|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 10 2019 22:34 Sent. wrote:
I think the claim that Macron got into office because he was running against Le Pen is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the fact that those two had to gather more support than Fillon, Melenchon and everyone else to secure their a spots in round two. Fillon and Melenchon were serious contenders, you can't say Macron won because Le Pen was the only alternative.
That is a fair counterpoint. But I seem to recall that stage of the elections was pretty close, and assessing Macron's final victory is made more difficult because his final opponent was Le Pen.
It's the same shadow that comes up when assessing American politics because Trump was up against Clinton. A uniquely awful candidate that gave an outsider a win doesn't necessarily mean the system has a problem. Macron was genuinely more popular than Clinton, of course, but still, a lot of Macron's votes came from people voting against Pen rather than for him.
That makes it hard to really assess how enthusiastically people wanted Macron (as opposed to just being glad Le Pen didn't win) or the system as a whole (since any non-Le Pen candidate would likely have put up a better chance). I think Macron probably would have won anyway looking at how strong the round 1 voting was for him. But there's no way to definitively say that.
On January 10 2019 21:06 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2019 19:29 iamthedave wrote:On January 10 2019 08:47 abmhm wrote:On January 10 2019 08:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 10 2019 06:09 abmhm wrote:
"Would you take a woman seriously that uses those terms? I wouldn't take a woman who uses SJW non-ironically seriously either. I thank you for expressing your point of view but if you want to be taken seriously don't use SJW in all seriousness. *A bunch of half-coherent nonsense* You could have simply stopped using three letters that signal to anyone with a brain that the person speaking is an idiot instead of going on to behave exactly like people who non-ironically use those letters do. I mean, did any of us force you to make that crack about pink drones? We're not dismissing your walls of text because you used three letters, we're doing it because it's rubbish. I can tell you think you're very well informed, but you're not demonstrating it. You sound like a guy who wears a board and screams at the sky. If you've got a specific point, make it, don't vomit out half a dozen half-formed points at once and ping pong around. Like, even your point about Macron and the 'systems of power' is half-formed. Everyone knows he got in not because everyone wanted Macron but because nobody wanted Le Pen. His election really doesn't lend itself well to analyses of the structures of power underlying French politics. A political system where you don't vote for someone, but against someone is fundamentally broken, being nothing more than another version of the old "divide and conquer" theme.. Marcon/LePen situation is the same as we have in Poland with PiS (Kaczynski's party) and their opponents; when the majority of the political scene is preoccupied with "we can't let them to be (re)elected because they're LITERALLY HITLER", any movement or political party that doesn't want to take part in this, will be marginalized by the mainstream voters and media. This leads to polarization within nations and an escalation of mutual hostility beween the supporters of the two camps, as can be seen in Poland, or the USA (which is probably the most glaring example of this trend). In such a system an ordinary citizen loses regardless of who gets elected, because instead of getting shit done by introducing good policy, the ruling party is focused on making sure their opponents become horrible boogey men in the eyes of their core voters; this also makes unaligned voters less likely to vote, because when you have a choice between shit and vomit for dinner, you'll most likely decide to not eat anything at all, and voting for "third parties" seems pointless because is such a system they'll never gather enough support to actually matter (being seen/portayed by the media as silly weirdos or dangerous extremists). Marcon maybe won the election, but as we can see now he's a shit ruler governing over an increasingly shit system. No wonder the working people finally get pissed and take to the streets.
Downside of Democracy, I'm afraid. Even the Greeks were talking about this back when they invented it. It's only a true problem if it's a persistent issue. For most of Europe these sorts of elections are blips rather than the norm.
It's 2-party systems that are the real problem for Democracies because a 2-party system can never properly represent the electorate's wishes or advocate for their multifarious goals, leading to increasingly large numbers of people either abstaining because nobody represents them or voting with gritted teeth because one party kinda does.
But yes, Macron has proven himself to be a shit tier President. I don't know how good his opposition were, I don't speak French and don't know the French system super well, all I can do is look at numbers. But I think a system with five or six parties is at least theoretically healthy.
Hopefully next election Le Pen gets eliminated in round 1.
|
Norway28714 Posts
The far right is no ally of the far left lol, even if there's some overlap in both of them being opposed to neoliberalism. I'm pretty far left (voted socialist left every election of my life) and while I'm certainly very opposed to neoliberalism, I still support neoliberalism if the alternative is the far right.. I have a hard time seeing how the opposition to global injustice which is the driving force of my leftisism can ever in any way be accomplished by supporting the far right - whereas neoliberalism can at the very least point to tangible improvement for people from third world countries during its reign. (That's not to excuse warfare or worker exploitation or accelerated climate change or wealth concentration, all problems exacerbated by neoliberalism - but the far right will argue that those four either are not problematic or that they don't happen.)
|
On January 11 2019 02:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The far right is no ally of the far left lol, even if there's some overlap in both of them being opposed to neoliberalism. I'm pretty far left (voted socialist left every election of my life) and while I'm certainly very opposed to neoliberalism, I still support neoliberalism if the alternative is the far right.. I have a hard time seeing how the opposition to global injustice which is the driving force of my leftisism can ever in any way be accomplished by supporting the far right - whereas neoliberalism can at the very least point to tangible improvement for people from third world countries during its reign. (That's not to excuse warfare or worker exploitation or accelerated climate change or wealth concentration, all problems exacerbated by neoliberalism - but the far right will argue that those four either are not problematic or that they don't happen.)
Agreed. The only way the far right is allied to the far left is that they are more than happy to use the discontent of the far left to obtain power. The far right will appear as allies of common cause against the establishment until they obtain power and then they will put their boot to the neck of the far left.
|
On January 11 2019 02:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2019 02:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The far right is no ally of the far left lol, even if there's some overlap in both of them being opposed to neoliberalism. I'm pretty far left (voted socialist left every election of my life) and while I'm certainly very opposed to neoliberalism, I still support neoliberalism if the alternative is the far right.. I have a hard time seeing how the opposition to global injustice which is the driving force of my leftisism can ever in any way be accomplished by supporting the far right - whereas neoliberalism can at the very least point to tangible improvement for people from third world countries during its reign. (That's not to excuse warfare or worker exploitation or accelerated climate change or wealth concentration, all problems exacerbated by neoliberalism - but the far right will argue that those four either are not problematic or that they don't happen.) Agreed. The only way the far right is allied to the far left is that they are more than happy to use the discontent of the far left to obtain power. The far right will appear as allies of common cause against the establishment until they obtain power and then they will put their boot to the neck of the far left.
Why not do it the other way around? Why can't a "leftist politician" make coherent arguments against immigration such as the fact that is causes a brain drain in Eastern Europe, Africa, Central America and other places. Which is making it more difficult for those countries to build advanced economies. Plus luring people out of their native cultures so they contribute to the economy in your own country isn't exactly the altruism that leftists claim it is - certainly not on a grander scale.
Just look at this chart and consider for a moment what all those Hindus (Indians) could have contributed to the Indian information economy if they had not left their native country. India could have looked like China in terms of economic growth if Western bankers and corporations hadn't taken all those money-generating human resources. It's much worse for Africa if you look at the disparity of growth between Africa and China over the past 30-40 years. And no, immigration is not the only cause of it - but it's a factor.
The far-right anti-feminist theory can re-utilized into an argument to increase wages for working-class families so they can exist & afford to have children with just 40-50 hours of wage labor between the two parents, rather than the 80-100 hours that it demands today from two participants in the work force. Which is how feminism contributed to the crushing birthrates and subsequently requires immigration to maintain the unsustainable status quo of pension funds and the bankers that exploit those funds. Which is all part of the scheme that leads to the increased inequality we see today. Who actually stays at home to take care of the kids is irrelevant.
Furthermore, the far-right absolutely believes that neoliberal imperialism in Syria and Libya contributed to the migration/refugee problem. They are "conspiracy theorists" regarding this, are they not? Much like the far-left, they are on board with anti-imperialism. Especially if you sell it as a way to stop migration from occurring and the fact that it costs a boatload of cash. They just don't see past imperialism as a justification for accepting immigrants today.
You can link all these things and much more (climate change, saudi salafists, oil, and so forth) together in a coherent platform and remain true to leftist/labor ideals - and thus not losing any of your current votes - while possibly convincing a significant amount of people on the working-class right to vote you because then you are actually standing up for them. It's just a matter of finding the right rhetoric to convince the people that can be convinced.
But it doesn't happen. Instead "the left" argues for multiculturalism and homosexuality. And meanwhile people like you and Drone (what an apt name) pat each other on the back in agreement about how all those right-wingers are fascist xenophobes that will stab you in the back. And even praising neoliberalism (and thus the theft of educated human resources through immigration from poorer countries) as you do so. You make me sick. You're playing into the scheme sold to you.
|
The idea of feminists “crushing” birthrates is one of the more comical parts of the rant.
And I’m from the US, so the right wing of our political system is constantly trying to screw me and my family over. And is filled with racists and xenophobes. It is just fact at this point.
|
Norway28714 Posts
It just seems to me like you're not familiar with arguments phrased by far-right people, or you're trying to distance yourself from them. The far right is the group that claims man-made climate change either isn't happening or that we shouldn't do anything about it. (completely incompatible opinion with 'caring for the third world). The far right is the group where you find people arguing for 'might makes right' (extreme realism, no idealism) type of mentality for foreign policy. (neoliberals at least pretend that they're idealistic.) The far right virtually never, in good faith, argues against immigration from a brain-drain perspective, they argue against immigration from a 'they corrupt our societies /cultures (and in extreme cases, gene-pool)'-perspective. The far right also consistently argues for lowering taxes - even for rich people - which is incompatible with funding social services that I find essential for creating a more equitable society. (Even if the european far right also tends to favor strong social nets - many of them don't have reasonable plans for how to fund this.) I will give PiS (polish 'far right' party) credit for being better in that last regard - their economic policies actually seem to be left-of-center, and they're primarily regarded as far-right due to social policies.
That parts of the far right are also opposed to bankers, that many of them are lower-class fairly uneducated workers (not an insult), that's not even remotely convincing to me as a far leftist, compared to the aforementioned complete clashes in political preferences..
|
Why not do it the other way around? Why can't a "leftist politician" make coherent arguments against immigration such as the fact that is causes a brain drain in Eastern Europe, Africa, Central America and other places. Which is making it more difficult for those countries to build advanced economies. Plus luring people out of their native cultures so they contribute to the economy in your own country isn't exactly the altruism that leftists claim it is - certainly not on a grander scale.
A "country", or rather a "state" (which is what you mean) is a social construct for matters of institutional administration.
"The left" doesn't believe in there being such a thing as a "nation" in the right-wing sense (peoples that are somehow bound to stay together), they believe in individual freedom. If a person wants to move then they should be able to move, noone has a right to keep them from moving. They don't owe any state anything, not the one that they were born in and not the one that they move to.
All of the arguments you put forward are based on the notion of nationalism, and people being owned by "their" country in some way and "alien" to another country. The Left plainly does not share that fundamental right-wing view.
|
On January 11 2019 05:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It just seems to me like you're not familiar with arguments phrased by far-right people, or you're trying to distance yourself from them. The far right is the group that claims man-made climate change either isn't happening or that we shouldn't do anything about it. (completely incompatible opinion with 'caring for the third world). The far right is the group where you find people arguing for 'might makes right' (extreme realism, no idealism) type of mentality for foreign policy. (neoliberals at least pretend that they're idealistic.) The far right virtually never, in good faith, argues against immigration from a brain-drain perspective, they argue against immigration from a 'they corrupt our societies /cultures (and in extreme cases, gene-pool)'-perspective. The far right also consistently argues for lowering taxes - even for rich people - which is incompatible with funding social services that I find essential for creating a more equitable society. (Even if the european far right also tends to favor strong social nets - many of them don't have reasonable plans for how to fund this.) I will give PiS (polish 'far right' party) credit for being better in that last regard - their economic policies actually seem to be left-of-center, and they're primarily regarded as far-right due to social policies.
That parts of the far right are also opposed to bankers, that many of them are lower-class fairly uneducated workers (not an insult), that's not even remotely convincing to me as a far leftist, compared to the aforementioned complete clashes in political preferences.. throwaway name, single digit post count, all in politics thread. I'm pretty sure this person 100% known the arguments of the far-right people, he made enough of them to get his main account banned.
|
On January 11 2019 05:26 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +Why not do it the other way around? Why can't a "leftist politician" make coherent arguments against immigration such as the fact that is causes a brain drain in Eastern Europe, Africa, Central America and other places. Which is making it more difficult for those countries to build advanced economies. Plus luring people out of their native cultures so they contribute to the economy in your own country isn't exactly the altruism that leftists claim it is - certainly not on a grander scale. A "country", or rather a "state" (which is what you mean) is a social construct for matters of institutional administration. "The left" doesn't believe in there being such a thing as a "nation" in the right-wing sense (peoples that are somehow bound to stay together), they believe in individual freedom. If a person wants to move then they should be able to move, noone has a right to keep them from moving. They don't owe any state anything, not the one that they were born in and not the one that they move to. All of the arguments you put forward are based on the notion of nationalism, and people being owned by "their" country in some way and "alien" to another country. The Left plainly does not share that fundamental right-wing view.
Well, you can be against nation states and borders (as I am, I believe in a stateless society), but that's not going to go away any time soon. We have to make do with what we have - and currently there's a host of incredibly poor countries and a few rich countries that are effectively poaching the poorer countries for educated people through immigration.
On January 11 2019 05:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It just seems to me like you're not familiar with arguments phrased by far-right people, or you're trying to distance yourself from them. The far right is the group that claims man-made climate change either isn't happening or that we shouldn't do anything about it. (completely incompatible opinion with 'caring for the third world). The far right is the group where you find people arguing for 'might makes right' (extreme realism, no idealism) type of mentality for foreign policy. (neoliberals at least pretend that they're idealistic.) The far right virtually never, in good faith, argues against immigration from a brain-drain perspective, they argue against immigration from a 'they corrupt our societies /cultures (and in extreme cases, gene-pool)'-perspective. The far right also consistently argues for lowering taxes - even for rich people - which is incompatible with funding social services that I find essential for creating a more equitable society. (Even if the european far right also tends to favor strong social nets - many of them don't have reasonable plans for how to fund this.) I will give PiS (polish 'far right' party) credit for being better in that last regard - their economic policies actually seem to be left-of-center, and they're primarily regarded as far-right due to social policies.
That parts of the far right are also opposed to bankers, that many of them are lower-class fairly uneducated workers (not an insult), that's not even remotely convincing to me as a far leftist, compared to the aforementioned complete clashes in political preferences..
What I trying to do in that post is find a way that would convince far-right people to vote for "lefties" - by giving lefties ammunition against immigration. Because as soon as you start arguing against immigration, the "far-right" will listen. I am perfectly familiar with the argument of the far-right, but their arguments about genes are irrelevant (even if there is a truth to them in terms of which genes are more likely to be active for certain ethnicities, but dormant in others - you need more genes that contribute to 'watchfulness' and 'might-makes-right' if you grow up in poor countries with lots of violence). The point is that they are against immigration and there is good reason for people who believe in global equality to be against immigration. Or rather, be against the concept that people must migrate 5000 miles or take a trek through a desert in Mexico (where 200-300 people die every year) in order to even have a chance at establishing some kind of satisfactory life.
You all seem very skilled at misunderstanding my positions, assuming one thing or another about what I say.
On January 11 2019 05:18 Plansix wrote:
The idea of feminists “crushing” birthrates is one of the more comical parts of the rant.
And I’m from the US, so the right wing of our political system is constantly trying to screw me and my family over. And is filled with racists and xenophobes. It is just fact at this point.
So the fact that women are working full-time has nothing to do with declining birth rates? There is absolutely no connection there whatsoever? Women weren't largely stay-at-home moms of medium-sized families (2-4 kids) while their husbands were paid sufficient wages to afford homes on their single salaries before the 60s encouraged them to go working? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with women choosing to go to school and working - everyone should be free to make choices. But there is something wrong in society when people in certain nations aren't reproducing enough to replace themselves because they do not see an economic opportunity or even have TIME to have kids despite the fact that they want them because they're both working various part-time jobs in order to pay rent and have no chance at anything better. This is a reality for many people aged 25-35.
|
The spin of opposing immigration as a way to champion global equality is a form of benevolent racism I haven’t seen before. Framing immigration from less stable sections of the world as a brain drain and some sort of nefarious trick by EU and the US is a truly unique take on the subject. It hinges on this idea that the person wants the immigrant to succeed and live a prosperous life, but only if the immigrant is as far away. The person claims they want the immigrant’s home country to prosper and the only way that can happen is if the immigrant stays in their home country and never leaves. This is some impressive stuff that completely falls apart when applied to any specific refugee or immigrant. But as broad talking points, it is the very essence of “sounds good when you say it out loud.”
Edit: Pretty sure easily available birth control has a lot to do with birth rates.
|
Norway28714 Posts
I don't care about the support from the far right, and I'm principally pro-immigration. Pragmatically I understand the need for limitations, but in principle, I am entirely positive towards open borders, the notion that place of birth (or even who your parents are) should dictate your opportunities in life is in direct conflict with what I believe in. I cannot ally with the far right because I'm fundamentally opposed to their world view - more so than I am in conflict with right-of-center people, where the difference tends to be one of degrees, not one of hard conflict. And to be honest, I have a very hard time accepting the idea that you are a genuine leftist because I've never seen a genuine leftist phrase himself in the way you do, and I'm very familiar with leftist politicians' povs, including far-left people who are 'anti-elite/anti-EU/pro-sovereignty'.
|
The 'separate sovereign nations' take and 'globalisation is actually racist' isn't new. It emerged as part of the 'new right' in the 80s. It's the nation state equivalent of 'separate but equal' and the argument goes that globalisation destroys all culture, is some sort of Western plot and so forth. In reality of course globalisation has led to the largest wealth creation in the developing world ever seen and it's just a bad faith argument to keep foreigners out, never take it seriously. Brain drain is only a short term issue. The effects of sending capital home and returning with acquired knowledge far outweigh all negatives. You can see it with all the Harvard educated Chinese kids bringing their business knowledge back to the home country.
On women and birth rates and employment: Women having lower birth rates and enjoying a career is not a bad thing. It gives women financial independence to pursue whatever life they want, and I can emphasise with women who would not want to spend years of their life being pregnant, I sure wouldn't.
This line of argument seems to come mostly from insecure men who feel threatened by the fact that women have often acquired higher levels of education nowadays, and are competing in the workplace. None of this is objectively bad of course, it just encroaches on privileges those people have taken for granted.
|
On January 11 2019 06:03 Plansix wrote:
The spin of opposing immigration as a way to champion global equality is a form of benevolent racism I haven’t seen before. Framing immigration from less stable sections of the world as a brain drain and some sort of nefarious trick by EU and the US is a truly unique take on the subject. It hinges on this idea that the person wants the immigrant to succeed and live a prosperous life, but only if the immigrant is as far away. The person claims they want the immigrant’s home country to prosper and the only way that can happen is if the immigrant stays in their home country and never leaves. This is some impressive stuff that completely falls apart when applied to any specific refugee or immigrant. But as broad talking points, it is the very essence of “sounds good when you say it out loud.”
Edit: Pretty sure easily available birth control has a lot to do with birth rates.
How about: there are multiple factors that play into this. But brain drain is absolutely a demographics problem in Africa, and probably also certain countries in the Middle East (somehow, I doubt Saudi Arabia as a close Western ally has this problem) -- and certainly Eastern Europe. And whether you like it or not brain drain inevitably has an effect on the potential GDP of those countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/24/britain-east-europe-brain-drain-bulgaria
Mass emigration of people mostly aged between 25 and 50 has dramatically hurt the Bulgarian economy and its political system. Businesses complain about a shortage of qualified labour. Bulgaria’s health system is deprived of well-trained nurses who can earn several times more by taking care of a family in London than working at a low-paid local hospital. Most of our best graduates do not apply to study at Bulgarian universities, thus depriving them of talent.
https://www.idrc.ca/en/article/brain-drain-and-capacity-building-africa
Brain drain in Africa has financial, institutional, and societal costs. African countries get little return from their investment in higher education, since too many graduates leave or fail to return home at the end of their studies.
In light of a dwindling professional sector, African institutions are increasingly dependent on foreign expertise. To fill the human resource gap created by brain drain, Africa employs up to 150,000 expatriate professionals at a cost of US$4 billion a year.
The departure of health professionals has eroded the ability of medical and social services in several sub-Saharan countries to deliver even basic health and social needs. Thirty-eight of the 47 sub-Saharan African countries fall short of the minimum World Health Organization (WHO) standard of 20 physicians per 100,000 people.
But you know, I said "SJW" that one time so better dismiss any all arguments I make through mockery.
You're a scumbag, Plansix, just taking cheap shots where ever you can like all the others in this thread.
There are multiple factors in play with regards to why people aren't having children. Of course the Rockefeller-funded ideas of population control in the 50s (after the Rockefeller-funded ideas of eugenics became unpalatable) and subsequent (completely natural and unrelated, of course, I'm not a conspiracy theorist!) feminist revolution which led to the availability of Rockefeller-funded medicine for birth control plays a part in this. And it's fine that people make their own choices(!), but that doesn't mean there is no crushing economic turmoil for the working class these days. My brother is in one of those situations where he cannot find an opportunity to start a family with his spouse because of economic issues - despite completing his education and having worked for 5+ years.
|
So upon further examination, feminism did not “crush” the population, but simply existed when a number of other factors lead to people having few kids. Glad we cleared that up.
|
On January 11 2019 06:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't care about the support from the far right, and I'm principally pro-immigration. Pragmatically I understand the need for limitations, but in principle, I am entirely positive towards open borders, the notion that place of birth (or even who your parents are) should dictate your opportunities in life is in direct conflict with what I believe in. I cannot ally with the far right because I'm fundamentally opposed to their world view - more so than I am in conflict with right-of-center people, where the difference tends to be one of degrees, not one of hard conflict. And to be honest, I have a very hard time accepting the idea that you are a genuine leftist because I've never seen a genuine leftist phrase himself in the way you do, and I'm very familiar with leftist politicians' povs, including far-left people who are 'anti-elite/anti-EU/pro-sovereignty'.
I am an anarchist (far-bottom-left on the political compass). I am a libertarian (on the bottom of the compass). I am socialist (left-leaning on the compass). But these are just labels that you can pin on me. They do not define me. I see the merits of capitalism AND the destruction it has wrought. I see the merits and dangers of centralization and communism as well. I despise being controlled by the State or corporations. I despise oppression wherever I perceive it.
I am merely trying to identify what is wrong in the world. Why Africa and India remain relatively poor even as China outpaces them in enormous strides. Why people in Middle America and Eastern Europe are voting for the "far-right". Why terrorism grows rather than declines as we murder Muslim family upon Muslim family and topple regime after regime (that's an easy one to figure out).
I must also add - again - that I do not believe in the dichotomy of the current political divide as the ideas are laid forth - such as your stance on immigration. I am not AGAINST immigration, but I find it strange that you would be PRO immigration. Why would you take that stance? We are being played by false narratives on all sides. From the idea that Muslims are terrorists to ideas regarding multiculturalism that is forced upon us as it was forced on the African tribes and the Islamic sects who we placed together in single countries through colonialism with the deliberate idea to control them. It all seems very manufactured in my eyes. I think it is coming from an elitist neoliberal status quo, which is why that must be defeated. And it cannot be defeated unless people like you start thinking of the "far-right" (e.g. Trump, LePen and AfD voters) as human beings with needs like anyone else rather than simply unchanging unreasonable xenophobic fascists. It cannot be defeated unless the people unite against the elites that manufacture these narrratives.
I would argue the other way around - from a left-wing perspective to convince right-wingers to vote that way, as I do on right-wing forums - but you seem to chase away anyone thinking differently around these parts, which includes those who buy into the manufactured right-wing lies. So there's no one to convince in that direction.
|
On January 11 2019 07:14 Plansix wrote:
So upon further examination, feminism did not “crush” the population, but simply existed when a number of other factors lead to people having few kids. Glad we cleared that up.
I said in my original post
Which is how feminism contributed to the crushing birthrates
Are you familiar with the word "contribute" or did your American high school education not provide you with such big words?
I never claimed it was the sole cause. That just plays in your deluded little mind.
|
Edit :actually nvm I can't participate as much as necessary
|
Norway28714 Posts
I absolutely think of voters of trump, lepen and afd as human beings, but I don't want to change what politics I champion to be more palatable to them. I think it's very important to speak to them and about them in a respectable manner (even if I can occasionally slip up). And, it's not like I really want a lot of immigration by default (although I do think a society comprised of people from more different cultures is culturally richer and to me, better to live in, than a more culturally homogeneous one), but in principle, I am a very strong proponent of 'all people should be allowed to move wherever they want to to better their own lives'. (Again, pragmatically, I do favor some limitations, but I want as few limitations as possible.) Strong focus on borders and difficulty of immigration (much like strong focus on the family-unit), the way I see it, leaves people who are unfortunate in terms of where they are born (or who their parents are) doomed to their fate and unable to better their situation, which is not something I can support.
|
On January 11 2019 07:20 Artisreal wrote:
If you only harp on the one thing that bugs you most about it, albeit being only a contributing factor, without even mentioning others, what but an attack on feminism should be interpreted in your statement?
One might assume that was the intent of the hyperbolic line of reasoning to begin with. To attack something and silicate a response, but then turn around and claim that the argument was completely reasonable and was not attack when called on it. The very foundation of a bad faith argument.
|
On January 11 2019 07:20 Artisreal wrote:
If you only harp on the one thing that bugs you most about it, albeit being only a contributing factor, without even mentioning others, what but an attack on feminism should be interpreted in your statement?
Because anti-feminism is the "far-right" argument and that is what I was addressing.
I also mentioned the lack of proper wages and the forced reliance on two full time incomes in the first sentence of that very paragraph where I criticized the resulting product of feminism in society:
The far-right anti-feminist theory can re-utilized into an argument to increase wages for working-class families so they can exist & afford to have children with just 40-50 hours of wage labor between the two parents.
And
Who actually stays at home to take care of the kids is irrelevant.
Meaning that I'd be fine with an equal split of 25 hours/week of wage labor for each parent, allowing the combined parental unit to have time to raise their children according to their own traditions and values. Or maybe just the mother works while the father stays at home to raise the kids.
Is it really that difficult to see the whole paragraph for what it is? Why do you all focus so much on the fact that I criticized a certain part of feminism in relation to declining birth rates?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
