Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doomblade187]

So it's actually interesting in my view that the US Left has the image of championing personal choice in social areas but has the image of eliminating (or merely limiting) personal choice when it comes to finances.  The left has that terrible dichotomy to resolve, I think, before it can really succeed.  It feels like "You can be your own person with your own views and make your own choices!  But you had better support giving your money and resources to these causes!"

"Financial liberty" is meaningless if it is so "free" that billionaires are free to decide for you what you have to spend your money on to survive.

I thought McTraveller covered that, but is good to reiterate.

[scriver]

The biggest problem is logical. If it's logical to support black power, muslim power etc, then the right are going to turn around and have white power, christian power etc, and it's not really sensible to then turn around, and tell them that those identities aren't allowed in the identity club. Whatever tools and language you come up with for identity politics for black groups will be co-opted by white groups, and similar with how MRAs mirror the language of feminists.

If it's logical to protect religious freedom (AKA the right to be Muslim, or atheist, or a sect of Christianity outside the "norm") then yes, the Right are going to push their personal religious dogmas as "religious freedom".  Trying to force creationism in schools, enshrine the 10 commandments, ban homosexuality, etc.  That's a painfully obvious false equivalency, though.  The Left isn't arguing for Shariah law, in fact we're arguing against it very strongly.  We're also arguing against the Christian equivalents of Shariah which have no name because they dominated our culture and legal system for so long.

Arguing for freedom != arguing for one ideology to "win".  Supporting minorities != making an ethnic state.
They *say* these are equivalent, but they're obviously lying, and resisting them does not somehow make their job easier.  They don't need "fuel" for their propaganda, they make up what they need with no qualms.

Yeah, you'll never catch anyone on the pretend left to argue that wearing shawls is a personal choice. Or force universities to not let critics of Islam hold lectures because it offends outright islamist interest groups.

This is the problem with identity politics -- when pursued to the religious degree it is today, coupled with the threat of complete ostracism if you don't toe the line, results in literal double-think. A year or two ago here in Sweden the party championing themselves as "the only feminist party" while simultaneously making party secretary of a man who thought women so inherently filthy and beneath him that he refused to even shake hands with them, not thinking this wrong or contradictory in an any way, just because he had the right marks on thrle identity checklist. Nobody in the party had dared point out the naked emperor for fear of being called racist, and it took the outrage of the populace on the reveal of his nomination to finally make them do away with him.

[Doomblade187]

So, that conception of identity politics is a uniquely Republican one. Not saying it doesn't happen elsewhere, but lemme expound. Basically, Ben Carson was until recently the secretary of Housing and Development in the US. He was black, and a rather famous neurosurgeon.

He was also conservative, and fairly bad at this job in particular. So, we called him out on his shortcomings, investigated him for possible ethics breaches, and while he hasn't resigned, he is not held up high. This would have been fine to do, even if the president was a Democrat.

It it uncomfortable to go after your party members? Yes, hence reduced pushback rate.

Thirdly, Islam is wierd, and when people are arguing against banning headscarves and Burqas, they usually mean explicitly in the context of choosing to wear one. Now, Islam is an organized religion and therefore by default oppressive, but I would argue no more than modern Evangelical Christianity.

[Frumple]

... okay, are you screwing with people or something? As near as I can tell carson didn't resign, and somehow managed to weasel out of at-least-the-most-recent ethics violation.

[Doomblade187]

... okay, are you screwing with people or something? As near as I can tell carson didn't resign, and somehow managed to weasel out of at-least-the-most-recent ethics violation.

Oh, I thought he resigned, will fix. And yes, I knew he scraped out if the ethics violation.

[Iduno]

Sadly his (andrew yang) performance was pretty terrible this go around. At least biden and kamala both did good for most part, they are my #2 and #3 choice. A lot of the other candidates are crazy stalin loving socialists (though maybe andrew yang falls under that department? Oh well. Like I said, know nothing about him I just want 1k a month thats more than I earn each month lol), not quite as bad as trump supporters but definitely not worth supporting or having my vote. Except andrew yang, I think he falls under that (dunno tbh) but hey its free 1k every month If looking at the greater whole and not personally, its good people are still supporting biden. And kamala is doing pretty good though biden is constantly topping by far the most in polling.

With the candidates you're into, you might find more palatable people in the Republican party.

Like with all things centrist, "vote blue no matter who" is centrists chastising the left for something that centrists do. As we all famously remember, the media set up "Bernie voters won't back Clinton" when statistically they were more likely to than anybody, and many of Clinton's base stayed home or voted for Trump.

Centrists seem like people who want to pretend like their plan is to just let bad things happen, but they do spend a lot of effort to ensure they happen.

[smjjames]

Not only is it clear that you have absolutely no idea what the phrases "Socialism", "Communism", "Far Left", "Police State", and "Russia" mean, it isn't even clear what nonsense definitions you ARE using, making it impossible to even challenge.

 You also seem to have pulled your conception of non-US countries from the deranged fantasies of Joe McCarthy, because what you insinuate has no connection with reality whatsoever.

<odd massive blank space snip>

Exactly.

Rather late for this, but thanks. I find it really annoying when people (not just trolldefender here) throw around the term 'socialist' meaninglessly. If Obama is socialist, then what the hell DOES socialism mean? The Republicans call EVERYTHING the Democrats do 'socialist'. Trolldefender, I hope you see how that would dumb down and dilute the definition into meaninglessness.

Obviously it's not your fault that it's been dumbed down into uselessness and it sounds like you weren't aware, but it's been overused to the point of it meaning 'thing I don't like and don't want to talk about, END OF DISCUSSION'. Though it's clear that you weren't intending to use it in a way to shut down conversation.

Like with all things centrist, "vote blue no matter who" is centrists chastising the left for something that centrists do. As we all famously remember, the media set up "Bernie voters won't back Clinton" when statistically they were more likely to than anybody, and many of Clinton's base stayed home or voted for Trump.

Centrists seem like people who want to pretend like their plan is to just let bad things happen, but they do spend a lot of effort to ensure they happen.

Not to mention that 'the center' isn't a fixed point and try to compromise with Republicans who don't want to compromise and keep moving the goalposts.

[Magistrum]

Not to mention that 'the center' isn't a fixed point

As an example, I'll still be arguing with the tankies even after falgsc, no way we can just settle down and find a common point in everything.

[Lord Shonus]

I know what a "tankie" is, but what the hell does "falgsc" mean?

[Rolan7]

Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism.
It's tongue-in-cheek, I assure you.  Comrade.

[Magistrum]

Indeed, comrade.

[smjjames]

‘Tankie’? Is that like jughead for marines except it’s for tank crews? Probably a little less perjorative though.

[Lord Shonus]

Nah. It is a derogatory term for full on "Papa Stalin was a saint and Stalin is always right" folks. The term is derived from the tendency of this sort of person to defend things like sending tanks to crush the Hungarians in 1956.

[Trolldefender99]

Seems times botched their story on that supreme court judge guy. Whether its true/false or whatever, I'd have hoped they did a better job reporting it. Don't need every news station to turn into fox news to rush stories out without proper journalism. Doesn't help anyone out, except sure gave something Trump to brag about sadly

[Trolldefender99]

Botched the old story, or the recent story?

The recent one. They left out a key piece of info, and even CNN is saying it got botched

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/media/new-york-times-kavanaugh/index.html

It was only times opinion section though, not the main news section of times. Though I'm wondering if a trump supporter pushed it out to bait people into falling for it, cause a lot of the candidates started calling for impeachment. Then very quickly they added a key info that they didn't put in, like they were baiting people. Cause if that is the case, that is BS and not journalism at all.