***Official Political Discussion Thread***

TooOlfForThisIsh

Supporter
183
415
Joined Sep 28, 2020
I'm glad Sister Eileen isn't around to see this.
I know there's supposedly all kinds of translation and theological justification for changing the elements of the mass 13 years ago.

But in my heart of hearts, I will always believe it was about catching out people like me who only show up for weddings and funerals. It took me at least 5 years before I wasn't the one saying "and also with you" like I'm trying to bring back "fresh" or "word".

Getting that icy stare from mom...
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
47,910
125,659
Joined Jul 20, 2009

This one is the best :lol:
use accusations of racism as a cudgel against the material interests of the minorities you purport to represent. :lol: rexanglorum rexanglorum
Not interested in arguing, but might be good for people to actually know what she said, why she said it, in context.

HENDERSON, Nev. — Hillary Clinton took her "single issue" critique of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) even further Saturday, telling an audience in the Las Vegas suburbs that she was "the only candidate who’ll take on every barrier to progress." In a call-and-response, new to her stump speech, Clinton rattled off social and political problems, and her audience loudly confirmed that they couldn't be solved simply by reforming the financial sector.

Democrats backing Clinton say she must sharpen her pitch to compete with Sanders

"Not everything is about an economic theory, right?" Clinton asked her audience of a few hundred activists, most of them wearing T-shirts from the unions that had promoted the rally. "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will, if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?"

"No!" shouted her audience.

"Would that end sexism?"


"No!"

"Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community?"

"No!"

"Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?"

"No!"

"Would that solve our problem with voting rights, and Republicans who are trying to strip them away from people of color, the elderly, and the young?"

"No!"

"Would that give us a real shot at ensuring our political system works better because we get rid of gerrymandering and redistricting and all of these gimmicks Republicans use to give themselves safe seats, so they can undo the progress we have made?"


"No!"

Clinton in debate: 'I'm not a single-issue candidate'

The entire rally was crafted to push the "single issue" attack on Sanders, a sort of attempt to rewind the clock, and define the surging progressive candidate less as an idealist with bold solutions and more as a naif who isn't familiar enough with the causes of the rising left.
My girlfriend was a big Bernie supporter at the time. This is one of the few things I have ever heard her defend Hillary about.

Clinton speech was not about pushing back against providing material gains for minorities, she was saying that alone is not sufficient. She was attacking Bernie for not directly addressing civil rights policies.
 
Last edited:

RustyShackleford

Supporter
47,910
125,659
Joined Jul 20, 2009


For conservatives, "Critical Race Theory" is a buzzword to dismiss any discussion about racism, racial justice, and diversity

It serves the same purpose as "socialism" does in economic discussion

Just like I know most conservatives never read Marx and have no idea what socialism is, I am certain they have never read a CRT textbook.
 
Last edited:

RustyShackleford

Supporter
47,910
125,659
Joined Jul 20, 2009
Mail-in voting is actually one of the ways the GOP stole Florida in 2000, and in turn the entire election

GOP operatives were allowed to correct voters errors dealing with the ballots coming from Republican strongholds, while Democrats were denied that privilege

Also, in the days after the election absentee ballots were counted from parts of the state that were Republican strongholds, but went against state election laws. The same didn't happen for Gore.

So when looking all the ****ery that went on in Florida: the Supreme Court basically handing Bush the presidency, Jeb Bush purging voter rolls in areas with high black populations, the people running the election working for Bush as well, and the fact Gore actually got more votes; mail is voting has been very good for the GOP in Florida.

It already helped when stealing probably the most consequential election of our lifetime.
 
Last edited:
5,567
12,657
Joined Jun 28, 2004
As I said: Elite manners for fancy white people. :lol:
No doubt, but I try my best to tell comrades, especially comrades who are white, cismale, and younger/new to socialism that there have been and will be bad faith attempts by capitalists and imperialist to use woke language in a bad faith manner.

In fact, as capital and its politicians and institutions respond to heightening economic and ecological crises with more and more barbarism against workers, capital will present itself as more and more piously woke.

While most PoC will see right through all of that, woke capitalist messaging has the effect of keeping white liberals from becoming leftists and tricking some white leftists into thinking that the ever worsening conditions of the working class are caused by wokeness, thus turning them into NazBols.

So as best I can, I try to get out in front of that messaging and implore my comrades to ignore all this rainbow washing and to appreciate the fact that genuinely intersectional politics are critical for organizing workers into a United front against capital.




This one is the best :lol:
use accusations of racism as a cudgel against the material interests of the minorities you purport to represent. :lol: rexanglorum rexanglorum
I appreciate Rusty for providing more context about that statement and yet, it’s still incredibly cynical and galling on Clinton’s part. If Angela Davis or Barbara Lee were running in that primary and offered a similar economic program as Bernie and had real credibility on race and gender justice, I’d take their critique seriously and heck I’d have supported them over Bernie.

But when you’re so cozy with banks and you’ve spent the last 30 years of your life socializing with bankers and financiers, it’s hard not to see Hillary Clinton’s statements more so as a cynical defense of concentrated wealth rather than advocacy for intersectional politics.

In the last few years socialism has gone mainstream as well as wokeness (anti racist, anti ableist, anti patriarchal concepts and language). We have had and can expect to have a whole cacophony of powerful people and institutions playing the former off against the latter and amid all of that noise, I support anyone who does a good job of harmonizing the two.
 
Last edited:

TooOlfForThisIsh

Supporter
183
415
Joined Sep 28, 2020
I know it’s fun to hate on “capital”, but from my experience, a good 60 to 70 percent of the people who work on Wall Street tend to be sincerely focused on minimizing bias against women, PoC’s, and people identifying as non-cishet. These days neurodiversity gets attention as well.

I think it’s pretty clear from the evolving concept of “whiteness” that you can marginalize prejudice against various groups while still promoting the economic status quo. In the 80’s and 90’s, trading floors had very good representation from Italian and Jewish people from New Jersey and Long Island that wouldn’t have gotten their feet in the door of a white shoe firm a half-century before. And you can say the same thing now with women and Asians. Obviously, there’s still work to be done with women, African Americans, and US-born Latin Americans -especially in senior management roles, but I do think that Wall Street is doing a better job than, say, Silicon Valley or academia at both recruiting and discouraging workplace hostility. So if your goal is to provide a bit of financial security for yourself and your family and not to capture the means of production, Wall Street tends to be a pretty good place to do that.

You can dismiss the efforts as cynical ploys by the ”cabal of international bankers” to disrupt organized labor or even as insincere manners affected by the elite. But I think a far simpler explanation is that people who are educated in the supposed hotbeds of liberal elitism do tend to be exposed to (non-ecomnomic) diversity and generally shed themselves of ignorance rooted in stereotypes. Also, good help is hard to find and managers look out very closely for unhappy, high-performing people. Bias is a somewhat expensive indulgence.
 
5,567
12,657
Joined Jun 28, 2004
I know it’s fun to hate on “capital”, but from my experience, a good 60 to 70 percent of the people who work on Wall Street tend to be sincerely focused on minimizing bias against women, PoC’s, and people identifying as non-cishet. These days neurodiversity gets attention as well.

I think it’s pretty clear from the evolving concept of “whiteness” that you can marginalize prejudice against various groups while still promoting the economic status quo. In the 80’s and 90’s, trading floors had very good representation from Italian and Jewish people from New Jersey and Long Island that wouldn’t have gotten their feet in the door of a white shoe firm a half-century before. And you can say the same thing now with women and Asians. Obviously, there’s still work to be done with women, African Americans, and US-born Latin Americans -especially in senior management roles, but I do think that Wall Street is doing a better job than, say, Silicon Valley or academia at both recruiting and discouraging workplace hostility. So if your goal is to provide a bit of financial security for yourself and your family and not to capture the means of production, Wall Street tends to be a pretty good place to do that.

You can dismiss the efforts as cynical ploys by the ”cabal of international bankers” to disrupt organized labor or even as insincere manners affected by the elite. But I think a far simpler explanation is that people who are educated in the supposed hotbeds of liberal elitism do tend to be exposed to (non-ecomnomic) diversity and generally shed themselves of ignorance rooted in stereotypes. Also, good help is hard to find and managers look out very closely for unhappy, high-performing people. Bias is a somewhat expensive indulgence.
First let me clarify, I don’t really begrudge people trying to secure a decent life for themselves through employment with an employer that does bad things. The exception is if you run for office because ostensibly, you’re representing a State or district that in most cases is made up mostly of people who are not prosecutors,, finance guys and corporate lawyers and yet our politicians are disproportionately drawn from those groups. But other than that, if you’re just trying to make a decent living, you don’t deserve scorn. Systems deserve scorn.

While some managers of capital are more open to diversity, it cannot change the fact that we are on a glide path to living in a country where 80% of Americans will be poor or right on the verge of poverty and won’t ever own a home or be out of debt or able to retire or even take a sick day or have a predictable schedule. And while the cohort, who do get to enjoy economic security and some autonomy at work, is becoming a bit more diverse, it really doesn’t matter that much compared to the suffering of the much bigger and much more diverse bottom 80%. IMO, you can measure social prospect by the conditions of the people at the bottom than the people near the top. Until all the big grocery chains and retailers let their associates sit down while working a cash register, I’m not especially impressed that Goldman gives its white collar workers paid mental health days.

Now since you are obliquely accusing me of anti Semitic tropes, I have to address it. As you probably know, capital is borderless, it dictates working people’s lives, it tells ostensibly sovereign nations what do to, and steals the fruits of people’s labor. It is no coincidence that the rich Catholics and rich Protestants, who screwed over poor Catholics and Protestants, assigned all of the bad traits of capitalism onto an ethnic and religious minority. When I say capital I mean capital.

Ultimately though, I agreed that there are a lot of people among the PMC and bourgeoisie, who care about social justice, and some of them are trying to do what they can in their company and in their departments to make their workplace more inclusive and that’s better than trying to maintain an all white boys’ club but it’s a drop in the ocean of injustice. And not only that, history has shown that as soon as either material conditions worsen and there’s less to go around or when faced which serious challenges from the working class, the liberal bourgeois and professional class turn reactionary in a hurry. I don’t say this in a finger pointing manner, I say this in a looking in the mirror manner since I’m not from the working class and don’t know how I’ll react when climate crisis intensifies or even of/when workers rightfully become a revolutionary force.

I suppose this is a round about way of saying that I’m not super impressed by people with money and/or power being nice, its the absolute least we can do. It’s the system that needs to be focused on and the key to having a genuinely equitable system is one where capital is out if the picture or at least is radically constrained.
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now