Look at what happened with the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. If you’re talking about the wholesale removal of the powers and protections of the federal government, then that is what we also lose.
15 Likes
It’s also callous to all manner of “minorities” in blue states.
9 Likes
That is the essence of your plan whether it is your intent or not. “Allowing states to make all their own decisions on matters of fundamental human rights would lead to oppression of vulnerable groups” isn’t some crazy left-wing conspiracy theory, it’s well-documented historical fact.
14 Likes
I’m not sure what you mean here.
I believe @Brainspore’s point was that not all things the federal government does is bad or harmful and it in fact helps people. The list of cases was a perfect example of protecting people from racialized violence that was a routine part of life for many Americans up until relatively recently - and there is a mountain of evidence to suggest those forces are at work in the Trump campaign, even if they are not the ONLY forces at work in the campaign.
I think asking where YOU believe the line is in your opposition is an absolute fair one. Is there a reason you don’t think that racism and the way the government has gone about trying to reconfigure race relations to not be so violently against black life in this country is somehow beyond the pale and worth treating with contempt?
I never said that you said or believe that. I assume you don’t. Did you see the article I linked to? That is a part of the Trump coalition - not a marginalized part. Is there a reason we shouldn’t oppose that mind set? Am i wrong to say it is beyond the pale, when that sort of vitrol is aimed at me as a woman? Is this just a “even handed issue” that we should hear out? [quote=“wysinwyg, post:185, topic:89524”]
you guys try to discredit my message by painting me as, if not sexist and racist myself, then certainly someone going out of his way to empower sexists and racists.
[/quote]
I don’t know if you are, but Trump certainly was. He most certainly played on fears of a woman in power and of racial minorities to rally people who are actually hurting in our country.
What are you defending here? Do you think that these things are not actually happening or are not important? Because I’m raising a daughter in this country and it damn well is important that she can be safe in her own country and can be assured of being able to have a fair shot at making a living when she grows up. It’s not progressives who are offering a bait and switch, it’s the Trump coalition that is doing so. Their policies will NOT help the working classes, but instead will drive us all deeper into economic hell.
9 Likes
It depends what assumptions you start from. I agree with all those rulings. I disagree with the use of hierarchical power to nullify popular sovereignty.
Yes, absolutely. But only if the backlash isn’t decisive – only if we can win those issues. If standing up will result in a defeat, then it is a stupid self-defeating move.
You seem to be assuming that the federal government is always in the right, that any use of federal power to overrule popular sovereignty is just. But who just got elected president? Many people feel abortion is a violation of civil rights. You’ve already set the precedent that federal power should overrule popular sovereignty. Don’t be surprised when conservatives turn this around to use federal power against the availability of abortions in liberal districts.
Investing so much power in the federal government as to give it license to overrule popular sovereignty when the city folks’ delicate sensibilities are offended is a bad idea because your views will not always win the day.
I can’t respond as fast as you all are commenting because there’s like 5 of you and one of me. Take a few breaths and slow down, please, everyone.
We’re not conspiring against you, and I’m not in any rush for you to defend your message of states’ rahts and popular sovereignty. I’ve heard it all before from other privileged bubble bros.
9 Likes
No. None of us are doing that. Of course the federal government is often wrong and sometimes spectacularly so. We can all name a million things they’ve fucked up, people the government has murdered for no reason, the million tiny ways they’ve hurt many of us. But the insisting on strong civil and human rights that the government must uphold, even when it goes against popular opinion, is part of how our government was built, like it or not. Sometimes that works in favor of oppressed peoples even when it can sometimes work against them.
15 Likes
Problem here is the poster recommends tolerating inequality and abuse regionally. Limiting your neighbors rights for your comfort isn’t more acceptable locally.
17 Likes
The data misses the point on whether the Democratic party ignored the white working class. Specifically, the data seems to assume that as long as HRC was talking about issues then there’s no way the Dems ignored the white working class.
The Democrats ignored the white working class the same way they everyone else when they pre-determined who their nominee would be years before the election. The party cleared the whole field except for HRC, Sanders, and O’Malley (if anyone remembers him). That is almost unprecedented.
What’s not unprecedented is to have the “next-in-line” candidate underperform in the general election. For reference: Romney '12, McCain '08, Kerry '04, Gore '00, Dole '96. The last time we had someone win the presidency who had run before was HW Bush in '88.
The Democrats ignored an entire electorate that had already rejected their candidate once before, and the party hoped she might sneak through a weak competitive field.
Nevermind the issues, the GOP won this election because they actually stuck to a democratic nomination process.
Exactly. Quarantining the abuse of human rights over an arbitrary border so that the abuse is out of sight and out of mind doesn’t take away the fact that, over that line, a human being is being deprived of their right to self-determination.
12 Likes
Absolutely not. I’m saying that one of the crucial functions of the Federal government is to provide a check on the power of states to enact policies that oppress vulnerable people.
Yes, which is exactly why I don’t think it’s possible or advisable to “compromise” on that issue.
I fully agree that one part of the “backlash” that swept Trump into power was fueled by conservative frustration at recent advances for “liberal” causes like LGBT rights. But you know what? That still doesn’t mean the left should have compromised on all those causes. If being on the right side of history and protecting the vulnerable costs progressives the occasional election then so be it.
11 Likes
Absolutely agree. The Democrats ignored everyone. They ignored everyone by choosing a candidate before the campaign even started, and in doing so choosing a candidate who had already been rejected once before.
Anyone who voted for Trump because “the Democrats are corrupt” is drawing the wrong conclusion (i.e. that Trump will be less corrupt than the Democrats) from a fundamentally true statement.
3 Likes
In fact, I’m suggesting the very opposite.
You see, your strategy is to exclude bigots from polite society. To marginalize them. To overrule their desires for how they run their communities. To tell them their values and choices are wrong.
Since they’re not willing to accept that about themselves, they’ve decided they don’t give a shit what you think about them. They’ve isolated themselves into their own communities with like-minded folks. And since all these folks are marginalized for having racist and/or sexist views, those views are normal within those communities.
I’m suggesting we actually talk to these people, try to understand them, and find compromises that preserve everyone’s values as well as possible. This is the only way that they will care what we think of them, and caring what we think of them is the only way they’ll accept our criticism of their values and beliefs.
Telling them they’re too stupid and regressive to be allowed to participate in democratic decision-making is what got Trump elected. It will not make liberals more successful in the future. It will cause them to be more and more marginalized as adherents of a has-been dying ideology.
Well you should talk to your buddy @Brainspore about that because he was just bragging about how awesome it is when those stupid racists’ democratically elected governments are overruled by the federal government.
Let me please remind you that the federal government whose absurd military and bureaucratic power everyone is defending is one of the foremost violators of human rights on the planet. Abu Ghraib, black sites, Guantanamo. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Assassination of popularly elected leaders.
Is the poor African-American woman stuck in Mississippi more deserving of her fundamental human rights than the thousands who’ve had their lives destroyed by US federal policy? If not, then it seems unfair to consider hers and not the others. I’m trying to protect the others.
I’m also trying to protect all of us from President Trump or President Pence.
Also, this is a social marginalization tactic – implying I support racism and tolerate the violation of human rights when my position is really intended to support human rights. This is what got Trump elected. Stop it.
Also, unless you a poor African-American woman from Mississippi, this is the worst kind of tumblr sjw white-knighting. Stop it.
I don’t want to assign blame, I want to understand what went wrong so we don’t make the same mistake again next time. You guys all seem very committed to making the same mistake over again.
2 Likes
Are you saying you DON’T think the Civil Rights Act and Brown v. Board of Education and the 13th Amendment are awesome?
7 Likes
Poster seems to suggest every county in the US develop their own versions based on local proclivities.
This is an abolish the federal government type thing, i guess.
7 Likes
The Civil Rights Act cost the Democrats the South for two generations (and counting).
If I had a time machine I’d still advise LBJ to sign the thing because it was the right thing to do.
11 Likes
That is exactly what States Rights proponents are stating. That someone should be able to opt out of human rights.
Oh, it’s never them but if you anger a racist (which is not them) the persons that who suffer deserve it because you angered a racist and they should be left to their machinations. You poked the hatebadger…
The great thing is that for all their feigned concern trolling about the national Dems they’d be just as “who cares” about any local communities.
Fuck you, I got mine forever.
7 Likes
Many of us do, actually. Many of us have people in our families or that we work with that are exactly those things. Many times they are nice, kind people who we love and value. But those of us who don’t fit into their narratives are not loved and valued in return. If someone who says they love me is actively voting against my rights as a person, what am supposed to do with that, exactly? How do I live with that hurt that I am not valued as a person, but as a broodmare.
That doesn’t mean that civil rights legislation at home was wrong or bad or anti-democratic.
I don’t think you do nor is anyone here calling you either of those things, but you really need to square your beliefs that apparently ALL federal action, even those that support working class BLACK people or women are overreach with the reality of our daily lives. We do not have to give up our belief in fundamental rights at home in order to oppose our countries imperialism abroad. Many of us actually do both.
I for one am deeply upset that we have these choices between a party that’s imperialist and regressive on the one hand and a party that is marginally less than regressive and imperialist on the other. The Democrats have a lot to answer for. But I entirely agree with @Brainspore that LBJ did the right thing with civil rights legislation at home. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a war criminal for expanding the war in Vietnam. But it’s not like EITHER PARTY is the anti-imperialist party. The GOP will not make better decisions regarding foreign policy. they will not stop killing people at wedding parties in the Middle East or open the borders for war refugees or work out fairer trade policies that benefit workers around the world. BOTH parties are going to do this, and all you need to do is to look at our history to see that.
12 Likes
“Allowing the federal government unchecked power to overrule popular sovereignty would lead to oppression of vulnerable groups” isn’t some right wing conspiracy theory. It’s well-documented historical fact.
There is no strategy that will allow you to avoid all violation of human rights anywhere always for all time. We have to decide on a course of action that will minimize human rights violations. People will have more power to do good if the federal government has less power to do whatever is expedient for the federal government.
I don’t think I’m treating it with contempt. I think LBJ enacted desegregation and the Civil Rights Act for cynical reasons, because there’s actually quite a few reasons to think so. In other words, the federal goverment defends human rights when it is expedient…and violates them when it is expedient.
You guys are all trying to frame this as “being against a strong federal government is being against human rights”. That’s simple an unfair and misleading frame. By my estimation, the federal government violated far more human rights over the course of the 20th century than it protected and the tally has only gotten worse since the 70’s.
- A recognition that democracy entails the right to be wrong. If you let people decide, but then overrule their decision because you think they are wrong, then you no longer have a democracy. Do we want this to be a democracy? I do.
- A recognition that failing strategies fail even when their advocates believe them to be totally morally justified. Yes, according to your moral values – ones with which I probably just about entirely agree! – Trump voters are dead wrong, and racists, and deeply and horribly misogynist. I disagree with them. But dealing with this disagreement by ignoring and overruling them has resulted in President Trump. So I think that turned out to be a bad idea.
I didn’t accuse anyone of conspiring against me, I pointed out that I wouldn’t be able to respond to everyone’s points as fast as they are making them.
Also, GFY. I took your arguments seriously and answered them point for point. You apparently don’t think you owe me the same courtesy – that your views are self-justifying and mine are obviously EEEVIL. Guess what? That’s the pompous, condescending, unbelievably arrogant, short-sighted attitude that got Trump elected.
Right, so the questions are:
- Does it more consistently work for them than against them?
- Can we guarantee that it will do so regardless of who is elected to office?
Any answer to 1 is going to be a matter of opinion: what do we count as violations of human rights and how heavily do we weigh them. I think the federal government has, over the course of its history since WWII, done more harm than good in this respect.
As for 2, I don’t think we can. Even if the federal government had a stellar record (it does not) we still have to deal with President Trump now. I would be a lot more comfortable if we had put some energy in stripping some power from the executive branch while Obama was in office.
Your support for the federal government does the same thing on a global scale – limits the rights of those overseas to make sure those who live in the US are comfortable. Are the rights of USians more important than those of Iraqis or Afghanis?
2 Likes
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:198, topic:89524, full:true”]
You see, your strategy is to exclude bigots from polite society. To marginalize them. To overrule their desires for how they run their communities. To tell them their values and choices are wrong.[/quote]
Pretty much, yes. Bigots don’t have any place in polite discourse. Bigots should be marginalised. Bigots should certainly not be allowed to run their local communities according to their racist desires.
What I’m not doing is trying to deny them their right to express themselves freely (and show themselves for what they are) or to vote (which is more than I can say for what they’ve been doing).
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:198, topic:89524, full:true”]
I’m suggesting we actually talk to these people, try to understand them, and find compromises that preserve everyone’s values as well as possible.[/quote]
There is no compromise a liberal can find with a bigot. Yes, I understand why many of them have turned to scapegoating to explain real financial misery, but understanding is not compromise.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:198, topic:89524, full:true”]
Well you should talk to your buddy @Brainspore about that because he was just bragging about how awesome it is when those stupid racists’ democratically elected governments are overruled by the federal government.[/quote]
If I were him I’d brag about the First Amendment superseding state-level attempts to muzzle a free press, too. In fact, I do.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:198, topic:89524, full:true”]
Let me please remind you that the federal government whose absurd military and bureaucratic power everyone is defending is one of the foremost violators of human rights on the planet[/quote]
After reading this I reviewed people’s exchanges with you, but was unable to find the straw men whose quotes you’re talking about here.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:198, topic:89524, full:true”]
Is the poor African-American woman stuck in Mississippi more deserving of her fundamental human rights than the thousands who’ve had their lives destroyed by US federal policy? [/quote]
She’s equally deserving of the same rights granted to every other citizen of the Union by the Constitution and federal law. If a privileged person like me gets those rights, so should she. That’s not being a white knight, that’s being a good citizen.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:198, topic:89524, full:true”]
I’m also trying to protect all of us from President Trump or President Pence.[/quote]
Don’t pander. You’re trying to protect all of us from the big bad federal government, whoever’s in power.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:198, topic:89524, full:true”]
implying I support racism and tolerate the violation of human rights when my position is really intended to support human rights.[/quote]
I did nothing of the sort and would challenge you to provide a quote backing up your claim. Maybe you’re confusing me with one of those straw men.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:198, topic:89524, full:true”]
Also, unless you a poor African-American woman from Mississippi, this is the worst kind of tumblr sjw white-knighting. Stop it.[/quote]
And there we have it: “sjw.” I can’t take anyone who uses that term in earnest seriously, so I’m done.
14 Likes
