OK VG. So, as you use the term “identity politics”, the identities of “employer” and “worker” are excluded. You have no personal problems with the ultra wealthy, using their various governments, dividing people up using these distinct identities.
How about this example…
Religious groups, doctor’s organizations, ethicists and abortion rights advocates are raising concerns around the review of an Ontario policy that outlines, among other things, physicians’ right to object to patients’ requests for services on moral grounds.
What about the identity of being a Catholic, the identity of being a doctor, the identity of being a patient, and the identity of being an abortion rights advocate? As you use the term “identity politics”, do these count… or are they exempt too like the identities of “employer” and “worker”?
Poker players may recognize Elwood from his work on tells.
I never said that. I see no discernible problem with employer/employee relationships. I see HUGE problems with a system that allows people/corporations to accumulate more wealth than hundreds of thousands of people/competitors combined
ITT I’m using the term identity politics to unearth the strategy of pitting Black people against White people (even Nazis against non-Nazis) to solve the problem of cops killing unarmed citizens. I’m not as sure skin tone plays as big of a role as some seem to
Edit: Btw, I’m done answering your questions. This isn’t a therapy session and you’re not my professor
OK.
However, I’m not trying to do to therapy or teach you. Scroll back. My premise was simply that you couldn’t make a coherent explanation of what your statement even means, and would throw in the towel before answering 20 questions about it.
Surely Matusow
I know lol reddit video links, but something amazing here happens. A group of proud boys attack a lone BLM protester…
And…
Cops actually tackle and arrest the proud boys, as one proud boy says " we’re on your side! " and one strikes to punch a cop.
https://twitter.com/MrOlmos/status/1303118534059335680
https://twitter.com/MrOlmos/status/1303123576086700032
This is the propaganda I bought for years. This is not how the majority of wealth is created.
What do you mean by majority of wealth? I know this isn’t how Bezos, Gates, or the Walton family created their obscene wealth. I’m referring to your average entrepreneur. If they are smart enough, courageous enough, and willing to put in long hours, don’t you think they deserve to make more than their employees? They should never make 100x what their employees do, however. That’s just greed imo
I also believe in responsibility. Those willing to forego non-essential items to live within their means (those means should always accessible to reasonable standard of living pay) should have more money (or financial stability) than those who can’t do without the next toy or piece of clothing they come across
So in many ways I guess I’m a fiscal conservative. I just don’t believe in the Reagan era concept of wresting control away from government and giving it all to corporations. I do think government should play a role in many areas
From what I read they posted bail and one was charged with assault. But that’s just randoms on reddit.
I’m more than willing to answer questions for the sake of dialogue. I’ve outlined my views pretty plainly. If you disagree them, then have at it. But your line of questioning isn’t going anywhere
Now do the Walton kids.
The other aspects of this are that Gates, Bezos and Walton all got nice loans and support from their upper middle-class parents or in-laws to start out. That initial seed money is gigantic. Someone who starts out with absolutely nothing has a much tougher road. I’m not saying it’s impossible - but the thumb is on the scale for that person the whole way. They may have to work for 10-20 years to save up the seed money Gates, Bezos and Walton got from parents.
And to head off your likely reply - yes, to some degree this is how it has to be. Family support is always going to be huge. You can’t guarantee 100% equal opportunity for everyone. But you can do things like UHC, higher min-wage, subsidized education - which make a ton of sense to give those kids who start out with zero a better shot.
There’s so much insidious stuff that poor people face every day that middle class people have no idea of. $90 parking tickets for street cleaning in LA. That’s like a month’s disposable income for some of them. Those predatory bank over-draft fees that Obama finally put an end to. When you do get some money you have to bail your brother out of jail. Etc.
They posted bail while they were sitting there chit-chatting, and released a half hour later? That must be nice.
Maybe the @Narrator can let us know if the BLM protesters get that option.
Saying “people who save money instead of spending it should have more money than people who spend their money on things” isn’t fiscally conservative. It’s not even really a belief, it’s just how money works.
Also basically nobody on the left thinks that someone who manages or owns a business shouldn’t make more money than the person they employ. Or, if they do, that kind of thing is way way way way way down on the list of issues to tackle.
It kind of seems like you’re ascribing a bunch of really extreme, but also really dumb, beliefs to the “economic left” so that you can say that you’re not like that. And I’m not really sure what your point is.
You seemingly want to point out that you have beef with the left but can’t provide any specific examples of that beef. In my experience that’s usually because you don’t think your actual beef is defensible.
Be careful. I made the highly controversial post here that it’s not smart to tweet “suck my dick and balls, I just got hired at NASA” and got a bunch of responses like “Why is it dumb?”
Have you considered I might agree with you… if I understood what you mean. Here is your original statement:
This is of this form:
A is doing B (with C obliging them) which will lead to D.
Where…
A= the elite
B= identity politics
C= the left
D= ending democracy as we know it in the US.
There problem here is that A,B &C are vague buzzwords with no particular agreed upon meanings. As I mentioned, lot’s of folks are going to think of ‘The Illuminati’ when they hear “elite”. The term ‘identity politics’ is a purely propagandic term which in practice means whatever the speaker doesn’t like. As I mentioned, the term “the left” is so incredibly vacuous that I feel nobody should use it non-ironically.
So… if you had meant A=“The Illuminati”, B=anti-abortion Catholic identity, and C=anti-capitalists" we’d get…
The Illuminati’s conquer and divide strategy purporting anti-abortion Catholic identity politics (with the anti-capitalists obliging) will be the ultimate ruination of democracy
I’d dismiss as a conspiracy theory. However if we have A=ultra wealthy, B=Blue Lives Matter cop identity politics, and C= K.Harris fans, we’d have…
The ultra wealthy’s conquer and divide strategy purporting Blue Lives Matter cop identity politics (with K.Harris fans obliging) will be the ultimate ruination of democracy
I would agree with you.
I’m not sure how much any of them started out with, but the more important point is, that ALL of them profited immensely due to a rigged system and fucked others along the way
I’ll try to bring this back slightly to the topic of this thread. The BLM movement to me, means that Black lives matter when it comes to society and opportunities and not just when it comes to cops killing them (cops kill white people too). I think it’s great when everyone comes together and protests whenever a cop kills a Black person, but the focus also needs to be on equal quality when it comes to education and schools, equal access to healthy foods, and equal access to job and wage opportunities, etc. I read somewhere that for every Black family that is with x, there’s a white family worth 17x. That type of disparity is immoral and needs to be brought to parity
I’ll also add that whatever Gates and Walton started out with is nothing compared to what their children and their children’s children will start out with. I’m very much against generational wealth that leads to oligarchy. If someone is hugely successful, I’m all for them being able to take care of their kids to a point. Leave them a few mil or whatever. But under our corrupt system, being worth $200B just insures that their family will be part of the ruling class that continues to skewer laws and regulations in their favor for generations. I’m in favor of a huge inheritance tax that takes most of that wealth away. Just because grandpa Walton or Gates was successful doesn’t mean their great-great grandkid who did nothing to earn that money should also rule over the rest of us
Yeah, I have nothing to disagree with here. In the same vein, I’m sick of the fuss that is made whenever one of these tycoons donate $200k to some cause when it would be like me donating $25 bucks. Big fucking deal