"Charlie Kirk calls for his audience to post bail for Pelosi attacker: "If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out...Bail him out and then go ask him some questions"
These people are VILE and all of you suburban voters who cannot bring yourself to vote for the Democrats because of gas prices or wokeness or WHATEVER, you are bringing this vileness and violence and anti-democratic bullshit to our nation. It will be YOUR children and grandchildren, and OURS, who will pay the huge price. Think about that, and then go vote for sanity, for an end to the craziness and violent threats we'll all be facing soon enough.
They seek power for its own sake; they have no agenda to help people. They do have a strong streak of disciplinarianism. More commonly known as authoritarianism, but I think they actively enjoy applying discipline as an end in itself. The cruelty is the point.
I wish this type of appeal could be enough, but I fear it will not be. The gas prices, inflation and, I guess, wokeness are being used to give Republican voters cover, and it seems like it might work. I have a lot of critiques for much of the media, too, at this point. The media just keeps citing polls that people's most important concern is the economy and grocery and gas prices, so that is why people are moving toward the Republicans as if that is a clear and rational truth, but is it really?
My question is what will happen when those Rs are elected and inflation keeps going up, the oil companies raise prices, normal people are excised from schools, etc. Are their voters still going to blame Ds? Where's that vaunted accountability Rs purport to want?
Yes, they always do. With a D in the WH, every issue is the Ds fault. With Rs in the WH, every issue was left to them by the Ds. There's always an excuse why Rs are never responsible for all the inequality and horror they continually to create. And Ds are never ever given any credit for cleaning up the messes left between R admins.
If all else fails, they'll blame Obama, the deep state, and Hillary Clinton. That's their strategy. There is no rational explanation needed. Whatever they make up, their followers will amplify.
Regarding oil companies; it seems plausible they would prefer Republican control and the associated loosening of regulations and taxes. I wonder if thereтАЩs a history of price gouging during Democratic administrations, and falling prices during Republican rule.
But the Saudis might perk up and promote lower oil prices if we end up with a Republican House, for the same reason; they know on which side their bread is buttered.
Well of course they do. Just about every nation with ambition that isn't a true ally of the US does. He weakens the US on the international stage, so what's for them not to like?
The answer is Yes, I believe. They didn't hold a single Republican incumbent to account in the 2020 election, for their massive enabling of trump all those years, and they won't in the future. Today's GOP knows it.
IтАЩm coming to the conclusion that the only way to reverse this mindless authoritarianism, and disregard for democracy, is if their agenda runs untethered to its logical conclusion, which would allow them to feel the results of the dystopia they are unwittingly voting for, first hand. The fly in the ointment is, by the time they realize how unpleasant life is under full Trumpism, the path out of it will be slammed shut and nailed closed.
The fly in the ointment of Accelerationism is that a lot of vulnerable people would suffer and die for this lesson. You have to be well-insulated from the results to be an Accelerationist. I have a rather more Patton-esque attitude toward dying.
I wish that would work, but history is remarkably pessimistic on that point.
If you want a great example check out "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer. He went into post-war Germany to interview people and figure out how they could have done what they did. The only ones who really acknowledged the horrors were the ones who knew better and only supported the Nazis out of cowardice. Most of the other interviewees thought of Hitler as merely a mediocre politician, who's real sin was starting a war he couldn't win. They basically shrugged off all the atrocities and deflected blame.
You hit it there. Republicans aren't good with the economy in spite of their reputation, so I would guess economic difficulties would finally cause voters to turn against them.
Voters do that regularly. But then they turn back to them as soon as Ds have smoothed things out a bit. And they are not patient with letting Ds have the time needed to actually fix anything.
Actually, it's a real question I have. We talk about Russia, Turkey and Hungary, and how people there can never overthrow Putin, Erdogan and Orban. But so far we (the media mostly, but even politicians) have done a very poor job in illuminating how authoritarian leadership impacts people living under it negatively. Can't speak out against the regime? MAGAts don't speak out about their leaders. Freedom of the press gone? Faux News, et al, would qualify for state-run media outlets - they won't be attacked by the regime. Immigration only from "white" nations? MAGAts support that too.
So seriously, someone tell me how day-to-day life will be impacted for most Americans under an authoritarian regime?
We already have a preview from the authoritarian packed unfit SCOTUS of this past summer. No women's rights, no civil rights, no human rights.
We already have a preview from Republican politicians like Rick Scott and Kevin McCarthy: no more social safety net; no more social security; no more medicare or medicaid; tax only the working poor; and make sure those at the top don't have to interact with the rest. Oh, and let the rest die from whatever can kill them quickly to get down to a manageable number in the new servant class.
It may take a couple of years, but believe me it will impact every single woman, child, elder, disabled, poor, working person and family who doesn't have a million in the bank. Seniors will be instantly dumped into poverty without social security, for instance.
Look at the lives in authoritarian countries: controlled at every turn and not prosperous anywhere except the top of the political class. (As in Brazil, if the choice is a somewhat corrupt liberal or a criminally corrupt dictator authoritarian, I take the liberal every time!)
While I don't disagree with the uncertainty that others mention, I think you have a depressing point. Life won't change much in the short term. In the long term all kinds of things will happen that cause us to start ticking closer and closer towards where Russia is (let's say as of 2014).
We'll start seeing some of our best and brightest heading overseas for freedom. We'll lose valuable recruits for our military as hyper-masculinity drives out inclusiveness. We'll see increases in crony capitalism and a further rise in oligarchs who pad their own pockets more and more. That increase in corruption will lead to decreases in effectiveness in various areas (military preparedness, government funding for science research, government benefits programs, etc.)
All of that will build long term rot in our society. Our starting point could keep that rot from being exposed for decades or even longer. But eventually, it will be exposed, possibly in the same way Russia's rot is being exposed by a smaller nation with unicorn soldiers.
I would imagine the first problem will be uncertainty. Will Emperor Trump raise taxes on the Blue States selectively again, or will he cut corporate taxes to the point that inflation runs rampant? Will Emperor Taylor Green institute price controls? Will Emperor DeSantis shut down companies that he feels are woke, causing layoffs? Will Emperor Cotton (ha ha ha, sorry) insist that police in "crime-ridden Democrat cities" be given the power to suspend habeus corpus, or make peaceful protest and assembly illegal?
It's hard to say how life will be impacted, but any of the things I mentioned are strong contenders. Agricultural products will probably churn first as we lose the people who work in the fields. Between inflation, which an authoritarian can't stop easily, and restricted immigration, food prices will soar. And then an authoritarian would be tempted to institute price controls on food. When Big Ag objects, what will the authoritarian do next?
In other words, not to be depressing, but it would absolutely suck.
I was serious. If Republicans cut SS and make medical care more expensive, fail to complete the changeover to EV's that American companies have invested heavily in, try to cut spending to fulfill unrealistic campaign promises, and do the things they've promised economically, it would cause economic pain. It might be enough to turn the majority against the Republican regime.
I suspect many MAGAs receive more public services than they realize. They will only notice when those services either disappear or become corrupt. Things as mundane as road repair, or parks maintenance; and also more substantive services like тАЬkeep your government hands OFF my Medicare!тАЭ (said the brainiac who apparently didnтАЩt realize Medicare is a government service).
тАЬDonтАЩt it always seem to go, you donтАЩt know what youтАЩve got тАШtil itтАЩs gone.тАЭ
Give it time. It's only noon. Of course, we could set it up for him, see what happens. (No, no, bad Kate, stop listening to the devil on your left shoulder.)
Charlie Kirk is a purported Christian. Let that sink in, fellow Christians. Mr. mel ladi reminded me last night about GodтАЩs judgment on slanderers.
I wonтАЩt put up with whataboutism either. God was talking to His people, not the тАЬworldтАЭ. I donтАЩt care about the remarks people of other faith (or no faith) make . They are not required or bound to follow GodтАЩs sentiments (as shown in the Bible anyway) on any matter. Kirk, however, claims the Bible as his truth. He is a slanderer.
It helps to remember that these people use Christianity as a tool, a means to an end, not as actual beliefs when it is time to match deeds to words. To them the Bible is just a prop, something to wave in public when convenient, and expression of faith is a badge of honor that they do not earn through actions meant to reinforce it.
I don't know what Jesus would do in any situation. But I think I know what He wouldn't do if I saw it, and in these people I see that all the time. So do you.
Today, the term "Christian" has increasingly become a social identifier, used by the right wing White people to differentiate themselves from left wing White people. Its like when you hear some yahoo refer to themselves as a "Conservative", then when you ask them their opinion on any policy, they sound like Bernie Sanders.
It seems to me that Trump was a winnower of sorts for the GOP...separating the chaff from the wheat. I'll be the first to say that there was a lot more chaff than I ever realized previously.
I find the progressive left's obsession with identity noxious in its own way and if there were any sane Republicans, I could see myself voting for them. HOWEVER, I voted straight D this year (our state allows early voting) and find the current GOP filled with the most vile, dangerous, and despicable people in America.
I seem to have this obsession. My heart breaks for the person who knows they are in the wrong body, and the mental baggage that comes with it, but must hide it to avoid making others uncomfortable.
Genuine questions: what do you see as "the progressive left's obsession with identity"? How do you define/describe that? What singles that group out from other political groups' approach to identity?
I find both the right and the left's obsession with identity noxious. The left insists immutable characteristics determine character while the right claims religion does. I prefer to treat each person as an individual, an old-fashioned belief that both sides reject.
That is ridiculous. I hear people (usually White people) make these sorts of statements all the time. These are the same people who (i) almost never have Black friends, (ii) don't know any Black people, (iii) have never lived around Black people and (iv) only know Hispanics because they perform lawn services for them.
Fact of the matter is, without a conscientious effort to seek out relationships with people who are not like us, most people will simply retreat back to what is most comfortable to them, and that is generally those who look most like them. To pretend otherwise is not only na├пve, but disingenuous.
Can we agree that Some people are not like тАЬMostтАЭ people? In my experience, we all have тАЬtapesтАЭ that play in our minds. When those tapes are healthy for Democracy such as believing, тАЬI consider people for who they are not what they are,тАЭ they should be encouraged. Conversely a mental tape telling oneself things canтАЩt be changed is defeating. You are quite correct that one has to live with different people to truly know who you desire to befriend but an open mind is helpful.
Thank you. I appreciate your answer; this issue is something I've been thinking about for a long time and trying to understand at a deep level. It fascinates me because so many facets of one's identity are things not voluntarily chosen: sex; race; ethnicity; and religion, at least during infancy and early childhood. And they're enduringly complex, since aspects of identity that one values deeply might be the basis for others to reject one; and they're ultimately individual, as each person experiences the components of their identity in a unique way.
I'm not sure what "immutable characteristics" you have in mind regarding the left's view of identity. It seems to me that the right focuses on race and culture issues every bit as much as the left, just with a different frame of reference ("different = bad") and desired set of outcomes. Would you agree?
Yes I would and I find both unacceptable. However, as a former lefty (now independent), I'm more attuned to the hypocrisy on the left, which is why it bothers me more. For example, the antisemitism of the far right and progressive left are both vile but the right doesn't pretend to be righteous. The progressive left also claims that anyone who disagrees with racial essentialism is a "racist," a word that now seems to mean "anyone who disagrees with the progressive left."
My children are mixed race, so I'm well-aware that racism still exists. But to insist as many in the progressive left do that the U.S. is as racist as it's ever been is lazy and, frankly, stupid. You can see from the comments here that people like Paul imply I'm a racist for holding the views I do and that's why I no longer identify as a "liberal." Thank goodness for people like John McWhorter and Coleman Hughes. who have helped me realize that I'm not crazy.
I really want to know where you got the idea that the left advocates for "racial essentialism".
Maybe there are some twitter "leftists" who think that way, but that's not the way any prominent leftist thinker or politician discusses race. The left is very clear that race is a social construct and there is no such thing as "racial essentialism".
Honestly I question how much of a "lefty" you really were. The way you discuss these issues sounds identical to a right-wing understanding of the left.
ЁЯСНЁЯП╗ As it should beтАж We really liked Charlie Baker, Republican, as Gov. With the MAGAS running now we voted almost straight Dem. except for our Auditor, Republican, who has done a fine job for many years.
Your beliefs are probably a result of your recent experience. I will not argue with you. However in my experience both here in MA and with my own extensive family, I know a large number of honest, thoughtful, тАЬgood,тАЭ Republicans who are quite disturbed by the lies and calls to violence of the far right MAGA group. My husband and I do believe that the far left Dems who loudly attack people for not being тАЬWokeтАЭ enough are doing the Dem. Party harm. We are not young; I am 80. My identity comes from my family, my work in different communities, my church and my years of learning, teaching, and consulting with people of different races & cultures.
That's definitely not what the left asserts about identity. That's what the right wants you to believe the left asserts about identity.
The left is merely pointing out our society has been deliberately built in ways to benefit certain groups of people, and that if we truly believe in equality of opportunity we should remove those structures. If you look at the history of this country, that point is painfully obvious.
The right on the other hand is committed to preserving those structures that unbalance the playing field and gleefully pretends that they don't exist and were never built.
I suspect you know you're distorting what I said, but you don't care. I won't respond to your obviously bad faith interpretation of my comment again. Have a nice day.
"Charlie Kirk calls for his audience to post bail for Pelosi attacker: "If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out...Bail him out and then go ask him some questions"
These people are VILE and all of you suburban voters who cannot bring yourself to vote for the Democrats because of gas prices or wokeness or WHATEVER, you are bringing this vileness and violence and anti-democratic bullshit to our nation. It will be YOUR children and grandchildren, and OURS, who will pay the huge price. Think about that, and then go vote for sanity, for an end to the craziness and violent threats we'll all be facing soon enough.
You're preaching to the choir.
You are right. Problem is most of GQP refuses to put country over party.
They seek power for its own sake; they have no agenda to help people. They do have a strong streak of disciplinarianism. More commonly known as authoritarianism, but I think they actively enjoy applying discipline as an end in itself. The cruelty is the point.
Unfortunately...they are so deluded that they think they are putting country over party
I wish this type of appeal could be enough, but I fear it will not be. The gas prices, inflation and, I guess, wokeness are being used to give Republican voters cover, and it seems like it might work. I have a lot of critiques for much of the media, too, at this point. The media just keeps citing polls that people's most important concern is the economy and grocery and gas prices, so that is why people are moving toward the Republicans as if that is a clear and rational truth, but is it really?
My question is what will happen when those Rs are elected and inflation keeps going up, the oil companies raise prices, normal people are excised from schools, etc. Are their voters still going to blame Ds? Where's that vaunted accountability Rs purport to want?
Yes, they always do. With a D in the WH, every issue is the Ds fault. With Rs in the WH, every issue was left to them by the Ds. There's always an excuse why Rs are never responsible for all the inequality and horror they continually to create. And Ds are never ever given any credit for cleaning up the messes left between R admins.
If all else fails, they'll blame Obama, the deep state, and Hillary Clinton. That's their strategy. There is no rational explanation needed. Whatever they make up, their followers will amplify.
Regarding oil companies; it seems plausible they would prefer Republican control and the associated loosening of regulations and taxes. I wonder if thereтАЩs a history of price gouging during Democratic administrations, and falling prices during Republican rule.
I am betting that if Repubs win the House, gas prices fall within the week.
I don't think so. The Saudis are all in on Trump. Continued high gas prices will only be held against Biden, favoring Trump in a rematch.
But the Saudis might perk up and promote lower oil prices if we end up with a Republican House, for the same reason; they know on which side their bread is buttered.
Ugh.
Also, it appears the Saudis want Trump or Trumpism back too!
Everything is transactional; follow the money, and other less tangible benefits.
Well of course they do. Just about every nation with ambition that isn't a true ally of the US does. He weakens the US on the international stage, so what's for them not to like?
The answer is Yes, I believe. They didn't hold a single Republican incumbent to account in the 2020 election, for their massive enabling of trump all those years, and they won't in the future. Today's GOP knows it.
IтАЩm coming to the conclusion that the only way to reverse this mindless authoritarianism, and disregard for democracy, is if their agenda runs untethered to its logical conclusion, which would allow them to feel the results of the dystopia they are unwittingly voting for, first hand. The fly in the ointment is, by the time they realize how unpleasant life is under full Trumpism, the path out of it will be slammed shut and nailed closed.
The fly in the ointment of Accelerationism is that a lot of vulnerable people would suffer and die for this lesson. You have to be well-insulated from the results to be an Accelerationist. I have a rather more Patton-esque attitude toward dying.
I wish that would work, but history is remarkably pessimistic on that point.
If you want a great example check out "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer. He went into post-war Germany to interview people and figure out how they could have done what they did. The only ones who really acknowledged the horrors were the ones who knew better and only supported the Nazis out of cowardice. Most of the other interviewees thought of Hitler as merely a mediocre politician, who's real sin was starting a war he couldn't win. They basically shrugged off all the atrocities and deflected blame.
Here's my disconnect and probably theirs - how, exactly will life under full Trumpism be "unpleasant" for them?
You hit it there. Republicans aren't good with the economy in spite of their reputation, so I would guess economic difficulties would finally cause voters to turn against them.
Voters do that regularly. But then they turn back to them as soon as Ds have smoothed things out a bit. And they are not patient with letting Ds have the time needed to actually fix anything.
Actually, it's a real question I have. We talk about Russia, Turkey and Hungary, and how people there can never overthrow Putin, Erdogan and Orban. But so far we (the media mostly, but even politicians) have done a very poor job in illuminating how authoritarian leadership impacts people living under it negatively. Can't speak out against the regime? MAGAts don't speak out about their leaders. Freedom of the press gone? Faux News, et al, would qualify for state-run media outlets - they won't be attacked by the regime. Immigration only from "white" nations? MAGAts support that too.
So seriously, someone tell me how day-to-day life will be impacted for most Americans under an authoritarian regime?
What you list here IS authoritarianism!
We already have a preview from the authoritarian packed unfit SCOTUS of this past summer. No women's rights, no civil rights, no human rights.
We already have a preview from Republican politicians like Rick Scott and Kevin McCarthy: no more social safety net; no more social security; no more medicare or medicaid; tax only the working poor; and make sure those at the top don't have to interact with the rest. Oh, and let the rest die from whatever can kill them quickly to get down to a manageable number in the new servant class.
It may take a couple of years, but believe me it will impact every single woman, child, elder, disabled, poor, working person and family who doesn't have a million in the bank. Seniors will be instantly dumped into poverty without social security, for instance.
Look at the lives in authoritarian countries: controlled at every turn and not prosperous anywhere except the top of the political class. (As in Brazil, if the choice is a somewhat corrupt liberal or a criminally corrupt dictator authoritarian, I take the liberal every time!)
While I don't disagree with the uncertainty that others mention, I think you have a depressing point. Life won't change much in the short term. In the long term all kinds of things will happen that cause us to start ticking closer and closer towards where Russia is (let's say as of 2014).
We'll start seeing some of our best and brightest heading overseas for freedom. We'll lose valuable recruits for our military as hyper-masculinity drives out inclusiveness. We'll see increases in crony capitalism and a further rise in oligarchs who pad their own pockets more and more. That increase in corruption will lead to decreases in effectiveness in various areas (military preparedness, government funding for science research, government benefits programs, etc.)
All of that will build long term rot in our society. Our starting point could keep that rot from being exposed for decades or even longer. But eventually, it will be exposed, possibly in the same way Russia's rot is being exposed by a smaller nation with unicorn soldiers.
I would imagine the first problem will be uncertainty. Will Emperor Trump raise taxes on the Blue States selectively again, or will he cut corporate taxes to the point that inflation runs rampant? Will Emperor Taylor Green institute price controls? Will Emperor DeSantis shut down companies that he feels are woke, causing layoffs? Will Emperor Cotton (ha ha ha, sorry) insist that police in "crime-ridden Democrat cities" be given the power to suspend habeus corpus, or make peaceful protest and assembly illegal?
It's hard to say how life will be impacted, but any of the things I mentioned are strong contenders. Agricultural products will probably churn first as we lose the people who work in the fields. Between inflation, which an authoritarian can't stop easily, and restricted immigration, food prices will soar. And then an authoritarian would be tempted to institute price controls on food. When Big Ag objects, what will the authoritarian do next?
In other words, not to be depressing, but it would absolutely suck.
I was serious. If Republicans cut SS and make medical care more expensive, fail to complete the changeover to EV's that American companies have invested heavily in, try to cut spending to fulfill unrealistic campaign promises, and do the things they've promised economically, it would cause economic pain. It might be enough to turn the majority against the Republican regime.
I suspect many MAGAs receive more public services than they realize. They will only notice when those services either disappear or become corrupt. Things as mundane as road repair, or parks maintenance; and also more substantive services like тАЬkeep your government hands OFF my Medicare!тАЭ (said the brainiac who apparently didnтАЩt realize Medicare is a government service).
тАЬDonтАЩt it always seem to go, you donтАЩt know what youтАЩve got тАШtil itтАЩs gone.тАЭ
As we descend into dystopia there will always be a new enemy and a new reason that everything is the Liberal's fault. It's turtles all the way down.
I wonder why Kirk isn't posting bail himself if he thinks it's such a wonderful idea.
Or truer to MAGAt form, why isn't he setting up a GoFundMe that he can grift from?
Give it time. It's only noon. Of course, we could set it up for him, see what happens. (No, no, bad Kate, stop listening to the devil on your left shoulder.)
Charlie Kirk is a purported Christian. Let that sink in, fellow Christians. Mr. mel ladi reminded me last night about GodтАЩs judgment on slanderers.
I wonтАЩt put up with whataboutism either. God was talking to His people, not the тАЬworldтАЭ. I donтАЩt care about the remarks people of other faith (or no faith) make . They are not required or bound to follow GodтАЩs sentiments (as shown in the Bible anyway) on any matter. Kirk, however, claims the Bible as his truth. He is a slanderer.
It helps to remember that these people use Christianity as a tool, a means to an end, not as actual beliefs when it is time to match deeds to words. To them the Bible is just a prop, something to wave in public when convenient, and expression of faith is a badge of honor that they do not earn through actions meant to reinforce it.
I don't know what Jesus would do in any situation. But I think I know what He wouldn't do if I saw it, and in these people I see that all the time. So do you.
Today, the term "Christian" has increasingly become a social identifier, used by the right wing White people to differentiate themselves from left wing White people. Its like when you hear some yahoo refer to themselves as a "Conservative", then when you ask them their opinion on any policy, they sound like Bernie Sanders.
Agree. TodayтАЩs тАЬChristianityтАЭ seems like a shield to do evil, with impunity.
Remember тАЬWWJDтАЭ?
My local example with that sign is that it is next to a gated driveway with a no trespassing sign.
I don't want trespassers either, but I'm not putting out a WWJD sign.
It seems to me that Trump was a winnower of sorts for the GOP...separating the chaff from the wheat. I'll be the first to say that there was a lot more chaff than I ever realized previously.
It wasn't exactly winnowing. More like finding needles in a haystack.
Agree completely.
I find the progressive left's obsession with identity noxious in its own way and if there were any sane Republicans, I could see myself voting for them. HOWEVER, I voted straight D this year (our state allows early voting) and find the current GOP filled with the most vile, dangerous, and despicable people in America.
I seem to have this obsession. My heart breaks for the person who knows they are in the wrong body, and the mental baggage that comes with it, but must hide it to avoid making others uncomfortable.
You are a normal, sane person with a working threat assessor in your brain.
I know it was probably kind of hard for you and I, at least, appreciate it.
Genuine questions: what do you see as "the progressive left's obsession with identity"? How do you define/describe that? What singles that group out from other political groups' approach to identity?
I find both the right and the left's obsession with identity noxious. The left insists immutable characteristics determine character while the right claims religion does. I prefer to treat each person as an individual, an old-fashioned belief that both sides reject.
That is ridiculous. I hear people (usually White people) make these sorts of statements all the time. These are the same people who (i) almost never have Black friends, (ii) don't know any Black people, (iii) have never lived around Black people and (iv) only know Hispanics because they perform lawn services for them.
Fact of the matter is, without a conscientious effort to seek out relationships with people who are not like us, most people will simply retreat back to what is most comfortable to them, and that is generally those who look most like them. To pretend otherwise is not only na├пve, but disingenuous.
Can we agree that Some people are not like тАЬMostтАЭ people? In my experience, we all have тАЬtapesтАЭ that play in our minds. When those tapes are healthy for Democracy such as believing, тАЬI consider people for who they are not what they are,тАЭ they should be encouraged. Conversely a mental tape telling oneself things canтАЩt be changed is defeating. You are quite correct that one has to live with different people to truly know who you desire to befriend but an open mind is helpful.
SallyJones
Thank you. I appreciate your answer; this issue is something I've been thinking about for a long time and trying to understand at a deep level. It fascinates me because so many facets of one's identity are things not voluntarily chosen: sex; race; ethnicity; and religion, at least during infancy and early childhood. And they're enduringly complex, since aspects of identity that one values deeply might be the basis for others to reject one; and they're ultimately individual, as each person experiences the components of their identity in a unique way.
I'm not sure what "immutable characteristics" you have in mind regarding the left's view of identity. It seems to me that the right focuses on race and culture issues every bit as much as the left, just with a different frame of reference ("different = bad") and desired set of outcomes. Would you agree?
Yes I would and I find both unacceptable. However, as a former lefty (now independent), I'm more attuned to the hypocrisy on the left, which is why it bothers me more. For example, the antisemitism of the far right and progressive left are both vile but the right doesn't pretend to be righteous. The progressive left also claims that anyone who disagrees with racial essentialism is a "racist," a word that now seems to mean "anyone who disagrees with the progressive left."
My children are mixed race, so I'm well-aware that racism still exists. But to insist as many in the progressive left do that the U.S. is as racist as it's ever been is lazy and, frankly, stupid. You can see from the comments here that people like Paul imply I'm a racist for holding the views I do and that's why I no longer identify as a "liberal." Thank goodness for people like John McWhorter and Coleman Hughes. who have helped me realize that I'm not crazy.
I really want to know where you got the idea that the left advocates for "racial essentialism".
Maybe there are some twitter "leftists" who think that way, but that's not the way any prominent leftist thinker or politician discusses race. The left is very clear that race is a social construct and there is no such thing as "racial essentialism".
Honestly I question how much of a "lefty" you really were. The way you discuss these issues sounds identical to a right-wing understanding of the left.
ЁЯСНЁЯП╗ As it should beтАж We really liked Charlie Baker, Republican, as Gov. With the MAGAS running now we voted almost straight Dem. except for our Auditor, Republican, who has done a fine job for many years.
SallyJones
Your beliefs are probably a result of your recent experience. I will not argue with you. However in my experience both here in MA and with my own extensive family, I know a large number of honest, thoughtful, тАЬgood,тАЭ Republicans who are quite disturbed by the lies and calls to violence of the far right MAGA group. My husband and I do believe that the far left Dems who loudly attack people for not being тАЬWokeтАЭ enough are doing the Dem. Party harm. We are not young; I am 80. My identity comes from my family, my work in different communities, my church and my years of learning, teaching, and consulting with people of different races & cultures.
SallyJones
That's definitely not what the left asserts about identity. That's what the right wants you to believe the left asserts about identity.
The left is merely pointing out our society has been deliberately built in ways to benefit certain groups of people, and that if we truly believe in equality of opportunity we should remove those structures. If you look at the history of this country, that point is painfully obvious.
The right on the other hand is committed to preserving those structures that unbalance the playing field and gleefully pretends that they don't exist and were never built.
The idea of what "a real American" is comes from the right.
So, you ignore the impact if centuries of racism or sexism on people?
I suspect you know you're distorting what I said, but you don't care. I won't respond to your obviously bad faith interpretation of my comment again. Have a nice day.
So, the party that promotes white supremacy and Christian supremacy isn't obsessed with identity?
I've not heard the term crypto-fascist until today. The shoe fits. The glove now fits.
That was my question too.