White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
This applies to most people. You don't have to be white and male to have a set of priorities that do not match those of others.
I would like to think that being progressive and socialist (as he defines it) would first start with doing whatever provides the most good for the greatest number of people. For example fixing healthcare could well help unfuck Planned Parenthood and provide greater access to healthcare and bodily autonomy for everyone, women included. It's impossible to stay "on message" for every issue that each individual may have at the top of their list without someone being offended that their special cause isn't everyone's special cause.
His goals or positions are very broadly aligned with many that I hold. As are Clintons, in fact. The difference for me as a voter right now is that I think Bernie is a true believer. He's like a Ralph Nader with better timing.
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
This applies to most people. You don't have to be white and male to have a set of priorities that do not match those of others.
Oh I fully agree. It's just that white males tend almost universally to be the majority of those with their hands on the levers of power wether the arts, science, media, politics, and so their agenda always gets priority.
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
This applies to most people. You don't have to be white and male to have a set of priorities that do not match those of others.
I would like to think that being progressive and socialist (as he defines it) would first start with doing whatever provides the most good for the greatest number of people. For example fixing healthcare could well help unfuck Planned Parenthood and provide greater access to healthcare and bodily autonomy for everyone, women included. It's impossible to stay "on message" for every issue that each individual may have at the top of their list without someone being offended that their special cause isn't everyone's special cause.
His goals or positions are very broadly aligned with many that I hold. As are Clintons, in fact. The difference for me as a voter right now is that I think Bernie is a true believer. He's like a Ralph Nader with better timing.
It is a good start, but it shouldn't be this hard for a modern progressive to get with the program. We're not asking for the impossible here. If nothing else, he has an election to win. He should know more than anyone else in this thread how to appeal to as broad a coalition as possible to win and a chance against Hillary. Going down with a whimper isn't going to do his causes any good or make progressive politics relevant as much as it should be.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Do you disagree with the basic premise of my comment which is that the white male agenda usually takes priority?
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
The most common of these is the whole "All these issues are actually all about class in the end, so let's focus on that. Sexism and racism will get solved when we fix that." thing. Which is why people get a bit wary of people who they perceive as pushing class issues to the exclusion of other societal issues.
Whether or not you think Sanders leans that way, alot of people are hesitant along those lines.
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
You are rather missing his point. What he's talking about is people focusing on those issues and saying the other ones aren't as important. "Climate change will affect everyone on the planet so we don't have time for making sure women get paid the same as men right now".
Most commonly this manifests as saying that all other issues are just a subset of class issues and so we should focus on that and the rest will take care of itself.
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Here's the thing, though - not everyone's life is touched the same way by income inequality, because of how race, gender, etc. affect the issue. This is intersectionality. The problem is that too often, we tend to default to the white male view of a particular issue, excluding how that issue impacts women, minorities, etc.
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Here's the thing, though - not everyone's life is touched the same way by income inequality, because of how race, gender, etc. affect the issue. This is intersectionality. The problem is that too often, we tend to default to the white male view of a particular issue, excluding how that issue impacts women, minorities, etc.
Sure, but now we're moving into an area where you need to provide some kind of positive account. What does a policy that addresses the intersectional nature of income inequality look like?
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Here's the thing, though - not everyone's life is touched the same way by income inequality, because of how race, gender, etc. affect the issue. This is intersectionality. The problem is that too often, we tend to default to the white male view of a particular issue, excluding how that issue impacts women, minorities, etc.
Sure, but now we're moving into an area where you need to provide some kind of positive account. What does a policy that addresses the intersectional nature of income inequality look like?
Well, what it looks like is one that acknowledges how inequality manifests. For example, it would address how diverse candidates are excluded from employment, especially as you go up the food chain.
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Here's the thing, though - not everyone's life is touched the same way by income inequality, because of how race, gender, etc. affect the issue. This is intersectionality. The problem is that too often, we tend to default to the white male view of a particular issue, excluding how that issue impacts women, minorities, etc.
But dealing with income inequality does help women and minorities. You can't equally address all problems faced by all people at once, so a solution that helps a lot of people to varying degrees seems pretty good. What is the problem with that?
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Here's the thing, though - not everyone's life is touched the same way by income inequality, because of how race, gender, etc. affect the issue. This is intersectionality. The problem is that too often, we tend to default to the white male view of a particular issue, excluding how that issue impacts women, minorities, etc.
Sure, but now we're moving into an area where you need to provide some kind of positive account. What does a policy that addresses the intersectional nature of income inequality look like?
Well, what it looks like is one that acknowledges how inequality manifests. For example, it would address how diverse candidates are excluded from employment, especially as you go up the food chain.
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Do you disagree with the basic premise of my comment which is that the white male agenda usually takes priority?
I disagree that you are the lorax of minority and women voters. Listen to his town hall and don't erase the experiences of the participants. It's pretty gross.
Maybe consider talking about some issues instead of harping on the latest nontroversy.
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Do you disagree with the basic premise of my comment which is that the white male agenda usually takes priority?
I disagree that you are the lorax of minority and women voters. Listen to his town hall and don't erase the experiences of the participants. It's pretty gross.
Maybe consider talking about some issues instead of harping on the latest nontroversy.
I am doing none of the things you charmingly claim I am doing in the above post. Thanks for making it personal I guess?
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Do you disagree with the basic premise of my comment which is that the white male agenda usually takes priority?
I disagree that you are the lorax of minority and women voters. Listen to his town hall and don't erase the experiences of the participants. It's pretty gross.
Maybe consider talking about some issues instead of harping on the latest nontroversy.
I am doing none of the things you charmingly claim I am doing in the above post. Thanks for making it personal I guess?
You sure as hell aren't takin king about any issues of importance
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Do you disagree with the basic premise of my comment which is that the white male agenda usually takes priority?
I disagree that you are the lorax of minority and women voters. Listen to his town hall and don't erase the experiences of the participants. It's pretty gross.
Maybe consider talking about some issues instead of harping on the latest nontroversy.
I am doing none of the things you charmingly claim I am doing in the above post. Thanks for making it personal I guess?
You sure as hell aren't takin king about any issues of importance
Wow. Just....wow.
Edit. In the context of the conversation about sexism and patronising behaviour aimed unintentionally at women, your comment would be satirical if made in jest.
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Do you disagree with the basic premise of my comment which is that the white male agenda usually takes priority?
I disagree that you are the lorax of minority and women voters. Listen to his town hall and don't erase the experiences of the participants. It's pretty gross.
Maybe consider talking about some issues instead of harping on the latest nontroversy.
Maybe consider stopping this behaviour of yours where you continuously complain about people talking about things in this thread you don't find interesting? It's quite tiring and not at all contributing to any discussion. You don't get to decide what people get to talk about wrt the topic of the thread.
Like, you are here complaining that Muddypaws is erasing the experiences of these other people while you yourself are continually trying to erase the experience of others in this thread by telling them the things that bother them don't really count. It's incredibly hypocritical of you and rather goosey.
You may want to consider that these things actually bother other people.
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Do you disagree with the basic premise of my comment which is that the white male agenda usually takes priority?
I disagree that you are the lorax of minority and women voters. Listen to his town hall and don't erase the experiences of the participants. It's pretty gross.
Maybe consider talking about some issues instead of harping on the latest nontroversy.
I am doing none of the things you charmingly claim I am doing in the above post. Thanks for making it personal I guess?
You sure as hell aren't takin king about any issues of importance
Wow. Just....wow.
Edit. In the context of the conversation about sexism and patronising behaviour aimed unintentionally at women, your comment would be satirical if made in jest.
I dont know or care what dangley bits you have between your legs. If you want to call me a sexist over calling you out over posting nothing but your concern about the "controversies" of the sanders campaign for 100 pages, That's your right, I guess.
Maybe watch a video of a rally and look at the crowd.
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
Yes, I definitely achieved my own political goals and left everyone else behind to live a life of luxury afterward. World & national income levels are definitely well distributed, conflict are much more of a last-resort measure and a realistic solution has been found to address climate change.
And now that all of that has been done, oh yes, everyone not impacted by the improvements has been abandoned.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
White male progressives can be fucking terrible for unintentionally (sometimes intentionally) excluding issues important to people who aren't just like them. It happens again and again. "We'll get around to it after the important stuff" which is usually their own pet concern and surprise, surprise, they never do get around to it.
You have a complaint about "white male progressives." Does this complaint apply to Bernie Sanders, a person who exists as a concrete object with particular properties rather than just an arbitrary member of a nebulous class? How does this criticism square with Sanders just-mentioned episode where he defended the rights and dignity of Muslim Americans by relating their struggle to his family's experience of the holocaust? How does it relate to his opposition to the death penalty and his position on marijuana legalization--both of which are famously racialized forms of punishment (and on both of which he is, relative to Hillary Clinton, on the right side of racial justice?) Sure, there are "white male progressives." But what about Bernie Sanders?
Perhaps the thought is: we don't need to actually evidence Bernie Sanders' bad behavior, because the important point is that Bernie Sanders supporters are white male progressives, and so he is inherently untrustworthy, because his base of support is from this scurrilous type. This is not always a bad form of sociological analysis. But if that's the sentiment, then I find it pretty depressing. What does it say about the state of the Left if there's such entrenched factional resentment that white male progressives aren't even welcome in the coalition; that is to say, that their mere support for a candidate is ipso facto, aside from what the candidate even does and says, enough to sink them? Jeez Louise.
MrMister on
+8
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited October 2015
edit: herp derp double post
MrMister on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
This discussion is going to take a break for a couple of weeks to give everyone time to restock their ammunition and participate in other discussions.
Posts
This applies to most people. You don't have to be white and male to have a set of priorities that do not match those of others.
I would like to think that being progressive and socialist (as he defines it) would first start with doing whatever provides the most good for the greatest number of people. For example fixing healthcare could well help unfuck Planned Parenthood and provide greater access to healthcare and bodily autonomy for everyone, women included. It's impossible to stay "on message" for every issue that each individual may have at the top of their list without someone being offended that their special cause isn't everyone's special cause.
His goals or positions are very broadly aligned with many that I hold. As are Clintons, in fact. The difference for me as a voter right now is that I think Bernie is a true believer. He's like a Ralph Nader with better timing.
Oh I fully agree. It's just that white males tend almost universally to be the majority of those with their hands on the levers of power wether the arts, science, media, politics, and so their agenda always gets priority.
It is a good start, but it shouldn't be this hard for a modern progressive to get with the program. We're not asking for the impossible here. If nothing else, he has an election to win. He should know more than anyone else in this thread how to appeal to as broad a coalition as possible to win and a chance against Hillary. Going down with a whimper isn't going to do his causes any good or make progressive politics relevant as much as it should be.
I don't think there's a life in America that's untouched by income inequality, and there isn't a human being on the planet who won't have to reckon with the effects of climate change. If these are pet issues then I don't know what an important issue is.
Do you disagree with the basic premise of my comment which is that the white male agenda usually takes priority?
The most common of these is the whole "All these issues are actually all about class in the end, so let's focus on that. Sexism and racism will get solved when we fix that." thing. Which is why people get a bit wary of people who they perceive as pushing class issues to the exclusion of other societal issues.
Whether or not you think Sanders leans that way, alot of people are hesitant along those lines.
You are rather missing his point. What he's talking about is people focusing on those issues and saying the other ones aren't as important. "Climate change will affect everyone on the planet so we don't have time for making sure women get paid the same as men right now".
Most commonly this manifests as saying that all other issues are just a subset of class issues and so we should focus on that and the rest will take care of itself.
Here's the thing, though - not everyone's life is touched the same way by income inequality, because of how race, gender, etc. affect the issue. This is intersectionality. The problem is that too often, we tend to default to the white male view of a particular issue, excluding how that issue impacts women, minorities, etc.
Sure, but now we're moving into an area where you need to provide some kind of positive account. What does a policy that addresses the intersectional nature of income inequality look like?
Well, what it looks like is one that acknowledges how inequality manifests. For example, it would address how diverse candidates are excluded from employment, especially as you go up the food chain.
But dealing with income inequality does help women and minorities. You can't equally address all problems faced by all people at once, so a solution that helps a lot of people to varying degrees seems pretty good. What is the problem with that?
Like, for example, it would make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race when hiring? Or do you have something else in mind?
I disagree that you are the lorax of minority and women voters. Listen to his town hall and don't erase the experiences of the participants. It's pretty gross.
Maybe consider talking about some issues instead of harping on the latest nontroversy.
I am doing none of the things you charmingly claim I am doing in the above post. Thanks for making it personal I guess?
You sure as hell aren't takin king about any issues of importance
Wow. Just....wow.
Edit. In the context of the conversation about sexism and patronising behaviour aimed unintentionally at women, your comment would be satirical if made in jest.
Maybe consider stopping this behaviour of yours where you continuously complain about people talking about things in this thread you don't find interesting? It's quite tiring and not at all contributing to any discussion. You don't get to decide what people get to talk about wrt the topic of the thread.
Like, you are here complaining that Muddypaws is erasing the experiences of these other people while you yourself are continually trying to erase the experience of others in this thread by telling them the things that bother them don't really count. It's incredibly hypocritical of you and rather goosey.
You may want to consider that these things actually bother other people.
Yeah it seems a pretty good point to shut it down and take a break.
I dont know or care what dangley bits you have between your legs. If you want to call me a sexist over calling you out over posting nothing but your concern about the "controversies" of the sanders campaign for 100 pages, That's your right, I guess.
Maybe watch a video of a rally and look at the crowd.
Yes, I definitely achieved my own political goals and left everyone else behind to live a life of luxury afterward. World & national income levels are definitely well distributed, conflict are much more of a last-resort measure and a realistic solution has been found to address climate change.
And now that all of that has been done, oh yes, everyone not impacted by the improvements has been abandoned.
You have a complaint about "white male progressives." Does this complaint apply to Bernie Sanders, a person who exists as a concrete object with particular properties rather than just an arbitrary member of a nebulous class? How does this criticism square with Sanders just-mentioned episode where he defended the rights and dignity of Muslim Americans by relating their struggle to his family's experience of the holocaust? How does it relate to his opposition to the death penalty and his position on marijuana legalization--both of which are famously racialized forms of punishment (and on both of which he is, relative to Hillary Clinton, on the right side of racial justice?) Sure, there are "white male progressives." But what about Bernie Sanders?
Perhaps the thought is: we don't need to actually evidence Bernie Sanders' bad behavior, because the important point is that Bernie Sanders supporters are white male progressives, and so he is inherently untrustworthy, because his base of support is from this scurrilous type. This is not always a bad form of sociological analysis. But if that's the sentiment, then I find it pretty depressing. What does it say about the state of the Left if there's such entrenched factional resentment that white male progressives aren't even welcome in the coalition; that is to say, that their mere support for a candidate is ipso facto, aside from what the candidate even does and says, enough to sink them? Jeez Louise.