Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ep1c_fail
You're living in denial: the abject degeneration of liberalism is what precipitated Trump's election in the first place. It takes years of political erosion before an electorate will reach to a character like Trump for solutions. This didn't just start in 2016 and it isn't going to end in 2020. At the same time that middle America is suffering the effects of the financial crisis, the liberal elite is busy indulging in the poisonous, divisive and alienating politics of identity, entertaining Utopian fantasies and shouting empty slogans. While you're busy making excuses, Trump is preparing to be re-elected.
Btw, there's quite evidence of that.
Now, given that the range in those charts is 1980-2018, we might want to look more closely.
Eg:
So in 2015, upper class White liberals in the media/academia/tech go full on intersectionality for some reason. It becomes their religion. There's a good chance it costs them the election and they blamed the shortcoming of their religion on Russia.
Nonetheless, if Katsumoto and Vanoi think it's fine as the Democratic core ideology, they can go for it.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
All those juvenile insults and yet the only thing that's actually retarded is your inability to use spoilers.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
edit: :wub: it, let's tone it down for now
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Katsumoto
Your earlier comment isn't comparable. I disagreed with your overall explanation of the causes of Trump's election, since you asserted that the 'degeneration' of liberalism and Democrats' identity politics were solely to blame.
At no point did I say that the Democrats' identitarianism was "solely to blame" for Trump's election. My claim was that Trump's election was a consequence of the degeneration of Western liberalism - a degeneration which has been characterized, at least in part, by the liberal elite's self indulgent preoccupation with identity politics, sloganeering and utopianism at the expense of ordinary citizens still suffering the ill effects of the financial crisis. As I mentioned in your thread about conservatism, the decadence of our ruling class is reaching heights which we haven't witnessed in the West since 1914.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Basil II the B.S
Btw, there's quite evidence of that.
Now, given that the range in those charts is 1980-2018, we might want to look more closely.
Eg:
So in 2015, upper class White liberals in the media/academia/tech go full on intersectionality for some reason. It becomes their religion. There's a good chance it costs them the election and they blamed the shortcoming of their religion on Russia.
Nonetheless, if Katsumoto and Vanoi think it's fine as the Democratic core ideology, they can go for it.
What is the source of the information you cite here?
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Looks like somebody noticed:
Donald Trump’s race-baiting strategy to secure second term
https://www.ft.com/content/ab24c5bc-...e-3cdf3174eb89
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ep1c_fail
What is the source of the information you cite here?
Zach Goldberg
https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1133440945201061888
and David Rozado
https://twitter.com/DavidRozado
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Basil II the B.S
Uh?
https://i.imgur.com/3Opl0iv.png
If you don't like the term ''Neo-Marxist'' and prefer plain Marxist, fine by me. Makes no difference. Given that Marxism was more concerned with class discourse while intersectionality uses the same matrix of oppression with focus on the intersections of race, gender and sexuality, I call it Neo-Marxist.
I'm not really interested in the triviality of the name anyway. My point doesn't change. Do you want your party to run with a Marxist framework? Great!
Marxist femenist critical theory has nothing to do with intersectionality. Its a complete seperate concept.
Now i ask again. What is controversial about studying the effects political and social discrimination on gender?
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vanoi
Marxist femenist critical theory has nothing to do with intersectionality. Its a complete seperate concept.
It's from the intersectionality page.
Really dude? You just claimed that something that intersectionals claim to be their framework has nothing to do with it. Amazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vanoi
Now i ask again. What is controversial about studying the effects political and social discrimination on gender?
Already replied to that in post 399.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Katsumoto
I'm not sure why this is a challenging idea for you to grasp but the reason 'our future is white and male' doesn't quite have the same ring to it is because 99.99% of the past is white and male, which is why some folks might want to advocate for a female president. Not quite the same as calling for the genocide of white men.
Because what's between president's legs isn't as important as his/her policies, at least to sane people that understand that inherent aspects of one's identity, such as race or gender do not reflect on the individual choices, hence why a white male can be great president, while a black female could be a bad one, or visa versa. Which is why "our future is female" is a dumb slogan made by dumb people for even dumber people.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Basil II the B.S
It's from the intersectionality page.
Really dude? You just claimed that something that intersectionals claim to be their framework has nothing to do with it. Amazing.
Did you read the article? Crenshaw didn't develop her theory from Marxist feminist critical theory.It mentions Marxist theory because Du Bois was one of the first to try and theorize that class, race, and nation might explain aspects of the black economy.
The rest of that paragraph on Marxist feminist theory comes from Patricia Hill Collins who does advocate Marxist feminist theory. She developed her theory after Crenshaw had already published her theory on intersectionality.
It took mere minutes to read this and figure out not only do you not read sources, you have a fear of feminism. Not surprised though. You tried to blame incels on feminism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Basil II the B.S
Already replied to that in post 399.
I'm not Kats, you can elaborate. Already read it though and nothing in intersectionality says to justify discrimination against the oppressor.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
So you didn't read the links until now? Not surprised but that alone means the discussion is over. If you ignore evidence that proves you wrong and that's what liberalism is about today, then there's no further reason to discuss.
Other exercises of intellectual dishonesty, and that's the rest of your post deserve even less attention. Your party's Marxist agenda is going to get thrashed at the ballot and you screaming ''it's not Marxist, it's not Marxist! It's not against men, straight people or white people!'' won't help your case. The 3 Ds of liberalism, denial, derail and defame deserve only relentless bashing.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Basil II the B.S
So you didn't read the links until now? Not surprised but that alone means the discussion is over. If you ignore evidence that proves you wrong and that's what liberalism is about today, then there's no further reason to discuss.
This is hilarious. You haven't read it at all. Do facts get in the way of your bias? Intersectionality is not Marxist.
Crenshaw can't base Intersectionality off Marxist Femenist theory because Marxist Femenist theory came after with Patricia Collins as it openly states in my source.
Quote:
Other exercises of intellectual dishonesty, and that's the rest of your post deserve even less attention. Your party's Marxist agenda is going to get thrashed at the ballot and you screaming ''it's not Marxist, it's not Marxist! It's not against men, straight people or white people!'' won't help your case. The 3 Ds of liberalism, denial, derail and defame deserve only relentless bashing.
Dishonest? You haven't read my source once. You just found a section on Marxist theory that doesn't actually have anything to do with intersectionality and was developed after Intersectionality had been published.
I still think you just fear femenism. You did try to blame incels on it.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
No dude, you are not reading.
You brought up Kimberle Crenshaw right? Who is she?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimber...liams_Crenshaw
Founder of intersectionality and leading scholar of.... critical race theory, which is her background and main area of expertise.
What is critical race theory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
Critical theory applied to race, gender and power.
What is critical theory?
Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurth school: Adorno, Marcuse etc. The guys that Nazis are obsessed about.
Are all the passages clear enough? Are you seriously going to claim that intersectionality, created by a critical race theorist, has nothing to do with Marxism? This is the last attempt, after which I'm leaving the conversation because it's beyond the thresold of intellectual integrity. I think one of the most astounding elements of discussing with you guys is how little you know of your own side ideology.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Basil II the B.S
No dude, you are not reading.
You brought up
Kimberle Crenshaw right? Who is she?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimber...liams_Crenshaw
Founder of
intersectionality and leading scholar of.... critical race theory, which is her background and main area of expertise.
What is
critical race theory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
Critical theory applied to race, gender and power.
What is
critical theory?
Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurth school: Adorno, Marcuse etc. The guys that Nazis are obsessed about.
You are so bad at this. It took minutes to figure this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
Quote:
In sociology and political philosophy, the term "Critical Theory" describes the Western Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. This use of the term requires proper noun capitalization, whereas "a critical theory" or "a critical social theory" may have similar elements of thought, but not stress its intellectual lineage specifically to the Frankfurt School. Frankfurt School critical theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud.
Quote:
The term "critical theory" is often appropriated when an author works within sociological terms, yet attacks the social or human sciences (thus attempting to remain "outside" those frames of inquiry). Michel Foucault is one of these authors.[17]
Jean Baudrillard has also been described as a critical theorist to the extent that he was an unconventional and critical sociologist;[18] this appropriation is similarly casual, holding little or no relation to the Frankfurt School.[19] Jürgen Habermas of The Frankfurt School is one of the key critics of postmodernism.[20]
Critical theory is focused on language, symbolism, communication, and social construction. Critical theory has been applied within the social sciences as a critique of social construction and postmodern society. [21]
Critical Theory doesn't have to be Marxist or based in the Marxist thought as this source shows. Its rather clear you are ignorant when it actually comes to this term and its history and usage. Not surprised, you have a fear of femenism.
Quote:
Are all the passages clear enough? Are you seriously going to claim that intersectionality, created by a critical race theorist, has nothing to do with Marxism? This is the last attempt, after which I'm leaving the conversation because it's beyond the thresold of intellectual integrity. I think one of the most astounding elements of discussing with you guys is how little you know of your own side ideology.
The only clear thing is right now is you talk out of you ass a lot.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Heathen Hammer
Because what's between president's legs isn't as important as his/her policies, at least to sane people that understand that inherent aspects of one's identity, such as race or gender do not reflect on the individual choices, hence why a white male can be great president, while a black female could be a bad one, or visa versa. Which is why "our future is female" is a dumb slogan made by dumb people for even dumber people.
Identity makes all sorts of differences when it comes to motivating a person towards certain issues. Women candidates, in terms of probability, are going to be more adept when it comes to understanding the female condition within society and they will be more likely to push issues that are disproportionately overlooked by men. Women, as categorized scientifically within the human species, are shown to have a higher probability to demonstrate empathy for people of their fellow species (which I am drawing off memory from Frans de Waal) and demonstrate certain distinct traits at a higher probability than men. Typical women just approach policies differently due to a different biological makeup compared to the typical man (based off most definitions that are utilized). Maybe you don't like some of the tendencies that women tend to gravitate towards when governing, but you surely can't say it doesn't matter.
In addition to a distinct female approach to governance, voting in women candidates would encourage better women candidates to come out. We shouldn't drop all our standards for competence when it comes to electing people into positions, but we have to open the door for quality female candidates to get in the first place. McDermott's book ,Masculinity, Femininity, and American Political Behavior (mostly chapter 6), demonstrates the psychological hoops females have to overcome (such as overcoming traditional gender roles, or demonstrating the right blend of masculine and feminine traits), and how we are shorthanding ourselves when it comes to quality candidates (due to all the obstacles they have to overcome). Rather than restrict ourselves to a small segment of the population, it wouldn't be unwise to try to overcome our psychological biases to widen the pool we draw from. We'll have a more candidates to choose from, and they will be motivated to tackle a wider array of issues.
Anyways, to the comment "our future is female", "or intersectional", do you really think it's about entirely displacing white males? I'm not saying that there is no human being that wants that, but most are aware of the power politics game that they are playing. You can hold the moral high ground by fighting inequalities and oppressive social schemas when you are the victim of them, but pushing too far (meaning you become the opressor) will destroy any popular support going forward. It's not a viable strategy for making a full takeover, and it is only effective for making marginal gains in power to get closer to what people deem as appropriate. Let's remember that if they make no power plays, they would simply be relegating themselves to social disadvantages with no hope of change.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vanoi
You are so bad at this. It took minutes to figure this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
Critical Theory doesn't have to be Marxist or based in the Marxist thought as this source shows. Its rather clear you are ignorant when it actually comes to this term and its history and usage. Not surprised, you have a fear of femenism.
The only clear thing is right now is you talk out of you ass a lot.
Rofl, you didn't even know what intersectionality is, nor critical race theory, nor critical theory before I even mentioned them. Now your line of defense is ''it doesn't have to be Marxist''. That's bs.
You have abudantly demonstrated ignorance about the ideology of your own party, which you try to deflect with ''you fear my Feminazis that want to destroy your society with Marxist feminsm''.
Of course you support empty slogans like ''the future is female''. They don't require you to think, because if you had to think you had to educate yourself on what the party actually wants.
This is exactly why Trump is a necessity. He exposed the dark side of liberals: the Neo-Marxist infection that filthy vermins like AOC and your academia is using to infiltrate the nation's institutions and destroy it from within. The one thing he has to do is to simply say: ''Liberals hate capitalism, liberals hate freedoms, liberals hate our Constitution, liberals hate white people, liberals hate the family and they want to destroy all of this, they are trying to turn America into a Soviet dystopia and patriots need to rally to stop this''.
Then the ball is in your side's court. Let the Communist Antifa ''punch Nazis''. The one great enemy of America is communism and that's your party's goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
♔The Black Knight♔
Anyways, to the comment "our future is female", "or intersectional", do you really think it's about entirely displacing white males? I'm not saying that there is no human being that wants that, but most are aware of the power politics game that they are playing. You can hold the moral high ground by fighting inequalities and oppressive social schemas when you are the victim of them, but pushing too far (meaning you become the opressor) will destroy any popular support going forward. It's not a viable strategy for making a full takeover, and it is only effective for making marginal gains in power to get closer to what people deem as appropriate. Let's remember that if they make no power plays, they would simply be relegating themselves to social disadvantages with no hope of change.
A quick look at liberal media, the main channel of this, is pretty self-explanatory.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Basil II the B.S
Then the ball is in your side's court. Let the Communist Antifa ''punch Nazis''. The one great enemy of America is communism and that's your party's goal.
What exactly is the great horror of "punching Nazis"?
Quote:
A quick look at liberal media, the main channel of this, is pretty self-explanatory.
So is this Wikipedia article.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sukiyama
What exactly is the great horror of "punching Nazis"?
It kinda makes you out to be the Nazi.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sukiyama
What exactly is the great horror of "punching Nazis"?
So is this Wikipedia
article.
According to Nazi punchers, anyone who disagrees with the woke agenda is a Nazi, starting with leftwingers like Tim Pool or Eric Weinstein. That makes roughly 91-92% of Americans ''Nazi''. It's going to be the liberals against the people.
Also, Trump is back with more hammering on the 4 Horsewomen of the Apocalypse. Again, terrific move. This is the path forward towards re-election. Force the Democratic party to rally behind them. The primaries have been an another amazing showing, so a combination like Kamala Harris+the 4 idiots will basically bring the US on the verge of war.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...men-apocalypse
The campaign will be all about intersectionality: 4 women of colour that want to turn American to socialism and open borders, against the white working class. He can legitimately make a rally cry and turn Dems into an existential threat for both the Constitution and white people. Perfect.
Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Big War Bird
It kinda makes you out to be the Nazi.
How so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Basil II the B.S
According to Nazi punchers, anyone who disagrees with the woke agenda is a Nazi, starting with leftwingers like Tim Pool or Eric Weinstein. That makes roughly 91-92% of Americans ''Nazi''. It's going to be the liberals against the people.
Punching Nazis doesn't mean you will punch everyone who disagrees with you. Similarly, while I don't particularly follow Antifa and their activities, they tend to clash with far-right protesters, not "Americans" who go about their day-to-day business.
Quote:
Also, Trump is back with more hammering on the 4 Horsewomen of the Apocalypse. Again, terrific move. This is the path forward towards re-election. Force the Democratic party to rally behind them. The primaries have been an another amazing showing, so a combination like Kamala Harris+the 4 idiots will basically bring the US on the verge of war.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...men-apocalypse
The campaign will be all about intersectionality: 4 women of colour that want to turn American to socialism and open borders, against the white working class. He can legitimately make a rally cry and turn Dems into an existential threat for both the Constitution and white people. Perfect.
I don't recall any of these women of color campaigning for exclusion of white working-class Americans. Quite the opposite. They seem to support policies that would benefit people of all color. Of course you could spin minimum wages raises as an attempt to destroy the working class, but you could do that with anything. It'd be more useful if you could find something explicit or closer to the source to support your assertions rather than speculations.