|
Ytlaya posted:Yes, this is a legitimate problem. There definitely do exist a bunch of (white male) leftists who would rather ignore minority/gender issues. But at the same time "Democrats should add more economic populism to their message/platform" is in no way an inherently racist/bigoted message, and it does not directly translate to "let's appeal to white men" (since it's not like white people are the only people who care about economic populism). All the minority and lgbt activist groups are way to the left of the party economically anyway. Them growing more powerful has been a big part of the party moving economically to the left over the past few years and killing of the Reagancrats. The same demographics ranting about identity politics today seem to line up pretty nicely with the democratic factions that pushed economic conservatism ("moderates") the hardest in the 90's and early oughts, while still whining about identity politics. The venn diagram for the social and economic left of the democratic party have pretty much been a circle until recently, when rust belt whites and vaguely left young whites stopped saying "communism doesn't work lol, we don't need unions in america" and decided they felt bad about helping kill off unions but couldn't lay the blame at their own loving feet for it.
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:So uh, when did this become the 'Karl marx economic fanclub'? I thought you guys were going to be talking about stuff like the hypocricy of most media progressives when it comes to people like Caitlyn Jenner or Milo Yiannopolus? Log cabin republicans got their start supporting politicians that wanted to continue to jail gays in opposition to politicians who wanted to stop jailing gays and haven't gotten any better or less pathetic. Caitlyn Jenner supports a party that think shes a subhuman monster because she personally has enough to wealth to get around anything republicans would do to people like her. Milo Yiannopolus says lovely poo poo like homosexuality should be recriminalized for our own good. "Left wing jews treat jews who vote for Hitler with contempt for not toeing the party line, what a bunch of hypocrites!!!" And yeah  and all, but it frankly isn't unwarranted given the poo poo even 'moderate' republicans push.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Ignoring the screaming match above, where is the idea that democrats abandoned economic leftism coming from? Have you been in some hoxhaist bunker for the past 50 years? This was probably the first election in our lives where the democratic party could be even vaguely considered a leftist party, instead of the party leftists vote for. Ya'll seem to be doing the whole "longing for a golden age that never was" bullshit and laying the blame for economic leftism at the feet of the political factions that launched leftist economics back into viability. Frankly I long for the days when socialism was just for Jews, queers, and coloreds cuz holy poo poo do the johnny-come-latelys suck at it. e: Also I think it's profoundly absurd to say that black/queer issues dominated the party. What would the equivalent legislative plank on the "identity politics" side be of say, student loan reform be? All of the "identity politics" wins have been either done on the Judicial or local level. Outside of criticizing Trump for saying lovely things, at what point were we the focus of this election? Schizotek fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:What an absolutely absurd claim. That's like saying Goldman Sachs can be considered leftist because it's for social justice movements (that don't directly challenge its interests). At what point were the Democrats farther to the left economically? The nineties? the early oughts? Maybe you're old enough to remember the glorious socialist heyday of the 80's? The democrats didn't betray the economic left because they were never economic leftists to begin with, and they were the closest they've been to being socialists this election. e: I do like how even in a comparison of Democratic party economic platforms you can't stop loving whining about SOCIAL JUSTICE!!!!! Schizotek fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:obama was farther to the left because he at least carried the lie of change all the way to election day, whereas clinton stopped talking about it as soon as she felt like she had the election in the bag Hammering at what is perceived to be an opponents week point isn't the same as abandoning policy, and Clinton was, in terms of policies actually advocated for, to the left of even election Obama. Neither are socialists, and I think if Obama had been running he'd probably have been farther to the left than she was. But that doesn't change the fact that economic leftism has only very very recently become anything but a death sentence on the national stage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Hot take-- people that hate identity politics are real bad at identity politics. Hot take: all of this is a reaction to berniebros being pointed out that their beloved weed wizard was about as popular as the clap with minorities when it came time to vote in the primary. e: half serious tbh. Schizotek fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:It's amusing whenever you post because I always imagine your avatar pic saying it in a grumpy fashion. Where is your avatar from anyway? It's one of a series of redtexts I got immediately after the election, like a bunch of the redtexts that are around right now. I'm actually not entirely sure which post this one is for, but it's from some Seth Rogan pixarlike that came out this year. I didn't know what it was from until someone else pointed it out for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJJWEqVdt_4&t=57s The movie itself looks...painful.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:This thread started to become hilarious when communism/capitalism/marxism started entering the discussion and started pushing out people who were trying to talk about the popular perception of identity politics and the horrid voices/events making the various identities so toxic to people that Trump was acceptable since he was not supported by those groups. Progressive identity politics and the most rabid hypocritical supporters of it in the twittersphere/tumblrsphere have poisoned the idea for so many in recent years. How would you apply this same idea to say....gamergate? I'm super interested in your thoughts on that Pharohman777.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:It's a great thing! Good thing it wasn't!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Sethex posted:When OP says that identity politics didn't impact the hillary campaign negatively is that conclusion reached by assuming that labelling progressive democrats as 'bernie bros' didn't suppress voter enthusiasm or turnout in a really close election? Black people and quers didn't invent or popularize the concept of "white culture" you historically illiterate nitwit. Also I really hesitate to call the demographics that Bernie won the "progressive" democrats, given their socialism seemed to stem more from adopting Bernies beliefs because they supported him than something that was already there. I'm glad that economic leftism is catching on, I really am. But this is some "we've always been at war with East Asia" nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I'd like to hear your idea of what the thought process of someone who doesn't like socialism or policies pertaining to it, but becomes really interested in Bernie Sanders. Just write out what you think is going through this hypothetical person's head. I'm not saying they "didn't like it". I'm saying they're basically former one issue voters who adopted the rest of his platform through osmosis and now claim that young white dudes are the vanguard of the socialism that are being held back by the politics of minorities. Go back and look at all of the media surrounding Bernies early campaign and I'm sure you can figure out which issue I'm talking about. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well then let that be a major plank of the democrats platform. Along with freeing all the drug offenders. I agree. Keep in mind that not only did I vote for Bernie, but actively campaigned for him. But by and large all of the other people I know of who weren't actively campaigning but supported Bernie were pretty firmly in the "college stoner" demographic and most of them either were voting for the first time in their lives or (more often) never even bothered to do that. Most of the political orgs I've joined since moving and being in uni this semester kinda report the same thing. Pretty much everyone voted (and actually voted) Bernie, but the bulk of the electorate aren't active campaigners, and were politically apathetic up until Bernie lost, and then after complaining for a week went back to being politically apathetic except to whine about $hillary. I actually wore  this shirt, and still do on occasion. But I'm not gonna pretend I didn't find the weird obsessive focus on Bernie's weed policy by a bunch of his supporters to be a tad grating and myopic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
I'm not sure where you think all of these fiscally conservative, socially left people are. I mean you can keep going on insinuating white dudes are the socialistic core of america but that doesn't make it remotely true. It's like somebody cloned a bunch of Ted Ralls and unleashed them on the forums.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:They werrn't exactly invisible during the primaries Clearly anyone who voted for Clinton over MAH BERNIE couldn't have done so for any reason other than being a libertarian.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's this kind of overreaction in defense of people only referenced that you have no idea about that makes allies wary. OK, do more than reference so you don't have vagueness to hide behind when you make dumb insinuations.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Just to step back a bit for anyone jumping to the last page; whats going on is that one side that believes cops are bad and racist is accusing the other side that thinks cops are bad and racist of not thinkinh cops are bad and racist enough, to cover the fact that they had bupkiss of an overexaggeration that minorities are getting lynched in sundown towns. Oh there are plenty of fiscal conservatives in the party. They just don't tend to overlap with hardcore minority rights activists. Yall in this thread are talking about idpol folks "working with" the fiscal left, when in reality they pretty much are the fiscal left.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Listen, Trump got 10% of the black vote instead of 7%. Clearly the Republicans are the true party of black interests now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Minorities have already rejected you. You spent the election trying to whip them up into a frenzy about Trump while offering them nothing. You have no way to advance the cause of women, black people, Latinos or any other minority besides to point to your mirror image and say you're better than that guy. And a month ago you were telling us that there was going to be a surge from those groups to put your horrible, corrupt neoliberal candidate in office, and that surge never materialized. It was the opposite. They voted Republican even more than last time, and most of them stayed home. You have already lost. I have no idea whether the US working class will adopt revolutionary socialism, but thank God they're finally done with you. Depressed minority vote probably has more to do with VRA shenanigans than them not being worried about Trump. But then again: Thug Lessons posted:Let's stop pretending ISIS is something special. Basically any Muslim would love to Rambo a gay nightclub and the only reason they haven't is because liberal cucks have taken all their guns. You aren't really a leftist, and just kinda pretend to be for some weird reason? Like why lie about where your actual politics lay? There's room enough in D&D for open Trump supporters.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No, it wasn't. This is just a lie liberals like to tell themselves to excuse their abysmal failure. If the message of liberal identity politics on steroids was actually compelling to minorities you would have seen a voting surge that dwarfed all the voter suppression. It wasn't, and now because of your worthless incompetence we have live through Trump raping the country to death for the next four years. What, besides the esteemed opinion of yourself, makes it a lie? VRA got gutted. A bunch of states, including swing states, took advantage to shut down hundreds of minority polling stations and remove early voting. Do you have any proof that, uh, "Making the entire platform about minorities" or whatever the gently caress fever dream idiots in this thread actually think is a thing was the reason and not that?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
"Some Idiot' posted:This is equally true on race-related and non-race-related issues. People ask “How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya, if he wasn’t racist?” I don’t know. How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that vaccines cause autism? How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that the Clintons killed Vince Foster? How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that Ted Cruz’s father shot JFK?  
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:Michigan nor Penn had VRA's, and you screaming minorities aren't smart enough to get id's or capable voting is demeaning. I missed this. I never mentioned voter ID. Why you lyin? Thug Lessons posted:Liberals don't understand that you can't counter a message like Trump's if you fail to offer a counter-narrative. It was clear to everyone that he was racist, sexist, xenophobic and everything else, and Hillary lost because she failed to tell any of those groups how she'd do anything differently. And for that matter she didn't intend to. It's just like how she attacked Trump for failing pay taxes but never offered a solution that would make billionaires like Trump pay taxes. She didn't want billionaires to pay taxes so everyone saw right through it, and that's exactly what happened on her identity politics argument too. Unless you have actual solutions, which contemporary identity politics doesn't, everyone will tell you to gently caress off. The hysterical specter of Trumpschwitz isn't enough. The kernal of truth in this is that negative campaigns don't work no matter how awful your opponent is, and focusing on Trumps failings to the extent she did was a really bad mistake, but one that seemed reasonable at the time. Hopefully with Kerry and Hillary combined we can avoid this same mistake for a generation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
Did you mean to post that in the Donald Trump Presidency thread or....
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 05:52
|
|