On American Appeasement

[Tiassa]

Careful ... Don't Scare Him

​

There are those who would argue the route forward for liberals and the Democratic Party is the abandonment of liberalism, embrace of conservatism, and appeasment of prejudice, bigotry, and bullying in American society. Not that any of these appeasement advocates can explain how that would help; they just can't bring themselves to admit they like the prejudice, bigotry, and bullying.

Still, as long as they might bother with the pretense, we can check in and see how this appeasement thesis is supposed to work:

Over the course of an hour and a half, 20 different members of Congress took to the podium to lead the gathering in prayer, including Rep. Randy Weber of Texas, who repeatedly choked up while begging God to forgive this nation for the "sins" of legal abortion and marriage equality.

Modifying the Lord's Prayer to declare that "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth here in the halls of Congress," Weber confessed the "sins our nation has been so emboldened to embark upon" and pleaded with God to forgive us.

"We have endeavored to try and kick your word out of public schools," Weber said. "Father, we have endeavored to take the Bible out of classrooms, the Ten Commandments off the walls. Oh, Lord, forgive us. Father, we think we're so smart, we have replaced your word and your precepts with drug-sniffing dogs, with metal detectors, with uniformed police officers in our schools. Oh, Lord, forgive us."

"Father, we have trampled on your holy institution of holy matrimony and tried to rewrite what it is and we've called it an alternate lifestyle," Weber continued, his voice cracking. "Father, oh Father, please forgive us."

"Lord, we have gone to killing the most innocent amongst us," he wept. "Your servant Moses warned in Deuteronomy 19 for us to choose life so that we and all our descendants might live. Father, we're killing our descendants and we're calling it a choice. Oh, God in heaven, forgive us, please."

(Right Wing Watch↱)​

So, let's not call it prejudice. Nor bigotry. Nor homophobia. Certainly, it might make the Distinguished Gentleman, Mr. Weber, uncomfortable to call it supremacism.

But if the point is to get along with other people who refuse to work and play well with others, the Appeasers need to explain just how their advocacy is going to help anything but the advancement of prejudice, bigotry, and bullying.

In a land without any official religion, Congressional Republicans give over space to conservative Christians to pray against people. Yeah, that's kind of rude. But we don't want to worry about who that might offend, right? Because those people, in being offended, might make a conservative uncomfortable! (Oh! the horror!)

No, seriously, what do we do about this?

That is to say, the Appeasers aren't actually suggesting we give them their way, right?

Except, of course, that's the thing. The bigots and bullies are going to be uncomfortable as long as they're not getting their way.

So let us hear from the Appeasement faction: How do Democrats not hurt supremacists' feelings?
____________________

Notes:

Mantyla, Kyle. "Rep. Randy Weber Tearfully Begs God To Forgive America For The Sins Of Legal Abortion And Marriage Equality". Right Wintg Watch. 27 April 2017. RightWingWatch.org. 29 April 2017. http://bit.ly/2proWTp

 

[Tiassa]

Shrinking the Tent We Pitch

​

The idea of betraying women in order to appease supremacists really is embarrassing.

The most disturbing thing to emerge from this week's badly bungled Democratic "Unity Tour" staged by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and new DNC head Tom Perez was the fact that the only thing on which the two men seemed to easily agree was that reproductive rights are not necessarily fundamental to progressive politics. This led to uproar and outrage among some precincts of the left, and eventually to mea culpas and "clarifications" from Sanders and Perez. But it is worth closely examining this fight over the importance of reproductive rights in the party because it is an argument that the Democrats seem to rehash over and over and over again ....

.... Sanders is wrong that reproductive rights (or gay rights, for that matter) are separate from economic issues. The ability to control reproduction is central to women's social, professional, and economic stability, and the women most likely to require abortion services and to be negatively affected by restrictions on access to reproductive health care are poor and low-income women, disproportionately women of color.

But he and Perez were also wrong to view compromising on abortion as part of a pragmatic political path forward and to hold up an aggressively anti-abortion Democrat as some exemplar of progressivism's future. Heaps of contemporary polling shows abortion is not the divisive issue it was long assumed to be. In 2015, polls showed that seven in ten voters, including independents—and even in Kansas—not only supported safe and accessible abortion but were willing to vote based on that support. A postelection Pew study found support for Roe to be at 69 percent, an all-time high. Omaha, the city where Heath Mello is running for mayor, was carried by Clinton—who made the most full-throated case for reproductive rights ever offered by a presidential candidate in her final debate against Donald Trump—by eight points.​

Rebecca Traister↱ continues, "There is absolutely no need to abandon women's rights in the name of advancing progressive politics. And yet the party has done it time and again, often after losing presidential elections."

It's not like these sacrifices ever accomplish much. They are made in an effort to hold the line; Republicans chased their own liberal wing away, but the Democratic Blue Dog Caucus persisted until it was destroyed by Republicans—all their sacrificing on principle eventually got these conservative Democrats rewarded with Republican successors.

Melissa Hillman↱ explains this is "Why women are so angry with Bernie Sanders":

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.​

Pitching a lesser tent in order to grow the party doesn't make sense. What's the gamble, here, that women have no place to go, so Democrats can afford to abuse them a little more?

We cannot seek justice by fleeing from injustice.

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.
____________________

Notes:

Hillman, Melissa. "Why Women Are So Angry With Bernie Sanders". The Huffington Post. 24 April 2017. HuffingtonPost.com. 29 April 2017. http://huff.to/2qd29KY

Traister, Rebecca. "Will We Abandon Women’s Rights in the Name of Progressive Politics?". New York. 21 April 2017. NYMag.com. 29 April 2017. http://thecut.io/2pEZpcc

 

[ElectricFetus]

There are those who would argue the route forward for liberals and the Democratic Party is the abandonment of liberalism, embrace of conservatism, and appeasment of prejudice, bigotry, and bullying in American society.

Total and complete strawman! We must prioritize progressive economic and tax reform first and formost, at present most elected democrats are merely "republican light" weakly advocating for only the most tepid of economic reform, the populace knows this hence low voter turn out. You on the other hand want to waste time and votes doing what, useless name calling? Here is some name calling for you: You are the bully and advocate of bullying! Your obsession with pampering to ever smaller demographic groups while the majority of the population gets more and more livid from economic stagnation that they don't vote or worse vote for trump has gotten us to this horrifically low place of total lack of goverment power. You have no problem with letting the rich rape the working class just so long as transsexuals have their own bathroom, which guess what, they don't now!

Now what are we losing by focusing on economic reform first? Are we pro-life now? No, we still advocate abortions and birth control, paid for by the rich no less! Are we anti-gay marriage now? No, in fact even the republicans have drop that issue, gay-marriage now and forever! Are we pro-pig now? No we want police reform, cameras on cops, justice department reform, prison reform, drug reform and legalization, paid for by the rich (except legalization that will pay for its self)! Are we anti-women now? No, we want higher wages and maternity leave, paid for by the rich! Are we anti-transexual now, no we still want unisex bathrooms, we just don't make that a major talking point, just as the republicans don't make adding loopholes in taxes and pollution code for businesses a talking point. To win back the house and senate and presidency we need to sell ourselves better, focus on the issues we can get independents and moderates inspired about like taxing the rich, free healthcare, free education, debt relief, minimum wage increase, and we need to spend far less time screaming and shaming about the issue that we intrinsically support but rally the right! Tell me this, how is a women suppose to pay for an abortion? You want our politicians screaming about how women and get abortions when ever they want for what ever reason they want, but have no comprehension of the fact most poor women can barely even pay for it!

Do you think if we elect a bunch of democrats that claim to be pro-life we are going to reverse roe vs wade, strip women of reproductive rights? Even Hillary Clinton spent a decade claiming she was against gay marriage, we all knew where she really stood. Likewise democrats moderate on abortion are still going to vote for bills that increase funding to women healthcare, birth control and abortion, by voting for progressive tax reform that finances all of that. At present though your ilks needs to constantly make the most unelectable issues primary and bully and piss off the right with protest and riots over right wing troll speakers has resulted in us having no power in the house, senate or presidency and the election of an ignorant moronic pig boar as president that openly proclaims how he can grab pussy! You have achieved the exact opposite of everything you claim to stand for!

Money is everything and the belief racism, sexism, homophobiasis on the same plane as classicism is idiotic and makes blatant how privileged you are. Classicism is the reason we are heading toward economic collapse and revolution, with death from starvation alone likely in the millions, the poor are increasingly irate and the voting in of trump is just the tip of the iceberg of the horrors that will come if nothing is done about American's classicism problem. Meanwhile are we headed towards gay death camps, women breeding factors, extermination of the blacks? No! Look at what the trump administrations is actually doing, build the wall... no they can't get the money, ban muslims, turns out that is anti-constitutional, gay marriage: totally silent on that. Cut taxes on the rich: NOW THAT IS THEIR ISSUE!

You want to betray a majority of Americans by sapping all the money to the rich because you think transsexual bathrooms and Milo speaking are "justice" issues as worthy as economic reform? Well because of your inability to prioritize on the core issue that literally pays for everything else now we get nothing, NOTHING! And yet look at the republicans cry about abortions and gay marriage and prayer in schools, and yet do so little about it, heck they can't even get rid of obamacare because it is fundamentally a conservative devised give out to insurance companies! It is almost like their priorities are somewhere more financially related, they know how to rally their supporters and you help rally their supporters, they need nothing more. They will work on degrading abortion and education and even gay marriage only from the side, by reducing funding, so as not to directly rally the left, they will never get rid of roe vs wade because as long as that is in principle legal they have something to rally their supporters around, but because you and your ilk have no concept of the money they can acheive a defacto stop on abortion. We need to utilize the same strategy but in reverse by taxing the rich, and quietly funding (godless) education, funding (baby killing) planned parenthood, funding everything they hate.

 

[ElectricFetus]

 

[pjdude1219]

and yet your too blind to see that is reflective more on your viewpoint that we must only focus on this one thing. because you want to abandon everything that isn't economics and tell every one that their lives aren't important. this video is more against your purity test ideology rather than ours.

 

[ElectricFetus]

and yet your too blind to see that is reflective more on your viewpoint that we must only focus on this one thing.

And tiassa calls me an appeaser, so I don't see why can't I ask for purity on progressive taxation and welfare? At least we could have won on that platform, instead of on the identity politics platform of "but she has a vagina, vote for her!" I'll quote bernie on this:

“It’s not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’” No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry” -- http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democrats-identity-politics-231710

And the election of a pussy grabbing ignorant moronic pig boar as president is proof of this. People wanted someone they thought was different, someone they thought would actually implement radical change. They did not want a war hawk corporatist sell-out with decades of political baggage, scandal and 2 FBI investigation, regardless of the fact she has a vagina. Identity politics does not work.

Since the fall of Humpfrey all the democrats have done has been republican-light on economics, letting the republicans destroy the middle class and laugh about it all the way to the bank. But the regressive left doesn't notice this because as bourgeois: money is not their concern, only virtue signaling is.

because you want to abandon everything that isn't economics and tell every one that their lives aren't important.

How am I abandoning everything that isn't economics? By winning we can protect EVERYTHING that isn't economics. You on the other hand want to lose and let the republicans continue to rape us. Your identity politics issue side lost, lost horrible, lost to a pig boar no less! You have given the whole country to the "bullies" and then turn around and say I'm "appeasing the bullies" by demanding we choose something other than your losing strategy of failure!

 

[Tiassa]

#noreally | #thatwasawesome​

Distraction: Click for even less to care about.​

You are the bully and advocate of bullying! Your obsession with pampering to ever smaller demographic groups while the majority of the population gets more and more livid from economic stagnation that they don't vote or worse vote for trump has gotten us to this horrifically low place of total lack of goverment power. You have no problem with letting the rich rape the working class just so long as transsexuals have their own bathroom, which guess what, they don't now!

That is one of the great paragraphs of your misogyny, ElectricFetus. Thank you so very much.

 

[Tiassa]

¿Because Discrimination is Fair?

​

You certainly won't hear the right wing complaining about the liberal Ninth Circuit on this count:

Employers can legally pay women less than men for the same work based on differences in the workers' previous salaries, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower-court ruling that said pay differences based exclusively on prior salaries were discriminatory under the federal Equal Pay Act.

That's because women's earlier salaries are likely to be lower than men's because of gender bias, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Seng said in a 2015 decision.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit cited a 1982 ruling by the court that said employers could use previous salary information as long as they applied it reasonably and had a business policy that justified it.

(Thanawala↱)​

The decision appears to legitimize past pay discrimination; Deborah Rhode of Stanford Law School told the Associated Press, "You can't allow prior discriminatory salary setting to justify future ones or you perpetuate the discrimination."

Or, as losing attorney Dan Siegel explained, "The logic of the decision is hard to accept. You're okaying a system that perpetuates the inequity in compensation for women."

The case has been sent back to Magistrate Judge Michael Seng in order to consider various factors before deciding the case again. What Siegel and his client, Aileen Rizo, do next appears to depend on the outcome there.

Basically, what the Ninth Circuit panel has decided↱ is that salary history affected by sex discrimination cannot, barring further evidence, be said to have anything to do with sex discrimination.

The panel held that under Kouba v. Allstate Ins. Co., 691 F.2d 873 (9th Cir. 1982), prior salary alone can be a “factor other than sex” if the defendant shows that its use of prior salary was reasonable and effectuated a business policy. The panel remanded the case for further proceedings, with instructions that the district court evaluate the business reasons offered by the defendant and determine whether the defendant used prior salary reasonably.​

The key words there are "reasonable" and "reasonably". The magistrate judge can still shrug and say, "Well, duh," and reaffirm himself, in which case the Ninth Circuit will need to actually make a point. Indeed, Rizo v. Yovino would appear to be one of those cases in which one side argues that a process exists while the other insists that the existing process itself is insufficient. The Ninth Circuit appears to have issued a basic technical ruling.

Still, the question arises: Does egalitarianism require discrimination?

Can men and women, for instance, be equal if discrimination against women is not bulwarked under law?

It is a question for the Appeasers who would see the Democratic Party roll rightward in order to make gains at the ballot box.
____________________

Notes:

Adelman, Lynn S. "Opinion". Rizo v. Yovino. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 27 April 2017. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov. 29 April 2017. http://bit.ly/2pt1Col

Thanawala, Sudhin. "Court: Employers can pay women less based on past salaries". Associated Press. 28 April 2017. APNews.com. 29 April 2017. http://apne.ws/2prqNYB

 

[ElectricFetus]

Hey Tiassa, look go stop this from being "normalized": http://archive.is/b7Umt

It is a question for the Appeasers who would see the Democratic Party roll rightward in order to make gains at the ballot box.

Strawman question as we are not rolling rightwards, but I'll answer it: we would have, having had control of the goverment for longer and with more progressive members, approved or more liberal judges that would not have overruled this. Had you not choose Miss Unelectable then Trump and the republicans would not be stocking the the judicial system with conservatives judges now. You are a republican appeaser and enabler and have rolled the whole goverment rightwards.

That is one of the great paragraphs of your misogyny, ElectricFetus. Thank you so very much.

That all you got left, not even a counter argument your reduced to outmoded slander that could not even prevent Donald Trump from being elected president after he openly admitted to garbing pussy without consent.

Sad, very sad.

 

[iceaura]

Do you think if we elect a bunch of democrats that claim to be pro-life we are going to reverse roe vs wade, strip women of reproductive rights?

Could easily happen, sure. It already has, de facto, in places.

Strawman question as we are not rolling rightwards,

The Democratic Party has been, in general, for a while now. It is now to the right of the Republican Party of forty years ago.

And the election of a pussy grabbing ignorant moronic pig boar as president is proof of this. People wanted someone they thought was different, someone they thought would actually implement radical change. They did not want a war hawk corporatist sell-out with decades of political baggage, scandal and 2 FBI investigation, regardless of the fact she has a vagina. Identity politics does not work.

Identity politics elected Donald Trump. The Reps have been making hay on identity politics since Nixon figured them out in 1968.

Meanwhile, one overriding motive behind the Trump vote was the fear of radical change - a strong desire to roll back recent changes and block further ones. Trump voters favored him because he was familiar, one of them, on their side against radical change and the elites who favored it.

 

[pjdude1219]

And tiassa calls me an appeaser, so I don't see why can't I ask for purity on progressive taxation and welfare? At least we could have won on that platform, instead of on the identity politics platform of "but she has a vagina, vote for her!" I'll quote bernie on this:

“It’s not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’” No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry” -- http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democrats-identity-politics-231710

And the election of a pussy grabbing ignorant moronic pig boar as president is proof of this. People wanted someone they thought was different, someone they thought would actually implement radical change. They did not want a war hawk corporatist sell-out with decades of political baggage, scandal and 2 FBI investigation, regardless of the fact she has a vagina. Identity politics does not work.

Since the fall of Humpfrey all the democrats have done has been republican-light on economics, letting the republicans destroy the middle class and laugh about it all the way to the bank. But the regressive left doesn't notice this because as bourgeois: money is not their concern, only virtue signaling is.

you have no proof for you claims. their the unbacked claims of an idealogue you continue to claim this would have won despite it being the only issue democrats have not been able to pass and you have audacity to claim others ideas are the reason we lost?

How am I abandoning everything that isn't economics?

by saying we shouldn't be doing it.

By winning we can protect EVERYTHING that isn't economics. You on the other hand want to lose and let the republicans continue to rape us. Your identity politics issue side lost, lost horrible, lost to a pig boar no less! You have given the whole country to the "bullies" and then turn around and say I'm "appeasing the bullies" by demanding we choose something other than your losing strategy of failure!

ok some let me see if i follow your shitty fucking logic cause boy its steaming pile oh shit, your claiming the strategy you want to follow which has never one and always lost is a winning strategy and the one we want to follow which has actually acheived victories is a losing strategy? ok bizarro why don't you find you solomon grundy and we can take care of this. i want to win which means actually crafting a message that will get voters behind us note one that gets raped for being tax and spend liberals.

again despite your claims on why your right on why we lost your complete pig fucking ignorant on why we lost. seriously your childish feces throwing shit gibbonery is going to be why we lose because you make the movement look so bad. your a fucking embaressment.

 

[parmalee]

Money is everything and the belief racism, sexism, homophobiasis on the same plane as classicism is idiotic and makes blatant how privileged you are. Classicism is the reason we are heading toward economic collapse and revolution, with death from starvation alone likely in the millions, the poor are increasingly irate and the voting in of trump is just the tip of the iceberg of the horrors that will come if nothing is done about American's classicism problem.

"... makes blatant how privileged you are." Think about that one for a bit. And since you're so fond of falsely identifying fallacious reasoning, can you spot the fallacy you committed there?

Also, just to be clear, if you read my last post in that other thread, it should be very clear that I am also very much concerned about the monied classes. So...

Anyways, apologies for citing material which is nearly four years old now, but your present posting does not indicate that your views have changed in any substantive manner, so it seems still relevant. You've claimed repeatedly to be an egalitarian, as opposed to a feminist--which, according to you, is presently synonymous with being a misandrist--and also as a leftist. Do you still agree with what you wrote here?

More so the cases you mention are historical and/or non-western: by matter of law in most western countries men are "not sent all the bills": women own property, own capital, pay for themselves if single and pay mutually as joint files if married. In some cases in fact a women can get half of a man property regardless of the amount of work she did (Not saying house wives don't in fact deserve significant compensation, it just the compensation is not proportional to the husbands income: a house wife did not do 10 of millions of dollars worth of work simply be living and sleeping with a muli-millionare for a few years)

(emphasis mine)
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/feminism.134528/page-5#post-3086181

This is neither an expression of egalitarianism or a leftist viewpoint--by a long shot.

Anyhoo, I responded with:

And you believe that this millionaire (pretty much any millionaire IMHO) actually DID do "tens of millions dollars worth of work"?

To which you replied:

Anyways said housewife simply did not do equal amounts of "work" as compared to her rich husband.

C'mon.

And not to belabor the issue of your wholly unsupported allegations regarding "modern feminism" yet again, but really, they're just weird. Obviously, you can't really neatly characterize modern feminism, as it is so varied, even if you focus solely upon one medium of expression. Still, you can identify major trends. Personally, I'm most familiar with feminism in the arts, particularly music--through my work, and certain popular strains of academic feminism. As to the arts, my world is the underground and probably a fair bit removed from whatever is going on in the mainstream. But as to the academic studies, I think my interests are fairly "mainstream"--or as "mainstream" as such can be said to be--and one fairly big trend is feminist theory as it intersects with Posthumanism and also with what has come to be called (over the past decade or so) Animal Studies and Critical Animal Studies--the latter having a stronger ethico-political component. As these names suggest, the work is so far removed from any sort of "man-hating" feminism as to be laughable.

All I'm asking is that you just really think this through before you go off throwing the "ever smaller demographic groups" under the bus.

 

[Tiassa]

Sacrificial Lambs

​

Questions abound.

Today [10 March 2017], Governor Daugaard signed Senate Bill 149 into law, making South Dakota the first state in 2017 to pass anti-LGBT legislation. The bill will allow taxpayer funded agencies to refuse to provide any service, including adoption or foster care services, on the basis on the agency's religious or moral convictions.

(ACLU↱)​

Some would pretend that the only reason certain issues find reason for discussion is because liberalism somehow inappropriately prioritizes them, yet how does that apply when the bullies reach out and attack?

Are people, then, supposed to just leave it alone?

Would it make Governor Daugaard uncomfortable, you think, to look a child in need of a stable home in the eye and say, "Sorry, you can't have a home because I'm not comfortable with you having a home.

Would it make any of the people who make such decisions uncomfortable to admit it: You can't have a stable home with two well-educated, well-employed parents because I choose to object.

This bill was opposed by local and national child welfare experts that sent letters in opposition including The Adoption Exchange, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, and Voice for Adoption, as well as family law experts, South Dakota pediatricians, and local and national LGBT rights organizations including the Movement Advancement Project, the Human Rights Campaign, and more.

“We're deeply disappointed by Governor Daugaard's decision to green light Senate Bill 149. This discriminatory legislation takes South Dakota in the wrong direction, and sends the message that our leaders are more concerned with the desires of religious agencies than the rights of individuals and children in our state,” said Libby Skarin, Policy Director of the ACLU of South Dakota.

Added Skarin, “In the end, this bill was never about religious freedom. It has always been about allowing private organizations that discriminate to receive state contracts and taxpayer dollars to carry out their religions missions. We're particularly concerned about how this bill could impact vulnerable kids in our foster care system that deserve to have their best interests considered above the desires of private agencies.“​

There are over a hundred thousand kids in this country who need stable homes. It is bad enough that this number persists, and even grows. South Dakota is hardly the first↱ to do this. It's bad enough already, but have we the courage to look these children in the eye while appeasing those who would do this?

Or maybe we should object, and loudly?

Would that make conservatives uncomfortable?

Food security. Freedom from abuse. Shelter against fear. Security of shelter. Security of family. What part of economic justice says sacrifice the children at the altar of Appeasement?

What is the practical difference, as the Appeasers would have it, between making a priority and simply answering the challenge?
____________________

Notes:

American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota. "Governor Daugaard Signs Discriminatory Senate Bill 149". 10 March 2017. ALCUSD.org. 30 April 2017. http://bit.ly/2pAvH8f

 

[ElectricFetus]

Some would pretend that the only reason certain issues find reason for discussion is because liberalism somehow inappropriately prioritizes them, yet how does that apply when the bullies reach out and attack?

Had you and your Hillary votes had some sense and voted for Bernie we would not be here now with republicans controlling everything, ergo less of these bills passing. But please how do you plan to fight this, explain how you want to fight the bullies? Bitch about them on social media? Have a riot and smash a Starbucks? What? I would say fight it in the courts, and hope and pray the republican judges truly are unbais.

Are people, then, supposed to just leave it alone?

But yes aside for fighting it in the courts, in general we are going to have to leave the religious clause be, we lost, you lost, we need to focus on winning the goverment, then we can do something.

Would it make Governor Daugaard uncomfortable, you think, to look a child in need of a stable home in the eye and say, "Sorry, you can't have a home because I'm not comfortable with you having a home.

How about instead of concerning yourself with Governor Daugaard comfort, you concern your self with getting him unelected? Then again that would make him "unconfortable", but that is the only uncomfort that would be productive.

Or maybe we should object, and loudly?

How, yell from the roof tops? Name me how your going to object that is ACTUALLY PRODUCTIVE, that actually stops this? hn you want to bitch and whine on social media, real effective there.

Food security. Freedom from abuse. Shelter against fear. Security of shelter. Security of family. What part of economic justice says sacrifice the children at the altar of Appeasement?

Well had we had the funding we could have better orphanages and adoption services overall at the federal level, to hell with conservative states services.

What is the practical difference, as the Appeasers would have it, between making a priority and simply answering the challenge?

How? how are you going to answer the challenge, your whole argument is an arguement of vagueness and strawmen: you claim I'm appeasing, but don't say how, you claim I care about conservative comfort, but don't say how, you claim to object "loudly", but don't say how.

I'm asking for productive change in the democratic party to get us elected and in control of the goverment, we need candidates that can get independent, moderate and non-voter votes, we need candidate which are politically inspiring, that means economic and anti-corruption platforms first and foremost, we need to focus on these issues that grow the party, and not on asinine social media identity politics issues that divide people by oppression hierarchy and get the left laughed at as cry-bullies.

 

[ElectricFetus]

"... makes blatant how privileged you are." Think about that one for a bit. And since you're so fond of falsely identifying fallacious reasoning, can you spot the fallacy you committed there?

Nope, don't see it. Explain.

This is neither an expression of egalitarianism or a leftist viewpoint--by a long shot.

Well that is your opinion. Asking that someone get paid for what they actually do is pretty egalitarian to me. The whole idea of marriage is archaic and the idea of supporting an adult like a child is laughable to me, the idea of having to support her even after divorce and give her half of everything if not more because she is a weak women incapable of handling her self or getting a job, is a gross slander to the idea of equality.

And not to belabor the issue of your wholly unsupported allegations regarding "modern feminism" yet again, but really, they're just weird. Obviously, you can't really neatly characterize modern feminism, as it is so varied, even if you focus solely upon one medium of expression. Still, you can identify major trends. Personally, I'm most familiar with feminism in the arts, particularly music--through my work, and certain popular strains of academic feminism. As to the arts, my world is the underground and probably a fair bit removed from whatever is going on in the mainstream. But as to the academic studies, I think my interests are fairly "mainstream"--or as "mainstream" as such can be said to be--and one fairly big trend is feminist theory as it intersects with Posthumanism and also with what has come to be called (over the past decade or so) Animal Studies and Critical Animal Studies--the latter having a stronger ethico-political component. As these names suggest, the work is so far removed from any sort of "man-hating" feminism as to be laughable.

All I'm asking is that you just really think this through before you go off throwing the "ever smaller demographic groups" under the bus.

Well I know feminism from social media, where pop feminism has absolutely ruin liberal causes and empowered alt-right counter movement. So try looking outside of your "feminism in the arts" and see what is happening in the real world.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Behold Tiassa another Hillary primary voter and guess who he blames for the election of Trump, take a guess?

https://www.atheismisunstoppable.com/video_post/erecting-a-white-boogeyman/

 

[Bells]

We must prioritize progressive economic and tax reform first and formost, at present most elected democrats are merely "republican light" weakly advocating for only the most tepid of economic reform, the populace knows this hence low voter turn out. You on the other hand want to waste time and votes doing what, useless name calling? Here is some name calling for you: You are the bully and advocate of bullying! Your obsession with pampering to ever smaller demographic groups while the majority of the population gets more and more livid from economic stagnation that they don't vote or worse vote for trump has gotten us to this horrifically low place of total lack of goverment power. You have no problem with letting the rich rape the working class just so long as transsexuals have their own bathroom, which guess what, they don't now!

If winning means continuing to support the marginalisation of the "ever smaller demographic groups" and refusing to acknowledge their rights, then frankly, the left does not deserve to win.

Failure to adhere to and support fundamental human rights because you "must prioritise progressive economic and tax reform first and foremost", is simply obscene. You can and should do both.

Now what are we losing by focusing on economic reform first? Are we pro-life now? No, we still advocate abortions and birth control, paid for by the rich no less!

Then pray tell, why does Bernie, for example, support a strictly pro-life candidate?

Failure to support women's right to choose is deeply tied to economic reform.

If you turn your back on women's reproductive rights, then no amount of focusing on "economic reform first" is going to get you elected.

Women are seeing their rights dwindling away, and you think turning your back on their human rights to is the way to win?

and not on asinine social media identity politics issues that divide people by oppression hierarchy and get the left laughed at as cry-bullies.

How do you think you are going to win, without women, minorities and LGBT voters?

You think focusing on an economic platform only, is going to get you a win because that might bring back white male voters such as yourself?

I find it astonishing that you declare yourself a Democrat, but you are openly advocating for the party ignoring vital issues for more than half of the populace..

You don't have a clue, do you? What? You think a women's reproductive rights is an "asinine social media identity politics"? You don't know many women in the real world, do you? Probably explains why your sole understanding of feminism comes from what you have chosen to read on social media.

You are the ultimate "Bernie Bro", aren't you? Frankly, your ideology does more damage to the left than anyone else could do.

 

[pjdude1219]

I find it astonishing that you declare yourself a Democrat, but you are openly advocating for the party ignoring vital issues for more than half of the populace..

You don't have a clue, do you? What? You think a women's reproductive rights is an "asinine social media identity politics"? You don't know many women in the real world, do you? Probably explains why your sole understanding of feminism comes from what you have chosen to read on social media.

You are the ultimate "Bernie Bro", aren't you? Frankly, your ideology does more damage to the left than anyone else could do.

i hope you don't judge all of sanders supporters by electric because i would like to note i'm opposed to electric for the very reasons i voted for sanders.

 

[parmalee]

You don't have a clue, do you? What? You think a women's reproductive rights is an "asinine social media identity politics"? You don't know many women in the real world, do you? Probably explains why your sole understanding of feminism comes from what you have chosen to read on social media.

Remember all the controversy over high school students and undergrads using Wikipedia as source material for their essays? And now it's social media. EF referred to himself as "educated" in another thread, and here he openly admits that his knowledge of feminism--and most things, apparently--is derived from social media. Unless he is conversing exclusively with teenagers, how on earth does he expect anyone to take him seriously?

 

[parmalee]

Well I know feminism from social media, where pop feminism has absolutely ruin liberal causes and empowered alt-right counter movement. So try looking outside of your "feminism in the arts" and see what is happening in the real world.

I would ask for some examples of this "pop feminism (which) has absolutely ruin(ed) liberal causes and empowered alt-right counter movement," but I already have at least a dozen times and you've offered up nothing.

Well, why not? Have at it. What's it gonna be this time: a list of quotes from the SCUM Manifesto, which you probably picked up off of one of your PUA sites? Or maybe the unknown editor's response to a stupid blog post, again? Ooohh, or maybe a Youtube video? Better yet, some comments on a Youtube video.