entertaining but you've really got to do better at not saying utterly moronic things. Go read some loving Losurdo. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Do you actually understand that "liberalism" is an economic term in direct opposition to socialism or are you just rambling again No it's not. It's a broad ideological system that supports a variety of things, including its particular capitalism, because of these ideological factors. Free Democrats and Liberal Democrats aren't one-issue economics parties you dipshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No it's not. It's a broad ideological system that supports a variety of things, including its particular capitalism, because of these ideological factors. Free Democrats and Liberal Democrats aren't one-issue economics parties you dipshit. please explain how liberal economics is compatible with the redistribution of wealth at any point in history, rather than just attempting to use defined terms in a broader sense also you really need to see a shrink about this, has anyone else beaten you up recently?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:please explain how liberal economics is compatible with the redistribution of wealth at any point in history, rather than just attempting to use defined terms in a broader sense I'm sure your "lie like a rug and ignore what other people say" technique is powerful when at parties or work, given people's reluctance to drive their thumb into your eye to give them a chance to escape.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm sure your "lie like a rug and ignore what other people say" technique is powerful when at parties or work, given people's reluctance to drive their thumb into your eye to give them a chance to escape. Nice failure to comeback. You don't really sound like a fellow academic, please stop misusing terms of art and get help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Nice failure to comeback. You don't really sound like a fellow academic, please stop misusing terms of art and get help. Christ, you bamboozled your way into grad school? Here's hoping you're a GRA, your college probably couldn't withstand the spike in suicide rates if you taught. Hopefully your advisor explains what liberalism is to you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Hey Effectronica why is the propaganda model antisemitic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Hey Effectronica why is the propaganda model antisemitic? Why do you believe that you can conjure by an internet handle? That's not how magic is supposed to work!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The problem is mostly that most liberals tend to focus solely on those issues to the extent that they effectively define the party (if asked what the biggest difference between the political parties is, most people would probably mention social views). You're assuming two things here: 1. That they self-define themselves with "social issues", instead of being defined by them. On Hillary's web site right now I can pull up issues relating to cost of college, reinvestment in infrastructure, support for early childhood, and guaranteed paid family and medical leave. If all you're hearing is "Hillary wants 2. That "social issues" are by definition not economic. With disability rights and Women's Rights they both present a situation where people are economically disadvantaged because of their status as a disadvantaged group. It might not affect you in particular, but it's still an issue that needs to be fixed if we're ever going to minimize wealth inequality. And yeah, you can say "Well what about [issue x]" but that's distracting from the main point - the idea that Democrats/the more left members of American society are solely defining themselves on social issues is false.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:please explain how liberal economics is compatible with the redistribution of wealth at any point in history, rather than just attempting to use defined terms in a broader sense Egalitarianism
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Egalitarianism liberal economics are explicitly anti-egalitarian and the last 30 years of the liberal economic orthodoxy has seen incredible rises in inequality
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:liberal economics are explicitly anti-egalitarian and the last 30 years of the liberal economic orthodoxy has seen incredible rises in inequality What the gently caress is liberal economics? You're talking about neoliberalism, which is an economic philosophy built on primarily classical liberalism. A strand of liberalism famous for being diametrically opposed to egalitarianism in its perception of what constitutes freedom! An economy built on egalitarianism is just as much liberal as one based on classical liberalism. Liberalism is not one loving thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:liberal economics are explicitly anti-egalitarian and the last 30 years of the liberal economic orthodoxy has seen incredible rises in inequality Explicitly against equality of outcome, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 16:58
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Explicitly against equality of outcome, yes. In the same period the level of social mobility has also declined. The single greatest determinant of poverty, even above race and gender, remains how much money your parents had/have.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
‘In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges.’ The liberal vision of equality is one in which the lower orders are flung scraps, in order to bribe and placate them with their own small share in domination.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Liberal economics are generally anti-egalitarian because they emphasize liberty as a function of property rights, but they're also not the sum total of liberal philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:What the gently caress is liberal economics? You're talking about neoliberalism, which is an economic philosophy built on primarily classical liberalism. A strand of liberalism famous for being diametrically opposed to egalitarianism in its perception of what constitutes freedom! An economy built on egalitarianism is just as much liberal as one based on classical liberalism. Liberal economics is the economic policy of classic and yes neoliberalism. I've been pretty consistently using it that way because that is the way the word is generally used in a modern context across most of the world. e; it's really not much to ask that you use words to reflect what they mean in the world and "Liberal economics" is pretty bloody straightforward Spangly A fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
I'm not sure it's that simple a thing to separate liberal economic policy from liberalism as a whole. If liberalism represents the idea of liberty as expressed in 'man in a state of nature', private property is definitely welded up in that. The issue as I see it with pure liberalism is the fetishization of the direct choice, between options already existing, versus exercising the ability to alter the options that exist, 'choosing the choices'. So the oppressed poor, even in the context of having to choose between brutal exploitation and death, still have 'liberty', because they can still exercise the choice to 'not die'. At all times, they have the freedom to die. The freedom to live? Now, that's a little harder to get, and always keeps jumping out of reach. For the person doing the exploiting, this logic works out well for you. Your safety is already assured, you are not in a precarious existence, so for you, liberty only expands your choices. For the people who are vulnerable, it's worthless. When facing death, what value is the kind of nominal freedom liberalism promises to you, that you won't even get to exercise? More than liberty, they want security, which necessarily means escaping the 'man in the state of nature'. So in short, Hobbes > Locke. That shortcoming is built into liberalism from the start. That's not to say everything about liberalism is therefore worthless, it's merely incomplete. edit: There was also mention of a 'pendulum' swinging too far one way, and I don't buy that for a second. America is still living under the phantom of Reagan, you can't really say that society has swung too far left, when mass privatization of already existing (and working) public works is still a hip-thing everyone is down for. More than a 'swing', I think what's happened is a re-conceptualization, which I place entirely at the feet of post-modern critical theory. It takes the valid complaints of implicit and unrecognized biases, to the absurd length of denying the mission of the 'quest for knowledge' as it were - since ideology is all pervasive, any attempt to get outside it is fruitless, therefore attempting to do so is arrogance. Knowledge is not power, power is expressed through what is generally accepted knowledge. The issue with this stance is that it's inherently self-destructive to any goal of a universal humanity and indeed human progress. So while accepting their counter-attacks as true, is also simultaneously necessary to reject them as useless, since they can be made in any direction and with any political motivations you desire. So basically it's like asking 'but what if we're in the matrix' to someone trying to explain astronomy - it's possible, but it doesn't add anything unless you have actual evidence to go on. So for the sake of pragmatism, please shut the gently caress up. rudatron fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Nope. The bourgeoisie aren't some imaginary hyper-rationalists that all perfectly understand their self-interest and act on it. Socialist opposition to "identity politics" is a collection of multiple beliefs over decades, and Eric Hobsbawm arguing that left-wing nationalism is a risky proposition is highly distinct from somebody arguing that gay marriage is reactionary. The fact is, being a communist hasn't ever meant you were free from the clouded vision of life under racism and sexism and homophobia and transphobia and so there are plenty of examples of people with radical left-wing politics economically being horrible little shits on something else. Who cares how Western elites see themselves? Their basic ideological compatibility with identitarian agitators is obvious and intuitive. You talk like the political class are simply relenting on the race issue but they aren't the ones who changed. Anti-racist political objectives changed, or rather radical black and feminist opposition to inequality itself changed. It became what we only now think of us "anti-racist" politics--vague, self-righteous bullshit organized around the aspirations of the upwardly mobile and totally on board with a variety of capitalist pet projects. When have liberals not been suckers for vague, self-righteous bullshit? It's merely a bonus thats its basically impossible legislate "anti-racism"--all the work around this stuff is safely in the hands of lawyers and NGOs who know perfectly well who their bosses are. This ought to provide some insight into the second question about why socialists oppose antiracism that isn't revolutionary in character. The answer is that it just leads to more capitalism. "Diversity" itself is already a grotesque commodity. Ask any advertiser how they feel about the current crop of privilege-checkers swirling around the latest hot take on Game of Thrones or whatever the gently caress else. Its a joke. (AND ITS KILLING US  )
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Who cares how Western elites see themselves? Their basic ideological compatibility with identitarian agitators is obvious and intuitive. You talk like the political class are simply relenting on the race issue but they aren't the ones who changed. Anti-racist political objectives changed, or rather radical black and feminist opposition to inequality itself changed. It became what we only now think of us "anti-racist" politics--vague, self-righteous bullshit organized around the aspirations of the upwardly mobile and totally on board with a variety of capitalist pet projects. When have liberals not been suckers for vague, self-righteous bullshit? It's merely a bonus thats its basically impossible legislate "anti-racism"--all the work around this stuff is safely in the hands of lawyers and NGOs who know perfectly well who their bosses are. Agreed. Opposing rape culture will only create more capitalism unless we overthrow capitalism first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
I think the mistake is to think that capitalism is generative of certain social problems rather than merely giving them a particular socio-economic form for a certain moment.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Agreed. Opposing rape culture will only create more capitalism unless we overthrow capitalism first. I would be very interested to hear what you think "opposing rape culture" actually looks like in practice. Let's get the War on Rape started! spotlessd fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
spotlessd posted:I would be very interested to hear what you think "opposing rape culture" actually looks like in practice. Let's get the War on Rape started! I would be very interested to hear whether you have more of a squeaky nerd voice or a nasally nerd voice, but I don't put much hope in finding out and neither should you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:38
|
|