Jump to content


T110's Northern Migration


  • Please log in to reply
21234 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #20561 Posted Dec 06 2017 - 21:06

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10262 battles
  • 9,633
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostGoldMountain, on Dec 06 2017 - 17:36, said:

Hey Chief, your last post was indicative of you coming over to this side of the pond sometime next week?

 

Yep.

Starne #20562 Posted Dec 06 2017 - 22:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 7501 battles
  • 5,711
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View PostLittleJoeRambler, on Dec 06 2017 - 10:17, said:

I'm not disagreeing with anything he says, but I have doubts that factions within the Democratic party will be willing to sacrifice a short-term focus on specific issues in order to gain power and enact long-term change. I can't see anyone saying something to the effect that issues affecting the myriad minority communities need to play second fiddle to issues affecting, say, white working people (mostly men) and actually gaining enough traction to make it to the ballot box. Sanders was probably the closest to being able to accomplish this, but I don't see him running for president again, and he was still beholden to smaller factions within the Democratic party (just read the tweet chain under this for an idea of what the Dems have to overcome). If they can't come together enough to win, no one in the Democratic coalition is going to get what they need, and it's going to get worse before it gets better.

 

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Dec 06 2017 - 10:32, said:

 

What they (the Democrats) are going to have to realize is that the campaign trail isn't the only podium, and that the candidate for office doesn't have to be the one addressing every interest in every speech. 

 

 

 

View PostDerViktim, on Dec 06 2017 - 11:21, said:

 

We live in the age of the "vocal minority". Where small groups can drive the entire "conversation" by virtue of being a small group and being the loudest. It is kind of a warped version of "the squeaky wheel". The problem I see with the Dems is they have become so absorbed by the "vocal minority" that they have lost their ability to offer anything to the "silent majority".

 

 

Here's the problem with Democrats abandoning "Controversial" "Identity Politics". Someone has to actively stand up and at least try to defend the rights of LGBTQ people for example when "[Gays] and [Trans] aren't really human, they don't have rights!" is an increasingly accepted stance within the GOP. This isn't to say that every Republican politician is a raging homophobe who believes that sexual minorities are subhuman, but they do tolerate that sort of rhetoric from within the ranks of their own party in the name of political expediency. What happens when one party actively encourages the persecution of minorities in the name of political expediency and the deliberately doesn't push back against that, also in the name of political expediency? Nothing good, I imagine, especially for those minority groups.

 

Should Democrats talk about jobs and the economy more? Yes, absolutely. But not at the expense of standing up for minority groups. Setting aside the moral dimension, you need to be very cautious of demoralizing and alienating your core support by trying to court people who'll never support you anyway.

 

At least where I'm from, any Democrat who moved to the right on the issues of minority rights and gender equality enough to win over a plurality of votes may as well be running as a Republican. Of course, that's partially a result of gerrymandering, but it's also a grim truth that a clear majority of the rural white vote in central Florida is nakedly racist, homophobic, religiously fundamentalist and scornful of science and education. I'm speaking from experience, being someone who has been involved in politics on both sides of the fence. When I registered to vote, I registered as a Republican and got involved with the local Republican party. I made it about 6 months before I realized that no, the casual racism, homophobia and sexism wasn't an isolated thing, and yes, people really do believe their minister over actual scientists when he says that global warming is an "Secular Humanist Hoax" and yes, they really do believe that Barrack Obama is secretly a Kenyan Muslim Communist that wants to destroy America. Back then, I may not have 100% agreed with the Democratic Party's positions, but I was 100% sure that I wanted nothing more to do with the Republican Party.


Edited by Starne, Dec 06 2017 - 22:52.


Apple_Jack #20563 Posted Dec 06 2017 - 23:12

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11675 battles
  • 962
  • Member since:
    01-30-2011

View PostStarne, on Dec 06 2017 - 22:49, said:

Here's the problem with Democrats abandoning "Controversial" "Identity Politics". Someone has to actively stand up and at least try to defend the rights of LGBTQ people for example when "[Gays] and [Trans] aren't really human, they don't have rights!" is an increasingly accepted stance within the GOP. This isn't to say that every Republican politician is a raging homophobe who believes that sexual minorities are subhuman, but they do tolerate that sort of rhetoric from within the ranks of their own party in the name of political expediency. What happens when one party actively encourages the persecution of minorities in the name of political expediency and the deliberately doesn't push back against that, also in the name of political expediency? Nothing good, I imagine, especially for those minority groups.

 

By using identity politics against each other, the Democrats and Republican parties increase divisiveness in America, and are easily exploited by foreign influence. What I hear Mark Lilla and others in this Thread saying isn't abandoning the defense of minority groups, but changing the focus to a uniting cause. "Jobs and the economy" are generally safe topics because that is a universal concern in America, but a Democrat I think can unify on social issues by focusing on founding documents and statements like "all men created equal." The less groups talk about themselves as a group, and the more we talk about ourselves as Americans (Americans underpaid, Americans targeted by cops, Americans unable to marry), the better America will be.

Starne #20564 Posted Dec 06 2017 - 23:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 7501 battles
  • 5,711
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View PostApple_Jack, on Dec 06 2017 - 17:12, said:

 

By using identity politics against each other, the Democrats and Republican parties increase divisiveness in America, and are easily exploited by foreign influence. What I hear Mark Lilla and others in this Thread saying isn't abandoning the defense of minority groups, but changing the focus to a uniting cause. "Jobs and the economy" are generally safe topics because that is a universal concern in America, but a Democrat I think can unify on social issues by focusing on founding documents and statements like "all men created equal." The less groups talk about themselves as a group, and the more we talk about ourselves as Americans (Americans underpaid, Americans targeted by cops, Americans unable to marry), the better America will be.

 

Whoa there! All people being equal? That's not what the Good Book says! Women are supposed to be subordinate to men and homosexuality is an abomination! The Founders intended this to be a Christian Nation where God's Law ruled supreme! All our woes are punishments from the Lord for straying from His path and we won't ever be right as a country until we're right with God! That means we've gotta reaffirm our commitment to the Christian Faith, remove non-believers from positions of authority, treat Homosexuality, Socialism and Islam like the mental illnesses that they are and clean the dissolute off our streets!

 

More seriously, it's hard to use "We're all Americans" as a unifying theme when "American" is used today as a dog whistle that means "White and Protestant". "American" has always been ascriptive, and has meant different things at different times. Trust me when I say that when populists or religious fundamentalists or white supremacists say "The American People", "Americans" or "The People", they mean a really specific group of people, not everyone that has been born under or pledged allegiance to the republic. Their definition doesn't include non-Whites, it doesn't include non-Protestants, and increasingly it doesn't include anyone that doesn't share their ideology.

 

Moreover, it's really hard to build a case for shared values when the two sides don't really share that many values. The notion that the partisan divide is a new thing is a convenient myth without any basis in fact. All throughout our history as a nation, our politics have been defined by sharp partisan divides. The deepest and widest chasm has been that clash between ascriptive 'Americanism' and the liberal and republican values that are at least nominally the foundational principles of our society. It's to our great shame and misfortune that the latest incarnation of that clash of values has crystallized into the current incarnation of partisan politics. The one thing that has changed is that instead of both parties trying to bolt 'Americanism', republicanism and liberalism together in ways that are advantageous to them, one party has very clearly become the party of ascription. 


Edited by Starne, Dec 07 2017 - 01:03.


Misfire42 #20565 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 00:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 8292 battles
  • 4,510
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012

View PostApple_Jack, on Dec 06 2017 - 17:12, said:

 

By using identity politics against each other, the Democrats and Republican parties increase divisiveness in America, and are easily exploited by foreign influence. What I hear Mark Lilla and others in this Thread saying isn't abandoning the defense of minority groups, but changing the focus to a uniting cause. "Jobs and the economy" are generally safe topics because that is a universal concern in America, but a Democrat I think can unify on social issues by focusing on founding documents and statements like "all men created equal." The less groups talk about themselves as a group, and the more we talk about ourselves as Americans (Americans underpaid, Americans targeted by cops, Americans unable to marry), the better America will be.

 

In Lilla's case it's not, though; not really. That's all well and good, but he takes it along a few more steps. Let's jump down here to the section LJR quoted, which also stood out to me:

 

View PostLittleJoeRambler, on Dec 06 2017 - 10:17, said:

 

I was referring to this part of the interview:

Spoiler

 

Note the bolded part. He's right about a lot of things (I mostly agree that a shift in tactics is necessary, I just don't think it's that simple), but goes to some places I don't like. Right there, it sounds like he's basically dismissing trans people because there aren't enough of them for their votes to matter, because he is. He's doing it for good reasons, maybe, but if you're part of the minority he's discarding it sounds like bad news. If he's willing to ignore you while campaigning, odds are he will after he's elected, too. Like Killjoy said, the campaign trail isn't the only podium. That goes both ways - he meant (as I understand it) that Democrats could put less emphasis on minority issues while campaigning and pass the same or similar policies, but they're still campaigning after they're elected. If ignoring minorities got them elected, it makes electoral sense to avoid potentially unpopular actions once in office. Again, I agree a shift is necessary, but you can't just say "oh, we'll worry about identity politics later" and expect to be believed. It's too easy to sell one of those groups that's not large enough to swing an election (or one that's

safely Democratic either way - e.g. black or LGBTQ people) for political gain.

 

Another point: "All men created equal" isn't as useful a unifying statement as you think it is. When your typical far-right religious conservative republican hears that, they subconsciously hear "All men like me created equal". Black, gay, or Muslim men and women don't enter their consideration, even though most wouldn't admit that (sometimes even to themselves). Instead, it shows up as "well, all men are created equal, so black men must not be targeted by police. They should shut up and quit whining." or "gay men should have the same right to marry a woman any other man does," or - actually they don't usually bother hiding the Islamophobia, but it's there. If you can convince people that Americans are targeted by cops, then they might want to protect Americans from being targeted by cops, but reality has a well-known liberal bias. As for "Americans being able to marry", if you think Billy-Bob from rural Michigan cares whether the queers can get married, I want some of what you're smoking. This is what Starne meant when he posted (while I was writing this) about it being a dog whistle. Taken literally, it's great. Taken as it's heard, it means all straight white Christian Americans are created equal, and both the straight white Christian Americans and minorities know it.

 

I have other thoughts on this, but no time to write them out now.

 

View PostDerViktim, on Dec 06 2017 - 11:21, said:

 

We live in the age of the "vocal minority". Where small groups can drive the entire "conversation" by virtue of being a small group and being the loudest. It is kind of a warped version of "the squeaky wheel". The problem I see with the Dems is they have become so absorbed by the "vocal minority" that they have lost their ability to offer anything to the "silent majority".

 

 

But I'll make time for a few, because I have a problem with this. What do you mean the Democrats lost their ability to offer anything to the majority? They still offer economic policy - that's mostly devoid of social issues. I think in the context of identity politics it's safe to assume the "silent majority" means white people, but what exactly would you like the Democrats to offer them? It's either something that helps everyone, in which case the minority shouldn't be an obstacle, since they want it too, or one social group asking for policy changes that benefit them. That sounds like identity politics to me.

 



RitaGamer #20566 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 00:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 2729 battles
  • 3,426
  • [ANGRY] ANGRY
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

Its that time of the month...



LordCommanderMilitant #20567 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 00:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 8537 battles
  • 3,061
  • [KURO] KURO
  • Member since:
    01-20-2014

I personally believe that the protection of rights for Transgender, Homosexual, etc. individuals is one of the more important parts of the platform.

 

It is not the government's place to dictate morality. It is in opposition to the separation of church and state.

 

 

The adherence to "forms and formality, order, modesty, nobility, moral rectitude, private and public honor, and steadfast adherence to standards of right conduct and traditional restraints," is what I detest most about the American right.

 

 

Fully supporting LGBTQ+ people would be, as I see it, the biggest kick in the eye we could give dominionism.


Edited by LordCommanderMilitant, Dec 07 2017 - 00:42.


Tjtod #20568 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 00:54

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6540 battles
  • 1,379
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013

View PostRitaGamer, on Dec 06 2017 - 18:21, said:

Its that time of the month...

 

sounds about right.

KilljoyCutter #20569 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 01:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 23,677
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostApple_Jack, on Dec 06 2017 - 17:12, said:

By using identity politics against each other, the Democrats and Republican parties increase divisiveness in America, and are easily exploited by foreign influence. What I hear Mark Lilla and others in this Thread saying isn't abandoning the defense of minority groups, but changing the focus to a uniting cause. "Jobs and the economy" are generally safe topics because that is a universal concern in America, but a Democrat I think can unify on social issues by focusing on founding documents and statements like "all men created equal." The less groups talk about themselves as a group, and the more we talk about ourselves as Americans (Americans underpaid, Americans targeted by cops, Americans unable to marry), the better America will be.

 

Exactly. 

 

There's a way to address the same issues while framing them in terms that more people will sympathize and identify with. 

 

 



RitaGamer #20570 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 01:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 2729 battles
  • 3,426
  • [ANGRY] ANGRY
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

View PostTjtod, on Dec 06 2017 - 23:54, said:

 

sounds about right.

 

Its not being easy. Essay itself is, what I being asked is but I am having concentration issues and had to ask for some guidance.

 

Need to call my doctor, think my Thalassemia is acting up again and is not just a momentary thing, its been going on for the past weeks. 

My body is starting to feel weak like if I haven't eaten also while trying to gasp for oxygen.

 

 

This is not the first time... I was born and will die with it.


Edited by RitaGamer, Dec 07 2017 - 01:44.


PrimarchRogalDorn #20571 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 02:35

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 881
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017
Spoiler
I'm a tad excited right now...

Mow_Mow #20572 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 03:06

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11581 battles
  • 14,831
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostApple_Jack, on Dec 06 2017 - 14:12, said:

By using identity politics against each other, the Democrats and Republican parties increase divisiveness in America, and are easily exploited by foreign influence. What I hear Mark Lilla and others in this Thread saying isn't abandoning the defense of minority groups, but changing the focus to a uniting cause. "Jobs and the economy" are generally safe topics because that is a universal concern in America, but a Democrat I think can unify on social issues by focusing on founding documents and statements like "all men created equal." The less groups talk about themselves as a group, and the more we talk about ourselves as Americans (Americans underpaid, Americans targeted by cops, Americans unable to marry), the better America will be.

 

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Dec 06 2017 - 16:01, said:

Exactly. 

 

There's a way to address the same issues while framing them in terms that more people will sympathize and identify with.

 

I find that in my experience, it becomes "Well, they aren't real Americans anyway, so they don't count / aren't important."

 

EDIT: Clarity.


Edited by Mow_Mow, Dec 07 2017 - 03:08.


KilljoyCutter #20573 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 03:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 23,677
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostMow_Mow, on Dec 06 2017 - 21:06, said:

I find that in my experience, it becomes "Well, they aren't real Americans anyway, so they don't count / aren't important."

 

EDIT: Clarity.

 

You're not going to reach the minority of people who think that way no matter what you do, this isn't about them. 

 

It's the people who aren't bigoted pigs, but who have been alienated by the a constant refrain that they should feel guilty and share in the blame for what people who happen to share their skin color or gender or orientation did 1000 miles away or 100+ years ago, that are the concern. 

 

 

 



Jarms48 #20574 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 03:42

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 117 battles
  • 1,309
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015
The other tank game is finally adding a French ground forces tree, with the B1 Ter, Sherman M4/FL10, and AMX 13 SS.11 as pre-orders. Not buying any myself, but I’ve always wanted to see a B1 Ter.

Edited by Jarms48, Dec 07 2017 - 03:42.


Starne #20575 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 03:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 7501 battles
  • 5,711
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View PostJarms48, on Dec 06 2017 - 21:42, said:

The other tank game is finally adding a French ground forces tree, with the B1 Ter, Sherman M4/FL10, and AMX 13 SS.11 as pre-orders. Not buying any myself, but I’ve always wanted to see a B1 Ter.

 

B1 Ter you say?

 

 



Jarms48 #20576 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 03:59

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 117 battles
  • 1,309
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View PostStarne, on Dec 07 2017 - 12:53, said:

B1 Ter you say?

 

Aye, sir, aye.



RitaGamer #20577 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 04:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 2729 battles
  • 3,426
  • [ANGRY] ANGRY
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

Essay done and sent. 

Quite confident about it.

 



Tjtod #20578 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 04:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6540 battles
  • 1,379
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013

View PostRitaGamer, on Dec 06 2017 - 22:02, said:

Essay done and sent. 

Quite confident about it.

 

 

nice to hear.

KilljoyCutter #20579 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 04:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 23,677
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
WoWS -- 3 of 4 Vampire stages complete. 

RitaGamer #20580 Posted Dec 07 2017 - 05:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 2729 battles
  • 3,426
  • [ANGRY] ANGRY
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

View PostTjtod, on Dec 07 2017 - 03:16, said:

 

nice to hear.

 

Cheers.

Exhausted... packing for the Uni, sleeping few hours and leaving later this morning.

Working and overseeing on some other extras too. Got 3 pieces to write, 2 are for RSR and a third is for another project, will start as soon I'm back.

 

I'm so much more organised nowadays than I used to be, has a lot to do with the people I've been keeping around my person.






45 user(s) are reading this topic

6 members, 36 guests, 3 anonymous users


    Avalon304, SpectreHD, Sheller3, LittleJoeRambler, Starne, avenue94