Welcome To aBlackWeb

The Official World Politics Thread

Ok.. what do you interpret as extreme socialism tho? again... just to be clear im not trying to antagonize.. im honestly trying to understand
Anything anti market (tho im for regulations). Big overbearing government that may eventually lead to total suppression of political dissent. Authoritarianism etc
 
This the shit im talkin about getting hung up on fuckin term usage of all things lol

It’s not just “term usage”.

It is weaponzing mainstream language to neutralize any activism towards obtaining equal rights for marginalized groups.

It is subtle and extremely potent.

Convince the average American that Black Lives Matter is just a form of “Identity Politics”, then you devalue an entire movement in the mind of that Average American.

You, in effect, garner the public opinion and support necessary the justify the systemized slaughter of unarmed, innocent specific types of people by the very law enforcement agencies constitutionally obligated to protect them... all with the simple “usage” of a “term”.
 
Anything anti market (tho im for regulations). Big overbearing government that may eventually lead to total suppression of political dissent. Authoritarianism etc

What do you mean by anti-market?... seeing as how most countries markets for meds and a lot of other things cost substantially less than in the US?
 
Im all for activism. Im not for some of the practices by extremists on either side.

There’s always gonna be a counter balance when one side goes too far.

But the point I was making is if you can gain control of how the conversation is framed you can control everything else too.
 
It’s not just “term usage”.

It is weaponzing mainstream language to neutralize any activism towards obtaining equal rights for marginalized groups.

It is subtle and extremely potent.

Convince the average American that Black Lives Matter is just a form of “Identity Politics”, then you devalue an entire movement in the mind of that Average American.

You, in effect, garner the public opinion and support necessary the justify the systemized slaughter of unarmed, innocent specific types of people by the very law enforcement agencies constitutionally obligated to protect them... all with the simple “usage” of a “term”.
Im for black lives matter and activism.

Simply using the term 'identity politics', which has been used by some of yalls top 2 pick including mine, Bernie, is turning this convo somewhere unnecessary
 
There’s always gonna be a counter balance when one side goes too far.

But the point I was making is if you can gain control of how the conversation is framed you can control everything else too.
All i did was say leftist and identity politics i didnt think it was that deep but thanks for clarifying
 
Pretty sure i heard bernie sanders use the term 'identity politics' u giving him that same energy?
source.gif



If used in the same fashion yeah.. I'm pretty sure he did rail against identity politics so did Pete but that's neither here nor there given what I described as identity politics being apart of the birth of the nation
 
Im for black lives matter and activism.

Simply using the term 'identity politics', which has been used by some of yalls top 2 pick including mine, Bernie, is turning this convo somewhere unnecessary

Bernie is not above criticism.

He’s a 70+ white guy. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is out of touch with modern political strategies of the right; even if theyse strategies have insidious roots in our country and even if it is in the course of Bernie being well intentioned.

But if he spoke against “Identity politics”, IMO he was wrong.

Doesn’t take away from everything else he is right about.
 
View attachment 165417



If used in the same fashion yeah.. I'm pretty sure he did rail against identity politics so did Pete but that's neither here nor there given what I described as identity politics being apart of the birth of the nation
Bernie is not above criticism.

He’s a 70+ white guy. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is out of touch with modern political strategies of the right; even it is in the course of being well intentioned.

But if he spoke against “Identity politics”, IMO he was wrong.

Doesn’t take away from everything else he is right about.
Screenshot_20190903-203443_Samsung Internet.jpg
Screenshot_20190903-203505_Samsung Internet.jpg

Do u guys take issue with this?
 
Yes Bernie Sanders is uncomfortable as fuck about race i remember this statement.. its foolish and shows ignorance. it glosses over the facts i laid out that there was only one identity that was allowed in politics
 
Yes Bernie Sanders is uncomfortable as fuck about race i remember this statement.. its foolish and shows ignorance. it glosses over the facts i laid out that there was only one identity that was allowed in politics
Whats foolish/ignorant about saying dont vote for someone JUST BC they are [insert demographic here] without looking at their qualifications/policies?
 
Whats foolish/ignorant about saying dont vote for someone JUST BC they are [insert demographic here] without looking at their qualifications/policies?

There is nothing wrong with the first few paragraphs.

The problem IMO, is that he conflates “identity politics” with something most reasonable people object to (voting for someone without substance) with the widespread connotation that the right wing has co-opted the term to mean - “being against any activism for the benefit of an oppressed group”.

He, thereby, perpetuates the right wing propaganda campaign to suppress such important groups from making progress towards equal rights.

He got conned into using their own talking point to make his argument. Conservatives are masters at dominating the narrative and framing the conversation.

Btw ... most progressives don’t vote for a candidate simply based on their identity. We vote based on issues. So in a sense it was a straw man argument to begin with.

The massive irony is that there is a party that, underneath the surface, votes almost primarily based on their identity... And that identity has traditionally been that of the oppressor, not the oppressed.

So their desire isn’t to secure equal treatment or additional rights ... it is to maintain supremacy.
 
There is nothing wrong with the first few paragraphs.

The problem IMO, is that he conflates “identity politics” with something most reasonable people object to (voting for someone without substance) with the widespread connotation that the right wing has co-opted the term to mean - “being against any activism for the benefit of an oppressed group”.

He, thereby, perpetuates the right wing propaganda campaign to suppress such important groups from making progress towards equal rights.

He got conned into using their own talking point to make his argument. Conservatives are masters at dominating the narrative and framing the conversation.
He never said 'screw identity politics' he said move beyond it. I guess maybe thats open to interpretation.

Btw ... most progressives don’t vote for a candidate simply based on their identity. We vote based on issues. So in a sense it was a straw man argument to begin with.
During the hillary run ive heard/read many ppl saying "its time we get a woman in office" n when she lost say "they dont wanna see a woman in office"

I dont know to what extent they voted for her but judging by those quotes it sounded pretty empty.

And again, when i talk about these things im referring to extreme viewpoints on this side of the fence, we can act like it only happens on one side but that does more harm than good.
 
Back
Top