zoogs

lol

Oh, no, BRB. What will you do now.

You forget, he doesn't support Trump

*hands washed*

21 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

Is that what this is all about?

 

Because they're real people, whether you agree with them being here or not.

Bingo. Gave the game away here. It's not about <generic sweet-sounding pablum here>, it's about not seeing people as real people -- and given that they have less-than-human status, feeling morally free to pursue them to whatever end.

Good perspective from Matt Yglesias here:

We're all real people. Build in humanitarian directions.

Don’t worry, Ric, I completely do not expect you to care.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/us/politics/stormy-trump.html

I object to our perverse fascination with the "porn star" label which Stormy is always reduced to, but this Republican goes entirely in the wrong direction with this:

Quote

“Porn actress,” Mike Murphy, a longtime Republican strategist, amended. “People go straight to ‘porn star.’ I like to see a few awards before you use that moniker.”

It is necessary to dehumanize people so that we can justify their harsh and inhumane treatment while still maintaining our self-illusion of decency.

This drives far too much of conservative policy. E.g:

- if trans people are actually predating on children is not letting them use their own bathrooms really such a bad thing? 

- if the gays are defiling God's will and the sanctity of our marriages, shouldn't we look the other way when they are mistreated?

- if women who desire abortions are careless, selfish, and slutty, shouldn't we compel them to be Good People?

- if immigrants (legal or otherwise) are dangerous, or maybe dangerous, shouldn't they be kicked out of the country with extreme prejudice?

- if poor/black people are lazy bums shouldn't we not furnish their lavish, poverty queen lifestyles?

- if liberals are effete snowflakes, shouldn't we dismiss all they advocate for?

- 99.9% of gun owners are the most upstanding, responsible people and you are persecuting them

Watch for the politics that just boils down to Otherize, then Punish.

Go.

Raise taxes. Go ahead and talk about it. We'll never get anywhere if we constantly reinforce the stupid prior that is "low taxes are a ubiquitous good".

You know what are ubiquitous goods? Public goods.

23 hours ago, Minnesota_husker said:

Doesnt help when all the owners are old white dudes who care about $$$ mainly(not all).

Yeah, and speaking of that, Josh Rosen is another timely example of what osrts of things the NFL really takes seriously as transgressions (social activism). Really good op-ed here: https://theundefeated.com/features/josh-rosen-ucla-quarterback-gets-a-taste-of-what-outspoken-black-athletes-experience-all-the-time/

Illegal immigrants are not here to destroy our way of life and commit crimes. They're here because opportunities are better here. They're probably trying their best to defend and create for their families -- something you say you respect. If they could have come here legally they would -- and if they can get legal status, they'd want to. 

Also: if you are indeed so very supportive of legal immigrants, I take it you're positively aghast at what the Trump Administration is doing.

Let me hazard a guess here, Ric Flair actually is very supportive of immigrants. It's the bad ones! 

Quote

Fixing things. Making things work. Getting the job done. I see metrosexual hipster goofballs wearing weird ensembles of spandex and tight clothing and wonder what the hell they’re thinking.

Is it their not s#!tty clothing that convinces you they can't "get the job done", or is it that they remind you too much of women?

relatedly,

how does the GOP define feminism?

On 3/9/2018 at 3:51 PM, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

That's an odd way to characterize these posts. 

 

It's really not. We don't talk this about things that we consider ours, that we're really excited about. What is apparent is not only the desire to signal support, it's the skepticism, the desire to draw lines that would safely exclude a lot of feminist advocates as part of that "further"-ness that is -- depending on who you ask -- anywhere from mildly dramatic to nutty and unhinged.  The wariness of the term comes through, and so does the reality that it is viewed as an "other people's thing".

How do you guys feel about Nebraska fandom? Well, I know a lot of Nebraska fans and I support that but really a lot of people take it too far. How do you feel about opposing racism? Yeah, I think everyone supports that and I'm happy for the advocates but the thing is there are people who just go nuts with it and that's a shame, and besides, we're all pretty equal already. It's (sorry -- to be clear, I'm not directing this at you, Guy Chamberlain) talking about feminism like I'd talk about conservatism -- as much as I respect a diversity in viewpoints, it's something I fundamentally and strongly disagree with it, and IMO the only relevant understanding of it today is all the crackpots that abound, which it (conservatism) has produced.

Feminism should belong to all of us, it should be our own thing, and why not? The lack of equality, in so many dimensions, is an affront to everybody. Let's all take it personally. 

1 minute ago, dudeguyy said:

Do you have anything to back this up? I'm curious why you'd think that was the case.

What's there to be curious about here?

I think the generic answer to “why now” is “probably nothing sinister”.

Nooooooooooooo

dudeguyy!!

I find all this talk of needing us to all understand that feminism has proper limits it needs to stay within fascinating.

Everyone should be a feminist! 

To me, it is advocating for a balanced and fair perspective in a world that is highly tilted towards the concerns of only men. It's important to separate this from a patronizing view wholly entrenched in maintaining the patriarchy (e.g, "I, as a man, deign to be exceptionally kind to women"). And in my view it's also necessary for feminism to not be exclusionary -- like, I understand how trans issues or LGBTQ issues may not be on the radar of some people and that's OK, but it runs counter to the whole ethos to limit it to advancing the cause of straight white women only.

Among the divides in modern feminism I found this observation interesting: that some take the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" view; it's an unfair world and it's up to women to find ways to succeed in spite of it, which is clearly possible. Those that don't, then, didn't merit it. This is a view I reject. It's great for anyone who can do it, but the everyone problem is the world and that is something that is up to us to change -- or to stubbornly decline to, in view of all its faults. 

Appreciate you starting the thread, NM  

"Women who are into obscure sports can probably afford to pay their own way through college"

"SO MANY MEN would destroy Serena ha ha Serena"

"women are to blame for men's sports being cut"

lmao, how can you not see this

Stop, it's really important that he can hold onto the idea that Trump is actually quite popular. 

Which unions want NAFTA dismantled? The teachers' unions (see: OK, WV)? Grad student unions? Public workers' unions?

Labor rights and collective bargaining is not the same thing as implementing international trade policy according to the protectionist interests of certain sectors which also have unions.

It's inaccurate to say the difference is not enormous. You can make the same argument about healthcare, for example. Plenty of Dems aren't on the public option boat (a really key point being this is turning around), and, on the other hand, Republicans want to increase the uninsured rate. There is a profound difference here; to elide it is to render the concerns of those affected immaterial. You could call this position "protectionist" and "Democrats aren't paying attention to their anti-trade steel worker constituency", but it would not be altogether fair I think to frame this as a pro-labor position. If a lot of this is just playing defense, well, that's the task before us when labor rights are fundamentally under assault in this GOP-dominated political landscape. And this is also a real erasure of pro-labor things Obama for example has done. The common refrain is "what have they actually done", and the answer to this is nothing, to those who were never interested in looking to begin with.

For example: https://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/unions-barack-obama-labor-board-victories-213204