Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]

[Divine Retribution]

If your only defense of the Republican party is "well they're not technically Nazis, even though they believe the same things as the Nazis, push the same kinds of propaganda that the Nazis pushed, want the same kinds of policies that the Nazis wanted, demonize minorities the same way the Nazis did so, openly promote fascism, and attempt to overthrow democratically elected representatives", you should probably take a good hard look on exactly where you stand socially. I'm apparently not allowed to call an obvious cryptofascist a cryptofascist here, but it's super suspect when someone runs defense for a party that seeks to deny minorities human rights (unless that minority is billionaires) and not say a god damn word when said party tries to erode the humanity of groups they see themselves opposed to. So-called "centrists" are, in reality, ratchets in favor of the Republican party and a big part of the reason why we find ourselves in the political quagmire we're in today.

This is doubly true if you're going to push Fox News-tier propaganda about how "the left" is pro-authoritarian despite having seemingly no fucking idea what the left actually is. It boggles my mind when conservatives (which you are; or at least you buy into conservative propaganda wholesale) accuse "the left" of being communists in one breath and pro-corporate in the next. You people don't even seem to know who you're opposing. The American left encompasses everything from left-leaning neoliberals (who are sometimes authoritarian) to Marxist-Leninists and various derivatives (who are almost always authoritarian) to most varieties of anarchism (which literally isn't compatible with authoritarianism by definition), and yet conservatives are convinced it's some homogenous hivemind with unified, agreed upon goals.

This is what happens when "enlightened centrists" allow conservatives to drag the Overton window so far to the right; you end up with so many positions that are "on the left" that the term is pretty much meaningless. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist; I have almost nothing in common with your average slightly left-of-center neoliberal, and yet I find myself lumped in with them simply by virtue of the fact that we don't hate minorities, aren't super on board with Laissez-Faire capitalism, and don't want a theocratic dictatorship. That's the level of discourse we find ourselves having here in the supposed greatest country on Earth.

 

[Chou Toshio]

The American Left radicalizes towards authoritarianism, suppression of free speech through both government collusion with business and media.

Let’s take the most radical leftists— Bernie and AoC.

What are their government policy prescriptions that suppress free speech?

What are their government or voting management policies that concentrate more political or economic power into fewer people’s hands?
(Authoritarian policies definitionally do this— they have to give some despotic individuals more authority. Stalin had many such policies for instance— what are Bernie’s?)

If you have no correct answer here, then I’ll ignore everything else you have to say.

Calling 50% of the country and the politicians they elect Nazis is a way to shut down opposition pure and simple. It's a way to say "I don't have to listen to anything you say, because you are a Nazi." Chou over here essentially believes Sinema is a Nazi because she opposed a government relief bill. What that has to do with the tenets of National Socialism, I have no clue.

No it’s not. It’s just a makeable claim in free speech.

You said I wanted to OUTLAW opposing opinions. Where did I say that? Asking a second time because you failed to defend your assertion.

You are literally saying here "Opposing my political agenda makes you a bigot and anti-democracy. If you do not support all the things I do, you are a fascist."

I gave my opinion about Sinema (which you’re also mischaracterizing) in a free speech democracy—

I never said she herself is fascist— I said that the right is showing us dangerous fascism (none of which you’re refuting with arguments I notice), and that actions (like her’s) that abet that are evil.

Yes. I do think that. I do hate her for it. Her polling numbers show that my opinion is far from unique, even amongst moderates, conservatives, and liberals.

Not when it comes to passing a government spending bill no. Actually, I think opposing my economic policy is probably the last reason I would start calling some a fascist enabler and morally bankrupt.

When the opposition’s economic policies result in human suffering absolutely I can call that evil. Sure.

I wouldn’t call that fascist— that would need to clear some of the specific qualities of fascism— but I can certainly call it evil.

Well then, it's a good thing there are no politicians in the U.S. who currently support a murder policy.

 

[Medeia]

There are currently no members of Congress in the Nazi party. The amount of Nazis living in the United States is a miniscule amount of the population, a fraction of a percentage of the 350 million people living in the U.S. There are no Nazis in the U.S. to save democracy from. (Then again, I don't define the word Nazi as "anyone who opposes me politically".)

Of these two sides, its clear to see which is a greater threat to democracy - the side that continually calls for extralegal expansion of government power in an attempt to neutralize a supposedly "evil" and "fascist" side of the population/government. This evil and fascist party, by the way, does not compromise an unpopular minority. No, it's the whole other 50% of the population and government that disagrees with the Left. That's right, 50% of the population is actually an evil, fascist, outgroup. Now that's tribalism for you!

Dude, Hitlers NSDAP literally won the general election in Weimar Germany back in 1932 with 37% of the votes.. So yeah a high percentage of people can totally be aligned with a party who pushes and enacts policies that erases transgender people and LGBTIQ+ in general from society like the republicans do and some people in your party even outright call for genocidal murder of transgender people, policies that outlaw homeless people, policies that ban any book from BIPOC that tackles systemic racism (not just critical race theory) & youth books that literally just have LGBTQ+ representation (what your fox news propaganda describes as "sexualizing children"), hell some evangelical republican nutjobs even want to ban interracial marriage again and they can push for that realistically thx to the supreme court consisting of 6 christian fundamentalists. All these things at once sure as hell ain't merely "Conservative" politics by any stretch of the definition and fit tightly with early-mid stage NSDAP & Republican Fascist Party (Mussolinis Party) politics.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna58337

It's also well known in Germany (and other european countries for that matter) that the ideological beliefs of most republican voters since at least Obamas era (i was too young/not alive to witness or read enough about Bush Jr. era & before american domestic politics, so not gonna talk about that) align by far the most with AFD & NPD (not with CDU/CSU like you may think), the two most relevant Neo-Nazi parties in germany with the former trending at 15% in current Polls. Just recently a former AFD Bundestag representative (Birgit Malsack-Winkemann) got arrested with other "Reichsbürger" people who planned to stage a Insurrection and reinstate the German Empire, barely 2 years after Donald Trumps staged attempt to overthrow the newly elected government. This former parliament representative was set to become Attorney General in this new old german state. AFD politicians pretty much incite the same hateful rethoric against refugees & immigrants (even calling for shooting/murdering refugees on german border), LGBTIQ+ (especially transgender), black & indigenous people, spread conspiracy theories about climate change, covid etc. like republicans do and are well documentedly connected in a worldwide far-right network with Jair Bolsonaro, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban, Kaczinski in Poland and other dangerous politicians/parties/groups. So yeah knowing all this, i don't give a flying crap if people like you are butthurt for being called out as "cryptofascist" or Neo-Nazi nor do i expect the "opinions" of people like you to change, hell no. Meanwhile people like me get murdered everyday just because of their mere identity/existence, incited by dangerous "child groomer" and other hateful rhethoric so spare me with your reversal of perpretator and victim.


Edit:

Well then, it's a good thing there are no politicians in the U.S. who currently support a murder policy.

Well i could really curse you right now as part of a minority that's hunted down and murdered with guns and other weapons by bigots, but that could get me infracted so instead just read these links and then tell me again that there's no murder policy support.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/23/colorado-springs-shooting-lauren-boebert-tucker-carlson-fbi/

https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/03...er-mississippi-politician-trans-firing-squad/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna39162

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.advocate.com/news/2022/6/14/pro-trump-sc-candidate-mark-burns-calls-executing-allies-lgbtq-kids?amp

 

[boo836]

something I also want to add is that the very people who are pushing for school purges are also taking interviews with white supremacists and outright neo-Nazis. There's a clear network of right-wing extremists who coordinate with the Republican Party to disrupt elections and intimidate people across the United States (and even abroad). Obviously the Nazi analogy works, but there are plenty of other dictatorships who engaged in behaviour similar to the Republicans, especially Peron, Putin, and Erdogan


Here are Republican leadership literally telling their supporters to fight their perceived enemies in the streets. They awarded a guy known for producing videos with neo-Nazis and posting coded "cultural" references to neo-Nazism. They endorse fascism in all but name, no different from how Putin's Russia does.

White Nationalists, Other Republicans Brace for ‘Total War’ | Southern Poverty Law Center (splcenter.org)

 

[koista12]

Ignoring the absurdity of this claim, the american left doesn't radicalize anywhere because it's a fractured mess of wannabe communists that never read karl marx in their life and centrists who think not hating black people is the peak of leftism tearing each other apart on twitter.

You do realize that you don't have to be a card carrying communist to be radical, right? While we usually think of politics as a spectrum, there is no universal law that says "you cannot be authoritarian and leftist until you start nationalizing farms". The left absolutely can radicalize while not instituting literal Communism. Many conservatives feel that the left's obsession with gender and identity politics is radical, pushed by a small minority and elevated in national conversation because that's the nature of national politics. Hell, Beto O'Rourke is a radical if you take his statement about coming to your door to take your guns. That is a radical statement, both in Texas and across the nation as a whole. Being on the left wing of American politics does not make you magically immune to being radical or authoritarian.

If your only defense of the Republican party is "well they're not technically Nazis, even though they believe the same things as the Nazis, push the same kinds of propaganda that the Nazis pushed, want the same kinds of policies that the Nazis wanted, demonize minorities the same way the Nazis did so, openly promote fascism, and attempt to overthrow democratically elected representatives", you should probably take a good hard look on exactly where you stand socially. I'm apparently not allowed to call an obvious cryptofascist a cryptofascist here, but it's super suspect when someone runs defense for a party that seeks to deny minorities human rights (unless that minority is billionaires) and not say a god damn word when said party tries to erode the humanity of groups they see themselves opposed to. So-called "centrists" are, in reality, ratchets in favor of the Republican party and a big part of the reason why we find ourselves in the political quagmire we're in today.

This is the back and forth right here. People on the left say "The GOP are Nazis and fascists." Conservatives say "There are no Nazis currently in our government, there are maybe several thousand nazis in the U.S. on a good day, and your definition of fascism essentially boils down to anyone you don't like". You say "well look at these policies the republican party supports. They're kind of like the Nazi party". I say, "The Nazis had lots of policies. They had laws against Jews, they had laws about corporations, and they had ones against animal abuse." Please be more specific. Which laws do you think the Republican party advocates for that make them Nazis? Which ones move this country closer to fascism. And then, I guarantee you, for every point you make that shows why the GOP are fascists, I can make a counterpoint that shows how the Democrats are fascists. There are plenty of things that the Democrats do that I think are authoritarian and I don't like. But you know what I don't do? I don't think everyone who supports the Democrats are fascists. I don't call them Nazis. I think both political parties have authoritarian elements and libertarian elements. And I think screeching "Nazis" at each other is imbecilic. Even in your post, you call them "cryptofascists". What's the definition of cryptofascist? Someone who you don't like, who isn't actually a Nazi, but who you want to call a Nazi because it makes you feel better about your side.

This is doubly true if you're going to push Fox News-tier propaganda about how "the left" is pro-authoritarian despite having seemingly no fucking idea what the left actually is. It boggles my mind when conservatives (which you are; or at least you buy into conservative propaganda wholesale) accuse "the left" of being communists in one breath and pro-corporate in the next. You people don't even seem to know who you're opposing. The American left encompasses everything from left-leaning neoliberals (who are sometimes authoritarian) to Marxist-Leninists and various derivatives (who are almost always authoritarian) to most varieties of anarchism (which literally isn't compatible with authoritarianism by definition), and yet conservatives are convinced it's some homogenous hivemind with unified, agreed upon goals.

I don't watch Fox news, and I genuinely believe that the left has authoritarian tendencies in the same way you think the right does. I haven't accused anyone of being Communist for one, so please dont project that onto me. One can be both "communist" and pro-corporate, China is doing an excellent job of that right now. Anarchists and Communists are not significant portions of the left. They are political minorities that do not have a place in the national discussion, in the same way that nobody cares about monarchists. They do not make up a significant block of voters or politicians, and are entirely irrelevant to the national political discussion, except as a scare tactic by the right. So yeah, when I say the left is authoritarian I mean the neoliberals and self proclaimed social democrats are authoritarian.

and yet conservatives are convinced it's some homogenous hivemind with unified, agreed upon goals.

I could say the same about the left's views on conservatives. I don't think its really useful to split hairs like this when we are talking about broad strokes trends in a political party. Unlike y'all, I don't think you guys are all fascists for supporting an authoritarian party, I just think we have different views.

This is what happens when "enlightened centrists" allow conservatives to drag the Overton window so far to the right; you end up with so many positions that are "on the left" that the term is pretty much meaningless. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist; I have almost nothing in common with your average slightly left-of-center neoliberal, and yet I find myself lumped in with them simply by virtue of the fact that we don't hate minorities, aren't super on board with Laissez-Faire capitalism, and don't want a theocratic dictatorship. That's the level of discourse we find ourselves having here in the supposed greatest country on Earth.

What a coincidence, I think the Overton window is very far to the Left right now. Seems like you have a strawman understanding of the right. Conservatives do not want to live in a theocracy and they don't hate minorities. Its cool that you don't support laissez-faire capitalism, but conservatives certainly do, as do "enlightened centrists". If you think supporting laissez-faire capitalism is a radical position in American politics than you should read a history book.

Let’s take the most radical leftists— Bernie and AoC.

What are their government policy prescriptions that suppress free speech?

What are their government or voting management policies that concentrate more political or economic power into fewer people’s hands?
(Authoritarian policies definitionally do this— they have to give some despotic individuals more authority. Stalin had many such policies for instance— what are Bernie’s?)

Why take the most radical politicians? Let's take the mainstream. Both the Trump and the Biden government colluded with Twitter to suppress persons and opinions they did not like. Throughout the later stages of COVID, Democrat lawmakers routinely extended mask mandates and kept schools shut down despite (in my opinion) a lack of real need for this, and opposed to a real need to open up society again. Joe Biden has pushed forth student loan forgiveness using a COVID relief bill, despite being told beforehand that this was unconstitutional. Democrats criticized the Great Barrington delegation despite continually saying "follow the science". And the state I live in, Hawaii, instituted a "vaccine passport" to enter businesses (which was not illegal, but was highly authoritarian in my opinion).

The Republican party has issues. Trump and his supporters seriously eroded government norms needed in a free country. He should be impeached for his actions around the riots at the Capitol. And the Republicans in office who still support him should be ashamed. I'm not going to say there are no authoritarian trends in the GOP. If you believe that the GOP as a whole is the authoritarian party, and the Democrats are the party of freedom, fine! I don't agree but I could see a case for it.

But bringing out the F word is hyperbolic and untrue. Saying "well y'know the Republicans have some policies that the Nazis had" is a silly thing to say. It's a way to denigrate people you don't agree with, and always have a way out when they point out flaws in your reasoning. You can always say "well what about the shitty things this politician said/did, and what about this policy?" But fascism isn't when you can point out several politicians who do things you disagree with. If it was, then I would be calling the Democrats fascists. But I'm not, because I have the intellectual humility to acknowledge that people have different views, and I can disagree with policies or trends or things the Democrats say without labeling the whole party as fascist

No it’s not. It’s just a makeable claim in free speech.

I gave my opinion about Sinema (which you’re also mischaracterizing) in a free speech democracy—

Yeah I'm not saying you can't say whatever you want.

It’s very easy to understand: She’s fucking the people over.

The longer better answer: From a standard Democratic/Left perspective the Republican Party is a fascist party threatening the country, and Joe Biden/Democrats having a more successful agenda/administration/democratic reforms are necessary to step away from the edge— anything that dampens that is objectively evil and worthy of genuine hatred; including Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

This is what you said. Its an us or them attitude. To rephrase what you are saying here "My opponents are fascists. My side is good and right. If you oppose anything that my side supports (and lets remember, we are talking about a government spending bill here), then you are evil and I hate you." These are your words not mine. If I were a democrat who supported the BBB Bill, I would not consider Sinema to be an evil person merely for opposing legislation I like. I would call her a shitty Democrat. I would say she's an opportunist trying to court conservative voters and its gonna end badly for her career. In fact, I agree with you on those things! But calling her evil and smearing her character is just tribalism. Its "If you're not with me, you're against me, and I hate you as a person".

I do hate her for it

That's sad. I can't imagine actually hating a person I've never met, when the only thing they ever did to me was block a government spending bill.

 

[Lemingue]

You do realize that you don't have to be a card carrying communist to be radical right? While we usually think of politics as a spectrum, there is no universal law that says "you cannot be authoritarian and leftist until you start nationalizing farms". The left absolutely can radicalize while not instituting literal Communism. Many conservatives feel that the left's obsession with gender and identity politics is radical, pushed by a small minority and elevated in national conversation because that's the nature of national politics. Hell, Beto O'Rourke is a radical if you take his statement about coming to your door to take your guns. That is a radical statement, both in Texas and across the nation as a whole. Being on the left wing of American politics does not make you magically immune to being radical or authoritarian.

Once again: incredible how the most defanged leftist movement who is fighting for its life to elect presidents that aren't far right but rather center-right gets accused of radicalism for the most milquetoast takes. Trans people shouldn't be shot to death is a radical statement now. A vague epic #comeback about guns in the country with the most school shooters in the world is radicalism. The republicans that believe in eugenics are ok tho, you're just hating someone you never met, no basis at all.


Also I feel like you think I'm saying that the left isn't radical: you misunderstood, I'm saying the american left isn't radical enough. You see, I'm what the kids call a tankie, a pinko even. I thought the insults to liberals would have made that clearer, but alas

 

[koista12]

Dude, Hitlers NSDAP literally won the general election in Weimar Germany back in 1932 with 37% of the votes.. So yeah a high percentage of people can totally be aligned with a party who pushes and enacts policies that erases transgender people and LGBTIQ+ in general from society like the republicans do and some people in your party even outright call for genocidal murder of transgender people, policies that outlaw homeless people, policies that ban any book from BIPOC that tackles systemic racism (not just critical race theory) & youth books that literally just have LGBTQ+ representation (what your fox news propaganda describes as "sexualizing children"), hell some evangelical republican nutjobs even want to ban interracial marriage again and they can push for that realistically thx to the supreme court consisting of 6 christian fundamentalists. All these things at once sure as hell ain't merely "Conservative" politics by any stretch of the definition and fit tightly with early-mid stage NSDAP & Republican Fascist Party (Mussolinis Party) politics.

Your beliefs seem to be that LGBT people should be accepted in society and systemic racism is an issue in the U.S. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This may come as a shock, but many people do not agree with this views. You're views on these matters are not universal. Many people do not think we should present LGB lifestyles as something acceptable to children. (I personally am not one of those people opposing it) Many people do not think trans people are actually the gender they claim to be. Many people think that systemic racism is a boogeyman utilized by political opportunists to scapegoat and denigrate conservatives and white people.

You don't agree with these views, fine. But what's fascist about them? Until the 2000s, being gay considered socially taboo. Until the 2010s, being trans was socially taboo. Until the late 2010s, pretty much nobody was talking about how the U.S. had a systemic racism problem (It was not a big talking point in politics till recently). Unless you are claiming that the U.S. prior to 2000 was a fascist country, then these things bear no relation to fascism. We are simply in a period of changing social values and half the country agrees with these new values, and half doesn't. This does not mean the people who disagree with you are fascists; they just have a different moral code than you.

Now, laws against LGBT people may be authoritarian. They may even be unconstitutional, and many were ruled as such in the last 20 years. That doesn't make them fascist. And that doesn't mean people who don't share your moral code are fascists. (This is where I'll shill for federalism again because in that system, as long each state abides by the Constitution, they are free to pass whatever laws they want that align with their citizens' moral code. If you don't like one state you are free to leave for another).

It's also well known in Germany (and other european countries for that matter) that the ideological beliefs of most republican voters since at least Obamas era (i was too young/not alive to witness or read enough about Bush Jr. era & before american domestic politics, so not gonna talk about that) align by far the most with AFD & NPD (not with CDU/CSU like you may think), the two most relevant Neo-Nazi parties in germany with the former trending at 15% in current Polls. Just recently a former AFD Bundestag representative (Birgit Malsack-Winkemann) got arrested with other "Reichsbürger" people who planned to stage a Insurrection and reinstate the German Empire, barely 2 years after Donald Trumps staged attempt to overthrow the newly elected government. This former parliament representative was set to become Attorney General in this new old german state. AFD politicians pretty much incite the same hateful rethoric against refugees & immigrants (even calling for shooting/murdering refugees on german border), LGBTIQ+ (especially transgender), black & indigenous people, spread conspiracy theories about climate change, covid etc. like republicans do and are well documentedly connected in a worldwide far-right network with Jair Bolsonaro, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban, Kaczinski in Poland and other dangerous politicians/parties/groups. So yeah knowing all this, i don't give a flying crap if people like you are butthurt for being called out as "cryptofascist" or Neo-Nazi nor do i expect the "opinions" of people like you to change, hell no. Meanwhile people like me get murdered everyday just because of their mere identity/existence, incited by dangerous "child groomer" and other hateful rhethoric so spare me with your reversal of perpretator and victim.

Yeah well its well know in Burkina Faso that American leftists' policies actually align with the Chinese Communists Party's views. I don't really care if some random foreign media says "ACTUALLY THE NAZI EXPERTS SAY REPUBLICANS ARE NAZIS". That's a pretty weak, cherrypicked argument. The rest of this seems to be arguing that there is some vast global network of far right activists conspiring against LGBT people and non-white people. Seems to be a conspiracy theory if you ask me.

 

[koista12]

Trans people shouldn't be shot to death is a radical statement now.

No politicians are calling for all trans people to be shot. There are politicians who believe that giving trans children gender affirming care is wrong. There are politicians who are convinced that kids are being brought to drag shows as an excuse to sexually abuse them. This may be hyperbole, it may be a moral scare, but these are issues that many people feel strongly about, and not because they have some burning hatred for trans people. These are just divisive issues being circulated through the media. There are no politicians who want to murder trans people.

Edit: Its cool you're a communist but your views on that don't matter here. We aren't arguing economics here; I don't see how your being a Communist matters when talking about whether the GOP is fascist or not. I am using the term radical relative mainstream U.S politics.

 

[Medeia]

Your beliefs seem to be that LGBT people should be accepted in society and systemic racism is an issue in the U.S. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This may come as a shock, but many people do not agree with this views. You're views on these matters are not universal. Many people do not think we should present LGB lifestyles as something acceptable to children. (I personally am not one of those people opposing it) Many people do not think trans people are actually the gender they claim to be. Many people think that systemic racism is a boogeyman utilized by political opportunists to scapegoat and denigrate conservatives and white people.

You don't agree with these views, fine. But what's fascist about them? Until the 2000s, being gay considered socially taboo. Until the 2010s, being trans was socially taboo. Until the late 2010s, pretty much nobody was talking about how the U.S. had a systemic racism problem (It was not a big talking point in politics till recently). Unless you are claiming that the U.S. prior to 2000 was a fascist country, then these things bear no relation to fascism. We are simply in a period of changing social values and half the country agrees with these new values, and half doesn't. This does not mean the people who disagree with you are fascists; they just have a different moral code than you.

Now, laws against LGBT people may be authoritarian. They may even be unconstitutional, and many were ruled as such in the last 20 years. That doesn't make them fascist. And that doesn't mean people who don't share your moral code are fascists. (This is where I'll shill for federalism again because in that system, as long each state abides by the Constitution, they are free to pass whatever laws they want that align with their citizens' moral code. If you don't like one state you are free to leave for another).




Yeah well its well know in China that American leftists' policies actually align with the Chinese Communists Party's views. I don't really care if some random foreign media says "ACTUALLY THE NAZI EXPERTS SAY REPUBLICANS ARE NAZIS". That's a pretty weak, cherrypicked argument. The rest of this seems to be arguing that there is some vast global network of far right activists conspiring against LGBT people and non-white people. Seems to be a conspiracy theory if you ask me.

All this essay writing just to confess that you don't believe in universal human rights and yes, LGBTQ+ rights are indeed human rights. The rest of your essay is so laughable and frankly not even worth to continue a discussion cause it's so far from reality (Chinas Communist Party policies such as genocide against Uyghurs, LGBTQ+ persecution etc. are the antithesis of what the "american left" is fighting for for example), other people may continue to reply to you but it's frankly a waste of time.
Have a nice day.

Edit: Imagine calling someone a communist who openly speaks against everything the chinese CPC stands for since Mao Zedongs revolution, another case of republicans not knowing shit about communism and how actual communists think.

 

[koista12]

All this essay writing just to confess that you don't believe in universal human rights and yes, LGBTQ+ rights are indeed human rights. The rest of your essay is so laughable and frankly not even worth to continue a discussion cause it's so far from reality (Chinas communist policies such as genocide against Uyghurs, LGBTQ+ persecution etc. are the antithesis of what the "american left" is fighting for for example), other people may continue to reply to you but it's frankly a waste of time.

Right well, this is the issue. You think something is an human right, and half the country disagrees with you. Up until 20 years ago, almost nobody in the country agreed with you. Like I said, unless you think that the country was fascist up until the 2000s, this just doesn't hold water. Like it or not, a large portion of the country does not and has not agreed with your moral views. That's part of living in a democracy, and just calling your opponents fascists is infantile.

The China bit was a joke. I dont care what cherrypicked source you found that says "Actually, foreign experts all think republicans are literal nazis." That is a non argument.

 

[Lemingue]

No politicians are calling for all trans people to be shot. There are politicians who believe that giving trans children gender affirming care is wrong. There are politicians who are convinced that kids are being brought to drag shows as an excuse to sexually abuse them. This may be hyperbole, it may be a moral scare, but these are issues that many people feel strongly about, and not because they have some burning hatred for trans people. These are just divisive issues being circulated through the media. There are no politicians who want to murder trans people.

I don't think I have the energy to write down how republican policies have hurt my trans siblings for decades to someone who certainly doesn't give a shit about it (also "well it was a popular opinion so it couldn't be facist" is an extremely funny and sad argument. Truly, the real metric to decide if something is facism: popularity. Ignoring what the status quo of the US is and what they wish to preserve and where it comes from that results on what ideologies are popular. Mfw nazi germany isn't facist because it was very popular at the time! Just ignore who it was popular with and what they did to achieve that popularity. That part certainly doesn't matter. Carry on old chap).

So I'm hitting you with the get-a-load of this guy

Thank you for saying I'm cool for being a communist tho. I'll add it to my wall of fame.

 

[Mathy]

its all just bullshit moral relativism that im not reading but this was my favorite sentence

Until the late 2010s, pretty much nobody was talking about how the U.S. had a systemic racism problem

like what is this even supposed to mean. the decades of black writing about systemic racism are "pretty much nobody"?

 

[koista12]

its all just bullshit moral relativism that im not reading but this was my favorite sentence

like what is this even supposed to mean. the decades of black writing about systemic racism are "pretty much nobody"?

Yes. Post segregation, it was not a widely held opinion that America was systemically racist. It was not a large part of the popular political discourse. It was not a big split issue between the two main political parties.

 

[boo836]

Yes. Post segregation, it was not a widely held opinion that America was systemically racist. It was not a large part of the popular political discourse. It was not a big split issue between the two main political parties.

Correction: Post segregation, it was not a widely held opinion that America was systemically racist among white Americans.

I dont care what cherrypicked source you found that says "Actually, foreign experts all think republicans are literal nazis." That is a non argument.

also very cool how sources that say things you don't like are "cherry picked." Next you'll accuse people of "cherry-picking" opinions across the entire scholarship of authoritarianism studies.

 

[koista12]

Correction: Post segregation, it was not a widely held opinion that America was systemically racist among white Americans.

I don't get this. Are you denying that political focus on systemic racism is a new development in mainstream politics? I hate to be that guy, but where's the proof? In what election prior to say, 2016, did either party focus on the issue of "systemic racism" and identity politics in the US? Where were all the Robin DiAngelos and Ibram X Kendis prior to the mid-2010s? Where was all the discourse on critical race theory? I don't remember that playing any significant part in politics in the 90s and 2000s. In fact, I do remember being told that "color-blindness" was a prominent view of racial politics through those eras, and that's an attitude that the left disagrees with and wants to change. I'm not discrediting those ideas based on their newness. I'm not saying that America had no racial tensions during those eras. (Affirmative action has been contentious for a while). I'm simply stating the plain fact that widespread belief in "systemic racism" and identity politics is a new phenomenon and new outlook on the big stage of racial politics.

The idea that its only white americans who dont accept systemic racism as a concept is laughable. The GOP as whole does not accept it. Centrists as whole either oppose it or are not decided. Its an idea popular in the American left, and it's a newly popular idea. Also, in 2020, 60% of Americans identified as white. In 2000, 75% did. White people comprise the majority of the population in the U.S. So even if we accept the claim that it's only white people who don't believe in racial identity politics in 2020 (which isnt true), that's still a huge portion of the nation that doesn't buy into it, and of course other racial demographics in the U.S. can vary in their acceptance of it. "Systemic racism as an idea has been a popular belief in the U.S. for a long time" is not the hill to die on.

also very cool how sources that say things you don't like are "cherry picked." Next you'll accuse people of "cherry-picking" opinions across the entire scholarship of authoritarianism studies.

It's very cool how you just brought up some random thing that some German think tank said to show that "Republicans are Nazis". I have no idea what study you are referencing, their goals in publishing that statement, their framework for analyzing and arriving to that conclusion, or if they even have a solid grasp of American politics. Some random Germans saying "Republicans are Nazis" when they dont even live here means very little to me. Seems like a loaded statement made to promote a poltical agenda and shut down opposition. Which is pretty much what calling your opponents Nazis is.

And yes, I do think authoritarian studies is bullshit. When you have authoritarian studies "experts" saying things like authoritarianism is a uniquely right-wing phenomena, that leads me to think they are talking out of their asses. Left wing politics can lead to authoritarianism just like right wing politics can. Lastly, I dont form my opinions on whether something is fascist or not based on whether some random professor with an "authoritarian studies" title says they are or not. That would just be dumb.

Edit - you didn't bring up the study Medeia did my bad

 

[TheMantyke]

I for one think we should wait for a second incredibly popular celebrity who cozied up with a former president with a ghoulish friend radicalized by /pol/ memes as a child to declare himself a Nazi to get a better sense of where the authoritarian leanings of the US political parties lie. After all, it’s a pretty low sample size if you choose to ignore everything else the US right wing has done ever.

 

[Mathy]

What's your point Koista? What is the prescription that follows from "X is/isn't a widely held opinion"? What does the popularity of a political prescription have to do with whether it should be praised or criticised? Can you once answer with something that isn't a whataboutism?

 

[phoopes]

Alright I saw the reports from this thread and decided to step in after reading through everything from the past few days.

I didn't delete or edit anyone's posts because to me like that would be too much censorship/the dam had already burst. However, I did infract koista12 and leave a public warning on one of their posts as an example of what will not be tolerated in this thread or anywhere on Smogon.

Please note that these decisions are subject to change at the discretion of the Cong mods. I'm deferring to them because I don't really moderate these kinds of discussions that often, but again, I felt like I should step in.

If you have any questions/comments feel free to PM me (preferably on the forums so I can more easily loop in the Cong mods).

EDIT: okay I did delete one post that was posted literally seconds before this one that was definitely worth deleting. Deciding on what to do with that now.

 

[BlizzardHero]

Yes. Post segregation, it was not a widely held opinion that America was systemically racist. It was not a large part of the popular political discourse. It was not a big split issue between the two main political parties.

Oh wow, I didn't know the U.S. solved racism in 1964. Learn something new every day. I should've known getting a degree in history was useless: foolish professors lied to me completely!


Anyways...

1. Redlining remained(s) a hot-button topic despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968. Multiple further attempts at local, state, and federal levels to address the issue continued to be passed well past 1970, such as the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. Platforms of the Democratic party at various points included variations of "Vigorous enforcement of truth-in-lending, anti-redlining, and fair credit reporting laws (this from the1980 Democratic Platform)." Unfortunately, these attempts did little address continuing covert redlining, despite the political showmanship about the issue.
2. Throughout the 1970's and 1980's, the idea of environmental racism became a more widely known and accepted. Environmental racism largely boils down to putting the crappy-stuff (factories, waste facilities, etc.) where the minorities are. While numerous political protests such as the 1982 Warren County protests pushed against this discrimination, perhaps the most notable legislative piece was Bill Clinton's 1994 executive order mandating agencies in the federal government to curb environmental discrimination specifically titled "Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations."
3. The relation between minority communities and the U.S. justice system post 1964 is basically impossible to summarize sufficiently. However, "Tough on Crime" rhetoric was (is?) one of the primary platforms of conservatives to differentiate/bash their more liberal opponents. For example, in 1988 then Vice President H.W. Bush used "Willie" Horton to bash Dukakis as being soft on crime and to reinforce the stereotype the black people were criminals, and as one of the significant reasons why there was never a president Dukakis. While the specific language used rarely specified the targeting of minorities (obviously), the effects were clear: disproportionate percentages of minorities were targeted in crackdowns, especially as highlighted in the crack epidemic of the late 1980's and early 1990s. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (which, let's also be clear here, was both a Republican and Dem effort) set minimum sentencing laws which specifically targeted black communities - possession of power cocaine was given a far lighter sentence at 100 - 1 when compared to crack. This was beacuse powder cocaine was primarily used in white communities while crack cocaine was primarily used in black communties (a disparity which did not go unnoticed, but claims of racial injustice fell on deaf ears).

And those are just some of the big examples of institutional racism and it's discourse "post segregation." And, I'm eliminating the 2000-2010 period as that's a bit too contemporary although you seem to be including it? However, some other notable events that highlight "conversations" about institutional racism during the period are:

1. The 1978 Regents of the University of California v Bakke was a landmark SCOTUS case that upheld affirmative action as a tool to address the legacy of institutional racism (though blocked racial quotas).
2. The 1992 Los Angles Race Riots which centered on judicial disparity in how police and minorities were treated.
3. The 1995 Million Man March which was prompted by a politicians doing little to stop or actively supporting the stereotyping of urban black people as the cause of urban blight and systematically culling capital to impoverished schools around the U.S.

I should also specify that this is not my specific historical focus. My general focus in regards to civil rights was the civil rights movement and earlier - a historian more versed in this period would definitely do a better job at iterating all this than I. Also I don't have access to any of my books about this period/subject as they're in storage atm (big sad).

While this clearly won't change anyone's mind on the topic beacuse internet, hopefully this list should provide a good springboard of examples if a similar viewpoint about the period in question starts getting thrown about.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Well, this wasn't how I planned on spending my night, but fuck it.

This is the back and forth right here. People on the left say "The GOP are Nazis and fascists." Conservatives say "There are no Nazis currently in our government, there are maybe several thousand nazis in the U.S. on a good day, and your definition of fascism essentially boils down to anyone you don't like". You say "well look at these policies the republican party supports. They're kind of like the Nazi party". I say, "The Nazis had lots of policies. They had laws against Jews, they had laws about corporations, and they had ones against animal abuse." Please be more specific.

I'd be happy to be more specific; you know full well the discussion has nothing to do with Nazi policies on animal abuse or smoking or any of the other non-sequiturs centrists like to trot out, but I guess when you don't have an actual argument, playing dumb and gish-galloping out a bunch of nonsense talking points is apparently the best way to create the illusion of an argument.

The points people use to draw comparisons between the Nazi party and American conservatives include desiring policies outlawing homosexuality and other acts perceived as "sexual degeneracy" (transgender, non-binary, and other gender non-conforming people find themselvese targetted by these laws universally, despite the fact that their existence objectively isn't inherently sexual any more than anyone else's), their use of (slightly) reframed Nazi conspiracy theories (such as Great Replacement theory, pushed by numerous conservative figures including the most popular conservative TV host, which is quite literally a rehashing of the Jewish Question, or the numerous conservative conspiracy theories about how "globalists" [read: Jews], "Zionists" [read: Jews], "Cultural Marxists" [read: Jews], or whatever other dogwhistle they've adopted to refer to Jewish people while retaining some plausible deniability for centrists like yourself to feign ignorance with are attempting to destroy America, turn it into a communist police state, or whatever), the conservative tendency to paint leftists, LGBTQ+ people, and minority advocates as both pathetic and laughable and a dangerous existential threat at the same time (a literal hallmark of fascism), their stated (and acted upon) intentions of overthrowing democratically elected politicians, using violence if necessary (including against other conservatives who refuse to tow the line, Night of the Long Knives-style), and their use of misinformation campaigns to paint BIPOC and LGBTQ+ people as inherently criminal/pedophilic to justify future violence against them, exactly the same way the Nazi party did towards Jews and other "undesirables" leading up to the holocaust.

I do hope you'll understand the moral difference between these things and Nazi policies on animal abuse or whatever other irrelevant bullshit you want to trot out in a futile attempt to muddy what is otherwise a very clear comparison. If you have examples of "leftists" doing any of these things, you should definitely share them, because there's enough examples of conservatives doing it to occupy the rest of your life.

Even in your post, you call them "cryptofascists". What's the definition of cryptofascist?

Oh, that's easy, a cryptofascist is someone who supports fascistic policies and/or has fascistic sociopolitical tendencies, but is either socially aware enough to hide them beneath the language of another ideology or delusional enough to legitimately believe that they aren't supporting fascism by running defense for fascists and (purely coincidentally, I'm sure) siding with fascists on every issue.

I know it's hard to believe, but it turns out not everyone is honest with their positions. I suppose this is why we're even having this conversation in the first place; you seem to think it's only fair to compare people to Nazis or fascists if they come out and literally say "I am a Nazi/fascist" and not a moment before (and even then you don't seem to think people literally being open neo-Nazis is as much of a problem as those evil authoritarian leftists calling them Nazis). So, instead of just going by what people say they believe, we can instead look at how they act, the things they support, and the people they defend for a more accurate representation of what they actually believe.

I don't watch Fox news, and I genuinely believe that the left has authoritarian tendencies in the same way you think the right does. I haven't accused anyone of being Communist for one, so please dont project that onto me. One can be both "communist" and pro-corporate, China is doing an excellent job of that right now. Anarchists and Communists are not significant portions of the left. They are political minorities that do not have a place in the national discussion, in the same way that nobody cares about monarchists. They do not make up a significant block of voters or politicians, and are entirely irrelevant to the national political discussion, except as a scare tactic by the right. So yeah, when I say the left is authoritarian I mean the neoliberals and self proclaimed social democrats are authoritarian.

This is just a really shitty attempt to gatekeep what the left is, from someone who isn't on the left and still wants to lump in these groups that apparently aren't popular enough to be valid leftists with the supposedly authoritarian neolibs and socdems. It's fucking strange to me to acknowledge that the left isn't homogenous but then say it is because only the most popular opinions are valid (ignoring the fact that your average liberal or socdem definitely isn't close to as authoritarian as your average conservative).

You're literally asking to have your cake and eat it too here. You also seem to be laboring under the delusion that truth is determined by popular opinion; this is a truly strange sort of moral relativism that seems to be popular amongst centrists and liberals and if I'm being honest with you, I don't even understand how you think that it's a valid point to bring up.

What a coincidence, I think the Overton window is very far to the Left right now.

This is so out of touch only an American can utter it.

Conservatives do not want to live in a theocracy and they don't hate minorities.

What are the non-religious grounds for opposition against homosexuality and transgenderism again? Which party is it that's delusional enough to think that 400 years of systemic oppression disappears overnight simply because we passed a couple laws against racial discrimination as it presents itself in some circumstances?

If you think supporting laissez-faire capitalism is a radical position in American politics than you should read a history book.

And yet again we have more of this popular opinion nonsense. I don't care if it's a radical position or not; the fact that you feel the need to lump in everyone who doesn't support this very specific strain of capitalism into one group as if they're remotely compatible is the problem. They're not, you're building a strawman.



Honestly the most productive thing about this whole conversation is the other people who outed themselves as useful tools to the conservative propaganda machine. Sometimes I get tired of being right.

 

[koista12]

The points people use to draw comparisons between the Nazi party and American conservatives include desiring policies outlawing homosexuality and other acts perceived as "sexual degeneracy" (transgender, non-binary, and other gender non-conforming people find themselvese targetted by these laws universally, despite the fact that their existence objectively isn't inherently sexual any more than anyone else's), their use of (slightly) reframed Nazi conspiracy theories (such as Great Replacement theory, pushed by numerous conservative figures including the most popular conservative TV host, which is quite literally a rehashing of the Jewish Question, or the numerous conservative conspiracy theories about how "globalists" [read: Jews], "Zionists" [read: Jews], "Cultural Marxists" [read: Jews], or whatever other dogwhistle they've adopted to refer to Jewish people while retaining some plausible deniability for centrists like yourself to feign ignorance with are attempting to destroy America, turn it into a communist police state, or whatever), the conservative tendency to paint leftists, LGBTQ+ people, and minority advocates as both pathetic and laughable and a dangerous existential threat at the same time (a literal hallmark of fascism), their stated (and acted upon) intentions of overthrowing democratically elected politicians, using violence if necessary (including against other conservatives who refuse to tow the line, Night of the Long Knives-style), and their use of misinformation campaigns to paint BIPOC and LGBTQ+ people as inherently criminal/pedophilic to justify future violence against them, exactly the same way the Nazi party did towards Jews and other "undesirables" leading up to the holocaust.

Misrepresenting the intentions and beliefs of your opponents has a long and storied history in politics. I agree with you. A portion of the GOP's rhetoric is trumped up, bad faith accusations made towards people they don't like. However, I'm gonna pull a whataboutism here.

The American left does the exact same thing. Frequently the left will accuse pro-life advocates of misogyny. Prolifers, we are told, just hate women and want to control their bodies to keep them down in society. This of course, echoes none of the logic we see from the pro life lobby. Almost all pro life rhetoric is hinged upon the genuine moral belief that killing fetuses is equivalent to murder. Its not a position I agree with, but given the complex ethical issues surrounding personhood, it's an entirely reasonable ethical position for the average person to hold. However, leftists propaganda ignores this and clings tight to the idea that no one could oppose abortion for any other reason than misogyny.

Where I draw the line, and where the left doesn't, is calling the people doing the misrepresenting fascist. The left is not fascist for misrepresenting the intents of the pro life movement. They are wrong, I believe, but being dishonest and wrong doesn't mean we are on the doorstep of fascism. The right is not fascist for misrepresenting their opponent's beliefs either. Wrong, but not fascist.

I'm pulling that whataboutism because I think that both sides engage in bad faith arguments in equal amounts. The right thinks leftists hate white people and men, the left thinks the right hates minorities and women. On the whole neither of these are true. Both sides have genuine issue with the morality and ideas the other side espouses. They simply come down to a difference in worldview. A democracy is healthiest when, rather than assuming that everyone on the other side are evil people, we assume that people just have different worldviews that we just don't agree with. A democracy cannot function if we assume that the other side is illegitimate or arguing solely in bad faith. That's not to say both sides don't argue in both faith at times, but rather that those incidents should be considered the exception to the rule.

Oh, that's easy, a cryptofascist is someone who supports fascistic policies and/or has fascistic sociopolitical tendencies, but is either socially aware enough to hide them beneath the language of another ideology or delusional enough to legitimately believe that they aren't supporting fascism by running defense for fascists and (purely coincidentally, I'm sure) siding with fascists on every issue.

What a wonderfully convenient definition. This definition is vague enough that it can be applied to anyone who you believe to have fascist tendencies. They deny that they are fascists, and yet you know that deep down, even if your opponents deny it, they really are just fascists. Oh, you're enemy may say things that a fascist would disagree with, the policies they support and the words they say may only be considered fascist if looking through a 10 inch lens, but that doesn't matter, because you've discerned the truth of the matter - they ARE fascists. What a wonderfully vague, assumption ridden word.

I know it's hard to believe, but it turns out not everyone is honest with their positions. I suppose this is why we're even having this conversation in the first place; you seem to think it's only fair to compare people to Nazis or fascists if they come out and literally say "I am a Nazi/fascist" and not a moment before (and even then you don't seem to think people literally being open neo-Nazis is as much of a problem as those evil authoritarian leftists calling them Nazis). So, instead of just going by what people say they believe, we can instead look at how they act, the things they support, and the people they defend for a more accurate representation of what they actually believe.

Not everyone argues in good faith, yes. I think the idea that the Republican party as a whole, the party that at any given time represents around half the nation, and their constituents, are all arguing in bad faith as hidden Nazis is pretty absurd. It's far more likely that people actually just disagree with you on core issues, and that people on either political side chaff when they are subject to policies they don't agree with. Living in a place with laws that you disagree with does not make the legal structure fascist, it's merely part of being alive.

This is just a really shitty attempt to gatekeep what the left is, from someone who isn't on the left and still wants to lump in these groups that apparently aren't popular enough to be valid leftists with the supposedly authoritarian neolibs and socdems. It's fucking strange to me to acknowledge that the left isn't homogenous but then say it is because only the most popular opinions are valid (ignoring the fact that your average liberal or socdem definitely isn't close to as authoritarian as your average conservative).

I'm gonna get away from the whole communist/neoliberal thing. It started because we were talking about radicalization, and frankly I don't really know where it was going.

You're literally asking to have your cake and eat it too here. You also seem to be laboring under the delusion that truth is determined by popular opinion; this is a truly strange sort of moral relativism that seems to be popular amongst centrists and liberals and if I'm being honest with you, I don't even understand how you think that it's a valid point to bring up.

Yeah, I'm a moral relativist, sue me. I think people have the right to self determination. I think if you disagree with something morally, you should vote to implement laws that encode your moral position. The entire idea of a legal system is that its moral structure that we impose on one another when we can all agree that something is bad. Different people have different ideas of morality, and so we self govern to turn those morals into a legal system. Americans like free speech, so we implemented into our legal system. Germans want to avoid a repeat of Naziism (best example i could think of sorry), so they have much more restrictions around free speech. Different ethics, different laws. A win/win.

This is so out of touch only an American can utter it.

Wow, it's crazy how different people have different political beliefs isn't it?

What are the non-religious grounds for opposition against homosexuality and transgenderism again? Which party is it that's delusional enough to think that 400 years of systemic oppression disappears overnight simply because we passed a couple laws against racial discrimination as it presents itself in some circumstances?

Im not going to answer why an atheist might oppose LGBT rights as I dont think the mods would appreciate it, but I will say this. There is no difference between a sincerely held religious belief and a sincerely held moral belief. It is entirely reasonable to hold a system of morality based on your religion. The law is and should be indifferent to the source of your moral beliefs. Unless you are specifically trying to impose forced worship or beliefs specific to religion/the divine on someone else, it's entirely reasonable for a self governing people to enshrine whatever morality they want into law. We ban polygamy, gambling, and prostitution in the U.S. because we think they are moral evils. Whether that belief springs from religion or not doesn't change the right of the people to legislate those moral beliefs into law.

 

[Adeleine]

It is entirely reasonable to hold a system of morality based on your religion. The law is and should be indifferent to the source of your moral beliefs.

Unless you are specifically trying to impose forced worship or beliefs specific to religion/the divine on someone else, it's entirely reasonable for a self governing people to enshrine whatever morality they want into law.

Translation: I stand by the people who think gays deserve eternal, unspeakable suffering, including when they make a country and want to torture sodomizers to death. These are my peers and just have a different opinion. (Maybe.)

I'm not shying away from extreme-yet-true language for the benefit of readers. When you're not in a marginalized group, it can be hard to understand how Real things can be for us. And I am among the luckier members of marginalized groups, all things considered. Please be kind to us, and try and understand from where we come.

Readers, are you confused why this poster stands with evil people? Here are some possibilities. They may be true or not.
1) They lack many deeply sincere beliefs. This is common in early life. Perhaps it's true for you, even if you don't spew their vitriol. It was once true for me. Sometimes people grow out of this, and sometimes they don't. Try to be honest with yourself, try new things to understand where you belong, be patient, and internalize the people and things you care deeply about.
2) They do or think they deeply, sincerely believe in peoples' self-determination. Some people believe in this sincerely, and it doesn't automatically reveal any poison. The Welsh, the Kurds, and many others share identities that have received merciless mistreatment. However, there is no reason you can't internalize this belief alongside a belief in human rights. If you only care about the abstract notion of groups making their own choices, with no opinion on how those choices can hurt and bring injustice to people... what is the deeper point, really?
3) They actively support this evil and aren't being honest with us.

EDIT: If you read their response, see the shallowness in their words.

They had no problem when others wish eternal unspeakable suffering upon us. They only claim to have a problem with the torture, as it violates our "human rights." But look and see what they think of human rights, when told that LGBT rights are human rights.

Right well, this is the issue. You think something is an human right, and half the country disagrees with you.... Like it or not, a large portion of the country does not and has not agreed with your moral views.

Even if the majority wants to destroy our love and expression, which would be good and dandy by koista12, it would be too far if they killed us, koista12 says... for now. Human rights are merely opinions on which reasonable people can disagree, they say! What will happen if the majority stops sharing our "moral opinions" on our right to life, and our right to escape the worst depredations of humanity? Then the laws and "self-determination" will change, and then our fate matters little to people like this, for they surely care more about other things.

As for their charge that I was rude to them, yes, I was. Does that bother you, reader? Think hard. Who was truly less kind? The one who openly cares minimally for our fates, or me, who responded to them? Am I justified to be upset? I think so.

 

[koista12]

Oh wow, I didn't know the U.S. solved racism in 1964. Learn something new every day. I should've known getting a degree in history was useless: foolish professors lied to me completely!


Anyways...

1. Redlining remained(s) a hot-button topic despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968. Multiple further attempts at local, state, and federal levels to address the issue continued to be passed well past 1970, such as the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. Platforms of the Democratic party at various points included variations of "Vigorous enforcement of truth-in-lending, anti-redlining, and fair credit reporting laws (this from the1980 Democratic Platform)." Unfortunately, these attempts did little address continuing covert redlining, despite the political showmanship about the issue.
2. Throughout the 1970's and 1980's, the idea of environmental racism became a more widely known and accepted. Environmental racism largely boils down to putting the crappy-stuff (factories, waste facilities, etc.) where the minorities are. While numerous political protests such as the 1982 Warren County protests pushed against this discrimination, perhaps the most notable legislative piece was Bill Clinton's 1994 executive order mandating agencies in the federal government to curb environmental discrimination specifically titled "Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations."
3. The relation between minority communities and the U.S. justice system post 1964 is basically impossible to summarize sufficiently. However, "Tough on Crime" rhetoric was (is?) one of the primary platforms of conservatives to differentiate/bash their more liberal opponents. For example, in 1988 then Vice President H.W. Bush used "Willie" Horton to bash Dukakis as being soft on crime and to reinforce the stereotype the black people were criminals, and as one of the significant reasons why there was never a president Dukakis. While the specific language used rarely specified the targeting of minorities (obviously), the effects were clear: disproportionate percentages of minorities were targeted in crackdowns, especially as highlighted in the crack epidemic of the late 1980's and early 1990s. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (which, let's also be clear here, was both a Republican and Dem effort) set minimum sentencing laws which specifically targeted black communities - possession of power cocaine was given a far lighter sentence at 100 - 1 when compared to crack. This was beacuse powder cocaine was primarily used in white communities while crack cocaine was primarily used in black communties (a disparity which did not go unnoticed, but claims of racial injustice fell on deaf ears).

And those are just some of the big examples of institutional racism and it's discourse "post segregation." And, I'm eliminating the 2000-2010 period as that's a bit too contemporary although you seem to be including it? However, some other notable events that highlight "conversations" about institutional racism during the period are:

1. The 1978 Regents of the University of California v Bakke was a landmark SCOTUS case that upheld affirmative action as a tool to address the legacy of institutional racism (though blocked racial quotas).
2. The 1992 Los Angles Race Riots which centered on judicial disparity in how police and minorities were treated.
3. The 1995 Million Man March which was prompted by a politicians doing little to stop or actively supporting the stereotyping of urban black people as the cause of urban blight and systematically culling capital to impoverished schools around the U.S.

I should also specify that this is not my specific historical focus. My general focus in regards to civil rights was the civil rights movement and earlier - a historian more versed in this period would definitely do a better job at iterating all this than I. Also I don't have access to any of my books about this period/subject as they're in storage atm (big sad).

While this clearly won't change anyone's mind on the topic beacuse internet, hopefully this list should provide a good springboard of examples if a similar viewpoint about the period in question starts getting thrown about.

I did not say racism was solved in 1964. I said the belief that America is irredeemably and systemically racist, and the increased focus on identity politics is newly popular in our political discourse. This is different than saying that racism does not exist. I'm not an expert on this, I'll admit. But from what I've experienced, there had been a massive shift in the arguments, attitudes, and discussions regarding to racial politics in the U.S. in the last few years. Are you denying that there was a shift in the last few years?

 

[koista12]

Got it. You had nothing to back up your arguments.

If you can't be bothered to read my posts, that's not my problem. Here is what I wrote verbatim:

Why take the most radical politicians? Let's take the mainstream. Both the Trump and the Biden government colluded with Twitter to suppress persons and opinions they did not like. Throughout the later stages of COVID, Democrat lawmakers routinely extended mask mandates and kept schools shut down despite (in my opinion) a lack of real need for this, and opposed to a real need to open up society again. Joe Biden has pushed forth student loan forgiveness using a COVID relief bill, despite being told beforehand that this was unconstitutional. Democrats criticized the Great Barrington delegation despite continually saying "follow the science". And the state I live in, Hawaii, instituted a "vaccine passport" to enter businesses (which was not illegal, but was highly authoritarian in my opinion).

 

[MagikaripIsOP]

it's quite easy; i do it all the time! <3

Agreed, centrists aren't good enough. We need progressive democrats