|
Definitely dumps, just for micronesia
|
I can't see it being anything but dumps
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On November 07 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 08:28 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2020 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2020 04:35 Zambrah wrote:On November 07 2020 04:32 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2020 04:29 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2020 04:18 Nyxisto wrote:On November 07 2020 04:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 07 2020 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
If the Dems should have learned one thing from this election then it is that they need to stop the progressive shift. The loss of Hispanic and Latino voters in Florida is a total disaster, and imagine what would have happened if some hardcore Green New Deal type candidate had run in Pennsylvania. Given the results now it looks like pretty much anyone but Klobuchar maybe would have gotten rolled in this election. I keep hearing people say that Progressives are bad cause Florida but I do have to point this out You DO know that Biden DID NOT WIN FLORIDA, right? The Conservative Democrat lost that Hispanic Latino Florida voter. Biden's not a conservative democrat. He ran as left, if not to the left of Clinton and evidently all the "he's a socialist" smears by Trump sticked with the Cuban vote. If the party hadn't shifted so far during the primary in particular, his lying wouldn't have been able to stick that hard. On November 07 2020 04:14 KwarK wrote:
The Democrats need to learn to bullshit. They need to search the party for their best Sam Elliot impersonator and then have him tell everyone that every problem has a simple answer but that the Republicans are too in the pocket of big business to do it. Wars can't be won because Lockheed. Healthcare is expensive because of insurance companies. Food is expensive because of Monsanto. You lost your job at the factory because the vulture capitalists moved the plant to Mexico. Wages are down because businesses keep hiring immigrants illegally. Just commit to building that narrative. Then, after you win, don't do anything. I don't see this rhetoric work at all with moderate Americans, in particular minorities. Progressive rhetoric is popular with the woke college educated white crowd, Trump's gains among minorities in general a lot of which apparently trust the GOP on economic issues, shows that you need to ditch that stuff. It's not about rhetoric swaying people to left wing ideology, it's about insisting that every problem is the blame of a cabal of corrupt rich corporate fatcats and that only he will stop them because the other side work for the fatcats. Pure populism. Trump connected with people because people are idiots and so is he. When he says that the US gov should stop sending China a $300b check for the balance of trade deficit that seems like a good idea to idiots. The fact that no such check exists is irrelevant. The Democrats need to lean into the idiot demographic. We can print money out of thin air to bail out corporations, but we can’t have healthcare? Etc etc Tbh I’m not even sure you have to bullshit on some issues, just simplify the message and its emotional core. People are idiots, this is the solution to selling left wing ideals. I'm an idiot. The primary difference between me and GH as people on the left is that GH knows things about theory, whereas I am a boob who is basically driven by the state of my life and the way I feel about the world around me that causes it. Americans as a whole are not like GH imo, they're closer to me. Speak dumb, speak clear, make good sense, convince dumbs like me, work many good Well the "complicated" version of why treating people like idiots in this manner is inadvisable goes like this: Revolutionary praxis must stand opposed to the praxis of the dominant elites, for they are by nature antithetical. Revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the praxis of the people is merely that of following the leaders decisions—a dichotomy reflecting the prescriptive methods of the dominant elites. Revolutionary praxis is a unity, and the leaders cannot treat the oppressed as their possession.
Manipulation, sloganizing, "depositing," regimentation, and prescription cannot be components of revolutionary praxis, precisely because they are components of the praxis of domination. In order to dominate, the dominator has no choice but to deny true praxis to the people, deny them the right to say their own word and think their own thoughts. He and she cannot act dialogically; for to do so would mean either that they had relinquished their power to dominate and joined the cause of the oppressed, or had lost that power through miscalculation.
Obversely, revolutionary leaders who do not act dialogically in their relations with the people either have retained characteristics of the dominator and are not truly revolutionary; or they are totally misguided in their conception of their role, and, prisoners of their own sectarianism, are equally non-revolutionary. They may even reach power. But the validity of any revolution resulting from antidialogical action is thoroughly doubtful.
It is absolutely essential that the oppressed participate in the revolutionary process with an increasingly critical awareness of their role as Subjects of the transformation. If they are drawn into the process as ambiguous beings, partly themselves and partly the oppressors housed within them—and if they come to power still embodying that ambiguity imposed on them by the situation of oppression—it is my contention that they will merely imagine they have reached power. Their existential duality may even facilitate the rise of a sectarian climate leading to the installation of bureaucracies which undermine the revolution. If the oppressed do not become aware of this ambiguity during the course of the revolutionary process, they may participate in that process with a spirit more revanchist than revolutionary They may aspire to revolution as a means of domination, rather than as a road to liberation. envs.ucsc.eduThe simple version is that you can't trick people into liberation like you can subjugation. Freedom requires critical consciousness. Why do you have to make the revolution so blooming difficult GH? But no Freire is pretty bang on the money here, the skipping of such a stage has historically not exactly lead to ideal results. Not sure if it was you or Nevuk who mentioned Eugene Debs in the thread but cheers as a tangential point. Fascinating reading to go deep dive on a guy I hadn’t even heard of before, and I’m not horrifically badly read. In all honestly I was pretty pissed when I read it lol. We hear a little about the shirtwaist factory and that child labor happened for a while but almost nothing about the worker movements outside superficial examinations of unions (I did personally pursue writing a report on Hoffa in junior high, where my less Freirean habits may have been born lol) or figures like Debs despite their transformative roles in the US. I didn't even hear about the Haymarket incident until college, and it wasn't from class.
Did you figure out what happened to Hoffa or was that beyond your abilities?
Aside from anything else, the mere quirk of him being the only Presidential candidate running from prison I thought would have had him come up as a question on QI or something (not sure if you guys are familiar with that show)
Not to be a cynic or anything but it is remarkable how the common touchstones in history are either your Hitlers or ‘hey look MLK asked nicely and the system worked, and that’s totally an accurate reading’, where a lot of left tradition seems to disappear from general consciousness.
|
On November 07 2020 08:46 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 08:45 Nevuk wrote:On November 07 2020 08:28 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 07 2020 08:23 Nevuk wrote:
One of the GOP's top brain trusts begging for barr to intervene in the vote. He isn't alone, either. Lots of them are whining that Barr won't interfere. Calling Charlie Kirk a GOP top brain trust is... well idk, giving him a little too much credit. Dude is a literal joke. I initially typed it sarcastically but then couldn't think of more than a handful of active people that would go above him. It's more a sad statement on the current GOP's level of intellectualism that Charlie Kirk even appears on the list. Jordan Peterson, Scott Adams, Steve Bannon, Ben Shapiro... then Charlie Kirk. not so sold on Peterson who claims to be a liberal because the "left occupy the humanities and sciences". You know who we haven't heard from in a hot second? Milo Yionblargh no idea how to type his last name lmfao. Oh, and Tim Pool, Alex Jones.
Prison Paul, former Alex Jones stooge. What happened to that guy? I literally haven't seen a single thing from him since he left Alex because he was getting too fucking insane.
|
Could someone explain why republicans go rabid when they hear about Kamala Harris? I looked her up and she had a stellar career in prosecution with impressive achievements.
|
All the political number crunchers are saying the trickle of votes are in line with their projections that Biden will flip Arizona and Pennsylvania and hold Nevada. I also think it's telling that Republicans aren't expressing any confidence that there is a chance that votes could end in their favour and are instead frivolously litigating.
|
On November 07 2020 08:59 food wrote:
Could someone explain why republicans go rabid when they hear about Kamala Harris? I looked her up and she had a stellar career in prosecution with impressive achievements.
More or less because she's a strong black woman. Sames goes for AOC, they foam at her name, discrediting her education, and judge her based on being a bartender.
|
Not even ze Donald expects to win legit anymore, and instead hopes that the courts "restore his lead" again.
Not gonna lie, after dying over and over again in Rust earlier, this brightens my mood substantially.
|
On November 07 2020 08:46 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 08:45 Nevuk wrote:On November 07 2020 08:28 FlaShFTW wrote:Calling Charlie Kirk a GOP top brain trust is... well idk, giving him a little too much credit. Dude is a literal joke. I initially typed it sarcastically but then couldn't think of more than a handful of active people that would go above him. It's more a sad statement on the current GOP's level of intellectualism that Charlie Kirk even appears on the list. Jordan Peterson, Scott Adams, Steve Bannon, Ben Shapiro... then Charlie Kirk. not so sold on Peterson who claims to be a liberal because the "left occupy the humanities and sciences". You know who we haven't heard from in a hot second? Milo Yionblargh no idea how to type his last name lmfao. Oh, and Tim Pool, Alex Jones.
Milo Yiannopoulos is 2 million in debt and started releasing self published books last year titled things like "How to be Poor".
He's in debt to big GOP backers, too, so he's basically dead to them. His only college credits are dropping out from one place and then being expelled from Wolfson College.
He's talented at being an unscrupulous troll, but I'm not sure I would call him intelligent.
|
On November 07 2020 08:58 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2020 08:28 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2020 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2020 04:35 Zambrah wrote:On November 07 2020 04:32 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2020 04:29 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2020 04:18 Nyxisto wrote:On November 07 2020 04:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 07 2020 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
If the Dems should have learned one thing from this election then it is that they need to stop the progressive shift. The loss of Hispanic and Latino voters in Florida is a total disaster, and imagine what would have happened if some hardcore Green New Deal type candidate had run in Pennsylvania. Given the results now it looks like pretty much anyone but Klobuchar maybe would have gotten rolled in this election. I keep hearing people say that Progressives are bad cause Florida but I do have to point this out You DO know that Biden DID NOT WIN FLORIDA, right? The Conservative Democrat lost that Hispanic Latino Florida voter. Biden's not a conservative democrat. He ran as left, if not to the left of Clinton and evidently all the "he's a socialist" smears by Trump sticked with the Cuban vote. If the party hadn't shifted so far during the primary in particular, his lying wouldn't have been able to stick that hard. On November 07 2020 04:14 KwarK wrote:
The Democrats need to learn to bullshit. They need to search the party for their best Sam Elliot impersonator and then have him tell everyone that every problem has a simple answer but that the Republicans are too in the pocket of big business to do it. Wars can't be won because Lockheed. Healthcare is expensive because of insurance companies. Food is expensive because of Monsanto. You lost your job at the factory because the vulture capitalists moved the plant to Mexico. Wages are down because businesses keep hiring immigrants illegally. Just commit to building that narrative. Then, after you win, don't do anything. I don't see this rhetoric work at all with moderate Americans, in particular minorities. Progressive rhetoric is popular with the woke college educated white crowd, Trump's gains among minorities in general a lot of which apparently trust the GOP on economic issues, shows that you need to ditch that stuff. It's not about rhetoric swaying people to left wing ideology, it's about insisting that every problem is the blame of a cabal of corrupt rich corporate fatcats and that only he will stop them because the other side work for the fatcats. Pure populism. Trump connected with people because people are idiots and so is he. When he says that the US gov should stop sending China a $300b check for the balance of trade deficit that seems like a good idea to idiots. The fact that no such check exists is irrelevant. The Democrats need to lean into the idiot demographic. We can print money out of thin air to bail out corporations, but we can’t have healthcare? Etc etc Tbh I’m not even sure you have to bullshit on some issues, just simplify the message and its emotional core. People are idiots, this is the solution to selling left wing ideals. I'm an idiot. The primary difference between me and GH as people on the left is that GH knows things about theory, whereas I am a boob who is basically driven by the state of my life and the way I feel about the world around me that causes it. Americans as a whole are not like GH imo, they're closer to me. Speak dumb, speak clear, make good sense, convince dumbs like me, work many good Well the "complicated" version of why treating people like idiots in this manner is inadvisable goes like this: Revolutionary praxis must stand opposed to the praxis of the dominant elites, for they are by nature antithetical. Revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the praxis of the people is merely that of following the leaders decisions—a dichotomy reflecting the prescriptive methods of the dominant elites. Revolutionary praxis is a unity, and the leaders cannot treat the oppressed as their possession.
Manipulation, sloganizing, "depositing," regimentation, and prescription cannot be components of revolutionary praxis, precisely because they are components of the praxis of domination. In order to dominate, the dominator has no choice but to deny true praxis to the people, deny them the right to say their own word and think their own thoughts. He and she cannot act dialogically; for to do so would mean either that they had relinquished their power to dominate and joined the cause of the oppressed, or had lost that power through miscalculation.
Obversely, revolutionary leaders who do not act dialogically in their relations with the people either have retained characteristics of the dominator and are not truly revolutionary; or they are totally misguided in their conception of their role, and, prisoners of their own sectarianism, are equally non-revolutionary. They may even reach power. But the validity of any revolution resulting from antidialogical action is thoroughly doubtful.
It is absolutely essential that the oppressed participate in the revolutionary process with an increasingly critical awareness of their role as Subjects of the transformation. If they are drawn into the process as ambiguous beings, partly themselves and partly the oppressors housed within them—and if they come to power still embodying that ambiguity imposed on them by the situation of oppression—it is my contention that they will merely imagine they have reached power. Their existential duality may even facilitate the rise of a sectarian climate leading to the installation of bureaucracies which undermine the revolution. If the oppressed do not become aware of this ambiguity during the course of the revolutionary process, they may participate in that process with a spirit more revanchist than revolutionary They may aspire to revolution as a means of domination, rather than as a road to liberation. envs.ucsc.eduThe simple version is that you can't trick people into liberation like you can subjugation. Freedom requires critical consciousness. Why do you have to make the revolution so blooming difficult GH? But no Freire is pretty bang on the money here, the skipping of such a stage has historically not exactly lead to ideal results. Not sure if it was you or Nevuk who mentioned Eugene Debs in the thread but cheers as a tangential point. Fascinating reading to go deep dive on a guy I hadn’t even heard of before, and I’m not horrifically badly read. In all honestly I was pretty pissed when I read it lol. We hear a little about the shirtwaist factory and that child labor happened for a while but almost nothing about the worker movements outside superficial examinations of unions (I did personally pursue writing a report on Hoffa in junior high, where my less Freirean habits may have been born lol) or figures like Debs despite their transformative roles in the US. I didn't even hear about the Haymarket incident until college, and it wasn't from class. Did you figure out what happened to Hoffa or was that beyond your abilities? Jersey dump is the best guest as of now I think?
Aside from anything else, the mere quirk of him being the only Presidential candidate running from prison I thought would have had him come up as a question on QI or something (not sure if you guys are familiar with that show)
Not to be a cynic or anything but it is remarkable how the common touchstones in history are either your Hitlers or ‘hey look MLK asked nicely and the system worked, and that’s totally an accurate reading’, where a lot of left tradition seems to disappear from general consciousness.
One of the things I've come to realize is that it is absolutely not just a coincidence. It is as deliberate as erasing African societies and whitewashing (in the Hollywood/Emma Stone meaning) Egypt.
|
United States10574 Posts
Dinesh De Souza, Paul Joseph Watson? They have standing?
Looks like TL is unanimous for dumps. Good job team.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On November 07 2020 09:07 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 08:46 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 07 2020 08:45 Nevuk wrote:On November 07 2020 08:28 FlaShFTW wrote:Calling Charlie Kirk a GOP top brain trust is... well idk, giving him a little too much credit. Dude is a literal joke. I initially typed it sarcastically but then couldn't think of more than a handful of active people that would go above him. It's more a sad statement on the current GOP's level of intellectualism that Charlie Kirk even appears on the list. Jordan Peterson, Scott Adams, Steve Bannon, Ben Shapiro... then Charlie Kirk. not so sold on Peterson who claims to be a liberal because the "left occupy the humanities and sciences". You know who we haven't heard from in a hot second? Milo Yionblargh no idea how to type his last name lmfao. Oh, and Tim Pool, Alex Jones. Milo Yiannopoulos is 2 million in debt and started releasing self published books last year titled things like "How to be Poor". He's in debt to big GOP backers, too, so he's basically dead to them. His only college credits are dropping out from one place and then being expelled from Wolfson College. He's talented at being an unscrupulous troll, but I'm not sure I would call him intelligent.
I wouldn’t say he’s unintelligent, completely lacking in moral scruples and incredibly vain, how you end up 2 million in debt when you overestimate how untouchable your shock shtick is.
Some of his media appearances while he was still in the U.K. it’s almost like a totally different person, rarely a good sign if you’re a chameleon as opposed to having exhibited some growth along a curve.
I mean this is a man who sold ‘Stop being poor’ T-shirts to be edgy. Which was rather delicious when various denizens of the left sphere spammed him with images of them in said T-shirts when his debt thing came out.
|
On November 07 2020 09:07 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 08:46 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 07 2020 08:45 Nevuk wrote:On November 07 2020 08:28 FlaShFTW wrote:Calling Charlie Kirk a GOP top brain trust is... well idk, giving him a little too much credit. Dude is a literal joke. I initially typed it sarcastically but then couldn't think of more than a handful of active people that would go above him. It's more a sad statement on the current GOP's level of intellectualism that Charlie Kirk even appears on the list. Jordan Peterson, Scott Adams, Steve Bannon, Ben Shapiro... then Charlie Kirk. not so sold on Peterson who claims to be a liberal because the "left occupy the humanities and sciences". You know who we haven't heard from in a hot second? Milo Yionblargh no idea how to type his last name lmfao. Oh, and Tim Pool, Alex Jones. Milo Yiannopoulos is 2 million in debt and started releasing self published books last year titled things like "How to be Poor". He's in debt to big GOP backers, too, so he's basically dead to them. His only college credits are dropping out from one place and then being expelled from Wolfson College. He's talented at being an unscrupulous troll, but I'm not sure I would call him intelligent.
He also argued Destiny late August on some show or something, can't remember.
I like his kind of "humour" and the fact that he can take a joke. In that regard he's miles ahead of many others i talk to. His "ideas"? Not my thing, but i can like people even when disagreeing.
|
It amazes me that even PBS won't just bite the bullet and declare Biden the winner. None of the media wants to do it.
By all accounts even the WH realizes they have lost but are contorting themselves trying to figure out who will confront Trump with this reality.
|
On November 07 2020 08:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2020 04:35 Zambrah wrote:On November 07 2020 04:32 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2020 04:29 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2020 04:18 Nyxisto wrote:On November 07 2020 04:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 07 2020 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
If the Dems should have learned one thing from this election then it is that they need to stop the progressive shift. The loss of Hispanic and Latino voters in Florida is a total disaster, and imagine what would have happened if some hardcore Green New Deal type candidate had run in Pennsylvania. Given the results now it looks like pretty much anyone but Klobuchar maybe would have gotten rolled in this election. I keep hearing people say that Progressives are bad cause Florida but I do have to point this out You DO know that Biden DID NOT WIN FLORIDA, right? The Conservative Democrat lost that Hispanic Latino Florida voter. Biden's not a conservative democrat. He ran as left, if not to the left of Clinton and evidently all the "he's a socialist" smears by Trump sticked with the Cuban vote. If the party hadn't shifted so far during the primary in particular, his lying wouldn't have been able to stick that hard. On November 07 2020 04:14 KwarK wrote:
The Democrats need to learn to bullshit. They need to search the party for their best Sam Elliot impersonator and then have him tell everyone that every problem has a simple answer but that the Republicans are too in the pocket of big business to do it. Wars can't be won because Lockheed. Healthcare is expensive because of insurance companies. Food is expensive because of Monsanto. You lost your job at the factory because the vulture capitalists moved the plant to Mexico. Wages are down because businesses keep hiring immigrants illegally. Just commit to building that narrative. Then, after you win, don't do anything. I don't see this rhetoric work at all with moderate Americans, in particular minorities. Progressive rhetoric is popular with the woke college educated white crowd, Trump's gains among minorities in general a lot of which apparently trust the GOP on economic issues, shows that you need to ditch that stuff. It's not about rhetoric swaying people to left wing ideology, it's about insisting that every problem is the blame of a cabal of corrupt rich corporate fatcats and that only he will stop them because the other side work for the fatcats. Pure populism. Trump connected with people because people are idiots and so is he. When he says that the US gov should stop sending China a $300b check for the balance of trade deficit that seems like a good idea to idiots. The fact that no such check exists is irrelevant. The Democrats need to lean into the idiot demographic. We can print money out of thin air to bail out corporations, but we can’t have healthcare? Etc etc Tbh I’m not even sure you have to bullshit on some issues, just simplify the message and its emotional core. People are idiots, this is the solution to selling left wing ideals. I'm an idiot. The primary difference between me and GH as people on the left is that GH knows things about theory, whereas I am a boob who is basically driven by the state of my life and the way I feel about the world around me that causes it. Americans as a whole are not like GH imo, they're closer to me. Speak dumb, speak clear, make good sense, convince dumbs like me, work many good Well the "complicated" version of why treating people like idiots in this manner is inadvisable goes like this: Revolutionary praxis must stand opposed to the praxis of the dominant elites, for they are by nature antithetical. Revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the praxis of the people is merely that of following the leaders decisions—a dichotomy reflecting the prescriptive methods of the dominant elites. Revolutionary praxis is a unity, and the leaders cannot treat the oppressed as their possession.
Manipulation, sloganizing, "depositing," regimentation, and prescription cannot be components of revolutionary praxis, precisely because they are components of the praxis of domination. In order to dominate, the dominator has no choice but to deny true praxis to the people, deny them the right to say their own word and think their own thoughts. He and she cannot act dialogically; for to do so would mean either that they had relinquished their power to dominate and joined the cause of the oppressed, or had lost that power through miscalculation.
Obversely, revolutionary leaders who do not act dialogically in their relations with the people either have retained characteristics of the dominator and are not truly revolutionary; or they are totally misguided in their conception of their role, and, prisoners of their own sectarianism, are equally non-revolutionary. They may even reach power. But the validity of any revolution resulting from antidialogical action is thoroughly doubtful.
It is absolutely essential that the oppressed participate in the revolutionary process with an increasingly critical awareness of their role as Subjects of the transformation. If they are drawn into the process as ambiguous beings, partly themselves and partly the oppressors housed within them—and if they come to power still embodying that ambiguity imposed on them by the situation of oppression—it is my contention that they will merely imagine they have reached power. Their existential duality may even facilitate the rise of a sectarian climate leading to the installation of bureaucracies which undermine the revolution. If the oppressed do not become aware of this ambiguity during the course of the revolutionary process, they may participate in that process with a spirit more revanchist than revolutionary They may aspire to revolution as a means of domination, rather than as a road to liberation. envs.ucsc.eduThe simple version is that you can't trick people into liberation like you can subjugation. Freedom requires critical consciousness. Why do you have to make the revolution so blooming difficult GH? But no Freire is pretty bang on the money here, the skipping of such a stage has historically not exactly lead to ideal results. Not sure if it was you or Nevuk who mentioned Eugene Debs in the thread but cheers as a tangential point. Fascinating reading to go deep dive on a guy I hadn’t even heard of before, and I’m not horrifically badly read.
Emma Goldman is my favorite political theorist of that era, and she's similarly underappreciated. Eugene Debs left a much larger mark on the culture though, and has a much more easily palatable life.
Goldman is interesting because she actually made many of the possible mistakes of revolutions, and wrote about the logic of them and why they failed.
Some highlights. I've spoilered this because it's not exactly related to the current election. Can come back to her more fully after USPMT reopens.
+ Show Spoiler +
Goldman planned a literal assassination and spent much of her time in prison for some pretty insane reasons, rather than for having conspired to assassinate businessmen. Some of the reasons she was imprisoned included distributing pamphlets explaining how birth control worked to women.
Her assassination attempt failed, and resulted in the strike breaking, half the workers losing their jobs, and the rest having their pay cut in 50%. Now, if she had died there and we all had was her early work it'd definitely be a pointless study. Instead, she lived another 50 years.
She was also accused of helping assassinate McKinley, but there's a lot less evidence of that (though the person definitely followed her teachings).
IMO, she's the best theorist to study if you want to read about achieving revolutions. She was present for many attempts to achieve them or their aftermath for least 55 years. She was one of the key thinkers of the late 1800s worker movements. She went to Russia during 1920-1921 and wrote a lengthy critique of what would become the soviet union that would have fit well in any classroom in the 1980 or 90s to explain the foundational problems of the USSR's system of government. She was also present for the Spanish Civil War.
She's left out of US history books because she makes the US look terrible, btw. Was a thorn in the side of presidents for at least 30 years. She was called out by name by Hoover, Wilson. We literally had a bill passed that was basically only used to deport her and her lover.
On November 07 2020 08:58 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2020 08:28 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2020 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2020 04:35 Zambrah wrote:On November 07 2020 04:32 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2020 04:29 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2020 04:18 Nyxisto wrote:On November 07 2020 04:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 07 2020 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
If the Dems should have learned one thing from this election then it is that they need to stop the progressive shift. The loss of Hispanic and Latino voters in Florida is a total disaster, and imagine what would have happened if some hardcore Green New Deal type candidate had run in Pennsylvania. Given the results now it looks like pretty much anyone but Klobuchar maybe would have gotten rolled in this election. I keep hearing people say that Progressives are bad cause Florida but I do have to point this out You DO know that Biden DID NOT WIN FLORIDA, right? The Conservative Democrat lost that Hispanic Latino Florida voter. Biden's not a conservative democrat. He ran as left, if not to the left of Clinton and evidently all the "he's a socialist" smears by Trump sticked with the Cuban vote. If the party hadn't shifted so far during the primary in particular, his lying wouldn't have been able to stick that hard. On November 07 2020 04:14 KwarK wrote:
The Democrats need to learn to bullshit. They need to search the party for their best Sam Elliot impersonator and then have him tell everyone that every problem has a simple answer but that the Republicans are too in the pocket of big business to do it. Wars can't be won because Lockheed. Healthcare is expensive because of insurance companies. Food is expensive because of Monsanto. You lost your job at the factory because the vulture capitalists moved the plant to Mexico. Wages are down because businesses keep hiring immigrants illegally. Just commit to building that narrative. Then, after you win, don't do anything. I don't see this rhetoric work at all with moderate Americans, in particular minorities. Progressive rhetoric is popular with the woke college educated white crowd, Trump's gains among minorities in general a lot of which apparently trust the GOP on economic issues, shows that you need to ditch that stuff. It's not about rhetoric swaying people to left wing ideology, it's about insisting that every problem is the blame of a cabal of corrupt rich corporate fatcats and that only he will stop them because the other side work for the fatcats. Pure populism. Trump connected with people because people are idiots and so is he. When he says that the US gov should stop sending China a $300b check for the balance of trade deficit that seems like a good idea to idiots. The fact that no such check exists is irrelevant. The Democrats need to lean into the idiot demographic. We can print money out of thin air to bail out corporations, but we can’t have healthcare? Etc etc Tbh I’m not even sure you have to bullshit on some issues, just simplify the message and its emotional core. People are idiots, this is the solution to selling left wing ideals. I'm an idiot. The primary difference between me and GH as people on the left is that GH knows things about theory, whereas I am a boob who is basically driven by the state of my life and the way I feel about the world around me that causes it. Americans as a whole are not like GH imo, they're closer to me. Speak dumb, speak clear, make good sense, convince dumbs like me, work many good Well the "complicated" version of why treating people like idiots in this manner is inadvisable goes like this: Revolutionary praxis must stand opposed to the praxis of the dominant elites, for they are by nature antithetical. Revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the praxis of the people is merely that of following the leaders decisions—a dichotomy reflecting the prescriptive methods of the dominant elites. Revolutionary praxis is a unity, and the leaders cannot treat the oppressed as their possession.
Manipulation, sloganizing, "depositing," regimentation, and prescription cannot be components of revolutionary praxis, precisely because they are components of the praxis of domination. In order to dominate, the dominator has no choice but to deny true praxis to the people, deny them the right to say their own word and think their own thoughts. He and she cannot act dialogically; for to do so would mean either that they had relinquished their power to dominate and joined the cause of the oppressed, or had lost that power through miscalculation.
Obversely, revolutionary leaders who do not act dialogically in their relations with the people either have retained characteristics of the dominator and are not truly revolutionary; or they are totally misguided in their conception of their role, and, prisoners of their own sectarianism, are equally non-revolutionary. They may even reach power. But the validity of any revolution resulting from antidialogical action is thoroughly doubtful.
It is absolutely essential that the oppressed participate in the revolutionary process with an increasingly critical awareness of their role as Subjects of the transformation. If they are drawn into the process as ambiguous beings, partly themselves and partly the oppressors housed within them—and if they come to power still embodying that ambiguity imposed on them by the situation of oppression—it is my contention that they will merely imagine they have reached power. Their existential duality may even facilitate the rise of a sectarian climate leading to the installation of bureaucracies which undermine the revolution. If the oppressed do not become aware of this ambiguity during the course of the revolutionary process, they may participate in that process with a spirit more revanchist than revolutionary They may aspire to revolution as a means of domination, rather than as a road to liberation. envs.ucsc.eduThe simple version is that you can't trick people into liberation like you can subjugation. Freedom requires critical consciousness. Why do you have to make the revolution so blooming difficult GH? But no Freire is pretty bang on the money here, the skipping of such a stage has historically not exactly lead to ideal results. Not sure if it was you or Nevuk who mentioned Eugene Debs in the thread but cheers as a tangential point. Fascinating reading to go deep dive on a guy I hadn’t even heard of before, and I’m not horrifically badly read. In all honestly I was pretty pissed when I read it lol. We hear a little about the shirtwaist factory and that child labor happened for a while but almost nothing about the worker movements outside superficial examinations of unions (I did personally pursue writing a report on Hoffa in junior high, where my less Freirean habits may have been born lol) or figures like Debs despite their transformative roles in the US. I didn't even hear about the Haymarket incident until college, and it wasn't from class. Aside from anything else, the mere quirk of him being the only Presidential candidate running from prison I thought would have had him come up as a question on QI or something (not sure if you guys are familiar with that show)
Eugene Debs rarely comes up on that sort of thing because there are too many qualifiers. "Who was the most successful presidential candidate to run from prison?" is the only real one - we have cranks run from jail every year.
|
I get it, nobody wants to go first and just happen to be wrong on the .00001% chance Trump gets it back. But FOR FUCK SAKE GROW A SPINE AND DECLARE
|
On November 07 2020 09:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
It amazes me that even PBS won't just bite the bullet and declare Biden the winner. None of the media wants to do it.
By all accounts even the WH realizes they have lost but are contorting themselves trying to figure out who will confront Trump with this reality.
They are all waiting for prime time would be my guess.
|
United States10574 Posts
Anyone have an idea what time specifically? Primetime could mean anything from 30 minutes from now to 3 hours.
|
On November 07 2020 09:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
It amazes me that even PBS won't just bite the bullet and declare Biden the winner. None of the media wants to do it.
By all accounts even the WH realizes they have lost but are contorting themselves trying to figure out who will confront Trump with this reality.
I think they've been drip feeding it to him since yesterday. He definitely didn't think he was winning big during that speech.
|
These media outlets need to get hammered hard for being so cowardly.
Drawing this out for so long is borderline unethical. It leaves a lot of people that aren't following closely confused about what is going on and it leaves a lot of room for misinformation and conspiracy theories.
These lagging states also need to be criticized for taking so long to figure out their fucking votes. There is no reality in which this kind of electoral system is one to be proud of.
Anyone have an idea what time specifically? Primetime could mean anything from 30 minutes from now to 3 hours.
No more Nevada until tomorrow. Maricopa county supposedly at 9 ET.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
