US Politics: Bounties from a Jericho Walk

[Larry of the Lawn]

"LBJ did more for black people than MLK ever did" would love to hear one of you guys make that argument.

[Ser Reptitious]

25 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Eta:

Maybe the salary thing is a moot point, because there is no job where $174k a year is grossly underpaid.  Just because some people in a similar profession might make more, doesn't mean that's underpaid.  It just means that there's not much correlation between how hard you work and what you earn.  Would still love to see some data to back up your assertion that they are grossly underpaid.

Keep in mind that you are arguing with someone who by his own admission seems to be part of the 1% (based on statements he's made in the past) so he probably moves in circles where making $1+ million per year is nothing unusual. Hence his (warped, imho) view on salaries. 

[Bonnot OG]

Incremental change, a privileged white persons proverb. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Bonnot OG said:

Incremental change, a privileged white persons proverb. 

Hey, I have zero issue with taking what gains you can when you can get them.  But as some kind of axiom that the smallest progress is best, I think it's super flawed.  I think the entire 'incrementalism vs radicalism' is a false dichotomy.  

[GrimTuesday]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

What's the difference between "Clara" operating in her conservative state than Doug working in his? 

Piss on liberals from liberal places who don't act like liberals. That's fair. But the ones surviving in red states, afford them the fact that they will need to take positions you may not like. Trust me, they may not like them either. But sometimes you got to do it to keep your seat. 

ETA: Also, well paying is relative. They're actually all grossly underpaid. 

Glad to see you're still stuck on the fact that I got her name wrong, I'm crushed.

I addressed why I don't mind Jones and dislike McCaskill. it has to do with what they are doing right at this moment. Doug Jones is taking votes, McCaskill is trying to undermine the progressive movement that I believe is imperative to the not just the future of the country, but in some ways the future of the human race, because moderates aren't doing shit in terms of the things that need to be done on climate change.

Also pretty fucking funny about how Senators are poorly paid. If you want to see people who are actually underpaid go look at the salaries of the civil servants who are doing the actual work that keeps things running, because let me tell you we do not get paid in relation to the importance of the work we do.

 

[Fragile Bird]

21 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

"LBJ did more for black people than MLK ever did" would love to hear one of you guys make that argument.

LBJ was president, MLK was not. LBJ did things MLK couldn't do. MLK was an amazing leader who could do things nobody else could do, not even a president. The comparison is apples to oranges.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

LBJ was president, MLK was not. LBJ did things MLK couldn't do. MLK was an amazing leader who could do things nobody else could do, not even a president. The comparison is apples to oranges.

You're so close 

[Bonnot OG]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Hey, I have zero issue with taking what gains you can when you can get them.  But as some kind of axiom that the smallest progress is best, I think it's super flawed.  I think the entire 'incrementalism vs radicalism' is a false dichotomy.  

I think it’s a crock of shit pushed by the most privileged in society. 
 

by the time shit actually gets in place if moving at a snails pace of incremental change, it will still be behind where we should be.

something like $15 an hour as a “living wage” now is still not good enough and isn’t keeping up with the cost of living. 
 

shit involving civil rights issues, well, we see how easy it is for the scum of the earth to grab power then destroy it in months. Slow small change is ridiculous at this point. It just becomes a never ending game of catch up.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Bonnot OG said:

I think it’s a crock of shit pushed by the most privileged in society. 
 

by the time shit actually gets in place if moving at a snails pace of incremental change, it will still be behind where we should be.

something like $15 an hour as a “living wage” now is still not good enough and isn’t keeping up with the cost of living. 
 

shit involving civil rights issues, well, we see how easy it is for the scum of the earth to grab power then destroy it in months. Slow small change is ridiculous at this point. It just because a never ending game of catch up.

Hey, 1968 was only 52 years ago.  We've made a lot of progress since then, if you haven't noticed.

[Bonnot OG]

and there’s people here that want to applaud democrats for working with a party that props up a Nazi president.

 

this coupled with the upside down red triangle, the 14 88 winked at in the add with said triangle being ran 88 times and the first sentence in it being 14 words, the DHS / DOD letter from Feb 2018 having 14 words in the start of it and referencing 88 in it as well is just impossible to ignore.

 

 

 

[Bonnot OG]

12 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Hey, 1968 was only 52 years ago.  We've made a lot of progress since then, if you haven't noticed.

Yea but see racism actually ended 400 years ago when slavery ended. 

[Bonnot OG]

Good job libs keep working with fascists.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Bonnot OG said:

Incremental change, a privileged white persons proverb. 

Considering that privileged white people got to the place they are in through centuries of incrementalism to create and maintain the power structures that are currently in place; maybe there's a reason for that.

Radicalism can led to initial big changes, but there's usually a pretty massive reactionary snapback; which often creates a new status quo even worse than what was in place before.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

Considering that privileged white people got to the place they are in through centuries of incrementalism to create and maintain the power structures that are currently in place; maybe there's a reason for that.

Radicalism can led to initial big changes, but there's usually a pretty massive reactionary snapback; which often creates a new status quo even worse than what was in place before.

The whole incrementalism vs radicalism is just a putting a weird zoom lens on Hegel and then using circular logic.  Our government is incremental by design; and it's not like the entire legislature can be radicals.  If it takes a majority to pass anything it's going to be, by definition, passed by a bunch of centrists and moderates.  

There's not really even a structural opportunity for radical change through legislation, or by virtue of electoral results. 

The idea of LGBTQ rights was radical until it wasn't.  There was a lot of incremental change to get where we are today, but there was a lot of radical activism that even put those options on the table.

Elected officials in the US haven't done much to address white supremacism since 1968.  Haven't done anything to reform police since then, since Rodney King, Freddie Grey, Eric Garner... Eventually you ignore a problem, or to be as charitable as possible, move too slowly; and it boils over into people taking action into their own hands and forcing elected officials to do something about it.  

It's always going to be the moderates passing laws and cutting ribbons.  Doesn't happen in a vacuum though.

[The Anti-Targ]

The radical transformation the world actually needs is far too radical for most radicals. This is unfortunate, since that only leaves one avenue to bring about the necessary transformation, which is self-destruction.

[Liffguard]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Hey, I have zero issue with taking what gains you can when you can get them.  But as some kind of axiom that the smallest progress is best, I think it's super flawed.  I think the entire 'incrementalism vs radicalism' is a false dichotomy.  

I think there are definitely some "sensible, realistic" moderates who idealise compromise and incrementalism as values in and of themselves rather than as tactics to achieve as much of what you want as possible. 

And I think there are definitely some people who don't actually want change, who are pretty comfy with the status quo, but find it suits their interests to pretend otherwise. And for these people, incrementalism can be a convenient smokescreen, to pretend they're working towards change whilst actually doing nothing.

So yeah, we should always be willing to take whatever small victories we can get, whilst also being aware of those who - whether through cynicism or a misplaced sense of "reasonableness" - would keep all victories small.

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I think there are definitely some "sensible, realistic" moderates who idealise compromise and incrementalism as values in and of themselves rather than as tactics to achieve as much of what you want as possible. 

And I think there are definitely some people who don't actually want change, who are pretty comfy with the status quo, but find it suits their interests to pretend otherwise. And for these people, incrementalism can be a convenient smokescreen, to pretend they're working towards change whilst actually doing nothing.

So yeah, we should always be willing to take whatever small victories we can get, whilst also being aware of those who - whether through cynicism or a misplaced sense of "reasonableness" - would keep all victories small.

Thanks, that's what I wanted to say and more, and more eloquently. 

[Martell Spy]

13 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I think there are definitely some "sensible, realistic" moderates who idealise compromise and incrementalism as values in and of themselves rather than as tactics to achieve as much of what you want as possible. 

And I think there are definitely some people who don't actually want change, who are pretty comfy with the status quo, but find it suits their interests to pretend otherwise. And for these people, incrementalism can be a convenient smokescreen, to pretend they're working towards change whilst actually doing nothing.

So yeah, we should always be willing to take whatever small victories we can get, whilst also being aware of those who - whether through cynicism or a misplaced sense of "reasonableness" - would keep all victories small.

Moderates can cause actual regression. Clinton and welfare reform and Glass-Steagall repeal for example. And numerous attempts to raise the Social Security retirement age. That is why I prefer to have as many progressive legislators as possible. (In places where it is feasible) 

[Bonnot OG]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Considering that privileged white people got to the place they are in through centuries of incrementalism to create and maintain the power structures that are currently in place; maybe there's a reason for that.

Radicalism can led to initial big changes, but there's usually a pretty massive reactionary snapback; which often creates a new status quo even worse than what was in place before.

Reactionaries snap back no matter what. Stop worrying about them more than worrying about the harms way that slow “change” keeps the marginalized in.

 

How many generations of marginalized demographics have been told to wait that change is slowly coming only to never see it?

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, Fez said:

There's a strong argument to be made that in most circumstances incrementalism accomplishes far more long-term change than radicalism.

That's a highly fallacious argument since you can only conceptualize a form of incrementalism once you have set a radical goal, and that goal has been made acceptable to a significant number of people - usually through activism.
Conversely if you look back at small steps taken to reach a goal that was not defined at the time said steps were taken, then your definition of incrementalism is a form of post hoc fallacy.

I'll stay nice, but quite honestly the idea that moderates are the ones achieving anything is... er... let's say, funny. That's a reading of history that... er... I hadn't seen before.

Seriously?