General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

[Lexicus]

This would be my point in its entirety really. You’re really worried about vague outcomes which are not measurably or observably different from what America has always done and what it has always been.

This is called "begging the question."

This strange juxtaposition between your loyal devotion to “American democracy”

Oh, I am wounded!

and the fact you can do nothing to save it, from a threat you’re not sure is anything but “racism”

No, I've always been pretty clear that the threat is the organized rich people. Racism is just one of their tools.

all of this is perfectly exploited by the exact same people who have always robbed you to get you to keep showing up to the polling stations. In all that, the only thing that can happen for sure is that a politician keeps his or her grift going, and the screws continue to tighten on a population of expensive pigs that no longer pull their own weight.

I say, uh I say, I resemble that remark! Seriously though, you keep trying to kinda pigeonhole me as a "vote blue no matter who" lib and your arguments would be stronger if you just stopped doing that because it's kinda silly. There are vote blue no matter who people on this website and I'm sure most of them (like for example @KMRblue1027 and @Cutlass) think I'm an "extremist" and a fool.

But you’re lying to yourself if you think Biden couldn’t do that.

Could? Couldn't? IDK. I'm pretty sure he won't, though. You "liked" a post from Gori suggesting that if the campus protests result in even one less Gazan child dying, they were worthwhile. So ultimately you don't even really disagree with me here. Even marginal differences are sometimes worth fighting for.

Anyway, just to be clear, I'm not voting for Joe this time. I live in DC so it's not like it matters but I'll probably vote PSL.

 

[Crezth]

They're not vague, they're just hypothetical. Should anyone here take the time and try and craft solid hypotheticals that have a good chance of happening? Will you accept the reasoning then, or will it never be clear enough?

I’m perfectly willing to accept any reasoning if it is presented and perhaps that’s the sticking point here. I have not seen any reasoning presented to contradict my claims nor indeed my assertions. And when certain hypotheticals are presented I find they’re actually of a painfully unimaginative form where the hypothetical is of something that easily can and probably would happen under a Democrat or indeed under this very presidency, perhaps not even a week out from right now. I also somewhat resent the implication I’m coming at this in bad faith when, again, no hypotheticals have actually been offered for me to chew on. “Will it ever be enough?” Jeez, why don’t they just eat cake?

Kinda feels like a fruitless endeavour. Which would be fine, hell if I'm going to try and convince anyone on the hellscape that is modern politics, but you use it to push up Republicans / their candidates / their talking points at the same time. That's why I'm making this post. That's probably why Lexicus responds. And you'd be hard-pressed to find two folks more critical of the Democrats on the left-leaning side of the spectrum (me being a Brit aside).

If you think you can make a case, I want to see that happen actually. If you think it doesn’t matter, that’s fine too. I don’t control your life. Really you have to decide for yourself how much you care about any of this, eh?

The trouble you have and the trouble I think is destined to disappoint and dismay you is that you really do actually believe in the Western corporate state as the best thing for everyone. Say what you will about say the annihilation of Gaza or the poisoning of an entire generation of worthless first world slugs, you’ll say, but at least we have more “rights” for gays and women. Well the bourgeoisie gays and women; mostly. Unlike insert savage country the state department doesn’t like here. Now that line does a little less for me because I both come from the first world and a very chauvinistic part of it. But the reality is that letting the conservatives destroy the tax code over their knee, killing the empire because they don’t want to keep paying for injured soldiers, might be the best outcome for humanity in general. It won’t actually undo the culture you love, the culture I love, and the state and its pig soldiers don’t actually protect you from the fascists. The thing that protects you from the fascists is the sinews of your community. And if you, like me, live in the anglophone west - maybe that’s what really, really scares you.

 

[Crezth]

I say, uh I say, I resemble that remark! Seriously though, you keep trying to kinda pigeonhole me as a "vote blue no matter who" lib and your arguments would be stronger if you just stopped doing that because it's kinda silly. There are vote blue no matter who people on this website and I'm sure most of them (like for example @KMRblue1027 and @Cutlass) think I'm an "extremist" and a fool.

Well you know what they say about broken clocks. But seriously, you don’t need to get offended with me. You’ve fallen hook line and sinker for this whole imperialistic enterprise and the proof is your supposedly anti-fascist enthusiasm for the defense of Ukraine. Like oh you sweet summer child. You really do think the military budget is justified don’t you?

 

[KMRblue1027]

You've slightly misunderstood Lex but I get why you'd think that. I only really do the vote blue thing in ether competitive races since I'm in a minorly blue house district (though becoming more over time) or on the presidential level because on principle don't think going for the Oval Office is the right way to affect policy. I voted green last NJ senate election. The parties going straight for the top is the wrong way to build up a 3rd party. Starting from more local elections state and congressional are better ideas or even better try and work within the party system itself they are effectively coalitions after all. Nudging it in a direction internally have a strong history of working.

 

[Gorbles]

And when certain hypotheticals are presented I find they’re actually of a painfully unimaginative form where the hypothetical is of something that easily can and probably would happen under a Democrat or indeed under this very presidency, perhaps not even a week out from right now.

See that's the other problem. "Biden would do that too" only works for a shallow take on various topics. To borrow a phrase, a "painfully unimaginative" reduction. But harm reduction is real, and if all your choices are bad choices, you can only make the individual choice that makes sense.

Which is why I spend n pages chewing out pro-Democrat posters on Biden's promising to codify Roe (and then not), but at the same time don't advocate that they're so equally bad there's no difference between the parties. Because there are still differences. Through incompetence, ideology, fanaticism or a combination of the three, the GOP version of the Republicans have proven themselves worse at every turn. You can scoff at Biden as much as you want, but I don't think he'd have moved the Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. You can rightfully critique Biden's lack of action on safeguarding bodily autonomy, but you then also have to look at red states criminalising abortion. Of course, you can argue that some Democrats might not be far behind, and you may well be right. But the reds are ahead in the bad ways, and that's where harm reduction rears its head once more. Does it suck? Yes. Are these concrete examples? Also yes. Have fun with them.

I also somewhat resent the implication I’m coming at this in bad faith when, again, no hypotheticals have actually been offered for me to chew on. “Will it ever be enough?” Jeez, why don’t they just eat cake?

Because the people you're discussing this with at length critique the issues in the two-party state and how both parties are functionally right-wing in a bunch of ways, and pro-capitalist in a bunch of other ways. But that doesn't make them the same, nor does it make all outcomes the same.

But I think the next two quotes really illuminate your complete lack of perspective. And again, thanks for "painfully reductive", because that is what these are:

The trouble you have and the trouble I think is destined to disappoint and dismay you is that you really do actually believe in the Western corporate state as the best thing for everyone.

lol, lmao

Say what you will about say the annihilation of Gaza or the poisoning of an entire generation of worthless first world slugs, you’ll say, but at least we have more “rights” for gays and women.

And yet you resent the apparent implication that you're coming at this in bad faith? Gee, I wonder why

 

[Lexicus]

Well you know what they say about broken clocks. But seriously, you don’t need to get offended with me. You’ve fallen hook line and sinker for this whole imperialistic enterprise and the proof is your supposedly anti-fascist enthusiasm for the defense of Ukraine. Like oh you sweet summer child. You really do think the military budget is justified don’t you?

I'm not exactly offended, it's just, you used the word "pig" and I was kinda like well I may be fat and eat trash out of a slop bucket but you don't have to draw attention to it

"Enthusiasm" for Ukraine's defense isn't really the word I'd use. I have seen it more as a regrettable necessity than anything else. I'm also not sure if I'd call the military budget "justified"; I am not entirely sure what that means sans context. It depends on what perspective you take.

More broadly, siding with the fascists in hope that their incompetence causes state collapse in the West does not strike me as very likely to be an effective political strategy.

You've slightly misunderstood Lex but I get why you'd think that. I only really do the vote blue thing in ether competitive races since I'm in a minorly blue house district (though becoming more over time) or on the presidential level because on principle don't think going for the Oval Office is the right way to affect policy. I voted green last NJ senate election. The parties going straight for the top is the wrong way to build up a 3rd party. Starting from more local elections state and congressional are better ideas or even better try and work within the party system itself they are effectively coalitions after all. Nudging it in a direction internally have a strong history of working.

I beg your pardon, I was exaggerating somewhat for rhetorical effect.

 

[KMRblue1027]

It's no issue. I get it entirely. Grobles just used an excellent term I hadn't heard before of Harm Reduction which very accurately describes my voting behavior. Its not really that i like the Democratic Party its more they're the best of bad options. In truth i have much in common with leftists so much so that i used to identify as one but breaks over foreign policy and immigration are why I consider myself a liberal now.

 

[Farm Boy]

I've always been pretty clear that the threat is the organized rich people. Racism is just one of their tools.

<enormous amusement>

 

[Sommerswerd]

I guess I could have also put this in the YouTube thread, but I thought it fits better here... ironic bit at 1:45, which sort of captures my general impression of Maher these days:

TL;DR - Maher condemns news media that uses sensationalist "clickbait" words in their headlines like "DESTROYS"... in a video that is entitled... "Bill Maher DESTROYS the media..." ... Just... Bill Maher... perfectly illustrated...

 

[amadeus]

I think it was a purposeful choice of words. Looking at other video titles on his page by comparison, none of them use all caps words like DESTROYS or OBLITERATES.

Spoiler :

amadeus Totally DEFENESTRATES Opoopnents in Politics Thread

 

[Sommerswerd]

They're not vague, they're just hypothetical. Should anyone here take the time and try and craft solid hypotheticals that have a good chance of happening? Will you accept the reasoning then, or will it never be clear enough?

Kinda feels like a fruitless endeavour. Which would be fine, hell if I'm going to try and convince anyone on the hellscape that is modern politics, but you use it to push up Republicans / their candidates / their talking points at the same time. That's why I'm making this post. That's probably why Lexicus responds. And you'd be hard-pressed to find two folks more critical of the Democrats on the left-leaning side of the spectrum (me being a Brit aside).

Quoted without comment

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think it was a purposeful choice of words.

Yes, exactly... Bill Maher...excusing himself as the exception that disproves his "rule"

He's different from what he condemns, you see... because he's... clever... and thus entitled to break his own rules... or something along those lines.

 

[amadeus]

He's different from what he condemns, you see... because he's... clever... and thus entitled to break his own rules... or something along those lines.

I think as part of comedy it is okay to break these rules. I’m not personally a fan of Bill Maher, even when he was doing the “how come men never ask for directions?” type stuff before he became an exclusively political comedian.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Four dead in New Caledonia riots, France declares state of emergency​

New Caledonia is the world's No. 3 nickel miner and residents have been hit by a crisis in the sector, with one in five living under the poverty threshold.

"Politicians have a huge share of responsibility," said 30-year-old Henri, who works in a hotel in Noumea. "Loyalist politicians, who are descendents of colonialists, say colonisation is over, but Kanak politicians don't agree. There are huge economic disparities," he said.

Henri, who declined to give his full name, said there was significant looting, with the situation most dangerous at night.

The French government has said the change in voting rules was needed so elections would be democratic.

But it said it would not rush calling a special congress of the two houses of parliament to rubber-stamp the bill and has invited pro- and anti-independence camps for talks in Paris on the future of the island, opening the door to a potential suspension of the bill.

The major pro-independence political group, Front de Liberation Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS), which condemned the violence, said it would accept the offer of dialogue and was willing to work towards an agreement "that would allow New Caledonia to follow its path toward emancipation".

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think as part of comedy it is okay to break these rules.

I'm afraid I think amadeus has got it right, here, @Sommerswerd. (amadeus DESTROYS Sommer!). Mahr is talking about our sources of news; Mahr doesn't pretend to be that. His is a comedy show with news as its subject matter.

His criticism is accurate on a lot of points, especially that bit about news sources that give the impression that the POTUS is in charge of everything that happens everywhere in the world. The insights he offers are nothing profound. But he does his job, which is to satirize, to make us laugh at our foibles.

 

[Narz]

Well you know what they say about broken clocks. But seriously, you don’t need to get offended with me. You’ve fallen hook line and sinker for this whole imperialistic enterprise and the proof is your supposedly anti-fascist enthusiasm for the defense of Ukraine. Like oh you sweet summer child.

Lol, you pinkos really need to be able to get along with each other if you want to change the world

The man wants you to waste your lives out-snarking each other, rise above!

 

[Cutlass]

Or more precisely, one: a Sri Lankan, an Indian. We are okay with one of your kind (it shows how broad-minded and inclusive we are).

By the way, Coulter's specific way of putting the point is very telling regarding the anxieties that drive the right. They know the demographic trends. They know that by 2050, there will no longer be any majority "we" to make decisions about how many of those others we will let in. This "our core identity is WASP" is a last desperate grasping at straws. It will be increasingly aggressive in proportion to the mounting desperation as that date approaches.

We* need to teach white people some way of being white within a "majority-minority" situation--or more precisely encourage them to pre-imagine how they will handle that (since many would reject any teaching on the matter). One of the key elements of white privilege is not having to think of oneself in racial terms at all. One can regard oneself as the default. But one ramification of that is that individual whites have by and large developed no ways of being just one race in a group that includes people of many different races. If a particular White person's working group included two South Asians, one East Asian, two Middle-Easterners and an African-American, how could that person contribute to the group's workings "the White perspective"? Most White people's minds recoil: there's not one thing that being White means; you can be anything if you're White. Until something fills that conceptual space, the anxieties that drive Coulter's formulation will prevail. Because what most white people presently feel in that space is nothing.

*The "we" here is "people of all races who pre-imagine without anxiety a post-White America"

I don't think Coulter is one of those who are terrified of a post white majority America. Although she plays to it. I more think she's just an old school racist who thinks that being white is being better. And so should have special status.

 

[Narz]

I'm afraid I think amadeus has got it right, here, @Sommerswerd. (amadeus DESTROYS Sommer!). Mahr is talking about our sources of news; Mahr doesn't pretend to be that. His is a comedy show with news as its subject matter.

His criticism is accurate on a lot of points, especially that bit about news sources that give the impression that the POTUS is in charge of everything that happens everywhere in the world. The insights he offers are nothing profound. But he does his job, which is to satirize, to make us laugh at our foibles.

He's making fun of clickbait titles while using a clickbait title which is a good way to bait

His point is sound tho, having an opinion on someone on the internet isn't DESTORYING jack otherwise Trump would've died 100 million deaths. The powers that be's greatest trick is making people think their opinions (devoid of power) actually mean something, only power means something.

I remember @ one of my crazy boarding schools we decided to disobey the rule limiting our showers to 3 minutes, we thought we were pretty clever, why don't we just stay in, so the staff simply turn off the hot water, game over. Moaning 'unfair' might work if you're dealing w someone who actually cares about fairness.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I don't think Coulter is one of those who are terrified of a post white majority America. Although she plays to it. I more think she's just an old school racist who thinks that being white is being better. And so should have special status.

These are not mutually incompatible.

 

[Gorbles]

Lol, you pinkos really need to be able to get along with each other if you want to change the world

A "definitely not a conservative" out here using one of Nixon's favourite (safe for work) epithets. You love to see it!