General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 279

lol Le Pen vapes

 

Jason, we need a "__ Days/Pages Since Leftists vs [Neo]liberals: Whose Fault Is It Debate" banner for this thread please

 

cool. feel like it should be really natural for you to hear the most marginalized voices of speaking up and saying "this doesn't work for us" then instead of telling them they're unreasonable purists

 

Man you guys are fucking annoying

 

Don't you call us fucking annoying, only we are allowed to say that!

 

I say: if it comes down to it, "vote against the fascist" ... and you hear this. That about sums it up.

 

i say, "listen to the most marginalized voices," and you respond with how they don't understand you properly. really don't know how to distill down the disconnect further.

 

Marginalized voices aren't automatically correct about political choices and strategy. You can listen to marginalized voices and still understand why a vote needs to be cast

 

It'll be one of those that starts to turn to "1" and just immediately flicks back to zero.

 

Fuck this is bad

 

I didn't even respond with that ... what's with just making shit up? Where did I ever say they "don't understand me properly"?

And, furthermore, to respond to your just made up statement, ... how is "yeah I think voting against the fascist anyway is the move" ... not listening? It's literally the opposite of not listening. I'm done responding to you just arguing against some statement you wish people said. It's a waste of my time.

 

Marginally .... or really bad though?

 

Wait hold on, can Trump actually pull us out of the Paris agreement just like that? I thought I read that we had to stay in until a certain time or something. Of course, just because we are in it doesn't mean Trump will actually follow it

 

haha ok. just reflect on how white, cishet, and male this thread has become. it is much better when a liberal, instead of a conservative, tells a person of color their expression of their experiences is fundamentally inaccurate.

 

Nah I'm pretty sure it was mostly just an non-binding agreement.

It's part of why Obama just doing things unilaterally wasn't always good, because the next admin could just roll it back. Or use it to do really bad things. I.e. Obama directed the justice department to not defend DOMA in court, which was great...but then someone like Trump gets into office, what does he tell the Justice Departmentto not defend? Etc

 

there's an escape route we can take by exiting a broader UN climate framework, but it's pretty iffy

 

It's much better when a leftist instead of a tea partier understands that concluding that withholding a vote will end up being worse for a marginalized group is not the same thing as saying that their "expression of their experiences is fundamentally inaccurate".

 

nah i'm reflecting on when two poc told you you were erasing their communities in favor of a simplistic view of Trump voters and you said "lol you're wrong"

 

They were wrong. Or, more accurately, they were purposely misrepresenting what I was saying after I had pretty clearly explained what wasn't a very difficult idea to understand, IMO.

We can add you as person #3 doing the same thing now.

 

It's a question that must be addressed democratically by a state working towards the returning of displaced Palestinians to their homes. It's not that they would be deported, which decolonial theory does not generally advocate, but that the settler nature of the state be removed. So a state which is democratic and egalitarian must be established. But the question cannot really begin to be answered until there is at least an acknowledgement of the goal for Palestinians to return to their homes. Can you imagine a mass housing building project? The adaptation of policies used to address overpopulation in other areas? Where are the wonks?

And, to be clear, a two-state "solution" could well be viable in the short term if you define "solution" with a short term purview, but that's not how I think of it. An egalitarian Palestinian state alongside the Israeli state could well be a step toward the establishment of a unified egalitarian state. But in discourse its important to make clear that the end goal is one egalitarian, anti-zionist state. All anticolonial discourse is inherently very theoretical and abstract, because, to take another example, the establishment of an egalitarian anti-colonial state in North America is an extremely long term goal, too. But propagating the end goal as such is extremely important as it works to push the boundaries of what is considered even possible, and by which short- and mid-term actions will be informed. Idk how helpful that is. There are no concrete answers in any aspect of this or from any perspective except that which advocates the continuation of the brutal apartheid status quo.

 

So, instead of responding to why do you make shit up, you make more stuff up? Just, I dunno. Weird.

Let's start with that posters with the most posts in this thread are from non-white, or not male, or not cishet posters. (Looking at the people with the most posts in this thread.) That demo makes up the vast majority of the posts in this thread cause the top posters post a lot, and that's just me going by what I know of the top posters, I'm not really into asking people to share parts of their personal life they may not want to. But the top 3 posters in the thread post something like ~80% of the posts. Dom, Laura, me ... last I checked, were by far the top posters in here. I think David and iCarly are next.

Second, didn't we just realize yesterday this whole "liberal" label was pretty much nonsense? And, lastly where did anyone tell anyone else "their expression of their experiences is fundamentally inaccurate"?

 

insert jennifer lawrence ok gif and call it a night

 

This was what I read: Could Trump Simply Withdraw U.S. from Paris Climate Agreement?

 

dude just give it up. we're not gonna agree on this.