On American Appeasement

[iceaura]

Just that: racism is secondary to class issues these days and that has always been an issue. Those using race-bait as a ploy as a way to herd politics will always exist but class issues (blue vs white collar, for instance) has always existed primarily to divide resources beyond reasonable equity.

Racism and sexism are primary means of class oppression in the US. The class oppressions you speak of were established and continue to be maintained that way. The racial and sexual bigotries of white men in the US have been the primary means of coordinating them in opposition to their class interests.

Racism is not "secondary" to "class issues": it's one of their primary bases, most significant supports. Likewise sexism.

And that does end up affecting everyone regardless of race or gender.

Not "regardless". It discriminates in its "regards". It affects different races and sexes differently. That's how the Republicans get white men to vote for it.

 

[Tiassa]

I didn't say you shouldn't address racism or sexism. it should definitely be addressed and stressed with a blowhorn constantly, lest people fall under an illusion it doesn't exist. but economic inequality will still exist because racism and sexism is about addressing bias to result in equal opportunities, not necessarily addressing entrenched economic inequality. just because mcdonalds (example again) hires people in all spectrum of the rainbow, doesn't automatically mean they will be receiving decent pay. it's not the same issue.

Part of this just feels like you're trying to have a different discussion.

A rising tide may lift all boats, but that doesn't say a thing about the people being pushed underwater so the people in the boats can feel a little taller and more empowered. Nor does it say anything about those who sabotage other people's boats.

 

[birch]

A rising tide may lift all boats, but that doesn't say a thing about the people being pushed underwater so the people in the boats can feel a little taller and more empowered. Nor does it say anything about those who sabotage other people's boats.

Strange, how people do this to eachother, again, regardless of gender or race? it seems to be a pervasive problem among people. Your own gender and race can also sabotage you. Are you telling me, for example, throughout your life, it was only other races or opposite gender that are always the ones who don't have your best interest? people's identity is not always by race or gender but religion, politics, personality etc and therefore their discrimination.

even now, can you guarantee that if you randomly meet someone of your race and gender, that you can trust them or that they give one iota about you just because of your race and gender?

I have noticed in life that people discriminate against you, undermine, hateful, jealous etc for various reasons and it's coming from all factions, races and both genders. I haven't experienced a reality where it was just one race or gender that was trying to screw one over or had ill will, for whatever reasons. yes, 'minorities' are capable of prejudice, have ill will, or be hateful. sorry, I grew up in America and have experienced assholes and bitches from whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics and from both genders. Seems to me to be a pervasive human problem.

Do you know what is another bs issue? The idea that being a minority automatically absolves that group from the act of oppresser or saboteur/underminer or evildoer. Often, it's discrimination in the reverse. a sense of entitlement to undermine simply with the false reasoning that those one perceives as more priviledged or not identified as being as oppressed somehow deserve to be the object of ill will. The whole pseudo/devilish 'poor me', therefore I am a saint or at least the public is too busy focusing on our lack to notice the very real human motivations like graspiness, ego, greed, prejudice, hate, jealousy etc as well. EXACTLY, your metaphor as it blinds as you are too busy seeing a group shallowly as a benign oppressed group to notice they also undermine and sabotage and are prejudiced, but your added false shade is appreciated no doubt, as it just remains hidden or less obvious. I"ve noticed there are people on the bottom who also are egotistical, greedy, hateful etc and because of false social memes and through their own ignorance in interpretation, actually believe they have a right to have ill will and a sense of covetous envy or ill will toward others that are so obviously (to them) received advantages they don't inherently deserve, even targeting good people or those who mean them no harm. in other words, those grasping egoistic and self centered traits exist in people no matter what station in life they are. very few people are actually 'innocent.' but they are taught they are to have an inordinate sense of entitlement, if simply they have been a victim or have less advantageous. I've noticed this with ALL races (yes, including whites) and both genders.

Puleeze, minorities are people and that includes the good and bad, just like everyone else.

 

[birch]

Okay, the point that I am trying to make is that one should be mindful of the reality of people period. It is not "just" about a white vs black issue or men vs women etc. Haven't people heard about even black people who are accused of 'acting' white by other members of their own race? or those who are ridiculed for wanting to better themselves etc? People try to undermine those they can. Even I was the target of extreme jealousy and ill will by some Asians just because I was 'coming to america'. Yes, even as a child. lol

Just because they can't reach you for you to experience their hidden ugliness, agenda or ill will, doesn't mean they are not doing that to someone else. Even people who are under you can have an unfair/unethical evil eye to sabotage you as well or if they could.

The reality is all those ugly or evil traits can exist in people, regardless. when you paint a broadbrush and label people/groups simply as oppressors vs victims, you are oblivious to the truth that anyone can be an oppressor or are actually doing that, maybe not to the 'white man' but to whoever they can scapegoat or is an easy target. I've been a target of lots of racism by blacks and Hispanics in the past too. And Asians too, but for different bigoted reasons!! And of course, as well as whites! I've been targeted by women too! Women do that to eachother just as men do that to eachother. It's just that usually people target those they can "reach." For instance, people can be very lame and nosy as well as bitter about what someone else has vs what they don't etc.

I remember being harassed because I was entitled to some veteran benefits due to my military service and some bitches (more women than men) were very jealous of that saying all kinds of subtle cruel things to me. Because these particular women were stupid, they didn't realize their malevolence or ill will was not justified considering if they wanted such, they should have joined the fuking military then!! it's not my fault they chose something else and feel they have a right to have exactly what anyone else has, for irrational reasons. I mean, there are people who don't want you to have something just because they don't like the idea of someone having something they don't have, even if it's totally useless to them anyways!

for instance, when I was at a homeless shelter, I witnessed all the good, bad and ugly of nature. the jealousy, ill will, gossip, hatred, prejudice, sexism etc regardless of race or gender as well as the kindness, honesty and capability to be humane. Some are decent and good people and some are horrible people, just like those on top. That's why it's not "just" about race or gender because anyone is capable of it.

The issue is tackling these issues of inequality itself, not assuming the victims are of just a certain group or that the saboteurs are only of a certain group.

 

[Tiassa]

Strange, how people do this to eachother, again, regardless of gender or race? it seems to be a pervasive problem among people. Your own gender and race can also sabotage you. Are you telling me, for example, throughout your life, it was only other races or opposite gender that are always the ones who don't have your best interest? people's identity is not always by race or gender but religion, politics, personality etc and therefore their discrimination.

"Regardless of gender or race" is a lie. "Own gender and race" is a distraction of your own invention.

What I find most interesting is your disregard for other victims:

The reality is all those ugly or evil traits can exist in people, regardless. when you paint a broadbrush and label people/groups simply as oppressors vs victims, you are oblivious to the truth that anyone can be an oppressor or are actually doing that, maybe not to the 'white man' but to whoever they can scapegoat or is an easy target. I've been a target of lots of racism by blacks and Hispanics in the past too.

You keep focusing on how someone can hurt another despite color or sex. In this context, "regardless of gender or race" overlooks a lot in order to get there. Because economic inequality affects people differently, and your pretense to the other is complete and utter bullshit. And willful bullshit at that. I mean, seriously, try this: Economic justice hits Donald Trump just like it hits the poor woman of color. How about Lindsey "the Bro with No Ho" Graham? (Remember, you insist, "regardless".)

Without the racism and sexism, Rebecca Griego might still be alive. Jonathan Rowan, too. (That would be the guy who murdered her.)

But you don't call ICE on English people with really plain names, like that. That's why. And you sure as hell don't hold a pleasant chap like that, even with an arrest record and no right to be in the country according to the law, just because he tried to break into an ex-girlfriend's apartment to beat her. Somebody mentioned catcalling, earlier. You can tell women all you want about their sisters who will fuck them over because people compete, but on a comparative basis, would you say street harassment including shooting someone to death for not being interested, is the sort of thing that strikes everyone "regardless of gender or race"?

So let's talk about a woman. Um ... that one, right there. The corpse. Okay, so, you see how she is now; uh, when I met her last night I wasn't even hitting on her, but in saying, "Excuse me", as I passed, you would have thought I threatened her life. And, you know, I guess some men have expressed feeling offended by that before, but I admit I wasn't, and now that she's just a corpse because someone shot her to death after she didn't feel like giving a guy her phone number, do not expect that I will lament some imagined sexist oppression of my manhood in that moment when she seemed afraid of me just trying to pass by, nor waste the moment reflecting on how sexism isn't required for someone to hurt me.

When we look at the basic idea of a problem, and suggest that it strikes without regard to this or that factor, there is a lot to what we're looking at. That we can pull so much stuff out of the ground that Oklahoma is now the nation's seismic hotbed is an astonishing prospect, and we really do face a problem. But the fact that earthquakes happen regardless of American region says nothing about cause or magnitude. Oklahoma can address part of its earthquake problem, it seems, by not doing all that to the ground; nothing about the fact of earthquakes in Oklahoma, however, means we shouldn't be watching the San Andreas fault, or the Ring of Fire.

And while the big problem with the sky around where I live, this week, is smoke from wildfires, it did, in fact, rain recently, but am I really going to look at Houston and say, "Rain falls, regardless of location"? I would hope not.

People don't disagree that specific -isms aren't required to be in effect for one person to harm another. What makes your argument seem so strange is its apparent determination to avoid other aspects. Like questions of cause and magnitude. Questions of empowerment. Questions of what you actually mean in your posts, such as this exchange with Iceaura:

Birch↑: Yes, racism and sexism are issues that exist but overall economic inequality affects/hits everyone (regardless of gender or race) which is a huge/major issue because it's about human greed, period. that's why economic reform is needed.

Iceaura↑: It doesn't hit "regardless" of gender or race. It's often structured by gender and race, as in the US.

Birch↑: uh, absolutely not true. as if the underpaid worker at mcdonalds (for example) is due to racism. NO, it is due to classism. it does affect everyone, it is not just structured by gender or race. there are situations where it can but it's definitely not 'just' by gender or race. ​

When you disagreed with Iceaura but changed the terms in order to explain that disagreement, what did that mean? Why did you change the terms?

There are reasons I find myself suspicious of people who want to focus on "economic" equality or justice while trying to erase, conceal, or otherwise avoid consideration of equality and justice proper. You cannot parse and stratify justice, else it is no justice at all.

• Twenty years ago, Washington state voters rallied behind an out-of-state interest, an anti-government advocate, and it's amazing, no matter how many times he gets busted for campaign impropriety, he's a conservative so his base loves him. And twenty years ago voters gutted the state's revenue structure. We've been running on cobbled local taxes and fees for years. It has gotten to the point that the legislature is in contempt of court for failing to fund the schools; the present solution in place is to increase education spending less than the necessary amount while dismantling the county tax structure that funds the schools without installing any replacement. So, there's some straightforward classism for you. We keep doing this; twenty years ago we dismantled the revenue structure without a replacement because rich people wanted to pay less in taxes. Voters never got their thirty dollar car tabs, but threw fits about the condition of the roads after having canceled road maintenance funding. We have the most regressive tax structure in the nation, or close to. It's a sales tax that depends on the poor making and spending enough to finance the rich. Voters rejected a state income tax, with people who would have paid no tax rejecting the measure on the grounds that they want to be rich, someday, too. And the point of this is that there are, indeed, some straightforward class struggle issues that can be resolved simply by fixing the state's revenue structure. In the end, though, fix all that and sexism and racism will still be present. And keep doing that over and over again until you're satisfied with an "economic" justice or equality, and at some point, you're going to have to deal with racism and sexism as classism. Racism is a class struggle. Sexism is a class struggle.​

Here is a bit from fiction; there is a reason:

Walking through the filth in the streets made me want to retch, but I hid it. Anyway, we all know Easterners are filthy, right? Look at how they live. Never mind that they can’t use sorcery to keep their neighborhoods clean the way Dragaerans do. If they want to use sorcery, they can become citizens of the Empire by moving into the country and becoming Teckla, or buying titles in the Jhereg. Don’t want to be serfs? They’re stubborn, too, aren’t they? Don’t have the money to buy titles? Of course not! Who’d give them a good job, seeing how filthy they are?

(Steven Brust)​

He's talking about a fantasy society, obviously, but this argument has been used against pretty much any ethnic minority. But a majority? We have EF's "economic justice" and your attempt to separate sexism and racism from classism in pursuit of "economic equality", and the reason we will be able to recite the blame game against women once we've achieved that "economic" justice and equality is, hey, look at her, she's behind even in this time of economic equality and economic justice. Just like a woman, right? All we ever did was disdain her in school, meddle with her birth control, civil rights, and workplace opportunity, treat her like a criminal when someone else committed a crime against her, and refuse to allow her to be in control of her own self—even to the point of forcing her to carry and bear a child—and none of this, apparently, has anything to do with "classism" or "economic equality"?

Your focus on the discriminators is only surprising for being so unsurprising.

No, really, I would have thought there was some manner of limit.
____________________

Notes:

Brust, Steven. Yendi. New York: Ace, 1984.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Your stereotypical posts about the roles of the sexes is downright dangerous for men who suffer from a mental illness.

Well sorry global warming is real, oh wait wrong political spectrum of science denialism, ok, well sorry men and women have on average different personality and interests. Why is this fact dangerous? It is amoral, if your outside the average, so what, there is nothing wrong with that, yes some people want to force everyone to be normal, yes that is wrong, but that has nothing to do with the fact the norms exist. Those norms are the reason why society created gender roles, again does not mean we need to stick to those roles in this day an age and we should not in fact.

I'm not mocking anyone, if a man wants to cry, go ahead, I'm just saying on average we don't, because we evolved not to, because women would not breed with us otherwise, that social dynamic though has changed, we do not live in prehistoric times, and we most change for the times. Go breed with a man that cries.

Is that why you just ranted about women and our 'breeding' capacity like we are cattle? Did you check your wife's teeth before or after you knocked her out with a lump of wood and dragged her to your cave? Did you measure her hips to make sure she could "breed well"?

First of all I don't believe in marriage, marriage is an archaic horrible social contract. Yes men on average are attracted to breast, hips, butts, spinal curve, as a matter of instinct, just as women on average are attracted to height, strength, courage, charisma, wealth and power as a matter of instinct. If your attraction are outside the norm, so be it, there is no moral reason they should be normal or not. It is important to understand where these gender roles come from if we are to move forward. Yet you want to label any attempt to even acknowledge these biological facts as prejudice and oppression and "right wing", even I as have repeated told you there need not be any moral emphasis and that we in today's society need to change these roles.

Once again: jews have higher average IQ than any other ethnic group, we are disproportionally richer, ergo what? so what? Acknowledging that fact does not mean we need to conclude "we must exterminate the Jews!" that is a false leap of logic. Likewise acknowledging that men and women on average have different desires and aptitudes does not mean we need to put women in kitchens and men in coal mines, people should be free to pursue their own individual interests, notice I said people, that means EVERYONE.

You believe in freedom, just so long as minorities, women and LGBT do not share the same freedoms you have. You believe in protecting the status quo. That much has been obvious in your posts. That is why your brand of 'left' does not deserve to win.

You have gone far FAR beyond the principle of good faith here, so I say you want to support minorities, except for Jews, you want to kill all Jews. That much is obvious in your posts.

Now you might think that is stupid, but so is you saying I "believe in freedom, just so long as minorities, women and LGBT do not share the same freedoms you have. You believe in protecting the status quo" after I have repeatedly stated otherwise, when I say I support transhumanism and our technological evolution beyond the human form, where the fuck do you get the idea I "believe in protecting the status quo"? I literally advocated the stripping of everything, gender, sex, emotion, even our own talking monkey bodies, to achieve true freedom and you think that is "status quo"? Since you seem incapable of interpreting anything I say as anything other then misogyny, I might as well interpret your behavior toward me as antisemitism, it would only be fair to treat you in the absurd way you treat me.

 

[iceaura]

ok, well sorry men and women have on average different personality and interests. Why is this fact dangerous? I

So?
You have no idea what those differences are. None. That they exist, probably, is a truism - but it means nothing here, because the issue here is what those differences actually are, and there's no way to tell.

Those norms are the reason why society created gender roles, .

No, they aren't. The biology doesn't match the "gender roles".

It is important to understand where these gender roles come from if we are to move forward.

And so the fact that you don't invalidates your entire program for moving forward.

 

[Bells]

Well sorry global warming is real, oh wait wrong political spectrum of science denialism, ok, well sorry men and women have on average different personality and interests. Why is this fact dangerous? It is amoral, if your outside the average, so what, there is nothing wrong with that, yes some people want to force everyone to be normal, yes that is wrong, but that has nothing to do with the fact the norms exist. Those norms are the reason why society created gender roles, again does not mean we need to stick to those roles in this day an age and we should not in fact.

And you wonder why so many men are homeless as a result of suffering from a mental illness... The reason your comments are dangerous to any man (or woman for that matter) is that you seem to have this bizarre stereotype about men and women and their roles in society. For example:

I'm not mocking anyone, if a man wants to cry, go ahead, I'm just saying on average we don't, because we evolved not to, because women would not breed with us otherwise, that social dynamic though has changed, we do not live in prehistoric times, and we most change for the times. Go breed with a man that cries.

Which is utter bullshit, EF. This is the exact type of stereotype that literally has men avoiding seeking help and hiding how they feel. That is why so many men are homeless, because of their fear of men like you, carrying on with some utter bullshit claims about how you evolved to not cry and that women would not "breed" with you if you did.. And you whine about men not getting help and ending up homeless? It's because of you and people who carry on like you do. Stereotypes like what you have spouted in this thread are absolutely dangerous. It is literally why men do not seek help.

And a few things about your posts aside from your overt misogyny, sexism and racism..

1) Your obsession with women breeding and their capacity to breed and now your comments about my going to "breed with a man that cries". You seem obsessed. Is there something you are trying to tell us? Because you keep going on about it. Particularly with the 'breeding' capacity of women. Am I missing something? Because while you claim to not be a misogynist or sexist, your constant referral to women and breeding and how you address this says otherwise. In fact, it kind of makes you sound like a bit of a creeper, who is more intent on the capacity of her uterus, than you are in the person as a whole. It's kind of wrong, creepy as fuck and well, dumb.

2) Your comments about men and their mental health. Earlier in the thread, you tried to argue that men suffer the most because they tend to number more in regards to homelessness, I suppose you did this to try to argue why women's rights should not be something the Democrats should be openly supporting or fighting for.. I responded with links, that explained the reason for high male homelessness has to do with the fact that a lot of them are veterans, a lot of whom and others who suffer from mental illness and that men, by and large, tend to not seek out help for mental illness like depression, PTSD, anxiety disorders and the like and as a result of these horrific issues, they cannot work, function in society and end up homeless and the reason they tend to not seek help is because of a ridiculous stereotype that exists about men and how they are meant to be strong and not cry.. And you respond by perpetuating this negative and frankly wrong stereotype. And then you whine when I point out that your behaviour is dangerous to men (and women for that matter)... Look dude, I don't get what your issue is. But you negatively stereotyping men who suffer from mental illness and spouting utter rubbish like men are apparently evolved to not cry and overtly implying that men who cry will somehow not be able to breed with women (refer to point 1), is the type of thing that results in men not seeking help. Please stop doing that. Because it is harmful behaviour and will cause harm to others.

3) Your Jew baiting comments. No, really, what is wrong with you, dude? The only person who has gone on and on about killing Jews here has been you. Not me, not anyone else. Despite my pointing out that your comments are anti-Semitic, offensive and frankly unhinged if I am to be perfectly honest, you just won't stop. I mean, you accused me of hating Jews, when I had not even said a single thing about Jews or another religious group for that matter. I am fairly certain you received an infraction for it from another member of staff, and you still won't stop. Just stop. I don't how you get from my saying that economic equality can never be achieved unless issues like racial and sexual discrimination are dealt with, since they are the barriers that directly affect and cause economic inequality for minorities, women and LGBT and that it should be handled and addressed as well as economic inequality that affects everyone... I mean, I don't know how you took that and did this leap to saying that I hate Jews and want to kill all the Jews and that this is apparently obvious to all. Obvious to whom? As I noted, the only person who has gone on about this repeatedly for pages now, has been you. Is the "all" just you? Because having read through the responses here, you are the only one that has made those offensive comments. No one else has. Hell, the only person to go on about Jews repeatedly as been you.. Do you think it is "obvious to all" because you perhaps think that you fill the "all" niche? Do you hear voices in your head saying that they think it too? And I am not mocking you, I am genuinely curious. Your friends perhaps? Your breeders? (Okay, that one was designed to mock!)... But in all seriousness now, that needs to stop. It is Jew baiting and it is offensive and utterly unnecessary and frankly, unbecoming of you as a human being. Because it just makes you look like you are the type of guy who is marching with a tiki torch screaming "blood and soil".

First of all I don't believe in marriage, marriage is an archaic horrible social contract.

Okay?

You failed to note the sarcasm in that post? Carrying on..

Yes men on average are attracted to breast, hips, butts, spinal curve, as a matter of instinct, just as women on average are attracted to height, strength, courage, charisma, wealth and power as a matter of instinct.

Not that you aren't stereotyping or anything...

 

[Bells]

If your attraction are outside the norm, so be it, there is no moral reason they should be normal or not. It is important to understand where these gender roles come from if we are to move forward.

So you want to have a system that rewards those gender roles (and having read through your posts for pages now, they are deeply sexist and misogynistic to say the least!) to what will be the detriment of women.. You don't see how it is wrong to support these types of gender roles, such as the ones you have spouted in this thread, viewing women as "breeders" like they are cattle?

Yet you want to label any attempt to even acknowledge these biological facts as prejudice and oppression and "right wing", even I as have repeated told you there need not be any moral emphasis and that we in today's society need to change these roles.

Because what you are spouting is right wing rubbish. I'm sorry if it pains you to read it. But you are literally like a walking advert for the right wing Christian lobby who advocate for zero reproductive rights for women, who demand women stay home and keep popping out babies and be 'breeders', that it is the man who is the strong and authoritarian figurehead of the family.. This type of stereotype ignores that most families in the US are not like that and you arguing that it is a biological "fact" goes against what people actually do and how they live in the real world. Perhaps it is a biological fact in the cave you crawled out of, but in reality, it is not. Perhaps you wish to achieve what you erroneously believe is "economic equality", which in reality is only economic equality for white males, because you want to push your ideological belief that women should be home and 'breeding' while the men go out and make the money and be the strong man, etc? I mean, is that it? Is that why you are pitching a fit against the very notion of equal rights for women and minorities meaning economic equality for all?

Any policy that aims to restrict access to women or that aims to push women into these types of stereotypes about staying home and 'breeding' as you keep arguing for and about, is sexist and misogynistic. Deeply so.

You claimed a few days ago that you listened to people? As this thread proves, you clearly are not. All you have done is repeat the right wing-nut talking points. You seem to believe that no one is capable of arguing against discrimination while arguing for economic equality and you wrongly believe that it is a just/or game, when no one has actually even suggested that. Just as you claim that those roles need to be abolished, while arguing why they need to be understood and why they are so important "if you are to move forward".. Which is kind of contradictory. If they are so important, but you wish to abolish them, but they need to be understood.. Huh? You make absolutely no sense. Not only is it wrong, it is offensive and in no way reflects reality.

Once again: jews have higher average IQ than any other ethnic group, we are disproportionally richer, ergo what? so what? Acknowledging that fact does not mean we need to conclude "we must exterminate the Jews!" that is a false leap of logic. Likewise acknowledging that men and women on average have different desires and aptitudes does not mean we need to put women in kitchens and men in coal mines, people should be free to pursue their own individual interests, notice I said people, that means EVERYONE.

Huh?

You just contradicted yourself and again with the Jew baiting.. You keep going on and on about "exterminating the Jews".. How the fuck you got that from what I or anyone else is posting is beyond me.

ou have gone far FAR beyond the principle of good faith here, so I say you want to support minorities, except for Jews, you want to kill all Jews. That much is obvious in your posts.

Wow, you are unhinged.

Since it is so obvious. Can you quote where I have said or indicated that I "want to kill all Jews" in this thread? It shouldn't be hard for you, since you claim it is so obvious.

Now you might think that is stupid, but so is you saying I "believe in freedom, just so long as minorities, women and LGBT do not share the same freedoms you have. You believe in protecting the status quo" after I have repeatedly stated otherwise, when I say I support transhumanism and our technological evolution beyond the human form, where the fuck do you get the idea I "believe in protecting the status quo"? I literally advocated the stripping of everything, gender, sex, emotion, even our own talking monkey bodies, to achieve true freedom and you think that is "status quo"? Since you seem incapable of interpreting anything I say as anything other then misogyny, I might as well interpret your behavior toward me as antisemitism, it would only be fair to treat you in the absurd way you treat me.

You have actively argued against fighting against discrimination for women, minorities and LGBT because you believe that you should be targeting the white male votes instead and you have argued that women, minorities and LGBT can just vote for you regardless and you'll do them a solid when you win... Which would mean you would break campaign promises to those angry white male Trump voters you just kowtowed to and for, but apparently that does not matter, because you are willing to throw away your voting base, to appease the white male vote who went to Trump.

My saying that you are pushing to maintain the status quo, is exactly what you are in fact doing.

From your posting right wing propaganda videos to arguing from a far right standpoint, to pushing offensive, sexist and dangerous stereotypes.. You aren't advocating for women, minorities and LGBT. You are advocating for the white male vote, the Trump voter, and you believe that evveryone will just jump in line. In short, your solution is not going to tackle the very real problem of diversity and how discrimination is so closely linked to economic inequality for so many. And my saying that apparently makes me want to murder all Jews.

Seriously dude, seek help.

 

[ElectricFetus]

So you want to have a system that rewards those gender roles (and having read through your posts for pages now, they are deeply sexist and misogynistic to say the least!) to what will be the detriment of women.

When have I ever said I want such a system?

You don't see how it is wrong to support these types of gender roles

When did I say I support such gender roles?

such as the ones you have spouted in this thread, viewing women as "breeders" like they are cattle?

When did I say I view women as "breeder" like they are cattle?

Because what you are spouting is right wing rubbish.

No it is evolutionary biology.

I'm sorry if it pains you to read it. But you are literally like a walking advert for the right wing Christian lobby who advocate for zero reproductive rights for women, who demand women stay home and keep popping out babies and be 'breeders', that it is the man who is the strong and authoritarian figurehead of the family..

Christian right wing lobby does not even believe we evolved to begin with! You are projecting upon me, strawmanning me and slandering me, so I will retrun your own gross projections upon you, you do this because you hate me, you hate me because I'm a jew, you hate jews and want to exterminate us because your a neonazi.

This type of stereotype ignores that most families in the US are not like that and you arguing that it is a biological "fact"

Most families are not like what? First of all the US is a developed country with low reproductive rate because women have freedom, it is artificial, not natural and that is a good thing, a great thing, our natural state of being is to live brutish short lives of pain and suffering, yet now we live long lives of luxury and freedoms unimaginable even a century ago.

Perhaps it is a biological fact in the cave you crawled out of, but in reality, it is not. Perhaps you wish to achieve what you erroneously believe is "economic equality", which in reality is only economic equality for white males,

How is universal healthcare, free education, a basic income guarantee, for EVERYONE, only for white males?

because you want to push your ideological belief that women should be home and 'breeding' while the men go out and make the money and be the strong man, etc?

And I have repeatedly stated that is not my ideological belief, that I don't want women back at the home breeding or men slaving for them, I have repeated said this now yet you keep slandering me you antisemite.

I mean, is that it? Is that why you are pitching a fit against the very notion of equal rights for women and minorities meaning economic equality for all?

I have repeated stated I want equal rights for women and minorities. That in order to get that we need to win elections, and that white voters we lost want economic equality, ergo we must campaign on economic equality, that does not mean we can't implement racial and sexual justice once elected, we must win back the goverment if we are to get any rights for anyone. Your ilk on the other hand demand strict ideological unity with you, or else you slander, in the process making enemies of people that would vote liberal, cost us countless votes, costing us the poor uneducated white vote whom you have ignored and blamed for everyone elses oppression, you would choose to support a candidate simply because she has a vagina, regardless of how unelectable she was, costing us the presidency and the whole goverment, putting it in the hands of the very people that wish to strip people of rights. Everything you say you want your ilk's actions have achieved the opposite of, you might as well be a misogynist racist neonazi in disguise.

Any policy that aims to restrict access to women or that aims to push women into these types of stereotypes about staying home and 'breeding' as you keep arguing for and about, is sexist and misogynistic. Deeply so.

What rights have I aimed to restrict of women? when have I said I want to push women into stereotypical roles?

Do you deny men and women have different average heights? Does acknowledging that fact somehow strip women of their human rights? If a women does not want to be at home making babies, great, all the better for the world, how many times do I need to say this you neonazi?

You claimed a few days ago that you listened to people? As this thread proves, you clearly are not. All you have done is repeat the right wing-nut talking points. You seem to believe that no one is capable of arguing against discrimination while arguing for economic equality and you wrongly believe that it is a just/or game,

Where have I said anything like this?

Just as you claim that those roles need to be abolished, while arguing why they need to be understood and why they are so important "if you are to move forward".. Which is kind of contradictory.

How is that contradictory?

If they are so important, but you wish to abolish them, but they need to be understood.. Huh? You make absolutely no sense. Not only is it wrong, it is offensive and in no way reflects reality.

Ok let me try another topic: racism is real, it is important, it must be understood, in order to abolish it. The cause is a human instinct to demonize others and glorify the in-group, this evolved eons going back before when came down from the tree, as an effective mechanism allowing us to kill one another, for the warmonger hate-filled tribe defeated the peaceful tribes, took their land, killed the men and took the women to be raped and to be proto-slaves of the warmongering tribe's women. Understanding this instinct, that racism is present in every person (maybe with exception of some autistics and mental disable) and that it can flair up at any time, is important. It can't be abolished only suppress, not until we can genetically engineer it out or cybernetically remove it by creating people devoid of the ability to hate or fear could it be abolished. How is it suppressed then? Well that requires multiple tactics at once, legal egalitarianism, equal rights for all, a high standard of living for when people are stressed they get tribal, but unstressed they have time and energy to care about others, a high level of education to understand others perspectives.

You just contradicted yourself and again with the Jew baiting.. You keep going on and on about "exterminating the Jews".. How the fuck you got that from what I or anyone else is posting is beyond me.

How the fuck you got I want to oppressed women, minorities and LGBTQ from what I posted is beyond me (well actually I know exactly why: you have a bias against me and project me as evil, therefor everything I say is misogyny to you, why you do this I could only guess... because you hate jews)

Since it is so obvious. Can you quote where I have said or indicated that I "want to kill all Jews" in this thread? It shouldn't be hard for you, since you claim it is so obvious.

Sure, if you can show me where I said I want to take away the rights of minorities, women, LGBTQ, or where I deny there human rights.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You have actively argued against fighting against discrimination for women, minorities and LGBT because you believe that you should be targeting the white male votes instead and you have argued that women, minorities and LGBT can just vote for you regardless and you'll do them a solid when you win... Which would mean you would break campaign promises to those angry white male Trump voters you just kowtowed to and for, but apparently that does not matter, because you are willing to throw away your voting base, to appease the white male vote who went to Trump.

Achieving universal healthcare, rising the minimum wage, reducing debt, would not be the only things we do, I see no reason we can fight against discriminate of women, minorities and LGBT (propose a law why don't you?) as well, and yet you accuse me of not being able to multitask. Women, minorities and LGBT will vote for us, and are energized against trump, it is the former Obama voters we lost in critical states that we need to get back.

My saying that you are pushing to maintain the status quo, is exactly what you are in fact doing.

The last election was what you wanted, and it was worse then maintaining the status quo, claiming I want to maintain the status quo is like claiming your a neonazi.

From your posting right wing propaganda videos to arguing from a far right standpoint

You have not intention of understand the otherside, no intention of finding their weakness so we can win, only bitching and creating a hug box where you shun all opinions that counter your own, it is people like you that we lost.

to pushing offensive, sexist and dangerous stereotypes.. You aren't advocating for women, minorities and LGBT. You are advocating for the white male vote, the Trump voter, and you believe that evveryone will just jump in line.

Once again I advocating for winning elections to better EVERYONE, you on the other hand have advocated a policy that has lost us everything, the whole goverment, put a pig boar in charge and then slander anyone that suggest an alternate route as right wing, misogynist, racists, etc. Some of those trump voters were obama voters, despite being white and male they have problems that liberal solutions exist for and that they are interested in, if only we could provide candidates they can believe in rather the one covered in decades of baggage and centrism, and if only we would stop bad mouthing for being white and male.

In short, your solution is not going to tackle the very real problem of diversity and how discrimination is so closely linked to economic inequality for so many. And my saying that apparently makes me want to murder all Jews.

Hey you strawman everything I say, what other reason could there be other then you hate jews?

Seriously dude, seek help.

Don't ask me to be sane, that left me with the election of trump.

 

[Tiassa]

How the fuck you got that from what I or anyone else is posting is beyond me.

He didn't. He's making it up as a counterpoint, and its device is kind of obscure and internalized and autoreinforcing:

You have gone far FAR beyond the principle of good faith here, so I say you want to support minorities, except for Jews, you want to kill all Jews. That much is obvious in your posts.

But like we've seen with other questions of rights and freedom and necessity and ... er ... hell, you know, in questions of misogyny, racism, and other popular bigotry, there is a certain mode of fantasy or belief that one can seek certain outcomes without certain implications.

Two-bit mockery is the best he can come up with because dealing with reality means he doesn't get what he wants, and he just feels so oppressed.

So he says whatever, because he has nothing to say.

• • •​

Achieving universal healthcare, rising the minimum wage, reducing debt, would not be the only things we do, I see no reason we can fight against discriminate of women, minorities and LGBT (propose a law why don't you?) as well, and yet you accuse me of not being able to multitask.

Well, if you're really shifting your policy, we can move on to other things.

Propose a law? How about five?

• Strike the Hyde Amendment.

• Reset wage history to exclude prior discrimination.

• Secure reproductive leave for parents.

• Secure reproductive health within insurance schema; also, craft better framework for vision and dental coverage.

• Police accountability under federal purview per civil rights.​

Five laws that help everyone.

 

[ElectricFetus]

And you wonder why so many men are homeless as a result of suffering from a mental illness... The reason your comments are dangerous to any man (or woman for that matter) is that you seem to have this bizarre stereotype about men and women and their roles in society. For example:

Which is utter bullshit, EF. This is the exact type of stereotype that literally has men avoiding seeking help and hiding how they feel. That is why so many men are homeless, because of their fear of men like you, carrying on with some utter bullshit claims about how you evolved to not cry and that women would not "breed" with you if you did.. And you whine about men not getting help and ending up homeless? It's because of you and people who carry on like you do. Stereotypes like what you have spouted in this thread are absolutely dangerous. It is literally why men do not seek help.

I'm not telling them to not seek consoling, they should go seek consoling! They don't because on average men instinctively don't want to admit emotional weakness, ergo they don't, ergo funding falters. There is another bigger reason there are more homeless men: women are more often cuddled and protected simply for begin women. Your childish theory is wrong, they do not fear other men harrasing them as much as they fear women not loving them, women on average do not love weak men. Are you married to a homeless man you found on the street, you care for, you treat? How often do you think such a thing happens? Now how often do you think a man took a women off the street. On average men don't care about other men, which is fundamentally why patriarchy is bullshit, they care about women more, on average women don't care about men even, this is why there are less services for men and more homeless men.

Understanding the problem could provide better solutions, like services that cater to men's inhibition to show weakness. Gender neutral funding for healthcare and services for the homeless.

1) Your obsession with women breeding and their capacity to breed and now your comments about my going to "breed with a man that cries". You seem obsessed. Is there something you are trying to tell us? Because you keep going on about it. Particularly with the 'breeding' capacity of women. Am I missing something? Because while you claim to not be a misogynist or sexist, your constant referral to women and breeding and how you address this says otherwise. In fact, it kind of makes you sound like a bit of a creeper, who is more intent on the capacity of her uterus, than you are in the person as a whole. It's kind of wrong, creepy as fuck and well, dumb.

Yeah, I'm talking about biology, are biologist creeps too? Women select mates, the men they selected is what creates the stereotypical instincts in men. Why is this fact a problem acknowledge? Men selected women to, it is why women have tend to have breast, big hips, butts, enhanced spinal curve, neotenized features, although the ratio of selection was roughly 2:1 that is two women bred for every man that bred, meaning women were selecting the same man more often then men were selecting the same women, if the ratio was 1:1 over millions of years we would have virtually no sexual dimorphism, we would be like swans or geese, both males and females would look exactly the same. If the ratio was more like 10:1 we would be more like the elephant seal with radical difference in size and behavior between males and female, if the ratio went the other way with several males to a female we would end up like the Hyena.

Once again stating biological evolution and sex selection theory is somehow a disgrace to my character. This is not an obsession, it is simply biology, it would be like saying I'm obsessed with global warming by pointing out the intricate interaction of CO2 and water vapor on your climate. Since we are talking about sexism, I telling you where sexism comes from and your response is to call me a creep for pointing out biology.

2) Your comments about men and their mental health. Earlier in the thread, you tried to argue that men suffer the most because they tend to number more in regards to homelessness, I suppose you did this to try to argue why women's rights should not be something the Democrats should be openly supporting or fighting for..

I did this because you don't give a fuck apparently about economic justice, anything related to white males you find to be appeasement and sexism.

I responded with links, that explained the reason for high male homelessness has to do with the fact that a lot of them are veterans, a lot of whom and others who suffer from mental illness and that men, by and large, tend to not seek out help for mental illness like depression, PTSD, anxiety disorders and the like and as a result of these horrific issues, they cannot work, function in society and end up homeless and the reason they tend to not seek help is because of a ridiculous stereotype that exists about men and how they are meant to be strong and not cry..

Well your link is bullshit. Prove causation, prove they don't go for mental health because other men pick on them, heck prove they join the military because other men forced them, prove women had not part in this.

And you respond by perpetuating this negative and frankly wrong stereotype. And then you whine when I point out that your behaviour is dangerous to men (and women for that matter)... Look dude, I don't get what your issue is. But you negatively stereotyping men who suffer from mental illness and spouting utter rubbish like men are apparently evolved to not cry and overtly implying that men who cry will somehow not be able to breed with women (refer to point 1), is the type of thing that results in men not seeking help. Please stop doing that. Because it is harmful behaviour and will cause harm to others.

So stating facts is dangerous now? Spoken like a true denialist. Tell me jews are richer then any other demographic per capita, do you deny this too? Ok is it utter rubbish that women tend to have breast? That women tend to have higher pitch voices, shorter height, why do you think that is? Well because women are selected by men to have neotonized features and breast (other higher apes do not have breast, their mammary glands on swell for lactation, and do not remain continuously swollen), likewise what do you think women selected in men?

Anyways back to men, just because men instinctively don't want to cry or show weakness, does not mean they should not, understanding the cause of the problem (instinct) instead of turning around and blaming men for it, will allow for finding better more efficient solutions.

 

[ElectricFetus]

3) Your Jew baiting comments. No, really, what is wrong with you, dude? The only person who has gone on and on about killing Jews here has been you. Not me, not anyone else. Despite my pointing out that your comments are anti-Semitic, offensive and frankly unhinged if I am to be perfectly honest, you just won't stop. I mean, you accused me of hating Jews, when I had not even said a single thing about Jews or another religious group for that matter.

I'm only applying your logic back at you: You have slander me constantly, ergo you hate jews. I have never said anything about hating women and have repeatedly proclaimed their human and equal rights to men and yet you keep slandering me.

I am fairly certain you received an infraction for it from another member of staff, and you still won't stop. Just stop.

If only you could receive infraction for slander, I can't even jokingly mock myself without you people poncing.

I don't how you get from my saying that economic equality can never be achieved unless issues like racial and sexual discrimination are dealt with, since they are the barriers that directly affect and cause economic inequality for minorities, women and LGBT

First of all no, they are not, economic inequality is the greatest barrier that self perpetuates its self, it is its own cause: a black child raised in poverty will remain in poverty because the child was born and raised in poverty, his race is secondary. Likewise the plurality of the poor are white whom your creepy obsession with racial and sexual discrimination does not account for and whom you wish to ignore and worse blame, thus costing us everything to the conservatives.

and that it should be handled and addressed as well as economic inequality that affects everyone...

How many times have I said that now and you ignore me?

I mean, I don't know how you took that and did this leap to saying that I hate Jews and want to kill all the Jews and that this is apparently obvious to all. Obvious to whom?

Once again how do you determine I want to oppress women, that I don't see them as human, that I don't want them to have equal rights?

As I noted, the only person who has gone on about this repeatedly for pages now, has been you. Is the "all" just you? Because having read through the responses here, you are the only one that has made those offensive comments.

You and Tiassa have repeated slandered me, called me a misogynist, racist, right winger, and now you are saying it is only me making offensive comments? I openly give you back the same class of absurd slander and now you have a fit?

No one else has. Hell, the only person to go on about Jews repeatedly as been you.. Do you think it is "obvious to all" because you perhaps think that you fill the "all" niche?

Is this some kind of appeal to populace fallacy here?

Do you hear voices in your head saying that they think it too?

I don't care... where is this strawman of your going?

And I am not mocking you, I am genuinely curious. Your friends perhaps? Your breeders? (Okay, that one was designed to mock!)... But in all seriousness now, that needs to stop. It is Jew baiting and it is offensive and utterly unnecessary and frankly, unbecoming of you as a human being. Because it just makes you look like you are the type of guy who is marching with a tiki torch screaming "blood and soil".

Your tell me, a jew, to stop pointing out how your behavior is the equivalent of antisemitism, because you think it makes me look like a neonazi? Back to the point here, you claim I hate women, but I can't claim you hate jews, you get to make up absurd slander against me, but I don't?

 

[birch]

"Regardless of gender or race" is a lie. "Own gender and race" is a distraction of your own invention.

What I find most interesting is your disregard for other victims:



You keep focusing on how someone can hurt another despite color or sex. In this context, "regardless of gender or race" overlooks a lot in order to get there. Because economic inequality affects people differently, and your pretense to the other is complete and utter bullshit. And willful bullshit at that. I mean, seriously, try this: Economic justice hits Donald Trump just like it hits the poor woman of color. How about Lindsey "the Bro with No Ho" Graham? (Remember, you insist, "regardless".)

Without the racism and sexism, Rebecca Griego might still be alive. Jonathan Rowan, too. (That would be the guy who murdered her.)

But you don't call ICE on English people with really plain names, like that. That's why. And you sure as hell don't hold a pleasant chap like that, even with an arrest record and no right to be in the country according to the law, just because he tried to break into an ex-girlfriend's apartment to beat her. Somebody mentioned catcalling, earlier. You can tell women all you want about their sisters who will fuck them over because people compete, but on a comparative basis, would you say street harassment including shooting someone to death for not being interested, is the sort of thing that strikes everyone "regardless of gender or race"?

So let's talk about a woman. Um ... that one, right there. The corpse. Okay, so, you see how she is now; uh, when I met her last night I wasn't even hitting on her, but in saying, "Excuse me", as I passed, you would have thought I threatened her life. And, you know, I guess some men have expressed feeling offended by that before, but I admit I wasn't, and now that she's just a corpse because someone shot her to death after she didn't feel like giving a guy her phone number, do not expect that I will lament some imagined sexist oppression of my manhood in that moment when she seemed afraid of me just trying to pass by, nor waste the moment reflecting on how sexism isn't required for someone to hurt me.

When we look at the basic idea of a problem, and suggest that it strikes without regard to this or that factor, there is a lot to what we're looking at. That we can pull so much stuff out of the ground that Oklahoma is now the nation's seismic hotbed is an astonishing prospect, and we really do face a problem. But the fact that earthquakes happen regardless of American region says nothing about cause or magnitude. Oklahoma can address part of its earthquake problem, it seems, by not doing all that to the ground; nothing about the fact of earthquakes in Oklahoma, however, means we shouldn't be watching the San Andreas fault, or the Ring of Fire.

And while the big problem with the sky around where I live, this week, is smoke from wildfires, it did, in fact, rain recently, but am I really going to look at Houston and say, "Rain falls, regardless of location"? I would hope not.

People don't disagree that specific -isms aren't required to be in effect for one person to harm another. What makes your argument seem so strange is its apparent determination to avoid other aspects. Like questions of cause and magnitude. Questions of empowerment. Questions of what you actually mean in your posts, such as this exchange with Iceaura:

Birch↑: Yes, racism and sexism are issues that exist but overall economic inequality affects/hits everyone (regardless of gender or race) which is a huge/major issue because it's about human greed, period. that's why economic reform is needed.

Iceaura↑: It doesn't hit "regardless" of gender or race. It's often structured by gender and race, as in the US.

Birch↑: uh, absolutely not true. as if the underpaid worker at mcdonalds (for example) is due to racism. NO, it is due to classism. it does affect everyone, it is not just structured by gender or race. there are situations where it can but it's definitely not 'just' by gender or race. ​

When you disagreed with Iceaura but changed the terms in order to explain that disagreement, what did that mean? Why did you change the terms?

There are reasons I find myself suspicious of people who want to focus on "economic" equality or justice while trying to erase, conceal, or otherwise avoid consideration of equality and justice proper. You cannot parse and stratify justice, else it is no justice at all.

• Twenty years ago, Washington state voters rallied behind an out-of-state interest, an anti-government advocate, and it's amazing, no matter how many times he gets busted for campaign impropriety, he's a conservative so his base loves him. And twenty years ago voters gutted the state's revenue structure. We've been running on cobbled local taxes and fees for years. It has gotten to the point that the legislature is in contempt of court for failing to fund the schools; the present solution in place is to increase education spending less than the necessary amount while dismantling the county tax structure that funds the schools without installing any replacement. So, there's some straightforward classism for you. We keep doing this; twenty years ago we dismanteled the revenue structure without a replacement because rich people wanted to pay less in taxes. Voters never got their thirty dollar car tabs, but threw fits about the condition of the roads after having canceled road maintenance funding. We have the most regressive tax structure in the nation, or close to. It's a sales tax that depends on the poor making and spending enough to finance the rich. Voters rejected a state income tax, with people who would have paid no tax rejecting the measure on the grounds that they want to be rich, someday, too. And the point of this is that there are, indeed, some straightforward class struggle issues that can be resolved simply by fixing the state's revenue structure. In the end, though, fix all that and sexism and racism will still be present. And keep doing that over and over again until you're satisfied with an "economic" justice or equality, and at some point, you're going to have to deal with racism and sexism as classism. Racism is a class struggle. Sexism is a class struggle.​

Here is a bit from fiction; there is a reason:

Walking through the filth in the streets made me want to retch, but I hid it. Anyway, we all know Easterners are filthy, right? Look at how they live. Never mind that they can’t use sorcery to keep their neighborhoods clean the way Dragaerans do. If they want to use sorcery, they can become citizens of the Empire by moving into the country and becoming Teckla, or buying titles in the Jhereg. Don’t want to be serfs? They’re stubborn, too, aren’t they? Don’t have the money to buy titles? Of course not! Who’d give them a good job, seeing how filthy they are?

(Steven Brust)​

He's talking about a fantasy society, obviously, but this argument has been used against pretty much any ethnic minority. But a majority? We have EF's "economic justice" and your attempt to separate sexism and racism from classism in pursuit of "economic equality", and the reason we will be able to recite the blame game against women once we've achieved that "economic" justice and equality is, hey, look at her, she's behind even in this time of economic equality and economic injustice. Just like a woman, right? All we ever did was disdain her in school, meddle with her birth control, civil rights, and workplace opportunity, treat her like a criminal when someone else committed a crime against her, and refuse to allow her to be in control of her own self—even to the point of forcing her to carry and bear a child—and none of this, apparently, has anything to do with "classism" or "economic equality"?

Your focus on the discriminators is only surprising for being so unsurprising.

No, really, I would have thought there was some manner of limit.
____________________

Notes:

Brust, Steven. Yendi. New York: Ace, 1984.

How should I take your stupid and even suspiciously disingenuous reply? I don't know if you or others have noticed but, there are white people who are poor, disadvantaged and even oppressed. your analogy of Donald trump is dumb as it would only work if all white people are better off and they are not. I have met tons of struggling and poor white people all my life just as anyone else.

I don't know what reality you live in but for the most part, today, EF is more on point than ANY of you in this discussion. Racism definitely exists but it's exaggerated to mean it's affecting mostly one single group (African americans) and it's unrealistically hyped when that is not true ANYMORE. yes, there are conservatives who are racists but they are racists towards everyone. blacks are generally accepted and embraced as americans just as the next white person. I have rarely seen that much racism toward blacks anymore and even growing up, very rarely and it was usual social prejudicial comments of minorities etc and I grew up in the SOUTH for the most part. and racism and bigotry that does exist, is exercised by everyone.

Maybe you don't get out much and still think the racial culture is 1960's.

 

[ElectricFetus]

• Strike the Hyde Amendment.​

Sure, it right there in the democratic platform. Just don't forget we need to spend most of our time campaigning about economic justice, to win back the goverment to even attempt to strike down the hyde amendment, and we will need to acheive great strides in economic justice to keep the goverment so that we can keep the hyde amendment stricken.

• Reset wage history to exclude prior discrimination.

Sure, I guess, could you explain? Personally would go with a universal employment registry, that way when someone wants a job they throw their resume in the registry and employers pull from it, that way we can track who is applying for what to whom, who employs whom and for what income and who rejected whom, so that way we can determine who are discriminating in their employment, precisely. Anyways first comes spend most of our time campaigning about economic justice, to win back the goverment.

• Secure reproductive leave for parents.

Absolutely, paid parently leave, we might even be able to work that into an economic justice platform that we need to spend most of our time on to win back the goverment.

• Secure reproductive health within insurance schema; also, craft better framework for vision and dental coverage.

How about just universal healthcare? yeah sure were probably wont be getting vision and dental coverage off the bat, anyways could see this being worked into a economic justice platform that we need to spend most of our time on to win back the goverment.

• Police accountability under federal purview per civil rights.

Absolutely, I have repeatedly proclaimed a desire for such, Just don't forget we need to spend most of our time campaigning about economic justice, to win back the goverment.​

Five laws that help everyone.

Well not really, poor whites (the ones that don't need abortions that is) are not going to see any obvious benefits from such laws, remember these are people that find "build the wall" as a viable idea, so you got to keep it simple, like "raise minimum wage" and "free healthcare", if you need more than four words to state your policy to the masses, your going to have problems. An no don't go trying to make slogans for those laws just yet, it has to make sense within the very short sights concerns of these people, which is a lack of money, hence why "make america great again" worked and "i'm with her" did no.

 

[iceaura]

Racism definitely exists but it's exaggerated to mean it's affecting mostly one single group (African americans) and it's unrealistically hyped when that is not true ANYMORE.

You're being silly. Racism is not "exaggerated" or unrealistically hyped in general, and its influence with respect to brown, yellow, and red people is standard discussion and political fare. The big deal over immigration, for example, includes a lot of dealing with racism toward brown people.

I have rarely seen that much racism toward blacks anymore and even growing up, very rarely and it was usual social prejudicial comments of minorities etc and I grew up in the SOUTH for the most part.

Your inability to recognize racism or its effects is not evidence of its nonexistence. The rest of us do not share your blind spot.

yes, there are conservatives who are racists but they are racists towards everyone.

Including women. We noticed. They elected Trump, and the Republican Congress. The thread is about pandering to them in order to get a few of them to vote for a nominal Democrat - do you think that's a good idea?

Yeah, I'm talking about biology, are biologist creeps too? Women select mates, the men they selected is what creates the stereotypical instincts in men. Why is this fact a problem acknowledge?

That's not biology, and not a fact. It's not even a coherent thought. It's a well known and familiar way to be bigoted, and dumb as bag of hammers.
You have confused sociological stereotypes with biological facts, and done so in a particularly stupid and stereotypical fashion characteristic of the garbage rightwing propaganda you keep posting. As you were warned, those videos have addled your marbles.

Just don't forget we need to spend most of our time campaigning about economic justice, to win back the goverment.

You also say we don't - that we should only focus on economic benefits we can gain without addressing racism and sexism, and even by compromising with bigoted white men in those areas.

So which is it: include major focus on racism and sexism, or forget about economic justice? Make up your mind.

 

[Bells]

How should I take your stupid and even suspiciously disingenuous reply?

As being correct?

I don't know if you or others have noticed but, there are white people who are poor, disadvantaged and even oppressed.

No! Really?

The economic realities of black and white households

Trends in key economic and demographic indicators provide some context for the experiences and outlook of blacks today. While there has been clear progress in closing the white-black gap in some areas – particularly when it comes to high school completion rates – decades-old black-white gaps in economic well-being persist and have even widened in some cases.

According to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2014 the median adjusted income for households headed by blacks was $43,300, and for whites it was $71,300. 3 Blacks also lag behind whites in college completion, but even among adults with a bachelor’s degree, blacks earned significantly less in 2014 than whites ($82,300 for households headed by a college-educated black compared with $106,600 for comparable white households).

The racial gap extends to household wealth – a measure where the gap has widened since the Great Recession. In 2013, the most recent year available, the median net worth of households headed by whites was roughly 13 times that of black households ($144,200 for whites compared with $11,200 for blacks).

For most Americans, household wealth is closely tied to home equity, and there are sharp and persistent gaps in home ownership between blacks and whites. In 2015, 72% of white household heads owned a home, compared with 43% of black household heads.

And on the flipside of wealth – poverty – racial gaps persist, even though the poverty rate for blacks has come down significantly since the mid-1980s. Blacks are still more than twice as likely as whites to be living in poverty (26% compared with 10% in 2014).
[Source]​

What do you think drives those differences, birch?

No one is denying that poverty affects white people in large numbers, just as it affects minorities and in particular, women (especially single mothers). No one. What I and everyone else aside from EF and now you are pointing out, when EF declares that the Democrats should not be focusing on addressing racism and discrimination as an electoral platform and should instead be looking at the economy, he fails to note that for minorities and women, their economic inequality is directly tied to and affected by the discrimination they face. So focusing just on the economy, without addressing discrimination that exists in regards to the economy, would result in minorities, women and LGBT continuing to fall behind because the discrimination that affects their economic future remains in place. Everyone has pointed out to EF, and now you, that to deal with economic inequality has to also (and I have underlined this and bolded it, because EF and you do not seem to understand what this actually means in the context of this conversation) address economic discrimination. Otherwise, the economic divide between whites and minorities, women and LGBT members of society will continue to widen.

your analogy of Donald trump is dumb as it would only work if all white people are better off and they are not. I have met tons of struggling and poor white people all my life just as anyone else.

White people will be better off, because despite the discrimination they face in regards to poverty, they will still have a better chance of moving up economically than minorities and women who are on par with them.. Particularly single mothers and for minority single mothers, that becomes an even bigger hurdle. I have posted a bevvy of links in this thread that show how when the income of white people who are poor increases, they move to a better area, send their kids to better schools. Minorities do not have that luxury and they tend to remain in the same poverty stricken area they live in because of racial bias that often comes with moving house (such as the links I provided you, where minorities and black people in particular are often shown less houses and worse houses than their white counterparts), which then means their children do not get to go to better schools and the cycle of poverty continues. This is the reality for minorities in the US.

I don't know what reality you live in but for the most part, today, EF is more on point than ANY of you in this discussion.

If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, sure, he would be. Do you?

 

[Bells]

Racism definitely exists but it's exaggerated to mean it's affecting mostly one single group (African americans) and it's unrealistically hyped when that is not true ANYMORE. yes, there are conservatives who are racists but they are racists towards everyone.

Wow, okay..

So you claim racism exists, but you think it has been exaggerated and by the end of that sentence, you are pretty much diminishing it and claiming that it is "not true anymore"..

I'll give you an example of just how racism exists in society and I am not even going to touch on the obvious police shootings of black men at such a high rate and getting away with it, or how law enforcement treat minorities compared to white people differently, or fear of black men in general, or white people shooting black people because of their own racial bias, or housing discrimination (which is documented in the links I provided to you earlier) or discrimination in education. Because those are too obvious to deny. Well, you seem to deny it is happening and don't think it's true because you think it's all hyped up, etc.. But here is a prime example of discrimination against blacks and minorities:

A 2009 analysis revealed that 96% of participants in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were of European descent1. Such studies scan the genomes of thousands of people to find variants associated with disease traits. The finding prompted warnings that a much broader range of populations should be investigated2 to avoid genomic medicine being of benefit merely to “a privileged few”.

Seven years on, we've updated that analysis. Our findings indicate that the proportion of individuals included in GWAS who are not of European descent has increased to nearly 20%. Much of this rise, however, is a result of more studies being done in Asia on populations of Asian ancestry. The degree to which people of African and Latin American ancestry, Hispanic people and indigenous peoples are represented in GWAS has barely shifted.

Thus, more than 20 years after the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandated the inclusion of diverse participants in the biomedical research it funds, GWAS funded by the NIH and other sources are continuing to miss a vast portion of the world's genetic variation.

[...]

During the past seven years, the proportion of samples used in catalogued GWAS from participants who are not of European descent has increased fivefold (see 'Persistent bias'). Yet nearly 78% of this growth is due to an increase in the number of samples from Japan, China, Korea, India and other populations from east Asia, south Asia and southeast Asia.

Together, individuals of African and Latin American ancestry, Hispanic people (individuals descended from Spanish-speaking cultures in central or South America living in the United States) and native or indigenous peoples represent less than 4% of all samples analysed. Collectively, these are the most vulnerable and traditionally underserved populations in many of the world's richest nations.​

Now, tell me that racism is really just overblown hype and is "not true anymore"...

blacks are generally accepted and embraced as americans just as the next white person. I have rarely seen that much racism toward blacks anymore and even growing up, very rarely and it was usual social prejudicial comments of minorities etc and I grew up in the SOUTH for the most part. and racism and bigotry that does exist, is exercised by everyone.

And you know and can say this as a black person, yes?

Just because you have not experienced discrimination and racism, does not mean it does not exist. Black people across the US have a very different experience than what you have had, as an African American woman from the South, because the only way you could make that statement or diminish or reduce the experiences of African Americans and deny that racism against them exists, would be if you were an African American who has lived all over the US and have been exceptionally lucky.. So you must be speaking as an African American, from the South no less, so your experiences are vastly different to what the majority of African Americans have experienced:

A majority of blacks (71%) say that they have experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly because of their race or ethnicity. Roughly one-in-ten (11%) say this happens to them on a regular basis, while 60% say they have experienced this rarely or from time to time.​

Would you suggest that their experiences is different to what you, a black woman from the South experienced?

Would you suggest that it's just "hyped" up to the point that it is not even true anymore? As the black person that you are that just diminished and denied racism exists that is.

Maybe you don't get out much and still think the racial culture is 1960's.

Oh yeah, it's all fine and dandy now!

All that racism against blacks, it's all "unrealistically hyped when that is not true ANYMORE"?

It was a mere traffic stop, but the driver was clearly nervous — telling the police officer that she was worried that if she moved her hands, she would be shot.

Then the cop, Greg Abbott, tried to assure her: “But you’re not black. Remember, we only shoot black people. Yeah, we only kill black people, right?”​

 

[birch]

And you know and can say this as a black person, yes?

Just because you have not experienced discrimination and racism, does not mean it does not exist. Black people across the US have a very different experience than what you have had, as an African American woman from the South, because the only way you could make that statement or diminish or reduce the experiences of African Americans and deny that racism against them exists, would be if you were an African American who has lived all over the US and have been exceptionally lucky.. So you must be speaking as an African American, from the South no less, so your experiences are vastly different to what the majority of African Americans have experienced:

A majority of blacks (71%) say that they have experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly because of their race or ethnicity. Roughly one-in-ten (11%) say this happens to them on a regular basis, while 60% say they have experienced this rarely or from time to time.
Would you suggest that their experiences is different to what you, a black woman from the South experienced?

You are just confirming my point. You think you understand racism and assume it's only certain minorities who are targets of such. This tells me that you really don't know how and what and who is targeted with racism in today's society. EVERYONE that is a minority experiences racism and discrimination. You start out with an ignorant assumption that another minority (that is not black) did not experience racism. It would just floor you to realize that there are other minorities that are more subject to racism or just as much than just African-americans in America. furthermore, it would probably blow your mind to know that often, African americans would be the least of all the ones targeted with racism amongst other minorities since African americans are the most sizable (majority) minority group in America and many people are afraid to target them, besides the fact most people recognize African-americans as americans and human beings. Just because there are racists and bigots out there doesn't negate that fact.

What you don't see and is cruel and just as insidious and and it's effects is that racism is expressed by and towards others with differing stereotypes and using different angles. It's not always loud and on the news. It's subtle, condescending and underhanded but it's intended effect works the same. the more racism is done quietly, the more effective it is.

it is common to identify blacks with police bias or brutality for example and these are flagrant examples so it would seem that they are the most targeted but in reality it is not true. Racism affects and is meted out to every minority group in different ways.

another almost laughable assumption that proves to me you don't understand actually the racial climate and politics in America is your blanket assertion that I (as an Asian) did not experience racism growing up in the fuking SOUTH or in america? are you crazy? that is like assuming the wildebeest will cross the nile unscathed full of crocodiles.

of course I did every SINGLE FUKING DAY! and from both sides, blacks and whites! and not just in the south, anywhere. the political climate has mostly been conservative based, it is only recently in the last few decades that America has seen an upsurge of racial and social progressiveness where liberals have more influence.

even now, I have a friend whose daughter is subject to a lot of discrimination/bullying and racism from Hispanics in a texas school because they are the majority and she is a minority.

the point being, it is idiotic to not realize that racism is and can be exercised by everyone. this notion that it is just the 'white person' needs to be dispelled. sure, a lot of them are racists most definitely also.

The important reason why racism and inequality of any kind needs to be stressed is so that social conscience doesn't backslide which it can if people are not reminded of such.