• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Develop public institutions where childcare labor is shared between everyone, particularly the elderly/retired who may not have a job but are still intellectually robust or with older children taking care of younger children and wait this is just primitive communism.
 

SaveWeyard

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,540
Develop public institutions where childcare labor is shared between everyone, particularly the elderly/retired who may not have a job but are still intellectually robust or with older children taking care of younger children and wait this is just primitive communism.
You could build a pretty complex society around such concepts. Primitive in the sense that it happened in the past, but no less valid or sophisticated.
 

Frozenprince

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,158
Not only does it make our society more impersonal, but it means that liberal arts fields will be dominated by the wealthy, as they don't care about ROI. The end result is that these fields become skewed by that perspective, fields like economics, sociology, journalism, etc.

That's a sobering prospect.
We're literally seeing it now. Someone like Wyatt Koch is just given his design degree from one of the best art colleges in the world because he has the money to pay for it and subsidize his education. We openly castigate and demonize people that choose the humanities as "lesser" because they have the audacity to want to do something that doesn't promote their direct material interests for their higher education. Which then speaks to the question of when higher education became a necessity to be able to have a secured financial and material interest in the first place.

An econ degree is no less a vanity than a degree is English or a degree in Music Theory.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Why does Bernie had to be so fucking old?! I don't want a President who might get Alzheimer's or drop dead before he can complete his 8 year tenure.
https://portside.org/2018-09-15/why-are-there-no-gen-x-socialists-united-states
I would submit that the relative paucity of Gen-Xers in the ranks of open socialists has to do with something that many on the Left* are loathe to admit, but that we need to grapple with: that the "Third Way" political project of Clinton and Obama (and Tony Blair in Great Britain) was, and in many respects still is, a robust and attractive political program. Although the benefits it delivered to many people were more psychological and cultural than material, they were still real — and it is the political project that was dominant on the center-left when we came of political age in the late 80s and 90s.

Although most of the architects of the Third Way were Baby Boomers, I would argue that their success was especially destructive to the political imagination of myself and my fellow Gen-Xers.

To put it crudely, we grew up in an era when liberals were winning the culture wars, but conservatives were winning the economic wars. The popular culture we consumed promoted individual rebellion against authority, but not collective struggle. It promoted social responsibility towards those "less fortunate" (or, in more modern parlance, the "marginalized"), but not solidarity. Bill Clinton had more than a little Ferris Bueller about him. For those of us who are white (or susceptible to anti-Black racism), watching The Cosby Show as kids in the 80s primed us to congratulate ourselves for electing Obama as adults in 2008. And while pretty much every Gen-X socialist I do know only made it through the 80s because of hip-hop or punk rock (or both), by the 90s both of those genres had become depoliticized and mainstreamed.

There's structural explanations for the two-gen gap between Bernie/Corbyn and, say, AOC.

AOC's strain of socialism manifested as a result of, in my opinion, 9/11, the "War on Terror", and the 2008 Financial Crisis + the Great Depression. Our generation grew up alongside a neverending war and we came of age in a global crisis caused by irresponsible actors in the financial sector. This kind of thing radicalizes you. Z is also trending in a similar direction because of the above and also because of the onset of climate change.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/201...llennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/
 

SweetNicole

The Old Guard
Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,542
So it seems clear that it's Biden (by a fair margin), then Bernie and Pete right now in terms of early front runners. The most notable thing to me from the Granite Poll is that 77% of voters haven't decided who to vote for. so who knows what is going to happen as those people start to decide. Super curious to know what the demographics are of the percentages for people who have chosen who they will vote for.

Who is all planning on watching the town halls tonight on CNN? I am hoping to watch at least Bernie and Pete, and I would also like to see Warren and Harris if I have time.
 

shamanick

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,072
https://portside.org/2018-09-15/why-are-there-no-gen-x-socialists-united-states




There's structural explanations for the two-gen gap between Bernie/Corbyn and, say, AOC.

AOC's strain of socialism manifested as a result of, in my opinion, 9/11, the "War on Terror", and the 2008 Financial Crisis + the Great Depression. Our generation grew up alongside a neverending war and we came of age in a global crisis caused by irresponsible actors in the financial sector. This kind of thing radicalizes you. Z is also trending in a similar direction because of the above and also because of the onset of climate change.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/201...llennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/

Really cool article, thanks for sharing.
 

Tamanon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,728
I'll skip Pete's town hall and just wait for the poorly edited tweets telling me what he *REALLY* said instead.
 

SweetNicole

The Old Guard
Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,542
Granite State Poll said:
Nearly half of Sanders supporters select Biden or Warren as their second choice, while nearly half of Biden supporters select Sanders or
Harris as their second choice.

Can someone ELI5 why there is such a connection between Sanders -> Biden or Biden->Sanders? It doesn't make much sense to me that there's so much overlap between people who would vote for Biden and people who would vote for Sanders considering they seem very, very different in terms of policies and proposals.
 

Deleted member 51103

User requested account closure
Banned
Dec 20, 2018
174
Portland, Oregon
Let's say, for example, somebody got a degree they were interested in and gained knowledge that launched them into the political/activist sphere and they are now actively helping/educating within their community, but their degree didn't make them a dime more. Is it still worthless? Or does it have to hit all the qualifiers you listed here?

I think you're conflating worth with market dictated value. Those two things are almost never aligned (one possible exception being doctors, but I'd say in America at least they are actually being overpaid). Take something like child-rearing. That is a vital part of a functioning society, and yet as it stands we don't value, as in monetarily reward, it in a way that reflects how vital it is.

Worthless was probably overly harsh. I would say that a degree that is expensive and does not get you to where you want to be, and is rather an albatross around your neck is a bad thing.

I love education. I am not interested in policing what is valuable to study, because I believe that education breeds empathic, empowered citizens and that is valuable to society in general. I should have used the term "profitable" instead... which also sucks but we are all trapped in a capitalist society so I cannot help you there.

The real thing here is that getting an education should be affordable and it is unfortunate that people were scammed by the university system and that should ABSOLUTELY be remediated through a loan forgiveness program. I also support reparations for slavery if that gives you any hint on where I fall on the political spectrum.

I definitely have some unconscious bias here. Thank you for your wisdom and pointing out these issues with my take, gives me some things to think about! :)
 

BoboBrazil

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,765
Can someone ELI5 why there is such a connection between Sanders -> Biden or Biden->Sanders? It doesn't make much sense to me that there's so much overlap between people who would vote for Biden and people who would vote for Sanders considering they seem very, very different in terms of policies and proposals.
Old white guy fetish is strong. Really, it seems to be just name recognition
 

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
2,481
Can someone ELI5 why there is such a connection between Sanders -> Biden or Biden->Sanders? It doesn't make much sense to me that there's so much overlap between people who would vote for Biden and people who would vote for Sanders considering they seem very, very different in terms of policies and proposals.

As a Bernie supporters, policy wise it makes no sense. I can only take it that it's name recognition at this point. Bernie had only increased his profile since 2016 and Biden continued his brand thanks to being associated with Obama. Nothing more that I can think of.
 

TheModestGun

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
3,781
What's interesting to me is that someone like AOC would theoretically siphon more voters away from Bernie than Warren could. Speaking personally, I'd pick AOC over Bernie in a heartbeat and he'd be my second choice, while AOC would be my first. While I have no doubt that sexism plays a part in people who only vote for male candidates, I think most Bernie supporters just want a bernie-type candidate, and someone like AOC is an even more ideal version of such a candidate than Bernie himself.
Exactly. I care most about the message being delivered. Not as much about the vessel delivering it. I do like Bernie as a personality as well personally, but if there were a younger Social Democrat running that had the rallying power Sanders does, I might be inclined to have them as my top pick.
 

SweetNicole

The Old Guard
Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,542
Yes, he should announce his pick because you totally in good faith think he'll pick tulsi

She resigned from the DNC to endorse Bernie for President in 2016. She has a fellowship at the Sanders Institute, which is led by Jane Sanders (Bernie's wife), and she has had the spotlight for speaking gigs at a number of events for the Institute. It isn't a stretch to say at all that Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard like each other, and Sanders, if he wins, could want a VP he already has a good working relationship with.
 

Soul Skater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,201
Can someone ELI5 why there is such a connection between Sanders -> Biden or Biden->Sanders? It doesn't make much sense to me that there's so much overlap between people who would vote for Biden and people who would vote for Sanders considering they seem very, very different in terms of policies and proposals.
People don't really vote so much based on where people fall on the ideological spectrum

Like there's a significant number of people vote for who the like the most and generally assume people they like support the same things they support.

For example I can imagine there are many people out there who think that Joe Biden, just based on his sort of lax "bro" persona that he's much more liberal than he actually is. That he's more a 60/70s type of Dem when he's really not (even though he's from that era before the 90s moderation)

Trump benefitted from this too. Tons of people believed, just solely due to his persona and brand was a different type of republican and in some ways more liberal and better for unions, etc than Hillary. Obvious he wasn't, but people are dumb and there's not much you can do.

Or atleast that's why Bernie is so consistently fixated on "what Trump ran on vs what he's actually done", and not really even bothering talking about Mueller or whatever
 

Surfinn

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,590
USA
Worthless was probably overly harsh. I would say that a degree that is expensive and does not get you to where you want to be, and is rather an albatross around your neck is a bad thing.

I love education. I am not interested in policing what is valuable to study, because I believe that education breeds empathic, empowered citizens and that is valuable to society in general. I should have used the term "profitable" instead... which also sucks but we are all trapped in a capitalist society so I cannot help you there.

The real thing here is that getting an education should be affordable and it is unfortunate that people were scammed by the university system and that should ABSOLUTELY be remediated through a loan forgiveness program. I also support reparations for slavery if that gives you any hint on where I fall on the political spectrum.

I definitely have some unconscious bias here. Thank you for your wisdom and pointing out these issues with my take, gives me some things to think about! :)
What would you consider expensive? 10k? 50k? And what if where a person wants to be is out helping in their community (and the knowledge provided by their degree significantly enhances their ability to do that)?
 

SaveWeyard

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,540
Warren has also made appearances at Pride parade. Why would a "yikes" be a response to someone saying "yes the commitment to social change is just as important as the actual politics to me"? How on earth is that a problem?
Equating policies that fight structural inequalities with superficial identity politics is the yikes. Its a perfect example of woke, white liberal multiculturalism.
 

Frozenprince

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,158
Warren has also made appearances at Pride parade. Why would a "yikes" be a response to someone saying "yes the commitment to social change is just as important as the actual politics to me"? How on earth is that a problem?
Because it's just a performative cultural signifier rather than actually giving these people material changes. We've seen this song and dance before, dozens of times.

Action comes first. Addressing the material conditions that belies marginal communities comes first.

It just shows that like a lot of these issues, the actually addressment of it is performative, a show to appease an arm of the electorate. Obama did this all the time. He chuckled about wiping out arrests for weed, then talked about how he smoked it in college and arresting more people for weed offenses and cracking down harder on dispensaries than Bush ever did.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
The shift right that Dems had to reacclimate to and shifted them to the right (in ways good and bad) happened through the post-civil rights era, its 70s/80s/90s. Carter was part of it, Clinton was a not-shitty version of carter. The shift back leftward was in the 00s/10s as younger gens grew up without lead poisoning and ended up way more liberal, as well as left-leaners in fields like economics (think Warren, Krugman, etc.) were rejecting GOP crap.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Equating policies that fight structural inequalities with superficial identity politics is the yikes. Its a perfect example of woke, white liberal multiculturalism.
Because it's just a performative cultural signifier rather than actually giving these people material changes. We've seen this song and dance before, dozens of times.

Action comes first. Addressing the material conditions that belies marginal communities comes first.

It just shows that like a lot of these issues, the actually addressment of it is performative, a show to appease an arm of the electorate. Obama did this all the time.
I'm gay. Those "performative cultural signifiers" have been real fucking important to normalizing us and they are very much appreciated because of the history of where we came . Who is "we" here, exactly?

The idea that this is merely "woke liberal multiculturalism" is to be completely ignorant or dismissive of where things stood just one decade ago.
 

Soul Skater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,201
If betos only at like 3% in NH thats horrible

He's barely beating Andrew yang. Really really should have run for senate again because man

I don't think he can pull a Rubio either. Running for POTUS I think kills any small hope for winning that senate race
 

Deleted member 3896

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,815
She resigned from the DNC to endorse Bernie for President in 2016. She has a fellowship at the Sanders Institute, which is led by Jane Sanders (Bernie's wife), and she has had the spotlight for speaking gigs at a number of events for the Institute. It isn't a stretch to say at all that Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard like each other, and Sanders, if he wins, could want a VP he already has a good working relationship with.
Exactly. Sanders also has a history of making very questionable hires for important positions, so choosing Gabbard who's a Sanders loyalist & insider would continue that pattern.
 

Deleted member 6230

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,118
I'm gay. Those "performative cultural signifiers" have been real fucking important to normalizing us and they are very much appreciated because of the history of where we came . Who is "we" here, exactly?

The idea that this is merely "woke liberal multiculturalism" is to be completely ignorant or dismissive of where things stood just one decade ago.
In what world is something like Harris playing up her HBCU roots on the same level as actually funding HBCUs? I think that's the point being raised.
 

BoboBrazil

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,765
Seems like a better than 0% chance he would choose Tulsi or Nina Turner as his VP.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
In what world is something like Harris playing up her HBCU roots on the same level as actually funding HBCUs? I think that's the point being raised.
It's the same world where people are angry that some aren't performatively expressing solidarity with someone Omar enough. This stuff matters to people.
 

shamanick

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,072
I don't see Sanders picking Tulsi, ever. What voters would she bring to the table that he wouldn't already have? He's got way better political instincts than that. I see someone more like Abrams - he'll have to work with the establishment in the general.
 

Slader166

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,319
Phoenix, AZ
I may be wrong but does the whole "the polls atm are about name recognition" thing still apply to Buttigieg? It seems like he's rising in the polls because people agree with his policies, and not because he was recognizable before announcing his campaign.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I may be wrong but does the whole "the polls atm are about name recognition" thing still apply to Buttigieg? It seems like he's rising in the polls because people agree with his policies, and not because he was recognizable before announcing his campaign.
People are attributing it to his media presence which he's been hitting hard recently.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
I may be wrong but does the whole "the polls atm are about name recognition" thing still apply to Buttigieg? It seems like he's rising in the polls because people agree with his policies, and not because he was recognizable before announcing his campaign.
In the March YouGov poll, Pete, Kamala, Beto and Biden were all overperforming their name recognition in their "who would you consider" polling. (Haven't seen G. Elliot take a look at the April numbers yet.)
 

Soul Skater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,201
Pete's rising because he's good on camera, doesn't have a long history of saying and doing the opposite of what he's campaigning on now, and because well everyone else sucks

He's the human embodiment of the "someone new" poll option
 

Apple

Member
Oct 27, 2017
491
I'll skip Pete's town hall and just wait for the poorly edited tweets telling me what he *REALLY* said instead.

lol

Yeah this is something that's really been bothering me lately, Democrats have so many great and inspiring candidates this time around, from Warren to Sanders to Harris to Beto to Pete, we should be celebrating each and every one of them and proudly casting our vote for whoever ends up being the nominee in the general election. Instead, people are getting outraged over clickbait headlines and cancelling our candidates left and right and without spending like 5-minutes to try and understand the context of a statement or even watch the clip that's posted. There will be plenty of time to be angry and outraged during the general election, because that's when we'll be up against people worth getting angry and outraged about - the republicans. I currently favor Pete, but anytime I watch any of the other Democratic candidates give a town hall, or a stump speech, I'm like 'fuck yeah!' Not, 'ugh, who the fuck is this centrist neoliberal corporate lapdog stooge, lol cancelled'. Shit can be absolutely infuriating, but I try and tell myself that it's just a very vocal minority who can never, and will never, be fucking happy with anyone or anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.