|
KVeezy3 posted:Well sure, no one's saying people shouldn't need convincing. But the point is that, during this dialogue, eventually you'd have to get to the proposed leftist solution which inherently involves leaving 'common sense' behind to take an ideological stand. You're just convinced by the propaganda against the left that left ideas are not common sense. It is not "common sense" to let the runaway slave patrols rebrand and keep operating, it is not "common sense" to lock someone in jail for years for ingesting the wrong kind of plant, and it is not "common sense" to put someone into permanent debt slavery because they got sick while not working for the right company.
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Right - people generally take 'common sense' to be a crystallization of natural reason in the narrative of historical progress. Though I do think it is relevant because it allows us to map out a bit of the terrain that has to be overcome. Aha, sorry. I misread your post. Please mentally replace "you're" with "society has been" in my previous post.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Ranked choice serves the very important job of allowing people to vote their conscience and for the guy who built the concentration camps simultaneously, knowing that the latter guy will get into power but they can proclaim loudly that they didn't put him at rank 1 and that makes them A Good Person. And then realising that enough people did that and now their conscience vote candidate got in and oh no they're building low income housing and lowering my fabrege property values It'll be good for tearing off a mask or two, if nothing else
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Yeah that's definitely how it's panned out in such leftist paradise states as *checks notes* Australia I'm not sure that you got the intended meaning from my post.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:You are the epitome of what’s wrong with the far-left. One out of our two parties is currently infested with Nazis, but yes, it’s liberals who are the real threat to humanity. One of them is infested with Nazis who are willing to be public about it, the other one is infested with people openly willing to work with Nazis in peaceful collaboration. Both of them are entirely saturated by vast, phenomenal, consequence-immune wealth. gently caress's sake, Biden told people to stay Republican but vote for him, if you're so sure the problem is just the Republicans you need to look into the effects of vocal support from public figures Somfin fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 04:45
|
|
|
E: Too aggressive, not worth it
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 08:17
|
|
|
Dumper Humper posted:The reason single player won't work here is the same reason healthcare reform failed a decade ago: the insurance companies will spend a shitload of money to make sure whatever we get will be absolute dogshit. It's not that it won't work, it's that it will be strongly opposed by powerful and entrenched groups. The liberal response is "those groups have a point, best not to try, since they fund my campaign." The leftist response is "those groups are parasites and will be removed as part of this, gently caress their money."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Incrementalism was never about change, it's about control. The reason that people propose slow and pointless efforts is to frustrate them. It is a very clear attempt to prevent progress while simultaneously appearing to support it. To run a race so slowly that it is effectively identical to forfeiture. Like HR departments and complaints processes, the real purpose of incrementalism is to satisfy precisely enough of the needs of the workers to prevent them from rioting or striking without meaningfully impacting the lives of those who benefit from the status quo. The trick was getting people to pre-incrementalise their own demands, then to incrementalise the process of responding to those demands. Oh, we don't have living wages, and you're not even asking for living wages anymore, but we heard you and we have submitted a proposal for even less than that on your behalf! To a committee. And not one that will change anything, but they'll fight to be allowed to talk about it! Always ask: who benefits from doing this halfway, as opposed to us getting all of what we actually want? The answer is almost always the people who currently control the thing and use that control to enrich themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:edit: While younger people will make up a greater portion of the voting population, I'd anticipate a relative decrease in political participation, for the same reason that poorer people in general tend to be less politically engaged. Why should they be engaged? They did the right thing and they're getting nothing for it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2020 07:15
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Ok, and what politically disqualifies him from being a "progressive" as opposed to, say, Bernie which I assume we can all agree would be included in your loose definition? is it M4A? Is it the GND? Those are coherent political goal towards which we can "progress". And let's not forget, they are very anti-capitalist stances. M4A is adversarial to the private insurance apparatus, just like GND is adversarial to the fossil fuel industry. Both of these privately owned industries dangerously exploit profit from the public and cause a massive amount of damage to the economy and our environment. A lot of self-described "progressives" dislike the idea of defining "progressive" in part because definitions require bright lines that they will completely agree with up until the point where they realise their definition excludes them. It's one of the reasons that you find so many folks on this forum complaining vaguely in the direction of someone else having a "specific definition of leftism" that excludes them, but those same folks will never offer up an actual definition and seem much happier with the idea of leftism being a vague badge that you can put on if you've ever disagreed with the Republican Party. This is ignoring the fact that the different strains of leftism have their differences for real, justifiable and explainable reasons. It's much easier to say "I've been told that I'm not a real leftist so I guess I'm just a liberal now" than it is to engage with the folks who probably just said "that's not a particularly leftist stance" about one argument once.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
As it stands there is no way to not be "progressive." There is no set of circumstances under which someone can meaningfully fail the test of being a "progressive" because the test is "did you ever say you are a progressive?" and passing that test means saying, at any point in time, "I am a progressive" or words to that effect. The policy you support or oppose does not actually matter because being a progressive is not a matter of policy or outcomes, it is a matter of sacred words. Tulsi Gabbard is one of the "progressive" folks and she just sponsored an extremely, explicitly, anti-trans piece of legislation. Does she still get to call herself a "progressive?" Yes. Because the term has no boundaries, no definition, and no requirements of those who use it. She said she was progressive, so she is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2020 10:17
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Welcome to the Democratic party Exactly what I'm saying.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2020 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I'm just saying the flowchart missed that step in it's projections. If by "vote" you mean "pressure explicitly placed on the DNC platform committee to remove language relating to M4A so as to not force a publicly visible vote about it and potentially let people realise how the party faithful will never support it," then yes
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2020 21:15
|
|