Nobody Cares: PRS

[Cristalle]

Given your predilection for regular viewing of those who traffic in GOP/Alt-Right talking points and destructive conspiracy theories, and trying to force that kind of garbage down our throats, sure, why would it be a stretch that you might have picked up other less-than-desirable terminology? Nobody said you were anti-semitic.

I believe the term was useful idiot. I think that may well apply and here's my reasoning. In both of these cases, rather than simply issue a mea culpa, stating that you now understand why people object to such things with an emphasis upon having learned something new, you dug your heels in, in both cases, and pretend that you have been oh-so wronged. That is not the reaction of someone who understands just how toxic certain agendas have been both historically and present tense, nor is it the reaction of someone who genuinely wishes to be aware of others' understandable reaction to that kind of garbage being spouted in addition to a desire to not cause further offense.

No, of course, you play the injured party in both instances. Don't play the "other people didn't see it until you said something card". Multiple people saw it and commented, just as they had when you also attempted to force other garbage down our throats. In both cases, you attempt to alter the reality of the situation spouting falsehoods such as this one.

Get off your cross and perhaps attempt to see things through a lens other than your own wounded pride.

This is a bunch of bullshit. You speak of that which you do not know. You do not watch, so you have no idea what they're about and stay in your bubble. They're not trotting out alt-right talking points or GOP talking points. But that's a convenient way to marginalize people and limit the scope of discussion, thanks for being a part of that. /sarcasm

I would have just done a mea culpa if the criticism was done in good faith, if the knives haven't been out for me. It's painfully obvious that some people are willing to think the worst, because that's the Internet and tone/context are often stripped out to make whatever point regardless of intent. Stripping out the context tells me that it's not good faith or even a charitable interpretation. It's because of your ignorant (literal, not pejorative) view of the above why you're willing to think that I dabble in alt-right tropes. I don't.

Communication is often messy, no one is perfect at it, and yeah I DO get to tell you that other people didn't see it. Not everyone, obviously, but people not on a hair trigger for that did not see it until retrospect. The posts are there.

 

[Cristalle]

Bullshit. They claim to care about women's issues or racism, but clearly think that economic issues take a higher priority aka "A rising tide will lift all boats" mentality. You display it. Other Bernie supporters display it. We've had this argument many times. You repeatedly dismiss women's issues, race issues as "identity politics" while touting his "economic issues". You continuously state that the "white vote" must be courted while dismissing any concerns that poc may have over his lack of direction at anything other than economics.; Identity politics, indeed.

Read that whole exchange, multiple pages of it
Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

What I deem as "identity politics" is the weaponization of race/gender/identity issues to use as both sword and shield, like Kamala Harris trying to blame racism and sexism for her failed campaign or Buttigieg blaming homophobia for his lack of black support. In that thread, people were all in on disparaging a woman of color so long as it wasn't their preferred woman of color.

As for the civil rights issues, Bernie isn't ignoring it. Quite the contrary. But it seems we are arguing over emphasis in tactics and strategy, not basic values.

What women's issue have I rejected? What women's issue does Bernie reject? I expect to hear crickets on that.

The only racial issue Bernie has a problem with is reparations, which actually is a divisive issue despite people's misgivings about him being honest about that reality. Beyond that, he's no worse than any of the other candidates other than Marianne Williamson on that subject. His criminal justice reform package is the most comprehensive, really rivaled only by Elizabeth Warren's.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Thanks for not wanting to think the worst of me, Innula.

I appreciate and respect the general point of view that the idea of the banks running the world could be mistaken and it's worth discussing. The broader discussion of the capitalist class is definitely worth examining, but I happen to think that even there that the financialization of the industries of the real/physical economy provide more interconnectedness that would cause systemic failures. When the stock market tanks because of a downturn by one sector of an industry, e.g. semiconductors, it's not because semiconductor under-production would harm the world in lasting ways. It's because people in the financial industry's hair gets set aflame at slightest whiff of quarterly profit loss, with no regard to long term performance. This short-term view drives the way many of the companies in the physical economy works. Finance has an outsized influence on every economy, and has grown to take up a ridiculous share of GDP for not producing anything real except inequality.

I dont really understand, I fear, how short-term fluctuations in share prices -- which I think is what you're talking about -- affect anyone particularly, other than people who are actively betting on such movements.

Could you please give me a recent example of an actual company's behaviour that you would say exemplifies the way "This short-term view drives the way many of the companies in the physical economy works"?

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Thanks for not wanting to think the worst of me

 

[Beebo Brink]

I don't presume to speak for Beebo, but I wouldn't describe it as "a dog-whistle" in the way you used it, because that suggests an element of intentionality, and I certainly wouldn't want to ascribe malign motivations to you.

Exactly so. I meant that it is a dog-whistle of the FarRight/Fascist/Nazi parties. They use this phrase with the typical plausible deniability of such dog whistles, with the intent that people will pick up these ideas and spread them. As more and more people use them -- often times without recognition of their origin -- the darker subtext gains currency in majority social discourse.

But this particular meme has been around so long and is so notorious that I was genuinely surprised to see it used here on VVO.

 

[Beebo Brink]

I would have just done a mea culpa if the criticism was done in good faith, if the knives haven't been out for me.

You hear this same scream of injustice from White People when People of Color are not properly respectful in pointing out racist tropes. "If only they had used a more appropriate tone, THEN I would have listened to them."

The speaker becomes the victim and tone becomes the point of the argument, rather than the trope and its use in public discourse.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

This is a bunch of bullshit. You speak of that which you do not know. You do not watch, so you have no idea what they're about and stay in your bubble. They're not trotting out alt-right talking points or GOP talking points. But that's a convenient way to marginalize people and limit the scope of discussion, thanks for being a part of that. /sarcasm

Um...It has already been established that Jimmy Dore does indeed trot out destructive alt-right/GOP talking points and propaganda. You're correct. I will not watch him or anyone else who does that nor will I abide you shoving him down our throats here. We've already established that.

I would have just done a mea culpa if the criticism was done in good faith, if the knives haven't been out for me. It's painfully obvious that some people are willing to think the worst, because that's the Internet and tone/context are often stripped out to make whatever point regardless of intent. Stripping out the context tells me that it's not good faith or even a charitable interpretation. It's because of your ignorant (literal, not pejorative) view of the above why you're willing to think that I dabble in alt-right tropes. I don't.

Sure, you would have issued a mea culpa if only it weren't for this idea you have that people are out to get you and you are being wronged. Sal made a really good point about intent. I suggest you read it, again. I repeat, if you weren't so invested in your own ego and pride you would have issued a mea culpa out of the desire to not use divisive terminology and a desire to avoid further episodes. Instead, we have this.

Communication is often messy, no one is perfect at it, and yeah I DO get to tell you that other people didn't see it. Not everyone, obviously, but people not on a hair trigger for that did not see it until retrospect. The posts are there.

Yep, of course, again, it's people out to get you.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

You hear this same scream of injustice from White People when People of Color are not properly respectful in pointing out racist tropes. "If only they had used a more appropriate tone, THEN I would have listened to them."

The speaker becomes the victim and tone becomes the point of the argument, rather than the trope and its use in public discourse.

THIS.

This ties into the Bernie supporters insisting that "it's all about economics", "Why are you so loudly insisting upon civil rights, you're turning off the white voters" attitude that is so prevalent.

 

[Ashiri]

But this particular meme has been around so long and is so notorious that I was genuinely surprised to see it used here on VVO.

I think it goes to show that even here we have very different backgrounds and may not have the same understanding of the memes, or indeed of many other memes.
For example I often see things in reference to Polynesian cultures, uttered mostly by white people, which make me wince.

 

[Beebo Brink]

For example I often see things in reference to Polynesian cultures, uttered mostly by white people, which make me wince.

And that's why it's so important to call these things out -- so we can all learn from people who have deeper experiences than our own.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

I'm not going to disagree with you on the first point because although it's not fair, it's generally true. Things have gone downhill from there. And some of that is of her own making.

I really think that last comment is victim blaming. Her response has been to close up and refuse to be straight with the press, yes, but I'm damned if I wouldn't have a similar response. Heck, I *did* react worse than that to a reporter deliberately misquoting and mis-attributing comments to me back in the '80s. I wouldn't survive nearly as long in politics, I can't take that treatment.

But I can pretty much guarantee that if she had been a man she would be president now.

 

[danielravennest]

"Don't be evil"

Maybe they should change their motto to "Resident Evil"

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Stonekettle has a bit of a rant.

 

[Anya Ristow]

They claim to care about women's issues or racism, but clearly think that economic issues take a higher priority aka "A rising tide will lift all boats"

Counterpoint

I don't agree with all of it, but the tl;dr: most of the boats are women and poc. Sanders' policies would disproportionately benefit women and poc.

 

[Free]

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

lol k

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Counterpoint

I don't agree with all of it, but the tl;dr: most of the boats are women and poc. Sanders' policies would disproportionately benefit women and poc.

If I properly understand the gist of the article, the argument seems to be that, because Senator Sanders' policies on -- for example -- healthcare will be of particular benefit to women and people of colour, since they are particularly likely to be among the poorer members of society, all of whom will find these policies particularly beneficial.

That's good as far as it goes, but the article fails to address Senator Sanders' views on why women and people of colour in the US should comprise a disproportionate number of the most disadvantaged Americans or how to remedy this structural ill, and neither does it address any issues specific to women or people of colour.

Where's the discussion of his policies on women's access to abortion and contraceptive services, for example, or his views on dealing with systemic racism and inequality in the US?

I'm sure he has excellent policies on these matters too, but I was certainly struck by the way his attitude -- as approvingly presented by the article, at least -- seems to be that since his policies will be of particular benefit to the most disadvantaged, there's no particular need to address the question of how and why women and people of colour comprise such a disproportionate percentage of the people in most need of help.

Put it this way -- if a supporter of a British politician, when questioned about the politician's supposed lack of interest in women's issues or racism, responded to the criticisms by talking about the politician's admirable policies for supporting the National Health Service, I'd assume this was someone else who'd taken heart the principle of "answer the question you want to answer, not the one you were asked."

I was particularly struck by the way the article opens:

a Sanders presidency would be the first feminist presidency: one willing to champion a feminism that knows our value systems must be overhauled if collective liberation is our goal.

The campaign itself is remarkably clear about this. On a Hear the Bern episode, Sanders’s press secretary Briahna Joy Gray interviewed Princeton professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor on the relationship between “identity politics” and solidarity. Taylor pointed to the 1977 statement of the Combahee River Collective, a black socialist feminist group, as a key moment in the rise of identity politics. The statement was an analysis of oppression rooted in the experience of black women living in the United States (identity politics) that called for upending this oppression by finding common cause across difference (solidarity).

The episode unequivocally tied Sanders’s campaign to a black socialist feminist legacy that treats the liberation of the multiply marginalized as the only path to freedom for us all.

Maybe it's just me but, quite apart from my view that the words "remarkably clear about this" usually mean the complete opposite when used in political discussions, if I were trying to defend a particular politician and found myself having to rely, as a major plank in my argument, upon his press secretary's having discussed in a recent podcast a statement made by a black socialist feminist group some 40 years ago, I would fear accusations that I really was scraping bottom of the barrel.

I'm wondering what a discussion between Senator Sanders and an American equivalent of this particular British black feminist group might be like (one of its founders is a long-time friend, so I have a particular interest in their work). It would not, I suspect, go terribly well.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

If I properly understand the gist of the article, the argument seems to be that, because Senator Sanders' policies on -- for example -- healthcare will be of particular benefit to women and people of colour, since they are particularly likely to be among the poorer members of society, all of whom will find these policies particularly beneficial.

That's good as far as it goes, but the article fails to address Senator Sanders' views on why women and people of colour in the US should comprise a disproportionate number of the most disadvantaged Americans or how to remedy this structural ill, and neither does it address any issues specific to women or people of colour.

Where's the discussion of his policies on women's access to abortion and contraceptive services, for example, or his views on dealing with systemic racism and inequality in the US?

I'm sure he has excellent policies on these matters too, but I was certainly struck by the way his attitude -- as approvingly presented by the article, at least -- seems to be that since his policies will be of particular benefit to the most disadvantaged, there's no particular need to address the question of how and why women and people of colour comprise such a disproportionate percentage of the people in most need of help.

Put it this way -- if a supporter of a British politician, when questioned about the politician's supposed lack of interest in women's issues or racism, responded to the criticisms by talking about the politician's admirable policies for supporting the National Health Service, I'd assume this was someone else who'd taken heart the principle of "answer the question you want to answer, not the one you were asked."

I was particularly struck by the way the article opens:


Maybe it's just me but, quite apart from my view that the words "remarkably clear about this" usually mean the complete opposite when used in political discussions, if I were trying to defend a particular politician and found myself having to rely, as a major plank in my argument, upon his press secretary's having discussed in a recent podcast a statement made by a black socialist feminist group some 40 years ago, I would fear accusations that I really was scraping bottom of the barrel.

I'm wondering what a discussion between Senator Sanders and an American equivalent of this particular British black feminist group might be like (one of its founders is a long-time friend, so I have a particular interest in their work). It would not, I suspect, go terribly well.

ETA: The more I think about this, the more struck I am about what isn't mentioned in the podcast.

How on earth can you do a podcast on how either Bernie Sanders or anyone could become "America's first feminist president" without mentioning their respective positions on issues such as protecting and strengthening American women's ready access to free (or at least affordable), safe and legal abortions?

And the nearest it gets to discussing police violence against black people and the Black Lives Matter campaign seems to be this:

And so there has to be a political argument that links those two scenarios. Deaths by despair in white communities on the one hand, and the way in which there’s death by despair, whether it’s gun violence, whether it’s police violence, whether it’s 55% of black workers subsisting on less than $15 an hour. So even where the advantages may be greater, the issue is whether or not this system that allows a parasitic minority to live life like none of us could ever imagine, to have more money than they actually know what to do with, while the rest of us are trying to figure out how to survive from one day to a next. Do we have more of an opportunity to create a society where we can all live together, or continue the way that things are currently organized?

Yes, but those are two separate problems which are best dealt with separately. There's ways to do something about suicide in white communities and ways to do something about police violence against black people, and, though they're both concerned with saving lives, that's about all they have in common.