|
computer parts posted:I am talking about poo poo. Poor whites don't support progressive measures anymore because they're racist. That was the reason why they did support progressive measures way back in the day, because it didn't apply to non-whites. OK, I am white, poor, and am an economic progressive. Guess I am KKK Super-Hitler, thanks. You fucks wonder why white poors vote Trump but you literally have made them an out group that some posters actually conjectured to end in the rural poverty thread. Any racial identity other than white have had it really bad and some poor whites had it better=never consider the poor white's concerns or look at them as an ally? It feels like you can't be poor and progressive unless you have another reason related to racial or sexual prejudice. Even when you agree with the
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
Grognan posted:OK, I am white, poor, and am an economic progressive. Guess I am KKK Super-Hitler, thanks. You fucks wonder why white poors vote Trump but you literally have made them an out group that some posters actually conjectured to end in the rural poverty thread. No one cares about you personally. Like, if you're already a progressive you are quite literally not the subject of debate. computer parts fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
man all the cracker rear end marxists itt whining about "identity politics" really reinforce the notion that what a lot of white leftists really want—ironically, in common with the far right—is to recenter politics around white identity. no wonder PoC by and large know better than to trust white leftists honestly, sometimes it feels that the only reason the lily white far left isn't as big of a threat to PoC as the far right is is that the far left hasn't assassinated anyone recently, like with that one MP in england
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No one cares about you personally. Except that expecting any actual wage, labor, or union reform is literally asking the sky of any political figure when superficial anti-discrimination efforts are paraded as progress (as long as you ignore systemic issues and at-will employment bypassing all of those protections).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:The issue is that most of the Democratic voters are in cities which are vastly under-represented in the house.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Except that expecting any actual wage, labor, or union reform is literally asking the sky of any political figure when superficial anti-discrimination efforts are paraded as progress (as long as you ignore systemic issues and at-will employment bypassing all of those protections). What are these "superficial anti-discrimination efforts", my dude?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:What are these "superficial anti-discrimination efforts", my dude? Loads of Title Nine when you have At-Will employment so you don't have to say poo poo compared to other countries where at least there is a documentation trail about it. Edit: I don't have to fire you for any reason at any time (the reason is racism, sexism, or you wouldn't sleep with me). When you have to document it, it is at least fodder for a case against the offending company when it pops up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Except that expecting any actual wage, labor, or union reform is literally asking the sky of any political figure when superficial anti-discrimination efforts are paraded as progress (as long as you ignore systemic issues and at-will employment bypassing all of those protections). You seem really mad about minorities getting equal protection as you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You seem really mad about minorities getting equal protection as you. What protection? It doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
While I don't agree with everything he is saying, the bodying of Grognan in this thread is really dumb and speaks volumes of why the Left scares away so many potential voters. Being hostile toward people who don't see eye to eye racial issues or are unaware of their advantages isn't going to move them toward your side. It will have them disengaged with politics at best or move them toward Trump at worst.OneEightHundred posted:And why do you think that is? I can sit here and explain. However, Salon does a much better job in explaining than I would do. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:What are these "superficial anti-discrimination efforts", my dude? i dont see the value of the civil rights act or how the democrats' defense of civil rights against GOP attempts to roll them back are valuable to anyone who isnt white 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Grognan posted:What protection? Oh, so you're doing the "ignorant of my own privilege" thing. Here's a fun statistic: there's only two states in the entire nation where the rate of white poverty is greater than the lowest rate of black poverty. Note that I don't mean it's higher in that same state, just that there are two states where white people are not better off than the best off black people. computer parts fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Loads of Title Nine when you have At-Will employment so you don't have to say poo poo compared to other countries where at least there is a documentation trail about it. Lots of EEOC claims are filed every year, my droog, because the people who run companies are really not all that smart at covering up their violations of Title IX protections, and while ending at-will employment would be a good thing, people don't file more EEOC claims because it's a long, difficult process that could end up with you getting blacklisted, and a lot of the worst cases are for people in really low-level jobs that can't risk it most of the time. EEOC punishments are also capped pretty low.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Ok cool poverty is bad. I don't think this is controversial. FPTP means that one party is going the be the grease trap of any progressive thought in this country but would it pain you to actually acknowledge that there are disadvantaged white communities? Brainiac Five posted:Lots of EEOC claims are filed every year, my droog, because the people who run companies are really not all that smart at covering up their violations of Title IX protections, and while ending at-will employment would be a good thing, people don't file more EEOC claims because it's a long, difficult process that could end up with you getting blacklisted, and a lot of the worst cases are for people in really low-level jobs that can't risk it most of the time. EEOC punishments are also capped pretty low. Who has the goddamn money to get a lawyer when there were obvious violations for the meager compensation possibly awarded that has already been capped under the guise of tort reform? There needs to be a central reform of labor laws outside any prejudice legislation. If only to give prejudice legislation the tools it needs to accomplish its goals. Grognan fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Ok cool poverty is bad. I don't think this is controversial. That's not what this thread is about. it's about why those white communities don't vote for progressives when similarly (and actually much more disadvantaged) minority communities do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Ok cool poverty is bad. I don't think this is controversial. I don't believe that you actually, sincerely believe that there are people who think that white people are all middle class or wealthier. I believe that you are saying this as a kind of verbal cudgel to try and convince onlookers of the unreasonableness of your opponents, but unfortunately it's so disassociated from what is being said that it's more of a verbal wiffle bat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
This thread is a great example of why the reconciliation is impossible. Vote Trump/Brexit 2016
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Squalid posted:This thread is a great example of why the reconciliation is impossible. Vote Trump/Brexit 2016 Nice privilege, you racist!!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Squalid posted:This thread is a great example of why the reconciliation is impossible. Vote Trump/Brexit 2016 Interesting times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's not what this thread is about. Dunno, understanding the white working class and their concerns might be a thing. The FPTP system that encourages really lovely divides might be another factor. There is certainly subdivisions in minority communities that really are not progressive and are not representative even though their perception has out-sized influence in lovely right wing media. (New Black Panthers) Just pointing that out. Please give poor whites a possible view when we start talking about economic quality. Which is probably the main sort of equality that most people care about regardless racial prejudices. There are a poo poo load of poor whites and they might not all be model progressives, they are still human and probably deserve some consideration. (please)
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Dunno, understanding the white working class and their concerns might be a thing. Where are people advocating white genocide or barring white people from any benefits of progressivism?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Where are people advocating white genocide or barring white people from any benefits of progressivism? *raises paw*
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Grognan posted:
Ah, so the issue is that poor whites take a non-representative sample of minorities and assume that they're all like that. I wonder if there's a word for this phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Ah, so the issue is that poor whites take a non-representative sample of minorities and assume that they're all like that. Dunno, is it Socratic shitposting?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Dunno, is it Socratic shitposting? If it is, then you might not be as progressive as you claim.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Dunno, is it Socratic shitposting? Just stop posting. This isn't going anywhere. They already have you painted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Just stop posting. This isn't going anywhere. They already have you painted. Painted as what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Class can be a legitimate basis of identity, it's just that historically it doesn't work unless there's some other basis to work off of (most commonly race). Sure. I'm not saying class is the only legitimate basis of identity, it can and should be considered in tandem with others. But IMO it's a very legitimate concern that the left as it is currently composed and oriented considers class as a backseat issue at best, mostly IMO because of the difficulty of pursuing political ends in that direction and assembling a base on those lines, when it's a lot easier to simply ally with the elite liberal establishment quote:also: lol at Identitarian, you may as well say "Cultural Marxism". What language do you think is acceptable to use to describe that ideology/movement? I'm not criticizing the movement per se, I'm criticizing its choice of political strategy and alliances icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
No. There's a core disagreement about globalization versus protectionism. The Academic Left wants a more closely-connected world. It wants society to care about people outside of our borders. When workers rights are a concern, the Academic Left doesn't prioritize domestic workers over foreign workers. If anything, the Left's intellectual curiosity gives them an affinity for foreign and minority cultures. The working class's fortunes peaked during the early 1970s. US industry needed a lot of manufacturing work done and couldn't, for legal and logistic reasons, outsource it. An increasingly global world makes outsourcing easier. This might be good for society as a whole. But it's going to be pretty horrible for people in working class professions. They'll lose leverage and have to compete on a global market. The Academic Left and working class can find some common ground. Both would support strict safety regulations for outsourced workers. And they'd both support a global minimum wage. But, ultimately, they have irreconcilable differences in their priorities around protecting domestic vs foriegn labor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Class can be a legitimate basis of identity, it's just that historically it doesn't work unless there's some other basis to work off of (most commonly race). That really only applies after the Great Patriotic War. In the 20s and 30s it was much more about class solidarity than Slavic identity. The Slavophiles where generally on the other side of the civil war. Granted, it is a fairly short and incredibly tumultuous period so it may not be representative. However, the whole fin de siecle (both Russian and European) were marked by cosmopolitanism and internationalism. But while race/ethnicity is commonly a means of class distinction in countries with immigration, I don't think it can be normalized across history. The Two Hundred Families are very French, for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Oh, so you're doing the "ignorant of my own privilege" thing. He's saying blacks don't have equal privilege to whites, despite the diversification of the social elite and basic protections for civil rights? Probably because a large part of the total oppression faced by poor black and brown people is economic. The tendency to call anyone who identifies that oppression a racist is the topic of this thread icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The ending of the book. So why not just come out and say what you mean rather than asking me to read a particular book?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:man all the cracker rear end marxists itt whining about "identity politics" really reinforce the notion that what a lot of white leftists really want—ironically, in common with the far right—is to recenter politics around white identity. no wonder PoC by and large know better than to trust white leftists Is it possible for a white leftist to criticize the political strategy of racial/gender/sexual empowerment movements without being a secret racist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:I feel there is a need for the quotation marks, given the fact that the "betrayal" happened a decade or three after those voters largely abandoned the left for the far right. The New Democrats are a direct result of too many New Deal Democrats abandoning the party over civil rights. If those voters had been able to accept the civil rights movement (a big if), then the third-way never happens. In that case, all US national politics from like the 70's onward looks so radically different its hard to even speculate on. Basically, our social democratic party followed the American Democrats in their ideological shift (alongside most/all social democratic parties in Europe), despite there being no party-loyalty shift among our working class until well after the ideological shift of the party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Except that expecting any actual wage, labor, or union reform is literally asking the sky of any political figure when superficial anti-discrimination efforts are paraded as progress (as long as you ignore systemic issues and at-will employment bypassing all of those protections). I wouldn't call them "superficial" so much as "free-for-academics". It all seems to line up with economic self-interest. If I'm an academic (or knowledge-worker), I benefit from higher-pay or cheaper-goods. Unions are a mixed blessing for me. On one hand, they help workers. On the other hand, they'll make things more expensive. Anti-discrimination policies are pretty much free. Even better, the people who oppose anti-discrimination laws tend to come from other tribes. Sometimes the opposition is an openly bigoted Red Tribe member. Other times, it's a scheming capitalist who's complaining about regulation. Either way, there's a clear right answer. The correct policy is free to implement. And its a topic that paints my group in an especially flattering light. So, it's no surprise that the identity stuff gets so much traction relative to everything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
There's a big whole in your analysis - the left doesn't need to prioritize domestic workers over foreign workers (which are equal if we're talking pure internationalism, though that's obviously not 100% tenable so long as there are separate nation states) to prioritize workers over owners though, which currently isn't the case with either flavor of neoliberal, which run both parties right now. That and, since we're also talking international politics at all, you're looking at a possible global alliance of workers in an increasingly global market. Though we're frankly not at a stage yet where that can work, though I think elements of it can still be adopted today, to build a foundation. The issue is that the politically-established left, as symbolized by certain shitposters itt, does not care about class, and will misuse progressive rhetoric to try and shut down class agitation. By trying to portray the issue as class vs. race, what's ignored is that race is itself a class system, and that solidarity comes as a result of class action. So, trade unions are called racist, but the fact that trade unions often (and still do) lead the charge against oppression, is conveniently swept under the rug.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Frankly the level of vitriol from all parties is more interesting and worrying than the specific beliefs of the ideologies. Both sides seem basically convinced of the ill faith of the other, and that IMO is a very bad omen. My prediction is that the centrist liberal element, which is a third group entirely separate from the identity/class groups, will stay on top by successfully playing the left groups against each other, which is something that's already basically happened and that we are currently witnessing
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:
There really isn't a significant side that pushes social progress (however you want to define that) over economic ones. There are just sides that recognize that economic issues are not the end be all, and there are sides that don't. For example, is redlining a "social" issue or an economic issue? Since the common vernacular of economic issue is "things that happen to white people too" it's not the latter. Or again, even with LGBT rights specific focus is put upon the disproportionate rates of LGBT homelessness, which is economic but only effects certain groups.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Considering Democrats were the Party of the Klan until the mid 60s, this doesn't really say what you think it does. Oh? If you want to go way back, who do you think was running socialist labor parties in the US back in the early 20th century?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Oh? If you want to go way back, who do you think was running socialist labor parties in the US back in the early 20th century? Gonna guess it wasn't the agrarian party that ruled the South.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 06:42
|
|