• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

beelulzebub

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,595
This is a good framework with which to work in understanding the fracturing of America, though I remain skeptical of whether there are enough Free Americans to warrant an entire fragment of this article; more than anything this simply sounds like conservative pundits and few others. Where Smart America is Democrat pundits, there are countless successful Democrats, and even those who are not that align with them politically, to warrant its own section of the article.

Their analyzation of Just America is good, but fails to honestly engage with it beyond the one aspect of its grievances with Smart America where the author agrees: the failings of meritocracy. There is no doubt a good amount of wealthy elites that partake in Just America, and that they played an effective role in popularizing academic concepts of privilege and deconstructing white nationalist power structures, but I'm skeptical of whether this should be a means with which we criticize this particular fragment of America when the same criticism isn't levied nearly as large against the other three fragments, who also all carry their own elitist tastemakers all their own.
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
The author makes some solid points but I disagree with some of it, too. It's interesting he says the left and right are mirrors of each other. The right with the oil CEO versus the unemployed miner or steelworker. The left with the middle manager or software developer at a tech firm versus the millennial working two jobs saddled by college debt. Those last two are the primary clash of viewpoints that we see on Era, of course. It's basically the class divide and the ideological divide. I do think it's oversimplified, though.

Of course the kids didn't buy it. In their eyes "progress" looked like a thin upper layer of Black celebrities and professionals, who carried the weight of society's expectations along with its prejudices, and below them, lousy schools, overflowing prisons, dying neighborhoods. The parents didn't really buy it either, but we had learned to ignore injustice on this scale as adults ignore so much just to get through.

That's exactly what has happened. And this is the problem with "equal opportunity" being applied to an existing system of inequality in a society where generational wealth and education determines so much of your chances. "Smart America" believes in a flawed system because it is in their best interests to continue to believe in it, including the token POC; their lives are comfortable and their kids have a fast track to success. Even if institutional racism had ended immediately upon the passage of the Civil Rights Act we would still have a black and brown underclass. The 13th Amendment and the CRA never addressed the underlying problems!

There are too many things that Just America can't talk about for the narrative to get at the hardest problems. It can't talk about the complex causes of poverty. Structural racism—ongoing disadvantages that Black people suffer as a result of policies and institutions over the centuries—is real. But so is individual agency, and in the Just America narrative, it doesn't exist. The narrative can't talk about the main source of violence in Black neighborhoods, which is young Black men, not police.

It's not that we can't talk about those things. It's just that any attempt to get at the underlying causes of poverty or racism is deflected with these old tired points because (generally) the people doing the deflecting benefit from the inequality...

imo the first big step is we have to re-establish strong labor unions in America. Unions have been decimated over the last several decades. I don't have like a 12 step plan on how to do that, we all saw the failure of the Amazon union, but I think that has to be the first step in terms of both transforming our local communities and giving workers leverage across the country.

I agree. There really needs to be some attempt at building bridges between workers across racial lines and unions are a good way to do that, which is why racists pushed back against them, in part. White workers have far more in common with black or brown workers than with the robber barons who bankroll the Republican Party.

though I remain skeptical of whether there are enough Free Americans to warrant an entire fragment of this article; more than anything this simply sounds like conservative pundits and few others.

"Free America" is basically just a few rightwing billionaires and their paid mouthpieces. But they do have disproportionate power despite their small numbers.
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,170
This is a good framework with which to work in understanding the fracturing of America, though I remain skeptical of whether there are enough Free Americans to warrant an entire fragment of this article; more than anything this simply sounds like conservative pundits and few others. Where Smart America is Democrat pundits, there are countless successful Democrats, and even those who are not that align with them politically, to warrant its own section of the article.

I think "Free Americans" still exist in a lot of suburbia. I know them, living in Orange County. They're not completely embroiled in the culture war the way "Real Americans" are, they mostly just live their lives with their families, going grocery shopping, going to the movies, having dinner parties, then go and vote Republican because taxes trump all. It makes me think of my neighbor, a typical white woman Republican who is nice and loves her kids and dogs, then will talk about how both the Capitol riots and "George Floyd riots" were equally terrible and we all need to respect the law.

"Free Americans" though is not necessarily how I'd categorize this group overall. I don't think their commitment to "freedom" is how I define them but rather wanting to maintain the status quo and further privatize the economy. Compared to "Real Americans" who are grade A reactionaries that actively want to set the status quo back.
 

Aurongel

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
7,065
The narrative of "Just America" is very much in progress currently and much of where it will go is unclear at the moment. I disagree with some points of analysis but the author's discussion on the frayed partnership between "Smart America" and "Just America" really connected with me. After all, the most vitriolic fissures present here in this forum frequently fall on this exact fault line.

I also really appreciated the self-restraint of the author to not immediately jump to a half assed critique of cancel culture when discussing these points. I kept waiting for it to veer off in that direction but it (thankfully) never did.

But another way to understand Just America is in terms of class. Why does so much of its work take place in human-resources departments, reading lists, and awards ceremonies? In the summer of 2020, the protesters in the American streets were disproportionately Millennials with advanced degrees making more than $100,000 a year. Just America is a narrative of the young and well educated, which is why it continually misreads or ignores the Black and Latino working classes. The fate of this generation of young professionals has been cursed by economic stagnation and technological upheaval. The jobs their parents took for granted have become much harder to get, which makes the meritocratic rat race even more crushing. Law, medicine, academia, media—the most desirable professions—have all contracted. The result is a large population of overeducated, underemployed young people living in metropolitan areas.

The historian Peter Turchin coined the phrase elite overproduction to describe this phenomenon. He found that a constant source of instability and violence in previous eras of history, such as the late Roman empire and the French Wars of Religion, was the frustration of social elites for whom there were not enough jobs. Turchin expects this country to undergo a similar breakdown in the coming decade. Just America attracts surplus elites and channels most of their anger at the narrative to which they're closest—Smart America. The social-justice movement is a repudiation of meritocracy, a rebellion against the system handed down from parents to children. Students at elite universities no longer believe they deserve their coveted slots. Activists in New York want to abolish the tests that determine entry into the city's most competitive high schools (where Asian American children now predominate). In some niche areas, such as literary magazines and graduate schools of education, the idea of merit as separate from identity no longer exists.

But most Just Americans still belong to the meritocracy and have no desire to give up its advantages. They can't escape its status anxieties—they've only transferred them to the new narrative. They want to be the first to adopt its expert terminology. In the summer of 2020, people suddenly began saying "BIPOC" as if they'd been doing it all their lives. (Black, Indigenous, and people of color was a way to uncouple groups that had been aggregated under people of colorand give them their rightful place in the moral order, with people from Bogotá and Karachi and Seoul bringing up the rear.) The whole atmosphere of Just America at its most constricted—the fear of failing to say the right thing, the urge to level withering fire on minor faults—is a variation on the fierce competitive spirit of Smart America. Only the terms of accreditation have changed. And because achievement is a fragile basis for moral identity, when meritocrats are accused of racism, they have no solid faith in their own worth to stand on.

The rules in Just America are different, and they have been quickly learned by older liberals following a long series of defenestrations at The New York Times, Poetry magazine, Georgetown University, the Guggenheim Museum, and other leading institutions. The parameters of acceptable expression are a lot narrower than they used to be. A written thought can be a form of violence. The loudest public voices in a controversy will prevail. Offending them can cost your career. Justice is power. These new rules are not based on liberal values; they are post-liberal.

Just America's origins in theory, its intolerant dogma, and its coercive tactics remind me of 1930s left-wing ideology. Liberalism as white supremacy recalls the Communist Party's attack on social democracy as "social fascism." Just American aesthetics are the new socialist realism.

The dead end of Just America is a tragedy. This country has had great movements for justice in the past and badly needs one now. But in order to work, it has to throw its arms out wide. It has to tell a story in which most of us can see ourselves, and start on a path that most of us want to follow.
 

Ninja_Hawk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
915
I'm half-way through, but this article is fantastic. So many things are characterized perfectly. Long as shit, like most atlantic articles, but really insightful.
 

NullPointer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,172
Mars
If thats the case I'm a person without a country, because all four of those groups are full of it.

Which makes sense come to think of it.
 

thediamondage

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,265
Countries tend to fall apart when citizens can't unify around anything and an outside power takes advantage of that. It'll be interesting to see what the world looks like at the end of the 21st century, I don't think anyone really has any idea what will happen. We've already seen how quickly we get to fighting each other over (historically small) disinformation/propaganda attacks from Russia.

Its kinda crazy to think about how the world looked in 1921 and the vast, vast, vast changes that occurred in a mere 80 years.
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,170
Okay, I'm getting around to reading the article, and a lot of it is good, but it's hard to ignore the writer (who seems to be an older liberal) not grasping "Just America" and its viewpoints:

There are too many things that Just America can't talk about for the narrative to get at the hardest problems. It can't talk about the complex causes of poverty. Structural racism—ongoing disadvantages that Black people suffer as a result of policies and institutions over the centuries—is real. But so is individual agency, and in the Just America narrative, it doesn't exist. The narrative can't talk about the main source of violence in Black neighborhoods, which is young Black men, not police.

Ignoring the tired old repackaging of "black on black violence" like this is some revelation, what does the author think turns these young black men to violence? Are black men genetically predisposed to violence? Or perhaps there are there socioeconomic factors at play, and that's what people are trying to address? The reason you look at problems systematically is looking at them individually is not only fruitless, it's a waste of time. The goal isn't to knock on every door in America and "save" people, it's to build a better society where people are less prone to violence in the long run. It's about building a future.

The dead end of Just America is a tragedy. This country has had great movements for justice in the past and badly needs one now. But in order to work, it has to throw its arms out wide. It has to tell a story in which most of us can see ourselves, and start on a path that most of us want to follow.

This is essentially the same "reaching across the aisle" bullshit that Obama and the rest of the neoliberal ruling class peddles. Even working past the fact that many white Americans actively want to harm minorities and have no desire to see themselves in this vision, it's not an issue of not reaching far enough, it's that you can't beat out multibillion dollar news platforms that push out propaganda and misinformation. You're not going to beat Fox News, CNN, and OANN by "throwing your arms out wide." This is, ironically, the same meritocracy bullshit he criticizes earlier - golly gee young progressives, if only you worked harder, your message might be heard!

He's not wrong on how modern progressivism/liberalism is more focused on symbolic victories over material ones. But that's in part because the ruling class has steadfastly refused to give any material concessions. We have nothing.

This part is especially lol:

In Just America, the winners are the marginalized groups, and the losers are the dominant groups that want to go on dominating.

I don't much want to live in the republic of any of them.

The old white liberal turns into a reactionary when talking about young progressives. Wow, who could have seen that coming!
 

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
20,694
Ignoring the tired old repackaging of "black on black violence" like this is some revelation, what does the author think turns these young black men to violence? Are black men genetically predisposed to violence? Or perhaps there are there socioeconomic factors at play, and that's what people are trying to address? The reason you look at problems systematically is looking at them individually is not only fruitless, it's a waste of time. The goal isn't to knock on every door in America and "save" people, it's to build a better society where people are less prone to violence in the long run. It's about building a future.
The author might potentially recognize the existence of systemic barriers and probably might not (consciously) think that Black people are genetically predisposed to immorality (it is genuinely hard to tell where they sit with the Just group considering they seem to have a negative read on literally everyone), but they might ultimately argue that it doesn't matter at the end of the day when it comes down to the microcosm of decision-making. Sure, Black people are disadvantaged, but a Black criminal still decides to commit crimes, so it's still primarily our fault.
 

SpaceCrystal

Banned
Apr 1, 2019
7,714
Great article. It also illustrates why US could benefit from a political system that's greater than 2 parties. Although we would need something like ranked choice and percentage based allocation of electoral college votes. One can dream I guess.

I agree. We need more than two parties. Why not form a party for the progressives as well as one more?
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,170
The author might potentially recognize the existence of systemic barriers and probably might not (consciously) think that Black people are genetically predisposed to immorality (it is genuinely hard to tell where they sit with the Just group considering they seem to have a negative read on literally everyone), but they might ultimately argue that it doesn't matter at the end of the day when it comes down to the microcosm of decision-making. Sure, Black people are disadvantaged, but a Black criminal still decides to commit crimes, so it's still primarily our fault.

The writer I feel has internalized some fairly reactionary thought processes and hasn't quite realized it (which is why he has a hilarious anecdote implying that "Just America" wants to oppress the oppressors... please). He writes a lot about how rural whites felt abandoned by the elites and Democrats etc., giving some validity to the idea, but they don't get a "but they made poor choices and they have to own that and take responsibility" line. There's a real finger wagging here towards the black community/activists, a patronizing kind of racism, very typical of older white liberals in my experience.

There's plenty to actually criticize with "Just America," and he touches on it briefly with things like symbolic vs. material victories and the dominance of white college kids in the sphere, but this mostly just all feels like boring repackaged out of touch talking points.

A quick look at his Wikipedia page aaaaaaand:

He was a supporter of the Iraq war.

lmao

I guess I'll fulfill his role of the "intolerant" Just American and say, no thanks.
 
Last edited:

beelulzebub

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,595
Okay, I'm getting around to reading the article, and a lot of it is good, but it's hard to ignore the writer (who seems to be an older liberal) not grasping "Just America" and its viewpoints:



Ignoring the tired old repackaging of "black on black violence" like this is some revelation, what does the author think turns these young black men to violence? Are black men genetically predisposed to violence? Or perhaps there are there socioeconomic factors at play, and that's what people are trying to address? The reason you look at problems systematically is looking at them individually is not only fruitless, it's a waste of time. The goal isn't to knock on every door in America and "save" people, it's to build a better society where people are less prone to violence in the long run. It's about building a future.



This is essentially the same "reaching across the aisle" bullshit that Obama and the rest of the neoliberal ruling class peddles. Even working past the fact that many white Americans actively want to harm minorities and have no desire to see themselves in this vision, it's not an issue of not reaching far enough, it's that you can't beat out multibillion dollar news platforms that push out propaganda and misinformation. You're not going to beat Fox News, CNN, and OANN by "throwing your arms out wide." This is, ironically, the same meritocracy bullshit he criticizes earlier - golly gee young progressives, if only you worked harder, your message might be heard!

He's not wrong on how modern progressivism/liberalism is more focused on symbolic victories over material ones. But that's in part because the ruling class has steadfastly refused to give any material concessions. We have nothing.

This part is especially lol:



The old white liberal turns into a reactionary when talking about young progressives. Wow, who could have seen that coming!
Yeah, second all of this. The criticism of Just America never extends outside the periphery of a liberal framework.

It is illuminating that the most criticism the author had to share was about Just America, which I think just further illustrates how awkward the two groups are as bedfellows within the same party.
 

WindUp

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,396
The old white liberal turns into a reactionary when talking about young progressives. Wow, who could have seen that coming!
Yup. I see the "the American Left wants to oppress the oppressors!!" about twice a week in the New York Times opinion section and I truly don't understand where the actual evidence for that perspective is.
 

GreenMachine

Member
Oct 27, 2017
218
Yup. I see the "the American Left wants to oppress the oppressors!!" about twice a week in the New York Times opinion section and I truly don't understand where the actual evidence for that perspective is.

the current iteration of The Atlantic was developed by none other than James Bennet, aka the turd who approved that notorious Tom Cotton NYT op-ed so well
 

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
20,694
The writer I feel has internalized some fairly reactionary thought processes and hasn't quite realized it (which is why he has a hilarious anecdote implying that "Just America" wants to oppress the oppressed... please). He writes a lot about how rural whites felt abandoned by the elites and Democrats etc., giving some validity to the idea, but they don't get a "but they made poor choices and they have to own that and take responsibility" line. There's a real finger wagging here towards the black community/activists, a patronizing kind of racism, very typical of older white liberals in my experience.

There's plenty to actually criticize with "Just America," and he touches on it briefly with things like symbolic vs. material victories and the dominance of white college kids in the sphere, but this mostly just all feels like boring repackaged out of touch talking points.
Spot on. Absolutely no disagreements from me.
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
Ignoring the tired old repackaging of "black on black violence" like this is some revelation, what does the author think turns these young black men to violence? Are black men genetically predisposed to violence? Or perhaps there are there socioeconomic factors at play, and that's what people are trying to address? The reason you look at problems systematically is looking at them individually is not only fruitless, it's a waste of time. The goal isn't to knock on every door in America and "save" people, it's to build a better society where people are less prone to violence in the long run. It's about building a future.

I think you nailed it here. Either you accept that socioeconomic factors are causing worse outcomes for POC or you get into arguments about genetic predisposition and all that shit. I believe that by addressing the socioeconomic factors you would see metrics improve. Actually addressing them, not just removing some barriers to success and then saying "sink or swim" to people who may not have been given the right tools by their parents, or their grandparents before them, etc.

The writer I feel has internalized some fairly reactionary thought processes and hasn't quite realized it (which is why he has a hilarious anecdote implying that "Just America" wants to oppress the oppressed... please). He writes a lot about how rural whites felt abandoned by the elites and Democrats etc., giving some validity to the idea, but they don't get a "but they made poor choices and they have to own that and take responsibility" line. There's a real finger wagging here towards the black community/activists, a patronizing kind of racism, very typical of older white liberals in my experience.

There's plenty to actually criticize with "Just America," and he touches on it briefly with things like symbolic vs. material victories and the dominance of white college kids in the sphere, but this mostly just all feels like boring repackaged out of touch talking points.

He's literally a white boomer. And so I would be inclined to take his reactionary views of the "woke left" at face value. It reminds me of the quote, "when you're used to privilege anything less feels like oppression" or however it goes. God forbid disadvantaged people get an actual assist instead of an "opportunity".
 

Mezentine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,974
If I'm going to give a charitable read of his criticism of "Just America" and its worldview it's that the demographic he's describing, the highly-socially engaged, often-quite-financially-secure, usually-well-educated millenial (which describes me to a T) can get wrapped up in discussing or sharing knowledge about structural problems and systemic abuses while being relatively disengaged from their actual community and what they can do to build change on the ground (and this also describes me to a T), something that my parents, and their social circle, people who absolutely belong to Smart America, are quite good at (is that change radical? No. Are they generally just more connected to what is happening in the community and how they can be agents within it? Yes)

Its in its own way a similar criticism to that from those further on the left who dismiss electoralism. Because honestly? A lot of people who marched in BLM protests last year do also think that voting is the main actual action they need to take to bend the world towards justice.
 

Mezentine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,974
On a related note, there's a conversation I'm seeing happen across a broad swathe of queer social media right now that, on the surface, is about "kink at pride", but underneath it is a deeper expression of concern from older queer people about (some of) the up and coming generation's weirdly puritanical approach to sexual orientation and gender identity, because a lot of people have come to maturity in an age where the internet, and communities within it, imparted the idea that one of the ways you practice justice is by adhering to and enforcing the correct set of categorizations as decided by the community, which means bisexuals can't be lesbians, nonbinary people can't use gendered pronouns, etc etc.

I bring it up not because I think older generations were more tolerant, because...uh...they weren't, but because this mode of engagement, this "progressivism by way of adherence" can lead to disconnection from the actual people around you, abstracting the very communities and movements you're aligned with or even a part of, and I think that the manner in which this happens is so tied to the internet, and so tied to being online during formative parts of your life, that there is something new about it
 
Last edited:

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
20,694
If I'm going to give a charitable read of his criticism of "Just America" and its worldview it's that the demographic he's describing, the highly-socially engaged, often-quite-financially-secure, usually-well-educated millenial (which describes me to a T) can get wrapped up in discussing or sharing knowledge about structural problems and systemic abuses while being relatively disengaged from their actual community and what they can do to build change on the ground (and this also describes me to a T), something that my parents, and their social circle, people who absolutely belong to Smart America, are quite good at (is that change radical? No. Are they generally just more connected to what is happening in the community and how they can be agents within it? Yes)

Its in its own way a similar criticism to that from those further on the left who dismiss electoralism. Because honestly? A lot of people who marched in BLM protests last year do also think that voting is the main actual action they need to take to bend the world towards justice.
This is one of the thrusts that stuck with me and something I tried to elaborate on in my original post. I ask quite often "what am I supposed to do?" whenever I dip my toes into political discussion on here, and that's not meant to be passive-aggressive defeatism, but an actual attempt to get answers so I can go out and do my part. There is more to civic duty, of being a good citizen towards your country, than just voting, but you wouldn't know that if you read this place. Not that voting is entirely useless, but it's clear we live in a world where that route of participation is getting continuously stifled and choked, and then what? What do we do in a theoretical world where Republicans rig the game to the point where my vote as a leftist truly doesn't matter, where mathematically the Democrats cannot regain control? The defeaning silence from Era in that regard is telling.

I have ideas on what I want my neighborhood to look like. I want wider access to healthcare. I want my childhood schools to be better. I want more parks. I want to implement more environmentally-sustainable practices. I want less police fucking around. Stone Mountain needs a fucking makeover. But ultimately I don't know what practical steps to take to get there. And social media liberals and leftists don't seem to know either. Maybe I just should completely unplug and run around with some groups who are actually doing work, then go from there.
 

Mezentine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,974
This is one of the thrusts that stuck with me and something I tried to elaborate on in my original post. I ask quite often "what am I supposed to do?" whenever I dip my toes into political discussion on here, and that's not meant to be passive-aggressive defeatism, but an actual attempt to get answers so I can go out and do my part. There is more to civic duty, of being a good citizen towards your country, than just voting, but you wouldn't know that if you read this place. Not that voting is entirely useless, but it's clear we live in a world where that route of participation is getting continuously stifled and choked, and then what? What do we do in a theoretical world where Republicans rig the game to the point where my vote as a leftist truly doesn't matter, where mathematically the Democrats cannot regain control? The defeaning silence from Era in that regard is telling.

I have ideas on what I want my neighborhood to look like. I want wider access to healthcare. I want my childhood schools to be better. I want more parks. I want to implement more environmentally-sustainable practices. I want less police fucking around. Stone Mountain needs a fucking makeover. But ultimately I don't know what practical steps to take to get there. And social media liberals and leftists don't seem to know either. Maybe I just should completely unplug and run around with some groups who are actually doing work, then go from there.
This is my exact dilemma, and one of my post-pandemic resolutions is to try and find at least one organization doing work I believe in this summer and figure out how to help out

Its the school board problem blown large though, right? The only people with the time and resources to take running for and then operating the school board seriously come from a particular social stratum which means they get to dictate what happens in the system
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,170
The issue has always been that young people are prone to moving around a lot in their 20s and early 30s so they lack the opportunity to form communities that older people do. They're also incredibly atomized in an already atomized society, usually barely knowing their neighbors (or outright not getting along with them), and then having no incentive to get involved in local and community politics. That's not getting into having to work 40-50 hours a week just to keep your head above water and lacking the energy to spend your precious free time working in activism.

That doesn't meant don't try. But there are deeprooted systematic issues keeping young people from being engaged in politics.
 

fontguy

Avenger
Oct 8, 2018
16,154
This is one of the thrusts that stuck with me and something I tried to elaborate on in my original post. I ask quite often "what am I supposed to do?" whenever I dip my toes into political discussion on here, and that's not meant to be passive-aggressive defeatism, but an actual attempt to get answers so I can go out and do my part. There is more to civic duty, of being a good citizen towards your country, than just voting, but you wouldn't know that if you read this place. Not that voting is entirely useless, but it's clear we live in a world where that route of participation is getting continuously stifled and choked, and then what? What do we do in a theoretical world where Republicans rig the game to the point where my vote as a leftist truly doesn't matter, where mathematically the Democrats cannot regain control? The defeaning silence from Era in that regard is telling.

I have ideas on what I want my neighborhood to look like. I want wider access to healthcare. I want my childhood schools to be better. I want more parks. I want to implement more environmentally-sustainable practices. I want less police fucking around. Stone Mountain needs a fucking makeover. But ultimately I don't know what practical steps to take to get there. And social media liberals and leftists don't seem to know either. Maybe I just should completely unplug and run around with some groups who are actually doing work, then go from there.
If a system doesn't work (or, in our case, works—but maliciously), then there is no option but to prioritize actions that disrupt and nullify that system. Things that cannot be freely discussed or advocated here on Era. I'm reminded of the increasingly popular slogan, "Become ungovernable."
 
OP
OP
Muppet of a Man
Oct 27, 2017
7,680
A nice if potentially simplified overview of the supposed four corners of the nation, complete with some nice historical connections, but ultimately I'm just left back where I started. The ultimate issue is that these divisions are fostered by an inherent distrust of one another predicated on centuries'-old sins and grievances that have gone unaddressed, and even well-meaning people just give up in the face of it all. I joke semi-often, perhaps to a self-fulfilling degree, that "I want to help people in dying Midwestern towns, but all they're gonna do is call me a nigger and run me out of town." There is no visible way forward towards an end goal of "better" that I can see or glean from others. All I'm told to do is vote and hope, and if shit gets fucked, well, assuming you don't die before the next election cycle, vote again and hope. The idea of civic duty, of physically getting together to form communal structures that can help shape political movements (a frustrating concern I had before covid), the decentralization of the movements we do have- American society to me feels incredibly isolating, and it's that isolation (on top of the inability for people to just agree on fundamental reality) that makes it seem all the more inherently opposed to the kind of work we need to do to actually take this country and make it not a shithole. The article says that America isn't a social-science experiment, and while I agree in theory, I don't think it's out of the realm of reasonableness to still call America an outright failure.
I keep coming back to this idea: I think a path forward is reimagining more fluid local communities. The thing that commonly leaves us all with a hollow inside, irrespective of our personal origin/background, in my opinion is, like you said, isolation and the unrealized potential for new face-to-face-interacting communities predicated on shared interests and values that are not traditional in nature (i.e., not religious or commerce based). We need a town square kind of mentality for this to happen. We need people to become neighbors, partners, and friends who are not necessarily from the same immediate physical neighborhood, on top of breaking down the barriers between physical neighborhoods.

I think in many ways the internet has exacerbated existing tensions because in our pursuit of convenience and expediency to achieve our own personal ends, we avoid discomfort and self isolate in our own micro spheres of influence because it is easier and more immediately comfortable in the short term to do so. I think there needs to be a great secular society awakening where we become more okay with better balancing "getting ahead" and "living life". Too many invoke the first incessantly and in the process become self destructive and harm others and the shared environment in the process. I think some of the cornerstones for making this happen were haphazardly thrown away by the well-off and other in-group cohorts lusting to be just like them: public schooling, publically-accessible leisure activities/organizations, and public commons. All have been largely defunded, eliminated, or replaced by more discriminating private versions.

In the grander macroscopic scale, we need a shared sense of purpose outside of military and economic prowess. We need to see ourselves as having the civic duty of leaving this place better than we found it. It needs to be a selfless pursuit that focuses on future generations. We need to be stewards of a lasting union of peoples that includes all of them in a meaningful way and provisions resources for them in a sustainable way. And we need the people with the most to contribute their fair share via taxes that ultimately invest more in the public at large.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Muppet of a Man
Oct 27, 2017
7,680
This is one of the thrusts that stuck with me and something I tried to elaborate on in my original post. I ask quite often "what am I supposed to do?" whenever I dip my toes into political discussion on here, and that's not meant to be passive-aggressive defeatism, but an actual attempt to get answers so I can go out and do my part. There is more to civic duty, of being a good citizen towards your country, than just voting, but you wouldn't know that if you read this place. Not that voting is entirely useless, but it's clear we live in a world where that route of participation is getting continuously stifled and choked, and then what? What do we do in a theoretical world where Republicans rig the game to the point where my vote as a leftist truly doesn't matter, where mathematically the Democrats cannot regain control? The defeaning silence from Era in that regard is telling.

I have ideas on what I want my neighborhood to look like. I want wider access to healthcare. I want my childhood schools to be better. I want more parks. I want to implement more environmentally-sustainable practices. I want less police fucking around. Stone Mountain needs a fucking makeover. But ultimately I don't know what practical steps to take to get there. And social media liberals and leftists don't seem to know either. Maybe I just should completely unplug and run around with some groups who are actually doing work, then go from there.
Nice. I didn't see your follow up post until I posted a response to your original post. Seems like we are both yearning for more concrete action and the "building of real things" instead of just incessant arm chair analysis. I think a lot of people in our generation are (or are finally waking up to this idea). I hope we get the opportunity to make it happen. Starting with the rebuilding of our infrastructure and increased public investment are the necessary starting points to really realize this hope.
 
OP
OP
Muppet of a Man
Oct 27, 2017
7,680
On a related note, there's a conversation I'm seeing happen across a broad swathe of queer social media right now that, on the surface, is about "kink at pride", but underneath it is a deeper expression of concern from older queer people about (some of) the up and coming generation's weirdly puritanical approach to sexual orientation and gender identity, because a lot of people have come to maturity in an age where the internet, and communities within it, imparted the idea that one of the ways you practice justice is by adhering to and enforcing the correct set of categorizations as decided by the community, which means bisexuals can't be lesbians, nonbinary people can't use gendered pronouns, etc etc.

I bring it up not because I think older generations were more tolerant, because...uh...they weren't, but because this mode of engagement, this "progressivism by way of adherence" can lead to disconnection from the actual people around you, abstracting the very communities and movements you're aligned with or even a part of, and I think that the manner in which this happens is so tied to the internet, and so tied to being online during formative parts of your life, that there is something new about it
There is definitely a disconnect between the grittiness and many times imperfect aspects of real in-person interactions that is discordant with the rise of the kind of pure abstract ideological thought that is tightly interwoven with online communities. This is true across the whole political spectrum and is not particular to any one group.

I find it funny but also alarming that this technology sold as being a way to better connect us is actually making us lose touch with reality and the real life relationships closest to us. For example, I hardly see several of my closest friends anymore even know they live relatively close to me. This wasn't always the case. It's gotten worse and worse over time as more and more of life has been "virtualized".
 

CapNBritain

Member
Oct 26, 2017
535
California
This article is everything I have been thinking about since GAF and then ERA began radicalizing me for all these years. Seriously, just lurking on this board has changed me so much. Thanks OP for bringing it to my attention.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
Maybe I just should completely unplug and run around with some groups who are actually doing work, then go from there.

Generally this is the best idea. The internet is a great resource for ideological sharpening and historical/theoretical knowledge, but only actual organizing does anything. Social media can be a tool for that, but it's also just an easy way to shitpost.

"Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes."

(That said, we do need ideological sharpening and historical/theoretical knowledge to know where to go and what to avoid)
 

GamerJM

Member
Nov 8, 2017
15,636
The writer I feel has internalized some fairly reactionary thought processes and hasn't quite realized it (which is why he has a hilarious anecdote implying that "Just America" wants to oppress the oppressors... please). He writes a lot about how rural whites felt abandoned by the elites and Democrats etc., giving some validity to the idea, but they don't get a "but they made poor choices and they have to own that and take responsibility" line. There's a real finger wagging here towards the black community/activists, a patronizing kind of racism, very typical of older white liberals in my experience.

There's plenty to actually criticize with "Just America," and he touches on it briefly with things like symbolic vs. material victories and the dominance of white college kids in the sphere, but this mostly just all feels like boring repackaged out of touch talking points.

A quick look at his Wikipedia page aaaaaaand:



lmao

I guess I'll fulfill his role of the "intolerant" Just American and say, no thanks.

This is all spot-on.

Another point I'd like to make; this article seems to ignore a lot about America. For one, it ignores a huge demographic: the apolitical. Those so disillusioned with the state of the country, or their ability to make an impact, that they just turn politics off. It also has a very white perspective. It talks about how each of the four groups views and treats minorities, but I mean....those minorities exist, presumably they have to belong to one of these four groups, but pretty much all four groups are presented as being composed predominantly of white individuals.
 

John Rabbit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,104
This is the hard truth:
I mean LBJ was saying that 20 years prior:
"I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

The GOP just took it as praxis instead of an astute observation on the intersectionality of race and class.
 
Jun 17, 2019
2,182
This is one of the thrusts that stuck with me and something I tried to elaborate on in my original post. I ask quite often "what am I supposed to do?" whenever I dip my toes into political discussion on here, and that's not meant to be passive-aggressive defeatism, but an actual attempt to get answers so I can go out and do my part. There is more to civic duty, of being a good citizen towards your country, than just voting, but you wouldn't know that if you read this place. Not that voting is entirely useless, but it's clear we live in a world where that route of participation is getting continuously stifled and choked, and then what? What do we do in a theoretical world where Republicans rig the game to the point where my vote as a leftist truly doesn't matter, where mathematically the Democrats cannot regain control? The defeaning silence from Era in that regard is telling.

I have ideas on what I want my neighborhood to look like. I want wider access to healthcare. I want my childhood schools to be better. I want more parks. I want to implement more environmentally-sustainable practices. I want less police fucking around. Stone Mountain needs a fucking makeover. But ultimately I don't know what practical steps to take to get there. And social media liberals and leftists don't seem to know either. Maybe I just should completely unplug and run around with some groups who are actually doing work, then go from there.

I'm only one person, I can't tell you if this is the best answers or not.

For the first question, the answer may come as weird, but you'd have to organize as a community and work out a way to start crafting messages that can be pushed. Talk to Reps in the State and then also larger philanthropic groups that see the issues, they're the ones that have money. Basically create a lobby in some way or a Pac or some group that can push the message out there. But it takes money and time so you have to start on the smaller end. In regard to the Republicans rigging things, that's where the issue of getting the backing of like minded people can come into play. Protesting, going to see senators, or others, it takes a lot of work but what it comes down to is the money has to come somewhere to push the message, be it on tv, radio, news or social media. Again you have to start small and find others in your area and then build off that.

For the first one, in regard to healthcare -on a larger scale it's going to take a lot of work, on a smaller scale there are things that can be done. You could go see your local hospital board and, depending on if they are a fore-profit or not for profit, you can possibly see if they could open up clinics that can give more access to different neighborhoods. You would need the town on your side for that, so talk to the town reps or board members and see if there's a way that that can be done. Bring it up at a town Hall meeting, you'll need to get on the Agenda, or if you're in a larger town, have a lawyer draft a letter to the mayor and the city council and talk to your Alderman to see what can be done there, what would be needed to gain a wider access for more healthcare. If that's what your going for there that is.

School boards have meetings, again, you need to get information on the agenda to speak. Go to some of their meetings, get to know the names of the members, who they are, what they stand for, then lobby the hell out of them. Go to their meetings and keep getting your business put on the agenda, and get others to join in too. More parks, same thing, write to the head of the Parks and recreational group in your town or city. Bring up locations that could use a park and explain, in detail, why there should be a park there, and keep bugging them with letters. Physical letters tend to come to the attention more than emails or phone calls in some cases. A lot of this would take advocacy from the local population and getting into town and city council meetings. The last thing you said, that is what needs to happen. Unplug and connect to groups that are trying to actively change things.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,325
Iraq war supporter gets praise here for asking what about black on black crime in an article that is like philosophically no different from your basic South Park ethos, just presented more academically



Ha I just knew this guy would have some level of admiration for Reagan.

The quality dropped from Reagan... please Reagan started all of this.
 
Last edited:

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,325
The author missed the 5th America

The Above it All America which is where the vast majority of the Press, outside the obvious right wing press, resides and proselytizes about how both sides are at fault on every issue.

Like I'm sorry but the Just America section is so weak that it basically invalidates anything he might have to say.

He basically just dismisses huge swaths of BLM, because for his thesis to work "Justice America" needs to be a middle class movement.

But most Just Americans still belong to the meritocracy and have no desire to give up its advantages. They can't escape its status anxieties—they've only transferred them to the new narrative. They want to be the first to adopt its expert terminology. In the summer of 2020, people suddenly began saying "BIPOC" as if they'd been doing it all their lives. (Black, Indigenous, and people of color was a way to uncouple groups that had been aggregated under people of color and give them their rightful place in the moral order, with people from Bogotá and Karachi and Seoul bringing up the rear.) The whole atmosphere of Just America at its most constricted—the fear of failing to say the right thing, the urge to level withering fire on minor faults—is a variation on the fierce competitive spirit of Smart America. Only the terms of accreditation have changed. And because achievement is a fragile basis for moral identity, when meritocrats are accused of racism, they have no solid faith in their own worth to stand on.

For a bloody author and supposed academic, this man is deeply scared of linguistic evolution. He talks of BIPOC in apocalyptic terms


Just America's origins in theory, its intolerant dogma, and its coercive tactics remind me of 1930s left-wing ideology. Liberalism as white supremacy recalls the Communist Party's attack on social democracy as "social fascism." Just American aesthetics are the new socialist realism.

The dead end of Just America is a tragedy. This country has had great movements for justice in the past and badly needs one now. But in order to work, it has to throw its arms out wide. It has to tell a story in which most of us can see ourselves, and start on a path that most of us want to follow.

If you saw this on Fox News instead of the Atlantic y'all would be talking about how ridiculous the right wing is


Not to mention it's getting praise from AEI weirdos... so he's doing something wrong.
 
Last edited:

skies_

Member
Feb 28, 2018
251
Because in modern America god knows what's lacking is both sidesism.

Like imagine being happy someone skewers white supremacist Republicans and BLM youth equally lol

I think most of us are trapped in our own little bubbles so having someone dissect some of the issues at a high level is useful. In my group I feel like this kind of reflection is almost nonexistent.
 

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,096
Nice analogy for sure. More self-aware than the OG yuppies, but in a kind of haughty and self-aggrandizing way.
I honestly agree it's all luck on my part. I was an art major. But I also have a big network of peers in the space. Tons of privilege. Do wish more were more self aware and grateful.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,325
I think most of us are trapped in our own little bubbles so having someone dissect some of the issues at a high level is useful. In my group I feel like this kind of reflection is almost nonexistent.

Both sides analysis gets published like every day.

Not to mention this guy lives in his own ridiculous bubble where BLM is of equal threat to him as white supremacy.

Fuck he talks more about white supremacy as part of his "criticism" of so called Just America, he barely touches the surface of it in Real America...

Honestly I don't even think it's equal, I think he's far more contemptuous of Just America than say Real America
 
Last edited:
Mar 29, 2018
7,078
I honestly agree it's all luck on my part. I was an art major. But I also have a big network of peers in the space. Tons of privilege. Do wish more were more self aware and grateful.
Checking the privilege is all we can do. I'm similarly in an insanely lucky and privileged space. You're right it's all complete luck, essentially. All I can do is volunteer locally to help others and donate to global causes to try and spread the luck.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,325
Like I actually think this is a well written but utterly facile, I saw someone in twitter called it a form of horoscope in that it's all vague enough that just about anyone can find stuff to latch on to.

But his definition of Just America is so lazy, like incredibly lazy, you have to literally believe that there's no economic criticism amongst Just America to buy into it... but like the fight fir Healthcare, the fight for 15$/hour all comes from there mostly... but he can't acknowledge that because he needs Just America to be the middle class mirror of Real America for his theory to work... that's why he downplays racism of Real America and sows the economic anxiety narrative.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,325
because a lot of people have come to maturity in an age where the internet, and communities within it, imparted the idea that one of the ways you practice justice is by adhering to and enforcing the correct set of categorizations as decided by the community, which means bisexuals can't be lesbians, nonbinary people can't use gendered pronouns, etc etc.

I bring it up not because I think older generations were more tolerant, because...uh...they weren't, but because this mode of engagement, this "progressivism by way of adherence" can lead to disconnection from the actual people around you, abstracting the very communities and movements you're aligned with or even a part of, and I think that the manner in which this happens is so tied to the internet, and so tied to being online during formative parts of your life, that there is something new about it

But it's the people coming of age you describe that most embrace accepting bi lesbians and non binary people.

The kink at pride things is partially the asexual queer community and aspects of consent based advocacy trying to navigate through, it's not the best discussion going on but it's not being driven by dogmatic adherence to correct labels or whatever

If anything it's a, realistically misguided, attempt to broaden the scope of inclusiveness
 

krazen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,147
Gentrified Brooklyn
As its been said by others in the thread, it downplays America's problems with race and the "other".

It's true that the white South abandoned the Democratic Party after the civil-rights revolution, but race alone doesn't explain the epochal half-century shift of working-class white voters. West Virginia, almost all white, was a predominantly Democratic state until 2000. If you look at county-by-county national electoral maps, 2000 was the year when rural areas turned decisively red. Something more than just the Democrats' principled embrace of the civil-rights movement and other struggles for equality caused the shift.

West Virginia buys into the same white grievance propaganda as other rural whites though. Oregon is white as fuck, and probably our racist militia capital…they didn't form to fight tattoo'd hipsters in Portland coffee shops as the writer probably assumes.

She went after Barack Obama with particular venom. Her animus was fueled by his suspect origins, radical associates, and redistributionist views, but the worst offense was his galling mix of class and race. Obama was a Black professional who had gone to the best schools, who knew so much more than Palin, and who was too cerebral to get in the mud pit with her.

There's also this weird narrative that gets pushed that equates black yuppies with part of the grievance equation not factoring in that successful or poor, you're still a (insert slur here). Chris Rock's joke where he says "Not one white person here would switch places with me and I am rich". White grievance is mad the "other" gets a free ride, not that they made it. Those that made it, its not because of smarts its affirmative action! Barack's problems weren't he was educated, it was he was uppity and "blacker" then they thought, ie not one of the good ones. This isn't tied to success; or reality…Dems have been trying to pass healthcare reform for a decades before he got there and his policies weren't drastic changes to his predecessors(bank bailouts, war, etc) but that black skin is a bitch.