On American Appeasement

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Apr 29, 2017.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    It's a welcome change; I'm glad you finally came around.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    But I have never changed my opinion, do I need to remind you of the oath you demanded I make about women's human rights, and I did so easily and without hessitation?

    I have been asking for months now how and where I and my kind are backtracking on social justice? where in bernie's policies is he backtracking? How does making the universal suffering of poverty and classism paramont take away from racism or sexism?

    And you never answered me and proclaimed you can't understand a word i'm saying, then you scream fallacy and slander. All because you can't accept your a trump enabler.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I'm pointing to errors of fact and reason - if you don't correct them, you are only fooling yourself.

    They are about to fuck up, then, exactly as they did when they rejected Sanders's positions on issues (long before the campaign), exactly as they did when they ignored Molly Ivins and fifty others in 2008, exactly as they have been doing since they were rolled by Reagan in 1980 and set out to become the Republican Party they could not beat without raising taxes on rich people.

    Or part of it. A constantly shifting part, each time shifting to ground chosen by and favoring the Republican propagandist.

    If you insist on chasing the core Republican voter (whether they call themselves "independent" or not) and waving persuasion and reason and compromise at them, you will spiral farther into the swamp. This is as true of "social justice" issues as any others.

    If you ignore the large issues that require direct conflict and opposition, and and chase only the small ones you think you can fix by altering the presentation of your candidates, you will continue to appear weak and untrustworthy. This is as true of human rights issues as any others.

    By failing to address the mechanisms by which poverty and class privilege were and are established in the US. You cannot address these matters as abstractions. Racial bigotry is structural, in the US. So is oppression of women.

    You cannot foster prosperity in the white underclass without fostering it in the black underclass. You cannot foster prosperity in the black underclass without addressing the racial disparity in law enforcement and police behavior, without dealing with the drug laws and so forth. For example.
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Yeah sure, a conspiracy theory woowoo knows that facts and reason looks like. Once again if democratic statisticians are saying it, here take a look, and nowhere in there is your thesis that the republicans rigid it.

    Who is president right now? Who runs the congress? the supreme court? If we don't get back enough white voters with policies of universal economic prosperity, then we will never have government power to reduce police authority and their brutality and to end the drug wars, for example. Putting you and your ilks demands front and center has got us nowhere, worse then nowhere it has gotten us a pig boar for president! If you truly give a shit about blacks and women you will suck it up and vote the most electable candidate next time.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Coming from a representative of the group that cost Democrats the election, that's some funny stuff.

    Coming up next - EF blames Democrats for denying climate change.
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Blaming me? I voted for Hillary in the general, I campaigned for her and our local candidates, I put many hours of my time and hundreds of my dollars into that election, so you can't blame me for shit. Now I have giving deep livid shit to Bernie supporters that refused to vote for Hillary in the general, but I will also continue for every day turmp is in power to blame everyone that thought Hillary was our best candidate, and I blame every democrat and liberal and progressive, anyone that thought Hillary was the best we could put up.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And all of a sudden the Democratic establishment is your go to source for analysis?

    Here's a quote from your link:
    That agrees fully with my analysis, above: 70% of 60,000 votes is 42,000 votes, which is chicken feed compared with the voter suppression and electoral issues.
    Meanwhile, Trump got the same percentage of the male vote as Romney. Those 42,000 voters didn't even move the needle, in that category - the Republican voting base.
    Clinton apparently lost more than 60,000 votes in Detroit alone, to machine vote count irregularities no one has ever explained. That cost her Michigan.
    And so forth.
    Which would be almost nobody on this forum, even given your bs about "we". So we won't be seeing any more of that wingnuttery on this forum.
    You can't get Republican voters "back" by chasing whatever delusion they are suffering from at the moment.
    You can't formulate policies of universal economic prosperity without directly and explicitly dealing with white racism and its sabotage of all such political efforts.
    No one has ever done that, in your adult life. Sanders came the closest, of recent politicians.

    Like I keep saying - you have no clue about my demands, or who my "ilk" is, or anything related to real life leftwing libertarian politics in the US. You seem to have acquired your entire understanding of leftwing politics from alt-right Youtube videos.
    You sat in people's living rooms thinking they were stupid. You said you did, anyway. Thanks for that - I'm sure they didn't notice.
    Then you believed what they told you, these Fox and Rush - addled low information voters, as to why they didn't like Clinton. Or Black Lives Matter. Or Liberals. You actually came to believe that those people's goofy-assed bigotries and idiocies were the consequences of the words and deeds of Clinton, or Black Lives Matter, or Liberals. You've been posting that belief ever since.

    And after all that, you paid so little attention to your surroundings that you now think anyone who points to the coordinated, billioniare-funded, decades in the making, media dominating fascist propaganda campaign, a coordinated effort that has sabotaged the entire electoral process in favor of the Republican Party at every level of government in the US,

    as the single most significant influence in US politics,

    is dealing in "conspiracy woowoo".

    You want to pretend it doesn't exist, and appeal to its victims via sound economic policy and reason and representation of their interests without acknowledging it.

    Good luck with that.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Btw: That link of EF's is worth close attention - suffused as it is with signs of trouble to come, signs that the Democratic Party does not get it. Here's another quote:
    Never mind the obvious front and center - that the Democrats no longer consider working class white voters part of the base of the Democratic Party. The more telling obliviousness is to the nature of the Trump voters - it's somewhat misleading to call them "working class": most earn above median incomes. Well above. And they are racial bigots, religious fundamentalists, conservative patriarchy presumers, etc.

    Once the illusion that the Obama-Trump voter is a major factor has been sold and bought into, this idea that the Democrats need to win them back, need to gain the support of racially bigoted and anti-feminist and increasingly non-union white factory hands and white truckdrivers and the like, becomes dangerous.

    If you aren't careful, you will get stuff like this:
    If the Dems actually think Sanders and "the middle" are in opposite directions from where they are right now, they're screwed.
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
  13. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    So, I'm pondering - does the tree need refreshed with blood?

    Is it better if the BCRA (whatever version we will be voted on, no one knows at this point) passes tomorrow, resulting in a truly pissed off electorate in 2018 - or, it fails, and the usual apathy prevails?
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Click for monkey see, monkey do.

    I can point you back to the beginning of the thread, but it's in post #2↑, and a woman said it, so you've been asking for months now for someone else to say it?

    So how about you quit with your whinin' and lyin', and if you want people to ignore your years of misogyny, you're going to have to try harder.

    So, what, then, when you said↑, "We don't need to back track on anything social justice", were you lying?

    Because that's what this thread is about.

    Funny, EF: Women keep telling you what is wrong, and you keep ignoring them.

    And, you know, that's part of your problem: You would probably make more sense if you were actually responding to something real instead of huffing on straw men about putting women back in the kitchen when you can't even be bothered to pay attention. I mean, sure, women tell us what's wrong↑, you ignore the point; you're even reminded↑ of the issue, but it was a woman who made the point, so maybe that's why you missed it.

    Or, you know, whatever.

    Because here you are, all these months later, playing make-believe↑ in order to ignore what is already on the record, and complain↑:

    "I have been asking for months now how and where I and my kind are backtracking on social justice? where in bernie's policies is he backtracking?"

    Think of it this way: You rush in↑, even identify as an Appeaser↑, and all these months later, whether by unyielding ignorance or simply stubborn dishonesty, the best you've managed is to miss the point.

    Just out of curiosity, do you recall why you identified as an Appeaser? I would have thought it obvious to both of us. But that's the thing. You wish people to ignore your months of advocacy against some manner of "identity politics" that comes down to folding on civil and human rights, but it's kind of important to the reason why people don't trust your appeal to economic justice; you have advocated exclusion in the past, and when faced with this issue in the present, you simply ignore the point and reiterate your appeal. The disrespect you demonstrate by that latter repeatedly reminds people what to expect in trying to take you seriously.

    At the end of the day, if your line is now that, "We don't need to back track on anything social justice", you have, in fact, changed your argument.
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Again a link without explanation, no argument just 'here is a link to a long rant'. Oh you can call me a misogynist all you want, I don't care about your opinion anymore, your opinions gave us trump.

    Your going to need to be SPECIFIC, where was I "lying"? about what was I "lying"?

    Strange I show lectures by women saying different things, saying things even counter to what your saying now, it is almost like women are not a hive mind but people.

    Yes please summarize your point, lets review it, because from my prospective all you do is waffle and try to remain vague and present no actionable argument. My argument can be summed up in one sentence: "We need to focus on economic justice to win back the blue wall to get back the goverment to be able to do anything." Can you summarize your argument into a single sentence, specifically as something we can do, actionable, solution orientated, rather than bitching?

    This labeling from you is useless, your an appease, your an trump enabler, you rather let the republicans control everything then implement winnable electoral policy. How am I folding on civil and humans rights? What exclusion are you talking about? Everything your ilk has done has got us total republican domination with a pig boar as president, you talk a lot but your actions have resulting on folding on civil and human rights, has resulting in everything you claim you don't want.

    Nope, specify where I said to backtrack on social justice, quote it word for word, let us review it.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Starting with the key and central and major economic injustices, such as the racial and gender-based maltreatments used to enforce the class divisions that block economic mobility in general, and the taxation structures that allow accumulation of wealth and income by a small fraction of the population.
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    You mean tax the rich? Name me a specific policy you want to implement and I will either tell you A) yes that should be a the vanguard of our policies B) it should be kept quite and implement after we get back government C) that is a bad idea.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Why would I care what somebody who posts kangaroo boy videos in lieu of argument thinks about real world governance?

    Meanwhile, "keeping quiet" about stuff is yet another example (on top of the the alt-right videos and vocabulary, the strawmanning of the Left, and so forth) of how I know there is no "we" involved here. That's yet another characteristic feature of the Koch-funded rightwing media operation - explicitly adopted by that faction on the recommendation of one James Buchanan (unfamiliar? here's a congenial intro: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...s-james-buchanan-intellectual-history-maclean) - that you have incorporated and presented.
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Because I'm an elected democrat party member that goes to monthly meetings and argues about party direction from the base of the party? Basically your ejecting, your refusing to bring forth what ever it is you want, so you can sit back and bitch and say "you're doing it wrong!" Oh so you got some better ideas, lets hear them, nope, you got nothing. Like Tiassa yelling "you're a appeaser!" while providing no direction, no argument for what we should do, none, just crickets, chirp-chirp-chirp.

    Also what is wrong with Devon Tracy? He is funny, he voted for Hillary, he has always voted democrat, sure he choose poorly in the primary and fucked us all like Tiassa did and like every other Hillary primary voter, but besides that, what is wrong with him?

    Oh so now I'm paid by the koch brothers, it all fits into your conspiracy theory? Notice how the republicans are keeping quite about gay marriage, oh we know that if they had backing they would abolish gay marriage, but the upper echelon of the republicans are smart, they know that touching gay marriage would cost them more votes then it would gain, but people like you are dumb: you rather demand... what ever it is your demanding... regardless if it will cost us votes and keep the republicans in power, who will guaranteedly do everything opposite of what you want.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Because you post wingnut and alt-right videos and believe what you see in them.
    Sure: Quit getting your worldview from wingnut videos and alt-right bs.
    Who knows, who cares?
    Now you're strawmanning in lieu of argument again. As noted:
    Along with whatever this is:
    Keep typing, you will eventually come to have made sense - is that the plan?

    The value you see in chasing after the good opinion of Trump voters, as if they were children we needed to find some way to persuade to eat their vegetables, remains a mystery.
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Click because ... er ... ah ... how about just don't ask!

    Keep asking for what is already on the record, why not?

    We're nigh on two hundred posts in, and the best Appeasers can come up with is to ignore the underlying questions:

    • So let us hear from the Appeasement faction: How do Democrats not hurt supremacists' feelings? (#1↑)

    • Appeasers should probably take the moment to explain just how they expect Democrats to grow the party and advance justice by betraying a majority of the American population. (#2↑)

    Even the self-identifying Appeaser just can't muster an answer. Then again, nobody is surprised. Giving over to exclusionary supremacism just isn't smart; we shouldn't expect much more of the advocates.

    The problem with your self-righteous demands↑

    "I have been asking for months now how and where I and my kind are backtracking on social justice? where in bernie's policies is he backtracking? How does making the universal suffering of poverty and classism paramont take away from racism or sexism?"

    —is that you have been "asking for months" for what is already on the record; and when you are pointed to that record↑, you complain:

    "Again a link without explanation, no argument just 'here is a link to a long rant'."

    Okay, then.

  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    No you ignore the answers, A) they are not all supremacists, most of them are regular people, stupid but in need, economically faltering and desperate, scared of a future were they have no home, no job and no future for their children. B) We are not betraying a majority of the American population: free health care, free education, taxing the rich, infrastructure, wage increases, etc, will benefit everyone, even the rich who would have to leave the country or have their heads put on a pike when the revolution comes.

    I said all this before but clearly you did not understand so I re-wrote it, maybe you will get it this time, if not, rinse and repeat, I don't link back to previous post you clearly did not comprehend.
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Making believe in the face of evidence to the contrary does not an argument make, ElectricFetus.

    Ignoring unpleasant facts is neither helpful nor honest.

    (1) Learn to write. You're a terrible writer. Your writing aims to obfuscate instead of communicate. So, you know, Mr. Educator, learn to write; pretending you don't see what you refuse to look at is pretty childish. More directly, no, you didn't say "all this before but clearly".

    (2) Clueless denial of what we're supposed to believe what you would pretend yourself incapable of comprehending does not a reasonable argument make.

    (3) You can't link back to what doesn't exist.


    (A) Straw man: We can talk about how people feel about adjectives all day, but the question of whether or not they are all supremacists is a change of subject. Americans already understand this part of the argument: They are not all supremacists, but, rather, by mere coincidence, require supremacist exclusionism. They're not homophobic, but merely offended that queers can denigrate their marriage by getting married, and no, they're never going to explain how that denigration works. We get it. Just like one wasn't actually a rape advocate, when I was young, but, rather, a patriotic American head of household concerned about the decay of family values and societal fabric. (By the way, you know what "compromise" looks like? Okay, okay, it's a crime to force your wife to have sex; but she was dumb enough to marry you, so it needs to be less of a crime since it's her fault, anyway. And, yeah, it's still in widespread effect.)

    (B) False: When you post stupid demands↑ like, "Show me where Bernie demanded putting women back in the kitchen or sending blacks back to Africa?" you make the point. When you huff—

    "I have been asking for months now how and where I and my kind are backtracking on social justice? where in bernie's policies is he backtracking?"

    —you're making the point that you weren't paying attention↑ from the outset, fundamentally undermining your entire performance in this thread.

    As simply as possible: When "progressives" back regressive candidates in hopes of appealing to conservative voters, they're not being progressive.

    Try it this way: When "economic justice" requires classist stratification, it is not "justice" of any sort.

    Three months and two hundred posts in, the nearest thing to an actual argument you have offered is to denounce the observable as a straw man in order to advocate "economic and tax reform" as a "first" and "foremost" priority, and have spent the rest tilting windmills of your own construction. I am quite certain the demonstration seems somehow useful to one who undertakes it, but directly identifying as an Appeaser in order to refuse to answer the question is actually the sort of stupid stunt by which you only denigrate yourself.

    "So let us hear from the Appeasement faction: How do Democrats not hurt supremacists' feelings?" — We ought not be surprised Appasement advocates won't address this point directly The problem, as noted in the topic post↱, arises because part of the challenge is to get along with other people who refuse to work and play well with others, as illustrated by the example of belligerent conservative identity politicking contriving toward harmful ends.

    "Appeasers should probably take the moment to explain just how they expect Democrats to grow the party and advance justice by betraying a majority of the American population." — The thing is that it eight hundred really isn't so long as you complain↑, but you need to call it "a long rant" in order to continue to miss the point:

    Sanders has set himself up as the national face of progressivism, openly stating that his "movement" is the future of a party to which he does not belong, and withholding his endorsement from Democratic candidates he believes are not adequately progressive. Yet Sanders has, multiple times, endorsed anti-choice candidates because they otherwise support his agenda of economic justice.

    Here's why this is problematic:

    Women cannot access economic justice without full reproductive rights. Economic justice is impossible for women without being able to decide when, or whether, to have children. Lack of access to reproductive health care can put women into poverty and keep them there. Someone claiming they are in favor of economic justice while actively voting against reproductive rights is saying that economic justice only matters for men ....

    .... When Sanders repeatedly declared that "identity politics" were a problem, he exposed a dangerous weakness in progressive political thought that remains unaddressed. We live intersectional lives, and these issues must be addressed intersectionally. To separate class from gender, race, sexuality, and ability in fighting for economic justice is to create a fiction that economic injustice is only driven by one kind social injustice—the kind that able-bodied cishet white men experience. It's a dangerous fiction that at its heart reinforces patriarchal white supremacy, and it's becoming all the more dangerous as we fight against an administration and its attendant political movement that wants nothing more than to roll back as many social justice gains as possible.

    That's about as straightforward as it gets. It seems pretty much no wonder you just bawl about "a long rant"—the quotes, you know, the part where women tell us what's wrong, equal a whole five hundred sixty-six words—and cry about↑ asking "for months" when you're not even capable of acknowledging a basic explanation of the problem that involves a part that describes the behavior, actually says, "here's why this is problematic", and then continues to assert the reasons why Mr. Sanders' advocacy of candidates who would backtrack on the human rights of women is harmful to progress and preclusive of economic justice.​

    And you were, in fact, reminded—

    Because to put it simply, EF, you are failing to recognise how women's rights are tied to the economy.. Tiassa's post on page one and the quotes he provided, explains this in minute detail.

    —and the only part of what Bells↑ explained that seems awry is the next sentence, when she wonders, "Really, how can you not understand this yet?" It stands out for being shown far too generous.

    Speaking of long rants, then, I should reiterate this↑:

    And the thing is, as much as you want to denounce identity politics, remember the identities involved. Christians came after gays. Whites went after blacks. Men are constantly after women. Gays shouldn't assert their rights? They shouldn't need to. Women shouldn't assert their rights? They shouldn't need to. People of color shouldn't assert their rights? They shouldn't need to.

    And you? Well, that's the thing. You would fault people for answering. White identity feels threatened by color; masculine identity feels threatened by woman. So they pick fights, people answer, and ElectricFetus complains that people would answer.

    Or, as Hillman put it in April, "The current zeitgeist in the U.S. is one of angry straight white people pushing back against social justice gains with open bigotry, revelling in causing others pain and delighting in boorishness and even violence."

    And Marcotte↱ last weekend:

    It's a tempting idea, of course: Just stop talking so much about racism and sexism so much and instead talk about jobs and wages (never mind that Hillary Clinton actually did focus more on jobs and wages than any other issue) and boom! Watch the white rural voters that handed states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan to Donald Trump come into the Democratic fold.

    Who doesn't want to believe liberals have that much control — that Democrats alone could make the cultural struggles tearing apart this country go away by putting the focus on jobs and other economic issues, and watch white voters return to the flock, drawn by all those progressive policies?

    The problem is, and continues to be, that there's no evidence for this. The roller-coaster politics around health care really drive home how much Republican base voters view politics through a culture-war lens.

    You've put a lot of effort into blowing smoke in this thread without addressing the fundamental questions presented at the outset.

Share This Page