Page 2 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

21 Feb 2022, 5:19 am

VegetableMan wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I think it's problematic that race and sex are the only groups people worry about these days.

It seems people divide the entire world into two groups based on assumptions and generalisations: people are either left or right (which isn't true), or they are either male or female (which isn't true). Oh, almost forgot skin colour and race.

Yes racism and sexism are important.
What about other the other vulnerable sectors of society?

We're all disabled. I don't hear anyone calling out ableism in mainstream media, or protecting our rights.

Again - no hate please. That doesn't mean I'm racist or sexist, or left wing or right wing or male or female.
It means there's more to defining a person than skin colour and sex (or even gender).


Precisely! Very well said. Too many people are stuck in very rigid parameters when discussing politics. It doesn't lead to healthy discussions that could bridge the gap between left and right.

How does this align with describing the entire mainstream media and the entirety of American politics as “far right corporatists”, “establishment shills”, and such? Does that encourage healthy discussion and show willingness to move beyond very rigid parameters?



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

21 Feb 2022, 8:59 am

The_Walrus wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I think it's problematic that race and sex are the only groups people worry about these days.

It seems people divide the entire world into two groups based on assumptions and generalisations: people are either left or right (which isn't true), or they are either male or female (which isn't true). Oh, almost forgot skin colour and race.

Yes racism and sexism are important.
What about other the other vulnerable sectors of society?

We're all disabled. I don't hear anyone calling out ableism in mainstream media, or protecting our rights.

Again - no hate please. That doesn't mean I'm racist or sexist, or left wing or right wing or male or female.
It means there's more to defining a person than skin colour and sex (or even gender).


Precisely! Very well said. Too many people are stuck in very rigid parameters when discussing politics. It doesn't lead to healthy discussions that could bridge the gap between left and right.

How does this align with describing the entire mainstream media and the entirety of American politics as “far right corporatists”, “establishment shills”, and such? Does that encourage healthy discussion and show willingness to move beyond very rigid parameters?


First, you have to have an understanding of the last 40 years of American politics. Both the major parties in the U.S. are bought and paid for by corporate interests, and so is the media. Until you understand that, no meaningful conversations can take place.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2022, 6:35 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I think it's problematic that race and sex are the only groups people worry about these days.

It seems people divide the entire world into two groups based on assumptions and generalisations: people are either left or right (which isn't true), or they are either male or female (which isn't true). Oh, almost forgot skin colour and race.

Yes racism and sexism are important.
What about other the other vulnerable sectors of society?

We're all disabled. I don't hear anyone calling out ableism in mainstream media, or protecting our rights.

Again - no hate please. That doesn't mean I'm racist or sexist, or left wing or right wing or male or female.
It means there's more to defining a person than skin colour and sex (or even gender).


Precisely! Very well said. Too many people are stuck in very rigid parameters when discussing politics. It doesn't lead to healthy discussions that could bridge the gap between left and right.

How does this align with describing the entire mainstream media and the entirety of American politics as “far right corporatists”, “establishment shills”, and such? Does that encourage healthy discussion and show willingness to move beyond very rigid parameters?


First, you have to have an understanding of the last 40 years of American politics. Both the major parties in the U.S. are bought and paid for by corporate interests, and so is the media. Until you understand that, no meaningful conversations can take place.


Self-evident. 8)



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

21 Feb 2022, 8:09 pm

Pepe wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I think it's problematic that race and sex are the only groups people worry about these days.

It seems people divide the entire world into two groups based on assumptions and generalisations: people are either left or right (which isn't true), or they are either male or female (which isn't true). Oh, almost forgot skin colour and race.

Yes racism and sexism are important.
What about other the other vulnerable sectors of society?

We're all disabled. I don't hear anyone calling out ableism in mainstream media, or protecting our rights.

Again - no hate please. That doesn't mean I'm racist or sexist, or left wing or right wing or male or female.
It means there's more to defining a person than skin colour and sex (or even gender).


Precisely! Very well said. Too many people are stuck in very rigid parameters when discussing politics. It doesn't lead to healthy discussions that could bridge the gap between left and right.

How does this align with describing the entire mainstream media and the entirety of American politics as “far right corporatists”, “establishment shills”, and such? Does that encourage healthy discussion and show willingness to move beyond very rigid parameters?


First, you have to have an understanding of the last 40 years of American politics. Both the major parties in the U.S. are bought and paid for by corporate interests, and so is the media. Until you understand that, no meaningful conversations can take place.


Self-evident. 8)


Yeah, pretty much. It's a simple grasp of the obvious.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

21 Feb 2022, 8:11 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Too many people are stuck in very rigid parameters when discussing politics. It doesn't lead to healthy discussions that could bridge the gap between left and right.

How does this align with describing the entire mainstream media and the entirety of American politics as “far right corporatists”, “establishment shills”, and such? Does that encourage healthy discussion and show willingness to move beyond very rigid parameters?


First, you have to have an understanding of the last 40 years of American politics. Both the major parties in the U.S. are bought and paid for by corporate interests, and so is the media. Until you understand that, no meaningful conversations can take place.

Simply restating conspiratorial beliefs doesn’t validate them, I am afraid.

In any case, what is the difference between some nebulous individual who calls people like you right-wing, and you calling people like Joe Biden right-wing?

It is naturally quite difficult to phrase this delicately, without it coming across as a personal attack. But do you see how your beliefs show exactly the same lack of appreciation for nuance and subtlety that you are accusing other people of holding? There is at least as large an ideological gap between the average Democrat and the average Republican as there is between you and the average Republican - that’s why the Democrats on here tend to disagree with you and the Republicans tend to agree with you. If you can’t tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, isn’t it reasonable that Democrats can’t tell the difference between you and Republicans?



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

21 Feb 2022, 8:36 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Too many people are stuck in very rigid parameters when discussing politics. It doesn't lead to healthy discussions that could bridge the gap between left and right.

How does this align with describing the entire mainstream media and the entirety of American politics as “far right corporatists”, “establishment shills”, and such? Does that encourage healthy discussion and show willingness to move beyond very rigid parameters?


First, you have to have an understanding of the last 40 years of American politics. Both the major parties in the U.S. are bought and paid for by corporate interests, and so is the media. Until you understand that, no meaningful conversations can take place.

Simply restating conspiratorial beliefs doesn’t validate them, I am afraid.

In any case, what is the difference between some nebulous individual who calls people like you right-wing, and you calling people like Joe Biden right-wing?

It is naturally quite difficult to phrase this delicately, without it coming across as a personal attack. But do you see how your beliefs show exactly the same lack of appreciation for nuance and subtlety that you are accusing other people of holding? There is at least as large an ideological gap between the average Democrat and the average Republican as there is between you and the average Republican - that’s why the Democrats on here tend to disagree with you and the Republicans tend to agree with you. If you can’t tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, isn’t it reasonable that Democrats can’t tell the difference between you and Republicans?


The reason that Democrats disagree with me is mainly because they still labor under the delusion that the Democratic Party is still liberal in any way. That hasn't been true since the Clinton administration.

This has nothing to do with nuance or subtlety. What you fail to grasp is both parties are invested in maintaining the oligarchy. There is no fundamental difference between them on the major existential threats that threaten our survival.

I'm pretty much done with indulging your ignorance of our political system. It's barely worth my time time to respond to you.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


MuddRM
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 2 Sep 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 484
Location: Beautiful(?) West Manchester Township, PA

21 Feb 2022, 9:23 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
I think it's problematic that race and sex are the only groups people worry about these days.

It seems people divide the entire world into two groups based on assumptions and generalisations: people are either left or right (which isn't true), or they are either male or female (which isn't true). Oh, almost forgot skin colour and race.

Yes racism and sexism are important.
What about other the other vulnerable sectors of society?

We're all disabled. I don't hear anyone calling out ableism in mainstream media, or protecting our rights.

Again - no hate please. That doesn't mean I'm racist or sexist, or left wing or right wing or male or female.
It means there's more to defining a person than skin colour and sex (or even gender).


I’m already past the point of caring about politics or sex. I’m better off being a recluse. Nowadays, I stay locked in my apartment, and seldom leave, except to take out my trash, get my mail, attend church, and go to the doctor. The only visitors I have are Meals on Wheels, and my semi-annual visit from my counselor from the County Agency on Aging.



MuddRM
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 2 Sep 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 484
Location: Beautiful(?) West Manchester Township, PA

21 Feb 2022, 9:42 pm

Pepe wrote:
kitesandtrainsandcats wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I wish the media focus was less on race / sex / American political pigeonholes, than on real human beings with real human stories.


Eh, the media is merely being efficient, pigeonholes are far more understandable by the public in the 90 seconds the media gives to "full coverage".
Whether any of those pigeonholes are valid and if so, how valid, is a somewhat more than 90 second conversation. :lol:

Or, in other words, media coverage looks more and more fine-tuned for the 'tl;dr' crowd.

Yes, I have become a bit cynical toward media.
And even after having taken a semester of TV and radio broadcasting classes in college in the 1980s.
Hmm, maybe even especially after ...


If people woke up to the media's machinations, the media wouldn't have the power it has in influencing impressionable minds.
May I suggest mandatory <sic> critical thinking courses? :scratch:



In post-modern ‘Murrukuh, that’s too g!damn much like work!

H.L. Mencken was right when he made his comment on the intelligence of the American people. Unfortunately, American intelligence has sunk to a level well below imbecile.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2022, 11:06 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Pepe wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I think it's problematic that race and sex are the only groups people worry about these days.

It seems people divide the entire world into two groups based on assumptions and generalisations: people are either left or right (which isn't true), or they are either male or female (which isn't true). Oh, almost forgot skin colour and race.

Yes racism and sexism are important.
What about other the other vulnerable sectors of society?

We're all disabled. I don't hear anyone calling out ableism in mainstream media, or protecting our rights.

Again - no hate please. That doesn't mean I'm racist or sexist, or left wing or right wing or male or female.
It means there's more to defining a person than skin colour and sex (or even gender).


Precisely! Very well said. Too many people are stuck in very rigid parameters when discussing politics. It doesn't lead to healthy discussions that could bridge the gap between left and right.

How does this align with describing the entire mainstream media and the entirety of American politics as “far right corporatists”, “establishment shills”, and such? Does that encourage healthy discussion and show willingness to move beyond very rigid parameters?


First, you have to have an understanding of the last 40 years of American politics. Both the major parties in the U.S. are bought and paid for by corporate interests, and so is the media. Until you understand that, no meaningful conversations can take place.


Self-evident. 8)


Yeah, pretty much. It's a simple grasp of the obvious.


For those with a wealth of life experience.
I think we both qualify. ;)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2022, 11:11 pm

MuddRM wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
I think it's problematic that race and sex are the only groups people worry about these days.

It seems people divide the entire world into two groups based on assumptions and generalisations: people are either left or right (which isn't true), or they are either male or female (which isn't true). Oh, almost forgot skin colour and race.

Yes racism and sexism are important.
What about other the other vulnerable sectors of society?

We're all disabled. I don't hear anyone calling out ableism in mainstream media, or protecting our rights.

Again - no hate please. That doesn't mean I'm racist or sexist, or left wing or right wing or male or female.
It means there's more to defining a person than skin colour and sex (or even gender).


I’m already past the point of caring about politics or sex. I’m better off being a recluse. Nowadays, I stay locked in my apartment, and seldom leave, except to take out my trash, get my mail, attend church, and go to the doctor. The only visitors I have are Meals on Wheels, and my semi-annual visit from my counselor from the County Agency on Aging.


Greetings, brother suburban recluse. :mrgreen:



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,055
Location: New York City (Queens)

22 Feb 2022, 5:20 am

IsabellaLinton wrote:
I think it's problematic that race and sex are the only groups people worry about these days.

It so happens that, here in the contemporary Western world, the Black movement and the feminist movement are, currently, the biggest and best-organized grassroots marginalized-group rights/liberation movements. The LGBT rights movement is very well-organized too -- and so is its religious right wing opposition.

If you're not a billionaire, political clout is all about being organized.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

22 Feb 2022, 6:08 am

VegetableMan wrote:

The reason that Democrats disagree with me is mainly because they still labor under the delusion that the Democratic Party is still liberal in any way. That hasn't been true since the Clinton administration.

This has nothing to do with nuance or subtlety. What you fail to grasp is both parties are invested in maintaining the oligarchy. There is no fundamental difference between them on the major existential threats that threaten our survival.

I'm pretty much done with indulging your ignorance of our political system. It's barely worth my time time to respond to you.

Again, saying something doesn’t make it true. You have to demonstrate it.

On climate change, the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is night and day. The headline figures are that Republicans want to reduce emissions by 40% by 2050. Democrats want to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030, and by 100% by 2050. Furthermore, the Democratic plan is much more comprehensive and realistic.

On voting rights and election integrity, again, we see a night and day difference between the two parties. Democrats want to make it easier to vote. Republicans want to make it harder.

On infrastructure, Trump constantly promised jam tomorrow but never made it a priority. Biden passed a $1trn infrastructure bill in his first year.

On poverty, Trump’s only plan was trickle-down economics and he didn’t even do that correctly. The Democrats in this Congress had a much more interventionist plan in the Build Back Better act, although it was ultimately tanked by Senator Manchin.

OK, maybe you’re less concerned about day-to-day policy. What about “existential threats” other than climate change? Well, Trump threatened to start a nuclear war with North Korea, and so far Biden has done nothing of the sort. The Democrats are much more pro-immigration than the Republicans, which is key for tackling the demographic timebomb. Biden has shown no interest in pulling out of NATO.

If one is unable to tell the difference between the social democracy of the Democrats and the right-wing populism of the Republicans then yes, one has a lack of appreciation for nuance. It’s an entirely black-and-white way of looking at the world- people are either entirely with you or entirely against you.

Now, look, there’s nothing inherently wrong with not knowing very much about politics. Knowing about politics is not an obligation. But surely you see that you’re doing exactly what you accuse others of doing?

Finally - no, I don’t think you can chalk up your disagreements with Democrats to them to them not realising that the Democrats aren’t liberal. You don’t simply disagree with Democrats on the ideology of the Democrats, but also on matters of policy. On social issues, you tend to be found on the conservative side of the fence, and on foreign policy you have something of a tendency (reasonably common among extremely “anti establishment” leftists) to be somewhat uncritical of authoritarian foreign governments when they are in conflict with Western governments - a trait shared by much of the American right. You often say that you dislike the Republican Party or Fox News or Donald Trump, but so do many on the right, so this doesn’t really distinguish you from them. I’m not saying any of this to criticise you, but merely to illustrate some of the similarities that could reasonably be perceived between you and the American right.



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

22 Feb 2022, 10:35 am

Oh, Lord! All your arguments are about what politicians promise, not what they actually follow through on. When you say things like "Biden is a lifelong Democrat" in response to my claim that he has voted right-wing most of his career, it's painstakingly obvious you have no knowledge of the evolution of the Democratic Party the last 30 years.

Do you really expect me to continue responding to your posts much longer? I'm tired of slumming at this point.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

22 Feb 2022, 11:18 am

VegetableMan wrote:
Oh, Lord! All your arguments are about what politicians promise, not what they actually follow through on.

Erm, no, they’re not.

There is an extent to which the US system of checks and balances is inherently conservative and makes it difficult to implement all of one’s promises. But there are differences in how the two parties govern, too.

Quote:
When you say things like "Biden is a lifelong Democrat" in response to my claim that he has voted right-wing most of his career, it's painstakingly obvious you have no knowledge of the evolution of the Democratic Party the last 30 years.

30 years ago, the Democratic Party extended much further to the right than it does today. In the Reagan era, the Bill Weevils voted for Reagan’s economic policies. Then as they stopped being relevant, the Blue Dog coalition was set up to represent conservative Democrats. These days the Blue Dog coalition is not as strong. The most conservative Democrat in the Senate, Joe Manchin, is not nearly as conservative as his counterpart from ten years ago, Joe Lieberman. And at no point has Joe Biden been associated with the Boll Weevils or the Blue Dogs. He’s a mainstream centre-left Democrat.

Now while it’s true that Bill Clinton didn’t roll back all over Reagan and Bush’s policies, there has never been a bigger divide between the two parties. 30 years ago, some Republicans in the North were further left than some Democrats in the South. Now there is little or no overlap.

Quote:
Do you really expect me to continue responding to your posts much longer? I'm tired of slumming at this point.

I’m not sure anything you have said quite qualifies as a response, truthfully. You simply state your views in a more forceful way without engaging with anything that has been said. Indeed, you still haven’t answered why it is OK for you to ignore nuance, but not OK for anyone else.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

22 Feb 2022, 11:21 am

Compare "Rockefeller Republican" with "Dixiecrat."



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

22 Feb 2022, 12:21 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Oh, Lord! All your arguments are about what politicians promise, not what they actually follow through on.

Erm, no, they’re not.

There is an extent to which the US system of checks and balances is inherently conservative and makes it difficult to implement all of one’s promises. But there are differences in how the two parties govern, too.

Quote:
When you say things like "Biden is a lifelong Democrat" in response to my claim that he has voted right-wing most of his career, it's painstakingly obvious you have no knowledge of the evolution of the Democratic Party the last 30 years.





Quote:
Do you really expect me to continue responding to your posts much longer? I'm tired of slumming at this point.

I’m not sure anything you have said quite qualifies as a response, truthfully. You simply state your views in a more forceful way without engaging with anything that has been said. Indeed, you still haven’t answered why it is OK for you to ignore nuance, but not OK for anyone else.


When exactly have you provided evidence? You look up stuff on the internet and regurgitate it here.

I'm nearly 60 years old and I've watched this s**t show my entire adult life. You, barely into adulthood, are trying to school me on the politics of a country in which you don't reside.I find that hilarious.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky