US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4486

On October 30 2024 02:59 PremoBeats wrote:


Although Rancière's critiques of Marxist and revolutionary intellectualism can be applied to some aspects of their approach, I am not aware that he ever wrote directly about the BPP.

In regards to Biff's response: While CC aims to empower marginalized individuals to understand and act against their oppression, the idea has limitations that echo some of the same criticisms Rancière applies to traditional socialist revolutions. Freire’s method often presupposes that the educator or organizer has a more enlightened view of oppression, which could create a hierarchy between the teacher (as liberator) and the learner (as oppressed). This mirrors Rancière's critique of socialist intellectuals who, from a perceived position of intellectual authority, impose their vision of revolution on the masses rather than co-creating it with them.
Freire’s approach still risks creating a dependency on educators to guide students toward 'liberation,' assuming the educator’s interpretation of oppression and liberation is definitive. This relationship can be paternalistic, making Freirean pedagogy susceptible to the same elitism that Rancière critiques in revolutionary socialism. In essence, it can reduce critical consciousness to a form of 'enlightenment' imposed on the people, rather than a process that genuinely emerges from their own experiences and understanding.
Both Freire and traditional socialist thinkers, including Althusser, envision an emancipatory process but do so with assumptions (uniformity of oppression, intellectual authority, defined paths to liberation) that may inadvertently re-establish hierarchies - which psychologists argue are a natural state of human societies.
Freire's educational model, while less overtly hierarchical, still risks positioning the educator as a figure of authority on what constitutes 'oppression,' potentially reinforcing the top-down power dynamics it seeks to dismantle. Consequently, without careful attention to inclusivity and genuine co-learning, both approaches may struggle to fully engage the people they aim to empower.
Thus, CC rings several bells that most socialist movements do, due to an optimistic, noble or idealistic idea that probably will face difficulties in the "real world".

Moreover - and this is more myself speaking, although Rancière also mentions this when talking about the supposed "will of the people" that socialist/revolutionary movements assume - Freire's emphasis on collective liberation through awareness and reflection does not account for the diverse motivations, interests, and values among individuals, which can dilute the cohesiveness of such movements. Especially in diverse societies where individuals and groups have differing views on what liberation should entail... thus, I asked before, if there is an actual, let's say practical blueprint for this revolution and the kind of goal(s) it wishes to achieve.

On October 30 2024 04:27 Razyda wrote:


And thats the problem I tried to illustrate. If Democrats blame everyone and everything except Democrats, then they have no way to improve.

On October 30 2024 04:34 NewSunshine wrote:

When you broaden the scope of your statement to its maximum, then sure, Democrats are part of the picture, and should be held accountable so that we start seeing the kind of leadership we need. That's not the same as "people called out BlackJack's bad faith arguments and made him vote Republican." That would be his choice. When you're tripping on your bullshit and people call you out on it, it's not their fault.

On October 30 2024 02:51 oBlade wrote:

Basically any Democrat has favorability among Democrats above 80%, minimum 70%, and never disagree on anything. Contrast that with Republican voters who basically hate any politician equally.

I would ask you to list the significant challenges to Pelosi's leadership over 20 years, or the difference between Jeffries and her, or the challenges to Schumer over 8 years, or the ideological differences between any presidential candidates since 2008 except Bernie, who almost got a bunch of votes and then disappeared and has had the net effect on the party of... what exactly?

Devoid of ideological consistency... due to not being a monolith... due to pressure among factions...

On October 30 2024 05:07 Razyda wrote:


To clarify I used BJ only as an example to illustrate what I mean. I didnt specify any of his posts or points and I dont want to turn it in to discussion whether BJ is right or wrong.

I also dont think it is broadening scope of my statement to maximum. I think it is rather starting point. You cant control what others do, think, or say. Only one you control is yourself. If you fail to convince others to vote for you, then thats on you, not them, or anybody else

If you want admit to making mistakes you wont get better (I find it rather amusing to post something like that on SC forum in politics discussion ).

On October 30 2024 05:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Thankfully, this is just a single illegal vote for Trump, and it was flagged and stopped:

"A 50-year-old Minnesota woman is facing voter fraud charges after signing her dead mom's signature on two absentee ballots. ...

On Oct. 11, the sheriff's office spoke to the woman, who said she filled out her mother's absentee ballot and signed her mom's name on the signature envelope, the complaint says. The woman said her mom was an avid Donald Trump supporter and had wanted to vote for him, but had passed away before the absentee ballots were received.

The woman, according to the complaint, also said she filled out her own absentee ballot and signed her mother's signature as the witness.

She faces two counts of intentionally signing false certificates and one count of casting an illegal vote or adding another."

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/woman-forged-dead-moms-signature-ballot-charges/

On October 30 2024 03:31 Razyda wrote:


I think "cult of personality" thing is kind of reasoning which costs Democrats election. What I would say happened is 2016 Trump - Republicans though 'some kind of fluke" - 2020 Trump "support he got is odd, but he lost so we were right", 2024 "that seems more like a pattern, we have to adapt" and I think thats what they trying to do.
Meanwhile Democrats deluded themself into thinking that Trump is simply some kind of magnet for bad and stupid, which united them against so much better Democrats. It kinda feels sometimes like they decided on a path which is so right that any critique of it is like a heresy. I think thats loosing them votes.

Look even on this forum: BJ is a democrat (far as I know) however, whenever he says something what can be a critique of democratic party he is pretty much ganged up upon, accused of bad faith arguments, moving goalposts, and so on. If Democrats keep their current trajectory I wouldnt be surprised if 2 elections from now he would vote Republicans (not saying he will, for all I know he may be devoted Democrat who will be last one on this forum voting for them). You know whats most funny about it? You guys would blame him.

On October 30 2024 05:07 Razyda wrote:


To clarify I used BJ only as an example to illustrate what I mean. I didnt specify any of his posts or points and I dont want to turn it in to discussion whether BJ is right or wrong.

I also dont think it is broadening scope of my statement to maximum. I think it is rather starting point. You cant control what others do, think, or say. Only one you control is yourself. If you fail to convince others to vote for you, then thats on you, not them, or anybody else

If you want admit to making mistakes you wont get better (I find it rather amusing to post something like that on SC forum in politics discussion ).

On October 30 2024 06:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


I can understand that sentiment about the presidential election in a deep blue state like California. Do you vote in local elections or for congresspeople, where your mayor, governor, state senators/representatives, and national senators/representatives might not be so predestined? Are you still going to vote in November (if only to affect the non-presidential elections/questions that are also on your ballot)?

On October 30 2024 04:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


That's not surprising; she's the sitting vice president who's also running a presidential campaign in a uniquely short amount of time. She doesn't have half a day to travel to/from Texas and talk about nothing for three hours.



"As long as I get to sit on the couch, I'm good."

On October 30 2024 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:

My intent was not to single out BJ and bash on him either, most of my post was in very general terms. I just argued a very specific point since you mentioned him, because I was specifically involved in an argument where he very visibly walked his argument back several times. That lives in the past, but I maintain the point that when anyone says "people on the other side made me vote for X", they're full of shit. They want to vote for X, but they don't want to admit that. Your vote is private, and any method you might use to coerce someone's vote in a particular direction is a serious crime. The only reason you have to vote the way you do is because you made the choice.

Also, if someone lets their voting preference (a matter of policy) be dictated by how someone else talks to them, then that's a weak reason to vote that way. That's the behavior of a petulant child.

On October 30 2024 05:26 WombaT wrote:

Oh it’s absolutely on them as well. Sure the Democrats have made mistakes

On the flipside, you’ve Donald Trump.

People need to own that they’d rather vote for that man and his platform ultimately. Own it, stop making excuses for one’s position

Political messaging can only go so far, ultimately you’re preaching to an audience and trying to get your position across. It’s not always on your if they reject it.

Umpteenth Brexit reference going. People wanted out, many good arguments were made against it. People voted to leave anyway

Said people, many of whom complained about the economic knock on impacts pretty much immediately after. ‘Who could have possibly predicted this?’ like, fuck off

Are the Dems flawed, I mean sure they are. Flawed enough to justify voting for Donald Trump, if you even vaguely share my value system? Like they just aren’t. It’s not 2016 he’s not an unknown quantity politically any more like he was the.

On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.

I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message.

On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:


Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that.

I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them.

In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably.