Bernie Sanders: Democrats must move beyond 'identity politics'
142 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51407366][img]http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/47/1479760530-untitled.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Which sub reddit is this?
i'd like to imagine average voters generally aren't like posters on reddit or /pol/ but maybe that's just how it is.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51407366][img]http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/47/1479760530-untitled.png[/img][/QUOTE]
reddit as usual
just has bernie had a segment of his group under the "bernie or bust" who proceeded to vote trump when he lost, he had other segments who supported him without knowing his policies.
its ironic really
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51407278]Because modern progressive SJWs don't care about working class people and they never did. Most will argue that talking about economic inequality is a distraction unless it's couched in terms of how rich whites abuse poor minorities. Talking about poor whites or even poor people generally is seen as a Trojan Horse or just avoided altogether.
Maybe this move will be successful and the progressives will become further marginalized (they're already suffering massive defeats and setbacks). But I have my doubts.[/QUOTE]you have an incredibly internet centric view of the left, the denial of economic inequality or more accurately saying it doesn't matter is couched in the ideology of neo-liberalism put for after the 1980s. there was a destruction of collectivism & joint action to put focus onto an individualistic view of the self, the social justice stuff has only become more prominent in view of the internet. it's always been there in the background but it was small collectives of people working together to be progressive. there's a lot of good work done on the internet but especially in regards to the political mainstream (those politicians who take it on) it's become performative. they don't actually care.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51407371]It's not so much identity politics, as it is basing your entire movement around calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, neonazi, ect.
Seriously, the worst thing Hillary did to herself was the "deplorable" comment. It became a rallying cry for those who supported Trump, and most of the people whom were on the fence ended up voting Trump simply because it was unbelievable that a politician would try to make anyone who didn't agree with her a lesser person.
[editline]21st November 2016[/editline]
Stuff like this is why the Democrat party is not making any new friends. They constantly betray decent people in their movement, and see anyone who disagrees with them as being a lesser person.[/QUOTE]
Clinton didn't lose because a bunch of people got together on /pol/ and r/the_donald no matter what they say.
She lost because she lost the support of the working class, probably the biggest example being be rust belt. On the grand scheme of things people don't really give a shit the petty insults the candidates were throwing around, but they do care that manufacturing jobs they relied on were getting phased out by natural progression in automation and out sourcing. Clinton didn't campaign hard in those areas, and when it came time to vote the blue collar workers who weren't being polled all came out in support of Trump instead of Clinton. Which is where you get traditionally blue manufacturing counties like those around Detroit all flipping red.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51407366][img]http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/47/1479760530-untitled.png[/img][/QUOTE]
These people are the biggest babies lmao
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51407366][img]http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/47/1479760530-untitled.png[/img][/QUOTE]
It's like they didn't even read the article - let alone the sentence.
[QUOTE=froztshock;51407402]Which sub reddit is this?[/QUOTE]
/r/hillaryclinton
sanders' speech isn't even about her.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51407371]It's not so much identity politics, as it is basing your entire movement around calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, neonazi, ect.
Seriously, the worst thing Hillary did to herself was the "deplorable" comment. It became a rallying cry for those who supported Trump, and most of the people whom were on the fence ended up voting Trump simply because it was unbelievable that a politician would try to make anyone who didn't agree with her a lesser person.
[editline]21st November 2016[/editline]
Stuff like this is why the Democrat party is not making any new friends. They constantly betray decent people in their movement, and see anyone who disagrees with them as being a lesser person.[/QUOTE]
The narrative that people decided to vote Trump because the liberals were mean to them is hilariously wrong. People voted Trump because they thought he would best represent their interests. It was 100% identity politics on his side, too. Do you conflate racial identity and national identity, making you a white nationalist? Trump is your guy. Do you care a lot about your class identity and view modern economic policy as damaging to your life? Trump is your guy. Do you care about your national identity the most, and enjoyed his rhetoric about making America great? Trump is your guy.
There's a lot of reasons people voted for him. Not much of it comes down to "liberals said mean things." People self-identify along certain lines - that's human nature. Depending on how you identify yourself, you'll view Trump differently.
I agree that the polarization and the hatred seen on [I]both sides of the aisle[/I] this election is worrying. But if you're going to say that people all voted Trump because Hillary called them "deplorable," realize that a lot of people voted Hillary because Trump surrounded himself with a bunch of homophobes who promised to eliminate their self-identity entirely. Like Pence. And Sessions. And a lot of people. This isn't a one-sided thing - hate was present everywhere, and people felt like their identities - [I]who they are[/I] - were being threatened by the opposition. That's where the hate and fear comes from.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51407366][img]http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/47/1479760530-untitled.png[/img][/QUOTE]
After reading OP I'm inclined to believe that the people in this screen shot that hate him do want a woman as president just because she's a woman?
Bernie is right and those idiots don't know what politics even is.
At least that's what I got from it.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51407347]Not really, though. Intersectionality is a pretty important thing for feminists and "SJWs." I agree that they tend to underemphasize class and overemphasize gender and race when it comes to inequality, but most progressives I know are very class-conscious - way more than the conservatives I know.
Bernie's just saying that people need to recognize that self-identity (through gender identity, racial identity, and so on) are important, but that they shouldn't overshadow class identity. Pigeonholing and generalizing "white people" as oppressors of PoC is an oversimplification if you're talking about intersectionality, since it's only addressing one section rather than looking at the interaction of those sections. Are minorities more likely to be of a lower economic class? Yes. Why? Is it 100% race? Clearly not, because it's an intersection of race and class, and the "SJWs" who think that it's 100% racial have a worldview that I think is damaging left-wing politics.
Bernie wants to shift emphasis back towards class identity and away from other forms of self-identity, whether gender, racial, sexual, national, ethnic, religious, whatever else. Class identity is fucking tragically weak in the United States - as evidenced by a bunch of struggling undereducated lower-class rust belt voters thinking that a literal millionaire can identify with them. He can identify with them - on racial and national identity. Not on class identity. Not on economics. Just skin color and being American.
Both sides [I]vastly[/I] underemphasize class identity. Republicans tend to favor religious identity and national identity - Democrats tend to favor gender identity and racial identity. Class keeps being forgotten, and Bernie's trying to shift at least some focus back on it. No need to eliminate other forms of self-identity - just get Americans to give a shit about economic classes and identify along class lines to mobilize against the ultra-wealthy who are exploiting them.[/QUOTE]
The thing that people get wrong when it comes to privilege and race and gender identity is that being "privileged" does not necessarily mean you are better off than others just because of your race, gender, sexuality etc. It means that you, as a privileged individual, do not face certain injustices or are slighted [I]because[/I] of your race. Can white people be poor and be stuck in a low-income community with little opportunity for higher education or social mobility? Quite obviously yes, but statistically and in the context of race relations in the US and history as a whole, blacks and other minority groups are given the short end of the stick [I]because[/I] of their race or other identity.
You have to remember that we had colored fountains, segregated schools, white flight, redlining, mortgage discrimination, the list literally goes on and on and on only 50 years ago. Thats a blink of an eye, people that were in their teens during these times are only in their 60s or early 70s now. Bernie was around for it, in fact. If you really think that "racism is over" or that privilege does not exist and that the standing effects of the discrimination in the civil rights era have dissipated, then history would like a word.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51407371]It's not so much identity politics, as it is basing your entire movement around calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, neonazi, ect.
Seriously, the worst thing Hillary did to herself was the "deplorable" comment. It became a rallying cry for those who supported Trump, and most of the people whom were on the fence ended up voting Trump simply because it was unbelievable that a politician would try to make anyone who didn't agree with her a lesser person.[/QUOTE]most people don't care about stuff like that because they're not big babies and they have actual problems to worry about in regards to their economic status and the value of their lives collapsing around them over the last 4 decades, and even more so after 07/08. you have a super basic understanding of political movements and the reasons for them.
also the mistake of the deplorable comment wasn't the meaning of it but that it was emblematic of the problems of hillary's campaign. she shouldn't have gotten to the point where you have to disparage a voting base, even if elements of the statements are true. she was not able to present a positive view of her campaign and her ideals without comparing herself to trump mainly because she really doesn't have an ideals outside of serving the donor class. well, and it's really appealing to disparage trump cause he's such a completely obvious Garbage Man.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;51407409]you have an incredibly internet centric view of the left, the denial of economic inequality or more accurately saying it doesn't matter is couched in the ideology of neo-liberalism put for after the 1980s. there was a destruction of collectivism & joint action to put focus onto an individualistic view of the self, the social justice stuff has only become more prominent in view of the internet. it's always been there in the background but it was small collectives of people working together to be progressive. there's a lot of good work done on the internet but especially in regards to the political mainstream (those politicians who take it on) it's become performative. they don't actually care.[/QUOTE]
It's actually based on my experiences at college. I have heard people explicitly state that refusing to include race, gender, whatever in conversations about inequality is bigoted or wrong. I've heard it many times, in person.
[editline]21st November 2016[/editline]
These people really exist.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51407411]These people are the biggest babies lmao[/QUOTE]
Honestly fuck their view of policy. It's not going to win elections and it couldn't keep a climate change denying scam artist demagogue out of office. They can cry in their little corner all they want but so help me we need to fight tooth and nail to get people who can actually appeal to the working class back at the forefront of the democratic party or Bannon's edgy waffling about 50 years of conservative darkness or whatever are going to come true.
The dems need to run candidates that can actually win elections and if we have to piss off identity pundits like them who are too busy masturbating to their gender studies degrees to see the bigger picture, then so be it. They'll vote democrat anyways.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51407366][img]http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/47/1479760530-untitled.png[/img][/QUOTE]
you missed the best one
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ZIJ8RlG.png[/img]
someone get these clinton fans over here I'd love to see how they justify their inability to read further than a fucking title
I hate how often people take a specific quote from every polition and make the message INVERT into itself
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51407455]It's actually based on my experiences at college. I have heard people explicitly state that refusing to include race, gender, whatever in conversations about inequality is bigoted or wrong. I've heard it many times, in person.
[editline]21st November 2016[/editline]
These people really exist.[/QUOTE]
Well I'd personally agree with them in this instance unless I'm not understanding something. I think that race, gender, etc. most certainly do have a place in discussions about inequality because they are interconnected and related beyond a shadow of doubt. Ignoring the role that they play and outright [I]refusing[/I] the discussion of that role in a conversation sounds pretty closed-minded and ignorant.
[QUOTE=Swiket;51407462]you missed the best one
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ZIJ8RlG.png[/img][/QUOTE]
The rape essay makes a return
[QUOTE=J!NX;51407472]someone get these clinton fans over here I'd love to see how they justify their inability to read further than a fucking title
I hate how often people take a specific quote from every polition and make the message INVERT into itself[/QUOTE]
welcome to reddit in general
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51407455]It's actually based on my experiences at college. I have heard people explicitly state that refusing to include race, gender, whatever in conversations about inequality is bigoted or wrong. I've heard it many times, in person.
[editline]21st November 2016[/editline]
These people really exist.[/QUOTE]
Well, they're not wrong - "bigoted" is a bit far, but it's ignorant. That's the entire idea behind intersectionality - all these factors intersect and influence each other. You can try to look at class alone - but if you do, you can't explain why black-majority inner cities are economically disadvantaged. Because our racial history ties in to that, and intersects with the discussion of class.
These factors don't exist in bubbles. Racism kept minorities at a lower class for centuries - what's the economic explanation for that? Without addressing race at all? You can't - it's inherently racial.
Economic inequality involves way more factors than just class, and trying to say it's only one factor is ignorant. Trying to say it's 100% class ignores race, and trying to say it's 100% racial ignores class. Both sides are guilty of this to some degree - and people who do this are ignorant. They're ignoring factors that influence it. You can argue to what degree they influence it, sure, but you can't deny that there's an intersection of these many different factors.
Try to explain the domestic US economy during WW2 without mentioning how gender factored in when women began to work. Try to explain the collapse of inner-city Chicago or Detroit without mentioning how race factored in when white flight began. They're all inter-related, and ignoring those important factors is just plainly ignorant.
[QUOTE=Swiket;51407462]you missed the best one
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ZIJ8RlG.png[/img][/QUOTE]
This is such a successful piece of propaganda. Clinton is a blue blood who grew up in a Country Club mansion.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51407455]It's actually based on my experiences at college. I have heard people explicitly state that refusing to include race, gender, whatever in conversations about inequality is bigoted or wrong. I've heard it many times, in person.
[editline]21st November 2016[/editline]
These people really exist.[/QUOTE]college is not representitive of people who actually vote, or what the two parties focus on getting votes from. of course people like that exist, that's not my point. my point is that you seemingly think the mainstream progressive movement or the centre-left party in the country is based on college and internet politics. it's an incredibly insular view.
they have a bit of interest in identity politics because once you've abandoned working on economic grounds (obama's policies are really not that different from the past 30+ years in regards to the economy) you need something to appear left about. being inclusive and representive is easy, but doesn't do a huge amount if you're not working on the crumbling foundations also. doesn't matter if a black person can eat in a fancy restaurant if they can't afford it.
also if you look at polling of political views, this generation is one of the most class conscious and socialist minded there's been in a long time, if they don't care about class or the economy why did bernie win the millennial vote by such a huge margin? they just like grandpas?
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51407485]welcome to reddit in general[/QUOTE]
Reddit is best used for sharing media, setting up community projects, and porn. Discussion and learning,in political subs and those based on conflict, is not the best place for it.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51407491]Well, they're not wrong - "bigoted" is a bit far, but it's ignorant. That's the entire idea behind intersectionality - all these factors intersect and influence each other. You can try to look at class alone - but if you do, you can't explain why black-majority inner cities are economically disadvantaged. Because our racial history ties in to that, and intersects with the discussion of class.
These factors don't exist in bubbles. Racism kept minorities at a lower class for centuries - what's the economic explanation for that? Without addressing race at all? You can't - it's inherently racial.
Economic inequality involves way more factors than just class, and trying to say it's only one factor is ignorant. Trying to say it's 100% class ignores race, and trying to say it's 100% racial ignores class. Both sides are guilty of this to some degree - and people who do this are ignorant. They're ignoring factors that influence it. You can argue to what degree they influence it, sure, but you can't deny that there's an intersection of these many different factors.
Try to explain the domestic US economy during WW2 without mentioning how gender factored in when women began to work. Try to explain the collapse of inner-city Chicago without mentioning how race factored in when white flight began. They're all inter-related, and ignoring those important factors is just plainly ignorant.[/QUOTE]
1. That wasn't what I was saying. I'm talking about the constant subversion of class-based politics with that of race and gender.
2. Regardless, people are tired of talking about those concepts and it's a giant losing issue. From a strategic point of view, the Democrats will fail if they keep attempting to jump on identity politics.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51407504]1. That wasn't what I was saying. I'm talking about the constant subversion of class-based politics with that of race and gender.
2. Regardless, people are tired of talking about those concepts and it's a giant losing issue. From a strategic point of view, the Democrats will fail if they keep attempting to jump on identity politics.[/QUOTE]the subversion of class-based politics with that of race and gender has been going on for decades and isn't the sole fault of the democrats.
why not explain what you were saying..? all you've said is that people in colleges have lots of views on race, gender and identity, which is sort of obvious and has been a thing since the 1960s. like, the Weather Underground didn't come about because of the democrats recent focus on identity politics lol, college has always been a petri-dish for social activism.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51407496]This is such a successful piece of propaganda. Clinton is a blue blood who grew up in a Country Club mansion.[/QUOTE]
Those rabid Hillary supporters are like little CNNs walking around shooting propaganda everywhere they go.
Same goes for those rabid Trump supports for that matter.
WHY CAN"T PEOPLE JUST BE NORMAL:cry:
[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;51407502]Reddit is best used for sharing media, setting up community projects, and porn. Discussion and learning,in political subs and those based on conflict, is not the best place for it.[/QUOTE]
reddits communal nature and upvote/downvote structure that silences dissenting opinions leads to unrelenting circlejerks, its inevitable and happens to literally every sub
problem is that the frontpage also exposes these circlejerks to the internet at large and people then take the headlines at face value. honestly reddit is so toxic to politics and with trump being elected the planet at large that it should be purged from the face of the earth for our safety (or at least ban politics subs from /r/all)
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;51407513]the subversion of class-based politics with that of race and gender has been going on for decades and isn't the sole fault of the democrats[/QUOTE]
It's the fault of radical Frankfurt School leftists which have become a larger part of the Democratic Party as of late (especially within young, academic Democrats who are completely embroiled in the nonsense). If the Dems want to survive as a viable party they need to shed that entire wing and find an actual platform. Let the academy shout from the background. It's becoming increasingly irrelevant anyway.
I remember reading a blog that said Bernie's choice of loosely fitted clothing symbolizes his deep seated masculine supremacy or something like that
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;51407497]college is not representitive of people who actually vote, or what the two parties focus on getting votes from. of course people like that exist, that's not my point. my point is that you seemingly thing the mainstream progressive movement or the centre-left party in the country is based on college and internet politics. it's an incredibly insular view.
they have a bit of interest in identity politics because once you've abandoned working on economic grounds (obama's policies are really not that different from the past 30+ years in regards to the economy) you need something to appear left about. being inclusive and representive is easy, but doesn't do a huge amount if you're not working on the crumbling foundations also. doesn't matter if a black person can eat in a fancy restaurant if they can't afford it.
also if you look at polling of political views, this generation is one of the most class conscious and socialist minded there's been in a long time, if they don't care about class or the economy why did bernie win the millennial vote by such a huge margin? they just like grandpas?[/QUOTE]
Nailed it - the younger generation has very little connection to national identity. Polls show, and voter turnout shows, that people don't think America is necessarily "greater" than any other country. Younger Americans don't have that same nationalism. They're far less religious, so their religious identity is weaker.
They've shifted identity to gender, sexuality, race, and refocused on class. That's why that's so prevalent in colleges now. They identify along very different lines than their parents and grandparents. A baby boomer might self-identify as an American Lutheran man, but you're less likely to hear a baby boomer identify as a "straight white man." Younger generation? Lesbian transgender mixed girl. Self-identity has shifted. Bernie's just saying we need to re-emphasize class in that discussion, which he's 100% correct about.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.