|
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. I keep seeing this but it rings really hollow to me. Leftest movements haven't been especially resistant to issues of race and gender, people have historically been resistant to them. Many left movements excluded those things to be sure, but it's not like they did so in opposition to a right supporting those issues. The economic left has not been a good ally of social movements, but it has been the closest ally. The fates of social justice and class justice are stuck together whether they like it or not. Either side can suck up to power to be the highest slave, but the only real ally either will get is the other. The Democrats deliberately abandoned labour right when they perceived social justice had real power behind it. They could have concluded that they needed to spread the message of social justice within the working class, or link the two more thoroughly in the minds of working class voters, but instead decided they'd drop one demographic for the other. If they hadn't driven a rift between labour and social justice the two would have been an unstoppable coalition. Weird coincidence that. Now working class whites get to decide between a party that hates them because they're working class and a party that hates them because they're working class whites. Working class minorities are also hosed of course but they've never had a party that genuinely cared about them I don't think.
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Many, many people on here have expressed to me the opinion that as long as it's "punching up" it's acceptable. I agree that the "you must denounce these people nominally associated with you ideologically" is dumb poo poo but you ought to not explicitly condone their actions. This pisses me off so much. The whole punching up thing is to do with power. It is to do with punching up at the people in power or pulling the strings of power. Privilege != power. Being white is not powerful, it's a ticket to not suffer the bullshit minorities have to face. Which is a sweet deal if you get it, but it's not the same as having power. You can't poo poo on white people and pretend you're punching up. Especially when the rural poor are the target. "Punching up" at poor rural whites is basically the definition of loving up what punching up means. Comedy is one of the best ways to rhetorically hit back against power. Don't gently caress with it by using it to perpetuate the entire reason modern racism exists (scapegoating demographics to shield the elites). Specific white people are loving poo poo up. Blame those specific people. Also attacking a political base is amazing. Keep focus on politicians and their sugar daddies. Those are the people who make the real decisions and manipulate the public. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You are an avatar of Fox News campus leftists. Yeah the idea of minority rights and equality has (rightly) become mainstream enough that it's attracted its own brand of authoritarians. Watching them rage against their counterparts on the right is like watching fundamentalist christians and radical islamists each call the other the devil. Watching them beat up on their own side for not toeing their line reminds me of the reaction to people thinking that bombing the poo poo out of Iraq was a bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 03:02
|
|