Social WR Lounge v269: Lead and Clippy bffs for life and always share McDonald's french fries

[Trotsky]

I don't disagree that Clinton's behavior towards Obama was awful and was worse than what she dealt with. I think the issue the left has with the moderate wings discussion of identity is that the left wing is so by and large made up of white men who believe that class is more significant hurdle to get over than race.

This is just false, though. And, worse, it largely stems from centrist propaganda imo. Sanders' support was disproportionately white and very slightly more male-oriented (the biggest indicator of support, by far, was age). But people mistake that for being reflective of the party's wings, which is a misconception since the vast majority of the electorate is casual, and the sort of ideological poles in the party are not necessarily reflective of that vote. In reality, the left wing of the party has more radical views on race, sees it as a bigger problem, and wants to more aggressively redress it. Similarly, the left wing polls as being less racist, less sexist, and more pro-immigration than the center.

The left's ability to push identity politics falls apart when the groups they are pushing for often align with center left policies. Look at the treatment of Black voters by Bernie supporters. They were called low information and the "establishment". It was "listen to Black people" and then when they told the left over and over again they like Biden, or Obama, and not Bernie it was met with at the very least soft bigotry.

These are anecdotes dressed up as analysis. I don't need to qualify your descriptions of random internet commenters or twitter users because it's simply not relevant to the discussion, which is based on specific (and, to my argument, bad faith) actions by centrist politicians and how they relate to specific views on policy and ideology.

The left has a tremendous knack for coopting movements that benefit minority groups in an effort to push for things that they want. Every issue that effects the Black electorate is spun to be about either student loans or healthcare. You say the center left's identity claims are farcical but they are ironically actually coming from the identity groups that suffer the most.

Again, this is simply false and a symptom of the centrist liberal propaganda in re class reductionism and the left wing of the party somehow being anti-black issues despite being consistently and inarguably more concerned with those issues and providing targeted responses to them. For years, I've seen centrist opponents of good policy like single-payer healthcare hedge their support by claiming leftists substitute it for the issues cared for by nonwhite voters, and yet I have literally never seen that happen.

Also, the "coming from the identity groups that suffer the most" is just not worth responding to. No one is marginalizing identity political arguments coming from actual vulnerable populations, let alone writing them off wholesale. You're doing what JVS did: arguing that resistance to identity political claims by powerful politicians is somehow a rejection of all such claims coming from actual suffering groups. So one cannot really care about or seek to address things like racism or sexism unless you concede that Hillary Clinton's claim that Keith Ellison is being racist and sexist against her when he says that the Libyan intervention was wrong. It's the exact same playbook used against the (similarly lower class and nonwhite) Corbyn coalition: claiming that their resistance to claims by the Tories that they were all antisemitic was proof they didn't care about racism and xenophobia. It's enormously dishonest and gross.

 

[Sara]

Wait you're a Diaz fanboy...

All women are.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're doing what JVS did: arguing that resistance to identity political claims by powerful politicians is somehow a rejection of all such claims coming from actual suffering groups.

When do you think I did this? I don't even know what you're saying, TBH.

What I said before (and this kind of splits the difference between the two of you) is that positions on social issues generally line up with positions on economic issues in ways that reinforce ideological positioning (i.e., people on the left on economic issues tend to also be on the left on social issues). Some dishonest leftists often try to claim that left-wing social policy is promoted as an *alternative* to left-wing economic policy, and that effort is often about undermining left-wing social goals.

 

[Rational Poster]

All women are.

 

[essie]

This is just false, though. And, worse, it largely stems from centrist propaganda imo. Sanders' support was disproportionately white and very slightly more male-oriented (the biggest indicator of support, by far, was age). But people mistake that for being reflective of the party's wings, which is a misconception since the vast majority of the electorate is casual, and the sort of ideological poles in the party are not necessarily reflective of that vote. In reality, the left wing of the party has more radical views on race, sees it as a bigger problem, and wants to more aggressively redress it. Similarly, the left wing polls as being less racist, less sexist, and more pro-immigration than the center.



These are anecdotes dressed up as analysis. I don't need to qualify your descriptions of random internet commenters or twitter users because it's simply not relevant to the discussion, which is based on specific (and, to my argument, bad faith) actions by centrist politicians and how they relate to specific views on policy and ideology.



Again, this is simply false and a symptom of the centrist liberal propaganda in re class reductionism and the left wing of the party somehow being anti-black issues despite being consistently and inarguably more concerned with those issues and providing targeted responses to them. For years, I've seen centrist opponents of good policy like single-payer healthcare hedge their support by claiming leftists substitute it for the issues cared for by nonwhite voters, and yet I have literally never seen that happen.

Also, the "coming from the identity groups that suffer the most" is just not worth responding to. No one is marginalizing identity political arguments coming from actual vulnerable populations, let alone writing them off wholesale. You're doing what JVS did: arguing that resistance to identity political claims by powerful politicians is somehow a rejection of all such claims coming from actual suffering groups. So one cannot really care about or seek to address things like racism or sexism unless you concede that Hillary Clinton's claim that Keith Ellison is being racist and sexist against her when he says that the Libyan intervention was wrong. It's the exact same playbook used against the (similarly lower class and nonwhite) Corbyn coalition: claiming that their resistance to claims by the Tories that they were all antisemitic was proof they didn't care about racism and xenophobia. It's enormously dishonest and gross.

First and foremost I'm about done being called gross here, it's childish and unecessary. You actually used a lot of words to say nothing I can discern at all, other than complaining that a difference in opinion is a result of propaganda which seems lazy but okay.

I think you pointed out that when we took ideology tests I was more left than you are so I'm not really sure why you are speaking to me as if I disagree with the principles of leftism. I am speaking about a portion of leftists who use leftism as a trojan horse to selfishly advance discussions centered around them. I support Corbyn so I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. You say "No one is marginalizing identity political arguments coming from actual vulnerable populations, let alone writing them off wholesale" but are willing to write off examples of just that as being anecdotal thus not worthy of discussion.

The hostility you are showing towards somehow who by and large agrees with you speaks to the fundamental attitude issues prevalent in leftist spaces inhabited by people who carry tremendous privilege. If one is truly to be concerned about issues of racism or sexism it would benefit you to care about it as it presents itself across all spectrums and especially those you sit on. I have experienced much more sexism from Bernie supporters than Biden ones, as an example.

 

[essie]

When do you think I did this? I don't even know what you're saying, TBH.

I'm liking your post for this. I read what Trotsky said twice and I'm not sure what he is saying to me which admittedly could be an issue of my own cognitive limitations.

 

[tonni]

Far right extremist that was/is in the military is on the run from the cops. He has been on the terror list for years, which is amazing considering he was still in the army.

 

[tonni]

Apparently he was a sniper and has seen combat. Oh ow.

 

[essie]

Far right extremist that was/is in the military is on the run from the cops. He has been on the terror list for years, which is amazing considering he was still in the army.

Apparently he was a sniper and has seen combat. Oh ow.

There's a good chance he'll run for and win an election for the GOP.

 

[tonni]

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm liking your post for this. I read what Trotsky said twice and I'm not sure what he is saying to me which admittedly could be an issue of my own cognitive limitations.

I guess he's saying that leftist groups who hate "centrists" (whom they generally mislabel as such) and accuse them of being obsessed with identity politics (and, yes, it's an accusation when it's made that way) don't actually oppose left-wing social policy. Which is why I was saying I kind of split the difference--that is, I agree that the far left on social issues also tends to be the far left on economic issues.

A big part of the issue, IMO, is that people underestimate how many different factions (and, really, individuals) there are and they apply attacks where they are not appropriate as a result.

 

[tonni]

There's a good chance he'll run for and win an election for the GOP.

I think accepting a Belgian as a member would be too low even for them.

 

[Trotsky]

When do you think I did this? I don't even know what you're saying, TBH.

In your last post, where you implied that I claim any claim of sexism is weaponization because I mentioned some that were problematic. And, IIRC, you even agreed on at least one of them (I seem to recall you also taking issue with AOC's racial remark about Pelosi).

If I am misunderstanding your post and wrongly taking offense, please feel free to correct me.

What I said before (and this kind of splits the difference between the two of you) is that positions on social issues generally line up with positions on economic issues in ways that reinforce ideological positioning (i.e., people on the left on economic issues tend to also be on the left on social issues). Some dishonest leftists often try to claim that left-wing social policy is promoted as an *alternative* to left-wing economic policy, and that effort is often about undermining left-wing social goals.

I think you're mostly right about ideological position, although it's also necessary to talk about intensity and influence on actual policy. There are some leftists who think social rhetoric is used economic centrist to give the impression of moving leftward without promoting anything that can connect to tangible and beneficiary policy. I think that's more or less accurate. There are very few on the left who think aggressive social rhetoric is itself used to sabotage and undermine socialistic efforts, and I don't think that's right.

 

[essie]

I guess he's saying that leftist groups who hate "centrists" (whom they generally mislabel as such) and accuse them of being obsessed with identity politics (and, yes, it's an accusation when it's made that way) don't actually oppose left-wing social policy. Which is why I was saying I kind of split the difference--that is, I agree that the far left on social issues also tends to be the far left on economic issues.

A big part of the issue, IMO, is that people underestimate how many different factions (and, really, individuals) there are and they apply attacks where they are not appropriate as a result.

I think that there are people on the far left who confuse hating liberals for an identity, and it just so happens that liberals are made up of a lot of Black people and women.

 

[Gregolian]

I think that there are people on the far left who confuse hating liberals for an identity, and it just so happens that liberals are made up of a lot of Black people and women.

Do what I do, hate everyone.



Music video unrelated I'm just keeping my shit posting style going

 

[tonni]

SDW can't even make fun of my dogecoins now. Poor dude. I kind of miss being insulted for race traitor every two weeks.

 

[JDragon]

They (almost) always are known and on some kind of intelligence service list. Actually so regularly that I question the added value of most of domestic intelligence services.

 

[tonni]

They (almost) always are known and on some kind of intelligence service list. Actually so regularly that I question the added value of most of domestic intelligence services.

Don't question them too loud. This place is bugged.

 

[essie]

Do what I do, hate everyone.



Music video unrelated I'm just keeping my shit posting style going

I don’t want to

 

[Trotsky]

First and foremost I'm about done being called gross here, it's childish and unecessary.

...I didn't call you gross. I called the argument you used dishonest and gross. And you didn't disagree with my description or characterization of it, so that's still my opinion of it.

I think that most people would apply that description as well. Saying that a person or their movement is dismissive of issues of inequality because they do not unconditionally accept one claimed instance - that's a fair description, no? I conceded that there was, of course, sexism against Clinton in all of her political races. In fact I started this out by saying she's regularly given no benefit of the doubt by everyone. But I said that the issue is undermined by claims of sexism that are no so hearty.

You actually used a lot of words to say nothing I can discern at all

I spent several minutes carefully typing out my opinion. And you're clearly smart enough to understand it entirely. So if you are claiming that you can't discern it, I don't know what to tell you.

I think you pointed out that when we took ideology tests I was more left than you are so I'm not really sure why you are speaking to me as if I disagree with the principles of leftism. I am speaking about a portion of leftists who use leftism as a trojan horse to selfishly advance discussions centered around them. I support Corbyn so I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. You say "No one is marginalizing identity political arguments coming from actual vulnerable populations, let alone writing them off wholesale" but are willing to write off examples of just that as being anecdotal thus not worthy of discussion.

I'm writing off examples as not worthy of discussion because you didn't actually present any. Literally anyone can malign political movements based on referring to random internet conduct. Right wingers here do it all the time. In those cases, we also write it off, but at least they're actually producing actual specific examples that can be taken head on, like tweets or videos. You simply saying "there were a ton of sexist Bernie supporters" doesn't give me anything to work with.

I think you have me mixed up with someone else in re the ideology test. Although I've definitely moved upward on it over the years. But I'm not attacking you or even characterizing you in any ideological sense. I am taking issue with a specific argument and saying, rightfully in my opinion, that it's bad.

The hostility you are showing towards somehow who by and large agrees with you speaks to the fundamental attitude issues prevalent in leftist spaces inhabited by people who carry tremendous privilege. If one is truly to be concerned about issues of racism or sexism it would benefit you to care about it as it presents itself across all spectrums and especially those you sit on. I have experienced much more sexism from Bernie supporters than Biden ones, as an example.

What exactly is "fundamentalist" about my perspective? If anything, it's rigidly rationalist.

As far as you Bernie/Biden experience goes, I completely believe it. In fact, I'd be really surprised if it was any other way since Bernie's major moment was a race against a female candidate and later competed closely against two other female candidates, one of whom made a pretty explosive allegation of sexism against him. Whereas Biden and his supporters (who are themselves much less active as participants in political discourse) have never been in that situation. I would personally predict that in, say, a contested race between Biden and AOC, you'd see far more sexism from centrist Biden supporters against the left-wing AOC than you saw from left-wing Bernie supporters toward Clinton. But that's conjecture.

As far as me "attacking" you goes, you called me a hypocrite and said I was engaging in or epitomizing sexism. I disagreed and said your argument was dishonest and gross. Pretty crazy that I would be the vicious one in that exchange.