|
JeffersonClay posted:I agree that democrats need to be addressing both problems, and in stronger terms. I'm suggesting that there might be situations where "do both, real big" isn't possible electorally. You can't meaningfully address one without the other, though. Your argument is that welfare is unpopular with white people because minorities might get it too, but addressing the actual long-term legacy of racism in this country requires fiscal policy explicitly targeted at minorities. Not only that, but dismantling the various forms of privilege enjoyed by white people will literally make it more difficult for their children to compete for limited educational and employment resources. There isn't a two step process where you can fix racism and then come back later to fix its legacy of economic oppression.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Or we could look to earlier joint companies and conclude that capitalism does, in fact, go back to Catalhoyuk, which is not even wrong. Sorry but this argument is laughable. Anyone can trace whatever outrage to some historical event in the past, which is what you seem set out to do. But you only do that by ignoring the complexities of societies and cultures. So simplifications are ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's pretty simple; ignore it, vote for candidates who aren't squeamish about fiscal leftism, don't support primary candidates whos only message is "we're not like Trump!" But you can't ignore it, this is my whole problem with this debate. Its easy to act like identity politics is some demon conjured up by the elite to keep us all divided but that does nothing about the fact that different interest groups (that aren't necessarily defined by class) still exist in society with specific and sometimes exclusive problems. You cannot win an election in the United States or anywhere else without finding a way to mobilize those groups and the horrible truth is that in this point in time Class Consciousness has next to no meaning to the vast majority of the population throughout the western world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's no complex, friend. It happened in the primaries; any and all concerns about Hillary's competence in the GE and Sander's strength on both fiscal and social sides were handwaved with attempts to tar them as racist and sexist. It got to the point where Hillary surrogates were suggesting that there was a special place in hell for women who voted Sanders, and that Sanders obtained the vast majority of the 18-30 women's vote because they were strolling for dick. I'm sorry your candidate failed to win the Democratic primaries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Sorry but this argument is laughable. Anyone can trace whatever outrage to some historical event in the past, which is what you seem set out to do. But you only do that by ignoring the complexities of societies and cultures. What? This is nonsense. You don't know what Catalhoyuk is, so you should have asked or discreetly googled it, instead of making a brainless post like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm sorry your candidate failed to win the Democratic primaries. Welp.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Identity Politics is not the enemy of fiscal leftism. It's a roadblock at best, a bizarre internalization of the labels granted by the elite to divide them, taken with pride. How is it even a roadblock? "Identity politics" divorced from the pejorative title are unambiguously good things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:But you can't ignore it, this is my whole problem with this debate. Its easy to act like identity politics is some demon conjured up by the elite to keep us all divided but that does nothing about the fact that different interest groups (that aren't necessarily defined by class) still exist in society with specific and sometimes exclusive problems. You cannot win an election in the United States or anywhere else without finding a way to mobilize those groups and the horrible truth is that in this point in time Class Consciousness has next to no meaning to the vast majority of the population throughout the western world. Then those problems are tackled by the whole, and not ignored. You don't need to create a tribe against other leftists to get this accomplished. Class Consciousness may not exist within Jack Smith of Michigan's vernacular, but he knows that one candidate doesn't give a poo poo about him and the other's a racist conman, so he sits out the election and we lose. That's the path that attempting to oust fiscal leftism in some absurd attempt to solve discrimination without fiscal tools ends in. You can ignore Identity Politics, because it makes the assumption that they are the end-all be-all of politics despite not actually being that. They do most of the leg-work for you with their "my way or the highway" approach to ally-building.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm sorry your candidate failed to win the Democratic primaries. Are you interested in discussing problems within the democratic party and pertaining to identity politics, or are you going to just keep rallying against fiscally left policies and throwing out zero-effort barbs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
The terminology is allowing people who sincerely do want to push minority rights aside to blend in among those who sincerely want to fight against oppression on all fronts. That is my concern.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Are you interested in discussing problems within the democratic party and pertaining to identity politics, or are you going to just keep rallying against fiscally left policies and throwing out zero-effort barbs. How exactly does pointing out the problems that need to be addressed in the so-called "fiscal left" equate as rallying against fiscal left policies?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Are you interested in discussing problems within the democratic party and pertaining to identity politics, or are you going to just keep rallying against fiscally left policies and throwing out zero-effort barbs. It's pretty relevant that the candidate of anti-identity politics people lost his campaign to be nominated by millions of votes, yes. Perhaps he shouldn't have made any nods to feminism or anti-racism, and then would have won.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:How is it even a roadblock? "Identity politics" divorced from the pejorative title are unambiguously good things. Because most people don't even know the word and its application to their problems, and those that do have an overwhelmingly high chance of associating it with kneejerk "I guess we need to become RACIST because we need Ignoring this tribal mindset doesn't make those good things disappear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
"White, black, gay, straight, trans, cis, man or woman -- we all deserve food, shelter, medical care, and opportunities to better our lives and the lives of our families" *bursts into thread, read-faced and panting* NO YOU ACTUALLY WANT IS TO SYSTEMATICALLY CRUSH ALL NONWHITE NONGAY NONTRANS PEOPLE YOU VILE RATFUCKER
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Because most people don't even know the word and its application to their problems, and those that do have an overwhelmingly high chance of associating it with kneejerk "I guess we need to become RACIST because we need Have you thought that maybe you could try a little harder and have both.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:A pretty good example of why "we need both" is a facile lie is that the people saying it are pushing respectability politics for the minorities. Thus, since LGBT people can't put pressure on society in general because that's "alienating" and can't put pressure on corporations because that's "neoliberalism", what would actually happen in Freddie the Boor's ideal leftism is that LGBT liberation and LGBT people as a class would slowly get strangled into oblivion. No one is saying that except you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
deep web creep posted:"White, black, gay, straight, trans, cis, man or woman -- we all deserve food, shelter, medical care, and opportunities to better our lives and the lives of our families" Yes, the people who disagree with you are dumb and so god drat crazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:What? This is nonsense. You don't know what Catalhoyuk is, so you should have asked or discreetly googled it, instead of making a brainless post like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Have you thought that maybe you could try a little harder and have both. Who is saying we can't have both? Holy gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
stone cold posted:How exactly does pointing out the problems that need to be addressed in the so-called "fiscal left" equate as rallying against fiscal left policies? Because he's not. He's trying to imply that fiscal leftists are neoliberals unconcerned with the plight of their allies. That's not critique, that's being absurd. Brainiac Five posted:It's pretty relevant that the candidate of anti-identity politics people lost his campaign to be nominated by millions of votes, yes. Perhaps he shouldn't have made any nods to feminism or anti-racism, and then would have won. If we're going to discuss the primary race, then it's of note to compare the candidates: someone who had no name recognition beforehand, who only started gaining recognition weeks before vote registration would be ending, with little ties to the party before the race, vs. the biggest non-Obama figure in the Democratic Party, who has had multiple federal positions to establish outreach within minority groups over the span of decades, with support from the DNC and with a far higher amount of available funds from the start. In spite of all this, Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly won the 18-30 Democrat vote, achieving a near-unanimous majority between men and women in all demographics but black (was somewhere around 55 Sanders 45 Hillary) and Hispanic (70-30 or somesuch). Following this race, Hillary proceded to lose to an orange faced real-estate populist by failing to get hundreds of thousands of votes within key states that Obama managed to generate, that were polled to have gone to Sanders in the primaries. Those demographics are also darkly amusing; despite the constant insistence that time and history is on the side of the neoliberals, the vast majority of new democrats are on the side of Social AND Fiscal leftism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Yes, the people who disagree with you are dumb and so god drat crazy. Maybe don't quote Shmorky when trying to prove your point about not being dumb and crazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
You have to remember that the last 2 years especially have been incredibly filled with the ever dreaded OUTRAGE. And no one will admit it but every liberal leaning article talking about identity politics that gets passed around Facebook with thousands of shares usually sounds something like "gently caress all white people for being lovely trash." It's sensationalism but it's what people see. There are tons of liberals who write and speak about issues in a reasoned manner, but the ones that get attention are not those ones. We sit here now going "all we wanted was to have total equality how is that message too tough to swallow?!!!!" While totally ignoring the condescending and hostile tone that popular social media liberalism has taken. The left has had a consistent tone of "listen when I speak and believe it without question or you are trash." Ignoring that is willfully ignorant and 100% drives away people who would probably come around if they saw liberal talking points presented without the demand for thought compliance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:My argument is racism as we know it today is a modern concept, its simply not how people in the classical, middle ages, or Renaissance era on how people were categorized. No it isn't, your argument is that racism emerged from capitalism, and you ignored the evidence posted against it to repeat yourself like a parrot, except parrots are about three, five times smarter than you. Neurolimal posted:Because he's not. He's trying to imply that fiscal leftists are neoliberals unconcerned with the plight of their allies. That's not critique, that's being absurd. No I'm not. Your brain damage about the term "neoliberalism" is not a universal thing, buddy. It's a real shame that George McGovern democratized the primaries, such that it became necessary to campaign for the nomination instead of just handing the nomination to Bernie Sanders outright. Rexicon1 posted:Maybe don't quote Shmorky when trying to prove your point about not being dumb and crazy. Wait, hold on. I thought that we were talking about the intellectual content, not whether a person you dislike is associated with the idea. I guess now's a good time to point out that Hitler ate, drank, breathed, and poo poo, so you should refrain from doing, well, all of those things, but also the last one, because then I won't be reading any more of your posts. Brainiac Five fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Then those problems are tackled by the whole, and not ignored. You don't need to create a tribe against other leftists to get this accomplished. Class Consciousness may not exist within Jack Smith of Michigan's vernacular, but he knows that one candidate doesn't give a poo poo about him and the other's a racist conman, so he sits out the election and we lose. That's the path that attempting to oust fiscal leftism in some absurd attempt to solve discrimination without fiscal tools ends in. They can, but they often aren't, in fact the history of leftist movements all around the world shows how difficult it can be to prompt them to take a proactive stance on issues, especially concerning race and gender, that aren't directly related to class. Within those movements you tended to have to have what was identity politics at work to try and force, say, the labour movement in America to try and shed its disdain for nonwhite workers, and they often failed to do so. And getting onto your example of Jack Smith here, what you seem to be saying is what I've been hearing a lot, that Clinton seemed as though she didn't give a poo poo about him and his plight. The thing is that Clinton had that problem across the board with almost all Democrat groups, including racial minorities. I find it very odd that people are choosing this time to bitch about Identity Politics when a major part of the problem that I can see for the Democrats was that they failed to show that they would really engage with the interests of the various identity groups in the US, while Trump was able to do with the largest identity group of them all. And yes, those interests can be primarily economic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Those demographics are also darkly amusing; despite the constant insistence that time and history is on the side of the neoliberals, the vast majority of new democrats are on the side of Social AND Fiscal leftism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
A rising tide lifting all boats is a good metaphor provided you ignore all the people, particularly those advocating for it, shooting holes in other people's boats while reinforcing theirs with stolen materials.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Then those problems are tackled by the whole, and not ignored. Neurolimal posted:You can ignore Identity Politics I was going to type something up about "actually the issue is that those problems are frequently ignored by people who have a pretty useless definition of "no war but class war" but I think you illustrated that point quite well tbh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Who is saying we can't have both? Holy gently caress. Isn't that literally what people mean when they say they don't like identity politics?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It's a real shame that George McGovern democratized the primaries, such that it became necessary to campaign for the nomination instead of just handing the nomination to Bernie Sanders outright. We're discussing identity politics, its future, and its problems. I don't understand your bizarre obsession with attacking a candidate that displayed this during the primaries via non-sequiturs that contribute nothing to the conversation. If you're trying to imply that the majority of democrats do not like Sanders, then that is simply wrong; over 90% of polled Hillary supporting democrats chose "very satisfied" when asked the question of "How would you feel if Bernie Sanders became president?". The majority of IRL voters didn't actually hate either candidate (despite hilarious articles implying otherwise).
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No it isn't, your argument is that racism emerged from capitalism, and you ignored the evidence posted against it to repeat yourself like a parrot, except parrots are about three, five times smarter than you. What evidence against it? Seriously dude enough with the snarky smug insults, you are out to lunch on this topic. Go humble yourself by taking a simple survey course on the middle ages and the Renaissance. Or read Othello. There was simply no biological theory that supported racial supremacy before colonialism arose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
check it out here's what the blackest transest satanist and the whitest straightest christian want: - food - shelter - safety but we can't talk about this because it is bernie bro Pentecoastal Elites fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Byolante posted:Because neoliberals use it as a wedge issue to divide classes so they won't unite on economic issues We should've just closed the thread after this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:We're discussing identity politics, its future, and its problems. I don't understand your bizarre obsession with attacking a candidate that displayed this during the primaries via non-sequiturs that contribute nothing to the conversation. You are the one who keeps relitigating it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:We're discussing identity politics, its future, and its problems. I don't understand your bizarre obsession with attacking a candidate that displayed this during the primaries via non-sequiturs that contribute nothing to the conversation. The problem, Neurolimal, is that putting forward a candidate who did what the anti-identity politics people wanted, failed. Democrats decided not to pick him as their first choice. So, either you can say he didn't go far enough on opposing identity politics, or you can conclude that minorities need to be reeducated on where their real interests lie, or you can conclude that your obsession with identity politics is the mark of a child, and put away childish things. Confounding Factor posted:What evidence against it? Seriously dude enough with the snarky smug insults, you are out to lunch on this topic. Go humble yourself by taking a simple survey course on the middle ages and the Renaissance. Or read Othello. There was simply no biological theory that supported racial supremacy before colonialism arose. I wrote an entire loving post about how the temporal relationship doesn't work out with capitalism originating racism unless we redefine capitalism. Like, colonizing and economically exploiting an area isn't something only capitalists can do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
deep web creep posted:check it out here's what the blackest transest satanist and the whitest straightest christian want: The latter person wants to deny the third of those things to the former person, at a minimum, and wants to deny the first two in the majority of cases. Your inability to recognize that this is even a possibility points to why your approach failed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I was going to type something up about "actually the issue is that those problems are frequently ignored by people who have a pretty useless definition of "no war but class war" but I think you illustrated that point quite well tbh. If you ignore that my prior posts established that when I speak of Identity Politics I refer specifically to a certain mindset that is toxic towards leftist allies, sure. khwarezm posted:They can, but they often aren't, in fact the history of leftist movements all around the world shows how difficult it can be to prompt them to take a proactive stance on issues, especially concerning race and gender, that aren't directly related to class. Within those movements you tended to have to have what was identity politics at work to try and force, say, the labour movement in America to try and shed its disdain for nonwhite workers, and they often failed to do so. This is a reasonable argument, and the best retort I can give is that we can only hope that our influence on the media has resulted in a society that would not abandon minorities if an initiative failed to benefit them. If there are actions that can be taken to ensure that they also receive the help they need, then I know I'd certainly do what I can to help push it and sell it to my friends and allies. quote:And getting onto your example of Jack Smith here, what you seem to be saying is what I've been hearing a lot, that Clinton seemed as though she didn't give a poo poo about him and his plight. The thing is that Clinton had that problem across the board with almost all Democrat groups, including racial minorities. I find it very odd that people are choosing this time to bitch about Identity Politics when a major part of the problem that I can see for the Democrats was that they failed to show that they would really engage with the interests of the various identity groups in the US, while Trump was able to do with the largest identity group of them all. And yes, those interests can be primarily economic. Certainly, it's true that there's been a rather laser-focus on this one issue that Hillary had when she had issues across the board. I'd say that a part of it is vindication on the part of the less-listened segments of the D party, but it's still a good idea to look at why Hillary failed to motivate demographics across the board, irregardless of wealth. I can't speak for racial minorities, but I will say that her track record on LGBQT rights felt very convenient-timing of her, like a lot of Big Important Centrist Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
deep web creep posted:check it out here's what the blackest transest satanist and the whitest straightest christian want: Would fighting housing discrimination or hate crimes be ID politics?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The latter person wants to deny the third of those things to the former person, at a minimum, and wants to deny the first two in the majority of cases. Your inability to recognize that this is even a possibility points to why your approach failed. Ok, what's your solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The problem, Neurolimal, is that putting forward a candidate who did what the anti-identity politics people wanted, failed. Democrats decided not to pick him as their first choice. So, either you can say he didn't go far enough on opposing identity politics, or you can conclude that minorities need to be reeducated on where their real interests lie, or you can conclude that your obsession with identity politics is the mark of a child, and put away childish things. Alternatively, the Clinton family had a lot of (well-earned) support among minority communities thanks to decades of outreach through the power only a federal billionaire family could hold, and that they liked Sander's message but simply felt in Clinton's debt, for being a politician who actually reached out to black community leaders. The race wasn't black-white (hurr) "Identity Politics vs. Fiscal Leftism", there were significant elements of trust and generational gaps at play which made the race such a compelling read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Would fighting housing discrimination or hate crimes be ID politics? No. How many times does it need to be reiterated that social and economic justice are not mutually exclusive?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:33
|
|