|
5. The cynics so disgusted with mainstream politics that they've checked out completely; the ones who didn't see anything more than a superficial difference between Trump and Clinton.
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Here you go: I don't understand why people who are ostensibly dedicated to making real-world progress are so dead set against adopting any strategy that doesn't fit their narrative of how things should go. Suggestions that the Left reach out to Trump voters using language and incentives that they understand is still being met with accusations of appeasement and moral degradation. Imagine a general in a real war demanding a stand-up fight against a better organized, more powerful opponent because "history's on our side" and "we shouldn't have to fight in a way we don't want to!" That's every pollyanna on the Left right now who thinks tone, messaging and outreach don't matter. At some point, probably very soon in America and Europe, the shrill Lefties occupying the limelight are going to have to decide which they care more about : actually improving the world in material ways, or being "right" in whatever egotistical way they've defined it. And if they make the wrong decision, everyone else is will have to decide what to do with them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Some poor white guy in a trailer in Arkansas doesn't have time to think about whether or not he benefits from the intangibles of a racist system. He's just trying to figure out how he's going to eat dinner. "Sometimes when I listen to these people talking, and still more when I read their books, I get the impression that, to them, the whole Socialist movement is no more than a kind of exciting heresy-hunt — a leaping to and fro of frenzied witch-doctors to the beat of tom-toms and the tune of "Fee fi, fo, fum, I smell the blood of a right-wing deviationist!"" - some rear end in a top hat, probably
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Those uppity activists need to stop making a fuss and inconveniencing people with their appeals to empathy and shared humanity.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Popular anger publicly expressed is a means of both elevating the powerless and punishing the powerful and thus is also the most pragmatic course of bringing about radical change. Intent matters. Nobody who is primarily motivated by resentment and a need to punish can be trusted with the power that they're seeking.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Stop strawmanning.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
No, I said that the angrier and less pragmatic an activist is, the more interested they are in punishing power than elevating the powerless. I did not say that any and all outbursts of anger are indicative of pathological resentment.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Wouldn't it be fair to say that all activists are angry about the status quo on some level? And what do you consider a pragmatic way to protest, if not through publicly expressing this discontent with the way things are? However, elsewhere and on these forums, people have claimed that it is unacceptable to NOT confront e.g. Trump voters with how essentially evil they are. For them, it is better to mock and deride Trump voters than it is to try to reason with them. Anyone who thinks that way cares more about punishing and hurting people (the right kinds of people, of course! only ever the right kind!) than they do about whatever their stated altruistic goals might be. Such an attitude is self-evidently awful regardless of the socieoeconomic status of its possessor. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Nobody's asking you to feel otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
I'd be curious to see the details of the subset of specific women who are actually having this debate, as opposed women in general. I wonder what interesting patterns would emerge? I wonder if they're even a representative group! Reminds me of an Orwell quote: "... Hence the fact that in times of stress 'educated' people tend to come to the front; they are no more gifted than the others and their 'education' is generally quite useless in itself, but they are accustomed to a certain amount of deference and consequently have the cheek necessary to a commander.”
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Dude what the gently caress are you even talking about? Having a feminist movement with POC women in leadership is not a bad thing. Good lord.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Adding "Expert" to your Twitter bio doesn't actually make you an expert.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Please tell minority women how to be good feminists, white man.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Um, that post kind of clearly distinguishes regular women as women who don't "understand black issues" which implies that they aren't black (since I'd imagine that black people understand black issues, what with being black and all). It should go without saying that I'm talking about everyone and not POC specifically. The fact that we're even having this discussion indicates to me that we're all pretty well educated or at least academically minded. Do any of you have any idea how loving esoteric a debate about normative language is? How specialized a topic that really is, in the grand scheme of things? It was pretty obvious what Frosted Flake was getting at from the broader context in which he used "regular", but let's instead disregard the point he was trying to make because he committed a word crime and it's extremely important to litigate that right now. And lets say it actually is extremely important to litigate that right now -- why is the tone "don't you know your theory you loving idiot? you moron?? are you even the right kind of person to talk about this???" As though he kicked down the door of a black feminist meeting to start mansplaining to them, or as though seeing what's problematic about the use of the word "regular" in that sentence is somehow the norm or to be expected. This is exactly what I was talking about before with the Orwell quote. How loving ironic it is that in our post-class war, IdPol-motivated Left, the litmus test for being a Good Person is how well you can perform being well-educated.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Like I can't even tell you how xenophobic it is to assume all foreigners are the hired help. You've made a single post in this thread longer than three sentences and you seem to have a hard time not hurling insults at people who disagree with you. Why don't you just start a blog if you're not interested in dialogue?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
I Killed GBS posted:Somehow I'm not convinced you're all that interested in dialogue yourself. Like right in the OP of the thread: quote:
The thread is obviously off the rails at this point. Do you see anything wrong with stone cold's antagonistic browbeating and insult-hurling or does she get a pass because you agree with her politics?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 02:55
|
|
Thread Rules:
|
A good article.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:This isn't a math class. These are actual people with actual emotions. But this all reads to me like we're talking about hypothetical people in hypothetical scenarios (referring specifically to posts like Mixodorian's). Are we talking about engaging in activism specifically or just trying to get through the day without some rear end in a top hat in the elevator asking to touch your hair? If activism specifically -- if you're putting yourself in a position of authority to speak on these issues (ie. adopting the mantle of "activist"), then isn't it incumbent on you to tailor your message for maximal effect (assuming you are actually interested in educating)? Taking D&D threads like this one as an example. Here we have a venue that's entirely voluntary and, until you identify yourself, completely colorblind (for better or worse). Suggesting that a venue like this, or e.g. an anti-oppression workshop or some kind of organizing meeting in the real world, is not a space in which you should (have to) enact the labor of educating the oppressor -- answering the dumb questions, treating them humanely -- seems very disingenuous. If not here (or there), then where? Nobody is forcing you to read the posts or field the questions, much less respond at all. Adopting a stance of "I shouldn't have to, so I won't" sounds like it's therapeutic but a bad outreach strategy. No doubt it gets tedious and tiring and boring but that doesn't mean it becomes any less necessary. Or, do you not actually care about educating? In that case, all bets are off. But if you do then ask any teacher how well adopting a stance of "I shouldn't have to work so hard to educate you" works for them. Using the universal "you" here. e. These aren't contradictory: lazorexplosion posted:The goal of activism is to educate both common people and politicians who don't care about your cause in why they should care about your cause and make political efforts to help your cause. Saying 'the goal of activism isn't to educate white people' is literally just wrong. TomViolence posted:The goal of activism is to make it untenable for the powerful to ignore your demands, not to come cap in hand to beseech the condescension and patronage of the bosses.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I have hinted in my posts that there seems to be no expectation, because the person you are educating can easily waste your time for 30 minutes only to gaslight you at the end. But since you are fighting for equality, your expectation is to just accept it and move on over and over and over again. e. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to exonerate the listener or the person being educated. They have a lot of heavy lifting to do, too. I just don't understand the attitude of "the oppressed should not have to educate the oppressor" as something that is supposed to actually nudge us closer to a better world. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:And do what? Cast their lot in with white liberals? Nearly every Asian American "leader" towed the liberal line for years and what is there to show for the community when it comes to progress? Immigrant groups are better off organizing political power within our own communities as opposed to assimilating into the other, "good" kind of whiteness. Could you direct me to more resources on the problems affecting Asian American communities?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Fredrik DeBoer made a relevant blog post on this point lately:quote:Scott Alexander wrote a piece in the middle of last year that I think is as essential as anything I’ve read in ages about how we argue now. His point is pretty simple: as political segregation increases, with people from dramatically different political camps less and less likely to interact, the really bitter political arguments are intra-group, not inter-group. That is, the battles that are most personal and toxic stop being Democrat-Republican but left-liberal, alt-trad, insurgents-establishment.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Why is it all of a sudden we're shedding tears for poors when for decades they would've been told bootstraps? Is it because whites are losing their ability to luck into well paying jobs and are lashing out??? This post only makes sense if you think rudatron is a closet Republican.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
the black husserl posted:Using the puerile term "idpol" makes you a tool of alt-right idiots who are trying to rebrand the voices of literally all racial, sexual, and political minorities as somehow irrelevant to the national discourse. It's the same slur as "crybaby", "whiner", etc - an obvious "war is peace" ploy to make people think resistance and strength is actually weakness. "IdPol" was not invented by the altright. I don't see any value in making it a shibboleth for wrongthinkers the way people do with "politically correct" or "SJW" -- the only reason to do that is to obfuscate and deflect. Identity Politics as such have a long history and the critiques of it are extensive, and are not limited to the altright. Whether you intended to or not, you're saying that anyone who questions the usefulness of IdPol is an altright stooge, or in other words, the enemy. You're also unfairly conflating anyone who pursues racial, sexual, ... justice as identity politicians, when many people who want those things would nevertheless buck at the label and what it represents.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 22:04
|
|