EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1290
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9022 Posts
| ||
|
stilt
France2736 Posts
On October 31 2020 04:18 Nebuchad wrote: Hi there! This conversation is relevant to my interests. First, I have failed to garner a very good definition of islamoleftism, and you have remained very vague in here as well. Who exactly is doing an islamoleftism, is it some academics, politicians. Is it me on this forum. Are they aware that they're doing it or are they patsies... I would like to have this a little more fleshed out, because the people who mention islamoleftism a lot, like Couturier or Goldnagel, tend to just leave it at that and not dwelve into the details. Could I know more about how the current french left is "americanized"? I suppose you meant "liberal" in the american sense and not the french sense there. Last november 10, there was a march against islamophobia in Paris. That sounds like a good idea to me, islamophobia is pretty bad. They were shouting stuff like "Laicity, we love you, you must protect us"? Sounds pretty based. Could I know a little more about why it was so bad for Mélenchon to participate, and what exactly it was that all these people were betraying? Finally, in this context where terms of the far right like "islamoleftism" are now integrated into mainstream political discourse, are you really sure that the perspective of the left is "dominant culturally"? It's tiresome to debate with you guys, you're conveniently ignoring facts and arguments as if it wasn't at all a problem (like the Ramadan one or the erasing of arab nationalism) islamoleftism is very easy to define : the leftists who are allying themselves with the partisan of political Islam. CCFI belongs to this category as they are pushing for a more islamized society. When they begin to form themselves politically, the partisans of a religion are generally in the far right which is definetly the case here. You're betraying the left, the real one who got crushed by a political Islam funded by the usa. That's partially because of these people I met my gf tho so in a sense, I guess I have to thank you that my father in law was forced to leave his country... This is still a total betrayal of the left initial values to validate a political ideology which has been used to oppress the arabic world. The confessionalisation of social conflicts is pretty sad. Since 68, there is a new paradigm with a the emergence of a "global left" which follows the american liberals indeed. The cultural center of gravity of the left was the factories, it became the universities, the two political formations who opposed usa project of society were both targeted by may 68 as authoritarian : the PCF and the gaulists, the left became then represented by guys like Cohn Bendit or BHL... Pro us, liberals dudes. The traditionnal left identifies the main problem of society as social inequality. The new one has included feminism, antiracism, LGBT ext, valuable fights but who are instrumentalized to shut down the first one. You are indeed winning the culture wars as identity policies or "les politiques identitaires" (the french translation definitely gives the right fascist savor to it) are promoted by Hollywood blockbusters, americans stars, newspapers both french (médiépart, libé) or us (Ny T, Washington post) or uk (the guardian) and of course intellectuals of our dear universities who love speaking about privileges without looking at themselves. These french universities which mostly contain works from the us (maybe even more than french) and a bit from the rest of the western world, nothing from outside... And there are new classes that no one bothers to even translate, "gender studies", "world history" ect. That's cultural hegemony at its best. I envy you, it must be cool to be on the winning side, from my perspective, the progressive destruction of the social system helped by the divide and conquer games that is identity policies played by the bourgeoisie is pretty soul crushing. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2525 Posts
On October 31 2020 04:19 stilt wrote: Well, it might be wrong but I don't really see what is so shocking about it. The children of eu djihadists in Syria are not rapatriate because european populations are afraid of them, afraid of children, that's another level of cowardice. They're growing up in djihadists prisoners camps in shitty conditions. What can be say when one of them will surely commit an attentat except that indeed, causes have consequences. It's 100 % the parents fault that they are in Syrian camps and I can't see how it's any European countries responsibility to fight to get them home. Because they have a paper that says they are from country X? It's not even a right to have your country bail you out from bad situations that you put yourself (or your kids in) in the first place. There are plenty of kids in refuge camps in the world that are equally bad but who didn't actively work to get there. I'd rather help them first. And how is it cowardice to recognize that bringing home radicalized people is a risk? I guess I just have enough life experience that I feel that the "white guilt" peddled in this thread is just bullshit (which is what the colonialism "cause" basically boils down to). Poverty, disadvantage and racism are real drivers towards both criminal activity and extremism and trying to deal with those root causes is almost always worthwhile. But people make their own choices and trying to excuse those choices have an awful track record. "It's not your fault because XYZ" never works. Excusing someones actions because racism, poverty, history never produces anything positive. In my experience setting clear and reasonable demands always seem to work much better (for everyone). Once such demand is that in (every European country I assume?) freedom of speech means that you need to respect peoples right to say anything about any religion, even if you don't like it. Everyone, regardless of of class, history, race, place they live etc, have to know that this is more important than religion because it's a fundamental part of society and that there is no excuse for not accepting it. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
One such incident relevant to this forum is Blizzard censoring what is absolutely the most basic form if freedom of speech because the chinese government doesn't like criticism. The fact that Blizzard is an american company doesn't really matter, they are a global business and are vulnerable to pressure in all places they are present. It used to really matter little if some people in Bangladesh or Pakistan could get pissed at something you do, or if a company did something that could potentially anger a government operating under totally different norms and values. It's not the case anymore, and wherever you are, pissing off an autocratic government or religious extremists of a religion can have consequences that are really hard to ignore. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On October 31 2020 04:07 Dan HH wrote: To me, in this context, "colonialism casts a long shadow" reads dangerously close to "you reap what you sow". I reckon that's why you pissed off so many people. Even if it were "you reap what you sow", that's not a assessment of the righteousness of your fruits, just the predictable nature of them. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23912 Posts
On October 31 2020 05:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: It's 100 % the parents fault that they are in Syrian camps and I can't see how it's any European countries responsibility to fight to get them home. Because they have a paper that says they are from country X? It's not even a right to have your country bail you out from bad situations that you put yourself (or your kids in) in the first place. There are plenty of kids in refuge camps in the world that are equally bad but who didn't actively work to get there. I'd rather help them first. And how is it cowardice to recognize that bringing home radicalized people is a risk? I guess I just have enough life experience that I feel that the "white guilt" peddled in this thread is just bullshit (which is what the colonialism "cause" basically boils down to). Poverty, disadvantage and racism are real drivers towards both criminal activity and extremism and trying to deal with those root causes is almost always worthwhile. But people make their own choices and trying to excuse those choices have an awful track record. "It's not your fault because XYZ" never works. Excusing someones actions because racism, poverty, history never produces anything positive. In my experience setting clear and reasonable demands always seem to work much better (for everyone). Once such demand is that in (every European country I assume?) freedom of speech means that you need to respect peoples right to say anything about any religion, even if you don't like it. Everyone, regardless of of class, history, race, place they live etc, have to know that this is more important than religion because it's a fundamental part of society and that there is no excuse for not accepting it. Excusing actions is distinct from attempting to explain the circumstances that may have influenced said actions. I’m not sure anyone in this thread has actually sought to excuse certain behaviours. | ||
|
stilt
France2736 Posts
On October 31 2020 05:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: It's 100 % the parents fault that they are in Syrian camps and I can't see how it's any European countries responsibility to fight to get them home. Because they have a paper that says they are from country X? It's not even a right to have your country bail you out from bad situations that you put yourself (or your kids in) in the first place. There are plenty of kids in refuge camps in the world that are equally bad but who didn't actively work to get there. I'd rather help them first. And how is it cowardice to recognize that bringing home radicalized people is a risk? I guess I just have enough life experience that I feel that the "white guilt" peddled in this thread is just bullshit (which is what the colonialism "cause" basically boils down to). Poverty, disadvantage and racism are real drivers towards both criminal activity and extremism and trying to deal with those root causes is almost always worthwhile. But people make their own choices and trying to excuse those choices have an awful track record. "It's not your fault because XYZ" never works. Excusing someones actions because racism, poverty, history never produces anything positive. In my experience setting clear and reasonable demands always seem to work much better (for everyone). Once such demand is that in (every European country I assume?) freedom of speech means that you need to respect peoples right to say anything about any religion, even if you don't like it. Everyone, regardless of of class, history, race, place they live etc, have to know that this is more important than religion because it's a fundamental part of society and that there is no excuse for not accepting it. It's their parents's fault if they are in the camps, that's right, but that's yours (and the people who share your views) if they're staying in them. There are 0 justification for this irrational situation. People are shocked by terrorism acts but supports policies which can generate them... And saying the people make their own choices is pretty hypocrit. It avoids any considerations on social reproduction, most (if not all) people are largely dependants of the environnement in which they evolve. A bunch of kids growing up in djihadists camps have a high chance fo becoming djihadists themselves while it's pretty easy to prevent it so it makes you responsible for this very avoidable situation. International djihadism is not without causes, these people are not monsters, or at least they are not born monsters. This and ofc, leaving french children in such a camp is disgraceful for my country, people are losing their hearts and their minds. Putin, who doesn't strike me as the biggest humanitarian in the planet, actually repatriates them. In this matter, he is acting like a true stateman... by simply understanding that letting russian children in those camps is probably not the best idea for the national security of Russia. I agree with your last statement tho, religion in a secular state has to be treated like an ideology which can be criticized and mocked even if "2 billions of people are offended with it". The ones who are called for responsability are just validating the blaspheme. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9022 Posts
On October 31 2020 07:15 Biff The Understudy wrote: The thing that is interesting - and terrifying - and will be a huge challenge in the decades to come is the question of how to hold to fundamental values of our societies in the context of globalization. One such incident relevant to this forum is Blizzard censoring what is absolutely the most basic form if freedom of speech because the chinese government doesn't like criticism. The fact that Blizzard is an american company doesn't really matter, they are a global business and are vulnerable to pressure in all places they are present. It used to really matter little if some people in Bangladesh or Pakistan could get pissed at something you do, or if a company did something that could potentially anger a government operating under totally different norms and values. It's not the case anymore, and wherever you are, pissing off an autocratic government or religious extremists of a religion can have consequences that are really hard to ignore. The Blizzard Hong Kong incident seemed like business as usual to me rather than a sign of some worrying new trend. Political messaging has been banned in international sports early on. Taiwan was allowed to join the IOC and FIFA very late and never able to use its real name due to China swinging its dick, whereas Kosovo got in on the fast track because Serbia has no influence. On October 31 2020 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote: Even if it were "you reap what you sow", that's not a assessment of the righteousness of your fruits, just the predictable nature of them. It's difficult to claim a predictable relationship between colonialism and terrorism when the UK exists. South Asians are not doing any swordplay in the UK despite being colonised, then imported as cheap labor and discriminated against for decades. Eerily similar to France and North Africans up until much more recent events. In a previous post you said "Why are there Muslim gangs in France for them to join? Colonialism and the aforementioned conditions it helped bring about". Which begs the question, why are there Muslim gangs in Sweden for them to join? It's absolutely true that colonialism plays a role in why France is a fertile ground for radicalization, but I also think you suffer from a mild case of overplaying a subject that is dear to you. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
Colonialism is not something that belongs to the distant past and has no influence on the world today, its effects are still around us. and add that the influence isn't limited to more successful colonial powers like France. While colonialism is obviously a bigger and more direct factor for radicals attacking people in France, including anti-Muslim violence like the women who were stabbed and reportedly called dirty Arabs recently. The climate of fear for Muslims only grew upon hearing the news that two Muslim women were attacked under the Eiffel Tower over the weekend. The women, who are cousins of Algerian descent, were stabbed repeatedly while being called "dirty Arabs" and told to "go back home" according to witnesses. english.alaraby.co.uk It is far from the only factor. The "poverty, alienation, segregation, large Muslim immigrant populations" are all things in Sweden (the influx of Muslims recently can certainly be tied to the consequences of imperialism practiced by other nations but more or less supported by Sweden), though the link to their (largely failed) colonial past is fairly more tenuous. Colonialism, whether directly engaged in by a country or not, certainly influences modern bigotry though. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23912 Posts
On October 31 2020 12:13 GreenHorizons wrote: I would echo Neb's statement that: and add that the influence isn't limited to more successful colonial powers like France. While colonialism is obviously a bigger and more direct factor for radicals attacking people in France, including anti-Muslim violence like the women who were stabbed and reportedly called dirty Arabs recently. english.alaraby.co.uk It is far from the only factor. The "poverty, alienation, segregation, large Muslim immigrant populations" are all things in Sweden (the influx of Muslims recently can certainly be tied to the consequences of imperialism practiced by other nations but more or less supported by Sweden), though the link to their (largely failed) colonial past is fairly more tenuous. Colonialism, whether directly engaged in by a country or not, certainly influences modern bigotry though. Are any of these attackers white? I’m sure some are but I just can’t recall any off-hand. It would seem the latter stage colonialism (I don’t think it’s accurate to refer to the modern state of affairs as post-colonial just yet) of formerly colonised people migrating to their former overlords while subject to many disadvantages or overt discrimination would make for a rather potent combination if there’s an outlet valve via a radicalised form of your religion. I don’t recall hearing a huge amount about say, the Bosnian diaspora dislocated by the breakup of Yugoslavia, and I think them being white/white passing must be a factor there. Not that it was entirely smooth sailing but you know what I mean in comparison to the topic at hand. As to the bolded point, that seems pretty hard to argue against as a premise, it seems to me like the colonial era carved out so many cultural attitudes that pervaded beyond nations directly involved in it. There are remarkably consistent trends throughout basically all of the white world in this regard. Black populations tend to be over represented in long shot, high risk, high reward fields, be it high level sport or in popular artistic fields. Which makes sense for populations that tend to be poorer and lacking in educational opportunities, you’ll go all-in on the long shot more often. East Asians (your Korea and Japans etc, us Brits refer to the Indian subcontinent as Asians in the colloquial) tend to do pretty well in many areas but aren’t very prevalent in the cultural sphere. Be it historic or contemporary material conditions, or how populations perceive themselves or are perceived by the wider populace, these (crudely articulated by me) trends are repeated in all sorts of otherwise varying countries and cultures, so I guess the wider colonial era does indeed cast a long shadow as you said earlier GH. Apologies if I gave the impression that I thought this was a simple issue with simple explanations and simple solutions. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9022 Posts
On October 31 2020 12:13 GreenHorizons wrote: I would echo Neb's statement that: and add that the influence isn't limited to more successful colonial powers like France. While colonialism is obviously a bigger and more direct factor for radicals attacking people in France, including anti-Muslim violence like the women who were stabbed and reportedly called dirty Arabs recently. english.alaraby.co.uk It is far from the only factor. The "poverty, alienation, segregation, large Muslim immigrant populations" are all things in Sweden (the influx of Muslims recently can certainly be tied to the consequences of imperialism practiced by other nations but more or less supported by Sweden), though the link to their (largely failed) colonial past is fairly more tenuous. Colonialism, whether directly engaged in by a country or not, certainly influences modern bigotry though. There's nothing in here that I disagree with, but I also don't see any of it as supporting the claim that this is a predictable outcome of colonialism. All the conditions listed apply to a myriad of other groups of people. All the conditions listed applied to Muslims in France for most of the previous century. What changed are the undercurrents in Islam itself. And yes, imperialism has immensely helped those undercurrents propagate, though I don't see imperialism as a subset of colonialism but rather the other way around. I certainly wouldn't say that the survivors of a village hit by a drone strike ending up radicalized is an effect of colonialism. On October 31 2020 13:03 WombaT wrote: Are any of these attackers white? I’m sure some are but I just can’t recall any off-hand. It would seem the latter stage colonialism (I don’t think it’s accurate to refer to the modern state of affairs as post-colonial just yet) of formerly colonised people migrating to their former overlords while subject to many disadvantages or overt discrimination would make for a rather potent combination if there’s an outlet valve via a radicalised form of your religion. I don’t recall hearing a huge amount about say, the Bosnian diaspora dislocated by the breakup of Yugoslavia, and I think them being white/white passing must be a factor there. Not that it was entirely smooth sailing but you know what I mean in comparison to the topic at hand. Yes, Chechens in particular. It's not like Bosnians or Albanians are incapable of growing a messy nipple height beard to put orthodoxy on display, but rather they don't have much orthodoxy to display. That's the better predictor here, how prevalent the Handmaid's Tale versions of Islam are within a population. The same is true in reverse of say Pakistanis in the UK who certainly aren't "white passing" and suffered horrible discrimination and attacks (see "Paki-bashing") in the 60s to 80s in particular with no such outcome. I know it's not as "fun" to discuss as oppression, but ultimately this is primarily a theological issue. | ||
|
stilt
France2736 Posts
On October 31 2020 09:20 Dan HH wrote: The Blizzard Hong Kong incident seemed like business as usual to me rather than a sign of some worrying new trend. Political messaging has been banned in international sports early on. Taiwan was allowed to join the IOC and FIFA very late and never able to use its real name due to China swinging its dick, whereas Kosovo got in on the fast track because Serbia has no influence. It's difficult to claim a predictable relationship between colonialism and terrorism when the UK exists. South Asians are not doing any swordplay in the UK despite being colonised, then imported as cheap labor and discriminated against for decades. Eerily similar to France and North Africans up until much more recent events. In a previous post you said "Why are there Muslim gangs in France for them to join? Colonialism and the aforementioned conditions it helped bring about". Which begs the question, why are there Muslim gangs in Sweden for them to join? It's absolutely true that colonialism plays a role in why France is a fertile ground for radicalization, but I also think you suffer from a mild case of overplaying a subject that is dear to you. Colonialism seems a convenient way to excuse the impact of the West middle east policy at the end of colonialism, especially the us one. They weren't much attentats like these during the colonisation. If you just take the last two decennies, the destruction of Iraq, Lybia and destablization of Syria have a way bigger impact... Or the drones as you put in your example. As for the agressions of muslims in France, well, I don't know if they are more frequents in France than in the rest of Europe, maybe... But what is sure is that associating them to the cartoons and representations of their prophet is ludicrous. + The fact Islam is used by the political elites of some nations (Turkey, Pakistan) as a mean of national unity, in our times with secular state. I know it's not as "fun" to discuss as oppression, but ultimately this is primarily a theological issue. So strictly speaking, this is more a political question than a theological one, I mean, resolving the political one should solve the theological one. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On October 31 2020 05:38 stilt wrote: It's tiresome to debate with you guys, you're conveniently ignoring facts and arguments as if it wasn't at all a problem (like the Ramadan one or the erasing of arab nationalism) islamoleftism is very easy to define : the leftists who are allying themselves with the partisan of political Islam. CCFI belongs to this category as they are pushing for a more islamized society. When they begin to form themselves politically, the partisans of a religion are generally in the far right which is definetly the case here. You're betraying the left, the real one who got crushed by a political Islam funded by the usa. That's partially because of these people I met my gf tho so in a sense, I guess I have to thank you that my father in law was forced to leave his country... This is still a total betrayal of the left initial values to validate a political ideology which has been used to oppress the arabic world. The confessionalisation of social conflicts is pretty sad. I liked Ramadan as well before we found out he was shit. We can do Ramadan too if you like. Remember that debate when he crushed Fourier "like a puzzle" on TV (Yeah I'll quote Naulleau, why not)? That was something. The erasing of arab nationalism... I don't know what you're talking about, so I didn't mention it. I wasn't schooled in France, but in Switzerland. We didn't talk about any nationalism at all as far as I remember, arab or otherwise. I don't even have a clear picture on who Nasser is tbh, he was an egyptian dictator right? In real TL conditions I would check him out on wiki and pretend that I know about him, but in this case where it's about knowledge that french people get... It's fairly common that something isn't mentioned in history class, a lot of shit happened in the history of the world. Thanks for giving us a definition of islamoleftism that I can work with, that is actually surprisingly difficult to come by. "The leftists who are allying themselves with the partisan of political Islam". You have to remember that I'm not french, so I might not have all of the references that you speak of. When exactly did those leftists ally with political islam, is it a formal alliance? What is their goal in doing that - do they believe that it will be easier to bring socialism in a theocratic dictatorship? You see, from a "neutral" (in the sense that I'm not part of the group being accused, even though I'm a leftist) point of view, this accusation sounds insane. Please don't feel that I am ignoring your gf's father, it's just that you didn't feel the need to tell us what happened here so I can't answer. From what you write later, I think I can draw a clearer picture of what this alliance between the left and islam you speak of actually is. It concerns identity politics, "feminism, antiracism, LGBT ext" and stuff like that... But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're about to shine light on this conspiracy. I'm eager to see it. On October 31 2020 05:38 stilt wrote: Since 68, there is a new paradigm with a the emergence of a "global left" which follows the american liberals indeed. The cultural center of gravity of the left was the factories, it became the universities, the two political formations who opposed usa project of society were both targeted by may 68 as authoritarian : the PCF and the gaulists, the left became then represented by guys like Cohn Bendit or BHL... Pro us, liberals dudes. The traditionnal left identifies the main problem of society as social inequality. The new one has included feminism, antiracism, LGBT ext, valuable fights but who are instrumentalized to shut down the first one. Ah, that is interesting :D But no actually, you have the history mixed up. This starts a little later than 68, since in 68 America is not yet doing the "american liberalism" thing that you hate, this starts under Carter in 1977 but becomes prevalent under Reagan in 1980. The real history of neoliberalisation comes from the fall of the Soviet Union. Because a lot of the left used the Soviet Union as a referent point, its degradation, then collapse, weakened the leftist discourse across the world. Following that collapse, the main leftist parties in just about any society moves to the center A LOT, and stops representing leftist ideals. This happened in France under Mitterrand. You're drawing a distinction between economic left and social left that definitely existed, and still exists today. In truth, there are many more people who are economic left and social right than there are people who are economic right and social left, and I keep getting annoyed when we pretend that "compromise with the center" should be done by giving up on economic left and maintaining social left: that's purely ideological nonsense. But you shouldn't just stop there, you have to look at the overall picture of society that is presented by these ideologies. If you're fighting for liberation of humans, then it stands to reason that you should also fight for the liberation of marginalized groups. They are also, and I know that we keep forgetting this, humans. It isn't a failure of the left that it came to represent these groups, it's a failure of the left that it used not to. Now the failure of the left isn't that they're doing identity politics, the failure of the left is that they're not doing enough socialism, because some really bad people have convinced a lot of others that doing a leftism is "not pragmatic". We can do both, there's no contradiction there. On October 31 2020 05:38 stilt wrote: You are indeed winning the culture wars as identity policies or "les politiques identitaires" (the french translation definitely gives the right fascist savor to it) are promoted by Hollywood blockbusters, americans stars, newspapers both french (médiépart, libé) or us (Ny T, Washington post) or uk (the guardian) and of course intellectuals of our dear universities who love speaking about privileges without looking at themselves. These french universities which mostly contain works from the us (maybe even more than french) and a bit from the rest of the western world, nothing from outside... And there are new classes that no one bothers to even translate, "gender studies", "world history" ect. That's cultural hegemony at its best. The reason why identity politics are "winning" in sociology classes isn't that we're winning a culture war, it's just that identity politics are objectively correct. It is true that if you're gay, you're facing a different experience than if you're straight. It is true that if you're black, you're facing a different experience than if you're white. It is true that if you're gay and black, you're facing a different experience than if you're straight and black, or gay and white. We are not getting trained to think like that by people interested in winning a culture war, we are trained to think like that by reality, and the observation of it. Now take a step back and notice that you have already mentioned the part where they are actually being dishonest, and that's the part where they're liberals: they sometimes forget to mention class privilege, which is a huge fucking thing, and it can definitely trump any of the other privileges that exist. Now ask yourself, if the left was winning the culture war, would they forget to mention class? You've seen me on that forum before, do I often forget to mention class? :p (edit: this was a little simplified, I'm sure class is also mentioned in sociology class because the people who leave sociology class tend to end up massive leftists. But regardless, I know that there are both leftist and liberal teachers in sociology, so the overall point still stands. I just thought I was being a little too culture wars-y in what I said when it comes to class.) And you know that yourself, since you mentioned the true winners at the end: the liberals and the bourgeoisie: On October 31 2020 05:38 stilt wrote: I envy you, it must be cool to be on the winning side, from my perspective, the progressive destruction of the social system helped by the divide and conquer games that is identity policies played by the bourgeoisie is pretty soul crushing. They are the ones who will benefit from weakening the left, calling it islamoleftist and dumb stuff like that, because if they succeed their neoliberal candidate, Macron, won't have any opposition from the left and can just present himself as the reasonable candidate against the obscurantist ghoul, Le Pen. Which is why they are the ones attacking the left with ideas like "islamoleftism" today. So yeah, I agree with you: you shouldn't help create a more american system, where there's no left but the neoliberals and there's no right but the fascists. You shouldn't help the french liberals crush the french left. Don't fall for their islamoleftist nonsense. Edit: you didn't have a comeback on the protest against islamophobia, should I conclude that you are "conveniently ignoring" that part of my post? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
No details yet. | ||
|
Kreuger
Sweden633 Posts
CONFIRMED at the moment: *08:00 pm: several shots fired, beginning at Seitenstettengasse *several suspects armed with rifles *six different shooting locations * one deceaced person, several injured (1 officer included) *1 suspect shot and killed by police officers #0211w | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 01 2020 02:14 Nebuchad wrote: The reason why identity politics are "winning" in sociology classes isn't that we're winning a culture war, it's just that identity politics are objectively correct. It is true that if you're gay, you're facing a different experience than if you're straight. It is true that if you're black, you're facing a different experience than if you're white. It is true that if you're gay and black, you're facing a different experience than if you're straight and black, or gay and white. We are not getting trained to think like that by people interested in winning a culture war, we are trained to think like that by reality, and the observation of it. Now take a step back and notice that you have already mentioned the part where they are actually being dishonest, and that's the part where they're liberals: they sometimes forget to mention class privilege, which is a huge fucking thing, and it can definitely trump any of the other privileges that exist. Now ask yourself, if the left was winning the culture war, would they forget to mention class? You've seen me on that forum before, do I often forget to mention class? :p (edit: this was a little simplified, I'm sure class is also mentioned in sociology class because the people who leave sociology class tend to end up massive leftists. But regardless, I know that there are both leftist and liberal teachers in sociology, so the overall point still stands. I just thought I was being a little too culture wars-y in what I said when it comes to class.) Hmmm. What is this objectivity? That everyone has a different experience? Sure, true. But identity politics turns a simple statement about the difference that defines experience, even for a single, "in-dividual" subject, and reverses it: there is something the same about experience if we just break up people into the right kind of groups that are self-identical. That's the ideological element that you've obscured here. So once we recognize that, we are back to debating the relative merits of the "objective truth" of class war vs. bourgeois social categories. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On November 03 2020 06:38 IgnE wrote: Hmmm. What is this objectivity? That everyone has a different experience? Sure, true. But identity politics turns a simple statement about the difference that defines experience, even for a single, "in-dividual" subject, and reverses it: there is something the same about experience if we just break up people into the right kind of groups that are self-identical. That's the ideological element that you've obscured here. So once we recognize that, we are back to debating the relative merits of the "objective truth" of class war vs. bourgeois social categories. I fail to see how I've obscured this element, it seems my post says the same thing as yours. And I also fail to see how it's ideological. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 03 2020 07:00 Nebuchad wrote: I fail to see how I've obscured this element, it seems my post says the same thing as yours. And I also fail to see how it's ideological. "The reason why identity politics are "winning" in sociology classes isn't that we're winning a culture war, it's just that identity politics are objectively correct." No, this doesn't explain anything about why "identity politics" (putting aside any question of definition for now) is gaining prominence and why "class politics" is waning. Suggesting that the thoroughly political operation (or, if you prefer, "subjective operation") of creating alliances by race, gender, or sexuality is just "objective" is an ideological suggestion. You walk it back a bit by saying, well, they forget class. But that's kind of the point of a proposition like "identity politics is winning in sociology classes"—to emphasize that one lens of analysis is being trumped by another. Perhaps more importantly it fails to take into account the dialectical nature of the emergence of a political group "in itself" and the modulation that group undergoes in coming to exist "for itself." There is a reflexive aspect to self-recognition that depends on the particular expression, or signs, by which a group recognizes itself. Such expression can, or perhaps always does, take on a life of its own. So to consider a concrete example, we might wonder how the "black" or "gay" or "white" experience changes in response to its own theorization about these things called "the black (or gay or white) experience." Does this experience become an "objective fact"? Maybe so, but not in the sense that is usually understood by that term. Does this explain anything about "identity politics" vis-à-vis "class politics"? No, hardly. It only obfuscates what is at stake. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4692 Posts
On November 03 2020 06:33 Kreuger wrote: Vienna police just tweeted: CONFIRMED at the moment: *08:00 pm: several shots fired, beginning at Seitenstettengasse *several suspects armed with rifles *six different shooting locations * one deceaced person, several injured (1 officer included) *1 suspect shot and killed by police officers #0211w https://twitter.com/LPDWien/status/1323376887687688197 They are still hunting for at least one perpetrator: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54788613 Hopefully there wont be any more dead. | ||
| ||
