Jump to content

butterbumps!

Forum Moderators
  • Content count

    9,587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About butterbumps!

  • Rank
    totally cromulent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics-Hope Floats 2: We All Float Down Here

    Is it the fact that they are lifetime appointments or the fact that they're not subject to elections that render them dicerolls free from "supervision?" Would it produce the same effect if, say, court appointments had maximum lengths of 10-16 years?
  2. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics-Hope Floats 2: We All Float Down Here

    What's the overall value of a conservative court, anyway? It just seems to be against the overwhelmingly vast majority's economic interests such that I'm unclear why it's such a strong rallying point for conservatives (especially with all that "economic anxiety" rationalization this past election). I understand that they want bigoted policies and/ or are anti-choice, but I guess my question is whether they rally for the courts unaware of how bad it is for them economically, or in spite of it, because they just hate abortion and/ or civil rights that much? Like it's worth it to them to get rid of abortion even if they lose their union benefits or consumer/ worker protections, or do they not understand that's what will happen?
  3. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

    I think your post elides over the heart of what leads progressives to define racism that way. As your analysis points out, it's not preference for one's ethnic group per se that progressives find racist. You get close to the heart of the issue in the last paragraph, especially the bolded, but it still glosses over what progressives really take issue with. The problem is really about resource and opportunity hoarding amongst a dominant group, especially if it includes systemic oppression and disenfranchisement of other groups. In theory, I think progressives would be ok with (economically and culturally) dominant groups advancing their self interests if it did not involve resource hoarding at the expense of and oppression of others. I think it's generally conservatives who see the world in that sort of zero sum way, and I'm not sure progressives agree one group's success must by necessity come at the expense of another's. Regarding some of the other points that I clipped, I don't really understand the idea of not wanting immigrants to come in order to preserve one's culture. I guess I just don't understand how the presence of people practicing foreign customs (and often times, adopting customs of their new country too) eradicates or interferes with the ability of people to continue practicing their own customs.
  4. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

    Well, just to be clear, when I wrote "I'm in favor of making it clear that these are problematic positions, and that they're "racist" (or otherwise bigoted) specifically," the "they're" is referring to the positions being racist, not the people themselves. I'm not really advocating telling people they're racists. I'm in favor of identifying racism/ sexism and calling it such. Things like calling out voting for Trump for being the support of racism it is. If it makes someone uncomfortable to recognize that, then maybe it's time to reconsider one's voting priorities. If not being racist is actually important to these people, then being told that racist things they believe are racist shouldn't give them a fit of the vapors. I know a lot of Trump voters hold the position you just described: "I'll show those evil liberals who's racist by casting a vote for this racist!" First off-- I'm not even sure how many of these people have actually even been called racist or whatever directly. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of these people feel victimized by liberals because Fox News tells them these things. And voting for a racist is a fairly unwise way to prove one isn't racist.
  5. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

    It seems you're really objecting to categorizing every Trump voter as a racist. Ok, but I think we kind of need to reckon with the fact that everyone who voted for Trump did in fact commit a racist act, which you do seem to agree with (they supported racism through voting for racists and racist policies). They are supporters of racism, which is what I said that you pushed back on. Sure, one racist action does not necessarily make someone a racist, but I think people need to come to terms with the fact that their vote is racist (and bigoted more generally, actually). It's specifically contributing to systemic injustices by empowering racists to enact racist policy. That's a good explanation, thanks. Well, I fully agree with the continuum concept of racism. I may have been unclear, but that's what I meant by questioning if "cultural anxiety" (what I believe you're calling "racial resentment") was under the racism umbrella to you. I think I agree with what you've said, except that I've been operating from the premise that "racism" is the term that encompasses all of these forms and degrees of resentment/ anxiety/ hate. I get that a lot of people point to the extremes of hate to say that their resentment isn't racist because they aren't burning crosses or whatever. But I think it's important that these people are made aware that their negative racial feelings and cultural anxiety is actually a form of racism. Perhaps it's not as virulent as David Duke's, but they need to know that these things they believe are in fact racist. These people know racism is bad, and that's why they are loathe to believe they could possibly be racist. Having them confront the fact that their animus is on the racism spectrum is important to that end, I think. It's basically the same story in all those stupid Trump country safaris, where Trumpkins start to bray about the evil liberals who unjustly call them racists or homophobes, for example. Invariably in all these pieces, the Trumpkin making that complaint will say something like "they call us homophobes just because we don't believe gays should be allowed to marry," and it's like, well, shit, yes, in fact that is homophobic, someone should be pushing back on that. I think a lot of people are getting away with poor excuses and justifications (i.e. "I have a different opinion [about that group's humanity] than you") that don't stand up to scrutiny when questioned further. I'm in favor of making it clear that these are problematic positions, and that they're "racist" (or otherwise bigoted) specifically. yea you're right, it occurred to me after I posted that I should have mentioned compartmentalization as a mechanism.
  6. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

    But this is not about what you may believe in personally, or at least not exclusively. Voting is an act of support. Voting was an action taken to put the racist and his racist policies into power. This has been referring to literal support. What you believe in your heart makes no difference when you take action that legitimizes and gives power to (i.e., "supporting" through the act of voting) something you may not personally agree with. The parts of your vote are not disaggregated according to the beliefs in your heart. ETA: not sure why you'd have given your vote to Trump if you genuinely believe in those things you list, but I'm sure your reasons are very wise and sensible.
  7. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

    Thanks for that. I think I'm missing the distinction being drawn between the two terms, though. Where does "racial resentment" end and "racism" begin? Using this more nuanced terminology, do you think there's an appreciable number of Trump voters/ supporters who do not harbor racial (or other) resentment? I think the original poster was suggesting that some people voted for Trump without having any race (or bigotry)-related motivations. I think it's hard to be a Trump supporter without some degree of "cultural anxiety"/ "racial resentment," or at minimum, a complete indifference to people who aren't just like you.
  8. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

    No that wasn't bait, or an oblique way to get to your post. I'm genuinely curious what DMC thinks on that issue. Let's assume that some Trump voters really did vote for reasons totally devoid of bigotry (or even "economic anxiety"), as you suggest (which I still find debatable, but I'm rolling with this). They still bought the "Racism Boxed Set," so to speak. Even if you bought the set because you really liked the first 5 albums but not the shitty live cover album sold with it, you still bought the shitty live cover album. A vote for Trump is a vote for racism, even if it's not the primary motivation you feel in the pit of your heart. You're supporting a racist regime. I guess I don't understand why there's a disconnect.
  9. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

    No one is suggesting a voter must agree with every view of the person he's voting for. The issue is that bigotry, and the promise of bigoted policies, was inextricable from Trump's candidacy. By voting for him, no matter what your alleged primary motivation, you have decided that whatever "non racist" motivation drives you is worth the price of electing a racist and having racist policies. Even if you voted for "lower taxes," you still pulled the lever in support of bigotry, because the bigotry is not only inextricable from the Trump package, but the major feature. I think this is really something people need to come to terms with.
  10. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

    In what way? If one supports racism (by voting for and continuing to approve of racists and racist policy), why is it unfair to characterize that person as a racist? Is the term "racism supporter" more apropos, in your view?
  11. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

    When you're saying "not racist," are you treating euphemisms like "culturally anxious" as a separate category not under the umbrella of racism? This is a genuine question. I'm admittedly in a very blue area, but know a fair number of Trump voters and continued supporters. Even those who are "good people"-- people who are incredibly decent and kind when it comes to those in their "in-groups," including, for example, neighbors who aren't white-- are super racist once you scratch the surface a little in my experience, though they'd get indignant at being told their beliefs are racist. Others I know are more garden variety Republicans who just voted for the R, but even they are pretty "culturally anxious" once you start asking pointed questions. In my experience, even in the most charitable cases, they are wholly indifferent to people who don't belong to one of their in groups. I mean, it's not just racism, but also misogyny, homophobia, nativism-- kind of like all these people are convinced that these "others" are hostile and taking resources, attention and specialness away from them or something. They feel like victims, and it seems to strengthen their sense of in group sensibility, as well as sense of who's "out." But, again, I think when you scratch the surface of that, it's bigotry. I could be wrong. What's your take on what motivates them other than racism (or bigotry in general)?
  12. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: He's an Idiot, Plain and Simple

    I don't think he misread or assumed. You did write "New York elite."
  13. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: He's an Idiot, Plain and Simple

    Oh yea, without a doubt. I've been categorizing the misogyny under "bigotry," and things like foreign "help" under "luck" -- part of the ridiculous confluence of outside factors that converged into perfect alignment for him. And the foreign help even had a lot to do with how stupid he is; it was preference for a divisive, corrupt, useful idiot.
  14. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: He's an Idiot, Plain and Simple

    How about this: do you think that Trump is different in private from what we see in public? Specifically, do you think he is capable of being something other than what we see, such that it is and was a deliberate choice on his part to sell the low-information, Fox News-watcher, imbecile persona that turned out to be successful? Except that's not what anyone here said, and is a pretty disingenuous read on why luck came into the discussion. Someone posited that Trump couldn't possibly have bumbled to the top through a combo of American bigotry and luck. To which a number of us are like, yea, he really could have, and did.
  15. butterbumps!

    U.S. Politics: He's an Idiot, Plain and Simple

    "The person you were talking to" (me) was pointing out that you keep using the term "identity politics" in the warped way the right wing wants to define it-- their meaning is what's bullshit. I don't believe in Identity Politics the way the right uses that term- the way they use it to disparage the left, nor in the way they wield identity in a very "American Exceptionalist, we're white and awesome!" way. As DMC pointed out, and I agreed with, "identity politics" is really about tailoring messaging and policy to address different needs of divergent demographics, some of which have a basis in less mutable identities (such as gender), some of which is less intrinsic (for example, class). You asserted that he's "not an idiot, plain and simple." As evidence for his not being a plain and simple idiot, you have provided a link, appealing to his ability to bullshit. Unless I am misunderstanding your position, you believe that his ability to bullshit disqualifies him from being "an idiot plain and simple." There's a second, though very related, argument you've been making. You have been arguing that Trump's victory is in part attributable to intrinsic intelligence or talents or skills or whatever (virtues that disqualify from being an idiot), and have plainly stated that you reject the idea that he could have "bumbled" his way to the top without there being something of intrinsic intelligence there. If you need reference, this is from your post on page 1: "And I think it's that last part that makes people really cling to the idea that he's just a lucky idiot who bumbled into the White House- the alternative is realising that he played us, he fooled us. And I do mean us, I was telling people for ages that he had no chance. He understood something that I didn't. You don't Presidents who are true idiots." Here, and in subsequent posts, you assert that someone doesn't get to be president who is a true idiot (which is the post hoc rationalization I was pointing to. You keep accusing me of dishonestly representing your arguments, but this post of yours (among others) shows you arguing exactly what I'm saying you were arguing.). And all of this these subsequent arguments-- about the role of sexism, racism, identity politics, etc-- have spiraled out from your rejection of the notion that Trump could be a plain and simple idiot who stumbled into the job by virtue of no intrinsic intelligence of his own. You keep rejecting all of these factors that aligned to thrust Trump to victory despite being an idiot. But that's why we're talking about all these other things now-- because you were refusing to believe that someone could reach the presidency via outside factors aligning without some sort of virtue on Trump's part to get himself there that would render him not an idiot. Yea, I didn't say his campaign was exclusively about bigotry. I brought up bigotry as the driving force behind how he got into office, as the force behind the virulent support he maintains from a lot of his followers, as what gave him momentum in the primaries. I brought it up to point out that being racist and exploiting racism doesn't require particular intelligence or skill.
×