I said all this before ....
Making believe in the face of evidence to the contrary does not an argument make, ElectricFetus.
Ignoring unpleasant facts is neither helpful nor honest.
I said all this before but clearly you did not understand so I re-wrote it, maybe you will get it this time, if not, rinse and repeat, I don't link back to previous post you clearly did not comprehend.
(1) Learn to write. You're a terrible writer. Your writing aims to obfuscate instead of communicate. So, you know, Mr. Educator, learn to write; pretending you don't see what you refuse to look at is pretty childish. More directly, no, you didn't say "all this before but clearly".
(2) Clueless denial of what we're supposed to believe what you would pretend yourself incapable of comprehending does not a reasonable argument make.
(3) You can't link back to what doesn't exist.
Thus:
No you ignore the answers, A) they are not all supremacists, most of them are regular people, stupid but in need, economically faltering and desperate, scared of a future were they have no home, no job and no future for their children. B) We are not betraying a majority of the American population
(A)
Straw man: We can talk about how people feel about adjectives all day, but the question of whether or not they are all supremacists is a change of subject. Americans already understand this part of the argument: They are not all supremacists, but, rather, by mere coincidence, require supremacist exclusionism. They're not homophobic, but merely offended that queers can denigrate their marriage by getting married, and no, they're never going to explain how that denigration works. We get it. Just like one wasn't actually a rape advocate, when I was young, but, rather, a patriotic American head of household concerned about the decay of family values and societal fabric. (By the way, you know what "compromise" looks like?
Okay, okay, it's a crime to force your wife to have sex; but she was dumb enough to marry you, so it needs to be less of a crime since it's her fault, anyway. And, yeah, it's still in widespread effect.)
(B)
False: When you
post stupid demands↑ like,
"Show me where Bernie demanded putting women back in the kitchen or sending blacks back to Africa?" you make the point. When you huff—
• "I have been asking for months now how and where I and my kind are backtracking on social justice? where in bernie's policies is he backtracking?"
—you're making the point that
you weren't paying attention↑ from the outset, fundamentally undermining your entire performance in this thread.
As simply as possible: When "progressives" back regressive candidates in hopes of appealing to conservative voters, they're not being progressive.
Try it this way: When "economic justice" requires classist stratification, it is not "justice" of any sort.
Three months and two hundred posts in, the nearest thing to an actual argument you have offered is to denounce the observable as a straw man in order to advocate "economic and tax reform" as a "first" and "foremost" priority, and have spent the rest tilting windmills of your own construction. I am quite certain the demonstration seems somehow useful to one who undertakes it, but directly identifying as an Appeaser in order to refuse to answer the question is actually the sort of stupid stunt by which you only denigrate yourself.
•
"So let us hear from the Appeasement faction: How do Democrats not hurt supremacists' feelings?" — We ought not be surprised Appasement advocates won't address this point directly The problem, as noted in the
topic post↱, arises because part of the challenge is to get along with other people who refuse to work and play well with others, as illustrated by the example of belligerent conservative identity politicking contriving toward harmful ends.
•
"Appeasers should probably take the moment to explain just how they expect Democrats to grow the party and advance justice by betraying a majority of the American population." — The thing is that it
eight hundred really isn't so long as
you complain↑, but you need to call it "a long rant" in order to continue to miss the point:
Sanders has set himself up as the national face of progressivism, openly stating that his "movement" is the future of a party to which he does not belong, and withholding his endorsement from Democratic candidates he believes are not adequately progressive. Yet Sanders has, multiple times, endorsed anti-choice candidates because they otherwise support his agenda of economic justice.
Here's why this is problematic:
Women cannot access economic justice without full reproductive rights. Economic justice is impossible for women without being able to decide when, or whether, to have children. Lack of access to reproductive health care can put women into poverty and keep them there. Someone claiming they are in favor of economic justice while actively voting against reproductive rights is saying that economic justice only matters for men ....
.... When Sanders repeatedly declared that "identity politics" were a problem, he exposed a dangerous weakness in progressive political thought that remains unaddressed. We live intersectional lives, and these issues must be addressed intersectionally. To separate class from gender, race, sexuality, and ability in fighting for economic justice is to create a fiction that economic injustice is only driven by one kind social injustice—the kind that able-bodied cishet white men experience. It's a dangerous fiction that at its heart reinforces patriarchal white supremacy, and it's becoming all the more dangerous as we fight against an administration and its attendant political movement that wants nothing more than to roll back as many social justice gains as possible.
That's about as straightforward as it gets. It seems pretty much no wonder you just bawl about "a long rant"—the quotes, you know, the part where women tell us what's wrong, equal a whole five hundred sixty-six words—and
cry about↑ asking "for months" when you're not even capable of acknowledging a basic explanation of the problem that involves a part that describes the behavior, actually says, "here's why this is problematic", and then continues to assert the reasons why Mr. Sanders' advocacy of candidates who would backtrack on the human rights of women is harmful to progress and preclusive of economic justice.
And you were, in fact, reminded—
Because to put it simply, EF, you are failing to recognise how women's rights are tied to the economy.. Tiassa's post on page one and the quotes he provided, explains this in minute detail.
—and the only part of what
Bells↑ explained that seems awry is the next sentence, when she wonders, "Really, how can you not understand this yet?" It stands out for being shown far too generous.
Speaking of long rants, then, I should
reiterate this↑:
And the thing is, as much as you want to denounce identity politics, remember the identities involved. Christians came after gays. Whites went after blacks. Men are constantly after women. Gays shouldn't assert their rights? They shouldn't need to. Women shouldn't assert their rights? They shouldn't need to. People of color shouldn't assert their rights? They shouldn't need to.
And you? Well, that's the thing. You would fault people for answering. White identity feels threatened by color; masculine identity feels threatened by woman. So they pick fights, people answer, and ElectricFetus complains that people would answer.
Or, as Hillman put it in April, "The current zeitgeist in the U.S. is one of angry straight white people pushing back against social justice gains with open bigotry, revelling in causing others pain and delighting in boorishness and even violence."
And
Marcotte↱ last weekend:
It's a tempting idea, of course: Just stop talking so much about racism and sexism so much and instead talk about jobs and wages (never mind that Hillary Clinton actually did focus more on jobs and wages than any other issue) and boom! Watch the white rural voters that handed states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan to Donald Trump come into the Democratic fold.
Who doesn't want to believe liberals have that much control — that Democrats alone could make the cultural struggles tearing apart this country go away by putting the focus on jobs and other economic issues, and watch white voters return to the flock, drawn by all those progressive policies?
The problem is, and continues to be, that there's no evidence for this. The roller-coaster politics around health care really drive home how much Republican base voters view politics through a culture-war lens.
You've put a lot of effort into blowing smoke in this thread without addressing the fundamental questions presented at the outset.
