***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[gry60]

So this man help craft a weak sauce police reform order, then went on TV to cheerlead it.

Scam Jones got nothing but biscuit batter flowing through his veins at this point

From the DB article:

Jones also has counted among his pals Meghan McCain, Kayleigh McEnany, Mike Huckabee, and his former partners on CNN’s brief reboot of Crossfire in 2013, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the right-leaning yet Trump-loathing cable personality S.E. Cupp.

Fine people in that flock.

 

[junglejim]

36% of Americans are Delks?

 

[Nike Jordan]

This clown

Remember who the first person was on here to call him Scam Jones.

 

[Based Jesus]

 

[elpablo21]

36% of Americans are Delks?

Only 50%

Blexit is still a go

 

[-Red-]

This is all I will say:

-Klein believes that the country needs sweeping economic reform to transform the lives of all citizens, and to save us from climate change. And it is a urgent matter. He believes there is no real racial justice without real economic justice. Dude is left as hell, but he argues that many on the left (and I mean the entire left wing coalition) ignore key roadblocks to social democracy.

He thinks most people have a narrow definition of identity politics, and because they are so dismissive of the role identity plays in politics, their analysis and complaints are short sighted.

Klein argue that people that bemoan polarization, decry identity politics and the polarization is causes, and practices nostalgia politics about the 50-60s are missing a very important piece of the puzzle. That era was made possible because both parties, and white people in general, decided to ignore the civil rights of African American to make that peace work. So a black person that wanted to push for civil rights at the ballot box had no options because both parties (and their white voters) made a tacit agreement about not addressing the political demands of black people was best to keep the peace. This was especially true of the Democratic Party and their attempts to keep an alliance with the clearly racist Dixiecrats. He has politely called out Elizabeth Warren for this (the person he supported for president), Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Centrist, socialist, conservative; he pushes back on people that evoke nostalgia politics and think that somehow the absence of polarization is always optimal.

The proof of this is that when one side decided to break this tacit agreement, it kicked off the new era of polarization party alignment. While some might not like the polarization, it is a good thing that marginalized groups, especially black people, especially black people that care about fighting for civil rights, have a clearer choice at the ballot box as to which party is better option.

So he says that to build a true social democracy, there should not be any compromises on the back of minorities.

So in grappling with racial issues, the Democratic Party and their white voters are better actors than they previously were. Not that they are perfect, not that they are right on everything, not that their policy agenda is not still lacking, but that they are moving in the right direction in an important aspect. That instead of coming up with a message that tries to soothe the fear of white America, and bury racial and social issues in the background like many (leftist, centrist, liberal) suggest, it would be a more honest and truthful system if people can speak more honestly on race and social issues. That it is a good thing if we good away from a system where the concerns of white Americans are always central.

My opinion now:

-To make sure this doesn't happen, asking everyone in your coalition to adopt a worker identity first and foremost (the type of identity politics socialist advocate for), adopt rhetoric that soothes the fears of white americans, and only speaking about universal programs as a way to push discussion about racial justice to the background, and hoping that whites don't try sell out others groups down the road is a dangerous game to play. And it is a strategy that many non-white people have an issue buying into because history tells them that it is more likely the backstab will come, not that it is the white folk will find/maintain some commitment to social justice. Instead you need to address so called identity issues upfront, you need to move the needle on racial and other social views within your coalition and country, you need to buy in upfront on certain issues, and you need to do this firmly and constantly. So that if and when social democracy comes, it is not built with ****ty compromises built in, that it will be harder for some to make those compromises in the future, and marginalized groups can have clear options at the ballot box.

It is not about dismissing the important message of economic reform, it is not about making this the only thing you build a coalition on, it is not about ignoring the problem is our capitalist system, but making it central enough in coalition building that we can build and maintain the most just version of a social democratic country we can. Not hoping that white people after they get their economic needs met will then get on board with targeted programs and stomping out discrimination. White worker prosperity guarantees nothing on that front.

There is a difference between demanding that poor and lower class whites living in economic despair just acknowledge their white privilege, and demanding that their problematic behavior not be coddled and recognized for the destructive force that it is. Recognizing that they are not being tricked by rich capilisitist, but they willingly empower the same crony capitalist that oppress them because they get something of value out of the deal: That their social standing in America remains a class above minorities, even if that means they are in the **** themselves. So stop with the economic anxiety bull**** that robs white Americans of the agency they have over their decisions. Stop with the stramanning of what some black liberals ask of white people. That is not gonna get you those voters, and those people will not just give up on their white identity politics and white supremacy beliefs just because you improve their economic standing.

-So I don't know how me posting the article, that doesn't even present a supportive argument for hollow type of identity politics, is defending a problematic framework.

I don't know how if I have never opened my mouth in the past and said anything that comes close to "forget sweeping economic changes, all that matters is seeing black faces" is defending a problematic framework

I don't know how me saying clearly that people don't consider and alternative interpretation to identity politics that what they usually argue against, is me still defending a problematic framework.

Kinda feels like you are ascribing a problematic framework to any and every liberals. Then asking to them to come prove they don't agree with it, even though they repeating have been consistent with their views in the past.

So what is the point in engaging, because even if I spend my afternoon typing, formating, and editing a post, I will get a "ok cool" in the moment, and then in a few weeks when I post something else about leftist that makes you or Rex's petulant *** with take issue with, and the game repeats.

My thoughts in response.

I don't know what leftists are waxing nostalgic for the 1950s or 1960s, nor any that wouldn't not only acknowledge but highlight quite centrally the brutal injustices faced by black folks (and, to a lesser extent, other non-whites and white women) of that era. If that is happening, then I agree that is obviously extremely problematic.

If Klein is arguing that "to build a true social democracy, there should not be any compromises on the back of minorities," I'm just not clear about what he means by that. I don't know what folks are being asked to compromise? No one is courting problematic white folks saying "If you agree with a jobs guarantee, living wages, and Medicare for All but want to exclude black people from those things, no worries, you're welcome here since you're on the 'right side' of the economic issues!" I'm not understanding what hypothetical compromises are being invoked?

That said, would this same principle of no compromises extend to poor and working-class blacks and other people of color, whose needs are often ignored if not directly undermined by their upwardly mobile counterparts? Or are the only compromises that aren't okay those that are dictated by this latter group (or that emerge from somewhere else)? The entire premise of this position seems to be that black folks are basically monolithic and have a universal set of political interests, which is widely articulated and understood. That is a very problematic and wrong-headed assumption, and I've given examples of why many times in here. But maybe I'm misinterpreting Klein's position. On a related note, I don't understand why "identity issues"—whatever that means, because as far as I can tell, it is not a proxy for a political program—need to be dealt with and resolved upfront, but a commitment to an actual political program that would substantively address the issues confronting poor and working-class people does not need to be agreed to upfront. Should we let into the coalition black folks and other people of color that are against democratic socialism?

Likewise, I don't know what "the concerns of white Americans" means, since those concerns depend on myriad factors that certainly can't be reduced to that ascriptive identity. Actually, it is exactly this kind of obfuscating reductionism that I find so incredibly problematic about identity politics.

(I disagree with conflating "worker" as simply another ascriptive identity along the lines of race, gender, etc. but I need to think more about how to fully articulate my thoughts on that before trying to do so.)

I don't disagree with you that working-class white who vote for Trump have and express agency in casting those votes. You interpret the invoking of economic anxiety as an "excuse" for those people, but that's not how I use or interpret it (though maybe others do). To me it is a recognition that for many of those people, their economic struggles within the context of a broadly intensifying inequality are a factor we should recognize in attempting to make sense of their problematic views and behavior. I'm not okay with their perspective or those votes any more than you are, and I want them to change just as much as you do. Now, are all of them going to be swayed by an olive branch with an egalitarian vision of democratic socialism at the end of it? No, of course not. But some will. And if that's our vision anyway, why not offer it up? Again, I don't know of anyone saying "If you're for democratic socialism that excludes black people, you're alright with us!" In fact, it is exactly the opposite. So I don't understand this boogieman of the reactionary whites overtaking the movement for democratic socialism that seems to be the undercurrent throughout much of your post.

In general, working-class whites that vote for the GOP have been (often justifiably) derided in here and in every other corner of society for their adherence to "white identity politics" in which their economic interests are subordinated to their racial identity, the latter of which is misunderstood as a proxy for the former. But the proposed solution to this is to... double-down on identity politics, just a BIPOC-centered version of it? To be clear, I'm not saying that you're arguing this or that your political vision is limited to this, but is this not a reasonable critique of identity politics?

Finally, I'm gonna be honest in saying I don't know why this discourse is so frustrating for you. You go back and forth, often daily, with known trolls about seemingly every trivial thing for years on end, but occasional substantive discourse with people who share very similar values and political visions is unbearable? You feel how you feel, but that is admittedly a head-scratcher for me.

 

[wavycrocket]

van been a clown way before that acting like he is down but always playing both sides of the fence.

Man rocks a new pair of Cartier’s daily. He’s the true definition of a $ellout. Uses his Seemingly good nature, tone and skin tone as a cover too.

All he’s been doing since Nov 2016...is giving comfort to White supremacist and giving Trump surface level, photo opp wins for black support for a $$$. Using celebrities and his blackness/face.

It’s nasty.

 

[elpablo21]

Van angling for a Fox News gig with Juan Williams

 

[marikomorose]

How long before he gets escorted out of the venue if he shows up in air forces?

When he uploaded that pic his stance confused me more b/c he dresses

36% of Americans are Delks?

Eh, only 1,507 took & it was even an uneven number of participates. Not the best focus group organizer.

 

[rexanglorum]

Only if you believe that all other forms of oppression are subordinate to class.

The poll results featured in Klein's article give lie to the notion that a Democratic candidate (including a Democratic Socialist) must cater to the same "economic anxiety" concerns as the Trump campaign, and treat working class White voters with special deference so as not to frighten them into the waiting arms of White nationalist populism.

So why shoot the messenger who heralds good news - especially when (I hope) no one here actually believes that those seeking an end to racism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other forms of oppression should "wait their turn" and stop "dividing" the workers' movement with their "identity politics"?

If the goal is to make Democratic Socialism more inclusive, concentrating on class to the exclusion of other forms of social inequality has the opposite effect - less focusing in than cropping out.

No one, to my knowledge, has specifically demanded that you reject the "all proletarian lives matter" framing - but if you jump down the throat of everyone who does reject it, who or what are you defending?

Criticism of White Socialism is not criticism of "socialism writ large."

The information in the Klein article is indeed good news. Also, his framing about polarization being an indicator of fights for liberation is spot on. My question is what do we do with this information?

The fact that more and more Democratic Party voters are more solidaristic and opposed to white supremacy don’t mean anything currently since they must be mediated through our current two Party system. We have a conservative Party whose leadership prides itself on not listening to its multi racial, mostly working class coalition. We have a reactionary Party which has built an aperatus of permanent minority rule. Both those Parties are heavily influenced by the same pools of concentrated capital.

The way to turn the sentiments of Democratic voters into policy will require confrontations with capital and the State which we have not seen in generations. My worry is that identity politics can sometimes be used to prevent Americas’ multi-racial working class from coming together to use its labor power, its primary source of leverage, to make our system address all forms of oppression.

Put another way, people can be oppressed in a variety of ways but you cannot use organized blackness or queerness as a weapon against the powers that be. Only your status as worker acts as both a source of oppression AND a means of exerting power. When I hear people say that joining a union is a form of entitlement or that Bernie Sanders’ campaign is all about white make rage, it’s hard not to think that those people don’t actually care about any forms of oppression because without left wing politicians AND vast multi racial, multi gendered, multi national labor militancy, marginalized people aren’t getting anything good.

That is my worry and the specter of an anti racism or anti sexism that makes capitalists comfortable is as grave as the specter of social democracy that makes whiteness feel comfortable.

I feel like almost no one acknowledges that it’s at least possible for the language and imagery of social justice to be weaponized against labor and labor militancy. It’s that dynamic that makes me defensive sometimes on here.


But you’re right you and Rusty and most the people I talk to in here, certainly everyone who posts here regularly and says their politics are left or left leaning, is not using social justice as a cover for neoliberal capitalism. I am just a pretty paranoid person and thank you for bearing with me on that.

And of course, leftism, that excludes, not only is a bad goal. It is also just a losing praxis especially in a diverse country where racial hierarchy is so bound up in its history. If a white worker will only get down with you if you deny the humanity of black people or indigenous people, you’re building your movement on a foundation of quicksand. As urgently as we need to build labor movements and build them quickly, movements that accommodate white supremacy aren’t going to save us.

 

[marikomorose]

Man rocks a new pair of Cartier’s daily. He’s the true definition of a $ellout. Uses his Seemingly good nature, tone and skin tone as a cover too.

All he’s been doing since Nov 2016...is giving comfort to White supremacist and giving Trump surface level, photo opp wins for black support for a $$$. Using celebrities and his blackness/face.

It’s nasty.

 

[aepps20]

Man rocks a new pair of Cartier’s daily. He’s the true definition of a $ellout. Uses his Seemingly good nature, tone and skin tone as a cover too.

All he’s been doing since Nov 2016...is giving comfort to White supremacist and giving Trump surface level, photo opp wins for black support for a $$$. Using celebrities and his blackness/face.

It’s nasty.

SCAM LOVES HIM SOME BISCUITS. MMMMMMMMM YUMMMMMMMMMO WITH BASS.

 

[alchemist iq]

Why you mad, you took the picture.

 

[-Red-]

No, what I’m saying is even given all these things, racism will STILL leave Black people in this country worst off than others. And if we aren’t having the conversation that this alone will not result in equality, then you’re still missing a critical component of it. Race neutral ideology doesn’t is not radical and will not benefit Black people to the extent that it will benefit poor whites.

Well, reparations for one. But otherwise addressing the racism in the fabric of every institution. Everyone gets equal education and Black kids will still be penalized more with suspensions, etc. Universal healthcare and Black people will still receive worse treatment, and doctors will assume that we have a higher pain tolerance. Employers will still discriminate against us disproportionately. The list goes on.

And no, I haven’t read that. Feel free to drop a link though.
Edit- I also feel like you’re conflating what I’m saying. It’s not about primarily benefiting Black people, it’s the understanding that these class driven solutions do not specifically account for the racism that Black people have been and will continue to be subject to. It’s not enough at this stage for me to hear that the consequences of racism would be a lot less severe with your policies. I need to hear what leftists are proposing to specifically address the unique history of Black folks.

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.

 

[RustyShackleford]

My thoughts in response.

I don't know what leftists are waxing nostalgic for the 1950s or 1960s, nor any that wouldn't not only acknowledge but highlight quite centrally the brutal injustices faced by black folks (and, to a lesser extent, other non-whites and white women) of that era. If that is happening, then I agree that is obviously extremely problematic.

If Klein is arguing that "to build a true social democracy, there should not be any compromises on the back of minorities," I'm just not clear about what he means by that. I don't know what folks are being asked to compromise? No one is courting problematic white folks saying "If you agree with a jobs guarantee, living wages, and Medicare for All but want to exclude black people from those things, no worries, you're welcome here since you're on the 'right side' of the economic issues!" I'm not understanding what hypothetical compromises are being invoked?

That said, would this same principle of no compromises extend to poor and working-class blacks and other people of color, whose needs are often ignored if not directly undermined by their upwardly mobile counterparts? Or are the only compromises that aren't okay those that are dictated by this latter group (or that emerge from somewhere else)? The entire premise of this position seems to be that black folks are basically monolithic and have a universal set of political interests, which is widely articulated and understood. That is a very problematic and wrong-headed assumption, and I've given examples of why many times in here. But maybe I'm misinterpreting Klein's position. On a related note, I don't understand why "identity issues"—whatever that means, because as far as I can tell, it is not a proxy for a political program—need to be dealt with and resolved upfront, but a commitment to an actual political program that would substantively address the issues confronting poor and working-class people does not need to be agreed to upfront. Should we let into the coalition black folks and other people of color that are against democratic socialism?

Likewise, I don't know what "the concerns of white Americans" means, since those concerns depend on myriad factors that certainly can't be reduced to that ascriptive identity. Actually, it is exactly this kind of obfuscating reductionism that I find so incredibly problematic about identity politics.

(I disagree with conflating "worker" as simply another ascriptive identity along the lines of race, gender, etc. but I need to think more about how to fully articulate my thoughts on that before trying to do so.)

I don't disagree with you that working-class white who vote for Trump have and express agency in casting those votes. You interpret the invoking of economic anxiety as an "excuse" for those people, but that's not how I use or interpret it (though maybe others do). To me it is a recognition that for many of those people, their economic struggles within the context of a broadly intensifying inequality are a factor we should recognize in attempting to make sense of their problematic views and behavior. I'm not okay with their perspective or those votes any more than you are, and I want them to change just as much as you do. Now, are all of them going to be swayed by an olive branch with an egalitarian vision of democratic socialism at the end of it? No, of course not. But some will. And if that's our vision anyway, why not offer it up? Again, I don't know of anyone saying "If you're for democratic socialism that excludes black people, you're alright with us!" In fact, it is exactly the opposite. So I don't understand this boogieman of the reactionary whites overtaking the movement for democratic socialism that seems to be the undercurrent throughout much of your post.

In general, working-class whites that vote for the GOP have been (often justifiably) derided in here and in every other corner of society for their adherence to "white identity politics" in which their economic interests are subordinated to their racial identity, the latter of which is misunderstood as a proxy for the former. But the proposed solution to this is to... double-down on identity politics, just a BIPOC-centered version of it? To be clear, I'm not saying that you're arguing this or that your political vision is limited to this, but is this not a reasonable critique of identity politics?

Finally, I'm gonna be honest in saying I don't know why this discourse is so frustrating for you. You go back and forth, often daily, with known trolls about seemingly every trivial thing for years on end, but occasional substantive discourse with people who share very similar values and political visions is unbearable? You feel how you feel, but that is admittedly a head-scratcher for me.

I am not gonna response to the this post, I already feel I have wandered far enough down the rabbit hole.

But I will say discourse is often frustrating with you at times because the constant having to answer for **** I didn't say. This is not a new complaint from me BTW.

If you want to bring up my post history to say my behavior is head scratching, how you think I feel when I have asked to repeat myself over and over just because I happen to criticize some ****ty socialist? If it not you, it is Rex.

You already said you don't pay attention to parts of leftist media and online discourse by many self identified leftist, so why jump out the window and imply that I am acting bad faith when I call out a group of ****ty people. You can't possible be up to date on every school of liberal thought (which includes a massive amount of progressives), yet you dump what you claim to be the "liberal census" at my feet to address constantly.

I say grappling with class and race together is the best way to coalition build because the two are so intertwined. You then ask me to address people saying we should ignore economic reform and just making appeals on identity lines.

-Read Klein's book. It is quite good. I am probably doing his views a disservice.

 

[KHUFU]

This does not surprise me. I remember when Trump gave the state of the union address, and van jones as a panelist said that this was the night that trump became president.

 

[whywesteppin]

This does not surprise me. I remember when Trump gave the state of the union address, and van jones as a panelist said that this was the night that trump became president.

YUP

The fact that Scam Jones needed that long to realize how GREAT Trump was, that's when I knew, he was probably just another lib.

 

[gry60]

Van angling for a Fox News gig with Juan Williams

This.
Too much money to be had in being Black and slandering Black folks in front of non-Black audiences. Don't bring your conscience to work.

 

[marikomorose]

Why you mad, you took the picture.

So. I've highlighted my support for Trump in here louder than anywhere else on this site. I love me some Trump, even showed proof of my financial support in here.

Your obsession w/ me is weird. Just b/c I kindly rejected your advances doesn't mean u have to try to get everyone to hate me.

 

[aepps20]

So. I've highlighted my support for Trump in here louder anywhere else on this site. I love me some Trump, even showed financial earlier this month.

Your obsession w/ me is weird. Just b/c I kindly rejected your advances doesn't mean u have to try to get everyone to hate me.

PROBABLY THE POST OF THE YEAR.

 

[-Red-]

I am not gonna response to the this post, but I will say discourse is often frustrating with you at times because the constant having to answer for **** I didn't say.

If you want to bring up my post history to say my behavior is head scratching, how you think I feel when I have asked to repeat myself over and over? If it not you, it is Rex.

-Read Klein's book. It is quite good. I am probably doing his views a disservice

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.

 

[marikomorose]

PROBABLY THE POST OF THE YEAR.

 

[marikomorose]

This is all I will say:

-Klein believes that the country needs sweeping economic reform to transform the lives of all citizens, and to save us from climate change. And it is a urgent matter. He believes there is no real racial justice without real economic justice. Dude is left as hell, but he argues that many on the left (and I mean the entire left wing coalition) ignore key roadblocks to social democracy.

He thinks most people have a narrow definition of identity politics, and because they are so dismissive of the role identity plays in politics, their analysis and complaints are short sighted.

Klein argue that people that bemoan polarization, decry identity politics and the polarization is causes, and practices nostalgia politics about the 50-60s are missing a very important piece of the puzzle. That era was made possible because both parties, and white people in general, decided to ignore the civil rights of African American to make that peace work. So a black person that wanted to push for civil rights at the ballot box had no options because both parties (and their white voters) made a tacit agreement about not addressing the political demands of black people was best to keep the peace. This was especially true of the Democratic Party and their attempts to keep an alliance with the clearly racist Dixiecrats. He has politely called out Elizabeth Warren for this (the person he supported for president), Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Centrist, socialist, conservative; he pushes back on people that evoke nostalgia politics and think that somehow the absence of polarization is always optimal.

The proof of this is that when one side decided to break this tacit agreement, it kicked off the new era of polarization party alignment. While some might not like the polarization, it is a good thing that marginalized groups, especially black people, especially black people that care about fighting for civil rights, have a clearer choice at the ballot box as to which party is better option.

So he says that to build a true social democracy, there should not be any compromises on the back of minorities.

So in grappling with racial issues, the Democratic Party and their white voters are better actors than they previously were. Not that they are perfect, not that they are right on everything, not that their policy agenda is not still lacking, but that they are moving in the right direction in an important aspect. That instead of coming up with a message that tries to soothe the fear of white America, and bury racial and social issues in the background like many (leftist, centrist, liberal) suggest, it would be a more honest and truthful system if people can speak more honestly on race and social issues. That it is a good thing if we good away from a system where the concerns of white Americans are always central.

My opinion now:

-To make sure this doesn't happen, asking everyone in your coalition to adopt a worker identity first and foremost (the type of identity politics socialist advocate for), adopt rhetoric that soothes the fears of white americans, and only speaking about universal programs as a way to push discussion about racial justice to the background, and hoping that whites don't try sell out others groups down the road is a dangerous game to play. And it is a strategy that many non-white people have an issue buying into because history tells them that it is more likely the backstab will come, not that it is the white folk will find/maintain some commitment to social justice. Instead you need to address so called identity issues upfront, you need to move the needle on racial and other social views within your coalition and country, you need to buy in upfront on certain issues, and you need to do this firmly and constantly. So that if and when social democracy comes, it is not built with ****ty compromises built in, that it will be harder for some to make those compromises in the future, and marginalized groups can have clear options at the ballot box.

It is not about dismissing the important message of economic reform, it is not about making this the only thing you build a coalition on, it is not about ignoring the problem is our capitalist system, but making it central enough in coalition building that we can build and maintain the most just version of a social democratic country we can. Not hoping that white people after they get their economic needs met will then get on board with targeted programs and stomping out discrimination. White worker prosperity guarantees nothing on that front.

There is a difference between demanding that poor and lower class whites living in economic despair just acknowledge their white privilege, and demanding that their problematic behavior not be coddled and recognized for the destructive force that it is. Recognizing that they are not being tricked by rich capilisitist, but they willingly empower the same crony capitalist that oppress them because they get something of value out of the deal: That their social standing in America remains a class above minorities, even if that means they are in the **** themselves. So stop with the economic anxiety bull**** that robs white Americans of the agency they have over their decisions. Stop with the stramanning of what some black liberals ask of white people. That is not gonna get you those voters, and those people will not just give up on their white identity politics and white supremacy beliefs just because you improve their economic standing.

-So I don't know how me posting the article, that doesn't even present a supportive argument for hollow type of identity politics, is defending a problematic framework.

I don't know how if I have never opened my mouth in the past and said anything that comes close to "forget sweeping economic changes, all that matters is seeing black faces" is defending a problematic framework

I don't know how me saying clearly that people don't consider and alternative interpretation to identity politics that what they usually argue against, is me still defending a problematic framework.

Kinda feels like you are ascribing a problematic framework to any and every liberals. Then asking to them to come prove they don't agree with it, even though they repeating have been consistent with their views in the past.

So what is the point in engaging, because even if I spend my afternoon typing, formating, and editing a post, I will get a "ok cool" in the moment, and then in a few weeks when I post something else about leftist that makes you or Rex's petulant *** with take issue with, and the game repeats.

Is there a deeper definition of "identity politics" than the one I'm seeing on the google? It seems deeper when y'all go back n forth about it. If so could u or any one else explain it to me in short?

Disclaimer:
I am a noob w/ adhd.

Or maybe I understand it better than I think?
Would this be an example:
Black trans lives matter.

I recall specifically seeing those post pop basically in the form of a sub-protest a couple weeks ago. Kinda thought the timing was inappropriate in the sense that it was taking eyes off of the bigger picture. The prokaryotic cell comes 1st & eukaryotic cell come 2nd type of view on it.

 

[Mark Antony]

This.
Too much money to be had in being Black and slandering Black folks in front of non-Black audiences. Don't bring your conscience to work.

Forget where I heard it, but it's a great quote and perpetrators never seem to realize it : "there's no ---- retirement plan."
They get used for the moment and tossed aside.

 

[elpablo21]

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

Levels to this 4D Chess