Dear Identity Politics: please die.

We are on a sinking ship, before we die I would like to bite your head off about it, it entertains me, why is that such a problem for you?

I don't care about what you want to label me, or your "narrative" philosophy, what has your narrative philosophy got us, oh that right it got us president trump. I honestly have no clue what your jabbering on about here, if your trying to suggest that (A) is merely a construction of the conservatives, I have seen otherwise with my own eyes, I have experienced it myself, from real people and from you of course, Tiassa you as the bully you are should know this.

Ignore and make up drivel seems to be your scheme, you and iceaura, or is that conservative narrative, let me check: "BREAKING FOX NEWS: Tiassa and Iceaura spout mindless drivel!".

My answer as I stated before is for us to stick to populace policy, increase minimum wage, reduce price of education, reduce people's debt, basic income guarantee, tax the fuck out the rich to pay for it all, I have no problem with the gays marrying, with transexual bathrooms, but those issues are not going to raise the standard of living of EVERYONE appreciably, and as moronic as the electorate is most of them know that.

And what is wrong with wasting time? I will continue to reply to you until I get bored, or we all die ala trump, either one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You still don't have a solution. Quite clearly, you're not trying to come up with one. Sorry, ElectricFetus, I continue to reject your advocacy of bullying in society.

Try something useful, like actually addressing the problem instead of asking people to carry on and turn a blind eye.

And that's the thing. Proudly affirming your reputation for bad faith only affirms your reputation for bad faith.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe lack of semantic content is a characteristic of jabbering. It's certainly a defining feature of many of T's posts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He has offered his solution in at least two posts, explicitly and in several implicitly.

Usually you are not foolish enough to make assertions that are so easily refuted. Are you under the weather?

Says the biggest bully on the forum. Remarkable.

Delusional!

Nonsensical.

 

Maybe it's because I'm tired and only halfway paying attention right this moment... but all I've noticed is rhetoric and nice wishes. If he has outlined an actual plan, one that is actionable and implementable, I don't recall having read it - could you elucidate?

 

No, he hasn't.

As usual, you can't support yourself, but here's a nickel's worth of free advice: If you ask what the solution to inequality in society is, and I respond, "Ice cream has no bones", yes, I have answered you, explicitly.

But as our neighbor Kittamaru points out―

―relevance in application does have some value.

And this is part of E/F's regular pitch, that liberal politics should [_____] about inequality in society. What fills in that blank, for the moment, is largely any number of statements about how liberal politics should not discuss these issues in ways that offend conservatives.

He never has an affirmative, applicable answer. It creates an interesting conundrum by which he will neither affirm nor deny his support for the inevitable outcomes of treating his dysfunctional admonitions as some manner of actionable and implementable plan.

As I told him↑, explicitly, it's not that people are somehow unaware of the narrative he prescribes, but, rather, what to do about it. And a complication I specifically asserted to that end is that the actual elements of the narrative are neither prerequisite to its assertion, and thus not necessarily in play. That is to say, if we should not discuss these issues in ways that offend conservatives, then we should not discuss them at all because simply discussing them offends conservatives.

You say there are two explicit answers and several implicit.

Either one of you is welcome to make the point. You know, explicitly.

 

Solution to what? Sorry but a bully like you can't keep hiding on the cover that you are fighting bullying.

What problem, I think we have VERY different ideas on what problems should be addressed. I want to address HUGE economic problems that this nations faces, the ever growing divide between the haves and have-nots, this being what most american's are most interested in.

Bad faith?, this is a internet forum in the middle of nowhere, if had had bad faith I would not be coming here! I have faith that my words will get to someone here, somehow.

Jesus, the plan is we focus on economic issues, we focus on goverment courruption issues, these are issues we can get lots of votes from moderates and across the isle, for god sakes listen to Bernie Sanders, Listen to Elisabeth Warren, do as they do.

 

I can't watch the video while at work (youtube is blocked) - but if it is the video I think it is, I'm not so sure that is an actionable plan - a great outline, sure...

Don't get me wrong - I support both Sanders and Warren as they seem to be two genuinely good people with the greater public's best interests at heart... but we need something where we can actually start acting, rather than just talking.

As for "do as they do"... I don't have the money, influence, or power to do as they do

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(yes, I'm being a bit pedantic there, sue me)

 

You're blaming the wrong people, for the wrong things, because you have bought into the wingnut narrative.

If you are going to start in blaming anyone for Trump except the rightwing corporate media, the Republican Party's dominant support faction, and the adult white fundie and/or racist men and women who voted for him, look in the mirror.

Because the people who have been trying to move the Democratic Party back to the center it once occupied and into an actual position of standing for something (say: liberalism) could have used a bit less gullibility from your corner of the political world.

Because one of the major differences between somebody who is talking about the racism and sexism and so forth being exploited by the American fascist elite to inculcate ignorance and take over the governance of this country, and somebody like you claiming that all these Trump voters are all by themselves and in reaction to reality stupid and desperate, is that they are right and you are wrong.

Trump voters aren't stupid, in general. Only some of them. They are racist and sexist and religious, almost all of them, and that racism and sexism and religion has been exploited to inculcate ignorance of a particular kind, and a false desperation built on delusion. That's why the Trump/Clinton vote split along education and race and sex , not income and class.

If you wanted to guess whether somebody voted for Trump, knowing that they were working class would not help you at all. Knowing their general religion would not help you much at first, unless you knew they were Jewish. The very first thing you would need to know is whether they were white. The next thing would be evangelical Protestant/well educated. The next thing would be male. After that, if you knew whether they grew up in the Confederacy or the Plains region settled by Confederate refugees and sympathizers, you would have the info to place a solid bet.

They are propaganda victims - from thirty five years of carefully composed agitprop built and supportive of their racism and sexism and religious insularity. And you have bought that propaganda, that has been the means of their victimization - the rightwing propaganda bubbleworld. It's your own. You can't even separate "the Left" from the "the Democrats", or the "liberal elites" from "the mainstream media", any more - with CNN's and ABC's and MSNBC's promotion of Trump in your face for months on end, not a year ago now. You get people like me confused with Clinton campaign strategists. You hear people who have been fed their "information" by CNN and Fox and Morning Joe complain about being called racist and sexist by snooty Clinton backers, and you turn around and tell people like me to quit calling people racist and sexist. How gullible are you, finally? How trapped in the bubbleworld are you in fact?

 

if we aren't fighting for the abused, the broken, downtrodden, the forgotten, the voiceless, and the oppressed whats the point of being a liberal? the right thing isn't easy; i'm sorry you want easy, I'm going to do the right thing every damn day. I'd rather try and help someone and fail than succeed at knocking people down. of course i would rather succeed at helping people.

 

See thats the myth your trying to peddle that your different. guess what princess your anal retentive dick measuring is just as much to blame as theirs is. yes they are both spouting drivel so the fuck are you. what makes yours better, that its yours? for fucks sack this is why i bailed on this site. all these people claiming to know what went wrong dick measuring. WE ARE ALL TO BLAME so quit dick measuring. its not funny anymore, people are going to die because we failed. So all of you need to quit acting like fucking children the right wing wants to suppress any and all left wing thought, why are you all so intent on helping them. Are you seriously happy knowing that the people we are supposed to be helping and protecting are left to fend for them selves because this kind of infantile bullshit is more important? This isn't just aimed at you. This at you and tiassia, and iceaura, and joe, and bells and hell even me and all the other american liberals involved in this clusterfuck of a shitshow. This right here this thread is the reason we lost this right here is fucking problem. People are counting on us as liberals to get our shit together and be on point in 2018 because if this is what we got to offer its not going to be pretty.

 

See, this is the problem. To reiterate↑―

The thing is that your critique does not show itself capable of dealing with narrative (A). It's not that people aren't aware of it. If you were an actual liberal instead of whatever manner of poseur, you would already know that. The general frustration is what to do about it, because the actual elements of narrative (A) are not prerequisite to narrative (A) being in play.

In the end, you have no answer for this problem.​

―yet again↑―

As I told him↑, explicitly, it's not that people are somehow unaware of the narrative he prescribes, but, rather, what to do about it. And a complication I specifically asserted to that end is that the actual elements of the narrative are neither prerequisite to its assertion, and thus not necessarily in play. That is to say, if we should not discuss these issues in ways that offend conservatives, then we should not discuss them at all because simply discussing them offends conservatives.​

And here we go again, 'round the circle in which you want to point people away from "identity politics"―itself a term that diminishes the living stakes―but have nothing to address their effects.

So you want to address the yuuuge! economic problems, because addressing our economic problems in the past has worked to cure historical injustices. After all, a rising tide lifts all boats, unless of course we don't want to hurt the feelings of saboteurs trying to damage some of those boats, or disrupt repairs. And that's the thing: Your prescription insists on ignoring the fact of the saboteurs. As many times as we go through this bit about not offending racists or misogynists, you just don't have anything to offer toward the solution.

We cannot solve problems by refusing to address them.

Well, you know―

―I'm just going by―

―what you're telling me. At this point, it's like the two-door riddle, except there is nothing to be gained by figuring the answer.

 

​

What you think taxing the rich and basic income doesn't offend conservatives?

The living stakes.... of what 300 people killed by pigs? Forget the other 700, they did not have enough melanin. Meanwhile dozens of millions of Americans live below the poverty level, our economic is head to complete collapse as the middle class fold likely to follow by a revolt that could killed untold millions and collapse civilization its self and your top priority is what? ... gays marrying? transsexuals pissing in what ever bathroom they like?

Saboteurs, you mean the rich? let me get this straight, it is racism and sexism that holding back the economy, is that what your saying, that if we deal with the racism and sexism first, because that will totally get us voted in, as it didn't and instead voted in the opposite, then the economy will be fixed? Your insane!

How about this if you don't want republicans to gut abortion, end gay marriage, oppress the blacks, kick out the illegals and death camp the Muslims, maybe next time you should focus on getting enough votes! Did winning ever occur to you? Or is that beneath you? No you need to make sure to offend the racists and misogynists, ok then here we are with president trump, thanks alot!

Yeah like how you refuse to address the ecomomy.

Ok, well first of all there is nothing we can do now, the republicans control EVERYTHING, but I would recommend joining your local democratic party, volunteering, donating money is not good enough, we need to try to win the senate in 2018, which is very unlikely as more democrats will be up for re-election in 2018 then republicans, so we need to get out there and argue with people, real people, and try to win votes, and you don't win votes be jabbering about racism, sexism and privilege.

So you want us to lose, oh but you tried to help, but now they are getting electroshock at Pence's behest, so you have technically done nothing, noble but useless.

 

Racism and sexism have been primary levers used by the Republicans to trash the economy of the 99%. You can't fix the economy until you can deal with that leverage.

If you want to fix the economy, you have to deal with the racism and sexism that Republicans currently use to prevent anyone from fixing it. It's not a matter of doing this first, and then that: you have to do all the necessary stuff, all at the same time.

If you don't like the tactics and priorities of the Clinton campaign in their media emphasis, do differently. Try, maybe, what the people like me have been recommending for the past forty years and more - making common economic cause among people in common circumstances with common interests.

In my opinion that will require blowing off the core Republican voter - writing them off as irredeemable, and forming a coalition of the remaining 70% of the electorate in overt opposition to them. It will require, in other words, recognizing that the division of the country accomplished by the Nameless faction that has taken over the Republican Party cannot be erased by wishful thinking or reasonable argument or appeals to anybody's better nature.

Recognizing that communication itself is essentially impossible with them (there is no venue, no connecting means), and attempting it is a losing tactic.

But if you can think of a better approach, lay it on us.

 

Bullshit. No seriously give me your plan of action, you tell me how dealing with all the racism and sexism will fix the economy, how will you deal with it, what specific policies would you innact to deal with it.

I say raising the minimum wage will allow people to make more, they will spend more, economy improves.

You say transsexual bathroom... will improve the economy?

Now I COMMUNICATED with independent, moderate and even conservative voters, IN PERSON, and they LIKED the idea of raising taxes on the rich (personal taxes, not business taxes) and paying off education debt, raising the minimum wage, even BIG, many of them would have voted for Sanders. So this statement is complete bullshit too.

 

It won't. Pay attention:

Great. So what happened when people - Democrats, to be specific - tried to raise the minimum wage? Said they were going to? Even just mentioned they would like to? They must have waltzed right into office on big majority votes.

Ah yes, those people you described as stupid and desperate.

I didn't say you couldn't communicate with anybody. I said you couldn't communicate with the core Republican voter - about 27% of the electorate is unreachable. And I didn't say you couldn't talk to people in their living rooms, I said you couldn't communicate with them in the formation of a political coalition. And your experience illustrates my point:

Because in point of fact they didn't vote for Sanders, did they. They had a chance - everybody did. An entire country of those people you imagine swarming to vote for Bernie had every opportunity to do just that, and passed.

 

Nope not getting it, how is racism and sexism the "primary levers" to "trash the economy of the 99%" you have not explained a mechanism of action!

You mean when Clinton said she would do it, no one believed her. No one trusted her to get anything done. The republicans had destroyed her name, why were we running her?

yeah no shit, and the other 45% didn't even vote, THAT is where we can make gains, and that population are generally too moderate and too independent and even too conservative to get out and vote over transexual bathrooms, but there were interested in Sander's economic and political corruption platform. More so of the republican core we can get some of them not to vote simply by not firing them up. The percentage we need for victory are very small in fact, but make the wrong issues priority and the percentages we need for a horrible lose were also very small.

Many did! And when sanders lost, they DIDN'T vote for Clinton.

Less then half the states have open primaries, and many had both parties primaries on the same day. If you want to attack the general apathy of the American citizen, that not going to help us win next time. What your plan to get more voters?

 

I didn't say "the" primary levers. I said "primary levers" - no "the". And I asked you to pay attention.

How? Used to damage the unions, motivate the rejection of health care initiatives, undercut wages, extract equity from residential neighborhoods otherwise shielded by S&Ls and housing guarantees, and in all manner of ways prevent the political cooperation of the working and middle class in opposition to the financial power of the upper class. Divide and conquer - how the wealthy Republicans got in touch with their inner K.

Now of course "trash" is subjective. Maybe you approve of - say - the economic changes brought in under Reagan - elected on dog whistle racism, and the occasion of the bigot vote consolidating its shift from Dem to Rep throughout the Confederacy.

Or maybe you think all those bigots voted for Reagan because they were enthusiastic about deregulating the Savings and Loans, writing big loopholes into already dramatically reduced tax levels, or cutting way back on immigration enforcement along Mexico so Reagan's buddies in the California and Confederate agriculture and food processing industries could get cheap non-white non-union labor under the table.

No, I mean all those times when some Democrat tried to do it, say during W's tenure, or Reagan's.

Make up your mind?

It's called "not voting for Sanders".

Seems like they'd be as likely to not get out and vote over transexual bathrooms, or whatever the Republican media operations have chosen for their obsession this time, regardless of the name on the ticket.

 

The rich alone can't carry an election.

Thank you very much for making my point for me by reciting the conservative argument. Kind of like you can articulate the alt-right argument. And the supremacist argument. But for some reason you're completely unable to comprehend a liberal argument.

It's not exactly cute how you keep trying, but, you know, whatever.

Well, if I'm all you can imagine, sure, I'm insane.

Start with the basic idea that you "want to address HUGE economic problems that this nations faces, the ever growing divide between the haves and have-nots, this being what most american's are most interested in".

Okay, sure. Just like the last time. And the time before that. A rising tide lifts all boats, doesn't it? Except for all the time people have been trying to address the huge economic problems and the ever-growing divide between haves and have-nots, supremacism has helped exacerbate the inequality about the outcomes.

Addressing the nation's economic problems and the growing divide between haves and have-nots is pretty much a perpetual issue. Your political generalization is as precisely meaningless as it is coming from any elected official or candidate. Anyone can say that.

(Here, sports metaphor: Remember the bit in Bull Durham when Crash instructs Nuke in the art of the interview? It's a great moment in both cinema and storytelling. Now, we're not a baseball family, but we are a football family, as my father spent time as a college coach. And the art of the interview is one of the best sideshows in sports. The basic difference, say, among college superstars, is who can recite the interview with technical proficiency, who can absolutely shine through the basic interview, and who simply can't pull it off. It really is a fun bit to watch. But that's the thing, it's part of the game, just like they say in the story. The art of the interview can be vicariously―for the viewer―thrilling, embarrassing, or absolutely meaningless. Any professional athlete should be able to recite the basic postgame interview on demand, even at breakfast before the game, with their mouth full of Moons Over My Hammy. Like jazz, it's what you do with the standard. And any politician should be able to recite the platitude about wanting "to address HUGE economic problems that this nations faces, the ever growing divide between the haves and have-nots, this being what most american's are most interested in".)​

At any rate―

―yeah, thank you for making my point for me.

Spoiler

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Addressing the economy probably needs its own thread. But much like the racists, the misogynists, and gun lovers, we need to be careful to not offend the business community. Futhermore, as with anything else, whatever we do depends on the people involved. One thing history demonstrates quite clearly is that a society cannot afford to trust the business community's verison of altruism.

And while jokes about offending the rich have their value, the thing about addressing the economy is that some -ist somewhere, who you want society to pity and take especial care to not offend, will be offended if that economic tide lifts all boats. Yeah: Abortion rights. Workplace access. Equal protection before the law. All of these have important economic impacts. All you're recommending―

―is more of the same economic disruption that comes with wage disparity, health care access disruption, workplace access inequality, and other disparate impacts in line with traditional discrimination and supremacism in the United States that have failed to lift all boats equally.

So―

―quit with the "us". You're not credible.

Try it this way: Is there a lower boundary to your sympathy for the racists and misogynists? That is, at what point can you, personally, go no lower? At what point will you finally stand up to them?

What do you do when the prospect of equality offends them?

What do you do when the prospect of not being able to hurt other people hurts their feelings?

This is the conundrum, and for some reason you just won't acknowledge it.

To reiterate yet again↑, since you can't seem to address the point directly:

The thing is that your critique does not show itself capable of dealing with narrative (A). It's not that people aren't aware of it. If you were an actual liberal instead of whatever manner of poseur, you would already know that. The general frustration is what to do about it, because the actual elements of narrative (A) are not prerequisite to narrative (A) being in play.

In the end, you have no answer for this problem.​

So what is your answer?

How do you deal with the disruption that has, through all other attempts to deal with the "economic problems that this nations faces", and "the ever growing divide between the haves and have-nots", because this is "what most american's are most interested in", continued to assert disparate impacts reflecting traditional American supremacism?

Because what it really sounds like is that you don't. It sounds like you're okay with it.

How do you avoid offending people who are so determined to be offended that they will make up reasons out of thin air?

Don't feel embarrassed because you can't answer; that's the fucking problem―nobody can.

But we can't solve a problem by trembling and buckling and bawling at the mere thought of the question.

Think of it this way: There is high correlation 'twixt counties with a powerful combination of death rate from drugs, alcohol, and suicide, to the one, and a high economic stress index, to the other―though the latter very often accompanies and is vitally intertwined with the former―and who the majority of voters in that county backed in the presidential election. Now, there are a lot of things I might say to voters in many of these places, and very little of it will fail to offend a great many of them, starting with the unpleasant reality that many of these voters and those who preceded them in this ideological or cultural tradition―i.e., "values", family and community standards, &c.―voted for some of the largest influences over their current plight.

And it sounds like a nasty pun to look at regions wracked and ravaged by addiction and remind that the first step is admitting there is a problem.

And, yeah, the addiction needs to come first, but nobody can reasonably assert that racial politics didn't drive a lot of bad decisions over the years, including those that leave us with no real public trust sympathy for addicts. Gender politics, too, but not nearly as much. And historically, in the U.S., that's actually how it works. As long as a drug problem can be framed within minority communities, society puts it off. Only when society sees the problem threatening to unravel the majority do we come around. That's how it went before the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, and again leading up to the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937. The stench swirled at the end of the last century and greeted the new with the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which died in Congress, which is itself well enough but after all that methamphetamine is still Schedule II.

But we keep botching this up, and American history is pretty clear about why.

So far you're just pushing more of the same.

 

He has offered a solution: a set of specific goals.

He has not offered a detailed plan. (He is not a government minister, from whom such would be mandatory.)

The goals reflect an approach to society and government that differ from some of those on offer in the larger world. They are a starting point for discussion. Denying that they exist is not conducive to constructive discussion.

Edit: And you have not denied they exist, simply asked what are they. Others have denied their existence.