Do you actually think HRC was better on LGBTQ issues than Sanders?
ChrisV is saying that Rogan’s fans aren’t all die hard only Trumpers. They can be talked into supporting Sanders and his policies! Instead you’d rather die on the hill of letting Trump have that demo to appease the Neera’s of the world! It’s insane!
Ok, despite ChrisV getting hit with a zillion hearts (mine too!) I don’t think he fully addressed your concerns so maybe I can help.
It’s not that they take on oversized importance as a whole, it’s that they’re redefined (co-opted?), consciously or not, to have the relatively unimportant facets be the emblematic characteristics.
I’ve been saying this shit for years (yeah shower me with the hearts motherfuckers) and that culminated in this, if I do say so myself, succinct post:
Yeah, racial slurs are bad. I punched my first nazi when I was 14 because it asked me why I had all these pictures of n----rs in my wallet. I get it! I even just self-censored the literal word in relaying that story where saying the word is unambiguously meant to be understood as a bad thing, which is kind of a weird practice and further illustrates my point!
See, it’s not that not saying the bad words is unimportant, it’s that it’s the bare minimum and these people, the neeratandists, want and dare I say need the bare minimum, or a capitalist, neoliberalist, Hire More Women Guards solution, to be good enough. That’s part of what Hokie alluded to with ‘the moral high ground’. Doing the bare minimum whilst actively fighting against material solutions that might impact your wealth isn’t the moral high ground!
Like, physical and mental healthcare is really, really, really important for trans people. The poor kid transitioning needs that sweet ass m4a, not for a neertandist to get performatively mad if some deplorable calls them a ladyboy. (whynotboth dot gif obv but my daddy didn’t raise no starry eyed optimist)
I could go on. I’ve got dozens:
“Hello minority person, how’s it going?”
“Not great man, not great.”
“Aw, I’m sorry. Well, I believe it’s important to Listen To minorities and be A Good Ally so if you need an ear, I’m here.”
“What I need is for you to ally me up some sick ass m4a so I can finally see the doct-”
“SORRY I CAN’T HEAR YOU I’M GOING THROUGH A TUNNEL YOU’RE BREAKING UP”
p.s. I mean, I really didn’t want to be right about this one but 2016 was merely a prelude, because,
they definitely and not-so-secretly want something.
p.p.s.
deplorable: I hate n----rs!
neeratandist: Um, I think you mean “I hate African-Americans!” Do better.
Wild tangent: I’ve never been a fan of the anti-“liberal” rhetoric that the left are big on again. Obv I get what they mean in spirit, but it feels like they’re channeling the Russian Revolution when “liberal” just meant “not a big fan of czarism” and not anything left. American Liberalism is supposed to be significantly left, in that it recognizes social justice requires economic justice. That’s a big deal. M4A support should be a no-brainer. Somehow I think there’s more fertile ground pointing this out as opposed to saying “liberals suck” when you mean “moderate centrists and center-right conservatives who love capitalism and neoliberal economics suck”.
A more succinct version of the toxic bernie bros vs eDem civility champions argument. Look out, it’s hyperbole!
Ok, I’m getting postpostmodern by quoting my own postscript, but, uh,
I believe they’re sincere, truly, but,
When white terrorists bomb a black church and kill five black children, that is an act of individual racism, widely deplored by most segments of the society. But when in that same city – Birmingham, Alabama – five hundred black babies die each year because of the lack of power, food, shelter and medical facilities, and thousands more are destroyed and maimed physically, emotionally and intellectually because of conditions of poverty and discrimination in the black community, that is a function of institutional racism. When a black family moves into a home in a white neighborhood and is stoned, burned or routed out, they are victims of an overt act of individual racism which most people will condemn. But it is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents. The society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it.
-Stokely Carmichael
Ironically, I’ve always thought that’s less antagonistic than MLK’s articulation of the same concept.
Supposedly “liberal” means something different in the US than it does in Europe. Turns out it doesn’t so much. The real difference is we say “conservative” where they say “fascist”.
I don’t get what you’re trying to say in the first paragraph, my point is that in the pantheon of people who “deserve civility”, Hillary Clinton easily deserves less than Rogan. More broadly, political coalition building always involves determining which sins are unforgivable and which we turn a blind eye to; the current liberal orthodoxy on this is that there are a set of sociocultural issues on which one has to say the right thing, something designed to orient the coalition around educated elites who know enough to know what opinions they are supposed to express, like this fucking guy, for Christ’s sake:
https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1221135646107955200
Meanwhile anything which might require any degree of personal or national sacrifice (healthcare, foreign policy, inequality etc) people are allowed to be infinitely flexible on and it’s fine. This is quite obviously a system set up to maintain a policy status quo and you are a mark if you buy in to it. The liberal pretence that they don’t turn a blind eye to any sins is being exposed very nicely at the moment by the candidacy of Mike Bloomberg. My preferred leftist coalition admits Rogan, despite his sins, and excludes Bloomberg. If you pretend you want a coalition where you’re not ignoring any sins, you’re being completely disingenuous. You can’t win an election in a two-party system doing that.
I looked up his problematic stuff w.r.t. trans people, it was him saying trans women shouldn’t play women’s sport and a couple off color jokes, as far as I’m aware that’s it. I don’t care at all that he has Jordan Peterson on etc.
This, but also my larger point is that he is like “it’s people like Rogan who stoke the fires of hate which get trans people killed” and libs are like “thumbs up” but if you say to one of them “yeah um you supported the Iraq War, you’re a fucking murderer” they will whine about uncivil Bernie Bros, even though the latter is much closer to literally true than the point about Rogan.
By the way, I’m very happy for people to tell Rogan that he’s an asshole for the trans policy stuff they disagree with, but there’s a big difference between that and telling everyone they have to disavow him. That’s also why I don’t care that he has Jordan Peterson on etc, because I only do guilt by association if they have actual fucking Nazis on or something and even then, hasn’t Richard Spencer appeared on CNN? Demanding that people not associate with anyone who has ever said anything not totally in keeping with liberal orthodoxy is a suicidal way to build a political coalition. That doesn’t mean you can’t argue with them. The current Democratic position instead appears to be that there are a set of people you can’t associate with, and the ones you do associate with, you’re not allowed to argue with, which is entirely backwards.
Gotta say the fact you don’t even live here and are crushing this thread so hard is pretty impressive.
Yeah you guys are en fuego. Sincere thank you, I don’t have the ability to organize and express my thoughts like that.
10 degrees to the left of center in good times, 10 degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally.
Phil Ochs (love me I’m a liberal)
Not just because he’s jealous of the likes, I’ll say props to 6ix. I like a nice short brilliant line that says a lot and
Is brilliant
Interesting the way the coalitions are set up slightly differently here, the conservative Liberal/National Coalition basically have rich people plus the culturally right-wing, so that’s similar to the GOP, but then Labor still have the working class even though they’re largely neoliberal, and then the Greens have the culturally-left educated set, so everyone on this forum, basically. The Greens are environmentalists, of course, but also they’re the party heavily into LGBT rights and the whole set of SJW issues, if I can put it like that. I’m a Greens member and am basically in despair about the possibility of getting the party to orient itself more towards working-class needs (rather than burying itself more heavily in its pet issues) which is the only way to challenge Labor and establish a genuinely leftist major party. The Greens and Labor are forced into an artificial coalition via the mechanics of instant-runoff voting, rather than via actual political coalition, and Labor still very much wear the pants in the relationship.
While instant-runoff voting is in general good, Bernie presents a unique opportunity to reunify the Left around working-class concerns, one that it’s hard to imagine happening here. You can imagine the difficulty of running as a new “Bernie Party”, like for example you really need the black vote who are extremely accustomed to going Democrat every election and would be reluctant to abandon the party to vote for some rando white guy, but are totally prepared to consider him when running under the D banner.
Yes, but also, CNN is AIDS? They hired Jeffrey Lord, FFS, they shouldn’t be the standard.
One of the key problems with people like Rogan is that he doesn’t argue with them. It’s one thing if you’re going to invite Bari Weiss onto your show so you can dunk on her, it’s another thing to let these clowns on and give them a platform and not push back in any meaningful way.
shrug when you pal around with Nazis, people are gonna judge you by that. Not sure what the problem is.
The point is nobody raises an eyebrow if a candidate goes on CNN, and if CNN gave endorsements nobody would care if a candidate amplified that endorsement. Even though, as you said, CNN by pretty much any metric is worse than Joe Rogan Podcast or whatever it’s called. Like, Rogan invites bad people on his show and gives them minimal pushback. CNN does the same thing, but much more often and they give their shitty guests a paycheck when they’re done.
^^ Nor is CNN the end of the issue, for example, Clinton “pals around with” Kissinger, an actual war criminal. If I demanded that everyone in the Democratic Party denounce Hillary Clinton, the party would disintegrate. It’s a completely unworkable standard that exists only to be applied unequally and disingenuously to attack people the party establishment don’t like. If your reaction to demands that Sanders not amplify Rogan’s endorsement is anything but contempt, you’re incredibly naive. For fuck’s sake, Neera Tanden has been on Bill Maher’s show, he has more or less the same record on trans issues as Rogan does and has himself been on Rogan’s show.
CNN is way more selective about guests. Henry Kissinger? Scoop. Noam Chomsky? Who dis? New phone.
No one on the planet thinks this. It’s like the recent argument along the lines of “quit calling Bloomberg a war monger if you care about kids in cages”. Bad faith.
I enjoy reading the posts (although I still can’t get used to the layout), but I do find it amusing how things have changed since the old 2p2 days of 2019.
