|
You'll have to forgive me for concluding that posts which fling baseless accusations of racism while simultaneously gaslighting the anti-racist elements of the Clinton campaign aren't worth responding to with more than derision.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
For those following at home here's the post I'm referring to btw:quote:
JeffersonClay posted:Wow!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You'll have to forgive me for concluding that posts which fling baseless accusations of racism while simultaneously gaslighting the anti-racist elements of the Clinton campaign aren't worth responding to with more than derision. Defending a refusal to support diversity beyond empty platitudes with "you can't promote diversity with policy alone," is, I regret to inform you, not someone else's fault, JeffersonClay. Nor did anyone else say the Clinton campaign's error was being "too pluralistic." But hey, who knows, maybe if Democrats manage to water down the platitudes a little more next time we'll be able to pick up those two suburban republicans Schumer promised for all those working-class voters we lost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I'm starting to realize that JC's gimmick pretty much requires Effectronica's shitposting to make him look cerebral by comparison. At least with Brainiac Five and Fulchrum you know where they stand. JC and people like him can blend in with progressives pretty well and it's not until it's time to actually do a thing, that you come to find out they're the worst possible allies to have. If we're going to clean up the Democratic party we have to start with folks like him - the B5s and the Fulchrums will take care of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I have never once seen JeffersonClay engage Brainiac Five or Fulchrum over their poo poo posting and hostile attitudes. Meanwhile progressives on this board do disagree with each other over certain points and do a much better job resisting the tendency to form a hivemind. Eh. B5 makes an important point worth keeping on board. The brand of stupidity that believes the Clinton campaign's error was in saying "racism and sexism are bad" crosses lines within the party, in the case of an awful lot of young leftists because they feel like it's a cudgel to ignore genuine class concerns and thus automatically worth ignoring when brought up, and in the case of an awful lot of centrists because if that was the Hillary campaign's mistake they can just chuck minorities under the bus as far as messaging is concerned and keep on exactly as they were before policy-wise, i.e. not proposing any. The fear that a bunch of leftists talking class not race will put together policies that leave minorities behind where they do not actively worsen their conditions is, unfortunately, a historically well-founded one to have, and worth keeping in mind when you talk about building an anti-Trump coalition. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Eh. B5 makes an important point worth keeping on board. The brand of stupidity that believes the Clinton campaign's error was in saying "racism and sexism are bad" crosses lines within the party, in the case of an awful lot of young leftists because they feel like it's a cudgel to ignore genuine class concerns and thus automatically worth ignoring when brought up, and in the case of an awful lot of centrists because if that was the Hillary campaign's mistake they can just chuck minorities under the bus as far as messaging is concerned and keep on exactly as they were before policy-wise, i.e. not proposing any.  Like I said I find them both a lot more tolerable than JC, with whom I'd be wary of working together with to so much as mow someone's lawn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:in the case of an awful lot of young leftists because they feel like it's a cudgel to ignore genuine class concerns and thus automatically worth ignoring when brought up I think this is a false equivalency. I haven't seen any young leftists try to say that we need to outright ignore all social progress to focus on class concerns while clintonites have been pretty open with their belief that any economic anxiety is baseless racist worry. Ze Pollack posted:The fear that a bunch of leftists talking class not race will put together policies that leave minorities behind where they do not actively worsen their conditions is, unfortunately, a historically well-founded one to have, and worth keeping in mind when you talk about building an anti-Trump coalition. Like?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:For those following at home here's the post I'm referring to btw: You found a bunch of my posts where I said something like "I don't think moving left will necessarily make it easier for democrats to win elections". And you think that somehow this is evidence that I: quote:
So sure, I've suggested that moving left won't be any more popular than what democrats put out in the 2016 platform. That's not actually the same thing as suggesting they're unpopular. And the rest of this is just some crazy boogieman that you've constructed because I don't have sufficient faith in Bernie's political strategy. I guess I should feel good about having my very own SA forums stalker, dedicated to exposing my perfidious centrism, but maybe you should relax a little? Or if you can't handle someone disagreeing on policy without projecting your paranoid delusions onto them, maybe stick to C-spam? Ze Pollack posted:Defending a refusal to support diversity beyond empty platitudes with "you can't promote diversity with policy alone," is, I regret to inform you, not someone else's fault, JeffersonClay. You keep erasing the anti-racist, anti-sexist elements of Clinton's campaign, and then accuse people who acknowledge that racism and sexism are real and impact electoral outcomes of being the real racists and sexists. You've got an adorable lack of self-awareness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I guess I should feel good about having my very own SA forums stalker, dedicated to exposing my perfidious centrism, but maybe you should relax a little? Or if you can't handle someone disagreeing on policy without projecting your paranoid delusions onto them, maybe stick to C-spam?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
im here for one simple reason - to remind each and every one of yall that ur terrible, broken creatures
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Frame the healthcare bill as "a bad deal."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Like? The new deal itself, for one. That said I don't think the risk of that is as high as neoliberals are making it out to be. Younger generations are much more enlightened than those of FDR's time and wouldn't tolerate the kind of poo poo. Plus left wing leaders are largely aware of this history and are uninclined to repeat it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
The New Deal was designed to have racist effects. It still helped black people despite the best efforts of Southern Democrats. There is no reason to assume our future massive leftist programs will be designed to exclude minorities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Nah I think I'll just keep reminding people that you're a centrist Blairite shill, and not worth anyone's time, whenever you start kinda talking a sorta half-assed progressive game, as you do. Just for the benefit of anyone reading your posts who doesn't realize what you actually stand for, or more accurately doesn't realize that you stand for nothing. I appreciate you dropping your bulleted list of paranoid accusations at least. Progress!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The New Deal was designed to have racist effects. It still helped black people despite the best efforts of Southern Democrats. There is no reason to assume our future massive leftist programs will be designed to exclude minorities. Would you agree minorities have a fair reason to be cynical/wary about such a promise?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Like? Many economically left policies have either intentionally left out minorities (the New Deal as mentioned) or had egregious gaps in implementation that allowed groups down the line - states, banks, cities, etc - to gently caress over minorities. A lot of means tested programs, for instance, mean well in keeping benefits out of the hands of the wealthy but always end up getting implemented in extremely discriminatory fashion. As an example, in order to means test you need to have documented income, which fucks over undocumented workers or workers in the informal economy. Housing policy also tends to ignore sorting effects and racist loan officers, which is how generous lending policies trap minorities in ghettos with red lining but allow whites to have upwardly mobile middle class neighborhoods. Then you have education policies that let middle class white students from wealthier neighborhoods (because racistly implemented lending policies gave whites better homes and more business options) compound their benefits into future generations while the ghetto schools fail an entire generation of minorities while getting their funding cut further because they're under performing. Crafting good policy is very difficult because lots of people can hijack it even if the original policy maker is well intentioned. You need more than a wonk at the top, you need an entire structure dedicated to equitable implementation and enforcement in order to keep things on track. So yeah, the concern that economic justice policies could go wildly off track without due attention being paid to issues like race and sex are perfectly justified. However... Call Me Charlie posted:I think this is a false equivalency. This is also true. Centrist liberals try to avoid *any* economic justice by changing the topic to social justice immediately and crying about 'WILL IT SOLVE RACISM!?'. They use minorities and racists alike as a shield to contend that if we can't perfectly implement economic justice we should instead do nothing at all and wait until we've achieved social utopia first. There's a tendency to treat *any* call for economic justice as a secret dog whistle for 'gently caress minorities'. Not everyone is doing it because they are a festering pile of liberal poo poo like JeffersonClay. Some are just afraid that if the left was ever allowed to pursue economic justice at all they might forget about social justice entirely and never go back, because both things are very difficult and we can only ever care about one thing at a time. Check out the Great Race Space for examples.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You keep erasing the anti-racist, anti-sexist elements of Clinton's campaign, and then accuse people who acknowledge that racism and sexism are real and impact electoral outcomes of being the real racists and sexists. You've got an adorable lack of self-awareness. If they erase easily, it is because the Clinton campaign went through with a couple million dollars of street sweeper before me, carefully scrubbing away any support for the disenfranchised beyond the statement "Donald Trump Is Bad." After all, offering to do something for her minority constituency might offend those all-important suburban republicans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Here's an 'anti-Trump' strategy. Change the democratic party platform to have: - Tightened regulation/nationalization of major entities on wall street and the arrest and prosecution of the people who engineered the great recession - Ramp up taxes on corporate profits and personal income for the rich, forcibly bring back offshore unpaid taxes on pain of arrest and prosecution without bullshit 'tax holidays' - Slash the defense budget and end the privatization of military and intelligence and the corruption that sees defense contractors getting rich off taxpayers Use the saved money and increases revenue for: - Universal healthcare - State funded job retraining programs for people displaced by manufacturing/automation - Investing back in public works, public education, public transit and public infrastructure I think this 'anti Trump strategy' could also have the unintended side effect of also helping the American people and not just getting Democrats elected. Unfortunately you'd also have to get rid of a lot of people currently in the democratic party first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/842141564801552384
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Would you agree minorities have a fair reason to be cynical/wary about such a promise? I think racial minorities are justified in being cynical about political change. Clinton's  primary campaign tried to weaponize that cynicism and I don't know what the progressive answer to that attack is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I think racial minorities are justified in being cynical about political change. Clinton's I say our main angle has to be to work with minority interests as much as possible. Thats the only way to do this. So when the neoliberal sociopaths use some pro privatization poo poo head like Deeray we can have a movement to call out schill's like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I think racial minorities are justified in being cynical about political change. Clinton's Would you say it was weaponising the cynicism in particular? Or addressing the concerns? There has to have been a reason why the person oft-quoted as using the term 'superpredators' still had the majority backing of black voters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Would you say it was weaponising the cynicism in particular? Or addressing the concerns? There has to have been a reason why the person oft-quoted as using the term 'superpredators' still had the majority backing of elderly voters. Under 30s broke for Bernie. Its not racial, its olds v youngs, the eternal divide. The good news is the olds will eventually all be dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Under 30s broke for Bernie. Its not racial, its olds v youngs, the eternal divide. The good news is the olds will eventually all be dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:People keep insisting that the generation after the millennials is going to be conservative as gently caress: more religious, more socially conservative, more entrepreneurial (read: FYGM), less support for institutions, etc etc. The only actual data I've seen to that effect is some survey of a couple hundred high school kids in England though, but maybe there's more to it than that? Anyway young people can be shits as well, it just so happens that millennials are great (for now). The continual stream of far-right bullshit by popular youtube channels aimed at tweens makes me think there may be truth in that claim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
The one thing that kind of bothers me about comparisons with the New Deal when discussing economic leftism's tendency to ignore minorities is that, if you asked leftists in the 1940s about social issues you'd probably get a bunch of outright explicit racism, but if you asked them now you'd get people who are significantly less racist than the average US citizen and generally advocate for socially progressive politics. Like, in the absolute worst case you might get people who don't think we should prioritize social issues (and don't get me wrong, that's a bad thing), but I'm really hard pressed to think of many leftists who actually advocate for racist policy. There also exist legal protections now that didn't exist around the time of the New Deal, so the extent to which leftist economic policy could leave out and gently caress over minorities isn't quite the same as it was by then (i.e. you can't explicitly exclude people based on race*). Of course, none of this means that we shouldn't be vigilant to ensure that minorities fully enjoy the benefits of any future leftist policy (in addition to pushing for the issues that impact them specifically), but I don't think it really makes sense to say "but this same thing might happen again!", because the make-up of the average American leftist is not the same as it was in the 1940's. *Just to be clear, I'm totally aware systemic discrimination can still happen even without explicitly racist laws (for example our justice system), but it's still a better situation than we had when the New Deal was implemented.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Under 30s broke for Bernie. Its not racial, its olds v youngs, the eternal divide. The good news is the olds will eventually all be dead. Under 30s voted for Bernie by a margin of about 5 point. After that, that number sharply falls off. Also that actual number that voted was very minute in the grand scheme of themes. Ytlaya posted:The one thing that kind of bothers me about comparisons with the New Deal when discussing economic leftism's tendency to ignore minorities is that, if you asked leftists in the 1940s about social issues you'd probably get a bunch of outright explicit racism, but if you asked them now you'd get people who are significantly less racist than the average US citizen and generally advocate for socially progressive politics. Like, in the absolute worst case you might get people who don't think we should prioritize social issues (and don't get me wrong, that's a bad thing), but I'm really hard pressed to think of many leftists who actually advocate for racist policy. There also exist legal protections now that didn't exist around the time of the New Deal, so the extent to which leftist economic policy could leave out and gently caress over minorities isn't quite the same as it was by then (i.e. you can't explicitly exclude people based on race*). You have a lot more faith in things than I do, that is for sure. It's a better situation, but that isn't exactly a terribly high bar. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Under 30s broke for Bernie. Its not racial, its olds v youngs, the eternal divide. The good news is the olds will eventually all be dead. By the time all the over-30s are all dead the under-30s will be the ones in control trying to figure out what the deal with kids these days is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The one thing that kind of bothers me about comparisons with the New Deal when discussing economic leftism's tendency to ignore minorities is that, if you asked leftists in the 1940s about social issues you'd probably get a bunch of outright explicit racism, but if you asked them now you'd get people who are significantly less racist than the average US citizen and generally advocate for socially progressive politics. Like, in the absolute worst case you might get people who don't think we should prioritize social issues (and don't get me wrong, that's a bad thing), but I'm really hard pressed to think of many leftists who actually advocate for racist policy. There also exist legal protections now that didn't exist around the time of the New Deal, so the extent to which leftist economic policy could leave out and gently caress over minorities isn't quite the same as it was by then (i.e. you can't explicitly exclude people based on race*). The New Deal wasn't written by leftists, though, so this comparison is itself strange. But, just as an example, people are demanding that Democrats come out against the financial industry and to emphasize punishing financial malfeasance and restricting access to credit to avoid bubbles. This would disproportionately affect minorities, both in the fact that attacking banks would damage minority-majority areas first and in the fact that minorities have less access to the things that give high credit scores above and beyond direct discrimination. This could be countered by direct, affirmative action to ensure free access to lending and banking services, but this would have less support from the general population, to put it very mildly, and leftists aren't even suggesting that to nearly the degree of retribution against the banks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The New Deal wasn't written by leftists, though, so this comparison is itself strange. Well, but Roosevelt pushed the New Deal through partially because he was under continual pressure from leftists. There still needed to be demands for aiming higher from the left. quote:But, just as an example, people are demanding that Democrats come out against the financial industry and to emphasize punishing financial malfeasance and restricting access to credit to avoid bubbles. This would disproportionately affect minorities, both in the fact that attacking banks would damage minority-majority areas first and in the fact that minorities have less access to the things that give high credit scores above and beyond direct discrimination. All fair points, but I wonder if the general population's lack of support for ensuring free access to banks for underserved communities would really matter all that much. I don't see it sparking a new Tea Party shitfest, given how much everybody hates the banks. Tesseraction posted:Would you agree minorities have a fair reason to be cynical/wary about such a promise? They do, of course, and the Bernies really do need to work super hard to allay those fears. But I would hope they'd be less cynical when the alternative is Trump. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
The issue is, we're nearing a solid year of leftists being told they need to tackle race issues, followed by leftists tackling race issues. At what point is one willing to go "ok, I forgive you for this 70 year old sin by a center-left democrat, I'l start acknowledging the enormous history fiscal leftism has with social leftism now"? And while many avoid saying such, it's extremely generous of the new left to specifically single out those with such grievances and improve on their chosen topic. If we are to be cynically pragmatic, a little over half of 18-30 black americans and an enormously overwhelming percentage of virtually every other demographic under 18-30 is on board with the movement. It's an uncomfortable thing to hear, but there are no racial gates barring the new leftists from succeeding. It's entirely out of respect and the dues expected of a social-fiscal alliance that they are humored. Nobody on the left aside from me will say this. That is a testament to how solidly the movement has embraced social leftism and the older members of such. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The issue is, we're nearing a solid year of leftists being told they need to tackle race issues, followed by leftists tackling race issues. At what point is one willing to go "ok, I forgive you for this 70 year old sin by a center-left democrat, I'l start acknowledging the enormous history fiscal leftism has with social leftism now"? There should be no point at which anyone uses the phrase "fiscal leftism" or gives it any credence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
I'm still glad Hillary lost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
I don't think the New Deal's racist implementation means that social welfare policies will necessarily have a racist implementation today. I do think the New Deal's racist implementation is the only reason it could pass at the time. If it was easy for non-whites to get the welfare, the right (including at that time a good number of democrats) would have used racist sentiment to oppose the policy and Roosevelt's agenda in general, like the republicans did with the Southern strategy 30 years later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:There should be no point at which anyone uses the phrase "fiscal leftism" or gives it any credence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Oh man here we go: we can't put rich people in jail for committing crimes because then their wealth won't trickle down to black people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh man here we go: we can't put rich people in jail for committing crimes because then their wealth won't trickle down to black people. Nobody said that. It's like if I were to call you a sadistic rapist-by-proxy for hoping more people ended up in the American carceral state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh man here we go: we can't put rich people in jail for committing crimes because then their wealth won't trickle down to black people. Jailing Lloyd Blankfein would be anti-semitism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
*runs into wedding* You took out a loan to pay for this? Nice endorsement of trickle-down economics, liberals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:There should be no point at which anyone uses the phrase "fiscal leftism" or gives it any credence. Call it what you want; just don't oppose economically progressive policies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:38
|
|