DCCC backs corporate Dems, shuns progressive Dems.

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Zontar:
-Snorp-

Zontar, you keep forgetting that there's another part to the definition of "white supremacy" other than "believes that white people are superior to non-whites", and that is the belief that this is ideal and should be maintained as the status quo, even to the point of discriminating against anyone not white either through violent or non-violent means. Seeing as how the Left as a whole is not making any arguments in the same vein as those in the Alt-Right are, or even in the same vein as saying that whites being superior is a good thing and should be maintained, your argument falls flat on its face when you actually include the rest of the definition of white supremacy.

Progressives as a whole are not white supremacist, white supremacy is antithetical to what progressiveism stands for.

Zontar:
A bunch of blue states are suing over the current tax plan because the rich are having to pay their dues.

Maybe.

Potentially, what it may effectively do is force blue states to reduce their taxes in line with red states and decrease their state budgets. This will mean lower provision of social services to the whole state population... mostly of course disadvantaging the worse off.

It's also more complex, because some benefits are paid by the federal government, and the blue states being hit more tend to be major net contributors where red states are net claimers. Thus what it may effectively end up doing is facilitating more subsidy from successful blue states to less successful red states. One thing to bear in mind is that perhaps red states have lower tax rates BECAUSE blue states de facto subsidise them.

I don't mind the principle of redistribution ideologically, conducted evenly and fairly. But the political nature of selectively targetting Democratic voting states ahead of Republican is pretty dirty.

Well in the new tax plan there's a cap on how much you can deduct using this method, 10,000 dollars in taxes. For 99.something of the population, that changes nothing (almost half don't even pay income tax after all),

As a point of order, everyone with a salary (unless below an untaxable threshold) pays income tax. What happens is that they also receive various forms of state benefits which offset the income tax; for about half of households, this ends up being more than their income tax. The government just simplifies the maths to work out the difference so only one transaction needs to take place instead of two - but technically they are still paying tax.

Were the $10k threshold for the federal-state deduction not in place, for instance, the poor would actually lose from this, because their tax burden would increase, whilst their benefits remained static.

Of course, much of the reason people get more in benefits than they pay in tax is because they're not paid enough, but you're complaining about a minimum wage...

Much of modern progresivism is built on the notion that white males are inherently superior. Like it or not there's a reason why there is such opposition to a meritocratic system...

No, modern progressivism is based on the notion that historically white men were able to gain for themselves advantages in economic, social and political power through whatever quirks of history and circumstance. These advantages, although no longer extant in legal form, persist through things like societal attitudes and hereditary wealth. These lingering advantages damage a meritocratic system, because non-white men of equal capability have a harder job getting equal rewards.

Dr. Thrax:

Progressives as a whole are not white supremacist, white supremacy is antithetical to what progressiveism stands for.

Well then tell the people progressives rally around to represent their views to stop making statements that are inherently white supremacist in their roots and to stop being the single largest roadblock in politics to actually putting the policies of equality you claim to fight for into place. Every time someone proposes removing race and sex as a consideration for anything (since it is by definition discriminatory based on racist and sexists beliefs) progressives are the first and loudest to oppose it.

The nonsensical beliefs that those in the higher parts of political hierarchies have led to things like Bernie "whites don't know poverty" Sanders.

Agema:
Maybe.

Potentially, what it may effectively do is force blue states to reduce their taxes in line with red states and decrease their state budgets. This will mean lower provision of social services to the whole state population... mostly of course disadvantaging the worse off.

It's also more complex, because some benefits are paid by the federal government, and the blue states being hit more tend to be major net contributors where red states are net claimers. Thus what it may effectively end up doing is facilitating more subsidy from successful blue states to less successful red states. One thing to bear in mind is that perhaps red states have lower tax rates BECAUSE blue states de facto subsidise them.

I don't mind the principle of redistribution ideologically, conducted evenly and fairly. But the political nature of selectively targetting Democratic voting states ahead of Republican is pretty dirty.

The reality due to the old system is we actually have no idea who's effectively subsidising who. California is by most appearances a net drain due to its social programs, but due to the old system on paper it looks like a net contributor due to the fact the money that would have been transferred to it never left in the first place. This is why despite already having high income taxes it's already in a financial pinch, and no longer being able to screw over the federal side of things is something that, while no in their interest, is in the interest of states like Texas.

Though one bright side is now those maps of the US that show which states contribute more then they put in vs those that don't will finally be accurate for once.

As a point of order, everyone with a salary (unless below an untaxable threshold) pays income tax. What happens is that they also receive various forms of state benefits which offset the income tax; for about half of households, this ends up being more than their income tax. The government just simplifies the maths to work out the difference so only one transaction needs to take place instead of two - but technically they are still paying tax.

Were the $10k threshold for the federal-state deduction not in place, for instance, the poor would actually lose from this, because their tax burden would increase, whilst their benefits remained static.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter that it's all just a simplification of things or that it doesn't change much, given that the tax plan has benefited countless in the working class due either to minor increases in tax returns, minor increases in wages (like at Walmart for example) or one time bonuses, and many a combination of these.

Sure it ain't the tax man going away for good, but given the realities of governance it's not exactly something that was going to possibly turn out much better then it was.

No, modern progressivism is based on the notion that historically white men were able to gain for themselves advantages in economic, social and political power through whatever quirks of history and circumstance. These advantages, although no longer extant in legal form, persist through things like societal attitudes and hereditary wealth. These lingering advantages damage a meritocratic system, because non-white men of equal capability have a harder job getting equal rewards.

Yes and this belief doesn't pan out when put into the trials that is testing in reality. Even ignoring the outright historical ignorance of it by pretending that all white men where the 1% when the reality is white men where working the shittiest jobs in the West because men where the only ones to do it and there wasn't a noteworthy minority population to do it with them outside of the South and major Northern cities, it also ignores pesky problems like the fact that when whites started moving from lower to middle class, we didn't do it alone and Asians, despite facing literally every single barrier blacks did without anywhere near the political support, did the same. The reasons blacks stagnate (and let's not lie and pretend that there's any other race that people think about when dealing with this, since none have the problem of being left behind whites) is because of their culture, which has a defeatists attitude, actively discourages behaviour that will lead to success, ostracises success and a whole slew of other problems.

And it isn't even an inherent problem to black cultures, it's specifically one of African Americans. Haitians, Jamaicans, those of Somalia, they don't stagnate, their lot in life has improves considerably to the point it's a matter of when, not if, they catch up to whites, in fact Somalis on average do better then whites as it stands.

Blaming all of societies ales on white men because the exceptionally few in power in the West in the past where of the same skin and sex, even ignoring the inherent, overt racism and sexism of that line of thinking, not only ignores the problem, it dooms the problem to persist because no focus or attention goes on the real problem: African American culture is the near totality of the problem and until it changes to breed the same type of success every other group sees, it will remain where it is. This is why middle and upper class blacks tend to hold very low opinions of wider African American culture, why they are so critical of it, and probably a factor into why many are Republican despite blacks as a whole being overwhelmingly Democrat.

Zontar:
Well then tell the people progressives rally around to represent their views to stop making statements that are inherently white supremacist in their roots and to stop being the single largest roadblock in politics to actually putting the policies of equality you claim to fight for into place. Every time someone proposes removing race and sex as a consideration for anything (since it is by definition discriminatory based on racist and sexists beliefs) progressives are the first and loudest to oppose it.

The nonsensical beliefs that those in the higher parts of political hierarchies have led to things like Bernie "whites don't know poverty" Sanders.

Because I have nothing else to do, I'm going to repeat myself, with emphasis.
White supremacy is the belief that whites are superior to non-whites and that this is A Good Thing and should be maintained as the status quo and given an elevated position in society. White supremacy is not just the belief that whites are superior to non-whites. You do not get to redefine an entire ideology to suit your needs, you have to include everything after "and" in that definition.

Regardless, progressives do not hold the belief that whites are superior to begin with, they hold the belief that whites are more privileged in society and given unfair advantages and extra leeway than those who are not white. There is a stark difference between "Whites are superior!" and "Whites are treated more favorably than non-whites in America". White people only see it as discrimination against them because they've enjoyed the benefits of societal bias in their favor for so long that their perception of how everyone is treated is distorted.

White supremacy is antithetical to everything progressiveism stands for.

Hey, Zontar, I asked you a very simple question.

Your failure to answer speaks volumes.

Dr. Thrax:

White supremacy is the belief that whites are superior to non-whites and that this is A Good Thing and should be maintained as the status quo and given an elevated position in society.

image

Your mistake was assuming I'd go along with your unilateral redefining of words. Must as racism is racism instead of racism (but only when it's not aimed at whites), white supremacy is white supremacy, regardless of if you think it's a good thing.

renegade7:
Hey, Zontar, I asked you a very simple question.

Your failure to answer speaks volumes.

I didn't see it, just opened page 2.

List of progressive that hold overt white supremacist views, please.

Already did that in this thread, such as the infamous statement by thomas smith.

First of all, the "positive discrimination" that you're thinking of is an hysterical misinterpretation of something that only sort of exists.

My most recent job application that asked if I was a woman, visible minority or disabled in the name of representing Canadian society in accordance with the Equal Opportunity Act really, really makes it hard to believe.

But more to the point, even if it did work the way you think it does, the argument has nothing to do with white people being superior and opposition to a meritocracy. The argument is that we do not have a meritocracy because the lingering effects of centuries of oppression have resulted in certain people being put at a disadvantage relative to others despite having the same potential, and if you want to have a meritocracy then you need to work towards eliminating those lingering effects.

This would be more believable if any progressives acted in a way consistent with this. Problem is, that isn't the case. Everyone knows there isn't a proper meritocratic system in place (fuck it's a universally accepted fact that Hollywood stands as testament to that fact), but then why the universal opposition of implementing one by progressives? Why the active opposition to equality? Why keep systemic racism and sexism that that openly discriminates against a massive proportion of those in needs in the name of "righting wrongs" that some rich assholes who mostly aren't even alive did?

Why be the evil the civil rights movement explicitly existed to fight against?

But you don't need to take my word for it. Why don't you try to share some sources here of progressive leaders explicitly stating their belief in the inherent superiority of white men?

You people aren't stupid enough to say it, you always stop just shy of explicitly stating it.

Zontar:
Your mistake was assuming I'd go along with your unilateral redefining of words. Must as racism is racism instead of racism (but only when it's not aimed at whites), white supremacy is white supremacy, regardless of if you think it's a good thing.

If you're going to claim that I'm "unilaterally redefining words", then you'd best be prepared to tell me what words I'm supposedly redefining.

And, just as I've come to expect, you've taken only a single sentence out of my post so you can take potshots at it and fail to hit the mark. Are you going to address where I explicitly stated

progressives do not hold the belief that whites are superior to begin with, they hold the belief that whites are more privileged in society and given unfair advantages and extra leeway than those who are not white. There is a stark difference between "Whites are superior!" and "Whites are treated more favorably than non-whites in America"

Or are you just going to pretend I never said that and continue taking poorly aimed potshots?

Zontar:

List of progressive that hold overt white supremacist views, please.

Already did that in this thread, such as the infamous statement by thomas smith.

I saw that, though you wrote "Thomas Johns" and I had no idea who that was.

This would be more believable if any progressives acted in a way consistent with this. Problem is, that isn't the case. Everyone knows there isn't a proper meritocratic system in place (fuck it's a universally accepted fact that Hollywood stands as testament to that fact), but then why the universal opposition of implementing one by progressives?

There isn't one, there's just a more nuanced understanding of what it's going to take to get us to a meritocratic system.

There are people alive today who can remember a time when black people couldn't vote and women couldn't get college degrees. Do you really think that the effects of that are just going to vanish overnight?

Why the active opposition to equality? Why keep systemic racism and sexism that that openly discriminates against a massive proportion of those in needs in the name of "righting wrongs" that some rich assholes who mostly aren't even alive did?

Because the effects of those wrongs are still felt today. Racism, and the effects of racism, didn't just evaporate the minute the Civil Rights Act was signed.

There isn't just a magic wand somewhere that you can pick and say "meritocracy!" and thereby make racism and sexism disappear forever in an instant. Those inequalities were entrenched in society for centuries, it's going to take a lot of work to fully root them out.

You people aren't stupid enough to say it, you always stop just shy of explicitly stating it.

Okay, where, in the 80 minute video, is the quote that you're objecting to?

What's with rightists bringing up supposed leftists to discredit leftistism that actual leftists have no idea on who they're talking about? It's like Lena Dunham all over again; I had know idea who she was until MRAs and anti-feminists started to seemingly pull her out of nowhere.

NemotheElvenPanda:
What's with rightists bringing up supposed leftists to discredit leftistism that actual leftists have no idea on who they're talking about? It's like Lena Dunham all over again; I had know idea who she was until MRAs and anti-feminists started to seemingly pull her out of nowhere.

It's so they can point out a few fringe crazies and nobodies the majority don't even care about and declare "Leftists are (X)!" while holding their nose and exclaiming that their side's shit doesn't stink. I'm still waiting for Zontar to actually acknowledge the mountain of shit the American Right is spraying on the American public at large, but I most certainly am not going to hold my breath or get my hopes up.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here