General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 602

I'd respond but I'm sure someone would just throw something I said while mentally and physically ill in this thread back in my face so I'll just leave it alone

 

PS: Here's Bonnie's website:

My elevator pitch for libertarianism is that I want the government out of your church, your bedroom, your wallet, Wall Street’s pocket, and the Middle East

I came across it a few years back when I was reading up on libertarianism and have remembered the name and how annoyed I got reading so many of the posts.

(Not to derail or attack the source, but I didn't expect to see that name come up in the specific conversation.)

 

Well, I wouldn't take the time to go back and do that, but understood.

Just saying, you can recognize that Obama and the Dems of late 2000s/eraly 2010s were way too active in the Middle East, and still less active than Republicans would want them to be/are planning on being themselves.

 

I think if you gotta follow up your point with a little explanation in parenthesis like that it really doesn't belong in the plus column.

 

She does, however, make the same argument David is making ... that Trump's doing more even though Obama did a lot:

No, this is a not a story of Obama’s pacifism and Trump’s power. It is a story of presidents past entangling the United States in costly, risky interventions with no endgame or defined strategy—and of Trump so far deciding to do the same thing, but more.

 

Not really, it was specifically to prevent people from jumping to the "NOT UH OBAMA WAS ACTIVE" arguments that don't actually address what I was saying there...but obviously did not work and we're still pretending I said Obama wasn't actively engaged in the Middle East.

 

Because the entirety of the article and author does make the argument of "less" involvement, it's just that "less" is still a whole fucking shit load.

(I mean, I care about the author cause it shapes where the narrative is coming from. Many libertarians want zero involvement outside of the US, specifically the ME. As stated by the author.)

 

Exactly...and to be fair, a LOT of the people who say "obama didn't really do anything" in the middle east...are right wingers.

So yeah my money is on those right wingers being in power ends up = more involvement in the Middle East.

 

without reading through all of it... I wish every bit of the snarkiness would disappear in this thread. What is even the point?

 

The point isn't a look at less vs. more? That seemed to be the central point.

 

To sophos' point, could you really blame a black person for getting snarky with someone who insists that systemic racism or police violence isn't really an issue or isn't that big of an issue or is more the black person's fault or etc? Or lighting or any other MENA minority for getting snarky with someone who talks like everyone in the Middle East is Muslim, or like Christians in the Middle East aren't persecuted, or etc? I mean, you can only calmly explain or talk about something so much before it starts to get exasperating.

Snark is definitely understandable in a lot of situations.

 

What, recognizing that racism still exists, but putting responsibility on an oppressed group? That has literally been the playbook since the end of the Civil War.

Well, no, my original point was that anti-blackness is endemic to the system in which we live and it pervades all aspects of it, to which you responded, "Haha. Jason is going to laugh, because you're saying they're all the same again." So, then I reiterated my point and said that democrats/liberals need to be about structural change, which you said was me talking about communism, when, in reality, I was referring to democrats abandoning policies/institutions that actively harm black people and perpetuate systemic racism, e.g., acting as apologists for finance capital. So, yes, while I do believe that these antagonisms will persist until capitalism is eradicated, in this particular case, I was referring to radical reforms. As to my refusal to support anyone who will make things better, I have on a multitude of occasions expressed support for Corbyn and even Ben Jealous, as well as other people within the electoral setting that are genuinely interested in a structural adjustment against the rich and the elites in favor of marginalized and oppressed groups. But, that is beside the point, which is that you refuse to recognize the continued complicity of the democrats in systemic racism and perpetuating the problems that persist in the black community, whether through policy or the enunciation of narratives that still hold currency in this country. It is as though we've reverted back to the early 2000's, where the dominant narrative is racism as a bunch of bad ideas, rather than something that permeates every brick of every institution, such that, even when it is not explicit, it remains a point of articulation in policy. Sounds about white.

 

Being un-snarky. Hmm. Wonder what that version of Jason would look like. Hugh Jackman?

That's like wiping 34 years of me away, gonna guess that's not in the cards at this point.

 

basically i think responding to snark with snark wont lead anywhere. and doing so to people apart of minority groups affected by these issues makes it even worse. whether you think its justified or not, i got a PM from someone, who is a minority, saying your post made them uncomfortable. i say i wasnt gonna respond because i used to do the same. respond to snark with snark. since coming back ive tried not to be so hostile and so aggressive but your post really rubbed me the wrong way so i said something about it. anyway, carry on, ive got some music to try and sell before my shitty ass job tonight

 

I think people that belong to minority groups should have the biggest platform to speak their minds and experience and we should all listen and learn from it. Idk where that fits in the convo bc I didn't get to read almost any of it yet.

Related: There's been some people doing drive bys in here.

 

yeah thats what i was getting at with that part of it. see david we do understand each other sometimes!

 

this is true and i definitely dont like that

 

No, recognizing systemic racism and instituional racism and even implicit bias are not only problems, but big problems. It literally took us 50+ years from the Civil Rights Era to get a President to actively talk about how racism isn't just the individual hatred of a particular race, but a systemic issue and one that invades people's subconscious. Psychologists and sociologists have been talking about this for years before Obama talked about it as President. Hell, Hillary Clinton actually said the words "implicit bias" in a debate IIRC....this is not something that was going to be acknowledged as a problem at all when we were kids.

The party just had it's furthest left platform in decades and came somewhat close to electing a democratic socialist as it's candidate, and you don't think they can be coerced into "radical change" from the inside, and htat people should just stop voting for them and that will make them see the light despite historic trends that show that the opposite would be more likely to happen?

 

I saw this going around yesterday. What is even happening anymore ...? It feel like we're stuck in some weird ass Twilight Zone episode now.

 

Lmao

 

In case you thought there was a sliver of a chance he was going to change course today...

Trump latest: Live updates on the Paris decision - CNNPolitics.com