|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 31 2017 11:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 09:40 Introvert wrote:On August 31 2017 01:20 IgnE wrote:On August 30 2017 16:50 Introvert wrote:On August 30 2017 14:56 IgnE wrote:On August 30 2017 12:12 Nevuk wrote:Can we all agree that this is probably the worst take on houston we'll see? Article is here : www.slate.comWith the debilitating rain in Houston fell a rain of inspiriting images. Everywhere on Twitter, in the papers, in internet slideshows, we saw Texans improvising rescue canoes and gathering scared dogs in their arms, bearing them away to safety. First responders waded into the water-choked arteries of the city and dragged people out of cars. Uniformed men hoisted grandmothers on their backs (like Jason fording the river with the goddess Hera on his shoulders) while, elsewhere in the country, beer companies filled cans with fresh water and celebrities spearheaded donation drives.
The flood, the animals: It all felt so mythic. In coverage of Harvey, the word hero is almost as ubiquitous as the stills of intrepid reporters, their rain slickers swirling like capes, and hunky National Guardsmen in life jackets. During a speech to the press on Monday, President Donald Trump noted that crisis showcases “the best in America’s character—strength, charity, and resilience.” (This was a reprieve from his popcorn-gobbling tweets about Harvey’s unprecedented, riveting destruction.) The Washington Times echoed Trump with a piece spotlighting the many Clark Kents and Diana Princes vaulting into action: “Hurricane Harvey Brings Out the Best in America.” There is an adage that “adversity doesn’t build character, it reveals it.”
But does catastrophe illustrate, or does it transform? What if America is less a glorious nation of do-gooders awaiting the chance to exercise their altruism than a moral junior varsity team elevated by circumstance? In her book A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster, Rebecca Solnit argues that emergencies provoke from us a conditional virtue. They create provisional utopias, communities in which the usual—selfish, capitalistic—rules don’t apply. “Imagine a society,” Solnit writes, “where the fate that faces [people], no matter how grim, is far less so for being shared, where much once considered impossible, both good and bad, is now possible or present, and where the moment is so pressing that old complaints and worries fall away, where people feel important, purposeful, at the center of the world.”
The point here is obviously not to diminish the bighearted men and women who rose to the occasion when Harvey, a “once-in-a-lifetime” storm with a spiraling death toll, slammed into Texas. But it is misleading to characterize Houston as an exhibition of the “best of America” when what it represents is a contingent America, a “paradise” specific to the “hell” around it. These waterlogged suburbs have become zones of exemption, where norms hang suspended and something lovelier and more communal has been allowed to flourish in their place. Disaster scientists have repeatedly punctured the myth, perpetuated by Hollywood and the media, that cataclysm awakens our worst selves. Rather, disruptive events loosen our mores just enough to permit new kinds of compassion. As Slate reported in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, researchers at the University of Colorado–Boulder discovered “that panic is not a problem in disasters; that rather than helplessly awaiting outside aid, members of the public behave proactively and prosocially to assist one another; that community residents themselves perform many critical disaster tasks, such as searching for and rescuing victims; and that both social cohesiveness and informal mechanisms of social control increase during disasters, resulting in a lower incidence of deviant behavior.”
These findings put a frame around the cooperative society that has lately emerged in Houston: It is a beautiful anomaly, a liquid note of silver momentarily liberated from its sheath of rust. The inverse of such a phenomenon is the bystander effect, by which individuals might walk past someone prone in the street without offering aid. We rarely feel responsible for a stranger’s suffering if others around us seem unmoved or if we can comfortably assume that some nearby person will step in to help instead. Humans may possess inherent goodness, but that goodness needs to be activated. Some signal has to disperse the cloud of moral Novocain around us. Some person, or fire, or flood, has got to say: now.
No. We can't all agree. I like the take. You know, I was wondering what angle you would take and then Or maybe it's an opportunity to rethink utopia instead of just juxtaposing rah rah American heroics with petty resentment. and I smacked myself in the head for not realizing that's where it would go right off the bat. Maybe the fact that it takes a natural disaster and incredible destruction to bring out this side of people should disabuse us of the idea of utopia in a free and prosperous society. Edit: it's possible that after a long day I'm misreading you, but given past statements... Edit2: The % of conservatives that like or value Brook's opinion is probably in the single digits. You are almost definitely misreading me, but how about this way of putting it: rather than turning it into treacly television that suggests America is full of heroes ready to pitch in when times get really tough, maybe it should serve as a stark illustration of how cruel and exploitative the normal regime is. You don't think David Brooks is just a nice, honest man with the conscience of a universalist conservative?? Hm, that last part might be a sticking point. But then again it's kind of the whole debate, isn't it? I don't find it particularly harsh. But perhaps we don't see great things on such a scale as all these "rah-rah" stories show us because they aren't needed, not because they are suppressed. Or perhaps they happen but aren't interesting. It isn't everyday you will look like a hero by boating though your (former) street address or making a human chain to pull someone out of a car. As for David Brooks, read the now (in)famous story about him and Obama. All of it is ridiculous, but the part about the crease in the pant leg is now etched into the memory of those who read such things. yo this is a great story. 1) fuck you guys for electing a true idiot. it's the worst sin on this side of evil 2) obama was a boss. a debonair intellectual. whether or not you like obamacare i will never understand why you guys turn him into some devil. i think buckley was wrong more than he was right but i'd still be his friend
At the risk of falling for this troll I'll say that I didn't say anything about friends. And I don't make him out to be the devil, just a terrible president. And finally, those comments from Brooks should demonstrate what a joke he is.
|
Exploring 2020 bid...
California Senator Kamala Harris (D) announced during a town hall on Wednesday that she would support Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) "Medicare for All" bill, which would institute a single-payer health insurance system.
"I intend to co-sponsor the 'Medicare for All' bill because it’s just the right thing to do," Harris announced Wednesday at a town hall in Oakland.
"It's not just about what is morally and ethically right, it also makes sense just from a fiscal standpoint," she said.
The decision to co-sponsor Sanders's bill is Harris's first instance of publicly supporting single-payer.
In July, Harris said, "as a concept" she supported single-payer, but that lawmakers still needed to "work out the details."
Sanders said earlier this week that he was building support for his “Medicare for All” bill.
“You’re seeing more and more movement toward ‘Medicare for All," Sanders said. "When the people are saying we need healthcare for everyone, as more and more Americans come on board, it will become politically possible.”
The former presidential candidate's backing for the policy has raised questions about whether he and his supporters might launch primary challenges against Democrats who do not back a single-payer plan.
Sanders on Wednesday tweeted thanking Harris for her announcement as well.
"Thank you Kamala Harris for your support. Let's make health care a right, not a privilege," he tweeted.
Source
|
On August 31 2017 13:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 11:21 IgnE wrote:On August 31 2017 09:40 Introvert wrote:On August 31 2017 01:20 IgnE wrote:On August 30 2017 16:50 Introvert wrote:On August 30 2017 14:56 IgnE wrote:On August 30 2017 12:12 Nevuk wrote:https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/902717500240125952Can we all agree that this is probably the worst take on houston we'll see? Article is here : www.slate.comWith the debilitating rain in Houston fell a rain of inspiriting images. Everywhere on Twitter, in the papers, in internet slideshows, we saw Texans improvising rescue canoes and gathering scared dogs in their arms, bearing them away to safety. First responders waded into the water-choked arteries of the city and dragged people out of cars. Uniformed men hoisted grandmothers on their backs (like Jason fording the river with the goddess Hera on his shoulders) while, elsewhere in the country, beer companies filled cans with fresh water and celebrities spearheaded donation drives.
The flood, the animals: It all felt so mythic. In coverage of Harvey, the word hero is almost as ubiquitous as the stills of intrepid reporters, their rain slickers swirling like capes, and hunky National Guardsmen in life jackets. During a speech to the press on Monday, President Donald Trump noted that crisis showcases “the best in America’s character—strength, charity, and resilience.” (This was a reprieve from his popcorn-gobbling tweets about Harvey’s unprecedented, riveting destruction.) The Washington Times echoed Trump with a piece spotlighting the many Clark Kents and Diana Princes vaulting into action: “Hurricane Harvey Brings Out the Best in America.” There is an adage that “adversity doesn’t build character, it reveals it.”
But does catastrophe illustrate, or does it transform? What if America is less a glorious nation of do-gooders awaiting the chance to exercise their altruism than a moral junior varsity team elevated by circumstance? In her book A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster, Rebecca Solnit argues that emergencies provoke from us a conditional virtue. They create provisional utopias, communities in which the usual—selfish, capitalistic—rules don’t apply. “Imagine a society,” Solnit writes, “where the fate that faces [people], no matter how grim, is far less so for being shared, where much once considered impossible, both good and bad, is now possible or present, and where the moment is so pressing that old complaints and worries fall away, where people feel important, purposeful, at the center of the world.”
The point here is obviously not to diminish the bighearted men and women who rose to the occasion when Harvey, a “once-in-a-lifetime” storm with a spiraling death toll, slammed into Texas. But it is misleading to characterize Houston as an exhibition of the “best of America” when what it represents is a contingent America, a “paradise” specific to the “hell” around it. These waterlogged suburbs have become zones of exemption, where norms hang suspended and something lovelier and more communal has been allowed to flourish in their place. Disaster scientists have repeatedly punctured the myth, perpetuated by Hollywood and the media, that cataclysm awakens our worst selves. Rather, disruptive events loosen our mores just enough to permit new kinds of compassion. As Slate reported in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, researchers at the University of Colorado–Boulder discovered “that panic is not a problem in disasters; that rather than helplessly awaiting outside aid, members of the public behave proactively and prosocially to assist one another; that community residents themselves perform many critical disaster tasks, such as searching for and rescuing victims; and that both social cohesiveness and informal mechanisms of social control increase during disasters, resulting in a lower incidence of deviant behavior.”
These findings put a frame around the cooperative society that has lately emerged in Houston: It is a beautiful anomaly, a liquid note of silver momentarily liberated from its sheath of rust. The inverse of such a phenomenon is the bystander effect, by which individuals might walk past someone prone in the street without offering aid. We rarely feel responsible for a stranger’s suffering if others around us seem unmoved or if we can comfortably assume that some nearby person will step in to help instead. Humans may possess inherent goodness, but that goodness needs to be activated. Some signal has to disperse the cloud of moral Novocain around us. Some person, or fire, or flood, has got to say: now.
No. We can't all agree. I like the take. You know, I was wondering what angle you would take and then Or maybe it's an opportunity to rethink utopia instead of just juxtaposing rah rah American heroics with petty resentment. and I smacked myself in the head for not realizing that's where it would go right off the bat. Maybe the fact that it takes a natural disaster and incredible destruction to bring out this side of people should disabuse us of the idea of utopia in a free and prosperous society. Edit: it's possible that after a long day I'm misreading you, but given past statements... Edit2: The % of conservatives that like or value Brook's opinion is probably in the single digits. You are almost definitely misreading me, but how about this way of putting it: rather than turning it into treacly television that suggests America is full of heroes ready to pitch in when times get really tough, maybe it should serve as a stark illustration of how cruel and exploitative the normal regime is. You don't think David Brooks is just a nice, honest man with the conscience of a universalist conservative?? Hm, that last part might be a sticking point. But then again it's kind of the whole debate, isn't it? I don't find it particularly harsh. But perhaps we don't see great things on such a scale as all these "rah-rah" stories show us because they aren't needed, not because they are suppressed. Or perhaps they happen but aren't interesting. It isn't everyday you will look like a hero by boating though your (former) street address or making a human chain to pull someone out of a car. As for David Brooks, read the now (in)famous story about him and Obama. All of it is ridiculous, but the part about the crease in the pant leg is now etched into the memory of those who read such things. yo this is a great story. 1) fuck you guys for electing a true idiot. it's the worst sin on this side of evil 2) obama was a boss. a debonair intellectual. whether or not you like obamacare i will never understand why you guys turn him into some devil. i think buckley was wrong more than he was right but i'd still be his friend At the risk of falling for this troll I'll say that I didn't say anything about friends. And I don't make him out to be the devil, just a terrible president. And finally, those comments from Brooks should demonstrate what a joke he is.
I dunno you can tell a lot by a man's pant crease.
And. Obama is a Burkean conservative. It all makes sense.
|
It's pretty simple to see why American 'conservatives' nowadays hate Obama. It's essentially populist agrarianism and there's nothing more these people hate than urban intellectuals. New Yorker had a good article about this last year.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/how-rousseau-predicted-trump
In a sense I don't think the United States even have Conservatives
|
On August 31 2017 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:
It's pretty simple to see why American 'conservatives' nowadays hate Obama.
Disproving "white" exceptionalism is definitely a big part of it. It is super clear that a lot of people got a lot of comfort in knowing they are the same "race" as Einstein and other prolific, big name, influential historical figures. The fact that every president has *also* happened to be white is probably something a lot of people didn't really attribute to the actual underlying reasons. For a black guy to walk in, talk shit about anti-intellectualism and boldly stop tolerating conservative bullshit was definitely hugely tear-inducing for a lot of rural communities. People who, by any objective measure, are utterly mediocre at best, could take comfort in knowing they are a member of the "winning team". Once Obama was like "lol nope", a lot of people felt their pride was threatened. Sad, but oh well.
|
WASHINGTON ― For the past decade, former business journalist Barry Lynn has used his perch at the New America Foundation to warn politicians and the public that a new era of corporate monopolies threatened not only American workers, but also democracy itself.
Lynn was just proven right: New America has fired him as head of its Open Markets program along with his team of about 10 researchers and journalists, after they called for an antitrust investigation of the think tank’s largest longtime donor, Google.
On June 27, the Open Markets team in a 150-word statement called for the Federal Trade Commission to follow the lead of the European Union, which leveled a $2.7 billion fine on Google for violating antitrust laws. Since New America’s start in 1999, Google has given it $21 million. And Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc., Google’s parent company, served as New America’s chairman from 2008 through mid-2016.
According to a report on Wednesday in The New York Times, Lynn was called on the carpet by New America head Anne-Marie Slaughter shortly after the Open Markets program praised the E.U.’s decision to find Google in violation of antitrust law for providing preferential placement to its own products and those of its subsidiaries over its rivals in search results. Schmidt, the Times reported, had expressed to Slaughter his “displeasure” with the statement backing the E.U.’s move.
Slaughter, according to an email obtained by the Times, told Lynn that he and his team had to leave New America. The firing was, “in no way based on the content of your work,” she wrote, while also saying Lynn was “imperiling the institution as a whole.”
Two current members of the Open Markets team confirmed this timeline of events to HuffPost. Lynn and his Open Markets colleagues were told to depart New America two days after the statement that supported the E.U. antitrust fine and called upon “U.S. enforcers” to “build upon this important precedent. The team, though, stuck around in an attempt to question New America’s leadership about whether it really wanted to fire the entire group.
“We were trying to be, like, ’Are you sure you want to do this because it sort of seems bad,” Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Program, told HuffPost. “Are you sure you want to prove us right? Are you sure you want to back a monopoly in such an obvious and clumsy way? We were negotiating with them.” (Stoller is an occasional HuffPost contributor.)
Despite those negotiations, Slaughter on Wednesday officially terminated Lynn and his team.
Slaughter disputed the Times story, saying in a statement that the claim “that Google lobbied New America to expel the Open Markets program” was “false.” Instead, she said that Lynn refused “to adhere to New America’s standards of openness and institutional collegiality.” She offered no explanation for firing the entire Open Markets team.
A Google spokeswoman denied any involvement in Lynn’s firing in an email to HuffPost. She also said that Schmidt did not threaten to cut off funding for the think tank because of the Open Markets statement on Google’s antitrust fine.
“We support hundreds of organizations that promote a free and open Internet, greater access to information, and increased opportunity,” Riva Sciuto, the Google spokesperson, said in the statement. “We don’t agree with every group 100 percent of the time, and while we sometimes respectfully disagree, we respect each group’s independence, personnel decisions, and policy perspectives.”
New America did not immediately respond to a request for comment to HuffPost.
Lynn is now building an independent think tank to continue his anti-monopoly work with his New America team. The group has already launched a campaign aimed at mobilizing public opposition to the power of modern-day monopolies by highlighting Google’s power to quash independent research like that by the Open Markets team.
Its supporters say this case underscores that argument.
Lynn and his colleagues “have long argued that monopolies are a problem for the economy, but they’re also a problem for democracy,” Zephyr Teachout, a fellow at Open Markets and board member of its new campaign ― called Citizens Against Monopolies ― told HuffPost. “This kind of proves the point.”
It’s not as though the Open Markets team needed to get fired to buttress their concerns about monopoly power. Their efforts already have been influential ― more so than work by many other think tanks.
The Democratic Party recently adopted the team’s warnings about monopolies in its “A Better Deal” platform. Politicians ― including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) ― are pushing for enhanced antitrust enforcement and calling out concentrations of economic power more than before.
Open Markets has helped lead the economic debate to a “more populist strain over the past couple of years,” Marshall Steinbaum, a fellow at the progressive economics think tank Roosevelt Institute, told HuffPost.
Source
|
On August 31 2017 14:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:
It's pretty simple to see why American 'conservatives' nowadays hate Obama. Disproving "white" exceptionalism is definitely a big part of it. It is super clear that a lot of people got a lot of comfort in knowing they are the same "race" as Einstein and other prolific, big name, influential historical figures. The fact that every president has *also* happened to be white is probably something a lot of people didn't really attribute to the actual underlying reasons. For a black guy to walk in, talk shit about anti-intellectualism and boldly stop tolerating conservative bullshit was definitely hugely tear-inducing for a lot of rural communities. People who, by any objective measure, are utterly mediocre at best, could take comfort in knowing they are a member of the "winning team". Once Obama was like "lol nope", a lot of people felt their pride was threatened. Sad, but oh well.
This is going to be a shit storm in the morning. You don't just go saying white people aren't exceptional. Look at all the Fortune 500 companies they own. And all of the money they monopolize. And all of the power they hold in almost every faucet of your life. If that's not white exceptionalism, I don't know what is. Prepare yourself.
|
um what?
A decorated veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps who served in the Persian Gulf War was transferred to an immigration detention facility in Eloy, Ariz., late last week, where he faces deportation to Mexico despite evidence that he is a United States citizen.
In fact, a federal judge has already ruled that George Ybarra is a citizen. Even so, federal authorities have continued to work to deport him.
A series of mistakes and crimes on Ybarra's part and a pattern of failures by U.S. officials have led a man to spend more than a decade in and out of the corrections system, with the veteran stranded once again in an immigration detention center. Ybarra has severe PTSD symptoms, drug problems and criminal convictions (including firing a rifle in the direction of police), but his family and attorney said he needs treatment, not banishment.
Ybarra, 52, was transferred from the Arizona Department of Corrections prison in Tucson to immigration authorities after serving a seven-year sentence for aggravated assault.
Ybarra was convicted for firing two rounds through the front door of his south Phoenix home in August 2011, narrowly missing two Phoenix police officers who were responding to a 911 call he had placed.
No one was injured in the incident, which Ybarra blames on a delusional episode induced by post-traumatic stress that he's suffered since the Persian Gulf War. Ybarra said he believed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was coming to "take away" members of his family.
Ybarra had legitimate reasons to worry about immigration agents.
Just three months prior, following one of several drug-related violations, he was in the ICE detention facility in Eloy trying to convince a federal immigration judge that he was actually a U.S. citizen and shouldn't be deported. Ybarra had been entangled in the justice system again, which prompted ICE to take him into custody after a brief prison stint. His list of criminal convictions and brushes with law enforcement had grown long, complicating his efforts to stay in the country he served.
Yet in May 2011, Ybarra was released from ICE custody after federal immigration Judge Richard Phelps ruled that Ybarra had proven "by a preponderance of the evidence" that he is, in fact, a citizen and ordered the agency to release him.
However, Department of Homeland Security lawyers appealed the ruling and continued to push for Ybarra's deportation.
That appeal remains in place, which means despite the ruling that Ybarra is a U.S. citizen, ICE was able to issue a detainer for him, requiring state corrections officials to hand him over to ICE when he was released from prison this month. He remains in federal detention while immigration officials reconvene deportation proceedings that had been suspended more than five years ago.
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/082517_marine_deportation/decorated-marine-vet-may-deported-despite-likely-us-citizenship/
|
On August 31 2017 14:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 14:32 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:
It's pretty simple to see why American 'conservatives' nowadays hate Obama. Disproving "white" exceptionalism is definitely a big part of it. It is super clear that a lot of people got a lot of comfort in knowing they are the same "race" as Einstein and other prolific, big name, influential historical figures. The fact that every president has *also* happened to be white is probably something a lot of people didn't really attribute to the actual underlying reasons. For a black guy to walk in, talk shit about anti-intellectualism and boldly stop tolerating conservative bullshit was definitely hugely tear-inducing for a lot of rural communities. People who, by any objective measure, are utterly mediocre at best, could take comfort in knowing they are a member of the "winning team". Once Obama was like "lol nope", a lot of people felt their pride was threatened. Sad, but oh well. This is going to be a shit storm in the morning. You don't just go saying white people aren't exceptional. Look at all the Fortune 500 companies they own. And all of the money they monopolize. And all of the power they hold in almost every faucet of your life. If that's not white exceptionalism, I don't know what is. Prepare yourself.
It's not a matter of if whites are dominant right now. It is a matter of why. Rural conservative voters smile to themselves thinking they are in any way related to their leaders. They identify with greatness while their entire careers are replaced with automation, the most clear indication they are barely more useful than a hammer. In reality, they are no different than a horse pulling a carriage. For a group that values hierarchy so greatly, a black guy walking in and being king definitely had them buying boxes of tissues.
|
So yeah, this happened. These guys hate Clinton so much that they'll happily embrace Pharma Bro himself.
|
Shkreli is pretty much Trump's internet fanbase in the flesh. Socially awkward guy stumbled into wealth, hated by everybody because he is a dick but thinks people hate him because they're envious
Not really surprising they like him, they're all those things minus the money
|
Good point. I guess it kind of surprised me because Shkreli might be the most hated person in the US at the moment. I wonder if there's any way to leverage this into a wedge between Trump's internet fanbase and Trump's offline base, which is older and rural and I'd imagine therefor has a substantially different opinion of Shkreli. Maybe if TD managed to make a pardon for Shkreli an issue that Trump tweeted that he was considering or something.
|
On August 31 2017 15:46 Kyadytim wrote:
Good point. I guess it kind of surprised me because Shkreli might be the most hated person in the US at the moment. I wonder if there's any way to leverage this into a wedge between Trump's internet fanbase and Trump's offline base, which is older and rural and I'd imagine therefor has a substantially different opinion of Shkreli. Maybe if TD managed to make a pardon for Shkreli an issue that Trump tweeted that he was considering or something.
Hated by who? Anti-pharma is largely a left perspective. People who feel unjustly weakened and underappreciated are very likely to support someone like Shkreli because Shkreli looks like these guys while having a ton of money. He is what they were *supposed* to be, had it not been for things like affirmative action. He is obnoxious, outspoken, and doesn't hesitate to throw out a middle finger. For people in their early 20s who struggle with confidence, he is somewhat of a beacon of "Yeah, see? This is what I WOULD be, had it not been for..."
|
10 million emails sounds like too much. That means 300 Emails a day for 10 years. Given a 10 hour work day, those are 30 mails an hour. Or about an email every two minutes, every day, for 10 years. I think Hillary Clinton has done some things except writing and reading emails for the last 10 years.
Also, i doubt that that guy is the most hated man in america. He simply doesn't seem important enough for that. Sure, he is a asshole who ruins lives to get more money, but you have a lot of those. I bet most of the country completely forgot about him.
|
|
|
Identity politics is literally not a problem.
Politics focus on the problems that they see. They won't see everything. They can't. If and when a group has a problem that the politicians aren't able to see by themselves, identity politics is the mechanism that will give said group the opportunity to shine some visibility on the problem.
When it's coal miners having no future, you can do identity politics for coal miners.
When it's african american people getting killed by police, you can do identity politics for african americans.
You can imagine a difference between the two because you think people should identify by their craft and not by their race, but in the end that difference is really artificial when it comes to problems being raised in the realm of politics. To complain that people end up identifying by their race when you wish they wouldn't, as a reaction to a problem or a series of problems that target them based on their race, is pretty much an elaborate way to blame the victim.
Edit: the notion that there is some sort of equivalency between that and white supremacy is idiotic. White people don't have a visibility problem when it comes to their specific issues in America. Quite the opposite actually.
|
US politics thread is so wierd. BLM is identity politics. KKK is also identity politics. Identity politics seems to have a different meaning from across the pond. At this point I have to ask everyone to clarify what they mean by identity politics so I can have the context to understand the bizarro world of American politics.
|
On August 31 2017 18:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
US politics thread is so wierd. BLM is identity politics. KKK is also identity politics. Identity politics seems to have a different meaning from across the pond. At this point I have to ask everyone to clarify what they mean by identity politics so I can have the context to understand the bizarro world of American politics.
The US is also a place where liberals aren't liberals. Go figure our political lexicon isn't the most consistent.
|
|
|
Not suprising in a sense that they said it's gonna blow.
More interesting for the residents is the extend of the damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
