I don’t think that has much of anything to do with anything I’ve said. I agree that things will get worse under a Trump presidency. i don’t think increasing political polarization and further alienating the political other is the way to minimize the harm.
Dude, I’m defending myself from charges that I don’t oppose human rights violations. If you perceive my comments as accusing you of such, it is only because I am highlighting that the arguments being used against me can go either way.
If people argue that opposition to a strong federal government is tantamount to arguing against human rights, then I think I’m pretty fucking justified in pointing out that a strong federal government actually violates a whole bunch of human rights.
It seems counterintuitive, but one can defend the State of Israel while also wishing the Jews ill. A lot of evangelicals translate that into action in regard to their Apocalyptic narrative. And a lot of non-Jewish right-wingers support the state of Israel mainly as a convenient catspaw to fight against a common Muslim enemy.
It’s not that she didn’t mention her policies it’s that she didn’t have this sound bite list that even the most moronic would easily remember, like: build the wall, ban muslims, bring jobs back, MAGA!
Her policies were definitely there, but they weren’t marketed to the most easily fooled amongst us very well. I think it’s easier to change marketing than the market (not that that means to adopt different values and sell those instead).
I’m sorry, but you REALLY need to read up on your American history, because this was how people literally survived day to day in America. They built alternative institutions in order to just get by. They fled racist violence, leaving behind people that they loved, breaking up families because they couldn’t take it anymore. THEY DID ALL THIS AND MORE, and they still got murdered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. it was not enough, because they had no legal protections under the law and all of that could come crumbling down at a moments notice. I really implore you to read up on American history from a black perspective, because you really don’t seem to understand the reality that people lived with for centuries until the civil rights act.
You are just spectacularly wrong on this and I hope you will educate yourself on the historical realities. If you’d like to PM, I would be happy to recommend some great books on history African American history. I don’t think you’re “bad,” just misinformed here.
I agree. Do you think that not passing civil rights legislation would have fixed that?
Do you honestly think that the real problem here is civil rights legislation as opposed to majoritarian racism and white supremacy in the American populace?
Do you think that poor whites are all racist or would vote for racist things? You do realize that working class people are also not a monolith? That not all poor white people voted for Trump? Or that there existed at times cross-racial solidarity (very fragile in nature, and very rare, but it happened). I’m not sure I’m the one making assumptions about poor white people here.
I think having laws on the books that do not allow for the majority to vote away the rights of others is not a bad thing. Saying that marriage rights, reproductive rights, and voting rights of EVERYONE should be sacrosanct isn’t anti-democratic. Nor do those things have to be in tension with anti-imperialism. You’re also forgetting that the forging on this nation itself, moving across the continent was an imperial project in and of itself. Imperialism internally in the US has often been used to divide the working class against itself via race.
I don’t think anyone here said that. You are saying that we should write off anything the government has done on civil rights, though, because of American imperialism. I disagree. Any progress is progress. [quote=“wysinwyg, post:228, topic:89524”]
I think I’m pretty fucking justified in pointing out that a strong federal government actually violates a whole bunch of human rights.
[/quote]
And I have agreed with you numerous times, actually. Right here in this discussion.
Did he do that? Where? Honest question, show me this recommendation. I read what he wrote and I see him saying that local control is appropriate when federal control will not work or is not necessary.
Yes, I have seen it in some Evangelicals. But these people seem to mostly be pro-Israel, Zionist Jews. Like David Horowitz., who wrote the “renegade Jew” article that seems to be the first thing people note when providing evidence of Bannon’s antisemitism. When I read about someone being antisemitic, I generally look at the references they use. I would agree that some of the site’s readers are likely antisemitic, because of the “conspiracy theory” tone of their articles. Not as bad as “Infowars”, which I find unreadable, but still pretty far into “secret Muslim” territory. Maybe people should be more specific, and call the site and it’s staff “anti-Islamic”. That seems more accurate.
“Not as bad as ‘Infowars’” is a very low bar to clear when it comes to a site peddling more subtle versions of the Elders-of-Zion conspiracy theory. Breitbart is an anti-Islamic site that employs Jewish kapos and then uses that anti-Muslim stance to also attract anti-Semitic readers from the alt-right fringe (because bigots are usually very broad-minded when it comes to finding other groups to hate).
Sorry to tell you, but that meaning was what was received.
When you said that you were more concerned with actual genocide than with any of the rhetoric and dehumanization that leads up to genocide, you redefined, or at least personally defined, antisemitism to only mean “acts of genocide against the Jews”, where everything and anything else gets a pass as far as you’re concerned.
However, I will definitely accept that that’s not what you had in mind when you typed that. However, you have repeatedly displayed an inability to empathize with perspectives that differ significantly from your own. By this I specifically mean that you have a very poor “theory of mind” and have difficulty actually comprehending that other people might interpret, view, or perceive things differently than yourself. Also, rather than attempt to engage in effort to actually pursue comprehension of alternate perspectives, you instead fall back on lazy stereotypes that originate from your own social perspective.
Or, TL;DR: you are in possession of deeply entrenched bigoted attitudes, but not out of malice, but because you can’t be bothered to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes or actually question your own beliefs in the face of dissent.
But those aren’t really policies, those are merely campaign nonsense. “I’ll create jobs bigly” is not a policy, nor is “I’ll build a wall”. They’re utterly empty of details, just slogans, whereas HRC had actual, detailed policy statements that people could read and refer to actual moving parts. The trumpkins just didn’t care to read them.
Bigots should be censured. I still (perhaps naively) think it wasn’t really truly bigots that pushed this thing over to Trump, but folks that just don’t care about the racist shit enough for it to be a deal breaker. It’s up for debate the definition of racist vs. bigot and if them not caring makes them racist or not (or how far on some scale they are racist). I’ll propose this distinction: it is much much more likely we can change the mind of/reach someone that didn’t have a problem with the racism of Trump’s rhetoric so that they give a shit. I think a true bigot is probably all but unreachable.
When these people that don’t care about racism are told they’re the same as the bigots that only cements their position. I think what some others suggest is that we/the left minded help them understand to care rather than be super smug and condescending about it. Reasonable folks should be reasoned with…and I hope there are more reasonable than unreasonable people out there.
I think there is an international relations analogy here: we try to keep open dialogues with pretty much everyone including the most reprehensible. When we’re less smug about how wrong they are to run their country don’t we have more influence and get more accomplished?
I agree they aren’t policies. I agree they didn’t read them. I don’t think Trump voters were shopping policies, though. As trite as it is to say so, so much election deciding is emotional. They had an excellent car salesman that assured them that all the best drivers buy their cars here, the interest rate they were going to get was going to be the best, and their savings were going to be tremendous.
I hope so to, but despite a lot of reading on the topic during and since the election I have yet to find someone who offered a reasonable, reality-based explanation for why he thought a confidence artist would be the solution to his problems. Instead it’s just been 57 varieties of wrong, with tolerance for racism being only one of them.
[quote=“MTBooks, post:241, topic:89524, full:true”]I think there is an international relations analogy here: we try to keep open dialogues with pretty much everyone including the most reprehensible. When we’re less smug about how wrong they are to run their country don’t we have more influence and get more accomplished?
[/quote]
Our government tries to keep those dialogues open, but it doesn’t require that citizens refrain from “smugly” proclaiming the obvious about the awfulness of their regimes. Similarly, the Dem leadership does try (albeit very poorly) to keep open dialogues with those who would vote for a vulgar talking yam (h/t Charlie Pierce) as POTUS, but it is not the job of rank-and-file liberals and progressives to be diplomats to the reprehensible and the delusional and pretend we have respect for their (to put it generously) thought process.
Believe it or not, I don’t want to get into a pissing match with you. December 8th, 1993 Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law. Bush’s signature had no legal enforcement. It was akin to Obama’s thrust with TPP and TTIP. He may be the guy who pushed it, but it was up to the next guy to approve or veto it. Third way Clinton got his pen warmed up and signed away. He is responsible.
What are you trying to suggest here? That we are marginalizing @wysinwyg? Because I don’t feel as if I have. I’ve not called him names and I’ve tried not to make false assumptions. If you think I’ve been unfair, please say so and point to precisely what I’ve said that’s unfair. I know I haven’t agreed here, but disagreement is not marginalization.
Dear god, yes, she’s flawed. But to ignore the sexism, well, that’s equal amount of bullshit and foolishness. We just elected a man who said “grab them by the pussy” on tape. He bragged about sexual assault and I’ll repeat again: In 2016, that didn’t sway voters away from him. We can wax on and on about her policies, etc., but the fact that he won means we must confront some awful, ugly truths about us as a nation: We are still sexist. We are still racist. If we exclude this from the conversation, then we are perpetuating the notion that the playing field is level, when, my dear friends, it simply ain’t.
And @JonS: Mississippi Burning … as you say, it’s a problematic movie. But I’ve lived in the Mississippi Delta and lower Alabama and there are people like the Frances McDormand character here. Let’s not write off these red states as if we aren’t the United States. The Southern Poverty Law Center fights in Montgomery, my home state. These are the people to admire, in my opinion. The ones who go to the red states and fight for what is right.
