Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

Well, I would disagree with just about every single contention you make in that post. But perhaps it is indeed a failure on my part to communicate more clearly. I guess I've become somewhat pessimistic about this conversation continuing productively. I feel like I've said what I had to say as clearly as I can say it. I wish you well though.

xp not that they are wrong to do that, but still, there is something weird about those folks who congratulate themselves about being less ignorant than people with fewer educational opportunities. The paradigm of this hard bigotry of high expectations held in bad faith is Borat -- Cambridge educated millionaire traverses America to "expose" the ignorance of hicks.

You don't know people who make a show of "cutting off" their uneducated relatives due to political differences?

Nope. Nobody making a show of it. ime, when it's done, it's usually done very gradually and very quietly. Even sadly.

And as I recall, the formulation I was asked to accept was: "people who say "fuck you uncle Frank you racist!" and hate him and the people they grew up with for not spouting intersectional jargon get a cookie."

That formulation was not only loaded with prejudicial characterizations, it proposed that this hatred was purposely and materially rewarded. In my reality, employers do not give two shits whether you hate your Uncle Frank, or if you exchange K-Bar knives at Christmas. They don't ask and they don't care. I have no fucking idea who is giving people "cookies" for hating their relatives.

Perhaps it's ill-advised to re-engage, but do you always wander around in such a heavy layer of protective obtusity?

"Fuck you uncle Frank" came directly from the Tombot post you doddering old twat.

I think Aimless's point still stands. You need to show that people who reject their WWC relatives are being rewarded for it.

I've become somewhat pessimistic about this conversation continuing productively.

In order to continue productively, it would have to have been productive at some point. It never was.

You may be surprised to know I spent nearly a decade mired deeply in a series of internet forums that were largely inhabited by your type. I already see replicated in you some the weasel habits I saw often in the worst inhabitants of those forums. Incidentally, the worst were never the ones who were honest and straightforward about their opinions, but rather the ones who used rhetoric skillfully, but dishonestly. Trying to pin them down on their dishonesty and evasiveness was impossible. I learned finally that it was a fool's errand and stopped trying.

"Fuck you uncle Frank" came directly from the Tombot post you doddering old twat.

It wasn't the key piece of what you said. I took the part about getting a cookie for hating people for not spouting intersectional garbage was more your point. But I appreciate the thought.

You are an obtuse imbecile, and watching other people try and engage with you seriously makes me sad. There is no requirement whatsoever for anyone to continue to associate and empathize with hateful people whether they are related or used to work together or are the same color or whatever. This is patently obvious. There is no special category for white grievance that elevates it above anybody else's. That is also obvious. You are a troll; how that fact continues to elude people is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A troll, certainly. An imbecile? I'm tempted to say he's a younger, more sophomoric, Dollar Store version of our friend Charlie Krauthammer. But that might be too much of a compliment.

Dollar Store Charlie Krauthammer, imbecile, Raccoon Tanuki sock - life's too short

Krauthammer is an imbecile, trust me.

There is no requirement whatsoever for anyone to continue to associate and empathize with hateful people whether they are related or used to work together or are the same color or whatever.

there is, like... snobbishness against hicks though. at the very expensive, very mediocre college i attended people thought it was a fun game to remark on the "shady" townies, their missing teeth, sometimes their schizophrenic outbursts outside the 7/11. i think sometimes this snobbishness comes in a liberal flavor and has to do with the political beliefs of people who mainline right wing media all day long.

like, this media is pandering to the worst instincts of people who are down and out... ressentiment. but i wish they weren't so down and out. i blame society in general for creating the conditions where tons of people live in poverty or near poverty, whether they live in rural america or urban america. maybe peacock is saying something different, but as someone who has always run with a pretty liberal, very privileged crowd i am wary of liberal self-satisfaction when it comes to how we relate to any demographic we think of as alien

this media = right wing media, obviously. p.s. how much do i have to drink to forget all about american politics for good?

Who even bothers to produce media for the white working class, outside of, say, Breitbart? The New York Times for example discusses these people as if they are a foreign population subject to anthropological study, trying to come up with explanations for why they do what they do (such as vote Trump). Why would these people in turn, read the New York Times and view it as an institution that represents them when their articles and opinion columns are written from a point of view of condescension if not outright disdain? Even in sports media, it is very difficult to find "takes" that cater to the sensibility of these people. My point is not that their views are right substantively, but I find it bizarre that they aren't represented at all!

But yeah, that "white people" are doing it to themselves is the most plausible explanation, but I do enjoy conspiracy theories.

― Peacock, Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:42 AM (one hour ago)

garg, fucked up & lost my response :(

no loss, i'm sure

"Fuck you uncle Frank" came directly from the Tombot post you doddering old twat.

OK, so this is outing himself as RT too - i.e., someone who has had no contact with the White Working Class in his entire (short) life. What is this White Striving Class garbage?

yeah, and i'm just baffled by the suggestion that the american news media, as a whole, fails to speak for & the concerns of the white middle/working class. as far as i can tell, that's the implied audience of like 90% of it. demographic analysis will always feel somewhat condescending to those under the magnifying glass, but the NYT speaks from an equally lofty vantage when discussing black voters, the working poor, immigrants, and even urban white liberals.

outing himself as RT too

Yeah. He posted one word as "orientalmammal" after creating his new Peacock sock, but it was a feeble ruse. His extreme youth is pretty easy to read in his adopting at least four very different 'voices' or writing styles in his small batch of posts as Peacock, as if he has no idea how to just write his thoughts, probably because they aren't thoughts so much as regurgitations of flotsam and jetsam which haven't been sorted into any kind of personal shape.

regardless of his intentions i think the other people in this thread are overcorrecting. this country is extremely classist. minorities who find themselves on lower economic rungs fare the worst -- they are stereotyped as criminals -- but similar things happen with white people with rough manners or whatever. the numbers showed that wealthy white people voted for trump in similar numbers to working class white people and still frank rich says it is the "hillbilly" we shouldn't have sympathy for.

Trying and failing to hide the fact that he's British, which is so obvious to me that it's somewhat disappointing that other people haven't picked up on it.

His knowledge of the British WWC is non-existent so how much do you think he knows about the US WWC?

People blame the WWC because Trump won by getting larger WWC turnout, especially in the Midwest. It's wrong, true, but it's just as wrong when people claim that more WWC would be the only way forward for the Dems.

treesh, you seem caught in the meshes of the traditional liberal dilemma, similar to when you see a bully who terrorizes smaller kids on the playground, but simultaneously know that his dad is a drunk who beats him with a belt every night. It is hard to reconcile the fact that the bully is blameless for the beatings he receives, but if that explains his bullying, it does not excuse it.

The working class harbors plenty of racism of varying degrees, as well as some of the most charitable people you can find anywhere. Both are the products of their upbringing, their experiences and their education (or miseducation). These factors were mostly imposed on them, not chosen. But even if this explains some degree of racism among them, it gives no grounds for condoning or excusing it. You can't side with the bully against the terrorized kids. You can do it without feeling a smug moral ascendance, though. As the saying goes, there, but for the grace of god, go I.

it's just as wrong when people claim that more WWC would be the only way forward for the Dems.

this is the only way to defeat white nationalism. you need to get people to your side before they go to the other side. this doesn't mean pandering to their racism, it means appealing to the better angels of their nature, and not talking about them in generalizations.

how many of you are gay

I mean, this thread has gone on long enough

"His knowledge of the British WWC is non-existent"

He has probably frequently been to a Weatherspoons wherever he "studied", so he will definitely be an expert on the working classes.

Trying and failing to hide the fact that he's British, which is so obvious to me that it's somewhat disappointing that other people haven't picked up on it.

I assumed orientmammal was British or Canadian when he spelled it "favour" but figured Peacock was British when he started talking about "striving classes" and saying "twat".

As orientmammal he posted a few troll statements on UK political topics. You could tell he was a troll then because he went immediately from pretending to be meek on a Trump thread to barfing total nonsense on the scottish independence thread in, like, a matter of hours

where's the clusterfuck thread when i need it? can't make heads or tails of this stuff. a raccoon did what now? #dollarstorekrauthammer

Trump won by getting larger WWC turnout, especially in the Midwest.

In Wisconsin, the only Midwestern state I know well, this isn't true at all. He got a higher proportion of WWC votes, but their turnout wasn't that high, and Trump won because turnout among non-whites was low. Trump got fewer votes in Wisconsin than Mitt Romney did.

I've got a bike. You can ride it if you like
It's got a basket, a bell that rings and
Things to make it look good
I'd give it to you if I could, but I borrowed it

You're the kind of girl that fits in with my world
I'll give you anything, ev'rything if you want things

I've got a cloak. It's a bit of a joke
There's a tear up the front. It's red and black
I've had it for months
If you think it could look good, then I guess it should

You're the kind of girl that fits in with my world
I'll give you anything, ev'rything if you want things

I know a mouse, and he hasn't got a house
I don't know why. I call him Gerald
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse

You're the kind of girl that fits in with my world
I'll give you anything, ev'rything if you want things

I've got a clan of gingerbread men
Here a man, there a man, lots of gingerbread men
Take a couple if you wish. They're on the dish

You're the kind of girl that fits in with my world
I'll give you anything, ev'rything if you want things

I know a room full of musical tunes
Some rhyme, some ching. Most of them are clockwork
Let's go into the other room and make them work

this is the only way to defeat white nationalism. you need to get people to your side before they go to the other side. this doesn't mean pandering to their racism, it means appealing to the better angels of their nature, and not talking about them in generalizations.

― blame society (Treeship), 26. marts 2017 03:20 (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is completely baseless assumptions.

Just a couple of problems: 1) No matter what the Dems could have promised, the GOP could always promise that + racism, meaning they always had a better deal. 2) Unless the Dems control every part of government, there are limits to what they can deliver. Promising above these limits could lead to more resentment and Trump-like populism.

The Stronger Together idea, flawed as it was, tried to undermine ethnocentrism by showing it simply wasn't strong enough to defeat coalition-building. With the way demographics are going, that will be true one day soon. And that, rather than any change in outreach, will be the end of Trumpism.

1) is a pretty flawed argument, I think - there's tons of stuff that would benefit working class voters that republicans can't promise, or won't promise at any rate.

I'm sure you're correct about the demographics in the long term but there was a pretty strong narrative that this was already the case and so Trump could never win, and yet...

1) No matter what the Dems could have promised, the GOP could always promise that + racism, meaning they always had a better deal. 2) Unless the Dems control every part of govern

This is so cynical. Fascists aren't born, they're made; people make a choice to buy into the politics of backlash. Maybe it's too much for a politician to make someone let go of their biases, but they can make a strong case that their opponent -- if like Trump they are trying to weaponize these biases, following a long Republican tradition -- is conning them. Hillary lost because 1.) she didn't adequately inspire her base and 2.) she didn't even try to convince people considering Trump that her policy platform would be better for them. She said "America is already great," something only white professionals could believe.

She even said she was writing some voters off because they were "deplorable." If you think this way it's a self fulfilling prophecy -- they will only ever listen to the right wing, and they will get even more steeped in reactionary ideology, and their politics will get even more toxic over time, which is what has happened in America over the past few decades of increased polarization.

Bernie would've won you guys

Yup. But he wouldn't have been able to get through any policies bettering life for the WWC. There wasn't a single thing in Hillary Clinton's policy platform that she wouldn't have been able to deliver, mostly because there was next to nothing in her policy platform.

That's because the essential problem in America is the radical, intransigent Republican Party. Their propaganda promotes divisiveness and false explanations for inequality while their policies ensure that practically nothing constructive can be done domestically. It seems like an easy story to tell the working class, white and otherwise, to secure more of their votes.

Bernie would've won and been worse than trump

Boom

Balls.

I have no idea who Peacock is, but it's not me.

Bernie. If you want an idea of how "democratic" socialism goes, take a look at Venezuela today, once prosperous recently, now in ruins and food lines.

Norway, Sweden, England, Denmark -- they're on fire!

Not sure what's worse, watching y'all engage with the proliferating tanuki socks, or watching y'all fall back down the rabbit hole of 2016 election theorizing and alternate-universing.

lol at calling some of the most market driven capitalistic market driven countries in the world like the ones you mentioned socialist

this thread is about the proliferation of bullshit (or semi-bullshit) free speech arguments. please to jettison the rest.

hmmmmmm sounds like CENSORSHIP to me

orietmammal's world will start to dim when he realizes that market socialism lives.

The countries you mentioned have a mixed economy, which is different from market socialism