https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/ ... 14688?s=20
several capitol police placed on leave along with one secret service agent
https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1 ... 21346?s=20
Everything is Political
It may well be that for some countries or areas of the world a global fascist movement may not seen any worse than what preceded it, but thinking that Bush America is as bad as it can get is likely a big mistake. I can't predict the future, but when the would be dictator has repeatedly publicly compared immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America to diseases and vermin, and made as a center point of his election stoking fears about said "rapists and criminals" hardly makes for a brighter looking future and when that same regime could act on whim to take whatever actions they deem fit, it would make ICEs caged children seem a quaint historical relic. Trump's supporters aren't limited to the US, if they were and there was little threat to the rest of the world I'd have no objection to the world ignoring the problem, but this particular strain of fascism isn't that of the 1940s of all out war of conquest, it's an attempt to subvert democracies from within and is happening across the globe. There is almost no place that would be untouched by this. If it succeeds there is no discussions to be had, literally, as public dissent of any sort would be shut down.yes. Previous, lawful American regimes have already been about as bad for the world as any country could possibly be, barring nuclear war or all-out war and genocide against every other country. For the dozens of countries whose governments, economies, cultures, homes, and lives were already, umm, liberated from existing, there's hardly any such thing as "worse" - even if the breakdown of US institutions has this looming, spooky ripple effect on the world and all
I guess the question then is what is being gained by the cynicism aside from setting oneself above the fray, as if saying "I'm not going to be fooled". I know the history, I'm appalled by it too, but if a literal fascist uprising isn't the time to drop the cynicism when is? What is the gain in arguing that "both sides" are bad at this point? To discourage others from investing? How does that build any other kind of movement? Waiting around for the perfect candidate or moment before committing to action or even simply not opposing it results in nothing, it only, potentially, allows one to claim they weren't taken in should others stop the fascists and not build a perfect world. By all means, be cynical, question, doubt, whatever, I'm there with you, but arguing for that is to say that view should hold, that cynicism is the better way, and that goes nowhere. I'm not saying anyone should lie, should support beliefs they don't hold, but sowing doubt where there one lacks any evidence but doubt isn't an improvement and challenging beliefs or actions with inaction is no better.
Cynicism as you call it is a product of the reality we live in. It is precisely the failure of both parties to answer people’s needs that generates cynicism, whether it is articulated or not. Millions have checked out in apathy, they truly do not believe this system has anything to offer them. So cynicism is not some moral failing or an unfortunate character trait. You can’t blame people for not turning out for Hillary or some other centrist Democrat and say it’s their fault we’re in this situation. No one is owed someone’s vote and support. It must be earned.
What I’m saying is that the Democrats as currently formed can’t gather a wide enough support to protect us from the alternative. You can criticize me for being cynical if you’d like, this is just how I understand reality and express it based on my personal values, biases and limitations. But I’m really not sure what is asked of me in lieu of this “cynicism”. Be more excited about Biden? Try not to air my grievances and keep a positive vibe? Donate money to the dnc maybe? I mean if the contest comes down to Biden versus trump, fine, I’m with Biden. But the elections have happened already, and I voted for Biden, so time to move on. I don’t think I hold a nihilist stance, I truly believe another path is possible, but it won’t happen by sticking with these scumbags. They’re part of the problem. Perhaps “there is no other way, just stick with us” is the truly cynical view here!
And I do not share this quasi-mystical view of white supremacy and racism that some hold here. As brother abou arkadin mentioned earlier, it is more complicated than that. I mean if white supremacy is such a crippling monster, how on earth was Barack Obama elected president twice? Did everyone become more racist after his second term? Or perhaps did his failure to do anything of value play a part in paving the way to trump? When you fail people, you open the way for demagogues to fill the void.
Health care, a living wage, good jobs... Those are all already in the mainstream. Nothing radical about them. A majority of people support them, even people who identify as republicans. They must be the basis on which we fight reactionaries and make change. Universal programs that help everyone can be the basis for a winning coalition. Republicans like their social security and Medicare as much as democrats do. Now I am just a dumb guy posting on a message board, I don’t know how to help make this a reality, and as I said before I have no illusions over the huge hurdles in the way, but what is the alternative? How do you expect Biden, the crime bill guy, the shoot them in the legs guy, to “address white supremacy”?
What I’m saying is that the Democrats as currently formed can’t gather a wide enough support to protect us from the alternative. You can criticize me for being cynical if you’d like, this is just how I understand reality and express it based on my personal values, biases and limitations. But I’m really not sure what is asked of me in lieu of this “cynicism”. Be more excited about Biden? Try not to air my grievances and keep a positive vibe? Donate money to the dnc maybe? I mean if the contest comes down to Biden versus trump, fine, I’m with Biden. But the elections have happened already, and I voted for Biden, so time to move on. I don’t think I hold a nihilist stance, I truly believe another path is possible, but it won’t happen by sticking with these scumbags. They’re part of the problem. Perhaps “there is no other way, just stick with us” is the truly cynical view here!
And I do not share this quasi-mystical view of white supremacy and racism that some hold here. As brother abou arkadin mentioned earlier, it is more complicated than that. I mean if white supremacy is such a crippling monster, how on earth was Barack Obama elected president twice? Did everyone become more racist after his second term? Or perhaps did his failure to do anything of value play a part in paving the way to trump? When you fail people, you open the way for demagogues to fill the void.
Health care, a living wage, good jobs... Those are all already in the mainstream. Nothing radical about them. A majority of people support them, even people who identify as republicans. They must be the basis on which we fight reactionaries and make change. Universal programs that help everyone can be the basis for a winning coalition. Republicans like their social security and Medicare as much as democrats do. Now I am just a dumb guy posting on a message board, I don’t know how to help make this a reality, and as I said before I have no illusions over the huge hurdles in the way, but what is the alternative? How do you expect Biden, the crime bill guy, the shoot them in the legs guy, to “address white supremacy”?
I disagree about white supremacy because that is what the most motivated of the insurrections hold as their values and what Trump himself has repeatedly emphasized, avoiding stating openly by only the narrowest of circumventions. Those who support the Republican party don't all think of themselves in those same terms, nor do many within the Democratic party who still allow for values that support racist actions by the state. Those I've talked to and seen on various media platforms believe themselves as not being racist at all. That's all well and good in the sense some will indeed accept the "right kind" of non-white as part of their peer group and maybe even vote for them.
The difficulty is that, as I see it, so many on the left seem to think that being smart, knowing what's what, and trusting in norms will in itself be enough to win the day, while on the right, the ignorant don't rely on norms, they barely understand them, and just act out their desired outcomes. That force of action is in many ways stronger than "smart". While the smart people wait for people to wake up or rely on laws and norms to hold the day, the stupid act to overturn them and when they succeed there is no protections left.
Trump ran on values that matched that of many Boomers, fear of a changing world that they no longer recognize as the one they grew up in, which panics them. That was the core of what little message he had, but as important was how he delivers it, which is pure Gen X postmodernism, where he courts cynicism and doubt about the government and system of rules and laws, he entertains by being "dumb" in a way that affronts the educated, but delights much of the masses who actively dislike the "College" crowd and their methods and values. That shows up in polling, where the split between college educated and non-college voters grows and hardens, and it is completely evident in Trump and the Republican party's manner of approach and values. That wedge, along with the racism they also sow, maintains the divide that prevents progressive action. The delivery is as important as the message in doing that.
It isn't that I disagree with your beliefs around what is needed or the ultimate goal of progressive policies as should be enacted, just that I'm convinced that "smartness" in some ways only makes things more difficult by both antagonizing the right, which wouldn't necessarily be so bad, but by also further inculcating a sense of "my" way is the defining ideal rather than aligning oneself with a group and system of rules. It's all just part of the same message social media and their "likes" deliver and that of Hollywoodesque media, where exceptional individualism is their core practice of storytelling. It isn't of course that I believe that's what you, or anyone else here is intending to say or means exactly, but that the manner of approach serves a similar end. It's the manner I myself used and still fall back into, but seeing Trump's rise and the assorted struggles by the various movements like BLM and metoo, has made me rethink that method as being more counterproductive than helpful as it so works with the same manner of approach so many other shitty white guys use. As a fancified analogy, it's all well and good to Straub-Huillet one's ideals into a form only the cognoscenti can appreciate, but that will alienate others and only benefit those already in the know. But one can't just ape Hollywood or Twitter in selling the same old self regarding individualism either, some sense of group identity and greater good needs to be involved even if I don't entirely agree with all of it. I of course expect people to stand up and argue for what they believe in, but I'm trying to restrain myself more in arguing theoretically or narrowly nitpicking ideas and say less about things I'm not as informed on as I would need to be to argue more meaningfully.
What others do is up to them, but I feel some need to push back against things that feel like they are opening a door for unhelpful doubt or inertia. If I knew it was just "us" talking, that'd be different, there is every room for discussing whatever doubts among friends and if that is the whole case here then my concerns are largely unfounded and I apologize if I seemed antagonistic, but when that discussion reaches a wider public, in whatever sense, then it achieves a different kind of status as potentially influencing others, where some greater caution is needed because there is not an established base of agreement defined. There's more to it than that, particularly about Trump(ists) and the media but I've gone on enough so I'll let it drop and take a breather from the thread for a while.
The difficulty is that, as I see it, so many on the left seem to think that being smart, knowing what's what, and trusting in norms will in itself be enough to win the day, while on the right, the ignorant don't rely on norms, they barely understand them, and just act out their desired outcomes. That force of action is in many ways stronger than "smart". While the smart people wait for people to wake up or rely on laws and norms to hold the day, the stupid act to overturn them and when they succeed there is no protections left.
Trump ran on values that matched that of many Boomers, fear of a changing world that they no longer recognize as the one they grew up in, which panics them. That was the core of what little message he had, but as important was how he delivers it, which is pure Gen X postmodernism, where he courts cynicism and doubt about the government and system of rules and laws, he entertains by being "dumb" in a way that affronts the educated, but delights much of the masses who actively dislike the "College" crowd and their methods and values. That shows up in polling, where the split between college educated and non-college voters grows and hardens, and it is completely evident in Trump and the Republican party's manner of approach and values. That wedge, along with the racism they also sow, maintains the divide that prevents progressive action. The delivery is as important as the message in doing that.
It isn't that I disagree with your beliefs around what is needed or the ultimate goal of progressive policies as should be enacted, just that I'm convinced that "smartness" in some ways only makes things more difficult by both antagonizing the right, which wouldn't necessarily be so bad, but by also further inculcating a sense of "my" way is the defining ideal rather than aligning oneself with a group and system of rules. It's all just part of the same message social media and their "likes" deliver and that of Hollywoodesque media, where exceptional individualism is their core practice of storytelling. It isn't of course that I believe that's what you, or anyone else here is intending to say or means exactly, but that the manner of approach serves a similar end. It's the manner I myself used and still fall back into, but seeing Trump's rise and the assorted struggles by the various movements like BLM and metoo, has made me rethink that method as being more counterproductive than helpful as it so works with the same manner of approach so many other shitty white guys use. As a fancified analogy, it's all well and good to Straub-Huillet one's ideals into a form only the cognoscenti can appreciate, but that will alienate others and only benefit those already in the know. But one can't just ape Hollywood or Twitter in selling the same old self regarding individualism either, some sense of group identity and greater good needs to be involved even if I don't entirely agree with all of it. I of course expect people to stand up and argue for what they believe in, but I'm trying to restrain myself more in arguing theoretically or narrowly nitpicking ideas and say less about things I'm not as informed on as I would need to be to argue more meaningfully.
What others do is up to them, but I feel some need to push back against things that feel like they are opening a door for unhelpful doubt or inertia. If I knew it was just "us" talking, that'd be different, there is every room for discussing whatever doubts among friends and if that is the whole case here then my concerns are largely unfounded and I apologize if I seemed antagonistic, but when that discussion reaches a wider public, in whatever sense, then it achieves a different kind of status as potentially influencing others, where some greater caution is needed because there is not an established base of agreement defined. There's more to it than that, particularly about Trump(ists) and the media but I've gone on enough so I'll let it drop and take a breather from the thread for a while.
Ok Greg, I think I’ll take a breather too. Thanks for engaging, this was fun, even if we totally disagree 
Sorry if I come off too antagonistic on this thread. I’m not on social media, and I don’t participate in any other politics forum, so I rarely express the thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head for a long time, and this here is my only outlet.
Sorry if I come off too antagonistic on this thread. I’m not on social media, and I don’t participate in any other politics forum, so I rarely express the thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head for a long time, and this here is my only outlet.
Last edited by kanafani on Tue Jan 12, 2021 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hyperfocusing on race and gender is why dems struggle to win elections. it's all about class and the economy, which is why bernie's message resonates. gather everyone from the race checkbox into a room; black, white, hispanic, asian, american indian, pacific islander, etc. then tell them you're gonna do something for one of those groups based on their race, but no one else; and most people in that room won't be on board. then tell them you're gonna give them all healthcare regardless of race... and you've just won an election
thx greg you always express what i'm trying to say way better than i can. the Qanon thing is terrifying to me. there was a Q demonstration in japan last week. like WTF 
i don't believe 'idpol' is the problem. all politics is identity politics. what we're seeing is the oldest one of all: identity politics of straight white men. they would like to continue to be the default. and like their hero, they don't want to pay taxes. and it sure seems like they want to keep a lot of people from voting
as a woman may i just say: we're tired of it. voting rights were barely established in the 1960s and they're doing everything they can to take them away. that's because republicans know they can't win if everyone votes. the electoral college was established because of slavery and should obviously be abolished. the white nationalist party would never win another election and they know it. WHEN EVERYONE VOTES WE WIN AND THIS WILL BE EVEN MORE TRUE IN THE FUTURE AND IT IS WHY THE RIGHT IS IN FULL PANIC MODE
class is bound to race in this country, there's no getting around that. don't wanna talk about bernie again; of course i voted for him. i would storm the capitol to make him our benevolent dictator so we could have medicare for all. we sure as hell wouldn't get it through congress
i don't believe 'idpol' is the problem. all politics is identity politics. what we're seeing is the oldest one of all: identity politics of straight white men. they would like to continue to be the default. and like their hero, they don't want to pay taxes. and it sure seems like they want to keep a lot of people from voting
as a woman may i just say: we're tired of it. voting rights were barely established in the 1960s and they're doing everything they can to take them away. that's because republicans know they can't win if everyone votes. the electoral college was established because of slavery and should obviously be abolished. the white nationalist party would never win another election and they know it. WHEN EVERYONE VOTES WE WIN AND THIS WILL BE EVEN MORE TRUE IN THE FUTURE AND IT IS WHY THE RIGHT IS IN FULL PANIC MODE
class is bound to race in this country, there's no getting around that. don't wanna talk about bernie again; of course i voted for him. i would storm the capitol to make him our benevolent dictator so we could have medicare for all. we sure as hell wouldn't get it through congress
Last edited by rischka on Tue Jan 12, 2021 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/05/working- ... t-identity
"But socialists mean something quite different when we talk about class: rather than just the education or money someone has, class refers to an entire structure that imposes very specific logics of action on people in society. And because of the power the capitalist class holds in society, any significant redistribution of power requires confronting that class. These arguments have massive implications for thinking about politics in general, and undoing the structures of racial and gender oppression in particular."
[...]
"It’s become common to remark that whiteness, for example, is dependent on blackness for its meaning. But class is different, insofar as it is not just the concept of “worker” that is dependent on the concept of capitalist for meaning. It’s that to be a worker means, necessarily, to be dependent on a given capitalist or firm for a job. Similarly, to be a capitalist means to be engaged in the ongoing exploitation of particular workers in order to maintain that position. A white person’s whiteness, by contrast, isn’t dependent on any particular relationship with or actions by nonwhite people. An antiracist and a racist are equally white."
[...]
"The strategic implications should be clear: if we want to stop corporations from dumping their waste in black and brown neighborhoods, we have to restrict the power of capital. Similarly, how could we tackle the racial wealth gap without massively redistributing wealth from the top downwards? How could black students receive an equal educational experience as white students without directing more money to the schools they attend? To put the point in a more general way, tackling some of the most pressing manifestations of contemporary racism requires taking on the market.
"The same is true for gender inequality. As #MeToo has reminded the country, the workplace is a site of gender hierarchies where managers and bosses can use their power to sexually harass and abuse. Addressing these abuses means restricting the authority bosses have over their workers. Likewise, the gender wage gap is rooted in employers penalizing women for having children and caring for them. We need state policy that forces employers to offer parental leave to both parents, so that women aren’t the default caregivers suffering the consequent career penalties. Capitalists, unsurprisingly, are not interested in being told how they have to treat their employees, which goes a long way towards explaining why paid parental leave policy has gone nowhere in the US, despite massive public support."
[...]
"This is part of the reason why liberal programs for antiracism so easily devolve into things like bias training and corporate diversity initiatives, which do little to attack entrenched inequalities. Their theory separates racial inequality and class power, pointing them towards hopeless strategies that attempt to remedy the former while leaving the latter in place. Liberal institutions and political strategies are, quite simply, incapable of realizing liberal ideals.
"To truly eradicate all forms of oppression, we need a clear-eyed view of society and a strategy to attack those who hold the reins. And that is precisely why socialists focus on class as the key structure of power in our society."
"But socialists mean something quite different when we talk about class: rather than just the education or money someone has, class refers to an entire structure that imposes very specific logics of action on people in society. And because of the power the capitalist class holds in society, any significant redistribution of power requires confronting that class. These arguments have massive implications for thinking about politics in general, and undoing the structures of racial and gender oppression in particular."
[...]
"It’s become common to remark that whiteness, for example, is dependent on blackness for its meaning. But class is different, insofar as it is not just the concept of “worker” that is dependent on the concept of capitalist for meaning. It’s that to be a worker means, necessarily, to be dependent on a given capitalist or firm for a job. Similarly, to be a capitalist means to be engaged in the ongoing exploitation of particular workers in order to maintain that position. A white person’s whiteness, by contrast, isn’t dependent on any particular relationship with or actions by nonwhite people. An antiracist and a racist are equally white."
[...]
"The strategic implications should be clear: if we want to stop corporations from dumping their waste in black and brown neighborhoods, we have to restrict the power of capital. Similarly, how could we tackle the racial wealth gap without massively redistributing wealth from the top downwards? How could black students receive an equal educational experience as white students without directing more money to the schools they attend? To put the point in a more general way, tackling some of the most pressing manifestations of contemporary racism requires taking on the market.
"The same is true for gender inequality. As #MeToo has reminded the country, the workplace is a site of gender hierarchies where managers and bosses can use their power to sexually harass and abuse. Addressing these abuses means restricting the authority bosses have over their workers. Likewise, the gender wage gap is rooted in employers penalizing women for having children and caring for them. We need state policy that forces employers to offer parental leave to both parents, so that women aren’t the default caregivers suffering the consequent career penalties. Capitalists, unsurprisingly, are not interested in being told how they have to treat their employees, which goes a long way towards explaining why paid parental leave policy has gone nowhere in the US, despite massive public support."
[...]
"This is part of the reason why liberal programs for antiracism so easily devolve into things like bias training and corporate diversity initiatives, which do little to attack entrenched inequalities. Their theory separates racial inequality and class power, pointing them towards hopeless strategies that attempt to remedy the former while leaving the latter in place. Liberal institutions and political strategies are, quite simply, incapable of realizing liberal ideals.
"To truly eradicate all forms of oppression, we need a clear-eyed view of society and a strategy to attack those who hold the reins. And that is precisely why socialists focus on class as the key structure of power in our society."
YES FINE GET ON WITH IT THEN WE'RE TIRED OF WAITING
did i mention that 8 out of 10 white men i know are trump fans. i hope you can convert them without warfare but i have serious doubts. btw they certainly won't pay more taxes, they need to buy 4x4s, boats, jet skis and side by sides. and guns. lots of guns
anyway i'm getting angry again so will go do something else
did i mention that 8 out of 10 white men i know are trump fans. i hope you can convert them without warfare but i have serious doubts. btw they certainly won't pay more taxes, they need to buy 4x4s, boats, jet skis and side by sides. and guns. lots of guns
anyway i'm getting angry again so will go do something else
Last edited by rischka on Tue Jan 12, 2021 2:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
LOL thx for the laugh. i have seriously thought of buying a pistol this week for the first time in my life
should say the worst case scenario kanafani is describing basically happened in india over the last decade, where a once major party - neo-liberal centrist, dynastic to the extreme - was rendered nearly unelectable overnight by pitting a widely disliked member of the long ruling family against a populist leader running on majoritarian grievance.
the main differences of course are that modi's hindutva is based on 100+ years of pubic political organizing rather than a highly disorganized subculture (yes white supremacy is a major issue in american politics but q anon is not the rss and never will be), and modi was essentially able to purge the ranks of his party of non-believers. but it is definitely a cautionary tale of how quickly an ineffectual party can go from leading party to opposition to essentially a non-entity.
biden and the democrats ability or inability to pass decent covid relief will probably be the deciding factor in their administration is viewed in the early days. hopefully they've learned enough to capitalize on the theater of the relief efforts rather than following the obama model...
how many political parties in india? isn't it like 500. i think the key is not letting republicans get away with this shit. their party should have split long ago
i hope the dems don't make the obama mistake of 'looking forward not back.' white supremacist terrorism has been going on for YEARS now
what happened when those militias occupied a nature reserve in oregon?? nothing. what happened at the bundy ranch?? they see they can do whatever they please
and now they have stormed the fucking capitol and threatened the lives of lawmakers, even beating a policeman to death. there have to be severe consequences
anyway i will stop now; everyone knows this don't they? i'm not a biden fan, he was like my last choice, but i have to hope there's a tiny chance dems can face this moment and save our democracy. the alternative is too awful. every lawmaker who supported this sedition needs to be purged imo. or this will keep happening
DC statehood, voting rights act, fairness doctrine, whatever we can do with a sliver of a majority. people are counting on it
i hope the dems don't make the obama mistake of 'looking forward not back.' white supremacist terrorism has been going on for YEARS now
what happened when those militias occupied a nature reserve in oregon?? nothing. what happened at the bundy ranch?? they see they can do whatever they please
and now they have stormed the fucking capitol and threatened the lives of lawmakers, even beating a policeman to death. there have to be severe consequences
anyway i will stop now; everyone knows this don't they? i'm not a biden fan, he was like my last choice, but i have to hope there's a tiny chance dems can face this moment and save our democracy. the alternative is too awful. every lawmaker who supported this sedition needs to be purged imo. or this will keep happening
DC statehood, voting rights act, fairness doctrine, whatever we can do with a sliver of a majority. people are counting on it
there are two major national parties, lots of smaller local ones but the national elections allow for coalition building which means that, realistically speaking, it becomes a two party system not unlike our own (congress vs bjp).
the major difference is that states can be more autonomous than they are in the us, but there is no chance that say a communist party leader from kerala can compete on a national stage. simplifying somewhat here of course, and i'm hardly as much of an expert as i should be...
ban me then. i know it's not cool to care, i just can't help it
taking a 
-
Curtis, baby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:30 am
- Location: unceded coast salish territory (turtle island)
for me it's more about idpol than class. white women voted for trump. poor whites voted for trump
i don't buy the "bernie appealed to these people who voted for trump, while hillary/biden didn't" stance... it's not a progressive movement's job to appeal to people who have supported trump
it's our job to take away their power. they are not allies. they are not potential allies. they are the enemy, and depending on their age they need to be either eradicated or reeducated
idpol doesn't lead to tokenism. i think, in fact, that they're mutually exclusive. tokenism is the mere pretense of idpol
i agree with rischka that this isn't, at its most fundamental, about class. class inequalities are used as a tool to create and perpetuate idpol inequalities
but i agree with kanafani that biden is no better for the world than trump. certainly better for americans, yes. but i don't want what's good for americans. america is a mythical nation built on land theft, slavery and genocide
look at how many ppl were radicalized under four years of trump. obama had the opposite effect. the overton window is like a pendulum, if it moves one way it moves the other way too. in 2015, i feel like very few americans "hated america", and "hated american culture" and "wanted to see america destroyed". thanks to trump, the number of americans who see the american lie is growing. this is good news. it is incumbent on americans to destroy america
i don't buy the "bernie appealed to these people who voted for trump, while hillary/biden didn't" stance... it's not a progressive movement's job to appeal to people who have supported trump
it's our job to take away their power. they are not allies. they are not potential allies. they are the enemy, and depending on their age they need to be either eradicated or reeducated
idpol doesn't lead to tokenism. i think, in fact, that they're mutually exclusive. tokenism is the mere pretense of idpol
i agree with rischka that this isn't, at its most fundamental, about class. class inequalities are used as a tool to create and perpetuate idpol inequalities
but i agree with kanafani that biden is no better for the world than trump. certainly better for americans, yes. but i don't want what's good for americans. america is a mythical nation built on land theft, slavery and genocide
look at how many ppl were radicalized under four years of trump. obama had the opposite effect. the overton window is like a pendulum, if it moves one way it moves the other way too. in 2015, i feel like very few americans "hated america", and "hated american culture" and "wanted to see america destroyed". thanks to trump, the number of americans who see the american lie is growing. this is good news. it is incumbent on americans to destroy america
prettyboy ,prettyboy ,prettyboy
-
Monsieur Arkadin
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 5:56 pm
I may be misreading this, but does this mean that you think there would be no (or less) class warfare if America were racially homogenous? (not that idpol is specifically about race... but, as a major example).gree with rischka that this isn't, at its most fundamental, about class. class inequalities are used as a tool to create and perpetuate idpol inequalities
i don't know how to address that directly but ethnic cleansing certainly seems to be rising on the agenda of some 
edit: also wanna say curtis might be the wokest person i know now and i remember when he told occupy wall street fans he couldn't wait to piss on them from his office window
good times
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status ... 57795?s=20
GOOD. shame these motherfuckers. OSTRACIZE THEM
they lost a boatload of corporate donors today and are starting to crack on impeachment
k gonna watch a film!
edit: also wanna say curtis might be the wokest person i know now and i remember when he told occupy wall street fans he couldn't wait to piss on them from his office window
good times
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status ... 57795?s=20
GOOD. shame these motherfuckers. OSTRACIZE THEM
they lost a boatload of corporate donors today and are starting to crack on impeachment
k gonna watch a film!
-
Lencho of the Apes
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:38 am
I think you know that I agree with virtually 100% of what you're saying, and I'm glad someone's taking the time to *make* those arguments... but you're trying to persuade -- what, maybe 3 or 4 people to your position? The cost/benefit ratio seems mighty low there, especially when the fundamental disagreement here boils down to people who think Trump's a unique existential threat and those who just think he's a malicious but mostly ineffectual assclown. There's no dissuading people who believe he's the next Hitler, and it's probably a waste of time to try (That's exactly the barrier that exists between Rischka and G Greenwald, isn't it? and probably her and Kristal Ball as well.) (Though I'll admit KB's perky AF mainstream-news-anchor mannerisms put me on edge too.)
The opposite of 'reify' is... ?
-
Curtis, baby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:30 am
- Location: unceded coast salish territory (turtle island)
Lol I am definitely not. I try to learn every day but still have a ton to learn, as everyone does
But ya that's what I'm saying. From 2015 to 2020 I went from ancap to ancom! Wouldn't have happened if Clinton had won
I literally went to law school in USA solely to make millions practicing in the corporate world...and ended up a fucking commie lol
Edit: a fucking commie with a lot of debt
-___-;
prettyboy ,prettyboy ,prettyboy
Is political argumentation really done to convince one's interlocutor to change their mind? Haven't you ever written something down, or said it, just to express it? It's a healthy outletLencho of the Apes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:00 amtrying to persuade -- what, maybe 3 or 4 people to your position? The cost/benefit ratio seems mighty low there
-
Curtis, baby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:30 am
- Location: unceded coast salish territory (turtle island)
My wener is soo tiny
Ah! Feels great to get that off my chest #expression
Ah! Feels great to get that off my chest #expression
prettyboy ,prettyboy ,prettyboy
-
Monsieur Arkadin
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 5:56 pm
The best kind.Edit: a fucking commie with a lot of debt
hi lencho! trump is too incompetent to be the next hitler. my money is on tom cotton
glad you're still here btw. i feel like i'm too close to this to laugh i guess
it is helping to vent
it would help more to stop caring but i can't
not looking forward to the complete breakdown of US society ngl
#thestormiscoming
trump is too incompetent to be the next hitler. my money is on tom cottonglad you're still here btw. i feel like i'm too close to this to laugh i guess
it is helping to vent
it would help more to stop caring but i can'tnot looking forward to the complete breakdown of US society ngl
#thestormiscoming
Oh I don’t expect to persuade anyone. I don’t think I’ve ever managed to change anyone’s mind politically in my entire life! These things are rarely about facts and logic, they’re based on deeper inner beliefs and systems of priorities and different interpretations of what justice means, sometimes rational, other times not so much. I guess I’m taking the time because it serves a personal purpose - not healthy to keep these things festering inside one’s skull, one must air them out, see if they stand or they come out completely incoherent. It is comforting though that at least some people agree with me in general; always good to know that I have not descended into complete lunacy yet.Lencho of the Apes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:00 amI think you know that I agree with virtually 100% of what you're saying, and I'm glad someone's taking the time to *make* those arguments... but you're trying to persuade -- what, maybe 3 or 4 people to your position? The cost/benefit ratio seems mighty low there, especially when the fundamental disagreement here boils down to people who think Trump's a unique existential threat and those who just think he's a malicious but mostly ineffectual assclown. There's no dissuading people who believe he's the next Hitler, and it's probably a waste of time to try (That's exactly the barrier that exists between Rischka and G Greenwald, isn't it? and probably her and Kristal Ball as well.) (Though I'll admit KB's perky AF mainstream-news-anchor mannerisms put me on edge too.)