Jump to content

2020 US Presidential Election thread


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Abdel said:

 

Slumped in the polls? Make another workout video

 

 

I'm pretty sure horny, young trumpers are a demographic of limited strength in a Democratic primary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

She is.

 

Also let's be real, Trump has a powerful base of supporters across America just due to the massive political divide between the Democrats and Republicans. Truth be told, I think he has a decent shot in re-election unless a charismatic democrat that isn't a establishment candidate is nominated in the primaries.

 

The acid test will be the presidential debates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nodle said:

She is.

 

Also let's be real, Trump has a powerful base of supporters across America just due to the massive political divide between the Democrats and Republicans. Truth be told, I think he has a decent shot in re-election unless a charismatic democrat that isn't a establishment candidate is nominated in the primaries.

 

The acid test will be the presidential debates.


Believe it or not, that goes contrary to the current polling:
image.png
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html?searchResultPosition=6

This could obviously change but it appears that Biden is the safest bet in battleground states. Trump is polling poorly nationally but he can win the same way he won in 2016 if he focuses on maintaining his lead in leaning red states and continuing to poll well in battleground states, the ones he pulled from democrats in 2016. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd appreciate if we kept the shitposts to a minimum in this thread. Due to the discord-forum dynamic, most people shitpost on discord but come to the forums for a little bit of a more serious tone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Trump's moniker of "Sleepy Joe" does cut deep. Biden polls well in the abstract now but simply doesn't seem energetic enough to take on Trump properly in the general election. His campaign seems to barely have a pulse right now and he's mostly coasting on "You liked Obama right?". It's possible this may have been calculated though, since if he's not active, he can't be making gaffes that will sap his support ahead of Iowa, but eventually he does have to wake up.

 

As much as I like Warren for how much she infuriates Wall Street, she also infuriates Wall Street. Bankers are desperate for any alternative. The social policies of Trump don't really affect them so at the end of the day they'll probably fund Trump a lot.

 

Buttigieg is interesting for how he's tacked to the center lately, he seems like he's positioning himself to mop up in the event that Biden implodes. If Sanders/Warren are going to split the liberals, Buttgieg is trying to split the moderates now. However he does have absolutely abysmal ratings among black voters which remains one of Biden's key strengths in the race. He is also a very prolific fundraiser, and may set himself up for massive donations from Wall Street if the race eventually dwindles to the point where he becomes seen as more viable with Biden less so.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Abdel said:

I'd appreciate if we kept the shitposts to a minimum in this thread. Due to the discord-forum dynamic, most people shitpost on discord but come to the forums for a little bit of a more serious tone. 

 

I mean... I was only half-joking. Do you see a candidate you like and trust to break the corrupt cycle of US domestic politics? I don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Derdan said:

Bernie Sanders. Although any Democratic president will probably ultimately be obstructed by the Senate, no matter how good their intentions.

 

I don't think they will let him run though. I think they will keep him around to drum up support during the primaries, and then run some corrupt old bitch instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EagleMan said:

There's answering your previous question though and then whether or not they will win the nomination.

 

To answer my previous question; I don't trust Bernie Sanders to break the corrupt system because he's powerless to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's the kind of person who would do it, but I doubt the DNC will let him get the nomination even if he wins over primary voters. They'd probably rather go with Biden who's the weakest of the top 3 candidates. I have a feeling corporate democrats would rather Trump win than Bernie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Derdan said:

He's the kind of person who would do it, but I doubt the DNC will let him get the nomination even if he wins over primary voters.

Wat? What do you mean "let him get the nominations". If he gets enough votes to gain enough pledged delegates then he has won the nomination, done.

 

16 hours ago, Abdel said:

Believe it or not, that goes contrary to the current polling:

"current polling" - shows one poll by NYT that is in contrary to pretty much all other polls done in recent weeks/months. Also those results flat out don't make sense. Warren is losing Michigan by 6, but is somehow winning Arizona by 2 eventhough those states have around 6 points of PVI difference between them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ordo said:

Wat? What do you mean "let him get the nominations". If he gets enough votes to gain enough pledged delegates then he has won the nomination, done.

 

That's just it. The pledge delegates form a sort of internal electoral college. Even if the majority of rank and file democrats would prefer Bernie, they can simply not vote for him regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Bernie will win Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden will eek out a win in South Carolina against a Bernie on the warpath with momentum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bernie would give Trump a run for his money in the debates. Of course there will be the Trump fans that will think the playground insults he hurls will constitute a victory no matter what. I think the Bernie will fling enough back to make Trump sweat. He won't be afraid to call out Trump on lies.

Edited by IamtheWalrus.
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Spankfurt said:

I think Trump destroys Bernie in debates. I can't see any of the current crop taking on Trump and everything in his arsenal and coming out ontop

Debates overwhelmingly change very little in an election. Based on all empirical evidence Clinton largely whopped Trump in debates, but still ended up losing Electoral  college. Same in 2012- Obama annihilated Romney in two last debates after sleeping through the first one and it barely changed the dynamic of the race. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Spankfurt said:

Imagine believing this 

I'm open to evidence supporting your view if you have any. Otherwise its just that, your view. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How could Trump destroy Bernie? Trump is a coward, he hides behind his Twitter to talk to the world instead of to the press and constantly runs off to his campaign rallies for positive reinforcement. He lets in very little contradiction to his world. You get Trump on stage with someone who's actually willing to go toe-to-toe and I think the result could be very embarrassing for Trump. I could see Sanders bullying Trump. If a politician isn't playing on "classical" rules like Clinton did and Biden might, and Trump isn't engaging with fellow Republicans like in the primary, I think Trump is actually very exposed on stage. He's barely had to be tested at all in that sort of environment, I mean even against Clinton he was reduced to blubbering no puppet no puppet.

  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"No puppet, no puppet--you're the puppet!" Lol, I forgot about that exchange. Basically, I agree with Eagle. Trump will go from shaking someone's hand at an event, to insulting their wife on twitter a few days later from the comfort of the white house--total coward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling the laugh factor will wear off a little bit during these presedential debates, partially cus Trump's mental health isn't exactly improving. So he might slip up and say something that makes no sense (well even more so than before), or fail to pronounce word(s) properly.

 

I gotta say I get a bit uncomfortable watching the Democratic debates. During the presedential debates, I feel like they should present video, picture, or other types of evidence other than just yapping about how bad Trump is. Why don't you show us the damage that he's done instead of yapping about it. I mean it's not necessary in a Democratic debate, but yeah.

Edited by Talinn
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Talinn said:

I have a feeling the laugh factor will wear off a little bit during these presedential debates, partially cus Trump's mental health isn't exactly improving. So he might slip up and say something that makes no sense (well even more so than before), or fail to pronounce word(s) properly.

 

I gotta say I get a bit uncomfortable watching the Democratic debates. During the presedential debates, I feel like they should present video, picture, or other types of evidence other than just yapping about how bad Trump is. Why don't you show us the damage that he's done instead of yapping about it. I mean it's not necessary in a Democratic debate, but yeah.

 

Debates, like much of US politics, aren't about facts or evidence. They're about political games; mudslinging, and crowdpleasing.

  • Like 1
  • This 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who wants to call Iowa? My boring answer is the 538 prediction: Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, but maybe the last two about equal. I think now that the primary is finally happening, fans of Sanders/Warren are feeling a need to more strongly commit to one candidate or the other. Biden and Buttgieg by contrast are officially moderates but I think are very different candidates in what they're running on.

 

Slate also argued that part of the campaigning success so far may be his quietness and general lack of flash - with sleepy Joe being an advantage, not a negative. Basically the gist is that people are so tired of Trump this or that all the time and they desperately want a return to a Presidency where they can just tune out instead of having to worry about senile Twitter ramblings that upset trade or foreign policy. Biden isn't a drama machine and with the glow of Obama, that might just be enough for most people. For contrast some Dems may not like a Sanders presidency because it would then alternatively mean the conservative media crying about Sanders 24/7, Sanders this/that in every topic, helped along by his own more charged rhetoric.

  • What? 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this some sort of Joke? A leader as great as Stalin would never allow his leadership to be decided upon by the whims of the simpleton plebs.
 

On 1/23/2020 at 10:16 PM, EagleMan said:

Who wants to call Iowa? My boring answer is the 538 prediction: Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, but maybe the last two about equal. I think now that the primary is finally happening, fans of Sanders/Warren are feeling a need to more strongly commit to one candidate or the other. Biden and Buttgieg by contrast are officially moderates but I think are very different candidates in what they're running on.

 

Slate also argued that part of the campaigning success so far may be his quietness and general lack of flash - with sleepy Joe being an advantage, not a negative. Basically the gist is that people are so tired of Trump this or that all the time and they desperately want a return to a Presidency where they can just tune out instead of having to worry about senile Twitter ramblings that upset trade or foreign policy. Biden isn't a drama machine and with the glow of Obama, that might just be enough for most people. For contrast some Dems may not like a Sanders presidency because it would then alternatively mean the conservative media crying about Sanders 24/7, Sanders this/that in every topic, helped along by his own more charged rhetoric.

 

I think Bernie is going to win Iowa and New Hampshire. Depending on his momentum, he'll come a close second in South Carolina or, very tiny chance, he'll win outright. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abdel said:

Is this some sort of Joke? A leader as great as Stalin would never allow his leadership to be decided upon by the whims of the simpleton plebs.

 

This isn't one of Bors' silly monarchies. Good communist citizens have the right, nay the civic duty, to vote for their beloved leader and his mustache.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she had a really poor debate performance and her contrived beef with Bernie really cost her when he didn't respond in kind. I think her campaign were counting on Bernie talking down to her so they can shout MANSPLAINER but Bernie kept his cool and stayed positive. I think that resonated with people. 

 

Lets not under-estimate the Joe Rogan endorsement as well. I'm sure millions more watched Joe Rogan's podcast with Sanders after the endorsement and liked what they heard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Derdan said:

It seems Bernie has stolen a lot of support from Warren in Iowa over the past week. Can anyone explain the drastic change?

Well their kerfuffle personally made me switch from Warren to Bernie, just in terms of the planned vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
2 hours ago, Baledwyr said:

Dems will get violenly raped. Should have gone with Tulsi.

 

Bors are you going to rape them? Is this your thing now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

His 'thing' is to be as repulsive as possible because he's a Free speech justice Warrior now as a cover for his inability to produce timely Praetorians. Inb4 I get threatened with a lawsuit for libel by MuH FrEe sPeEcH warrior.

 

White nationalism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Abdel said:

His 'thing' is to be as repulsive as possible because he's a Free speech justice Warrior now as a cover for his inability to produce timely Praetorians. Inb4 I get threatened with a lawsuit for libel by MuH FrEe sPeEcH warrior.

 

White nationalism. 

 

White nationalism is an oxymoron. Nationalism refers to a nation-state identity, that may or may not coincide with racial lines. White supremacy is not white nationalism, and racial pride, be it white or black, is an entirely different beast from national pride.

 

3 hours ago, IamtheWalrus. said:

Free speech counts as something social, right? So does that make Bors a Social Justice Warrior? Never thought I'd see the day... Bors SJW

 

You would think so but no. The modern american "social justice" warriors are generally against free speech.

 

EDIT: They're also against rape, but then until recently I kind of assumed everyone was.

  • This 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say they're "against" free speech, they just police it heavily and think that certain ways of communicating should be met with certain forms of social punishment. The distinction to me is that they aren't advocating for people to go to jail. Liberals aren't the ones instituting ag gag laws and are otherwise (generally) more lenient towards whistleblowers. Of course, ordinary conservatives aren't for ag gag laws either, but I'm putting the focus on what actually occurs politically. Anyways free speech can mean so many different things that the only way I would hold someone as being against free speech is if they advocated for some sort of official government punishment. Or alternatively, allowing for the courts to mediate such social interactions, e.g. Trump having stated before wanting to weaken libel laws to make it easier to sue people for defamatory remarks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, EagleMan said:

I wouldn't say they're "against" free speech, they just police it heavily and think that certain ways of communicating should be met with certain forms of social punishment. The distinction to me is that they aren't advocating for people to go to jail. Liberals aren't the ones instituting ag gag laws and are otherwise (generally) more lenient towards whistleblowers. Of course, ordinary conservatives aren't for ag gag laws either, but I'm putting the focus on what actually occurs politically. Anyways free speech can mean so many different things that the only way I would hold someone as being against free speech is if they advocated for some sort of official government punishment. Or alternatively, allowing for the courts to mediate such social interactions, e.g. Trump having stated before wanting to weaken libel laws to make it easier to sue people for defamatory remarks.

 

It sure sounds a lot like being against free speech. The whole concept of safe spaces, once you look into what they entail in practice, is horrifying. I'm not arguing that the modern conservatives are pro-free speech either, to be honest. Big business and big government both take issue with free speech. What I see of modern day social justice warriors makes me deeply concerned for the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 4:39 AM, Abdel said:

His 'thing' is to be as repulsive as possible because he's a Free speech justice Warrior now as a cover for his inability to produce timely Praetorians. Inb4 I get threatened with a lawsuit for libel by MuH FrEe sPeEcH warrior.

 

White nationalism. 

Islamist. 

  • Creative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean some of the issues with safe spaces are from how they're referred to and named. There's also a little bit of misconception as to what goes on in a safe place.

 

Safe spaces are sometimes just glorified support groups for the group that they serve. For instance if I moved to a new city and went to a LGBT resource center at a college , and I wanted a list of healthcare providers that serve transgender people , I have a high probability of entering a "safe space" at the university. These resource centers have policies that want to serve as many people as possible.  So  even if they are somewhat misguided, there are advantages to safe spaces. They are just poorly named.

 

Also if you are in a safe space, it's not as though you're not allowed to call people an idiot or something. You can jokingly insult people using non-LGBT terms for example, something that right wingers get mixed up. They think that 100% of activity there is people doing coloring books. No, people organize stuff like basketball or these kinds of things as well.  There might be safe spaces that restrict every single word you say, but I doubt they'd get as much traffic as people would think. And in any case the image of a safe space  is probably a good deal different than what people imagine in their head, if they go to a university. At least in some universities.

 

Some of the issues with safe spaces are real concerns though.

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Talinn said:

I mean some of the issues with safe spaces are from how they're referred to and named. There's also a little bit of misconception as to what goes on in a safe place.

 

Would you be able to clear them up? I've come across a lot of definitions and depictions of safe spaces, but none of them internally consistent and most rather unpleasant for anyone who isn't explicitly looking for that safe space.

 

1 hour ago, Talinn said:

Safe spaces are sometimes just glorified support groups for the group that they serve. For instance if I moved to a new city and went to a LGBT resource center at a college , and I wanted a list of healthcare providers that serve transgender people , I have a high probability of entering a "safe space" at the university. These resource centers have policies that want to serve as many people as possible.  So  even if they are somewhat misguided, there are advantages to safe spaces. They are just poorly named.

 

My main concern is for safe spaces (or "safe spaces" from what you're saying) trying to take over otherwise regular spaces without necessarily the consent or approval of the people who use them. I.e. inclusiveness of a few at the cost of problems for the many, and sometimes even the inclusiveness is more symbolic then real.

 

1 hour ago, Talinn said:

Also if you are in a safe space, it's not as though you're not allowed to call people an idiot or something. You can jokingly insult people using non-LGBT terms for example, something that right wingers get mixed up. They think that 100% of activity there is people doing coloring books. No, people organize stuff like basketball or these kinds of things as well.  There might be safe spaces that restrict every single word you say, but I doubt they'd get as much traffic as people would think. And in any case the image of a safe space  is probably a good deal different than what people imagine in their head, if they go to a university. At least in some universities

 

I don't know what right wingers think, but safe spaces are a concept out of psychiatry (specifically psychotherapy if I'm not mistaken) and I find it deeply problematic that this concept is now being spread to include things like college classrooms, a place that traditionally involves challenging debate and potentially deeply offensive or shocking topics. I'm especially concerned when safe spaces argue that you can't challenge someone on account of their "mental ability". It sounds to me like if I'm not joking when I call someone an idiot, because they are an idiot (clinical or otherwise) I'm going to run into problems. Or am I misunderstanding something? I also have a problem with the idea that everyone deserves respect. This attempt to substitute politeness with respect is devaluing the concept of respect. Respect is a feeling of deep admiration, looking up to someone, and is something that generally has to be earned. The idea of respecting everyone is patently ridiculous.

 

I have no problem with people who want to get together in a club (or any kind of other private association that they have created) and have it be a safe space. Private associations set their own rules. I have a problem when structures that are substantively speaking public institutions (and I include nominally private entities that are nonetheless so thoroughly embedded in public life as to be public in practice, such as major private universities) institute safe spaces in formats that may be near-mandatory to participate or where failure to participate even on principled grounds will lead to significant disadvantages for those not willing to do so.

 

In other words, I'm fine with safe space as long as they're small and scarce enough where a normal person can avoid them with minimal reasonable effort if they so choose, without suffering substantial consequences to their life, career, or education.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm partially with Feanor. Where it occurs, the proliferation of 'safe spaces' into public spaces is in effect a tool for the restriction of what is considered 'acceptable discourse'. It's a gimmick. 

 

But I don't think that a situation where an individual says something that aggravates a number of people in the middle of a college classroom is grounds to claim that a safe space has been created. I worry that there is too strong a conservative reaction against people simply getting angry at something that some-one has said. Where violent SJW-ism does exist, it's problematic. But how frequently does it actually exist, excepting what we see online? 

 

Also .... isn't this an election thread? 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tom Bombadil said:

But how frequently does it actually exist, excepting what we see online? 

 

I've encountered it in real life, though so far it seems scarce. Like many things, I'm worried not about the situation today but the trajectory of motion. 

 

5 minutes ago, Tom Bombadil said:

Also .... isn't this an election thread? 😂

 

We changed the conversation to something more interesting and less vile.

 

18 minutes ago, Tom Bombadil said:

But I don't think that a situation where an individual says something that aggravates a number of people in the middle of a college classroom is grounds to claim that a safe space has been created.

 

Sorry, am I misreading this? Did you mean to say that preventing someone from saying something that aggravates a lot of people

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Feanor said:

Sorry, am I misreading this? Did you mean to say that preventing someone from saying something that aggravates a lot of people

 

I said what I meant to say, that the fact of people becoming aggravated does not denote the existence of a safe space. Of course, preventing people from speaking by fiat is part and parcel of the very definition of a safe space, but I don't believe this actually occurs altogether that frequently. I say this as a student in university with (of course) a rather liberal student body. The conservative society here has weekly meetings where people get drunk and say the most obscenely racist, homophobic things etc. That stuff doesn't stay quiet, and people find out who said what, and videos are taken, and all. But people don't really care enough about it to even get angry at the speakers, much less attempt to protest at their meetings or something of the sort. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tom Bombadil said:

 

I said what I meant to say, that the fact of people becoming aggravated does not denote the existence of a safe space. Of course, preventing people from speaking by fiat is part and parcel of the very definition of a safe space, but I don't believe this actually occurs altogether that frequently. I say this as a student in university with (of course) a rather liberal student body. The conservative society here has weekly meetings where people get drunk and say the most obscenely racist, homophobic things etc. That stuff doesn't stay quiet, and people find out who said what, and videos are taken, and all. But people don't really care enough about it to even get angry at the speakers, much less attempt to protest at their meetings or something of the sort. 

 

I think we are very far from a place where they could shut down meetings of this sort. Obviously aggravation does not imply the existence of a safe space. Beyond that I'm not sure what your point is... sorry if I'm being dense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Feanor said:

 

I think we are very far from a place where they could shut down meetings of this sort. Obviously aggravation does not imply the existence of a safe space. Beyond that I'm not sure what your point is... sorry if I'm being dense.

Nah lol I'm not really making a substantive point 😂 

I guess all I'm trying to say is that I hear a lot about safe-space culture, and I'm theoretically living in a hotbed of it right now, but I'm simply not seeing it. Now, the anecdotal experience of one person really doesn't matter that much, so I guess I'm not trying to argue anything really. Just commenting I guess. 

Edited by Tom Bombadil
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

MFW Feanor doesn't realize Diplo is a safe space where you can say whatever you want and still remain anonymous if you choose and free from most, if not all consequence. To me, safe spaces can kind of take two routes. It can be a place with freedom from consequences from what you say, or like Talinn described--a group of people free from judgement for having shared similar, significant, life experience (Support groups like AA, etc). Both are kind of similar but a little different, imo.

 

I agree that speech shouldn't be limited. IDK where the idea comes from that you can't argue different perspectives in a college classroom. You can probably say the n-word and go on an anti-gay rant, but you might be thrown out of the classroom. Are you arguing that you should be allowed to do stuff like that without consequence, Feanor? I think most people take the idea of a safe space and run with it to the most extreme it could go and think that's what people are starting to want, when that simply isn't the case. Maybe some people want that, but not the majority. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IamtheWalrus. said:

MFW Feanor doesn't realize Diplo is a safe space where you can say whatever you want and still remain anonymous if you choose and free from most, if not all consequence. To me, safe spaces can kind of take two routes. It can be a place with freedom from consequences from what you say, or like Talinn described--a group of people free from judgement for having shared similar, significant, life experience (Support groups like AA, etc). Both are kind of similar but a little different, imo.

 

So The Beer Barrel would be considered a safe space?

 

3 hours ago, IamtheWalrus. said:

I agree that speech shouldn't be limited. IDK where the idea comes from that you can't argue different perspectives in a college classroom. You can probably say the n-word and go on an anti-gay rant, but you might be thrown out of the classroom. Are you arguing that you should be allowed to do stuff like that without consequence, Feanor? I think most people take the idea of a safe space and run with it to the most extreme it could go and think that's what people are starting to want, when that simply isn't the case. Maybe some people want that, but not the majority. 

 

No. I'm definitely not arguing that. Nor did I say anything anywhere that would indicate that. There are ordinary standards of behavior that apply as they always have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beer Barrel--a place where you can say things that most people wouldn't in public without any fear of real-world reprisal. Seems like a safe space to air grievances, vent, make off-color jokes, etc, doesn't it? 

I mean, you're complaining that safe spaces reduce free speech. If you're not arguing that people should be able to say what they want without reprisal, then what are you saying? The SJWs and the people you think of as pro-safe spacers are basically arguing to expand the protections of the "ordinary standards of behavior" to other marginalized groups. You've just admitted that some limitations to free speech, within the ordinary standards of behavior, are acceptable, so where do they cross the line in your mind that scares you  so much? Why are your ordinary standards of behavior that everyone should operate by right and theirs wrong?

Edited by IamtheWalrus.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Walrus' continuum argument is very strong here. It's not clear to me that there is some legitimate sharp cutoff that anyone can stand on and declare that crossing this line is tantamount to improper restrictions of free speech, while all the restrictions on the other side of this line are acceptable.

Edited by Tom Bombadil
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, StormTrooper said:

Wow imagine a gaming discord that talks more about polotics rather than games!

I'm trying to imagine someone talking about polotics but I don't even know what that is, so I'm afraid I can't comply with your request. 

Edited by Tom Bombadil
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StormTrooper said:
Wow imagine a gaming discord that talks more about polotics rather than games!

Maybe it's because we're busy playing the games as opposed to talking about them.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IamtheWalrus. said:

I mean, you're complaining that safe spaces reduce free speech. If you're not arguing that people should be able to say what they want without reprisal, then what are you saying? The SJWs and the people you think of as pro-safe spacers are basically arguing to expand the protections of the "ordinary standards of behavior" to other marginalized groups. You've just admitted that some limitations to free speech, within the ordinary standards of behavior, are acceptable, so where do they cross the line in your mind that scares you  so much? Why are your ordinary standards of behavior that everyone should operate by right and theirs wrong?

 

I'm complaining that they constitute a far greater and far more intrusive form of limitation, and one that attempts to impose a new set of standards in a manner that is rather aggressive. To be perfectly honest, I have some issues with how Americans are around the word n-word. While I don't think you should call people that for obvious reasons, the idea that people of a certain skin color ought to be more restricted in certain types of speech boggles my mind as a spectacular piece of hypocrisy. I don't understand the history of race relations in this country, and frankly don't want to. I disagree fundamentally with the idea that because the ancestors of some people who share my skin color committed certain actions, my freedom should be restricted today. That having been said, the particular restriction in question is relatively minor and easy to observe. The restrictions pushed for by safe spaces are far more intrusive, hence my concern that their expansion into more and more areas will be a far greater imposition.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They constitute a far greater and more intrusive form of limitation than the current ordinary standards of behavior that govern any given social interaction (at least 90% of all interactions)... in what way? Considering standards of behavior used to include designating white only drinking fountains and jailing African Americans who broke this standard, I don't find the increased umbrella of social protections particularly intrusive in my life. It really hasn't affected me at all. I've also never heard of anyone being jailed for calling a tranny it, or using the "wrong bathroom." Please give me examples of the ways these safe spacers and sjws are far more intrusive, limiting, and aggressive, than what we have now or in the recent past.

 

"I don't understand the history of race relations in this country, and frankly don't want to. "

 

I don't know how to read this any other way than as your personal declaration of willful ignorance on the subject race relations...which you then proceed giving us your opinion on. Basically what I'm reading from your explanation on the n word is that you don't say it "for obvious reasons" which I think is because it's just not acceptable in society, but then go on to basically explain how you don't think that using it should be seen as wrong. Not being able to say the n word is an unreasonable limit on your freedom because you're white--it boggles your mind. You won't be punished here for it, so why don't you just let it rip?

Edited by IamtheWalrus.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IamtheWalrus. said:

They constitute a far greater and more intrusive form of limitation than the current ordinary standards of behavior that govern any given social interaction (at least 90% of all interactions)... in what way? Considering standards of behavior used to include designating white only drinking fountains and jailing African Americans who broke this standard, I don't find the increased umbrella of social protections particularly intrusive in my life. It really hasn't affected me at all. I've also never heard of anyone being jailed for calling a tranny it, or using the "wrong bathroom." Please give me examples of the ways these safe spacers and sjws are far more intrusive, limiting, and aggressive, than what we have now or in the recent past.

 

Considering medicine used to involve using stone tools to put holes in people's heads I don't consider the idea of medical errors today as problematic. Citing those kind of things in the past has little relevance to this argument. Since I'm not arguing in favor of those kinds of societal restrictions, I don't see a point here. Again, we're not at the point yet where you can jail someone for the behavior you cite, but we are at the point where the political climate is beginning to influence legal standards.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2016/05/23/transgender-teacher-gets-60k-after-co-workers-wont-call-her-they/

 

Among other things, the new policy will require all teachers to refer to their co-workers by their preferred names and pronouns, and it will also ensure transgender employees and students have their bathroom needs met. Teachers who refuse to comply with the pronoun command may be fired, the school district warns.

 

🙃

 

Remember this isn't the future, this is today and it's not like the general trajectory society is taking is about to do a u-turn. So if this is today, what does 10 or 15 years from now look like?

 

3 hours ago, IamtheWalrus. said:

I don't know how to read this any other way than as your personal declaration of willful ignorance on the subject race relations...which you then proceed giving us your opinion on.

 

This is wilful ignorance, I'm fairly open about that. Specifically I'm arguing that the history of race relations should not be regarded as the basis for future societal standards. I.e. that the suffering of ones ancestors in the past does not confer some sort of social or economic privilege in the future. As for my opinion, it's not one on race relations, it's one on societal standards. Perhaps I should have been more clear, so I'll try to explain. My problem is the idea that it becomes ok to dismiss someones opinion because of skin color or gender, the idea that some people are allowed to use certain language and others aren't on account of difference in skin color and gender. I used the n-word as an example because its one you brought up, not because its central to the point I'm trying to make. 20 years ago dismissing someone's opinion because they're white, or male, would have been looked at highly unfavorably. In today's discourse it's rapidly becoming normal. What happens 20 years from now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hilarious that you argue that citing ordinary standards of the past is irrelevant, when your entire argument hinges on developing a disturbing trend. You realize in any data analysis trends are built off of some previous time's data--be it the previous month, year, etc. You're choosing to arbitrarily cut off years that don't serve to support this trend you're trying to paint. Whatever the ordinary standards in Jim Crow south, they were far stricter and more aggressive than now. Clearly, we descended from that peak, and even if we are starting to ride a wave of increased action, you can't definitively prove where it'll end up and that we won't have a similar decrease in the future. These things ebb and flow, they never move neatly in one direction, as the broader context of accepted ordinary standards clearly demonstrates.



Again, you argue that "they offer a greater and more intrusive form of limitation" How is it intrusive in your life? One of the most classic forms of bullying that kids would do when I was growing up was telling a boy "wow, you throw like a girl!"--Teasing someone by purposefully calling a he a she, we can agree is a form of harassment. I don't really know much about all this gender identification stuff, but essentially that's their argument. Saying "they did..." instead of "he did..." is intrusive and aggressive to you? Getting fired for harassing someone is aggressive? You say it's starting to sway that way in politics, but you realize it's still legal to fire someone specifically for being gay at the federal level, right? They tried to add sexual orientation to the list of protected statuses and it got shot down. Cite some macro data about this trend if you're going to argue it's evident to continue. How many of these types of cases were fought this year, last year, the year before? What are you being limited from?

According to you everyone should start with a blank slate--no parents to influence them, no money, no school districts better than others, no history, no nations, and no wealth passed down over time because all of these things can affect someone's privilege based on their ancestors. It's certainly a nice fantasy. To think the world operates anything like that is nothing short of delusional. I personally agree that men should have little to no say on things like female attire standards at work, female healthcare, etc. I don't think white people can argue about the hardships of being black or Hispanic. So yes, I believe there are certain topics that have no application to them. Should a non-alcoholic be able to lecture a group of alcoholics on how not to drink when alcoholism involves a genetic trait and experiences the person speaking doesn't have? Some people might think it'd be nice to have a scotch at work and have a female subordinate give them sexual favors to keep her job while facing no repercussions like in the 50's probably up into the 70's. It's natural that as other minorities and people with protected statuses gain equal footing, the all-encompassing privilege of the white man should decrease. They're going to take control of the conversations that pertain to them, and there's nothing we can do about it. 

Obviously you're someone who thinks people should listen to your opinion. You shoe-horn whatever's on your mind into completely unrelated threads, thereby derailing them. You don't like change--you can't even bother to do something as easy as use discord. These are things that are pretty self evident based on your behavior displayed, and I think they're far more telling than any argument you've made in the last few posts. Who isn't afraid of change? That's just how the world goes. I won't definitely say where it's going to end up, and that it'll be bad until we get there because it's impossible to know for sure. This is all I'm gonna say on this topic.

  • Dislike 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

I find it hilarious that you argue that citing ordinary standards of the past is irrelevant, when your entire argument hinges on developing a disturbing trend. You realize in any data analysis trends are built off of some previous time's data--be it the previous month, year, etc. You're choosing to arbitrarily cut off years that don't serve to support this trend you're trying to paint. Whatever the ordinary standards in Jim Crow south, they were far stricter and more aggressive than now. Clearly, we descended from that peak, and even if we are starting to ride a wave of increased action, you can't definitively prove where it'll end up and that we won't have a similar decrease in the future. These things ebb and flow, they never move neatly in one direction, as the broader context of accepted ordinary standards clearly demonstrates.

 

I have to wonder, have you read my argument? My entire argument is a concern with the trend. If you believe the trend won't get far enough to be a problem, then I won't have an issue with it either. As for arbitrary cut off points, I see what you're getting at. However my argument is simpler then that.

 

On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

Again, you argue that "they offer a greater and more intrusive form of limitation" How is it intrusive in your life? One of the most classic forms of bullying that kids would do when I was growing up was telling a boy "wow, you throw like a girl!"--Teasing someone by purposefully calling a he a she, we can agree is a form of harassment.

 

I don't see this as bullying. At least not within my upbringing and background. I think that this can be bullying but labeling it as bullying or as harassment inherently is excessive. I don't think that human relations should be regulated to this extent. I also don't think a definition of bullying or harassment that this is formalist is desirable. I would prefer a definition that rests on a substantive examination of the issue. But even more interesting is that the article explicitly says that an investigation was conducted and found no evidence of harassment. Yet the school chose to pay out the teacher and institute harsh measures in a pre-emptive move due to concerns that the climate on society may result in an unfavorable legal outcome, which is exactly what I'm concerned about. Overcautious reactions that lead to increasing restrictions in the name of hypothetical inclusiveness.

 

On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

I don't really know much about all this gender identification stuff, but essentially that's their argument. Saying "they did..." instead of "he did..." is intrusive and aggressive to you?

 

Being able to fire someone for failing to do this is intrusive and aggressive, and considering the context, certainly feels like the extension of a safe space to a school if not in principle, at least partially in practice. What happens to students who fail to observe proper gender pronouns? Doesn't the same legal fear apply? Will they be denied education? Will they be disciplined and punished? What about those whose opinion is that gender ought to be classified purely on biology? How does this not amount to a gag order?

 

On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

Getting fired for harassing someone is aggressive?

 

 

Quote

The school conducted an internal investigation after Soell complained, but found no proof of harassment.

 

Quote

Once she returned to work, Soell claims she fell victim to relentless harassment from her co-workers. She says employees persisted in calling her hurtful terms like “Miss Soell,” “lady,” and “she.”

 

Oh the horror. The inhumanity of it. 🙃

 

I only saw one instance of behavior in the article that was, to me, truly problematic;

 

Quote

She claimed one teacher screamed at her in the hallway that her gender choice was offensive to God, and she said teachers conspired to use the school’s only gender-neutral bathroom so Soell would have to wait a half-hour or more to use it.

 

Which is bad, and I hope that teacher was disciplined about appropriate behavior in the workplace. But one incident hardly rises to the level of harassment by itself. If anything it was a single inappropriate outburst. At the end of the day if someone is so deeply sensitive about their gender identity that the failure to immediately identify them with their proper pronoun following a transition, then perhaps they need some time off before returning to work, to sort out their issues.

 

On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

You say it's starting to sway that way in politics, but you realize it's still legal to fire someone specifically for being gay at the federal level, right? They tried to add sexual orientation to the list of protected statuses and it got shot down. Cite some macro data about this trend if you're going to argue it's evident to continue. How many of these types of cases were fought this year, last year, the year before? What are you being limited from?

 

I don't have macro data and to be honest I don't need it. I'm not making an argument about the speed of this, merely the trajectory, and I don't think you can deny that. Well you can of course, but it would be silly. Take a 50 year timeline, and the direction of movement becomes obvious. The movement is not homogeneously fast everywhere, and it's often a two-steps-forward-one-step-back situation, but the big picture is clear. Maybe this bigger trend will slow itself and even start to reverse. It would be nice. But I don't see it happening. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm certainly not the most in tune with US politics today. I'm no Bors.

 

On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

According to you everyone should start with a blank slate--no parents to influence them, no money, no school districts better than others, no history, no nations, and no wealth passed down over time because all of these things can affect someone's privilege based on their ancestors.

 

You're over generalizing a bit, but only a bit. Of course I think that. I'm a communist. Are you genuinely forgetting who you're having this discussion with? Are you even debating me or some generic conservative viewpoint that you assume I share?

 

On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

It's certainly a nice fantasy.

 

I don't think it is. I think a lack of equity causes far deeper problems in American society today then a lack of protection for the 56789634578921678 sexual orientations that people have decided to identify with. And I think that unlike identity politics, which help to divide the lower classes and allow the rich to keep getting richer, equity is not going to be on the political agenda any time soon, not on a fundamental level. Because both of the major political parties are run by the same small financial elite. Now how's that for bringing this thread back on topic? 😀

 

On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

I personally agree that men should have little to no say on things like female attire standards at work, female healthcare, etc. I don't think white people can argue about the hardships of being black or Hispanic. So yes, I believe there are certain topics that have no application to them. Should a non-alcoholic be able to lecture a group of alcoholics on how not to drink when alcoholism involves a genetic trait and experiences the person speaking doesn't have?

 

It doesn't matter who is speaking, what matters is what is being said. To me any attempt to prejudge the contents based on the identity of the speaker, especially when we are talking about huge and general groups of people, is a form of bigotry. And no, I do not think that it is ok to shut people down from talking because you don't think they have the right background. Maybe they get it, and maybe they don't, but their identity should not be used to rob them of their right to speak.

 

On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

Some people might think it'd be nice to have a scotch at work and have a female subordinate give them sexual favors to keep her job while facing no repercussions like in the 50's probably up into the 70's. It's natural that as other minorities and people with protected statuses gain equal footing, the all-encompassing privilege of the white man should decrease. They're going to take control of the conversations that pertain to them, and there's nothing we can do about it.

 

You once again seem to be forgetting who you're talking to. I don't know a whole lot about the US of the 50s or 70s, but given what an imperialist piece of shit the US has been throughout virtually the entire 20th century, you will find little sympathy in me with the US of those days. You seem to forget that for me the 1950s look like this:

 

10161014.189610.1684.jpeg

 

And the 1970s like this:

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

However you will also find 0 sympathy in me for identity politics. The true interests of people are economic, the rest is superstructure, and one that has evolved to serve the existing economic system. It's not that there isn't a feedback between the superstructure and the base, but this relationship is complex, and I certainly don't see trans rights as the crucial issue to a post-capitalist society.

 

On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

Obviously you're someone who thinks people should listen to your opinion.

 

It seems silly to assume the opposite. At the end of the day if you hold an opinion, but you don't believe anyone should listen to it, then presumably you would keep your mouth shut? Even more interesting is the question of why you yourself would continue to hold an opinion that you firmly believe others should not listen to...

 

On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

You shoe-horn whatever's on your mind into completely unrelated threads, thereby derailing them.

 

I'm fairly certain that derailing threads is a time-honored tradition, alongside quote pyramids and clan drama.

 

On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

You don't like change--you can't even bother to do something as easy as use discord.

 

You're oversimplifying. I like some change, but dislike other change. My issue with discord specifically is the nature of the conversation as well as its format. I don't like public messenger chatrooms because I don't like the pace of the conversation, and because it makes a discussion like this nearly impossible. It's also very hard to go back and backtrack on the contents of a previous conversation. Discord seems like a good tool for organizing online gaming but I barely do any of that these days so I don't see what I would have to gain. I don't post on diplo from my phone, and most of my diplo posting either takes place during a mental break at work, or while watching something at home. Tracking a rapid-fire live conversation is not conducive to multitasking, nor is the conversation generally worth the attention span. So between not needing discord's primary function, and not liking the nature of the conversation there, I don't see what I would have to gain by participating. I've learned how to use discord, and made an effort to look in there a few times, but was quickly bored and disinterested in what I saw.

 

On 2/11/2020 at 3:34 PM, IamtheWalrus. said:

Who isn't afraid of change?

 

In that case, what's the point of pointing out that I don't like change? You've got me quite confused Walrus. So confused that I took a day to think over and re-read your post. I hope this reply clears up where I stand.

 

EDIT: I'll leave you with this one quote from Orwell; If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Feanor said:

 

It doesn't matter who is speaking, what matters is what is being said. To me any attempt to prejudge the contents based on the identity of the speaker, especially when we are talking about huge and general groups of people, is a form of bigotry. And no, I do not think that it is ok to shut people down from talking because you don't think they have the right background. Maybe they get it, and maybe they don't, but their identity should not be used to rob them of their right to speak.

 

You once again seem to be forgetting who you're talking to. I don't know a whole lot about the US of the 50s or 70s, but given what an imperialist piece of shit the US has been throughout virtually the entire 20th century, you will find little sympathy in me with the US of those days. You seem to forget that for me the 1950s look like this:

 

10161014.189610.1684.jpeg

 

And the 1970s like this:

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

However you will also find 0 sympathy in me for identity politics. The true interests of people are economic, the rest is superstructure, and one that has evolved to serve the existing economic system. It's not that there isn't a feedback between the superstructure and the base, but this relationship is complex, and I certainly don't see trans rights as the crucial issue to a post-capitalist society.

Since Orwellian freedom is so important to you, let's talk about Gramscian subalternity and the impossibility of simultaneous, worldwide revolution without the full mass of the oppressed classes working in tandem. The goal of socialist liberation is not the selective liberation of rainbow capitalism, but that doesn't preclude or in any way obfuscate the reality that has been the mass action of LGBTQIA+ individuals. "Identity" is an ancient notion of sameness, and the current conversations swirling around sexual and gender identity are rooted in post-modernist notions of the self as a reflected by and in society writ large. Due to this apparent dissimilarity, the identity of identity (i.e. with itself) is at issue. Here's two fun videos on some of this topic in context:

 

 

P.S. Habermas is not a particularly good marxist, as great he is as a Marxian historian. Read Wickham instead. (Also surely you must know about the turning of the '68ers and the whole discourse following the decline and fall of soviet imperium. So I won't touch that, but I will say that steel man was bad.)

Edited by Hoarmurath
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hoarmurath said:

Since Orwellian freedom is so important to you, let's talk about Gramscian subalternity and the impossibility of simultaneous, worldwide revolution without the full mass of the oppressed classes working in tandem.

 

Holy off-topic Batman! Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging, I'm impressed by both the tangential relevance and the utterly unexpected direction. As for Orwellian freedom, I'm not sure that concept in and of itself has any particular meaning. Typically the adjective "Orwellian" refers to an anti-utopia or dystopia of some sort. Anyways, this deserves a detailed reply, and I will try to provide one later today.

  • Like 1
  • Broadside 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 5:29 AM, Hoarmurath said:

Since Orwellian freedom is so important to you, let's talk about Gramscian subalternity and the impossibility of simultaneous, worldwide revolution without the full mass of the oppressed classes working in tandem. The goal of socialist liberation is not the selective liberation of rainbow capitalism, but that doesn't preclude or in any way obfuscate the reality that has been the mass action of LGBTQIA+ individuals. "Identity" is an ancient notion of sameness, and the current conversations swirling around sexual and gender identity are rooted in post-modernist notions of the self as a reflected by and in society writ large.

 

What's important here is what lines these identities are not economic in nature. They are not even really political in nature, though they are politicized, typically for narrow single-issue purposes. I.e. they obscure true and fundamental economic interest under political and social identity politics that help divide the working class, and keep the middle class busy, while the upper class continues to get wealthier and wealthier at their expense. Mass action of LGBTQ individuals is mass action. What's your point? Mass action can occur along many different lines. None of it addresses the concerns I have with the trajectory society is taking or the giant red herring role that identity politics are playing in modern day America.

 

On 2/13/2020 at 5:29 AM, Hoarmurath said:

P.S. Habermas is not a particularly good marxist, as great he is as a Marxian historian. Read Wickham instead. (Also surely you must know about the turning of the '68ers and the whole discourse following the decline and fall of soviet imperium. So I won't touch that, but I will say that steel man was bad.)

 

I definitely don't have time to watch two lengthy videos. If you have the same information in text form that would be appreciated. As for Steel Man Bad... it's a complex subject. If you recognize the difficulty of simultaneous world revolution (something I find rather unlikely) then you have to have some sympathy for the concept of socialism in a single given country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2020 at 11:31 AM, Feanor said:

What's important here is what lines these identities are not economic in nature.

Can we first come to an understanding of what "identity" is? It seems like you're using it as a broad cover-all for all behaviors outside of heteronormativity, which doesn't really work toward any deeper understanding of the phenomenon. If we can instead use a related word in terms of the history of psychology, let's discuss "the self". How is the Marxian understanding of the self constructed in capitalist society built along anything other than economic lines?

 

On 2/15/2020 at 11:31 AM, Feanor said:

They are not even really political in nature, though they are politicized, typically for narrow single-issue purposes. I.e. they obscure true and fundamental economic interest under political and social identity politics that help divide the working class, and keep the middle class busy, while the upper class continues to get wealthier and wealthier at their expense. Mass action of LGBTQ individuals is mass action. What's your point? Mass action can occur along many different lines. None of it addresses the concerns I have with the trajectory society is taking or the giant red herring role that identity politics are playing in modern day America.

Rainbow capitalism isn't the same as gender or sexual identity. "Identity politics" is a made-up schema, a red-herring constructed by reactionaries with very specific agendas. It's a mask used to hide the shame of not being able to reconcile theory and reality in the ultra-capitalist world in which we now live, where social oppression takes ever new and insidious forms in alignment with the digital reproduction of culture. 

 

 

On 2/15/2020 at 11:31 AM, Feanor said:

I definitely don't have time to watch two lengthy videos. If you have the same information in text form that would be appreciated.

 

Sure.  Here are three encyclopedia articles which break things down rather very well, with good sources:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/#PosColThe

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/

 

On 2/15/2020 at 11:31 AM, Feanor said:

As for Steel Man Bad... it's a complex subject. If you recognize the difficulty of simultaneous world revolution (something I find rather unlikely) then you have to have some sympathy for the concept of socialism in a single given country.

Simultaneous world revolution isn't the same thing as spontaneous world revolution. Waiting around for the world to change isn't going to affect the change Marx envisioned. He understood well that the international character of capitalism meant its overturning would require an international rising up of the subaltern classes.

 

Quote

"Thus all collisions in history have their origin, according to our view, in the contradiction between the productive forces and the form of intercourse. Incidentally, to lead to collisions in a country, this contradiction need not necessarily have reached its extreme limit in this particular country. The competition with industrially more advanced countries, brought about by the expansion of international intercourse, is sufficient to produce a similar contradiction in countries with a backward industry (e.g. the latent proletariat in Germany brought into view by view by the competition of English industry)."

-K. Marx

 

Quote

"Out of all this bloody confusion, this yawning abyss, there is no help, no escape, no rescue other than socialism. Only the revolution of the world proletariat can bring order into this chaos, can bring work and bread for all, can end the reciprocal slaughter of the peoples, can restore peace, freedom, true culture to this martyred humanity. Down with the wage system! That is the slogan of the hour! Instead of wage labor and class rule there must be collective labor. The means of production must cease to be the monopoly of a single class; they must become the common property of all. No more exploiters and exploited! Planned production and distribution of the product in the common interest. Abolition not only of the contemporary mode of production, mere exploitation and robbery, but equally of contemporary commerce, mere fraud.

 

In place of the employers and their wage slaves, free working comrades! Labor as nobody’s torture, because everybody’s duty! A human and honorable life for all who do their social duty. Hunger no longer the curse of labor, but the scourge of idleness!

 

Only in such a society are national hatred and servitude uprooted. Only when such a society has become reality will the earth no more be stained by murder. Only then can it be said: This war was the last.

 

In this hour, socialism is the only salvation for humanity. The words of the Communist Manifesto flare like a fiery menetekel[1] above the crumbling bastions of capitalist society: Socialism or barbarism!"

-R. Luxemburg

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 2:25 PM, Hoarmurath said:

Can we first come to an understanding of what "identity" is? It seems like you're using it as a broad cover-all for all behaviors outside of heteronormativity, which doesn't really work toward any deeper understanding of the phenomenon. If we can instead use a related word in terms of the history of psychology, let's discuss "the self". How is the Marxian understanding of the self constructed in capitalist society built along anything other than economic lines?

 

I'm using the term identity politics to refer to the well known and well established phenomenon of identity politics. You're welcome to deconstruct the concept, but it's not a conversation I'm interested in. I find the term useful as a means of referring to specific behavior patterns in modern US politics. Unsurprisingly, even Wikipedia provides an adequate and informative explanation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Marxian "understanding of the self". I'm not a fan of Maoism or third-worldist theories, or the various pseudo-marxist philosophy-meets-politics theories that have surfaced mostly in the west over the past 50 years around things like women's movements or ethnic minority-based movements. Marx, in terms of questions of the self, dealt with alienation produced by the estrangement of individuals from the direct fruits and impact of their labor. Are you getting at the "species-being" concept? Gattungswesen?

 

Anyways, and obviously so, the economic identity is primary, or should be, if people want to realize their true self interest. The rest is an attempt to distract people, while the money goes into the pockets of those paying attention the economic side.

 

On 2/16/2020 at 2:25 PM, Hoarmurath said:

Rainbow capitalism isn't the same as gender or sexual identity. "Identity politics" is a made-up schema, a red-herring constructed by reactionaries with very specific agendas. It's a mask used to hide the shame of not being able to reconcile theory and reality in the ultra-capitalist world in which we now live, where social oppression takes ever new and insidious forms in alignment with the digital reproduction of culture. 

 

Ok you lost me completely. Initially I assumed "rainbow capitalism" was just your personal slang for LGBT movements in a liberal-democratic society of late stage capitalism. But now you're using it like it's a specific term. Can you explain what exactly you mean by it?

 

I agree that identity politics is a red herring constructed by moneyed power, with the important difference that I think they really want identity politics to succeed, as long as they remain political and focused on narrow group-based social and political expression, and leave major economic factors (like the death of the middle class) alone. Except I don't think it's ultra conservatives. I think ultra conservatives may have coined the term to describe a set of phenomena that they don't like, but I think it's the more forward thinking part of the capitalist upper class (the Mark Zuckerberg's if you will) that really support it. I think that identity politics are a great way to distract the working class of the erosion of their social, and economic, gains made in the 20th century, and a great way to distract and scare the middle class, while it slowly gets annihilated by the continued growth of wealth inequality in the US especially.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding what specifically you are referring to with "social oppression"  in the "digital reproduction of culture". Can you provide some specific real world examples of what you mean?

 

On 2/16/2020 at 2:25 PM, Hoarmurath said:

Simultaneous world revolution isn't the same thing as spontaneous world revolution. Waiting around for the world to change isn't going to affect the change Marx envisioned. He understood well that the international character of capitalism meant its overturning would require an international rising up of the subaltern classes.

 

The change from capitalism to communism is the same as the change of any other modes of production from one and into the other. You can't take a society of cannibals and build communism. It doesn't work. So just to be clear, are you arguing in favor of simultaneous world revolution? Or against it? As for subaltern classes, we've seen plenty of peasant revolutions leading into state socialism. What has been the ultimate outcome? The fall of the USSR and the rise of capitalist China? No thank you. It takes an advanced feudal society to transition into a capitalist one (not to be confused with small portions of capitalist economic being grafted on to a feudal or even pre-feudal society as a means of efficiently extracting a limited quantity of valuable resources). It takes an advanced capitalist society to transition into communism. Until we see capitalism run its full course, we will not see communism. And there is no guarantee or inherent requirement that revolution be the only way of getting there. Look at the transition from feudalism to capitalism in, for example, the Netherlands.

 

Your first Marx quote is great and very relevant, about less and more developed countries and the contradictions between them. Its great because to Marx the idea of a less developed country that nonetheless can "get there" is.... Germany. Not jungle tribes in Siam. 😉

 

I hope this clarifies where I stand. I'm sorry it took me a while to respond but this required time to properly go through, and I've been short on that lately. Let me know what you think.

Link to post
Share on other sites