***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[aepps20]

Will Scam Jones shop at the gap to EARN his piping hot buttered biscuit from Kanye?

 

[AEA18]

Phax!!

Sprinkle a lil First Step Act flavored Sea Salt on low employment steak, and black folk eatin good....

Add some HBCU funded ketchup and you're set

 

[dacomeup]

I guess I'm just not clear what you want to see as a concrete political program that you believe would adequately address racism. Like, you can say "Well, these universal programs aren't going to completely cut it," but what alternatives are actually going to do so in your mind? Like, what's the preferred path here? Even reparations (in whatever manifestation, and however unlikely they are) are not going to eradicate "the racism in the fabric of every institution."

So where does that leave us politically?

EDIT: Link to the policy document.

This eradicate stuff is your words, not mine. I’m simply saying that this race neutral class based plan isn’t enough. If you think that it is, or maybe that the goal is simply to diminish the oppression that Black people face by attacking the class issue, then we just aren’t going to see eye to eye here. What do you propose as a leftist for Black people who will still face racism after Universal Healthcare, education, and wage policies that you get passed still leave them behind their white counterparts?

 

[whywesteppin]

I was never briefed on it but I was just now briefed about how fake it was!

Levels to this 4D Chess

Lady G has absolutely had it with Mister D!

 

[-Red-]

This eradicate stuff is your words, not mine. I’m simply saying that this race neutral class based plan isn’t enough. If you think that it is, or maybe that the goal is simply to diminish the oppression that Black people face by attacking the class issue, then we just aren’t going to see eye to eye here. What do you propose as a leftist for Black people who will still face racism after Universal Healthcare, education, and wage policies that you get passed still leave them behind their white counterparts?

Okay, cool, so it's not about "eradicating" racism. And it's not about "diminishing" racism, either.

So... what is it about, exactly?

 

[stuntman mike]

About as comfortable as I'd feel going to Walmart.

i’m way behind but this comment has been my fave so far

wal-mart can be weird as hell late night/early morning. one time i was behind a white guy with dreads walking a huge german shepherd and he was reeking of weed and paid from a huge roll of $100s. he was wearing oakley blades and it was past midnight.

 

[obeahmyal7]

Okay, cool, so it's not about "eradicating" racism. And it's not about "diminishing" racism, either.

So... what is it about, exactly?

I’ll speak for myself in answering the question. It’s about getting what’s ours. My people are the victim of theft and I want what’s mine.

And it is also about pursuing a massive redistribution of wealth (the essence of reparations) in ways that weaken the wealth of major institutions in ways that can leas to a socialist order.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Bruh, we have occasional discussions in here around similar themes and issues. Some of that is going to be repetitive. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, I don't even know what that is in reference to.

As far as answering for things you didn't say, you can clearly make distinctions about what your views and positions are, just as we all do within the context of discourse. I mean, I'm sitting here arguing against this notion that white leftists are fine with reactionary whites co-opting the movement for democratic socialism and wielding it for white supremacy. Do I feel particularly thrilled to be engaging around something that not only have I not espoused, but also that no leftist I'm aware of has either (or would even be remotely accepting of)? No. But I will do so in the spirit of discourse since you brought it up. You may feel differently. It's all love regardless. But I don't see this as some kind of dynamic that's unique to you.

EDIT: I will check out Klein's book.

I expanded on my post before you can respond.

I didn't make any accusations about white leftists as a whole. THIS IS MY ****ING POINT .

On this occasion, I called out people from all over the political spectrum that decries identity politics, because observable reality is pushing back against their concerns and complaints. But you read "leftist," and you were off to the races.

You have admitted that you are not up on every single leftist media outlet and the online discourse of many of them engage in online. But because you don't personally know a leftist that makes ****ty arguments, does that mean they don't exist, and I am just making **** up? You can't possibly be up on the arguments being made in every liberal circle (which includes a ton of very progressive people). Yet, I always have to address some "liberal consensus." I don't ever present a "leftist consensus" for anyone to answer to. I call out people I think are either bad actors, or I feel are wrong. In this case, my target was not even leftist specifically. I just pointed out that problematic rhetoric exists in those circles too.

Finally, may you need to hear it again. The issue/accusation is not that all white leftists want to explicitly tell marginal white voters that you can have economic prosperity and leave out black people. The issue is that if you lead with only the so-called universal colorblind progressive policies, and push the racial justice demands to the background, the people that accept the olive branch may think they are signing up for only the economic progressivism and not a fight against other forms of injustice. That if we get social democracy, if you empower labor over capital, then you tell these white people that took the olive branch (especially the men) of your coalition, '"Ok cool, well this fight was also for racial equality too, in fact, all kinds of equality, so we have to do all these other things too, for these other groups" many of the people you brought in will be like "well we didn't sign up for all this," "the universal programs helped non-white people too, why is more needed," "I think we have done enough." Will these people have the same commitment to fight for changes they will not directly benefit from? Those people might then look for ways to protect their position on the racial hierarchy at the expense of their economic prosperity. Also, there will be politicians there to appeal to these voters and prime their white identity. And why shouldn't we be scared that a white middle class engages in such counterproductive self-destructive behavior? Well, because they did so in the past. Most still do it to this day.

Generally speaking, when it comes to improving their lives: Non-black people have to worry about economic justice and racial justice. White people only have to worry about economic justice. If we build our pitch and policy agenda on mainly addressing economic justice with colorblind universal programs, if we say that that the issue facing black people are primarily class issues, when we put race in the subordinate role to class in every analysis; generally which group do you think is in the driver's seat in the coalition, whites or non-whites? I mean, you not only take issue with people that don't advocate for social democracy, but you also take issue with how some black people advocate for it too, which is weird as **** to me, to be honest.

This is why I had such a ****ing issue with Bernie's nonsensical complaints of identity politics, economic anxiety BS, and asserting that the Democratic Party forgot how to talk to white working-class people. It was self-serving bull**** trying to let white people off the hook for indulging in racist behavior. Then he made economic appeals directly to these people. Don't you think that will come off as a dog whistle if someone says that type of **** alongside pushing for socially democratic politics? Then I see because he was the socialist guy, many back his play and the firmest rebuke you would hear from many on that side was, "I don't agree with Bernie," "Yeah, that is a bad look," "he should not have said that." All that was missing was the Delk SIGH. This is not to rehash the primary, but it was troubling at how people just let that **** just slid when those same people insist such behavior was against their principles.

Tons of socialist argue that the fight against capital is most important, and everything else is secondary. That will do the most good, and will make the other struggles for just easier. Moving toward social democracy is paramount. Institutional reform, technocratic concerns, administrative concerns, concerns racial discrimination, the list goes on, are very important, but we can work those things out once we defeat capital. Then when someone comes and tries to point out that ignoring that other stuff is a mistake that could undermine or even destroy the entire project, it is seemingly an issue because their analysis doesn't put class struggle central to the analysis. Telling socialist to watch your flank is treated as if you are saying put down their weapons. Pointing out the strategy they are using is not working, is treated as you are saying you want them to lose. It is eternally frustrating.

I am not mainly questioning the motives of all those suggesting we offering up the olive branch, I and saying we should be concerned about who is accepting it. Also, if there ever comes a time when those on the margin might want to undermine the project if they don't get their way, are we so sure that every socialist are on board with holding the line? Because I am not sure that is the case. This is a ****** compromise I am talking about, not socialist fighting for white supremacy. But enough of them put protecting the socialist state above all else. That may be enough (it doesn't have to be most) will accept the not pursuing fight against racism with the same zeal as the fight against capital, in hopes of keeping those on the margin happy in the coalition. So some people may want anti-racism, but not enough where they would put socialism at risk. Sure black people are better off than they once were, but that is still a negative peace.

But anyway, I still maintain the fight for racial justice and the struggle for economic justice are intertwined. Crony capitalism and white supremacy reinforce one another, so really can't put fighting one ahead of the other.

Well, the good news which Klein article points out, is that we might be getting to a place where we don't need to push the demands for racial injustice to the background. Politicians might not always have to address the fears of white Americans. This is excellent news for everyone, especially for leftist that obvious claim the goal is to address both economic and racial injustice. Especially if they next major socialist candidate for president is not a old white guy. Because people of color, especially black people, face the most political blowback from white americans for being race conscious.

So while we are not there yet, we might be moving in the direction there will be less political blowback for speaking more honestly about race in this country. Where, you can offer up the olive branch to white Americans with a more honest appeal, and spell out the full fight, and know they are buying into the entire policy agenda.

 

[rexanglorum]

I expanded on my post before you can respond.

I didn't make any accusations about white leftists as a whole. THIS IS MY ****ING POINT .

On this occasion, I called out people from all over the political spectrum that decries identity politics, because observable reality is pushing back against their concerns and complaints. But you read "leftist," and you were off to the races.

You have admitted that you are not up on every single leftist media outlet and the online discourse of many of them engage in online. But because you don't personally know a leftist that makes ****ty arguments, does that mean they don't exist, and I am just making **** up? You can't possibly be up on the arguments being made in every liberal circle (which includes a ton of very progressive people). Yet, I always have to address some "liberal consensus." I don't ever present a "leftist consensus" for anyone to answer to. I call out people I think are either bad actors, or I feel are wrong. In this case, my target was not even leftist specifically. I just pointed out that problematic rhetoric exists in those circles too.

Finally, may you need to hear it again. The issue/accusation is not that all white leftists want to explicitly tell marginal white voters that you can have economic prosperity and leave out black people. The issue is that if you lead with only the so-called universal colorblind progressive policies, and push the racial justice demands to the background, the people that accept the olive branch may think they are signing up for only the economic progressivism and not a fight against other forms of injustice. That if we get social democracy, if you empower labor over capital, then you tell these white people that took the olive branch (especially the men) of your coalition, '"Ok cool, well this fight was also for racial equality too, in fact, all kinds of equality, so we have to do all these other things too, for these other groups" many of the people you brought in will be like "well we didn't sign up for all this," "the universal programs helped non-white people too, why is more needed," "I think we have done enough." Will these people have the same commitment to fight for changes they will not directly benefit from? Those people might then look for ways to protect their position on the racial hierarchy at the expense of their economic prosperity. Also, there will be politicians there to appeal to these voters and prime their white identity. And why shouldn't we be scared that a white middle class engages in such counterproductive self-destructive behavior? Well, because they did so in the past. Most still do it to this day.

Generally speaking, when it comes to improving their lives: Non-black people have to worry about economic justice and racial justice. White people only have to worry about economic justice. If we build our pitch and policy agenda on mainly addressing economic justice with colorblind universal programs, if we say that that the issue facing black people are primarily class issues, when we put race in the subordinate role to class in every analysis; generally which group do you think is in the driver's seat in the coalition, whites or non-whites? I mean, you not only take issue with people that don't advocate for social democracy, but you also take issue with how some black people advocate for it too, which is weird as **** to me, to be honest.

This is why I had such a ****ing issue with Bernie's nonsensical complaints of identity politics, economic anxiety BS, and asserting that the Democratic Party forgot how to talk to white working-class people. It was self-serving bull**** trying to let white people off the hook for indulging in racist behavior. Then he made economic appeals directly to these people. Don't you think that will come off as a dog whistle if someone says that type of **** alongside pushing for socially democratic politics? Then I see because he was the socialist guy, many back his play and the firmest rebuke you would hear from many on that side was, "I don't agree with Bernie," "Yeah, that is a bad look," "he should not have said that." All that was missing was the Delk SIGH. This is not to rehash the primary, but it was troubling at how people just let that **** just slid when those same people insist such behavior was against their principles.

Tons of socialist argue that the fight against capital is most important, and everything else is secondary. That will do the most good, and will make the other struggles for just easier. Moving toward social democracy is paramount. Institutional reform, technocratic concerns, administrative concerns, concerns racial discrimination, the list goes on, are very important, but we can work those things out once we defeat capital. Then when someone comes and tries to point out that ignoring that other stuff is a mistake that could undermine or even destroy the entire project, it is seemingly an issue because their analysis doesn't put class struggle central to the analysis. Telling socialist to watch your flank is treated as if you are saying put down their weapons. Pointing out the strategy they are using is not working, is treated as you are saying you want them to lose. It is eternally frustrating.

I am not mainly questioning the motives of all those suggesting we offering up the olive branch, I and saying we should be concerned about who is accepting it. Also, if there ever comes a time when those on the margin might want to undermine the project if they don't get their way, are we so sure that every socialist are on board with holding the line? Because I sure that is the case. This is a ****ty compromise I am talking about, not socialist fighting for white supremacy. But enough of them put protecting the socialist state above all else. That may be enough (it doesn't have to be most) will accept the not pursuing fight against racism with the same zeal as the fight against capital, in hopes of keeping those on the margin happy in the coalition. So some people may want anti-racism, but not enough where they would put socialism at risk. Sure black people are better off than they once were, but that is still a negative peace.

But anyway, I still maintain the fight for racial justice and the struggle for economic justice are intertwined. Crony capitalism and white supremacy reinforce one another, so really can't put fighting one ahead of the other.

Well, the good news which Klein article points out, is that we might be getting to a place where we don't need to push the demands for racial injustice to the background. Politicians might not always have to address the fears of white Americans. This is excellent news for everyone, especially for leftist that obvious claim the goal is to address both economic and racial injustice. Especially if they next major socialist candidate for president is not a old white guy. Because people of color, especially black people, face the most political blowback from white americans for being race conscious.

So while we are not there yet, we might be moving in the direction there will be less political blowback for speaking more honestly about race in this country. Where, you can offer up the olive branch to white Americans with a more honest appeal, and spell out the full fight, and know they are buying into the entire policy agenda.

I hear ya, man. And I’ll make more of an effort to listen and respond to your words and not let someone else’s views distort the views that you are expressing.

 

[Nike Jordan]

Da country music intelligencia has spoken:

 

[IATT]

I was never briefed on it but I was just now briefed about how fake it was!

Levels to this 4D Chess

surprised he didn’t go with blaming the black man.. dwalk31

 

[Wargames]

This clown

I said this a few weeks ago Van Jones is a political double agent. All his power comes from the fact he can cosign Kushners policies.

Once Biden comes into power I expect him to either leave the federal scenes to work at the state/local level or run a nonprofit, if he’s smart.

If he ego trips he might try to continue to do TV but those who know are going to check him eventually, and I could see him finding a job at Fox News or OAN as the token Democrat

 

[Wargames]

trump very likely commits treason everyday.

I can’t say this enough, the Republicans empowered a mad man and he will put the interests of his hotels and ego over the interests of the country every time.

 

[IATT]

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

Will Scam Jones shop at the gap to EARN his piping hot buttered biscuit from Kanye?

Oh you know he’s got the plug on standby

 

[rolaholic]

We see you Iran...

 

[KHUFU]

I’ll speak for myself in answering the question. It’s about getting what’s ours. My people are the victim of theft and I want what’s mine.

And it is also about pursuing a massive redistribution of wealth (the essence of reparations) in ways that weaken the wealth of major institutions in ways that can leas to a socialist order.

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

I have condemned tons of things he's said and done.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[dacomeup]

Okay, cool, so it's not about "eradicating" racism. And it's not about "diminishing" racism, either.

So... what is it about, exactly?

I’ve pretty clearly stated that any plans that don’t specifically address the unique history of Black oppression in this country I don’t care for. I don’t know how many more times I have to say it .

I’m weary of these race neutral leftist plans that will still leave Black people with the short end of the stick. I’m weary of white people arguing that this isa class warfare issue and not advocating specifically for Black people who have suffered far more than their white counterparts. I’m skeptical that Black people still won’t be made whole after this leftist revolution.

 

[IATT]

We really in the dumbest timeline

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

Buuut buuuut buuuuut the president said it’s because of TESTING that cases are going up?!?

 

[IATT]