|
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 30 2020 04:54 nath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 03:32 IgnE wrote:
I wasn't speaking about my personal feelings about whether the shift in politeness was "too rapid" or not. What I meant to imply was that other people have protested that it is too fast for them. And whether you think it was too fast or not, or whether you think it gained subterranean steam decades before it erupted, is kind of irrelevant to their self-reported experience, ignorant or not. I would argue that in the last decade norms about what is and is not acceptable have changed quite a bit, but I don't really care to argue the point, nor do I mean to indicate that this is particularly onerous. It's just an observation.
I didn't think you were speaking about your personal feelings, but you have clarified what you meant. Thank you. You initially stated that these shifts are rapid as a matter of fact "When the norms for politeness rapidly shift". I suppose what you meant was "When certain people feel like the norms for politeness rapidly shift"... Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 03:32 IgnE wrote:
"Colonialism" has many uses in many contexts, and some of them can be quite useful. I did not mean to imply that it has not and cannot be used to great effect. I only meant to say that I have seen it used quite a bit in opinion pieces, twitter posts, blog posts, to refer to contemporary cultural phenomena, and even to refer to psychological formations and patterns of thought in the minds of people born in the 1990s, as if what Fanon was talking about in French Algeria is the same thing happening today among BIPOC. What precisely does "colonialism" add to the analysis of domestic subject formation in the contemporary United States? I am not saying it has no relation, but it's almost always undertheorized with vague equivalences being drawn between disparate historical situations.
I cannot accept "almost always" in this bolded section. You are talking about a very small and highly visible part of the usage of colonialism. If I am not mistaken, you have beef with some common modern writings that (in my opinion as well) mis-appropriate the term, and that's fine. It would serve you well to be more clear about that. not likely, sorry. I thought about it more and I think I should just disengage with this thread. I've been on TL for over a decade and always stayed out of General.
Perhaps. At this point we’d have to start discussing specific examples. Although I think there are plenty of tenured scholars who write articles to whom my criticism applies. We might consider the differences between a term like Said’s “Orientalism” and a more generic form of “colonialism” which often appears in the series: “patriarchal, white supremacist, heteronormative, capitalist colonizers.” I’ll miss your response.
|
Northern Ireland26355 Posts
On June 30 2020 04:58 farvacola wrote:
FWIW nath, the few posts of yours I’ve seen are interesting and the thread would benefit from having more of them. Take from what you will, I totally understand why someone would avoid a thread like this.
Would echo this sentiment, definitely contribute more than I do!
|
On June 30 2020 04:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 04:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 30 2020 03:43 Nevuk wrote:On June 30 2020 02:55 Slydie wrote:On June 30 2020 01:33 Mohdoo wrote:
While conservatives argue a face mask directive during a pandemic is oppressive, they mourn a ruling that the state can't regulate a woman's reproductive rights This is weird, in my world, a LIBERAL would dislike both facemasks and restrictive abortion rights. Afaik, US conservatives are actually extremely liberal in many ways (guns, civil liberties), but restrictive in others (abortion, drugs.) Is it even a coherent ideology? My own points of view as a Scandinavian raised cynic and die-hard social liberal are probably not completely coherent either, but I don't understand how the GOP is knit together of seemingly opposing values. Liberal and Conservative have different meanings in the US than the rest of the world. When people reference the global meanings of the word in a conversation where they could get mixed up, they say "little l liberal" or "little c conservative" (it's not done often). Libertarians tend to be the traditional meaning of liberal here. However, american libertarians are... weird. Some of them don't think abortion rights are libertarian, some do (something along the lines of the freedom of the child). Some of them also are just republicans, as far as I can tell. I think it's because some people started calling themselves libertarians after mainstream GOP does really stupid things (it was common in 09-10 due to Bush's unpopularity). American Liberal refers to Keynesian economics and liberal social policies. Conservative refers to liberal economics and conservative social policies. Leftist refers to anyone who has issues with capitalism fundamentally. There are still some Conservative Democrats, but almost no Liberal Republicans exist anymore. There's been a rapid sorting starting around Obama's election where the parties started to sort ideologically. It can be easily said that most US citizens don't know what any of those words mean. I always find it funny to see republicans bitch about liberalism. We know what it means in the American context, that's quite good enough for american politics, obviously. The idea that there are more conservative Democrats in Congress than liberal Republicans is, of course, absolutely bonkers, but it's something the left almost wishes were true, given how often it's repeated. However, it is true that by self-identification, there are plenty of both still left among the general populace. It's especially funny to read on the say Roberts does his more and more frequent split-the-baby approach while destroying his institution. You'd probably have to go back to 2005 to find the last time a lone Democrat appointee sided with the conservatives on a truly important issue, but somehow the 4 lefties are never called out for being partisan hacks or ideologues. There's pretty much never ant question how they'll vote on an issue the left really cares about.
The last pro-life Democrats, who could justifiably be seen as conservative on some social issues, got walloped in the Obama years of transformation within the Democratic party. There were actually Democrats that stood up against, say, PPACA funding of Abortion, and demanded to be included in party policy and legislation. That's over now.
On the flip side, many Republicans support big government (sad trend imo) solutions, ends to free trade (also a sad trend), and increased welfare spending and health insurance spending in general.
I see only a very biased reading that could end with conservative Democrats but no liberal Republicans. Log cabin republicans have been around for years, fiscal conservatives that are very socially liberal have been molding agendas for literally decades (see: Trump had half his term with a Republican house & senate, and all he got was a tax cut ... social policy all died). I don't really see any benefit in Nevuk's formulation, other than to grind a political axe about how the other side is less diverse, or something.
On June 30 2020 04:54 nath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 03:32 IgnE wrote:
"Colonialism" has many uses in many contexts, and some of them can be quite useful. I did not mean to imply that it has not and cannot be used to great effect. I only meant to say that I have seen it used quite a bit in opinion pieces, twitter posts, blog posts, to refer to contemporary cultural phenomena, and even to refer to psychological formations and patterns of thought in the minds of people born in the 1990s, as if what Fanon was talking about in French Algeria is the same thing happening today among BIPOC. What precisely does "colonialism" add to the analysis of domestic subject formation in the contemporary United States? I am not saying it has no relation, but it's almost always undertheorized with vague equivalences being drawn between disparate historical situations. I cannot accept "almost always" in this bolded section. You are talking about a very small and highly visible part of the usage of colonialism. If I am not mistaken, you have beef with some common modern writings that (in my opinion as well) mis-appropriate the term, and that's fine. It would serve you well to be more clear about that.
Maybe the most visible problem with "colonialism" currently, is because everything wrong with it is the most visible way in which it's used. This is a public forum reading mostly stories that make the national press, not an forum for academics reading journals on postcolonialism. I wager most of the American population is only acquainted with colonialism discussion when it appears as justification for cancelling someone for "appropriation" or when some school district says it needs to decolonize its math program.
|
On June 30 2020 06:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 04:27 Introvert wrote:On June 30 2020 04:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 30 2020 03:43 Nevuk wrote:On June 30 2020 02:55 Slydie wrote:On June 30 2020 01:33 Mohdoo wrote:
While conservatives argue a face mask directive during a pandemic is oppressive, they mourn a ruling that the state can't regulate a woman's reproductive rights This is weird, in my world, a LIBERAL would dislike both facemasks and restrictive abortion rights. Afaik, US conservatives are actually extremely liberal in many ways (guns, civil liberties), but restrictive in others (abortion, drugs.) Is it even a coherent ideology? My own points of view as a Scandinavian raised cynic and die-hard social liberal are probably not completely coherent either, but I don't understand how the GOP is knit together of seemingly opposing values. Liberal and Conservative have different meanings in the US than the rest of the world. When people reference the global meanings of the word in a conversation where they could get mixed up, they say "little l liberal" or "little c conservative" (it's not done often). Libertarians tend to be the traditional meaning of liberal here. However, american libertarians are... weird. Some of them don't think abortion rights are libertarian, some do (something along the lines of the freedom of the child). Some of them also are just republicans, as far as I can tell. I think it's because some people started calling themselves libertarians after mainstream GOP does really stupid things (it was common in 09-10 due to Bush's unpopularity). American Liberal refers to Keynesian economics and liberal social policies. Conservative refers to liberal economics and conservative social policies. Leftist refers to anyone who has issues with capitalism fundamentally. There are still some Conservative Democrats, but almost no Liberal Republicans exist anymore. There's been a rapid sorting starting around Obama's election where the parties started to sort ideologically. It can be easily said that most US citizens don't know what any of those words mean. I always find it funny to see republicans bitch about liberalism. We know what it means in the American context, that's quite good enough for american politics, obviously. The idea that there are more conservative Democrats in Congress than liberal Republicans is, of course, absolutely bonkers, but it's something the left almost wishes were true, given how often it's repeated. However, it is true that by self-identification, there are plenty of both still left among the general populace. It's especially funny to read on the say Roberts does his more and more frequent split-the-baby approach while destroying his institution. You'd probably have to go back to 2005 to find the last time a lone Democrat appointee sided with the conservatives on a truly important issue, but somehow the 4 lefties are never called out for being partisan hacks or ideologues. There's pretty much never ant question how they'll vote on an issue the left really cares about. The last pro-life Democrats, who could justifiably be seen as conservative on some social issues, got walloped in the Obama years of transformation within the Democratic party. There were actually Democrats that stood up against, say, PPACA funding of Abortion, and demanded to be included in party policy and legislation. That's over now. On the flip side, many Republicans support big government (sad trend imo) solutions, ends to free trade (also a sad trend), and increased welfare spending and health insurance spending in general. I see only a very biased reading that could end with conservative Democrats but no liberal Republicans. Log cabin republicans have been around for years, fiscal conservatives that are very socially liberal have been molding agendas for literally decades (see: Trump had half his term with a Republican house & senate, and all he got was a tax cut ... social policy all died). I don't really see any benefit in Nevuk's formulation, other than to grind a political axe about how the other side is less diverse, or something.
Your perception of core issues is very strange to me. Why would being anti-abortion be the only defining factor of a conservative? Why would being for "big government, end of free trade, increased welfare spending and health insurance spending in general" be core liberal themes?
That seems like putting the cart before the horse, and defining what republicans think democrats stand for as "liberal", and one single issue that republicans care about as "conservative". I find it especially weird that the positions seem to be mostly disjunkt from each other, and thus easily allow for a liberal conservative.
And there are a bunch of other ways to frame stuff. One could, for example, describe a democrat who opposes a more universal healthcare system as a "conservative democrat", since opposing a universal healthcare system seems to be a core republican position.
Or one could call a republican who is in favor of ending the war on drugs a "liberal republican".
It seems to me as if you randomly grabbed a very small subset as positions as the only positions who matter, and didn't even represent those correctly. There are a lot of different issues out there, and a lot of positions on those issues are compatible with each other.
|
On June 30 2020 04:54 nath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 03:32 IgnE wrote:
I wasn't speaking about my personal feelings about whether the shift in politeness was "too rapid" or not. What I meant to imply was that other people have protested that it is too fast for them. And whether you think it was too fast or not, or whether you think it gained subterranean steam decades before it erupted, is kind of irrelevant to their self-reported experience, ignorant or not. I would argue that in the last decade norms about what is and is not acceptable have changed quite a bit, but I don't really care to argue the point, nor do I mean to indicate that this is particularly onerous. It's just an observation.
I didn't think you were speaking about your personal feelings, but you have clarified what you meant. Thank you. You initially stated that these shifts are rapid as a matter of fact "When the norms for politeness rapidly shift". I suppose what you meant was "When certain people feel like the norms for politeness rapidly shift"... Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 03:32 IgnE wrote:
"Colonialism" has many uses in many contexts, and some of them can be quite useful. I did not mean to imply that it has not and cannot be used to great effect. I only meant to say that I have seen it used quite a bit in opinion pieces, twitter posts, blog posts, to refer to contemporary cultural phenomena, and even to refer to psychological formations and patterns of thought in the minds of people born in the 1990s, as if what Fanon was talking about in French Algeria is the same thing happening today among BIPOC. What precisely does "colonialism" add to the analysis of domestic subject formation in the contemporary United States? I am not saying it has no relation, but it's almost always undertheorized with vague equivalences being drawn between disparate historical situations.
I cannot accept "almost always" in this bolded section. You are talking about a very small and highly visible part of the usage of colonialism. If I am not mistaken, you have beef with some common modern writings that (in my opinion as well) mis-appropriate the term, and that's fine. It would serve you well to be more clear about that. not likely, sorry. I thought about it more and I think I should just disengage with this thread. I've been on TL for over a decade and always stayed out of General.
Damnit IgnE. Lure out a quality lurker and you instantly scare him away with your sophisticated racial insensitivity.
fwiw nath your posts were a breath of fresh air. I'd say it's not so bad when you get used to it, but IgnE is also sorta as good as it gets without Neb around so you'd probably be making the wise choice for your own mental health.
For those curious: the basics of this left infighting is that part of the left (the white part) thinks we can achieve communism with a class first politics that zeroes in on class framing of every issue at the expense of identity (because it's not 'real' to IgnE's argument) vs part of the left (everyone else) that thinks that is stupid because white leftists always settle short of including BIPOC in their more equitable society that they bargain for with liberals.
IgnE is well versed in this so he knows that we know that in theory/an abstract non-existent society reducing everything to class could work (and is theoretically superior). He also knows this type of "socialism" is more appealing to wwc people that can (relatively) easily grapple with class framing, but that raising issues around race or colonialism loses their interest and discourages them from joining the cause. Put more plainly IgnE thinks race issues scare away white comrades but just saying that makes it sound as racist as it is instead of the word salads he puts up where virtually no one notices what he's doing.
My frustration with IgnE (beyond the one I share with everyone else about me and is good) is that he devotes his posting here to trying to dismantle identity politics instead of whiteness. Which, while popular with white leftists, is putting the cart before the horse according to basically all the theorists and revolutionaries outside white af Europe/ the former USSR. Even Lenin was less head ass about this than leftists in IgnE's camp.
nath was a pleasant surprise in that way since they noticed AND spoke up pithily about it.
On June 30 2020 04:39 farvacola wrote:TIL that closing the federal courts to certain kinds of immigration claims is not a truly important issue and that therefore Justices Ginsburg and Breyer’s siding with the conservatives in that case can be ignored in service of an unbalanced talking point that is popular in some media circles. And that’s only one case, there are more where particularly Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan have sided with the conservatives, only leftist court watchers don’t run to their equivalent of the FedSoc press to decry the oh so unfair treatment of judicial liberals. Sotomayor is the only leftward Justice who doesn’t seem keen on the horse trading that occurs all the time, which is probably part of why she’s the best one currently on the court in the first place 
Was wondering when/if you were going to comment on RBG's conservative rulings.
|
I just want to mention that there is also a part of the left which has no interest in "achieving communism"
|
On June 30 2020 07:15 Simberto wrote:
I just want to mention that there is also a part of the left which has no interest in "achieving communism"
I think those are the “liberals” in GH’s conception.
|
On June 30 2020 07:15 Simberto wrote:
I just want to mention that there is also a part of the left which has no interest in "achieving communism"
They aren't part of the left or right specifically, they are liberal/centrist conservatives. So they'll hold far left views like abolishing ICE but want to reform police for example. I guess rad lib is a popular descriptor that would better describe those that tend more left.
@Igne: Why not try out your theory on JimmiC, couldn't be a more convincing case for me made for your position than results on that front.
|
|
|
On June 30 2020 07:02 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 06:37 Danglars wrote:On June 30 2020 04:27 Introvert wrote:On June 30 2020 04:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 30 2020 03:43 Nevuk wrote:On June 30 2020 02:55 Slydie wrote:On June 30 2020 01:33 Mohdoo wrote:
While conservatives argue a face mask directive during a pandemic is oppressive, they mourn a ruling that the state can't regulate a woman's reproductive rights This is weird, in my world, a LIBERAL would dislike both facemasks and restrictive abortion rights. Afaik, US conservatives are actually extremely liberal in many ways (guns, civil liberties), but restrictive in others (abortion, drugs.) Is it even a coherent ideology? My own points of view as a Scandinavian raised cynic and die-hard social liberal are probably not completely coherent either, but I don't understand how the GOP is knit together of seemingly opposing values. Liberal and Conservative have different meanings in the US than the rest of the world. When people reference the global meanings of the word in a conversation where they could get mixed up, they say "little l liberal" or "little c conservative" (it's not done often). Libertarians tend to be the traditional meaning of liberal here. However, american libertarians are... weird. Some of them don't think abortion rights are libertarian, some do (something along the lines of the freedom of the child). Some of them also are just republicans, as far as I can tell. I think it's because some people started calling themselves libertarians after mainstream GOP does really stupid things (it was common in 09-10 due to Bush's unpopularity). American Liberal refers to Keynesian economics and liberal social policies. Conservative refers to liberal economics and conservative social policies. Leftist refers to anyone who has issues with capitalism fundamentally. There are still some Conservative Democrats, but almost no Liberal Republicans exist anymore. There's been a rapid sorting starting around Obama's election where the parties started to sort ideologically. It can be easily said that most US citizens don't know what any of those words mean. I always find it funny to see republicans bitch about liberalism. We know what it means in the American context, that's quite good enough for american politics, obviously. The idea that there are more conservative Democrats in Congress than liberal Republicans is, of course, absolutely bonkers, but it's something the left almost wishes were true, given how often it's repeated. However, it is true that by self-identification, there are plenty of both still left among the general populace. It's especially funny to read on the say Roberts does his more and more frequent split-the-baby approach while destroying his institution. You'd probably have to go back to 2005 to find the last time a lone Democrat appointee sided with the conservatives on a truly important issue, but somehow the 4 lefties are never called out for being partisan hacks or ideologues. There's pretty much never ant question how they'll vote on an issue the left really cares about. The last pro-life Democrats, who could justifiably be seen as conservative on some social issues, got walloped in the Obama years of transformation within the Democratic party. There were actually Democrats that stood up against, say, PPACA funding of Abortion, and demanded to be included in party policy and legislation. That's over now. On the flip side, many Republicans support big government (sad trend imo) solutions, ends to free trade (also a sad trend), and increased welfare spending and health insurance spending in general. I see only a very biased reading that could end with conservative Democrats but no liberal Republicans. Log cabin republicans have been around for years, fiscal conservatives that are very socially liberal have been molding agendas for literally decades (see: Trump had half his term with a Republican house & senate, and all he got was a tax cut ... social policy all died). I don't really see any benefit in Nevuk's formulation, other than to grind a political axe about how the other side is less diverse, or something. Your perception of core issues is very strange to me. Why would being anti-abortion be the only defining factor of a conservative? Why would being for "big government, end of free trade, increased welfare spending and health insurance spending in general" be core liberal themes? That seems like putting the cart before the horse, and defining what republicans think democrats stand for as "liberal", and one single issue that republicans care about as "conservative". I find it especially weird that the positions seem to be mostly disjunkt from each other, and thus easily allow for a liberal conservative. And there are a bunch of other ways to frame stuff. One could, for example, describe a democrat who opposes a more universal healthcare system as a "conservative democrat", since opposing a universal healthcare system seems to be a core republican position. Or one could call a republican who is in favor of ending the war on drugs a "liberal republican". It seems to me as if you randomly grabbed a very small subset as positions as the only positions who matter, and didn't even represent those correctly. There are a lot of different issues out there, and a lot of positions on those issues are compatible with each other.
I disagree. Expansive roles for the federal government to fill are historically associated with liberals or progressives. Conservative social policy embodies several positions, but one of the more obvious ones is abortion ... such as you could say Obama chose a more conservative social policy platform when he ran for president in stating restrictions he favored, and Sanders/Clinton chose a more liberal one in refusing to back any solid restrictions in their campaigns.
If it needs to be said, other issues I could’ve picked have changed over time. Also, I’m picking examples to prove my point (Nevuk’s characterization of the parties is very foolish), because examples to the contrary are important for him to explain how they fit his description, or for him to renounce it upon viewing the evidence again. And if you had picked a Trump tweet for explaining how he’s a bad president, I do not presume that’s the only reason you could think of, or you think he hasn’t done any good. And since you aren’t Nevuk, I won’t ask you how he uses it, nor will I force you to choose the same terms.
|
On June 30 2020 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 04:39 farvacola wrote:TIL that closing the federal courts to certain kinds of immigration claims is not a truly important issue and that therefore Justices Ginsburg and Breyer’s siding with the conservatives in that case can be ignored in service of an unbalanced talking point that is popular in some media circles. And that’s only one case, there are more where particularly Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan have sided with the conservatives, only leftist court watchers don’t run to their equivalent of the FedSoc press to decry the oh so unfair treatment of judicial liberals. Sotomayor is the only leftward Justice who doesn’t seem keen on the horse trading that occurs all the time, which is probably part of why she’s the best one currently on the court in the first place Was wondering when/if you were going to comment on RBG's conservative rulings.
It's Brandeis, Jackson, Warren, Brennan, and Stevens for me in terms of judicial role models, with Archibald Cox as best government advocate.
|
On June 30 2020 07:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2020 04:39 farvacola wrote:TIL that closing the federal courts to certain kinds of immigration claims is not a truly important issue and that therefore Justices Ginsburg and Breyer’s siding with the conservatives in that case can be ignored in service of an unbalanced talking point that is popular in some media circles. And that’s only one case, there are more where particularly Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan have sided with the conservatives, only leftist court watchers don’t run to their equivalent of the FedSoc press to decry the oh so unfair treatment of judicial liberals. Sotomayor is the only leftward Justice who doesn’t seem keen on the horse trading that occurs all the time, which is probably part of why she’s the best one currently on the court in the first place Was wondering when/if you were going to comment on RBG's conservative rulings. It's Brandeis, Jackson, Warren, Brennan, and Stevens for me in terms of judicial role models, with Archibald Cox as best government advocate.
Always been partial to Marshall myself
You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.
|
He should probably be on my list too, his attitude towards the role of the court aligns closely with Warren and Brandeis. I remember stumbling upon some business/securities/consumer protection opinions that he joined in that turned me off, maybe I'll be able to find them.
|
On June 30 2020 07:17 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 07:15 Simberto wrote:
I just want to mention that there is also a part of the left which has no interest in "achieving communism" I think those are the “liberals” in GH’s conception.
These liberals are basically "facists" in GH's conception.
|
Can’t believe you left Marshall off the list farv.
GH, I don’t think that’s an accurate summary of my position. I am not interested in practicing political strategy through my posting on this forum, and none of my posts are written actively thinking about how to emotionally appeal to the most people or about what might bore white people. If you want to point me to a specific comment or post I’d be happy to address it.
|
On June 30 2020 07:54 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 07:17 ChristianS wrote:On June 30 2020 07:15 Simberto wrote:
I just want to mention that there is also a part of the left which has no interest in "achieving communism" I think those are the “liberals” in GH’s conception. These liberals are basically "facists" in GH's conception.
More that having fascists on one's right doesn't make them 'left'. There's plenty of space between Trump/alt-right/neonazis and the left. Obama literally said he would be considered a moderate Republican of the 80's.
|
And what Obama said matters how? The 80 are now 40 years ago... You know what was 40 years before the 80? the second world war. Another 40? We are not even at World war One (and far before MLK and these other kinda important things that happened in the US).
I frequent left tube, too often for my sanity, and the main problem people like you have, is that you alienate anyone that isn't 100% on board with "the revolution", which is barely, if at all, defined and just some ghost figure any "trube believer" leftist seems to have in his head. It seems to be more like a sort of possession than an actual structured idea.
It's basically some teenage dream gone big thanks to streamers/youtube videos... It' would be kinda cute, if it wouldn't be so sad and futile.
But well, I most like haven't read the right books or pdfs or random bs on homepage xyz to give a qualified comment.
|
Oregon governor just announced mandatory face masks in all public, indoor areas starting July 1. Masks will also me mandatory in any outdoor environment where 6 ft distance isn't possible.
I am happy about this because Oregon is starting to be on the rise for new cases, but they are still low enough that a mask directive should suppress it significantly.
When I look at the progress NY has made, then look at Florida, Texas and California, a mask directive is a clear slam dunk. It is so disappointing to see how many states are letting people die. Just require the mask so we can move on. Look at Europe. If we want this to be over, widespread mask use is the only real option until there is a vaccine widely available.
|
On June 30 2020 08:19 Velr wrote:
And what Obama said matters how? The 80 are now 40 years ago... You know what was 40 years before the 80? the second world war. Another 40? We are not even at World war One (and far before MLK and these other kinda important things that happened in the US).
I frequent left tube, too often for my sanity, and the main problem people like you have, is that you alienate anyone that isn't 100% on board with "the revolution", which is barely, if at all, defined and just some ghost figure any "trube believer" leftist seems to have in his head. It seems to be more like a sort of possession than an actual structured idea.
It's basically some teenage dream gone big thanks to streamers/youtube videos... It' would be kinda cute, if it wouldn't be so sad and futile.
But well, I most like haven't read the right books or pdfs or random bs on homepage xyz to give a qualified comment.
What have you read relating to communism? I don't ask to be dismissive, but if we share a text in common it can provide a starting point for the details you seek. The time for worrying about alienating white people that aren't on board is waning. In the immortal words of the great philosopher Beans, it's "get down or lay down" time imo. They can either act right or they'll just be forced to the bottom of an inverted scheme they refused to correct when they had the chance (I lament the seeming inevitability of the latter).
|
On June 30 2020 07:02 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2020 06:37 Danglars wrote:On June 30 2020 04:27 Introvert wrote:On June 30 2020 04:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 30 2020 03:43 Nevuk wrote:On June 30 2020 02:55 Slydie wrote:On June 30 2020 01:33 Mohdoo wrote:
While conservatives argue a face mask directive during a pandemic is oppressive, they mourn a ruling that the state can't regulate a woman's reproductive rights This is weird, in my world, a LIBERAL would dislike both facemasks and restrictive abortion rights. Afaik, US conservatives are actually extremely liberal in many ways (guns, civil liberties), but restrictive in others (abortion, drugs.) Is it even a coherent ideology? My own points of view as a Scandinavian raised cynic and die-hard social liberal are probably not completely coherent either, but I don't understand how the GOP is knit together of seemingly opposing values. Liberal and Conservative have different meanings in the US than the rest of the world. When people reference the global meanings of the word in a conversation where they could get mixed up, they say "little l liberal" or "little c conservative" (it's not done often). Libertarians tend to be the traditional meaning of liberal here. However, american libertarians are... weird. Some of them don't think abortion rights are libertarian, some do (something along the lines of the freedom of the child). Some of them also are just republicans, as far as I can tell. I think it's because some people started calling themselves libertarians after mainstream GOP does really stupid things (it was common in 09-10 due to Bush's unpopularity). American Liberal refers to Keynesian economics and liberal social policies. Conservative refers to liberal economics and conservative social policies. Leftist refers to anyone who has issues with capitalism fundamentally. There are still some Conservative Democrats, but almost no Liberal Republicans exist anymore. There's been a rapid sorting starting around Obama's election where the parties started to sort ideologically. It can be easily said that most US citizens don't know what any of those words mean. I always find it funny to see republicans bitch about liberalism. We know what it means in the American context, that's quite good enough for american politics, obviously. The idea that there are more conservative Democrats in Congress than liberal Republicans is, of course, absolutely bonkers, but it's something the left almost wishes were true, given how often it's repeated. However, it is true that by self-identification, there are plenty of both still left among the general populace. It's especially funny to read on the say Roberts does his more and more frequent split-the-baby approach while destroying his institution. You'd probably have to go back to 2005 to find the last time a lone Democrat appointee sided with the conservatives on a truly important issue, but somehow the 4 lefties are never called out for being partisan hacks or ideologues. There's pretty much never ant question how they'll vote on an issue the left really cares about. The last pro-life Democrats, who could justifiably be seen as conservative on some social issues, got walloped in the Obama years of transformation within the Democratic party. There were actually Democrats that stood up against, say, PPACA funding of Abortion, and demanded to be included in party policy and legislation. That's over now. On the flip side, many Republicans support big government (sad trend imo) solutions, ends to free trade (also a sad trend), and increased welfare spending and health insurance spending in general. I see only a very biased reading that could end with conservative Democrats but no liberal Republicans. Log cabin republicans have been around for years, fiscal conservatives that are very socially liberal have been molding agendas for literally decades (see: Trump had half his term with a Republican house & senate, and all he got was a tax cut ... social policy all died). I don't really see any benefit in Nevuk's formulation, other than to grind a political axe about how the other side is less diverse, or something. Your perception of core issues is very strange to me. Why would being anti-abortion be the only defining factor of a conservative? Why would being for "big government, end of free trade, increased welfare spending and health insurance spending in general" be core liberal themes? That seems like putting the cart before the horse, and defining what republicans think democrats stand for as "liberal", and one single issue that republicans care about as "conservative". I find it especially weird that the positions seem to be mostly disjunkt from each other, and thus easily allow for a liberal conservative. And there are a bunch of other ways to frame stuff. One could, for example, describe a democrat who opposes a more universal healthcare system as a "conservative democrat", since opposing a universal healthcare system seems to be a core republican position. Or one could call a republican who is in favor of ending the war on drugs a "liberal republican". It seems to me as if you randomly grabbed a very small subset as positions as the only positions who matter, and didn't even represent those correctly. There are a lot of different issues out there, and a lot of positions on those issues are compatible with each other.
I really have little time for people that take providing counterexamples to mean "the only defining factor of a conservative." This is a bad move, and given that Nevuk and not you advanced the original contention, I'm content for you to continue in your beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
