|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 13 2020 10:23 Gahlo wrote:
These tangents you let Danglars walk you on are wild.
Agreed. It is nuts.
When I said 2 sides, I meant the same 2 sides as my original post, social progressives and social conservatives. Throughout history, there has always been 1 side saying "everyone should have all the same rights" and another group saying "but wait, how about those people who are clearly worse?". That group saying another group is clearly worse, always loses. I know republicans who supported gay marriage and I know democrats who didn't. The issue wasn't their party, it was the underlying ideology that allowed them to label people as less than. That is a distinctly socially conservative tendency. My point is that they will always lose because their bullshit pursuit of creating a less than group will always fail.
|
On June 13 2020 10:23 Gahlo wrote:
These tangents you let Danglars walk you on are wild.
Let me just say that if they think Democrats' shifting allegiances in history is an unrelated tangent to social conservatives shifting(unshifting?) relationship to current society throughout history, nobody needs to respond to my post. I won't be offended if you read it and move on.
And maybe it only needed a "Yeah, the Mohdoo side of Mohdoo/micronesia goes too far in essentialize an ideological movement in order to falsely declare it historically monstrous." But cmon, if the anniversary of Loving is grounds to talk smack about a wing of conservatism, let's pop up the juicy ten-year retrospective of the last KKK Senator (D) leaving office.
|
Northern Ireland26028 Posts
On June 13 2020 10:01 TheYango wrote:I think the point Danglars is making with these examples isn't to break this down party lines, but to answer Mohdoo's post: Show nested quote +On June 13 2020 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:
Certainly. But when we look at:
1. What if black people are humans
2. What if black people should have equal voting
3. What if women are equal to men
4. what if different races should be allowed to marry
5. what if same sex marriage was ok
there is one side that fought against every single one of those There is no "one side". "Social conservatism" is not a single, monolithic entity. The "social conservative" that hates gays, women, and blacks is not a single, unified idealogy. Rather, individual people have complex belief systems that change over time, as is demonstrated by those examples Danglars raised. Declaring social conservatism as on "the wrong side of history" reeks of post-hoc analysis because history is only meaningful when change happens. When social conservatism "wins", things stay the same, so there's nothing to write about. Social conservatism was "winning" for the hundreds of years that blacks were enslaved.
Seems fair to me really.
Nothing really complex about it. Conservatism is almost always wrong as an approach and history shows that.
As to ‘complex belief systems’ that’s just an unnecessary bone you’re throwing out, for some reason.
I respect Danglars as an eloquent and (especially now) atypical right winger in this thread. But who still deflects from Donald Trump’s almost daily departures from anything approaching reasonable behaviour via stretches that are are almost unmeasurable by human means.
I mean it sounds and feels nice to just retrench and consider his ‘complex belief system’, or alternatively one could just consider it complete bollocks.
Or alternatively just don’t do that.
|
Didn't Robert Byrd regret his Klan past and openly repent about it, like, a lot? He spoke in favor of civil rights many times.
Did a bit of research.
Some quotes from the 90s and 2000s:
(on why he initially joined the klan)
Sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions.
"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
You can easily find racist current democrats (there are at least a few nutty representatives), but picking on Byrd is something that should only appeal to those with a really shallow understanding of him, and serves as argument against having people turn over a new leaf on issues like that. It's a cute talking point, but a disservice to a legitimately good Senator.
Yes, it's his 10th year anniversary of leaving the senate... but he left the clan in 1952. So you're referring something that took place 70 years ago, not 10.
For one of his far worse contemporaries, see Strom Thurmond - who also filibustered the CRA, fathered a black daughter in secret, and remained an out and out racist until his death.
(This is nothing to do with partisanship - I just legitimately think attacking Byrd for something he did 60 years before he died is a little unfair, considering he did a lot of decent things later in life. Both parties still have trouble with racism, and the GOP only has more issues than the Dems because it has more white people now).
|
Friendly reminder that a man currently serving as a Republican in Congress said just last year:
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”
So yeah, Byrd was a relic of a now basically extinct kind of southern Democrat, one that publicly regretted his past routinely until his death, but there can be absolutely no doubt which party the Klan, neo-Nazis, and other white supremacists are inclined to support. Trump enjoys their loyalty to this day (likely now more than ever!).
Let's see what David Duke has to say. Here are some quotes from 2017:
“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”
"I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists."
"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests
|
On June 13 2020 11:00 Mohdoo wrote:
My point is that they will always lose because their bullshit pursuit of creating a less than group will always fail.
I think this is a dangerous view to have as a social progressive because it leads down a path to complacency. At best it's a post-hoc analysis of history, and at worst, a completely Euro/American-centric view of history that papers over everything that didn't happen in the last 500 years in Europe/America as irrelevant parts of history. There are lots of times in history where nations that trampled on the rights of others thrived, and dismissing those as just being the acts of savages/backward peoples or just "a dark time in history" just dooms us to letting that happen again.
The rights of other human beings are always something that progressives are going to have to fight for. Waiting for the tide of history gets you nowhere. The victory of socially progressive ideals is by no means an inevitability and it does us no good to pretend that it is.
|
On June 13 2020 12:31 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2020 11:00 Mohdoo wrote:
My point is that they will always lose because their bullshit pursuit of creating a less than group will always fail. I think this is a dangerous view to have as a social progressive because it leads down a path to complacency. At best it's a post-hoc analysis of history, and at worst, a completely Euro/American-centric view of history that papers over everything that didn't happen in the last 500 years in Europe/America as irrelevant parts of history. There are lots of times in history where nations that trampled on the rights of others thrived, and dismissing those as just being the acts of savages/backward peoples or just "a dark time in history" just dooms us to letting that happen again. The rights of other human beings are always something that progressives are going to have to fight for. Waiting for the tide of history gets you nowhere. The victory of socially progressive ideals is by no means an inevitability and it does us no good to pretend that it is.
I understand what you are getting at, but that wasn't my intention. As I have mentioned before when defending riots, significant social change is always TAKEN from oppressors, never bestowed. When people get rowdy and force hands, shit gets done. We had to fight for all the issues I listed, as well as the entire idea of a weekend...many other fights. By no means am I trying to say that these things happen without effort. But I am making it clear that history has a huge tendency to judge social conservatism very poorly.
53 years ago, social conservatives argued that interracial marriage was unethical. Progressive fought and won that battle and I am glad they did.
|
On June 13 2020 11:13 Wombat_NI wrote:
I respect Danglars as an eloquent and (especially now) atypical right winger in this thread. But who still deflects from Donald Trump’s almost daily departures from anything approaching reasonable behaviour via stretches that are are almost unmeasurable by human means.
I mean it sounds and feels nice to just retrench and consider his ‘complex belief system’, or alternatively one could just consider it complete bollocks.
I said it to you before, and I'll say it again: It's only when viewed against the only available alternative (If we're talking negotiations, this is the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement or BATNA). That's sacrificing jobs to a misguided environmental policy, burdening and destroying private health insurance through his health policy, dangerous foreign policy views on particularly China & Iran, judges that prevent you from honoring your religious conscience and running a business, Obama-era end of due process for college students, disregard for second amendment rights, and on and on. All of those shouldn't be news to people that are well informed of conservative thought. People just rate Biden higher on too many counts, if you ask me.
So if you credit conservatives for actually wanting to preserve rights and viewing certain policies as insanely destructive to the country, an immoral, boorish twitter boomer guy in the white house isn't automatically the worst alternative. He has a fucking low bar to clear. Trump or Biden will be president next year, and I'd look pretty pathetic if I tolerate the country going to hell because the other guy had personally abominable behavior.
So honestly, people either think conservatives are just pantomiming the belief in the destructive policy of Bides + advisors, (in which case they should vote Biden because they don't actually think he'll pass sufficiently bad policies), or they're totally uninformed about conservative thought and wish they'd just abandon it all and think like them. In the interests of indulging Wombat's almost incomprehensible position, I think at some level the country is screwed no matter who wins the next election.
|
Lesser of two evils is fine, the issue is that any kind of principled conservatism has long since agreed to be a passenger, snd rendered itself almost entirely unable to express any sincere criticism of the driver for fear of losing that driver.
At which point of course people on the forum are uninformed about conservative thought! It’s hardly ever said aloud, and when it is only in partisan terms that it’s hard to take seriously. Who on the right has so little self-awareness to preach about rule of law? Due process? Small government? Fiscal responsibility? Separation of powers? Traditional governmental values and norms?
At this point I think most self-described conservatives aren’t even very familiar with those underpinnings, but the ones who are know enough to keep quiet about them.
|
useless convo imo; bipartisan circle jerking among the social winners of the last couple millennia(roughly).
the social liberalism of today defends, upholds, and sanctifies todays' social conservatism of minorities(as one example); so why are you all pitting one against the other trying to score points, when historically, it's clear that the only thing happening was - one ideology using the other to advance its own winning.
|
The protest in Seattle was massive. Not sure how I felt about the "silent" part. Was certainly an eerie experience though.
|
Is Juneteenth a thing in the black community? I've seen that a bunch of companies are going to make it a paid day off and the NFL is now going to recognize it as a holiday. As a white man I've never heard of this before. Is this a real thing or is this just a pr thing for companies to act woke?
|
|
|
On June 13 2020 23:51 Sermokala wrote:
Is Juneteenth a thing in the black community? I've seen that a bunch of companies are going to make it a paid day off and the NFL is now going to recognize it as a holiday. As a white man I've never heard of this before. Is this a real thing or is this just a pr thing for companies to act woke?
It's a real thing. You haven't heard about it because the history wasn't widely known and it sure as hell wasn't widely celebrated like the other famous holiday coming up. But yes, it is a real thing.
|
On June 13 2020 16:45 xM(Z wrote:
useless convo imo; bipartisan circle jerking among the social winners of the last couple millennia(roughly).
the social liberalism of today defends, upholds, and sanctifies todays' social conservatism of minorities(as one example); so why are you all pitting one against the other trying to score points, when historically, it's clear that the only thing happening was - one ideology using the other to advance its own winning.
It's not rubbing someone's face in a loss at chess. Violent oppressors actively harmed minorities and were forced to stop (in one way) eventually. Celebrating that isn't a game, it is people's lives. Social conservatism vs progressive ideals isn't people in ivory towers wondering how the logic flows and which is superior. People have died at the hands of social conservatism and many lives have been ruined my social conservatism. Putting up 2 middle fingers to celebrate a a victory against oppression is entirely appropriate. I'm not going to pretend it is the sort of situation in which I should say "but that's ok, let's move on ^_^"
It is important, especially in light of Trump rolling back LGBTQ+ protections, to remember that social conservatives will always find someone to oppress. We need to continue fighting and remember how their flawed ideology has held society back time and time again. They've lost all the battles I've listed, but at the cost of people's lives and happiness until then. The damage was already done and they continue to inflict harm.
|
Now that mohdoo has declared half the country murderers of people and happiness lets ask him the next obvious step.
What do you want to do with people who believe in social conservativism?
|
On June 14 2020 04:55 Sermokala wrote:
Now that mohdoo has declared half the country murderers of people and happiness lets ask him the next obvious step.
What do you want to do with people who believe in social conservativism?
Engage, discuss and try to fight ignorance. Most social conservatives come from areas with very poor social diversity and are unable to go through the natural process of sociological development. Their sociological development is so poor that when there are "issues" like women being given the ability to vote, or treating Black People as humans, they think their culture is under attack. Same with gay marriage. We were able to convince (enough) social conservatives that their culture wouldn't be destroyed if women were allowed to vote and so on and so forth. Many dragged kicking and screaming. All we can do is protest, fight for what we believe and try to make it clear that everyone should be afforded the same rights and privileges. Continuous engagement is the key.
This process allowed for victories to be secured in the list I posted earlier, so I think it should continue.
|
The real way to fight ignorance is to first tell them they're socially underdeveloped, have issues with women being given the ability to vote, and treating black people as humans. Sounds very 2020 to me.
This sounds a lot more like Maoist struggle sessions than anything like engagement. Admit your wrong think. Conservatives think liberals (I guess I should say progressives) are dumb or misguided, liberals think conservatives are evil. That's one large, central truth of the culture war. You have wrong political opinions because you're sort of a shitty human being (not your fault, you were brought up that way!) and the cure is for me, your enlightened progressive savior, to teach you about your shittiness and drag you "kicking and screaming" into the right side of history.
Remember when you go into the ballot box, the quintessential progressive thinks you're shit and wants to acquaint you with how shitty are the opinions you hold, like women shouldn't vote and black people aren't human. Yeah, I'm gonna say, 4 more years of Trump and start re-examining your ideology so you don't operate in evangelical "I'm on the side of the angels, trying to bring salvation to the land of the demons." If I had more hope in the GOP, get 8 more years of Republican rule with a better successor, and let the more cooler heads on the left debate breaking up the country or starting to operate from different precepts ... like try for 10 minutes to not insult their fellow countrymen to get them to cross over.
I don't want to hear Wombat come along and say "Gee Whiz Dang, why don't you cross over if Trump is admittedly this bad." Just look at this rhetoric. This isn't the rhetoric of compromise, this is the rhetoric of victors pre-battle declaring terms to the vanquished foe.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 14 2020 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2020 04:55 Sermokala wrote:
Now that mohdoo has declared half the country murderers of people and happiness lets ask him the next obvious step.
What do you want to do with people who believe in social conservativism? Engage, discuss and try to fight ignorance. Most social conservatives come from areas with very poor social diversity and are unable to go through the natural process of sociological development. Their sociological development is so poor that when there are "issues" like women being given the ability to vote, or treating Black People as humans, they think their culture is under attack. Same with gay marriage. We were able to convince (enough) social conservatives that their culture wouldn't be destroyed if women were allowed to vote and so on and so forth. Many dragged kicking and screaming. All we can do is protest, fight for what we believe and try to make it clear that everyone should be afforded the same rights and privileges. Continuous engagement is the key. This process allowed for victories to be secured in the list I posted earlier, so I think it should continue.
|
Northern Ireland26028 Posts
On June 13 2020 15:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2020 11:13 Wombat_NI wrote:
I respect Danglars as an eloquent and (especially now) atypical right winger in this thread. But who still deflects from Donald Trump’s almost daily departures from anything approaching reasonable behaviour via stretches that are are almost unmeasurable by human means.
I mean it sounds and feels nice to just retrench and consider his ‘complex belief system’, or alternatively one could just consider it complete bollocks. I said it to you before, and I'll say it again: It's only when viewed against the only available alternative (If we're talking negotiations, this is the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement or BATNA). That's sacrificing jobs to a misguided environmental policy, burdening and destroying private health insurance through his health policy, dangerous foreign policy views on particularly China & Iran, judges that prevent you from honoring your religious conscience and running a business, Obama-era end of due process for college students, disregard for second amendment rights, and on and on. All of those shouldn't be news to people that are well informed of conservative thought. People just rate Biden higher on too many counts, if you ask me. So if you credit conservatives for actually wanting to preserve rights and viewing certain policies as insanely destructive to the country, an immoral, boorish twitter boomer guy in the white house isn't automatically the worst alternative. He has a fucking low bar to clear. Trump or Biden will be president next year, and I'd look pretty pathetic if I tolerate the country going to hell because the other guy had personally abominable behavior. So honestly, people either think conservatives are just pantomiming the belief in the destructive policy of Bides + advisors, (in which case they should vote Biden because they don't actually think he'll pass sufficiently bad policies), or they're totally uninformed about conservative thought and wish they'd just abandon it all and think like them. In the interests of indulging Wombat's almost incomprehensible position, I think at some level the country is screwed no matter who wins the next election.
Apologies for the incoherence, shall try to resist posting drunk in future. Not that I’m especially coherent sober.
Christian somewhat worded a similar sentiment much better than I did.
|
On June 14 2020 05:26 Danglars wrote:The real way to fight ignorance is to first tell them they're socially underdeveloped, have issues with women being given the ability to vote, and treating black people as humans. Sounds very 2020 to me. This sounds a lot more like Maoist struggle sessions than anything like engagement. Admit your wrong think. Conservatives think liberals (I guess I should say progressives) are dumb or misguided, liberals think conservatives are evil. That's one large, central truth of the culture war. You have wrong political opinions because you're sort of a shitty human being (not your fault, you were brought up that way!) and the cure is for me, your enlightened progressive savior, to teach you about your shittiness and drag you "kicking and screaming" into the right side of history. Remember when you go into the ballot box, the quintessential progressive thinks you're shit and wants to acquaint you with how shitty are the opinions you hold, like women shouldn't vote and black people aren't human. Yeah, I'm gonna say, 4 more years of Trump and start re-examining your ideology so you don't operate in evangelical "I'm on the side of the angels, trying to bring salvation to the land of the demons." I don't want to hear Wombat come along and say "Gee Whiz Dang, why don't you cross over if Trump is admittedly this bad." Just look at this rhetoric. This isn't the rhetoric of compromise, this is the rhetoric of victors pre-battle declaring terms to the vanquished foe. + Show Spoiler +On June 14 2020 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2020 04:55 Sermokala wrote:
Now that mohdoo has declared half the country murderers of people and happiness lets ask him the next obvious step.
What do you want to do with people who believe in social conservativism? Engage, discuss and try to fight ignorance. Most social conservatives come from areas with very poor social diversity and are unable to go through the natural process of sociological development. Their sociological development is so poor that when there are "issues" like women being given the ability to vote, or treating Black People as humans, they think their culture is under attack. Same with gay marriage. We were able to convince (enough) social conservatives that their culture wouldn't be destroyed if women were allowed to vote and so on and so forth. Many dragged kicking and screaming. All we can do is protest, fight for what we believe and try to make it clear that everyone should be afforded the same rights and privileges. Continuous engagement is the key. This process allowed for victories to be secured in the list I posted earlier, so I think it should continue.
I understand that you are offended by what I'm saying, but that isn't important to me. You can keep clenching pearls, but I'm not so sure what you expect to happen. I generally get the impression that you see yourself as some sort of representative, but you're not. You're just a dude who gets salty sometimes. I'm not going to bend history so you feel better about it.
My list of victories against social conservatism weren't fought by saying "hey so, uh, slavery didn't happen, I totally understand, but can we like, let the black people drink from white drinking fountains? totttttally fine if not, by no means do I want to upset you! <3"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
