Hypocrite.
-
Features
Attention: "alt right" is no longer politically correct
- Thread starter Underseer
- Start date
Hypocrite.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 19,866
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I'd just call them fucking Nazis but I have a feeling they can't get laid, either.
So, I'm just going with racist Nazi jackasses.
So, I'm just going with racist Nazi jackasses.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
I must admit that my post was written with my tongue full in cheek. I realize that the majority of the right aren't social justice warriors, in fact most actively discourage social justice, especially for blacks. A great deal of the friction between the right and blacks hinge around the feeling supported by years of Fox News opinion pieces that the federal government is giving blacks unfair advantages to propel them above whites in the social order, the most often example cited being the preferential treatment given to blacks in admissions to prestigious universities, Harvard, Yale, etc. and professional graduate schools, medical, law and others. Of course, the number of blacks admitted under such programs are dwarfed by the number of under qualified admissions under the so-called legacy programs to admit the underachieving offspring of the very wealthy donor class, which in some of the Ivy League schools is sometimes 30% of an incoming class.
Race and the agitation between the races has always been and still is used to mask the class war that is really what is screwing people in the 99%.
No. You need to capitalize the first and last words and add a comma after “you”.
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,128
- Location
- Cascadia
- Basic Beliefs
- Militant Agnostic...aka functional Atheist
HEY! Jackasses are generally well-mannered, if somewhat loud, quadrapeds. They are so calm in demeanor that they are often paired with skittish horses to calm them down.
Asses, jacks and jennies, are far more sensible in outlook and demeanor than almost all politicians, Reptilian or Demonic.
I object to the arsewipe shitgibbon who currently serves as our president being compared to asses. That is such an insult to asses.
I suggest maggots, or pond scum, but suspect that supportive communities would object to their use as well.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,105
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
What are you, some kind of alt-grammarian?
Elixir
Made in America
Grammarian Supremacists, grrrrr.
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
No. Capitalisation =/= allcaps.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
It is hard to redress the damage from 400 hundred years of racism without policies that address the victims by their group identities. It is hypocritical for whites to now insist on strict adherence to a color blind policy when they were elevated in the social order for so long based on such an arbitrary factor as the color of one's skin. We need to back off from identity politics, it hasn't served us well, especially in its most vile forms, racism, nationalism and xenophobia. But to now compound the racism by not going the extra effort to try to mitigate some of the damage inflicted on generations of people, to now say that we don't want to resort to racism, is cruel and heartless.
I don't oppose affirmative action because of a heightened sense of the evils of inverse racism even in its newly found guise of identity politics or because I don't think that blacks deserve some extra advantages. I oppose it because it isn't working very well. The rear guard action that conservatives have successfully employed against it has been so successful that it virtually only exists now in government hiring. It has given conservatives a new more subtle form of racism, with so-called dog whistles that help them identify fellow travelers.
But in the end it is what racism always has been, a strategy of divide and conquer, to divide the workers into groups, white and black, natives and immigrants, Americans and Irish, Chinese, etc., and to pit them against another so that they don't realize that collectively they are being fucked by the upper class, the 1%. That in turn the 0.1% will fuck everybody over, even the rest of the 1%.
What is needed is for us to attack poverty. To establish that no one who is willing to work should be poor. Inherent in the divide and conquer strategy is the falsehood that for one to advance another has to be pushed back. That the economy is a zero sum game. This is not true. The economy expands to accommodate people who spend money on consumption. The more money that people have and the more that they spend the larger the economy expands. People who are higher paid have more money to spend. People who are better educated and better trained make more money and have more money to spend. When people are better educated and better trained it doesn't mean that someone else loses their education and training. That would be absurd. And yet that is what the divide and conquer strategy depends on.
What is demonstrably true is the economy doesn't expand to accommodate those with more money who don't spend it on consumption but who save the money. This is why trickle down doesn't work to improve the lives of the vast majority of the country. Yes, Virginia, the banks loan out the money that people save, but more savings doesn't mean more loans. The demand for loans depends on the demand for consumption spending and for investment funds. But since investment depends on the demand for goods and services it is fair to say that the demand for loans is entirely dependent on the consumption spending demand.
It succeeds because deep down many of us think that we are frauds, that we don't have the education and the training to do our jobs and if others get the training and the education they will take our jobs away. Or deep down many of us think that our jobs are frauds that they don't require the level of education and training that we have, we want a job to challenge us and that if others get the training and education required, that they will get the job that we want. This is an additional way that divide and conquer works, by increasing our insecurities. By telling us that our jobs will be automated or that they will be relocated overseas. Insecure workers don't demand higher wages. Insecure workers don't organize themselves until conditions get worse. Divide and conquer only wants the gains from growth. If they want more they lay people off, doubling the insecurities of working.
Divide and conquer came through the Great George W. Bush memorial deregulation financial crisis and recession with all of their insecurities met, profits went up, no rentiers went to jail, stock prices rebounded and bonuses were paid. This is a terrible result for the country, it makes it much more likely that we will rinse and repeat, banks to big to fail is firmly embedded in official policy.
I don't oppose affirmative action because of a heightened sense of the evils of inverse racism even in its newly found guise of identity politics or because I don't think that blacks deserve some extra advantages. I oppose it because it isn't working very well. The rear guard action that conservatives have successfully employed against it has been so successful that it virtually only exists now in government hiring. It has given conservatives a new more subtle form of racism, with so-called dog whistles that help them identify fellow travelers.
But in the end it is what racism always has been, a strategy of divide and conquer, to divide the workers into groups, white and black, natives and immigrants, Americans and Irish, Chinese, etc., and to pit them against another so that they don't realize that collectively they are being fucked by the upper class, the 1%. That in turn the 0.1% will fuck everybody over, even the rest of the 1%.
What is needed is for us to attack poverty. To establish that no one who is willing to work should be poor. Inherent in the divide and conquer strategy is the falsehood that for one to advance another has to be pushed back. That the economy is a zero sum game. This is not true. The economy expands to accommodate people who spend money on consumption. The more money that people have and the more that they spend the larger the economy expands. People who are higher paid have more money to spend. People who are better educated and better trained make more money and have more money to spend. When people are better educated and better trained it doesn't mean that someone else loses their education and training. That would be absurd. And yet that is what the divide and conquer strategy depends on.
What is demonstrably true is the economy doesn't expand to accommodate those with more money who don't spend it on consumption but who save the money. This is why trickle down doesn't work to improve the lives of the vast majority of the country. Yes, Virginia, the banks loan out the money that people save, but more savings doesn't mean more loans. The demand for loans depends on the demand for consumption spending and for investment funds. But since investment depends on the demand for goods and services it is fair to say that the demand for loans is entirely dependent on the consumption spending demand.
It succeeds because deep down many of us think that we are frauds, that we don't have the education and the training to do our jobs and if others get the training and the education they will take our jobs away. Or deep down many of us think that our jobs are frauds that they don't require the level of education and training that we have, we want a job to challenge us and that if others get the training and education required, that they will get the job that we want. This is an additional way that divide and conquer works, by increasing our insecurities. By telling us that our jobs will be automated or that they will be relocated overseas. Insecure workers don't demand higher wages. Insecure workers don't organize themselves until conditions get worse. Divide and conquer only wants the gains from growth. If they want more they lay people off, doubling the insecurities of working.
Divide and conquer came through the Great George W. Bush memorial deregulation financial crisis and recession with all of their insecurities met, profits went up, no rentiers went to jail, stock prices rebounded and bonuses were paid. This is a terrible result for the country, it makes it much more likely that we will rinse and repeat, banks to big to fail is firmly embedded in official policy.
Elixir
Made in America
Hence Cheato's War on the Poor.
The last thing these assholes want is parity between citizens, especially now that "we" have voted them the means to perpetuate their serf State.
It is never bad to say we don't want to resort to racism. Racism is a category error that results in unjust treatment of individuals. It is a confusion of what one person is because of what others who look like her are have gone through. It is robbing her of her individuality and painting her as one of these or one of those. I am have Japanese blood, but I did not suffer internment in USA's Japanese internment camps during the 2nd world war. I have Chinese blood but I did not suffer in the building of the trans-Canada railway. A poor white refugee just arrived in America didn't do anything to Obama's children that justifies preferential treatment of the latter over the former. The white kids in the trailer park didn't either. Is it any surprise that they grow up resentful of black people if you insist that it is wrong for them to be racist against black people, but black people "can't be racist" against them, even if their mayor and chief of police is black?
No, racism is never justified, no matter who is doing it or who it is being done to. Neither is sexism or other forms of negative prejudice. You can't judge from the colour of my skin how much hardship or privilege I have had in my life. Doing so is wrong. Period.
As for affirmative action, we need to stop being lazy. Affirmative action is usually justified by pointing out that this group or that group is poverty struck or not given the same opportunities as that other group. But groups are not given opportunities. Individuals are. You can help the poor by helping the poor without being racist about it. That white kid who grew up dirt poor int he trailer park is no less worthy of your help than that black kid who grew up dirt poor in the ghetto. If you want to compare to legacy admissions, then again you can do so without race. Legacy admissions are no more justifiable if they are Obama's kids than if they are Bush's kids.
And if you are poor because your parents didn't have wealth to pass on to you because your grandparents or great grandparents were robbed of their wealth because of a racist policy back then, why is that any more unfair TO YOU (not to your ancestors it happened to) than if another person is poor because her parents didn't have wealth to pass on to her because her grandparents or great grandparents gambled the money away or lost it?
And by making an excuse for racism in one case, for the "underprivileged group", you encourage others to make excuses for racism in other cases, for the "privileged group". Racism is either wrong or it isn't. I say it is.
Here we agree. Universal basic income needs to happen, and inheritance needs to be either done away with or much more heavily taxed. We should have equal opportunities as much as possible, and that should be looked at on an INDIVIDUAL level rather than by lumping people into groups, racial or otherwise, and assuming that each person lumped into that group not related to wealth level should be treated alike.
We need to stop dividing people by arbitrary or irrelevant traits such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc and instead create empathy between people as individuals. Identity politics divides, and yes, I agree, it distracts from the massive wealth inequality we are facing.
Last edited:
This *used* to be the liberal position. What the fuck happened!?!?
laughing dog
Contributor
It still is.
Conservatives either became stupider or even less scrupulous.
It's called the progressive stack, not the conservative stack.
laughing dog
Contributor
Thanks for proving the truth of my observation.
Elixir
Made in America
Now, if youse lib'ruls could master the art of mouthing all the right things while doing the exact opposite, you can become a conservative too!
Well, for starters, in the US racism wasn't some landlord somewhere refusing to rent to nonwhite people, but rather a set of specific government policies designed to drain wealth systematically from black and Native families, and give it to white households. In other words, unlike wealth that is "gambled" away, this had the full force of the state behind it, and was thus all but mandatory. and as Ta-Nehisi Coates established, many of the people directly affected by these policies are still alive today. Here's MLK Jr. discussing this issue:
[YOUTUBE]aBwKnnZN52U[/YOUTUBE]
Yes, but you're confusing "racism" with "redress".
That's great, but how do you expect that to happen, when we refuse to address the massive divisions along these lines that exist today?
Elixir
Made in America
I suggest handwaving them away. (Works for the neo-cons.)
Otherwise, someone will try to institute something like affirmative action, which outlived its usefulness after about five minutes.
Seriously, it seems that there's a persistent paradox in that every attempt to address those massive divisions ends up exacerbating them. You can't re-condition someone who is raised in an environment where racism is implicit, if not explicit. Or maybe you can... change an individual. But cultural change will take decades, and won't happen as long as racism is supported by "cultural pride" that isolates whole groups of people from those whom they consider inferior (which is how all groups regards all other groups).