The Next President is...

[drewpey]

On 12/26/2020 at 9:59 PM, Lord Ratner said:

Well, thank you for proving my point.

 

I didn't say mainstream, specifically. And in fact I made it pretty obvious that I don't think all Democrats are SJW lunatics. So, let's stick with what I did say.

 

The ideological engine of the party (not the voters) is being driven by exactly these types of lunatics. That you are unaware of them is irrelevant. They are *everywhere* in academia, politics, media, and especially big tech companies. While you go on with your life, blissfully unaware, they are whispering in the ears off those making the decisions. Critical race theory, anti-racism, equity... There are a ton of pseudo-intellectual theories that are gaining traction. You shrug them off because you're a rational human, but this curriculum is being taught in classrooms and boardrooms across the nation, and many people are buying the dogma. Again, regardless of your ignorance to the philosophy.

 

White Fragility has been a Best Seller for over a year. That's not fringe. Read it and tell me it's not the most insane shit you've ever read. Yet, it's definitely relevant on the institutional left.

 

So, exactly like I said in my post, liberal voters don't know what their own party is espousing. There's no conservative equivalent right now. If Richard Spencer was making huge book deals and having his lectures quoted by sitting senators and presidential candidates, I'd agree with you. But that's not what's happening.

 

This isn't remotely true though.  The Democratic party tried to float several progressive candidates this past election and most of them failed miserably.  Even now in this day in age the Democratic party remains fairly centrist.  Yes it's a big tent and there are lots of folks across the spectrum on the left that want various things, and many of those things scare you, but idealogically the left hasn't moved much, as evidenced by just electing Biden our most oldest, whitest most milquetoast candidate and guys like Bernie Sanders are still outcasts within the DNC.

If you see the Democrats receding to the left at breakneck speed, remember all speed is relative and it's more likely your Republican party is the one hurdling towards fascism as Trump's followers are in hordes begging him to declare martial law and invalidate an entire election because he didn't win...but no, we should be scared of some SJW on twitter instead....ok....

[Hacker]

10 minutes ago, drewpey said:

I think that's exactly what the BLM protests were about. 

Not by a long shot.

BLM is protesting for a forced Marxist-style transfer of social power and financial wealth from whom they perceive are the "haves" to whom they perceive are the "have nots"...in the name of "equity" (e.g. equality of outcome; where we all have the same social power and we all have the same financial means).

That has absolutely zero to do with the status of being "equal before the law", which is what actual "equality" is in a western democracy. Equality and liberty in a free society comes with no promise of social status or financial wealth, good or bad.

[Hacker]

18 minutes ago, drewpey said:

 Do you think the law treats everyone equally?

There are bad actors who make bad decisions in the judicial system, that have resulted in unequal and unfair treatment, obviously.

To distort that to mean the system itself is fundamentally flawed, or that the system is rigged against a particular identity group of people, is not a logical step.

Even worse, to declare that the current system is so broken that it has to be torn down and replaced with something more "fair", without being able to specify what exactly is broken with the current system, or what the specifics of that other system that would replace it might be, is a bunch of postmodernist nonsense.

BLM isn't at all interested in simply ending police brutality.

Quote

Every day, we recommit to healing ourselves and each other, and to co-creating alongside comrades, allies, and family a culture where each person feels seen, heard, and supported.

We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities.

We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.

We intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.

We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.

We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.

We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.

We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.

We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

We cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.

We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another.

 

[Negatory]

Yeah. When BLM was focused on police brutality it was a much more tolerable movement. And no one’s a racist for thinking that.

[Hacker]

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

Yeah. When BLM was focused on police brutality it was a much more tolerable movement. And no one’s a racist for thinking that.

Which is kind of the core problem, IMHO.

"Black lives matter" as a concept is really not controversial in any way. Yes, anyone who believes that all humans are individuals and of equal objective value philosophically can confidently agree with that. We might disagree on the degree to which the statement relies on an unproven implication that society inherently values the lives of individuals with a certain skin pigment less than other individuals with a different skin pigment, but that's leading us down a different path of discussion

Unfortunately, "Black Lives Matter", the organization and movement is something that is completely different and stands for something that is completely different than the plain English phrase means (as evidenced by their now-deleted "what we believe" webpage.

So, just like with a lot of sophistry used in the name of advocacy, not being in support of "Black Lives Matter" (the organization) gets to be weaponized against whomever states it as "racist" (or whatever other word from the deplorables litany one wishes to arm themselves with) by intentionally co-mingling the concept with the org.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Hacker

[slackline]

Kinzinger seems like a good dude, and one of the only GOP members with some moral courage, but from some of the stuff I’ve seen on here, he’ll probably just be discredited by the likes of SIM and others anyway.

[ViperMan]

On 12/29/2020 at 9:15 AM, drewpey said:

It does, but when your keystone party policies are themselves homophobic, transphobic, sexist and racist the line often gets blurred.  The democratic party isn't trying to force SJW justice down your throat in legislature.  It may feel like it with a SJW brigade on twitter, but again as mentioned before just because someone has a lot of followers on twitter doesn't automatically make them the spokesperson for the entire Democratic party.

I think that's exactly what the BLM protests were about.  I think the messaging was hijacked by bad actors and the right to make them out to be "the real racists" but in the end with events like the death of George Floyd, Brianna Taylor or Philando Castille and see a different treatment before the law.  Do you think the law treats everyone equally?

Well it is, though, actually...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html

Quote

The goal of the Green New Deal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change while also trying to fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline

Quote

it aims to meet its ambitious goals while paying special attention to groups like the poor, disabled and minority communities that might be disproportionately affected by massive economic transitions like those the Green New Deal calls for.

This effort has the support of many "center" democrats such as Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Mazie Hirono, Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Tom Udall, etc. Of course the reality is that group is actually extreme, though few in the mainstream democratic party would place those individuals into the SJW twitter mob...or would they?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/education/free-college-tuition-four-year/

Plenty of other "mainstream" democrats support the notion of "free" public college.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/22/18509196/elizabeth-warren-debt-free-college

Liz Warren wants to give this subsidy to those making between 100-250K/yr...seriously? Forgive me, but this is what passes as "mainstream" now-a-days, so the push back from the right is completely understandable. Even the language that is used around these topics is deceiving. They call it debt "cancellation" when it reality it is more accurately classified as transfer.

[Sua Sponte]

Gillibrand has singlehandedly ruined the military justice system. You consider her "center?"

[Homestar]

3 hours ago, slackline said:

Kinzinger seems like a good dude, and one of the only GOP members with some moral courage, but from some of the stuff I’ve seen on here, he’ll probably just be discredited by the likes of SIM and others anyway.

Maybe we could get a Crenshaw-Kinzinger ticket in 2024?

[lloyd christmas]

20 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Even the language that is used around these topics is deceiving. They call it debt "cancellation" when it reality it is more accurately classified as transfer.

That’s exactly right and its a great point.  I am always suspicious when the language used to describe a topic changes.   Like global warming/climate change or gun control/gun safety.  

[Negatory]

Eh, the blunt truth is that wealth or debt transfer aren’t as much of big boogeyman words for a huge amount of people anymore after the stock market literally entirely detached from reality this year. Tens of millions are suffering and the top 1% or .1% were disproportionately (and ironically) the group the poor people’s wealth was “transferred to.”

Just Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg made ~$250B this year while the majority of the world was suffering. I’m not saying they shouldn’t make money - they should as they provide services that are in demand - but this is plainly immoral. I get that most people can’t fathom what making over 200,000 times what the average, well off, family makes. But what if the system only had them make... $25B? What if it was only $25M?!? Oh they couldn’t live comfortably anymore probably. And socialism amirite? 

Philosophically, many will scream foul. “They earned it!” But that requires the current iteration of the capitalist system and tax structure we have set up now to, at a baseline, already be “moral” or “fair” in the eyes of society, and that’s just an opinion. An opinion you’re gonna have a harder time defending if things continue. Why is 2020’s system morally superior to say the 1960s when top tax brackets would be taxed at 90%? Back when people could graduate college debt free working part time and then immediately buy a house with their union job.

More and more, working class people are starting to wonder if, just maybe, the  current iteration of the system doesnt work for the average American. IMO, reagonomics did what it was supposed to do; it defeated the USSR. 30 additional years was a tragedy, and it needs an immediate revision.

[SurelySerious]

Man, I must be immoral for making money on the stock market this year. 🙄

[Hacker]

8 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Tens of millions are suffering and the top 1% or .1% were disproportionately (and ironically) the group the poor people’s wealth was “transferred to.”

Except for the fact that the pie size is not fixed....especially in a time when so much "free money" has been pumped into the system by the Fed.

So, no...someone getting richer does not mandate someone else getting poorer.

[Negatory]

How about the money that’s pumped into the fed disproportionately going to a small swath of society? That’s moral, right?

And of course we all made money on the stock market. But you’re blinded to it’s bigger long term disparity effects because you “got yours.”

[SurelySerious]

14 minutes ago, Negatory said:

How about the money that’s pumped into the fed disproportionately going to a small swath of society? That’s moral, right?

And of course we all made money on the stock market. But you’re blinded to it’s bigger long term disparity effects because you “got yours.”

It’s not the zero sum game you’re portraying. 

[Hacker]

30 minutes ago, Negatory said:

But you’re blinded to it’s bigger long term disparity effects because you “got yours.”

Envy is an ugly emotion.

[brabus]

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

But what if the system only had them make... $25B? What if it was only $25M?!?

Well for one people like MacKenzie Scott probably wouldn’t have donated $9B. Yeah there are some “filthy rich” people, but many of them donate shitloads of money, collectively provide millions of jobs, etc. They may be “selfish” in your eyes, but that doesn’t mean they’re not simultaneously contributing a substantial amount to our economy and way of life. Bottom line - not a zero sum game and we need those people far more than we don’t need them. 

[pawnman]

4 hours ago, Negatory said:

Eh, the blunt truth is that wealth or debt transfer aren’t as much of big boogeyman words for a huge amount of people anymore after the stock market literally entirely detached from reality this year. Tens of millions are suffering and the top 1% or .1% were disproportionately (and ironically) the group the poor people’s wealth was “transferred to.”

Just Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg made ~$250B this year while the majority of the world was suffering. I’m not saying they shouldn’t make money - they should as they provide services that are in demand - but this is plainly immoral. I get that most people can’t fathom what making over 200,000 times what the average, well off, family makes. But what if the system only had them make... $25B? What if it was only $25M?!? Oh they couldn’t live comfortably anymore probably. And socialism amirite? 

Philosophically, many will scream foul. “They earned it!” But that requires the current iteration of the capitalist system and tax structure we have set up now to, at a baseline, already be “moral” or “fair” in the eyes of society, and that’s just an opinion. An opinion you’re gonna have a harder time defending if things continue. Why is 2020’s system morally superior to say the 1960s when top tax brackets would be taxed at 90%? Back when people could graduate college debt free working part time and then immediately buy a house with their union job.

More and more, working class people are starting to wonder if, just maybe, the  current iteration of the system doesnt work for the average American. IMO, reagonomics did what it was supposed to do; it defeated the USSR. 30 additional years was a tragedy, and it needs an immediate revision.

Someone doesn't know the difference between income and net worth.

Unless you're proposing that we start taxing people based on net worth?  Because I don't think Bezos or Musk would have paid a single extra dollar in taxes under the 90% income tax scheme...because they don't have large incomes.  They have large stakes in companies that increased in value this year.

 

Quote

How about the money that’s pumped into the fed disproportionately going to a small swath of society? That’s moral, right?

And of course we all made money on the stock market. But you’re blinded to it’s bigger long term disparity effects because you “got yours.”

Because that's where people spent it?  It's not like Bezos and Musk pulled a truck up to the treasury printing press.

By the way...those markets that you seem to despise so much are the key for most people to build wealth.  Even generational wealth.  Most people, it seems, would rather have the new iPhone or UHD TV than to invest in the companies that makes those things, though.

Edited January 2, 2021 by pawnman

[Negatory]

4 hours ago, pawnman said:

Someone doesn't know the difference between income and net worth.

Unless you're proposing that we start taxing people based on net worth?  Because I don't think Bezos or Musk would have paid a single extra dollar in taxes under the 90% income tax scheme...because they don't have large incomes.  They have large stakes in companies that increased in value this year.

 

Because that's where people spent it?  It's not like Bezos and Musk pulled a truck up to the treasury printing press.

By the way...those markets that you seem to despise so much are the key for most people to build wealth.  Even generational wealth.  Most people, it seems, would rather have the new iPhone or UHD TV than to invest in the companies that makes those things, though.

I do know the difference. Increase personal capital gains taxes, it isn’t that hard. Or do something more imaginative, I don’t think people care.

Whether you like it or not, disparity or perceived disparity has gotten so bad that the majority of one political party candidates proposed a wealth tax and weren’t laughed out of their races. Welcome to America where CEOS compensation has increased 1000% since 1975 while working class compensation has increased closer to 15-20%. The best part is the working class folks (that’s you guys), such as those in the military making 100-200k, will continue to perpetuate this trend.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

Edited January 3, 2021 by Negatory

[Negatory]

Here’s a hypothetical, what if the top 1% made it quadrillions of dollars a year? Would that be too much? Quintillions? There’s no limit, right? Everything is ethical, Ayn Rand, right?

Because folks on the right like to argue that going from $10-15 an hour for low wage earners would be untenable for the economy but that giving 3 individuals a quarter of a trillion is okay.

[SurelySerious]

13 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I do know the difference. Increase personal capital gains taxes, it isn’t that hard. Or do something more imaginative, I don’t think people care.

Whether you like it or not, disparity or perceived disparity has gotten so bad that the majority of one political party candidates proposed a wealth tax and weren’t laughed out of their races. Welcome to America where CEOS compensation has increased 1000% since 1975 while working class compensation has increased closer to 15-20%. The best part is the working class folks (that’s you guys), such as those in the military making 100-200k, will continue to perpetuate this trend.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

 

Just now, Negatory said:

Here’s a hypothetical, what if the top 1% made it quadrillions of dollars a year? Would that be too much? Quintillions? There’s no limit, right? Everything is ethical, Ayn Rand, right?

Because folks on the right like to argue that going from $10-15 an hour for low wage earners would be untenable for the economy but that giving 3 individuals a quarter of a trillion is okay.

Ok Bernie Bro. 

[Negatory]

Naw man, let’s have an intellectual debate if you’re capable.

[SurelySerious]

24 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Naw man, let’s have an intellectual debate if you’re capable.

Just unwilling to entertain your state controlling the means of production socialism BS. 

[FLEA]

48 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Here’s a hypothetical, what if the top 1% made it quadrillions of dollars a year? Would that be too much? Quintillions? There’s no limit, right? Everything is ethical, Ayn Rand, right?

Because folks on the right like to argue that going from $10-15 an hour for low wage earners would be untenable for the economy but that giving 3 individuals a quarter of a trillion is okay.

No. Actually there is not a limit. Sorry. 

[Homestar]

That another person is rich does not make me poor.