[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.9468

File: 1626783631708.jpg (60.47 KB, 1275x639, 425:213, 2481621.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What is the political fight (in America)?  Suppose it's hard to find general rules, because it must be a fight -- anything for which people aren't willing to fight over is not going to surface as a concern.  And so issues will come and issues will go.  But I will list what I think of as general trends.

The Right: Free Market; Freedom of Speech; Freedom of Religion; Freedoms are most notably won through Military Force

The Left: Equality of Outcome for people of different Gender, Race, and Sexuality; Concern over Climate Change; Freedoms won through protest

The Left sees the Right: Rich Racists (or those duped by them); Religious Fanatics; Colonizers

The Right sees the Left: Lazy Folks who want to steal from Hard Working Americans; Anarchists; Rioters who would rather destroy than build.

Questions for you:

1) Is that basically correct?  Do you have things to add?

2) Do you expect anything to change over the years, especially the level of hatred or empathy for the opposing political party?  (In your experience has it been different in the past?)

(I guess this is still on the theme of what good is there in politics.  Plus I haven't really been following the news -- don't have the energy lately -- so I can't create relevant threads about current political issues.  Well, should we decide such threads have value, I guess.)

 No.9469


 No.9470

I'd have to strongly disagree with this characterization, although I appreciate the effort.

>The Right: Free Market; Freedom of Speech; Freedom of Religion; Freedoms are most notably won through Military Force

The American right-wing doesn't believe in the "free market" in the sense of an economy that Adam Smith would recognize. Actual capitalism in the theoretical sense requires not just fair and open competition but also ironclad rules about health standards, national security concerns, safety requirements, and the rest all based on the rule of law. What the government decrees must be fairly enforced upon all.

In direct contrast to this, the American right-wing advocates for monopolies and crony capitalism in which a handful of gigantic multinational corporates with ties to the state get beneficial treatment while possible competitive forces get shut down. An excellent example of this is the American media landscape when it comes to copyright law and other forms of "intellectual property". If it were up to the right-wing, essentially, nothing would ever become public domain as long as some connected Ritchie Rich represents an estate with its rights. Ask yourself this... given how old Mickey Mouse is, would it really be so horrid if he were public domain? What would be the harm?

It's something like an outright lie to claim that the right-wing supports "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" as well. The right-wing supports those things for ITSELF. And itself ALONE. Those liberties don't apply to you if you're not right-wing. Black Americans, Muslim Americans, LGBT Americans, and anybody regarded by the right-wing as a second-class citizen unwilling to deserve the same equalities of opportunity as white Christian nationalists don't get those rights.

A crying example of this is how the right-wing loudly and proudly proclaim their distaste for Muslim people to the point of not just wanting Muslim people prevented from even entering the country but for those who are currently here to be assigned something like badges of shame, likely even being a part of a "Muslim registry" due to their suspect status. The right is for "freedom of religion"? It'd be laughable if the matters weren't so serious. I'd like to point out that a public figure who's the grandchild of Holocaust survivors was literally kicked out of the U.S. for having shared citizenship with a Muslim majority country given President Trump's rules.

I'd also even challenge the last point. The right-wing's attitude towards dictatorships suppressing innocents abroad has usually been to oppose the innocents and support the dictatorships. The Saudi regime's disgusting practices suppressing media dissent to the point of assassinating a Washington Post journalist is a telling example. President Trump took the side of murderous thugs over the griveing family of a dead reporter. And the right-wing in general followed. One could say something similar for Putin's Russia and the disgraceful suppressions under him, actions that have been watched by the American right-wing with smiles as wide as the grand canyon and thumbs up as high as their arms can reach. Honestly, Vladimir Putin is if anything a model for exactly what the American right-wing wants to have as President for Life here.

 No.9471

Admittedly, before Donald Trump's rise we weren't literally in the position of... to pick just one authoritarian outrage, I guess, the North Korean state killing an American tourist with the U.S. government taking the side of the North Koreans and being fine with that murder.

President Ronald Reagan probably wouldn't have been okay with that? Or George Bush Sr. likely? Or the hypothetical President Mitt Romney?

But, I don't know, the right-wing is what it is now and Trump is what he is now. That's that.

 No.9472

>>9470
>free market
Smith was offering an alternative to mercantilism.  My memory is not so good, but do remember Smith taking a liberal perspective on many things.

I do know that the idea of free market relies heavily on the idea of what constitutes private property to market, and rules about what is a fair transaction and what is theft.  The right wing bills their party as those who follow the rules.  It is true, if rules about what is property and how it may be traded are specifically chosen to benefit megacorporations, you can have a nominally free market that is a contorted market if other perspectives on property and consent are considered.  

I can't exactly disagree.  These are problems I often have.  Eg. once in America property included [other] humans, now it seldom or never does (I don't completely understand the moral system of penal slavery).  With such wide variation, it's hard to consider an idea like private property to be objective in any way.

>really be so horrid if he were public domain? What would be the harm?

It appears Mouse will in 2024 -- a very specific version of him may be copied, provided it does not violate trademark law, which may effectively render Mickey Mouse clones illegal forever, but that is to be decided.

Presumably the harm is Disney will be less creative.  But you know that rational as well as I do.

 No.9473

In terms of formal definitions (as opposed to colloquial definitions) "left-wing" refers to a collection of political and social philosophies/ideologies that oppse hierarchically structured societies (i.e. opposition to the existence of social classes) and unjustifiable hierarchies in general (usually accepting hierarchies of expertise to be acceptable in appropriate context). "Right-wing" refers to a collection of philosophies/ideologies that sees hierarchies as good, necessary and desirable for a society to function in an orderly manner. "Centrist" is somewhere in-between seeing hierarchies as inevitable but needing to be checked via promoting social mobility and democracy.

Colloquially "right" and "left" have frequently shifted meaning because politics is a game of rhetoric, a language game if you will, of trying to get words to carry useful connotations. "Right-wing" in America is conflated with both the formal centrist ideology of classical liberalism and conservatism (though rhetorically the American right uses "liberal" to mean "left").

Wheras the American "left" or "liberal" would mean roughly social liberal and cultural progressive. What Americans think of as "the left" much of the rest of the world would think of as more center-right.

Both the American left and American right claim to care a lot about freedoms, but in reality really only care about their freedoms, or whichever is most relevant to their constituents.

>2) Do you expect anything to change over the years, especially the level of hatred or empathy for the opposing political party?  (In your experience has it been different in the past?)

At this point I am not even sure either side we really disagree on anything but still hate each other all the same. Political fighting in this country might as well be just blind tribalism at this point. Most people form political alliances in this country based off single issues and defer judgements about other issues to the rest of their ingroup (political party) on implicit trust based on the one issue that drove them to that party that niether party has really had a consistent party line. It seems like Americans agree on more than they disagree on but are constantly convinced otherwise by the demagoguery that runs rampant in the discource often to the point that people are often blind to how their own positions have been inconsistent

 No.9474

If I'm going to summarize the differences between groups, I'd say that actually it goes far beyond politics to basic beliefs about morality and ethics in terms of the meaning of life, honestly.

To a classical conservative:
>Civil rights, human rights, and moral ability in general is a finite resource. You can think of it like a collection of friends sharing a cake or pizza. If Johnny gets a bigger slice of human rights, then Stevie gets less human rights. That's just the way things are. It's been like that since the dawn of time, with nature red in tooth and claw being  the innate aspect of humanity. People are, at heart, essentially bad. We want to steal, murder, and conquer by our simple, animal instincts. Civilization exists in order to carefully dole out civil rights in delicate proportion so as to minimize barbarism.

To a classical progressive:
>Civil rights, human rights, and moral ability in general is an infinite resource. You can think of it like a collection of friends sharing a cake or pizza maybe. Yet you'd be in a magical like situation where the portions are compliments. Johnny can have all of the cake he wants, and that doesn't mean a single negative thing for Stevie. In fact, Stevie is likely going to be happier as he sees Johnny having a good time. The more the merrier. People are, at heart, inherently good. We're born free. We're born equal. We're born caring. Our natural impulse is to collaborate and share. Civilization exists in order to help us mold each other and ourselves from purposeful clay with much potential into the magnificent statues standing out there to achieve greatness that we all can and should be.

A classical conservative sees a white Christian man getting a black transgender woman as a neighbor and senses immediate trouble, because any benefits that she gets in her life isn't earned or merited objectively but comes at his expense. More civil rights for her means less for him. That's life.

A classical progressive sees a white Christian man getting a black transgender woman as a neighbor and senses immediate opportunity, because there's absolutely a real chance that they can learn from each other's perspectives. As well, his protection of her human rights makes his own rights safer (and vise versa). That's solidarity.

 No.9475

>>9473
>What Americans think of as "the left" much of the rest of the world would think of as more center-right.

Yes, that's a significant problem.

What in most countries would be considered genuine neo-Nazism or at least actual fascism (such as, to pick a random example, encouragement of transgender individuals to commit suicide by political activists and other forms of harassment) is in America normal conservativism.

What in most countries would be considered conservativism (such as, say, a health care system with strong private market elements such that large salaries for different personnel is allowed) is in America the left.

What is in most countries considered the left has basically no voice and following in America whatsoever.

I don't really know what to think about this.

 No.9476

File: 1627040767611.jpg (80.82 KB, 1089x1024, 1089:1024, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>9468
>Black Americans, Muslim Americans, LGBT Americans,...don't get those rights.
Hmm...I've seen things that presumably conservatives have posted that support all your points.  But I know some kinds of discrimination are not allowed and not appropriate, so I think it is just hyperbole.

>distaste for Muslim people
They talk a lot about Muslim immigrants enforcing Sharia law on Americans.

>The right-wing's attitude towards dictatorships suppressing innocents

Hmm...there is something about the right wing and the military, though.  Perhaps the relevant individual freedoms have been won long ago and now it is appropriate to respect military force as representing past freedoms won, finding fault with those who would ask for more.

(I sometimes think new things can only be good after a generation or two has past.)

 No.9477

File: 1627042795790.jpg (173.57 KB, 1280x885, 256:177, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>9473
I'm not sure what authority makes these definitions formal.  Normally 'formal' is an appeal to state power, but I don't think the state defines what goals the two political parties need to have.

But by that you say we have two right-wing parties.  Well, I don't think either party would come out overtly as pro class system.  I'm told America has no class system, in fact.  Do we have something like a class system and neither party wants to dismantle it?

>based off single issues
In my childhood, the issue was mostly abortion.

>demagoguery
I do think about...a previous President, but I don't want to make people upset.  What you say might apply to any time, though.  Are things getting better?  Worse?  About the same?

 No.9478

Do they have values? The things they claim to believe in always seem to correspond with what is the most profitable.

 No.9479

>>9477
Did you get a chance to read the outgroup blog post linked in >>9469?  I think it might be helpful in understanding the political divide in the US.

 No.9480

>2) Do you expect anything to change over the years, especially the level of hatred or empathy for the opposing political party?  (In your experience has it been different in the past?)

I think that this deserves some more thought because I expect that things, while bad, are actually going to get far worse.

There's some gigantic percent of Americans that are white Christian nationalists who genuinely believe that a multiracial and multireligious democracy is a threat to their way of life and that it must be resisted at all costs, including mass violence.

The demographic changes are already baked into the cake... younger generations are just not as white, as Christian, and certainly not as nationalist in terms of both traits as older generations... the gap between the two parties is growing ever stronger as the already far right extremist Republican Party goes more to the fringes and the Democratic Party's representation of the majority becomes more and more pronounced...

I think that at some point soon we're going to see the right-wing because something like a tribe of aliens with strange clothing, stranger still language, and even stranger yet additionally moral ways that exist in total opposition from normal people. In this circumstance, violence appears inevitable? Maybe?

What really can you say to somebody who says "My God and kin command me to hurt those innocent victims" other than "I'm can't let you do that"?

What really can you say to somebody who says "My red tribe commands that all colors except red are evil and to be either exterminated or oppressed" except "I refuse to be blinded"?

 No.9481

>>9476
Wait, what are you saying is hyperbole?

As far as civil rights, it's honestly rather horrifying what's happening in this country. The right-wing has in general moved ever more in a far right direction particularly when it comes to, say, transgender people. The Republican Party and the conservative movement used to say little to nothing about the group back in the 2000s and before.

Now, the right-wing is actively trying to kick transgender people out of schools, hurt them while in schools and make them feel as bad as possible there, kick transgender people out of their homes, hurt them while in their homes and make them feel as bad as possible there, kick transgender people out of their jobs, hurt them while in their jobs and make them feel as bad as possible there, and even... I mean even to the point of fighting health care and arguably working to drive them into actual death.

All of this in the name of Christianity. Or, to be specific, Christian nationalism. That America is God's chosen nation held to God's chosen ideals at the expense of the enemies of God, or so the right-wing believes.

 No.9482

A lot of the discourse has devolved into team sports, where if the other side does literally anything it is an existential threat, and everyone on your team must agree 100% and fall in line or you're a traitor.

Looking at the way things have been going, the Republican party doesn't stand for anything anymore except saying whatever they need to in order to buzz up their base to win elections. Just blowing smoke up people's asses on shit that doesn't matter but sounds spooky. The easy example right now is Critical Race Theory, which is a collegiate level course for law students, but now Texas Republicans are trying to remove teaching about MLK.

The Democrats, while I disagree on a LOT with them, at least seem to want to pass real policy with a sense of pragmatism behind them. Joe Biden isn't some sort of authoritarian dictater like scumbags like Stalin or Castro. He's a fucking old man who likes civility and is so... inoffensive he's boring. I'm pleased with the infrastructure bill, and Joe Biden signed an executive order to begin to end the practice of private prisons.

Meanwhile, on the far extremes, you've got actual fascists who want an ethnostate trying to hijack the Republicans outright, and tankies who deny the genocide taking place in China right fucking now because China claims to be communist and anyone who opposes America is good because their politics really does begin and end with hating America.

 No.9483

>>9482
Oh, and social media has unironically given people fucking mental rot.

24 hour cable "news" has as well. People are watching pundits for news because regular news is too boring so there's less ad revenue involved.

 No.9484

File: 1627130992278.png (782.6 KB, 1000x617, 1000:617, 83420.png) ImgOps Google

>>9479
First few paragraphs didn't hook me as being relevant, but I finished it -- minus the comments.  Those are just too much.

I have to think about it more.  The suggestion is I'm probably not much exposed to Red Team, at least not Type Specimens.  It's a good context.

----

strong evangelical religious beliefs: N
creationism: N
opposing gay marriage: N
owning guns: N
eating steak: N, I mean I have, but I'm mostly a vegetarian
drinking Coca-Cola: Diet Mt. Dew/Kickstarts
driving SUVs:N
watching lots of TV:about None
enjoying American football:God no
conspicuously upset about terrorists and commies: Not really
marrying early, divorcing early: No
shouting “USA IS NUMBER ONE!!!”: No
listening to country music:Sometimes.  But probably listening to John Denver sing about how bad hunting is doesn't count.

vague agnosticism:Y
supporting gay rights:Y
thinking guns are barbaric:Y
eating arugula:N, don't know what that is
drinking fancy bottled water: N
driving Priuses:if I could afford it
reading lots of books: yes, hundreds
being highly educated:not formally (because it feels like a class system), but I try
mocking American football: don't care enough
feeling vaguely like they should like soccer but never really being able to get into it: kinda
getting conspicuously upset about sexists and bigots: a bit
marrying later: marrying never
constantly pointing out how much more civilized European countries are than America:it feels that way sometimes
listening to “everything except country”:I don't actually hate country

Dawkins-style atheism: comes off as a bit too hard on religion
vague annoyance that the question of gay rights even comes up: no
eating paleo: ?
drinking Soylent: good stuff
calling in rides on Uber:No, but I don't have a car
reading lots of blogs: Not really.
calling American football “sportsball”:?
getting conspicuously upset about the War on Drugs and the NSA: I don't like them
listening to filk – "Filk is a little-known genre of folk music composed and performed by science-fiction fans" -- didn't know that existed.  Always wanted to create science/tech folk songs, but I have very little...time and talent.

 No.9485

>>9484
For filk, look up "Carmen Miranda's Ghost" to see if it's up your alley.

 No.9486

>>9485
Seems a pretty snug fit with the other geeky folk and techno I listen to.  Whether there will be a song I feel I ought to repeat 1,000 times, we'll see.  But thank you.

As far as the article/blog post, I may be near the subclass of Blue team the author calls Gray Team, but that's not super important.

The important thing is my primary outgroup is Red Team.  And Blue Team and Red Team will only come together if it's convenient.  Presumably convenient to fight an even worse Black Team or something -- maybe we had a small taste of that on 9/11.

That's rather dark if the solution to partisan politics is war.  Sometimes it feels partisan politics itself can temp some kind of civil war.

 No.9487

File: 1627170603424.png (323.1 KB, 918x1024, 459:512, large.png) ImgOps Google

>>9481
>what are you saying is hyperbole?
Hyperbole is like a game where you post something that would otherwise be hate-speech or similar and if people get upset they lose the game.  Like we should kill transgender people or keep Muslims out of America.  The Hyperbole game is an OK thing people do, I gather.  I guess I mostly notice the stuff from Red Team, but probably it goes both ways (calls to assassinate Trump, etc.).

Probably we are to think anything especially inappropriate is generally to be ignored as part of this game and not a true belief.

 No.9488

>>9481
>Republican Party and the conservative movement used to say little to nothing about the group back in the 2000s and before.
I figured that was because transgenderism wasn't seen as appropriate in either party so it didn't need to be discussed.

>the right-wing is actively trying to...arguably working to drive them into actual death.

I don't know how to evaluate whether this is hyperbole, crime, or a party platform.

>All of this in the name of Christianity.

No God may command anything inappropriate, illegal, or hateful.  At least that's the contract that allows freedom of religion.  Of course, you say, "in the name of" to mean it's not actual Christianity, but Christian Extremism/Fundamentalism.

 No.9489

>>9486
I've always accepted that I'm one that will break off from things quite readily if I feel lines are crossed. I suppose based off my skimming on that blog I kind of fit grey as well.

Anyway, yeah, war can happen when things become too partisan. It's not something I hope for, but it can happen. It's unlikely that it will happen in a controlled manner like last time either. If civil war erupts again in the USA I don't think it's going to be as clear cut as last time. It's going to look more like the Mexican Revolution than the American Civil War, with pockets of factions forming all throughout.

It's a grim thought but people aren't as cohesively bound to their home state anymore.

 No.9490

>>9489
I'm parrot, btw.

 No.9491

>>9487
>>9488
The right-wing is engaged in actual actual, deliberate harm to transgender people in the direct way of doing everything from kicking them out of jobs to kicking them out of health care facilities and more.

This isn't "hyperbole" in terms of mean things being said on the internet. This is actual government policy. Meant to hurt actual flesh-and-blood people physically.

 No.9492

>>9489
Good foreign examples of ethno-religious warfare within nations that don't correspond that well to specific, narrow geographic lines but are just "anybody of ethnicity and religion pair XY is against the pair AB wherever they interact" are the Northern Ireland conflict known as "The Troubles" and the historic "Spanish Civil War" before WWII.

If we start seeing armed conflict inside the U.S. again it'll probably be like one of those or both.

 No.9493

>>9482
>A lot of the discourse has devolved into team sports, where if the other side does literally anything it is an existential threat, and everyone on your team must agree 100% and fall in line or you're a traitor.

There seems to be a rather clear-cut asymmetry between tribes here.

The 'Red Tribe' is engaged in actual acts of harm deliberately designed to cause suffering among members of multiple other tribes out of hatred for those other tribes. In practical terms, this is everything from having "gay/trans panic" be considered a legal defense for homicide such that if a bigot kills an LGBT person that they can claim a sort of temporary insanity and get off to, to pick another example, voter suppression whereby black people engaged in the simple, normal act of voting by mail is demonized as being akin to a child molester and those helping others vote by mail face criminalization threats. It goes on and on and on. To the 'Red Tribe', those of other tribes are at best second-class citizens to be mildly allow to exist and at worse an inferior species to be suppressed like the cockroaches that they are.

In contrast, every other tribe whether 'Blue Tribe' or 'Grey Tribe' or whatever else is engaged in existing. Existing that means hurt feelings on the behalf of the 'Red Tribe' because they're out there... being open... having fun... participating in multiracial, multireligious democracy. The 'Red Tribe' perceives the mere existence of open society as a threat to them, even if nobody from any other tribe is doing any actual harm to them whatsoever.

It's frustrating to see "but everybody's engaged in tribalism" talk.

 No.9494

File: 1627181107237.jpg (86.61 KB, 1078x1078, 1:1, 7brp0n52ybq61.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>9493
> having "gay/trans panic" be considered a legal defense for homicide such that if a bigot kills an LGBT person that they can claim a sort of temporary insanity and get off
From Wikipedia, I see:

"Historically, in US courts, use of the gay panic defense has not typically resulted in the acquittal of the defendant; instead, the defendant was usually found guilty, but on lesser charges, or judges and juries may have cited homosexual solicitation as a mitigating factor, resulting in reduced culpability and sentences.[110]

A case in which this occurred was the "Jenny Jones" case, in which Jonathan Schmitz was tried for the first-degree murder of Scott Amedure and was instead found guilty of the lesser offense of second-degree murder."

I think that in the vast majority of cases, the killer still gets sentenced to a non-trivial amount of incarceration, enough to deter others to committing similar crimes.

I'd say that this sort of discrimination based on sex / sexual orientation is still wrong in principle, but it's not carte blanche to kill LGBT folks.

 No.9495

>>9494
Can you at least see the asymmetry involved between tribes here?

There's no legal system set up such that if, say, a white Christian man is horrifically murdered by a Jewish transwoman that she can somehow use her ethnic and religious status as a shield and claim like "Oh, but I had temporary insanity", nor would her gender status give her any special points either.

There's no specific social situation in which, say, white Christian men walking in dark alleys at night have to be concerned about Jewish transwomen sneaking up behind them.

There's no broader cultural situation in which, say, white Christian men report chronic health problems including issues to the point of bringing about suicide due to harassment from Jewish transwomen.

And, to be really blunt about it, there never was some kind of a historical memory being denied and obfuscated of a Holocaust of white Christian men done by Jewish transwomen in history the same way that we now have white Christian men deliberately using Holocaust type imagery to describe Jewish transwomen, with them considered part of an "invasion", "infestation", "corruption", and so on of good white Christian civilization as "parasites", "pests" cockroaches", "lice", "vermin", et cetera.

The Klan is a thing. The American Nazi Party is a thing. The Proud Boys is a thing. And so on. There's no Jewish transgender version of the Proud Boys out there to make white Christian men shake in their boots from entering the wrong neighborhood.

It's not "America has a tribalism problem". It's "America has a 'Red Tribe' trying to persecute to the point of teetering on eliminating all other tribes problem". I'm pretty sure.

 No.9496

>>9495
>It's not "America has a tribalism problem". It's "America has a 'Red Tribe' trying to persecute to the point of teetering on eliminating all other tribes problem". I'm pretty sure.
>Can you at least see the asymmetry involved between tribes here?
The tribes aren't perfectly symmetrical.  But I think both the red and blue tribes don't really care about causing suffering to the other and sometimes even take pleasure in it.  E.g., look at the blue tribe's attempts to ban AR-15s and standard-capacity (30-round) magazines.  Blue tribers don't really care about the plight of rural red tribers who lose their jobs when a coal mine closes.  Blue tribers involved in hiring have a tendency to require applicants to have college degrees even where irrelevant to the work, which has disparate impact on red tribers looking for work.  Blue tribers are mostly responsible for the abominable practices of 'cancel culture', trying to get red tribers fired by harassing their employers.  Et cetera.  

>There's no Jewish transgender version of the Proud Boys out there to make white Christian men shake in their boots from entering the wrong neighborhood.
The blue tribe has Antifa and the BLM rioters.  

>And, to be really blunt about it, there never was some kind of a historical memory being denied and obfuscated of a Holocaust of white Christian...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_denial

 No.9497

>>9491
I see.  So these actions and goals are appropriate in a general American context.  Appropriate things will not be part of the hyperbole game.  We should add "harm transgender people" to the list of things to associate with Republicans.

I had kinda thought this was no longer a political issue, in the past few years it seemed no one was scoring points by saying transgenderism was bad, in the same way people seem mostly past gay marriage.  Maybe that's my silo, though.

 No.9498

>>9492
I'm well aware, as my allusion to the Mexican Revolution and the fragmented nature of that conflict was meant to recognize.

>>9493
I also cited the ridiculous CRT fear mongering that's resulting in the attempt by Texas Republicans to get rid of teaching MLK. I'm not about to sit here and list everything wrong with the Republicans right now or I'd be here all day.

But the blue tribe also engages in things I consider problematic. Now, I agree the worst of them have little in the way of power because they're so dogmatic they've rejected electoral politics. The sorts who are Vanguardist or apologize for the likes of Mao and Stalin and excuse the butchery. Tankies, basically, and I'm going to push back against their version of authoritarianism. I'll do it in the same breath as I push back against the bullshit the right is trying constantly to pull. Multiple things can be bad even if they are in opposition to each other. I recognize the harm the Republicans are inflicting, unlike Tankies who reject China's ongoing genocide of the Uyghurs. Tankies would shoot me for being an enemy to the Revolution, just as soon as the fascists would shoot me for kissing my boyfriend.

Now, are the tankies as much of a threat right now as the alt-right? No. Tankies don't have a version of Marjorie Taylor Green or Matt Gaetz. AOC and the Justice Dems aren't Stalinists,

I can condemn the BLM riots while also supporting the wider protest, and I can condemn to a greater degree the events on January 6th as an attempted insurrection based on lies. An event Republicans are now trying to gaslight HARD.

Now there's is there a notable degree of difference between the current harms? Yes. Does that excuse the other? No.

>>9497
Oh, no. There are still segments of Republicans who definitely still despise transfolk.

Actually no, they hate transwomen because no one talks about transmen ever.

 No.9499

>>9489
American civil war would be a mess.  Maybe something like the capital coup but bigger and over and over again.  The possibility of war seems kinda remote, but if the kindling is there things can fall into place very quickly.  When I mentioned war resolving political fighting, I meant more war with an outside evil that would make both parties come together.  War where one party subdues the other would do as well.

Is war the only major political resolve, though?

>>9493
>It's frustrating to see "but everybody's engaged in tribalism" talk.
Basically you're saying Republicans are hurting Democrats more than the opposite.  Presumably Republicans believe they are fighting for the success of their country and the salvation of souls subject to God's judgement, but Republicans are either deluded or using these ideas as covers for evil intent.

>>9498
>Actually no, they hate transwomen because no one talks about transmen ever.
Probably in the traditional context one can sympathize with wanting to be a man.  Transmen might go a step too far, but their heart is in the right place.

Oh and men, although the best gender, are basically born predators and can't be trusted around women.  I didn't think these ideas were appropriate, they are sexist.  I know sexism used to be appropriate and legal, but I thought that stopped.

 No.9501

>>9496
Unfortunately, your examples of the Blue Tribe supposedly causing harm to the Red Tribe are a telling point to how asymmetric the issue is.

"Cancel culture" is a great point. The practice was invented by the Red Tribe, though not in that name, to systematically discriminate against LGBT Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, et cetera and so on when those groups express their freedom of speech in ways that the Red Tribe doesn't like. The classic McCarthy campaign against supposed communists is a key example.

Now, because of changing social norms, we're having situations in which a Red Tribe member harasses and doxes a transgender person or otherwise does something abusing freedom of speech to cause harm there's consequences to that. Consequences in a surprising way because other tribes are actually engaging in self-defense. The Red Tribe is reminded of how they've been able to, say, get transgender people fired from their jobs due to kissing their partners in the supposedly wrong location or the like for a long time... it feels bad for them to get a taste of their own medicine even if that's not really what's going on precisely.

Your other citations are rather weird, to be honest, in general. The Blue Tribe has actively been there promoting economic reform packages, for instance with the expansion of health care services, to help those who've lost their jobs. Their enthusiasm for helping working-class laborers is so strong that that's why they're mocked as "do-gooders" and "bleeding hearts", after all.

As far as antifa goes, they're an anarchist militant organization that hates the Blue Tribe as much as they do the Grey Tribe, the Red Tribe, and everybody else. It's baffling as well to say that they're something like the white Christian nationalist militas that the Red Tribe has. There's no comparison in terms of money, size, support networks, and more.

As far as mentioning Black Lives Matter, they're not a terrorist organization no matter what Tucker Carlson and similar ilk lie to you and others about.

 No.9503

>>9496
>Blue tribers involved in hiring have a tendency to require applicants to have college degrees even where irrelevant to the work
Some, I think, work to make a state-accredited college degree a necessary credential to do good work and be a part of good communities.  I seem to remember a swipe at credentialism in George Gilder's Republican Bible, Wealth and Poverty, but I can't remember if it was consistent.  I guess I'm not sure whether this is something parties are split on.  Maybe.

 No.9504

File: 1627274079301.png (34.57 KB, 309x773, 309:773, 2-12.png) ImgOps Google

>>9501
Yes, the McCarthy blacklists were a particularly pernicious example of the red tribe engaging in such practices.

I'm sure that blue-tribe economic plans do have the effect of helping unemployed red tribers as part of helping unemployed people generally, but I was talking more about individual blue tribers personally care about the plight of unemployed red-tribers.

>Their enthusiasm for helping working-class laborers is so strong that that's why they're mocked as "do-gooders" and "bleeding hearts", after all.
For a long time, the Democratic Party was the party of the working class.  But in 2016 and 2020, whites without a college degree voted overwhelming Republican, while whites with a college degree voted mostly Democratic.  

>As far as antifa goes, they're an anarchist militant organization that hates the Blue Tribe as much as they do the Grey Tribe, the Red Tribe, and everybody else.
Antifa members may hate most of the blue tribe, but they're mostly still part of the blue tribe.  I don't have numbers, but I'd imagine that hardly Antifa members are evangelical, believe in creationism, oppose abortion, get conspicuously upset about terrorists and commies, or shout “USA IS NUMBER ONE!”?  And Antifa definitely gets conspicuously upset about bigots/racists.

>It's baffling as well to say that they're something like the white Christian nationalist militas that the Red Tribe has. There's no comparison in terms of money, size, support networks, and more.
Do you have a citation for this?  I don't think that nationalist 'militias' are very big or wealthy.

>As far as mentioning Black Lives Matter, they're not a terrorist organization
Yes.  I recognize that most BLM protesters are peaceful.  My comment above referred specifically to the rioters, not the peaceful protesters.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]