Broke Liberals

submitted by TheJamesRocket from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Uh...you know that the Republican party despises most of the American people, right? The Romney wing has much more in common with the Democrats and would be fine with coming in a perpetual second place as long as they got a seat at the table. Pew Research are confirmed Trump-haters and structure their questions appropriately, which makes their results worthless.

Of course we can't do that "we're all Americans here" with the left because the left utterly despises anything painted red, white and blue. We are The Other to them. Here's a great essay that lays it out better than I could: http://archive.is/QRJ6m

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Thank you for this. Trying to understand the article and other approaches of the Slate Star Codex takes a while, especially because the essay and other associated essays never seem to develop explicit axioms. There is just a continuation of arguments. Among the main points I could grasp, there were some issues that remind me of my reading of Tzvetan Todorov's arguments in the 'National Review' in the 1980s, regarding nationalism, totalitarianism &c. I also located a favorable assessment here: https://reason.com/2021/02/15/what-the-new-york-times-hit-piece-on-slate-star-codex-says-about-media-gatekeeping/ I'll keep looking. I just wish the author were more explicit and organized. Regarding the 'outgroup', I agree with some of the points about its use as an excuse for some. Traditional terminology for this - by Foucault and others - is to call this outgroup the "other". So if I agree with any of the points about the outgroup, its that the ingroup should be open to its inclusion and the inclusion of the 'other', though without discriminating against the ingroup.

[–]Chipit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

That isn't what happens, though. The American left utterly hates the right because the right is The Other. That's the source of polarization and why we have so many problems.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The 'other' I (and Foucault &c) refer to are the marginalized, under-represented, foreign, alien &c. Yes, Tump supporters are a minority, though in terms of race, they're part of the majority. They're normally not considered the 'other' by the left, or by themselves. They are the 'freedom fighters' who want to protect the predominantly white "ingroup" and would not see themselves as part of the "outgroup" which are recent immigrants, blacks, hispanics, LGBTQ+, liberals, commies, kikes, Chinese, &c. That's at least how I've seen the MAGA approaches. They think they're making America American, when in fact every policy and approach during the past 4 years was specifically anti-American. Now one can start to see America become American again.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The 'other' I (and Foucault &c) refer to are the marginalized, under-represented, foreign, alien &c.

Those are the left's ingroups - i.e. the right's outgroups. It's all explained in that essay.

They're normally not considered the 'other' by the left

Sure they are. Why do you think the left allied with Islam after 9/11? Makes perfect sense.

They think they're making America American, when in fact every policy and approach during the past 4 years was specifically anti-American.

LOL you're doing it right now. Treating your fellow Americans as The Other.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Thanks - but all of this is remarkably oversimplified.

If for example I say an executive order by Trump is UnAmerican or Anti-American, my reference can be to American tradition, rather than to assumptions of an ingroup or outgroup. This isn't "othering" Trump (for exmample), but notes that the policy is itself at odds with our National Identity. Indeed, the policy threatens to disenfranchise many in the US, in that case. This is not about the person, but about the destruction of something essential to the 99%. Would a policy be part of an outgroup? No, seems not. Also this:

the left allied with Islam after 9/11

This is absolutely false. It's disinformation.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What the fuck? The left absolutely took Islam's side after 9/11. I don't even think this is remotely controversial. Blame America, remember? The little Eichmanns? They have a common enemy: western culture.

OK present some examples of the left resisting Islam. Remember when they deployed themselves as human shields in Iraq?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

left absolutely took Islam's side after 9/11

I am sorry to disagree - but there is absolutely no evidence for this. Do you remember 9/11 and the responses to it? No, the "left" certainly did not side with Islam. Perhaps you want to say that there were concerns from the "left" that the US not engage in a war with Iraq, and should instead focus on Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. As we know, people in these latter countries were responsible for the attack, which was not concected with anyone in Iraq. Mossad arranged the misleading photos and other materials that committed the US in Iraq. Cheney was behind much of it, and it received bi-partisan support.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

OK dude. Apparently we all hallucinated leftists screaming Islamophobia and taking their side in every dispute. Remember, the right's outgroups are the left's ingroups.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

...unless we are talking about actions (rather than labor, work, people, race, political affiliation, class, religion, color, groups, nationality, polarization, generalizations, simiplifications, &c). Our actions define us, not the other stuff.

(As discussed in Hannah Arend't 'The Human Condition')

[EDIT: I appreciate that outgroups and the 'other' sometimes use their 'otherness' in political discuscorses, or they use the 'race card' or 'victimhood card' or similar, and that those are indeed 'actions'. I would agree that this is a major problem, but would argue that this is not taken too seriously by the majority in most cases.]