Yeah no, this is not about me, this is about the old man that was pumped my gas this morning at a full service gas station, he heard me listening to secular talk and we agree on the corruption of government, but then he went on about how trump is going to change it all, "Trump is not like the rest, trump is already rich so he can't be corrupted." I told him about putting goldman sachs in charge, "well those are the good ones, they are already rich too so they will care about the people" then he went off to smoke a cigarette. This old ignorant moron who should be retired, is instead pumping gas and washing windows, he deserve economic justice, at least then he might vote for us next time. Now you might say that he is selfish, but he comes by the millions, and vote by the millions.
He might "deserve" economic justice, but, traditionally speaking, that makes you an elitist.
Then again, as you pretend to be a practiced liberal, you already knew that. You just didn't account for it because ... why? I mean, that's kind of an important factor to account for in your pretense of economic justice, and here you are, blithely pretending around the challenges of history as if you don't actually know your history.
That "old ignorant moron who should be retired"? Who "deserves economic justice"? Yeah, you know, people have been trying for a long, long time, and maybe at some point he should have voted for them, instead of making excuses like pretending the rich can't be corrupt.
Do you know how many of those workers who deserve economic justice voted against themselves? It would be one thing if you wanted to argue
history. But you don't. You just make shit up and remind everyone that when it comes to liberals and liberalism you don't actually have a clue what you're on about.
Here, let's try it this way: Do you remember Michael Moore's book,
Dude, Where's My Country? There is a chapter called, "Horatio Alger Must Die". Mr. Moore discusses a phenomenon you seem unable to comprehend. Tom Tomorrow tried explaining seven years later, using the phrase, "Tea & Crumpets Party":
Thus, to review your "plan":
•
"We focus on a tax the rich to finance social welfare, we win on that, we tax the rich improving everyone standard of living. Straight forward and simple ..."
↳ ... and not yet successful in American history; generally speaking, the privileged argument reminds that we're getting there while everyone else points out we've been saying that for decades.
For some reason, you think people haven't been trying. Not that you can explain that reason, else you would have, but it's pretty apparent the problem is you're sold to a false narrative whereby the problem with achieving justice is that people won't settle for injustice. Truth is, there are plenty of people who will settle for injustice; you, for instance.
For other people, dealing with economic stratification first, not racism or sexism, is nothing more than the same promise all over again, that if women and people of color are just patient and diligent and obedient enough, everything will work out in the end. And, hell, dude, they ain't as stupid as you want them to be:
They already know that promise is bullshit. Society has pretended to try it before.
As I said
Monday↑:
• What is an insult to women and minorities is yet another round of blithe promises predicated on appeasing the influences that would prevent the rising tide of economic justice from lifting their boats.
And I even
reminded you↑ of that point.
Once upon a time we used to hear the argument that raising incomes too quickly was cruel to the workers, because it would cause inflation. And part of that is true, but part of that truth is what proportion of market fluctuation is driven by psychology. It's not so much that it's a Prisoner's Dilemma of sorts, but, rather, that nobody seems anxious to change it. Honest, cooperative business, as such, is a lot like honest, cooperative politics: The risk exposure in participating comes from the holdouts.
We all see the problem. It's just that nobody really seems to want to change it.
To the other, our solution as a political society—especially in conservative quarters—is that the discussion simply shouldn't get that far. No, really, that's why we don't hear much about it, anymore; the discussion in the mainstream isn't getting that far.
Still, though, if the standard of living inflates with the raises, you still haven't achieved economic justice by your "plan" specifically because it is designed to leave people out.
It's kind of like conservatives complaining that Obamacare didn't cover everyone; conservatives didn't want it to, sought to prevent it from covering everyone, and have no intention of covering everyone under their own so-called plan. Universal coverage and attendance is as possible as sending human beings to the moon and back; our society simply needs to decide to do it. But we won't. So we don't. As such, the political compromise is to design and implement plans that intend to leave people out.
And your "plan" requires that we leave people out.
Now, you can sputter and flail apoplectically pretending to not know what that means, but that depends on how insistently you intend to demand supremacists define reality. That is to say, as long as justice and equality for all is a matter of identity politics that you denounce, your "plan" won't magically eliminate racism and sexism.
Think of it this way: It's not all just money. There's this guy I know, can't quite call him a friend, but, you know, whatever. You should have seen him go off. I mean
cold, sniffing, quaking, prim rage. And his whole point was to try to intimidate a woman into shutting up; what pissed him off so badly was the idea that if he decides to sidle up to a woman and hit on her, she has a right to her own feelings about this. In the end, all he demands is that her existential condition is subject to his authority. And
no, he can't have that. No matter what, he can't; he can fuck right the hell off. It's not a matter of identity politics; as long as people think they can treat each other that way, my liberal values are going to disagree, and if that makes them uncomfortable,
good. Treating people so poorly should never be comfortable.
And that, too, lends to this weird right-wing narrative by which mere equality is both radical identity politic and genocidal spectre. There is a reason why the "alt-right" demonstrates lexical and behavioral overlap with MRAs, GamerGaters, mgtow, and other psychologically indisposed supremacists. Why do you think they need words like
"snowflake"↗ and
"sjw"↗?
At any rate, hey, do you know the old joke about the difference between a slut and a bitch?
So, like, right; I've already mentioned the rural, white, working class, conservative white dudes having sex with one another as affirmations of their heterosexual masculinity, but there also occurs to mind a group of
Same-Sex Attracted Men and Their Wives↱, who argued that gay marriage would denigrate their own marriages to women because ... well ... that's the thing. As near as anyone can tell, we are supposed to believe none of these men, their wives, nor their lawyer could understand that legalization of gay marriage somehow
required gay men to marry one another. Or prevents them from being married to women. Or ... well, that's just it. They really did seem to complain about their own beliefs.
I can't give these men enough of a raise to assuage their fear. Nor can I convince conspiracist Seventh-Day Adventists that liberals aren't the ones pushing
National Sunday Law↱ raising the question of National Sunday Law. No, really, just walking right into it.
Talk about smaller groups. These are among those you satisfy by excluding women from your "plan". And you can't buy them off with "economic justice".
