|
The Dipshit posted:Funny story, I think there is an originally from the US poster (Liquid Communism?) who literally did that, spending a few years in Breton and learning the local dialect, before his visa wore out. Soviet Commubot; it's Brittany, and Breton is a language not a dialect
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:A lot of people are already offended at the idea that they have 'privilege' when they have not been living the life they assume such a thing would give them, especially so when the people demanding they give up this 'privilege' are generally well-off on their own. It's one of those concepts where the idea has been spread by and inextricably associated with the worst possible ambassadors you could imagine. It's me. The $120,000/yr computer janitor who drives a BMW 3 series and makes "literally shaking" posts on Facebook at some random person that makes $9/hr.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
Any concept of 'privilege' that does not keep all financial concerns front and centre is worse than useless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
I don't think America is nearly motivated enough to kill itself, but it may be lazy enough to not stop itself from dying
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
White privilege includes the privilege of not being brutalized by police at will. It's reasonable if people don't want that privilege taken away, which is why it's important to not say that "white privilege" should be eradicated. Instead things like "no one should be brutalized by police" should be advocated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:A lot of people are already offended at the idea that they have 'privilege' when they have not been living the life they assume such a thing would give them, especially so when the people demanding they give up this 'privilege' are generally well-off on their own. It's one of those concepts where the idea has been spread by and inextricably associated with the worst possible ambassadors you could imagine. One of the events that led up to me deleting my facebook account, was an interaction with a friend-of-a-friend who could not be convinced, after many paragraphs, that she as a white person from the suburbs had any privilege or advantage. She expressed with conviction that she would have ended up in the same relatively comfortable spot, if she'd been born into far worse circumstances. I do not know how to communicate with people who lack the basic self-awareness to understand that their (and my, and everyone's) consciousness involves a lot of self-delusion and self-coddling. That lack is found in a lot of unfortunate demographics, and I bet it includes most people who are not capable of looking at their lives and seeing the advantages they've had.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Shy posted:Soviet Commubot; it's Brittany, and Breton is a language not a dialect Where's their navy?  Though really, good to know, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
The Dipshit posted:Where's their navy? I mean it's celtic, it's radically different from surrounding languages unlike weak poo poo like walloon
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 13:21
|
|
|
Yeah, Breton has no relation to French or English as far as I'm aware, it's one of the few Celtic languages that survive and is probably most similar to Wesh, or Cornish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:A big snag is that there are under-privileged white people in America. However it's very hard to talk about them without sounding racist or actually being super-racist. This is actually one of the demographics that voted for Trump in spades. Rural white people, especially in the Rust Belt, are seeing their jobs vanishing, their economic opportunity crumbling, and their neighborhoods being abandoned. It can be extraordinarily difficult to escape small Rust Belt towns that are like >95% white because of how god awful the money situation is there. Where I'm originally from we barely noticed when the Great Recession hit because little changed. poo poo is just that bad there. It's extremely easy to feel like you've been discarded as a demographic when neither political party has done much of anything for you in recent memory. While the Republican party at least cared about evangelical issues the economic ones were ignored. Conversely the Democrats focus heavily on cities and the minority vote. Neither party was like "hey we see you struggling so we'll help you keep a roof over your head." Of course the GOP wants to eliminate welfare programs in general and boy howdy do a lot of people in rural Rust Belt towns rely on food stamps to eat. The subsidized apartments have waiting lists years long. I predicted Trump was going to win precisely because of some of the points you laid out here. Honestly, I bet many of you can't even begin to imagine just how loving bad the South and Rustbelt are right now. I lived in the South for two years right up until the 2016 election. There are entirely cities and towns in these regions of the country that look like they haven't been maintained in 30-40 years. Mass unemployment is the just the tip of the iceberg. Almost everyone I knew down there was on foodstamps (this is if they could get it) while working a full-time minimum wage job at a retail or fast food gig. Even the hospitals were nasty as gently caress, and the staff there genuinely looked like they didn't give a poo poo. It's really no wonder these conditions have allowed explicit white nationalist ideas to thrive there from a con man. It's no wonder Trump was able to sweep these areas, especially when Hillary was going around saying incredibly idiotic and tone-deaf bullshit like "America is already great!" as a tactic against him. There was also virtually no way you could afford or get access to education, too. It was literally a living nightmare when I was there. I think Michael Moore put it best: A lot of the Trump voters didn't like him, and knew he was full of poo poo, but they saw that he was pissing off the same establishment politicians that ruined their lives over the last 40 years. But now they're getting double turbo hosed by Trump's policies despite all the warnings so lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:I predicted Trump was going to win precisely because of some of the points you laid out here. Here are some reasons that seemed pretty "common sense" to me at that time and still continue to appear to me to be the case: 1. If you have to choose between having birth control or having a gun, most of the blue collar folks I know would rather have a firearm. (Birth control is more popular than you might think. There is the public side and then there is the private side of the argument...) However, a lot of these guys have lived and worked in some... interesting places with interesting people. If push comes to shove they want the ability to be able to protect themselves and their family. (Even if this is not statistically true, the desire and mindset is still there.) If someone is trying to hurt you or your family, the gun is the great equalizer. 2. Dislike the "heartier than thou" attitude established by the Democratic party. (The republicans may all be college grads or officers too but... they don't quite rub it in your face as much.) 3. In the specific case of the 2016 election, the Clintons came with existing drama and I think people had a pretty good understanding that Hillary would continue on the policies of Obama plus her own. A lot of people were just tired of hearing about Obama or Clinton. 4. With the advent of big tech, primarily on the big coastal cities, a lot of these places have been left behind. I have heard stories of a few individuals gassing up their cars and driving from East Coast to West Coast in the 1970s or 1980s or 1990s to a fresh successfull start. That is no longer something that seems... achievable. 5. Diminished purchasing power. Again up until the 1980s or 1990s you could be a blue collar man, have a house, truck and be able to provide for your family. Now that is no longer the case. A lot more people are living paycheck to paycheck. Even hobbies like baseball tickets, football tickets, cars, other seemingly "petty" things (but meaningful to them) have just gone out of the ballpark for people to be able to buy. No house, no car, no hobbies, no hope. 6. Don't forget that whole "Deplorables" thing during the election. I think that causes a lot of people to just "F you" to Clinton with their vote. Small actions can have a big impact... Once you say something, you can't unsay it. If it did not happen would have the election been any different? (Maybe yes, maybe know.) Alienating your low to middle class blue collar "working man" is why so many of them voted for Trump even though they know it is not in their interest. Guess what? These individuals are the bread winners for their family. So by alienating them now you also alienate future voters as well. Get more veterans running for positions on the Democratic party. Get more union tradesmen running for positions on the Democratic party. Get more people from state schools and community colleges and less from money hungry "top tier" (UCLA, Barkley, Harvard, Yale) universities on the Democratic party. That is the secret to success. Slutitution posted:There are entirely cities and towns in these regions of the country that look like they haven't been maintained in 30-40 years Or does it have to do with being founded before... "cheap" energy was widely available? Labor was cheap. (The late 1800s to early 1900s were not the best time. Oil did not really come into full swing until the 1910s to 1920s I think) How were we able to able afford that lavish Post-War lifestyle in terms of Energy? Senor P. fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Aug 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
A firearm is a form of birth control
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
Identity politics basically erased poor people hard enough that the Democrats who bought into it end up basically treating all white people like rich white people- and all minorities like rich minorities- hence why you end up with the total disconnect from reality and condescending at best attitude towards the working class whose fortunes have been plummeting for decades. (and I don't think it's particularly good at getting poor minorities enthused either, hence why they've all come around to Bernie)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
When exactly did poor minorities come around to Bernie? IIRC they voted against him in droves in 2016
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 07:00
|
|
|
General Dog posted:When exactly did poor minorities come around to Bernie? IIRC they voted against him in droves in 2016 Immediately after that (and his approval was never actually particularly BAD among them, it was much more voting for Hillary than against Bernie.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 10:50
|
|
|
General Dog posted:When exactly did poor minorities come around to Bernie? IIRC they voted against him in droves in 2016 Mid-way in the primary, initially he did very poorly among minorities in the south but steadily improved his outlook over time. There was also a pretty big generational difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 10:52
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Mid-way in the primary, initially he did very poorly among minorities in the south but steadily improved his outlook over time. There was also a pretty big generational difference. This does result in liberals still thinking they have the eternal sworn loyalty of all non-white people, and when they don't... well, see Donut Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:This does result in liberals still thinking they have the eternal sworn loyalty of all non-white people, and when they don't... well, see Donut Twitter. I think the most central explanation that many minorities in the South/rural states simply didn't know who Bernie was early in the campaign, while Clinton (especially the Clinton family name) was very well recognized. As the primary evolved, this shifted like in Michigan and New Mexico, and also there was a large generational divide especially among African-Americans. Also, after the primary polls, shifted even further.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
Also something liberals love to do is pretend that minority = black people. If I remember correctly Bernie did well with the native-american and arab-american parts of the population, with the hispanic and asian vote being more evenly split.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
When I was door knocking in Detroit before the primaries a common refrain was "I'm voting for Hillary, the Democrat, of course", followed by overreacting about socialism from the older folks, so I've been chalking it up to age for a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 12:07
|
|
|
Aren't there also a shitload more young minorities than old ones?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 12:34
|
|
|
It looks like conversation has moved on from the nominal topic, but I still want to point out that before the advent of the hidden ballot, even some parts of Canada regularly saw a greater level of political violence than is present in America today. We called these battles "elections." Also race riots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
Yeah, it's worthwhile for anyone who's still worried about 'another dumb civil war' to remember we were lucky enough to be born in the closing days of the first era where political violence wasn't loving everywhere. Where rich fucks rigged the system to disadvantage unions instead of just hiring Pinkertons to brutalize strikers. Where people being murdered for protesting was a genuine outrage. I'm not trying to normalize America's incredible tolerance for violence in the past. Far from it. I definitely feel pretty poo poo about being born just in time to discover the relative peace I took for granted was really just a brief spell of calm rather than something so well-established it could never be rolled back. I'm just saying that America's ability to survive violent politics is pretty high and it would take a lot more than this for a real war to break out. ThirdEmperor fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Aug 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
Curious Euro question here: Isn't what the US experiences now just a light breeze compared to the storm you already weathered during the Vietnam protests. Also the Rodney King riots in 92 seem to have been far worse than anything that happened in the last years (at least when taking riots/protests into account and not mass shootings or terrorist attacks).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:Curious Euro question here: American "crowd control" is western euro "martial law" and that state of affairs has come about largely because of the incidents you cite. Things occur underground, now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
The baseline of the American economy in agriculture and the service sector is an undocumented class fleeing violence and penury, unable to agitate for better conditions lest they be thrown into concentration camps. And you're like "hey, 40 years ago people made a lot more noise, what changed?" Well,
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:Curious Euro question here: There was no internet and twitter during the Vietnam War and Rodney King riots. When poo poo was hosed up, the only thing you could do was take to the streets—which was a good thing. Now everybody is just virtue signaling on twitter in-between pornhub sessions. The rich already won.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
Yeah, civilty at gunpoint is a big thing right now, but to be honest, that's not the cause of the mass anxiety. The centrists have accepted that as the new normal, and will die on the hill of mass state violence being fine and protest being 'uncivil'. I mean. They won't die on that hill, but they'll argue all day with tears in their eyes for the police to brutalize us on our way up. No, the real cause of mainstream anxiety here is that the right is getting more radicalized all the time, to the point where what was formerly our single biggest symbol of alien evil, the Nazis, are now marching in our streets. More and more. The right doesn't actually put forward an affirmative argument for themselves, or really present any plan for America, anything that would disguise them as a normal political entity - instead they just say, with increasing convinction, that all the problems would go away if we did. Most of them probably aren't genuinely violent. After all, most of them are in denial about how violent their politics are. But holy poo poo, yeah, it's scary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
ThirdEmperor posted:Yeah, civilty at gunpoint is a big thing right now, but to be honest, that's not the cause of the mass anxiety. The centrists have accepted that as the new normal, and will die on the hill of mass state violence being fine and protest being 'uncivil'. I don't really think the right is getting more radicalized. I've said this before itt, but I think the supposed resurgence of the far right is actually just a reflection of our short memories. Remember Strom loving Thurmond was a member of the Senate until 2001 -- What we now call white nationalism was just mainstream common sense not so long ago. Thirty-three years ago there were still sundown towns, and residents were completely open about not wanting blacks in town. What worries me is not ideological radicalization, which I don't think is particularly remarkable today, but that your supposedly civil centrists have increasingly embraced radical tactics. The way mainstream Republicans have accepted Trump's strongarm methods, the normalization of his rhetoric discrediting American institutions like the fake news. The Republican take-no-prisoners approach to judicial nominations and Congressional procedure, and the Democrats mirrored behavior. Violence is as easily conjured from the pen of a bureaucrat as the passion of a mob. Of course I still can't imagine a dumb civil war breaking out in the near future, but we could certainly find ourselves facing increasingly worse political crises.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
ThirdEmperor posted:Yeah, civilty at gunpoint is a big thing right now, but to be honest, that's not the cause of the mass anxiety. The centrists have accepted that as the new normal, and will die on the hill of mass state violence being fine and protest being 'uncivil'. That's because the police effectively work for them, and protect them from the protesters they nominally share goals with. This becomes quite clear whenever there is any chance that they might have to engage with people outside of their comfort zone who are acting in any capacity other than as a supine source of moral authority.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:Curious Euro question here: nothing has topped 1968 yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I don't really think the right is getting more radicalized. I'd consider that radicalization so outside of that definition we don't really disagree. Their basic desire to dehumanize and create massive wealth inequality, that's nothing new. I worry about having lynch mobs on the street again. Although I do wonder, you mention Democrats mirroring their legislative tactics as a cause for alarm, but do you really believe sitting down and allowing the Repubs to walk away with whatever they've cheated out of the system this time is, uh, gonna do anything but encourage them to do it again? Because I'm not sure they'll understand anything but returning force as a signal to settle down. Hodgepodge posted:That's because the police effectively work for them, and protect them from the protesters they nominally share goals with. Oh yeah, no disagreement here. Schumer running away from actual leftists shouting 'you're hurting the cause by attacking me!' is all anybody should need know about that brand of centrism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 11:31
|
|
|
ThirdEmperor posted:Although I do wonder, you mention Democrats mirroring their legislative tactics as a cause for alarm, but do you really believe sitting down and allowing the Repubs to walk away with whatever they've cheated out of the system this time is, uh, gonna do anything but encourage them to do it again? Because I'm not sure they'll understand anything but returning force as a signal to settle down. Well if you believe political conflict is becoming abnormally dangerous, at some point you have to commit to deescalation. Of course if you are a revolutionary its actually good that the institutions of governance are seizing up, because you need to discredit the system anyway before you can overthrow it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:Curious Euro question here: The main issue in the US is that the current issues aren't going to go away on their own; there hasn't been a "return to normal" for most Americans since the Great Recession*, and when the next recession hits (while most people are already barely getting by) it's going to be bad. I don't think a civil war will be the result, though I'm not sure what will happen. * and for many other Americans there was never a "normal" to begin with, but a large enough percent of the population was previously doing okay enough that there wasn't heavy unrest. Things are different now, because only ~20% of the population is still doing okay and will be doing okay for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Well if you believe political conflict is becoming abnormally dangerous, at some point you have to commit to deescalation. Of course if you are a revolutionary its actually good that the institutions of governance are seizing up, because you need to discredit the system anyway before you can overthrow it. Except deescalation requires the other party to buy in. If we just deescalate our end, that's as good as a go ahead to do more, do worse, because we're just gonna take it. Realistically, deescalation only happens if both sides pose a threat to each other. That means doing some legislative fuckery on our end so they have to acknowledging the costs of continuing this way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
ThirdEmperor posted:Except deescalation requires the other party to buy in. If we just deescalate our end, that's as good as a go ahead to do more, do worse, because we're just gonna take it. Realistically, deescalation only happens if both sides pose a threat to each other. That means doing some legislative fuckery on our end so they have to acknowledging the costs of continuing this way. Or instead of forcing them to acknowledge the costs, you might just convince them they have to double down harder. What you really don't want is for both sides to start feeling they have to get even, or settle the score, or revenge some slight. Ultimately somebody has to turn the cheek or the situation can spiral out of control.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
The situation is spiralling out of control, and civility has in no way helped. Can you really envision a situation where Republicans go 'oh, there are zero consequences for this, it's a great way of getting what we want, but the other party isn't doing it so we won't either'? Are you really expecting the party of Trump to experience some great moral awakening?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Nobody ever said it was going to be easy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
this is d&d, i'm surprised nobody has pointed out the obvious solution
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 22:28
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Squalid posted:Or instead of forcing them to acknowledge the costs, you might just convince them they have to double down harder. They're already doubling down harder anyways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 00:30
|
|