***Official Political Discussion Thread***

osh kosh bosh said:
i just agree with all that stuff so like i said clearly im the target demo, and i don't think it really bears any resemblance to andrew sullivan.

and i think it's all pretty trenchant critiques and i think the takes are good.

-the new deal take is good.
the argument as I view it wasn't the new deal wasn't racist. it was the new deal despite being racist was better for black people economically than what the less racist northern republicans were offering.

and it fits nicely with a point i've been making for years, black voters are the most pragmatic and informed voting demographic in america. and the same reason why

"joe biden supported the crime bill" stuff never worked. black people balance racism vs. economic and class politics more shrewdley than any other voting demographic. so i rate the take as good and accurate.


so i do not find the stuff on race problematic. probably because they confirm my priors. but as i said ymmv.
Click to expand...
His hang-up about black progressive saying things too niche is just like how Sullivan used to behave for most of his career. Sullivan is a racist though, so he delved into things that were more openly, racist. Matt isn't a racist from what I have seen. But Yglesias Subtack often reads like a left-wing version of Sullivan's NY Mag column. Sure I am against racism, but black people just take it too far takes over and over. And I just gotta call it out

-The New Deal take is bad

It is bad because he presents one version of the argument and presents it as some sort of consensus one side has.

The takeaway about the new deal many liberals, progressive, and even from what I have heard Barrack Obama outside of the quote he used is that the new deal should not be championed in the way it does by the progressive of today without remembering it still involved a compromise with racists, and people knew the compromise was being made to appease racist. Remember that is a fault of it, one that should not to repeated with modern-day policy. Basically, learn the right lessons from it, if you want a modern version of it.

Not everyone is arguing that some black people didn't benefit in any way, or that they were not pragmatic about their voting choices. But when you take about wage and wealth gaps, and progressive policies meant to fight it, you have to remember these gaps are made of explainable parts that you try to address with policy and unexplainable parts that are probably pure discrimination. So you can pass policy to shrink wage and wealth gaps, you can pass policy to make a positive change on the aggregate, but that same policy can have little effect on inequality gaps, and in some cases reinforce them. You have to be cognizant of this.

For a simple example. If a white worker on the west side of town makes $20 an hr, but a black worker on the east side of town makes $12 an hr, and you want to increase the wages of all the workers. Which one is best, giving every worker a $4 raise, or setting the minimum wage at $22 an hour for all workers. I mean with the $4 raise you are helping the black workers, you are giving them a 33% raise, whereas white workers are only getting a 20% raise, but you are also letting the wage gap persist. These kinds of technocratic decisions still exist today, but they are far more complex. The dude claims to be a wonk yet he throws out all econometrics thought out the window in his arguments. Some ****ing how there millions of people that read Katznelson and their objection of the New Deal is simply it was bad because it was racist.

So yes, help people, be pragmatic about it, but be cognizant of how a policy will work, because even ones that offer a net benefit can be distorted to appease racists.

Economic justice is not only about material gains, but also restructuring the system to produce more equitable outcomes. Takes that ignore that is just lazy and unoriginal to me.

Furthermore, he tacitly hand waves the Dems warming up to Civil Rights during that time. Hell, even FDR's wife paid a part in that. And he brings up the 1964 election to point out that is not what made African America vote Democratic. When he doesn't acknowledge some things, it seems more for him to cover his rhetorical flank instead of exploring if it undercuts his point

When:

a) Everyone ****ing knows the Dems had pulled ahead with the black vote before that

b) Again poor econometrics. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and Goldwater still kicked the trendline of black support onto a steeper slope. Even with the black vote already trending toward the Dems. A damn near 30 point shift in one election can't be explained with any take that puts economics at the center of it. Black people were pragmatic, they saw FDR's half measure was better, then notice the Dems views on Civil Rights had sifted, and he saw the GOP nominated a mad man that wanted to protect segregation. They voted pragmatically, there doesn't need to be an either-or to the analysis between civil rights and economics.

Like, think for a second. You have seen me rant against people making ****ty takes regarding black people and their politics in this thread. I literally went off on a couple of people that tried to say black voters didn't know what was good for them when they chose Biden. Even though I myself didn't want Biden. I have ranted against what I see as bad leftist arguments. You know I don't like them either.

The thing is, I think Yglesias and many of his takes are part of the problem, not an Intellectual check against them. He was part of the Bernie crowd hinting at people making the wrong choice on Biden. He thinks Bernie being too "woke" in 2020 cost him. The thing is, he also criticized other Bernie supporters too, so people forget the other part.

These takes are lazy, unoriginal, and smothered in class reductionism IMO. But to each his own I guess.
 
Last edited:
dinyc3st said:


Watching that now still has me feeling a way. These Bigots are the biggest *****es and I hope they get the worst punishment, you know what would make America great? Equality.
Click to expand...

1612248248099.gif
 
osh kosh bosh said:
in general elite schools in america are literally just built to perpetuate and retranche an established elite so I find attempts to implement anti-racism in Princeton absurd. the purpose of these schools to maintain the power and influence they have in elite socitey. seems to me any anti-racism measure they implement by definition will be fake.


i used to always be amazed how americans would talk so much about where they went school, and how much identity they derived from it.

in canada after college is over it's over. yes i guess there are a couple of "elite" schools. but it's not like some massive gap and nobody gives a **** where you went to school basically the second you enter the workforce.

school in US as far as i can tell is like 90% a class signal.
Click to expand...

Yep it’s mostly a class signal and way to measure against each other. The problem is when people don’t realize those elite schools are like 10% “help you get a job”
 
Diversity initiatives are not keeping the minimum wage from being raised. McWhorter is confusing causation with correlation. What's actually happening is that Capital has so thoroughly won its battles with labor that it is keeping wages low for most people, including most white people but also almost all non white people.

In order to manage stagnant wages for almost all and declining white wealth and wages (capital is “solving” the wealth gap by making most whites poorer, squeezing all but the elite of the elite of all races down into peasant status), some parts of capital have empowered reactionary whites, not economically but culturally and politically. In a sense, parts of capital have had a “diversity initiative” of there isn’t, bankrolling violence QAnon candidates and getting them into Congress.

Meanwhile, other parts of capital, especially finance, tech and big media brands, are embracing a multi-cultural aesthetic. Obviously, some non whites will materially benefit but for most it’s an aesthetic.

The diversity initiatives are not causing the wages to stagnate. You could take away the diversity initiatives and wages would still be low. McWhorter and those like him need to stop thinking like pundits and worrying what reactionary whites will think. Those whites will always greet even the most modest of gains, o the part of POC, with massive reprisals. The only hope to get wages up and to have real multi racial power sharing is through a revolutionary multi racial workers front, the lines of which John McWhorter would condemn.
 
RustyShackleford said:
His hang-up about black progressive saying things too niche is just like how Sullivan used to behave for most of his career. Sullivan is a racist though, so he delved into things that were more openly, racist. Matt isn't a racist from what I have seen. But Yglesias Subtack often reads like a left-wing version of Sullivan's NY Mag column. Sure I am against racism, but black people just take it too far takes over and over. And I just gotta call it out

-The New Deal take is bad

It is bad because he presents one version of the argument and presents it as some sort of consensus one side has.

The takeaway about the new deal many liberals, progressive, and even from what I have heard Barrack Obama outside of the quote he used is that the new deal should not be championed in the way it does by the progressive of today without remembering it still involved a compromise with racists, and people knew the compromise was being made to appease racist. Remember that is a fault of it, one that should not to repeated with modern-day policy. Basically, learn the right lessons from it, if you want a modern version of it.

Not everyone is arguing that some black people didn't benefit in any way, or that they were not pragmatic about their voting choices. But when you take about wage and wealth gaps, and progressive policies meant to fight it, you have to remember these gaps are made of explainable parts that you try to address with policy and unexplainable parts that are probably pure discrimination. So you can pass policy to shrink wage and wealth gaps, you can pass policy to make a positive change on the aggregate, but that same policy can have little effect on inequality gaps, and in some cases reinforce them. You have to be cognizant of this.

For a simple example. If a white worker on the west side of town makes $20 an hr, but a black worker on the east side of town makes $12 an hr, and you want to increase the wages of all the workers. Which one is best, giving every worker a $4 raise, or setting the minimum wage at $22 an hour for all workers. I mean with the $4 raise you are helping the black workers, you are giving them a 33% raise, whereas white workers are only getting a 20% raise, but you are also letting the wage gap persist. These kinds of technocratic decisions still exist today, but they are far more complex. The dude claims to be a wonk yet he throws out all econometrics thought out the window in his arguments. Some ****ing how there millions of people that read Katznelson and their objection of the New Deal is simply it was bad because it was racist.

So yes, help people, be pragmatic about it, but be cognizant of how a policy will work, because even ones that offer a net benefit can be distorted to appease racists.

Economic justice is not only about material gains, but also restructuring the system to produce more equitable outcomes. Takes that ignore that is just lazy and unoriginal to me.

Furthermore, he tacitly hand waves the Dems warming up to Civil Rights during that time. Hell, even FDR's wife paid a part in that. And he brings up the 1964 election to point out that is not what made African America vote Democratic. When he doesn't acknowledge some things, it seems more for him to cover his rhetorical flank instead of exploring if it undercuts his point

When:

a) Everyone ****ing knows the Dems had pulled ahead with the black vote before that

b) Again poor econometrics. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and Goldwater still kicked the trendline of black support onto a steeper slope. Even with the black vote already trending toward the Dems. A damn near 30 point shift in one election can't be explained with any take that puts economics at the center of it. Black people were pragmatic, they saw FDR's half measure was better, then notice the Dems views on Civil Rights had sifted, and he saw the GOP nominated a mad man that wanted to protect segregation. They voted pragmatically, there doesn't need to be an either-or to the analysis between civil rights and economics.

Like, think for a second. You have seen me rant against people making ****ty takes regarding black people and their politics in this thread. I literally went off on a couple of people that tried to say black voters didn't know what was good for them when they chose Biden. Even though I myself didn't want Biden. I have ranted against what I see as bad leftist arguments. You know I don't like them either.

The thing is, I think Yglesias and many of his takes are part of the problem, not an Intellectual check against them. He was part of the Bernie crowd hinting at people making the wrong choice on Biden. He thinks Bernie being too "woke" in 2020 cost him. The thing is, he also criticized other Bernie supporters too, so people forget the other part.

These takes are lazy, unoriginal, and smothered in class reductionism IMO. But to each his own I guess.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't agree. To be honest I think most of your restatements of the arguments just sound like straw men.

Like Who said that technocratic decisions can't perpetuature black wage gap?
Who you shouldn't learn the lessons from new deal failings on race.
He literally says he agrees with the critisms of the new deal. The stuff about the post new deal realignment is contestable, this idea that it's some iron clad fact that he's getting wrong to me clearly isn't true. I think the argument about the shift to the democratic party starting with economics makes sense imo

So yah I just don't see it the same way. *Shrug*
 
Fox already threw out “is Covid even that bad?”


next is “is insurrection that bad?”

Then “are riots and murder that serious?”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
mp23
mp23
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
MakeNTGreatAgain
MakeNTGreatAgain

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom