Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Veritaserum, Feb 16, 2016.
Judge blocks Trump wind-down of Dreamers program
Fuck. The. NYT.
I'm reading this thread and can't believe the things I see, so I'm gonna digress from the latest news. People even thinking about Oprah being a decent presidential candidate is already a direct consequence of Trump being able to become president. First of all, do you really think she wouldn't be followed by another Trump? Trump himself was a consequence of certain bad things about Obama's presidency and inherent flaws of neoliberalism, one of which is the heavy focus on identity politics while at the same time being most useful and profitable to the richest. You can't have true equality while the middle class is disappearing. It shows a certain historical ignorance to the fact that all of the rights' movements came together with the working class movement, including feminism, racial equality and eventually LGBT rights. They are indivisible in the very constitution of the idea of human rights, and any political configuration that excludes any of the components is nothing but commodity fetishism.
Trump is certainly not the smartest person in the world, but he understood the mechanisms of media spectacles and played them to his advantage, which enabled him to achieve the position he now occupies. And he's using the same thing now, every time he tweets something that gets people talking more than his actual political decisions do. Do people honestly cannot think of a more suitable candidate than another media personality, albeit of a different race and gender? You are not getting rid of any of the issues. Hasn't the first year of his presidency, at least judging from the level of his incompetence, shown that politics is not as simple as having certain intentions and political opinions? Also, Oprah becoming president would not really be breaking the glass ceiling, a proof of equality or anything else, any more than Obama's presidency was. It doesn't really matter who runs the country if you still have gun violence, racist police, and inequality on every other level of the society. Centuries of slavery and oppression cannot be erased by the very fact that someone from a different background has accumulated enough wealth to have the luxury to even consider running the country. And politics as such should perhaps be thought of as separate from the world of entertainment, at least strategically and theoretically, because this is exactly what happens (and is happening) when you turn it into a celebrity affair. Someday the joke will go a bit too far, but then it might be too late for any change.
A quiet Wednesday in America, 2018.
Also, Trump is being scalped by even the most lunatic republicans for that televised meeting yesterday.
It was hilarious to see Trump completely roll over for the Democrats until a Republican had to step in to stop him before he blew up their entire platform. He literally just agrees with the last thing someone said.
Apparently Trump won't commit to an interview with Mueller. Come through subpoena, perjury and indictment
It's frightening how people don't see that this co-opting of identity has been attempted in society and it's failing. Diversifying oppressors don't make them less oppressive.
Adding more black cops doesn't reduce anti-blackness found in policing.
In fact, black cops are shown to be as complicit in racism on black people as their white peers when on duty. There's a culture of racism embedded into the system of policing itself.
Having rich LGBT individuals doesn't stop material violence aimed at LGBT people as a class, like widespread homelessness. Having female soldiers doesn't make imperialistic wars somehow now empowering.
It's worrying just how much pro-capitalism liberals sound more and more like right-wing fascists and the theory they push like race or sex essentialism, naturalism, and evo-psych.
What's exactly being suggested with the idea that the mere presence of a black or queer individual or woman is "enough"? Do liberals think there's some genetic "otherness" marginalized folks are born with? That's the only rationale to justify this focus around platforming the individual.
So many people can concede that race, gender, etc. are socially constructed, but don't want to interact with how these constructions are embedded into systems like capitalism, which itself creates its own hierarchy of classes. Marginalized voices have purpose in policy-making if we recognize that such a voice has unique experiences because society constructs identity, forcibly places identity onto people to form classes, forces privation onto certain classes, and embeds said oppression into the entirety of the system.
There's a reason why there's no rich / white / straight / cis experience despite "rich-ness / whiteness / straight-ness / cis-ness" all being just as constructed as "poor-ness / blackness / gay-ness / trans-ness", while many do feel there are things such as the black or trans or gay or poor experience.
The former have never been used to group people into classes that are then victim to privation. Straight/White/Cis/Rich-ness has never been assigned to oppress someone. Literally all of those identities were created to designate power.
So it's like.. yes, you can rotate as many marginalized people you want into a seat of power, but you're never going to end said oppression of such people (which.. one would assume is the goal if there's such a focus on these specific identities) if you never dismantle that seat and system's capacity to oppress said marginalized classes of people.
You're only doing half the job. Put people in power who can speak on their experiences and help them dismantle the systems that caused those experiences, not just clap for the few individuals who were able to somehow pull up their boot straps and overcome the hurdles.
A lot of people are just seeing "Oprah is a surefire win!" and not actually thinking about the consequences of her being President. Like, would she be better than Trump? Absolutely. But, just rallying behind a random billionaire who happens to be a black woman just to beat Trump is just... thinking too logistically. I absolutely would vote for her over that sentient bag of dog shit but this idea that she'll be great for the poor/LGBTQ/PoC isn't really based on anything other than projection (at least until she gives us some kind of platform). She represents the same neoliberalism that the Obamas/Clintons come from and the country is at a point where we need actual change.
Democrats need to stop fucking with centrist candidates and actually give the Bernie wing of the party a chance. Their policies are a lot more popular than they think they are and I can easily see us winning big if they stopped fucking themselves over.
It's just so ridiculous that people keep falling into these things that got us here in the first place. Putting our focus on "Oprah for President!!!!" is counterproductive. "Well, we're not the Republicans I guess" is not good rhetoric. Get candidates that are focused on implementing a progressive platform & dump as much money as you can into their ground game + get out the vote efforts.
What will actually happen if Oprah becomes President will basically be Obama after 2010. Constant fighting with limited legislative accomplishments with the Democrats trying to save face by praising her for the entirety of her term.
Isn’t it just as simple as vote for the one who isn’t demonstrably evil though? There’s always a clear choice and always plenty who will vote for the one who is evil so you have to do your duty there...? It’s over simplification and pragmatism, but it’s true isn’t it?
I mean... let me put it like this.
When was the last time you saw any US presidential candidate make homelessness a key issue in their platform outside of pandering about veterans?
Candidates don't talk about the homeless because they aren't donors and largely don't vote, so candidates don't see them as having value or something to offer. Even when homelessness is the biggest failure of capitalism. The same country where Jeff Bezos can accumulate more wealth than most people on the Earth combined has people sleeping in the street.
If you're going to be sleeping outside in an alleyway no matter if a Dem or Republican wins... what incentive do you have to vote? When we talk about people in the margins of society, homeless people are literally as in the margins as one can get. These aren't people who have failed, but have been failed by society in every single imaginable way possible. Why should people be expected to have faith in a system to fix their lives and do its duty as a society when, for most of their life, society has failed them?
The "not voting means you're privileged" rhetoric was always a particularly vile last ditch effort by liberals to gaslight the marginalized because voting figures would show you that those who most vote are those with high degrees of privilege, because the system works for them and works to make their lives better. Rich people love voting because politicians love rich people. We can talk about civic duty, but politicians at the end of the day are public servants. What about their duty to the public?
I wish I was @Sanctuary
Me too. Thank you for taking the time in that reply @Sanctuary - you're totally right of course.
Y'all just...need to read this. Trump calls Haiti, African countries "shithole countries."
Peak white nationalist racist bullshit right there.
Separate names with a comma.