The Liberals Thread

[Burnt Hill]

@slomo: happy to see you took yourself out of RI quarantine: you are my favorite psychopath.

Having skimmed the thread (& as someone raised in an ultra-liberal environment with lots of stories to tell, as most people here know), one thing I'd suggest is that the word "racism" is essentially meaningless at this point in history, and that, when a word becomes meaningless and yet is still being used, it becomes counter-productive, even damaging. There are a whole slew of words which I feel essentially the same way about, and most or all of them pertain to or stem from the "neoliberal" set, since, whatever Trump's victory suggests, this is the dominant ideological narrative right now.

It's a certain kind of viewpoint, generally, that relies on words like "racist" and "racism" to argue its points, and the people who use those words (at this thread, for example) generally do so for a specific reason. Guess what? It's the same reason people have used the word "nigger": to stigmatize a whole group of people.

Personally, and this is probably something I knew as a child, I've started to see how all these -isms and -phobias are just red herrings, because there's one thing happening here and it trumps (no pun intended) all its variations: scapegoating. When "liberals" fight "racism," they condemn large numbers of people, without ever meeting them or talking to them, not for the color of their skin but for their beliefs. In the process, the anti-racists exalt themselves and their views to a higher moral plateau (rightly or wrongly), by doing the same with whatever minority (or "minority") they are defending (the liberals' pet-cause; for my grandfather it was blacks, gays, and murderous mobsters doing jail time; almost certainly pedophiles too). This creates privileged "minority" classes (I put "minority" in quotes because the definition isn't always based on numbers), and, as everyone knows, these "minorities" get special treatment ~ for having been discriminated against previously.

As I see it, if: a) a person is not permitted to express their opinions or feelings about someone or a group of people (or even national policy that relates to certain people, such as immigration laws) without being stigmatized; and b) that same (latter) someone or group of people is not merely protected from "prejudice" but is also receiving special treatment (being idealized, essentially) and is being presented as in some way beyond reproach (since any reproach is seen as discrimination) . . . What happens?

Trump happens.

Those associated ~ rightly or wrongly ~ with the original perceived persecution drives (misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc) then become the persecuted "minority" (the underclass); and so naturally their anger, frustration, & hostility increases, as well as their numbers.

I've avoided using concrete examples because of course this area of discussion is filled with land mines designed to go off at first contact, to provoke archetypal/emotional responses and not rational ones. But also because, in a way it doesn't matter, since it is all scapegoating, all the identical social principal that's being applied to achieve the ends of an actual privileged minority class. What can be said about this group is very little. But they may not even be racist, homophobic, or misogynist at all, because they may be something far beyond such limited and limiting terms (terms they would have coined deliberately to befog the rest of us); they may view themselves as superior to all humankind, as we think of the term, regardless of type or orientation.

This has to be the most contrived use of bad logic that I have read here in a very long time.
Yet smart enough to set a trap for anyone who might feel that way.
Land mine indeed.
You scary dude.

[guruilla]

You're making a case, (albeit very eloquently:) ) that it's the persecuted white person that decided the election. We're discussing this on other threads, as well. I don't think it's that simple. I said on one of those threads that 'the working class, on both the left and the right, rejected the system in their own way.' That's what the numbers look like.

OK, need to back up a sec. This happens when people have different lens to look at phenomena, mine is primarily psychological, and not even tertiarily political (unless we count parapolitical/paranoid)

So no I wasn't trying to make a direct casual case for why people voted for Trump; as I said in the previous post, I don't consider voting all that relevant. I'm trying to make a case for how a collective psychology gives rise to social movements & the like.

I am flabbergasted. Would you like some concrete examples of racism guruilla? What on earth are you talking about?

I'm making a distinction between acts of violence or abuse that are due to scapegoating that has an ostensible racial component but may have many other factors fueling that anger & violence, and a social phenomenon called "racism," which you or I or anyone else can be accused of at anytime & which has no clearly defined characteristics but is a very wide spectrum ranging from Ku Klu Clan members to "not-satisfactorily liberal." It's fair to say that everyone posting at this thread has different criteria, and a different level of "bar," for what constitutes racism. I would have a high bar compared to Luther's low bar, and so on. Technically, if we stick to the terms given, this makes me more "racist" than, let's say, Luther or Jack (not wanting to pigeonhole anyone here). Except if we consider that this only applies when I am white; if I am black or brown and my bar is higher than Luther or Jack's, then they can't really say that makes me more racist, tho they can say I am less educated or aware, or something of the sort. For my part, I would say roughly the same back, that I am less indoctrinated & more able to think for myself. But either way, the word racism hasn't really helped do much besides intensify disagreement & encourage scapegoating of the other.

[dada]

You're making a case, (albeit very eloquently:) ) that it's the persecuted white person that decided the election. We're discussing this on other threads, as well. I don't think it's that simple. I said on one of those threads that 'the working class, on both the left and the right, rejected the system in their own way.' That's what the numbers look like.

OK, need to back up a sec. This happens when people have different lens to look at phenomena, mine is primarily psychological, and not even tertiarily political (unless we count parapolitical/paranoid)

So no I wasn't trying to make a direct casual case for why people voted for Trump; as I said in the previous post, I don't consider voting all that relevant. I'm trying to make a case for how a collective psychology gives rise to social movements & the like.

Ah. Well, I still disagree with the substance of your case, here. That being, (and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure:)) white person reaction to being called names created a collective psychosis that gave rise to a social movement where 'trump happens.'

Some but not all white people feel threatened by the empowerment and equality of all races and sexes. As the balance equalizes, they feel robbed. This reaction is to a correctly perceived threat to the order of things. Others are fine with it, because they don't feel threatened by this.

[Morty]

Did Clint Eastwood Get Banned From Twitter?

Late last night, Twitter made the decision to suspend @EastwoodUSA. The account’s final message—and presumed reason for being booted off the social network—read:

Thank you America, I don’t have long left to live but now I know the last few years will be great, I can’t thank you enough #PresidentTrump

Users reacted in outrage to the account’s removal, calling the suspension an example of censorship and liberal bias. A Twitter spokesperson told Gizmodo via email, “We don’t comment on individual accounts, for privacy and security reasons.”

*Edit: No, he didn't. An Eastwood impersonator did.*

[Joe Hillshoist]

So this two-bit right-wing talk radio rant from Mason, whoever the fuck he is, has no special authority by virtue of his also getting to speak in classrooms. Of course, if he had anything credible to say, that would authority.

But Mason is wrong. Trump is another win for the single biggest identity politics group: angry, older, male white people (and a smaller majority of white women). Fact.

The same group that has been the beneficiary of identity politics for most of U.S. history. The same identity group that has been voting for the Republicans consistently since 1968. The group that Mason probably belongs to, I figure.

I agree with you that Mason's diagnosis was bullshit and that white identity politics won the day because of Clinton's uniquely powerful voter suppression qualities.

However, I do think that identity politics drives American politics because it diminishes class consciousness.

As Jack mentioned "black people" in the US are a class, or more accurately an underclass.

I'm betting most people saying "identity politics must end" wrt to the left are white. Fuck - the term "identity politics" was probably coined by someone on the right as a way to devalue and shit on the way individuals who were discriminated against (by being shot or denied jobs or marriage rights) because of their identity stood up for their rights and tried stopping such identity based discrimination.

Yes, most straight Christian white males hate all identity politics other than the identity politics of SCWMs.

On the other hand, the pain is quite real for most of the bottom 90%, no matter what identity. So what to do? Blame previously entitled but now beaten dogs for growling? Call me naive, but I would rather help as many as possible develop a sense of class consciousness rather than the race, religion, and sexual orientation consciousnesses that now reign.

Look its your country not mine so what I say is gonna be more of a whinge than something helpful, and I agree with your "naive" aims too. They are very worthy...

But lets look at Obama's election. Did anyone ever say the pain for the bottom whatever percent they were back then - poor black people, had anything to do with his election? i genuinely thought it did and hoped something good would come from it. more fool me I guess. We all know what happened when he got elected - the campaigner*.

i guess my point is that now the white people are suffering its ok to go on about economic equality being important, and as soon as they are ok financially again then they'll stop giving a shit. Which is I spose what "liberals" do and what Ochs was going on about all those years ago. So to really get "class consciousness" of a sort happening you need to somehow get the disenfranchised whites (who possibly hate BLM) to identify with and empathise with ... well black people in ghettos.

Do you think that could happen?


*In case anyone is wondering - campaigner is what the swear filter on an aussie rules footy board replaces a swear word starting with c with.

[guruilla]

Ah. Well, I still disagree with the substance of your case, here. That being, (and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure:)) white person reaction to being called names created a collective psychosis that gave rise to a social movement where 'trump happens.'

Nothing quite like having one's argument chewed up and spat out as over-simplified nonsense and then asked to "correct me if I'm wrong." (Not really mad, just a bit tired of the No-Nuance Policy at RI.)

This is why the quote function & point by point responses is so essential to forum discussion ~ IMO.

[Joe Hillshoist]

@slomo: happy to see you took yourself out of RI quarantine: you are my favorite psychopath.

Having skimmed the thread (& as someone raised in an ultra-liberal environment with lots of stories to tell, as most people here know), one thing I'd suggest is that the word "racism" is essentially meaningless at this point in history, and that, when a word becomes meaningless and yet is still being used, it becomes counter-productive, even damaging. There are a whole slew of words which I feel essentially the same way about, and most or all of them pertain to or stem from the "neoliberal" set, since, whatever Trump's victory suggests, this is the dominant ideological narrative right now.

It's a certain kind of viewpoint, generally, that relies on words like "racist" and "racism" to argue its points, and the people who use those words (at this thread, for example) generally do so for a specific reason. Guess what? It's the same reason people have used the word "nigger": to stigmatize a whole group of people.

Personally, and this is probably something I knew as a child, I've started to see how all these -isms and -phobias are just red herrings, because there's one thing happening here and it trumps (no pun intended) all its variations: scapegoating. When "liberals" fight "racism," they condemn large numbers of people, without ever meeting them or talking to them, not for the color of their skin but for their beliefs. In the process, the anti-racists exalt themselves and their views to a higher moral plateau (rightly or wrongly), by doing the same with whatever minority (or "minority") they are defending (the liberals' pet-cause; for my grandfather it was blacks, gays, and murderous mobsters doing jail time; almost certainly pedophiles too). This creates privileged "minority" classes (I put "minority" in quotes because the definition isn't always based on numbers), and, as everyone knows, these "minorities" get special treatment ~ for having been discriminated against previously.

As I see it, if: a) a person is not permitted to express their opinions or feelings about someone or a group of people (or even national policy that relates to certain people, such as immigration laws) without being stigmatized; and b) that same (latter) someone or group of people is not merely protected from "prejudice" but is also receiving special treatment (being idealized, essentially) and is being presented as in some way beyond reproach (since any reproach is seen as discrimination) . . . What happens?

Trump happens.

Those associated ~ rightly or wrongly ~ with the original perceived persecution drives (misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc) then become the persecuted "minority" (the underclass); and so naturally their anger, frustration, & hostility increases, as well as their numbers.

I've avoided using concrete examples because of course this area of discussion is filled with land mines designed to go off at first contact, to provoke archetypal/emotional responses and not rational ones. But also because, in a way it doesn't matter, since it is all scapegoating, all the identical social principal that's being applied to achieve the ends of an actual privileged minority class. What can be said about this group is very little. But they may not even be racist, homophobic, or misogynist at all, because they may be something far beyond such limited and limiting terms (terms they would have coined deliberately to befog the rest of us); they may view themselves as superior to all humankind, as we think of the term, regardless of type or orientation.

Fuck.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Did Clint Eastwood Get Banned From Twitter?

Clint Eastwood ain't on fucking Twitter, though.

Have some respect.

[dada]

Ah. Well, I still disagree with the substance of your case, here. That being, (and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure:)) white person reaction to being called names created a collective psychosis that gave rise to a social movement where 'trump happens.'

Nothing quite like having one's argument chewed up and spat out as over-simplified nonsense and then asked to "correct me if I'm wrong." (Not really mad, just a bit tired of the No-Nuance Policy at RI.)

This is why the quote function & point by point responses is so essential to forum discussion ~ IMO.

Oh, whatever. Turn it around on me, have fun.

[Morty]

Did Clint Eastwood Get Banned From Twitter?

Clint Eastwood ain't on fucking Twitter, though.

Have some respect.

Ha. I didn't read far enough. Or see good enough. Was trying to get closer to the origin of the story than the NYPost article I saw via twitter. Apologies.

[dada]

I thought this was funny. From a review of Stoppard's play 'Jumpers,' by rambler at the 'literary ramblings' blog.

...In Stoppard’s world, a political group of philosophers known as the Radical Liberals (Rad-Libs) have won an election in Britain. Britain has simultaneously landed on the moon. The group is tirelessly mocked throughout the play, juxtaposed to second-rate gymnasts/acrobats,...

One of the instances in which Stoppard’s play is most effective, is its semiotic lampoon of language. Ferdinand de Saussure suggests that the meaning of a word depends on the nomenclature, meaning both its context and the differences it shares with other words. For those who are unfamiliar with the nomenclature of a given language, however, subtle differences that a person is unaware of can cause confusion. For instance, when Bones, a police detective, questions George, the play’s protagonist, George tells him that he is "something of a logician.” Bones replies: “Really? Sawing ladies in half, that sort of thing?” Because ‘logician’ and ‘magician’ are similar, and because Bones is unfamiliar with the nomenclature, the subtle differences go unnoticed and in turn cause confusions. It also juxtaposes logicians with magicians, suggesting the illusions and deceit provided by a magician somehow mirror the work of a logician. In some instances, signifiers can express two different things. Stoppard draws on this to instill the play with humour, using word play to cause confusion, which demonstrates how language can undermine meaning."

[Luther Blissett]

I think this is what most people use, consciously or unconsciously.



There's a line for what classifies as racism in there.

[slomo]

I think this is what most people use, consciously or unconsciously.



There's a line for what classifies as racism in there.

I agree that most people use this model.

Also: I agree with Guru's take when viewed from a psychological and spiritual perspective, but I also agree that it is an impractical model when discussing politics. What I mean is, Guru's analysis is a useful perspective when you are dealing with two or more parties that are invested in deeper understanding of one another and have more-or-less good intentions. But I don't think that description applies to US politics in 2016. Even on this forum there is a lot of negativity (and has been for awhile ... I've quietly watched it all year long as a lurker). Mostly, I see people shut down, here and on FB and on Reddit, unwilling to listen to each other. In such a situation one has to have very sharp definitions of terms such as "racism". And it is not very easy to apply these terms if you have any sensitivity towards nuance, because nuance becomes a problem when trying to write, especially when writing quickly under fire. So mostly people abandon nuance. Sad.

[dada]

Guru knows that I approach things with an open mind, and have changed my perspective in discussion with him.

He presented his thoughts here, which I found to be over-simplified nonsense. I engaged with him. And he used something I said on the page before this one to make it seem like I was the one that made his words over-simplified nonsense.

Sorry I disagree with you guys about this. But all you have are subtle put downs. That isn't nuance, it's just substitution for weak arguments.

[stickdog99]

So this two-bit right-wing talk radio rant from Mason, whoever the fuck he is, has no special authority by virtue of his also getting to speak in classrooms. Of course, if he had anything credible to say, that would authority.

But Mason is wrong. Trump is another win for the single biggest identity politics group: angry, older, male white people (and a smaller majority of white women). Fact.

The same group that has been the beneficiary of identity politics for most of U.S. history. The same identity group that has been voting for the Republicans consistently since 1968. The group that Mason probably belongs to, I figure.

I agree with you that Mason's diagnosis was bullshit and that white identity politics won the day because of Clinton's uniquely powerful voter suppression qualities.

However, I do think that identity politics drives American politics because it diminishes class consciousness.

As Jack mentioned "black people" in the US are a class, or more accurately an underclass.

I'm betting most people saying "identity politics must end" wrt to the left are white. Fuck - the term "identity politics" was probably coined by someone on the right as a way to devalue and shit on the way individuals who were discriminated against (by being shot or denied jobs or marriage rights) because of their identity stood up for their rights and tried stopping such identity based discrimination.

Yes, most straight Christian white males hate all identity politics other than the identity politics of SCWMs.

On the other hand, the pain is quite real for most of the bottom 90%, no matter what identity. So what to do? Blame previously entitled but now beaten dogs for growling? Call me naive, but I would rather help as many as possible develop a sense of class consciousness rather than the race, religion, and sexual orientation consciousnesses that now reign.

Look its your country not mine so what I say is gonna be more of a whinge than something helpful, and I agree with your "naive" aims too. They are very worthy...

But lets look at Obama's election. Did anyone ever say the pain for the bottom whatever percent they were back then - poor black people, had anything to do with his election? i genuinely thought it did and hoped something good would come from it. more fool me I guess. We all know what happened when he got elected - the campaigner*.

i guess my point is that now the white people are suffering its ok to go on about economic equality being important, and as soon as they are ok financially again then they'll stop giving a shit. Which is I spose what "liberals" do and what Ochs was going on about all those years ago. So to really get "class consciousness" of a sort happening you need to somehow get the disenfranchised whites (who possibly hate BLM) to identify with and empathise with ... well black people in ghettos.

Do you think that could happen?


*In case anyone is wondering - campaigner is what the swear filter on an aussie rules footy board replaces a swear word starting with c with.

Of course, I see why many blacks should and do prioritize social justice over economic justice. The New Deal and the GI Bill, for example, were much better deals for whites than they were for blacks. Furthermore, if people that looked like me and lived where I live were getting killed/beaten/jailed/fined by the "justice system" in the numbers that blacks are, stopping that would definitely be my number one priority as well. And even though I am not black, I personally rate criminal justice reform as more important than economic reform for these same reasons.

But the sort of whites who hate BLM and immigrants and gay rights and women's rights are entitled and bigoted. Those are the facts on the ground. But they are also undeniably and justifiably angry about getting screwed more and more each year by an elite political and billionaire class that has parasitically fed itself on the efforts of the entire 99%. And that's the one thing that almost everybody in the 99% can agree on. We are all getting taken for a ride by a government that governs only for itself and its top 0.1% masters.

So what to do? Appeal to our common ground with the entitled white racists, homophobes and Christian soldiers and at least try to ameliorate our ever accelerating economic inequality? Or keep allowing our 0.1% overlords to split voters down the middle strictly on the basis of their differing social identities?