politics in comics

[Chaos Reigns]

You don't care about the future at all, Identity Politics is about holding society back and keeping things in a permanent state of now with no hope for a better life. That's the key thing here, 'hope'. Identity Politics doesn't want things to get better, when the only meaning you have is by dividing society into smaller and smaller groups of those deemed the most oppressed. Without a perceived enemy to fight your life would have no purpose.

Getting what you claim to want would mean you would lose all the power you currently hold over society. That's why you're scared of technology and scared of the future, trying to hand wave away what I say as being impossibly out of reach. But the future is coming, sooner than you think. The technologies I describe already exist and even now are being readied for consumer release, it will mean the end of your Identity Politics.

This is nothing but conjecture and silliness disguised as coherent thought. Here are a few future ideas we progressive care about.

Clean water for all, clean air, climate change, getting off of fossil fuels, insuring protections for the disenfranchised. There are a lot more.

[Tiamatty]

What was destroyed? The language stands as a testament against privilege. Why does that bother you so?

Because a lot of people don't want to believe that privilege exists.

[I_Am_Groot]

The Republicans put in a lot of hard work suppressing the votes of minorities.

Voter suppression is still the biggest under-reported story from the 2016 election. The Republican Party are cheaters. They know they can't win on ideas, so they cheat. They cheat and they cheat and they cheat, using the absolute lie of voting fraud - something which simply does not happen - to bring in all sorts of voting restrictions which are specifically (and in an increasing basis, explicitly) designed to make it more difficult for minorities to vote.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-from-nonciti/

[Chaos Reigns]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-from-nonciti/

Really? No evidence, no data, just conjecture.
Real voter suppression

https://www.thenation.com/article/wi...-won-by-23000/

[ed2962]

I think it really depends on where those people are. State and profession. It works pretty well if you're an academic or media professional, or in California or New England. Though it is getting hard for even progressives like Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College. But that's not conservatives making it hard for him.

Sure, but there you go...that shows that liberals in the media or academia aren't some protected class. And it works the other way too...if you're Sean Hannity, life as a conservative is probably pretty good, but if you're a guy in the rust belt it's a different story. If You're Bill O'Reiley...

[GammaRayThrill]

So immigration without respect for the host culture, with criminality, without assimilation is it called an invasion?

It's being used to shut you down and the end the debate, the ultimate "I'm right, you're wrong!"

and have Majority Rights been subverted?

Drop by Germany and say goodbye?
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=BsEaEi7lCaM

thank Merkel?

[millernumber1]

Because a lot of people don't want to believe that privilege exists.

I don't know about other posters here, but I hate the use of "privilege" not because I think it isn't real, but because it's used as a silencing tactic. And if you want to tell me that it's not the real meaning of the word, then it's clearly just a motte-and-bailey tactic to use the word.

[CentralPower]

But I think Locke tends to allow for the internal reform and increasing virtue that strengthens society from social movements like religion more than Hobbes, since Hobbes seems to think that the state is more necessary than growing virtue in the citizenry.

Hobbes does not rule out a capacity to improve or reform. But, he is skeptical that it will happen, or that we as people will have much chance to reform, unless there is some base-level of stability (ensured by the state). However, while I agree with that premise, I am not a full statist. Certain regimes, or types of regimes (generally communist) are harmful enough that a Hobbessian state would be preferable (if only for not having formal restrictions on free will).

I would agree that issues can be difficult to compromise on. But I agree - the parties are increasingly playing to the (random low percentage) 30% of issues where compromise is impossible, instead of the larger area where we could find compromise to make the world better.

The same issues that are difficult to concede on are the same ones that are easy to see/understand, and thus easy to pitch with. Everybody gets abortion or guns, if only on some level. They are quick and easy to explain. At that point, if enough people pick a stance, there is some kind of differentiation, which can be marketed as "us v/s them".

It is not the highest or most noble form of campaigning. But, it is used.

I don't know if I would agree that Secret Empire was a good idea. It was certainly not a popular one in the fandom commentary. I personally think it's dumb to keep structuring stories about heroes fighting heroes, even if those heros are controlled by reality-warping powers to be evil.

Spencer's point was that no person or organization should be given absolute trust. I firmly agree with that. Even discounting corruption, mistakes can have terrible consequences if they are made without any checks or limitation. Lefties (such as myself) who are prone to relying on organizations and structure, arguably need to hear this more than conservatives. And, Spencer has the skill to pull that off. But, in "Secret Empire", he spelled it out and got excessively partisan.

Most fan complaints never rose beyond "but Captain America was a good guy and he was created by two Jewish guys and....."

ve heard about the Edmondson accusations, but I do not trust the source of them one bit.

Wait, are you saying that you doubt the Outhouse?!?

Are you saying that there is reason to doubt when they say that something totally happened, but they just cannot tell you what happened, or who was involved? But, they still assure us that something totally happened and we can trust them. How can you doubt that?

I usually think a third party candidate is only worth voting for in our current system when you truly find both major party options completely unacceptable, as I did in 2016. But I call it a "protest vote," and hope that it gives people who shape policy some idea of the tolerance points of some margin of voters, rather than any hope that my candidate will win.

That was my thinking last year as well. The problem is that too many voters see elections as a binary choice. The ineptitude of the Greens and Libertarians only compounded and justified that view.

You still understand nothing about progressivism. It's not about control. It is, in fact, a battle against control.

Progressives can be very controlling. If somebody deviates from doctrine, they are labelled racist or backward. Progressives tend to be pro-regulation, and more than willing to remove options that people would otherwise have.

[skyvolt2000]

I don't know about other posters here, but I hate the use of "privilege" not because I think it isn't real, but because it's used as a silencing tactic. And if you want to tell me that it's not the real meaning of the word, then it's clearly just a motte-and-bailey tactic to use the word.

I think the issue with white privilege is that you can not prove it benefits every single white person.

Or you have things that folks think benefits one race and in reality it doesn't.

Take Welfare-certain news outlets want to say it only benefits single black mothers. Yet for the most part the main recipients were white (I think the numbers have changed since 2013).

So if whites were the main users of welfare-cuts to it would hurt them more than Blacks wouldn't? So white privilege didn't benefit those folks did it.

Affirmative Action-the claim is it gets unqualified black females jobs. Yet data says it help white women way more. So getting rid of it would hurt who?

So for the endgame it does not benefit everybody because once you go BELOW the surface-that privilege is not for everybody and like you said it's a silencing tactic.

Most fan complaints never rose beyond "but Captain America was a good guy and he was created by two Jewish guys and....."

Funny I hear that more with Black Panther than Steve. Mainly lead by bitter Cyborg fans.

[Tiamatty]

I don't know about other posters here, but I hate the use of "privilege" not because I think it isn't real, but because it's used as a silencing tactic. And if you want to tell me that it's not the real meaning of the word, then it's clearly just a motte-and-bailey tactic to use the word.

Sure, it's sometimes used as a silencing tactic. But sometimes, what's needed is for people to be quiet and listen to what other people say. Mental illness is often used as an insult, so when someone calls someone else "crazy," it's not unreasonable to point out how their privilege blinds them to the harm caused by widespread use of words like that. Is it silencing the person? Only to get them to listen to explanations of how the neuroatypical are marginalized.

Progressives can be very controlling. If somebody deviates from doctrine, they are labelled racist or backward. Progressives tend to be pro-regulation, and more than willing to remove options that people would otherwise have.

Sure, they can be. But I would argue progressivism, as a philosophy, isn't about controlling people.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

The concept of privilege refers to any advantage that is unearned, exclusive, and socially conferred. For example, white people are generally assumed to be law-abiding until they show some sign that they are not, while people of color are routinely assumed to be criminals or potential criminals until they show they’re not. …It’s important to note that privilege does not guarantee good outcomes for the privileged group or bad outcomes for everyone else. A white person, for example, can work hard and have little to show for it, can be mistreated by the police without cause, be denied a job they’re qualified for. What privilege does is load the odds one way or the other so that the chance of bad things happening to white people as a category of people is much lower than for everyone else, and the chance of good things happening is much higher. Privilege is not something a person can have, like a possession, as in ‘Where’s mine?’ Instead, it is a characteristic of the social system—like a rule in a game—in which everyone participates” – Allan G. Johnson

[Ropeburn]

Progressivism is why slavery is illegal.

lol. Tell that to the people making your Iphone.

[Tiamatty]

lol. Tell that to the people making your Iphone.

I actually have a Samsung, but your point stands. Even sticking to the US, prison labour is pretty much slavery, and sweatshops are still pretty common. So yes, plenty of bad stuff still exists. Things that people think ended are still going on.

The future is not a destination, it's a journey. We'll always have ills to combat. And we'll always work to combat those ills, to make the world better.

[millernumber1]

Really nice motte you have there. Too bad the bailey is the real problem.

[JKtheMac]

Really nice motte you have there. Too bad the bailey is the real problem.

You seem to use this rhetorical term over and over without any sense of irony. Do you not recognise that the way you are using it is actually an example of the tactics you decry?