ALoafOfBread @ ALoafOfBread @lemmy.ml

Posts

1

Comments

363

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's... just her face

Males need 37g of fiber daily for optimum health. That's the equivalent of 568g of raspberries or 657g of green peas or 1,154g of broccoli. Might wanna start taking some psyllium husk so you don't get ass cancer.

Nope. I'm actually being good faith. Genuinely. Check my post history if you want. You can disagree with someone and acknowledge they aren't arguing in bad faith. Like I think you're good faith even though you're coming across with a bunch of ad hominems and stuff, but I think you believe what you're saying.

And I'm not being condescending. I think people can absolutely understand my point. Otherwise, I wouldn't waste time trying to communicate it. I'm saying I think people are mischaracterizing my position.

Literally, all I'm saying is: when we make criticisms of the other side, those criticisms are usually stronger in the long run if they're based on the actual positions they take rather than straw-manned ones. And I think this is a strawmanned critique. That's my whole point.

The implication is pretty clearly "the immigrants are coming to take your jobs, black people". Especially when said to a room full of black people. Especially given that that has been standard republican messaging for well over 50 years for all ethnic groups.

That is still racist. It is still manipulative. It is still scummy and bad. It just is pretty clearly not logically equivalent to "immigrants are coming to take the jobs segregated for black people".

And obviously state of residence is not equivalent to race. It is an example. It is the same logical form of argument. They've done the same thing (about race, specifically) to rural white folks since literally the trans-continental railroad, but then about Chinese immigrants mostly. In modern times, the meaning has never been "only x race can have y job". It has always been about the threat of the outsider (immigrant) "stealing" jobs from non-immigrants as a way of causing an us-vs-them dynamic. That is still a racist dynamic. But it is not the same as saying only x race can have y job.

Dude. You are way overreacting and misinterpreting what I've said.

Saying "thing that trump said means this racist thing and not that one" is in no way equivalent to anything you've accused me of.

I've read theory. Kropotkin. Marx (not just manifesto, but kapital and other serious works). I've read nearly every book Chomsky has ever written. It is important to understand the nuances of propaganda. When we misinterpret something trump says intentionally to score political points, which I believe we are doing in this case (and which Republicans do all the time), there are pros and cons to that.

Pros: it can encourage people to vote, gets attention, energizes people

Cons: it misleads people by ignoring context and the other systemic issues at play here: namely focusing on this invented idea that there are "black jobs" instead of the idea that politicians play racial groups off each other all the time and have throughout american and european history by blaming immigrants for economic issues like unemployment.

None of that is pro fascist. I'm calling the orange fascist a racist. This site is largely left-leaning. These comments are aimed at my fellow leftists to encourage us to think critically about the political messaging Dems are putting out because it can be instructive to leftist causes.

I'm encouraging a critical, realpolitik understanding of the messaging around this case AND acknowledging that the orange fascist is indeed racist and that this sort of (in my opinion) bad-faith messaging can be beneficial in the short term but can be distracting and potentially harmful in the long run. People are quick to see criticism of the side they identify with as supporting the other side - that is not what's happening here. If you look at what I've said in good faith, I believe you'll see my point even if you disagree. I've laid it out pretty clearly, imo.

That just isn't the case. Like, sure, it is a possible implication. But it is not the most likely one given the context. There are other implications to draw, like the ones I've given examples of, which are more likely given the context.

The fact that people can't understand my point and are mass downvoting is what I'm talking about. I'll sperg out on this despite the disagreement because I'm interested in rhetoric and political messaging.

Read my responses. It is not botd. Trump is obviously a racist POS. But being a racist POS doesn't mean each thing he says means all racist things. Things have specific meanings. My whole point is that people aren't thinking critically about how the messaging and the actual content of the speech differ.

He kinda did, though. He tried to say that a "black job" was any job a black person had. I think his handlers told him to shut up about it because it was drawing negative press.

Again, this whole "the blacks" vs "evil mexican immigrants" thing is racist. But that =/= "black people can only have certain jobs". Just like when they drummed up this same rhetoric targeted at rural white people with bush, romney, mccain, and trump for all 3 of his campaigns ... they always do this. And clearly they think white people can have all sorts of jobs.

It doesn't really require giving him credit, just looking at the words at face value. All I'm saying is in this instance he was trying to be racist, just maybe not in this particular way. He was obviously trying the standard republican tactic of playing groups against one another to get political power. And while he has proven to be racist numerous times, I just don't think that it is clear from what he said that he intended to communicate that black people can't have certain jobs. That specifically. He can still be a racist and not be communicating that particular thing.

I'm not defending Trump, just saying that we should hold ourselves to high rhetorical standards where possible OR at least recognize when we're twisting things to score political points. That line is very blurred in modern political rhetoric.

Either way, good on Simone for using her platform. I just don't think that this criticism is in good faith - which can be okay, especially when the other side is constantly arguing in bad faith. I just think that it can have consequences to the way we treat political issues more broadly.

Yeah, that's fair. But it does require reading that implication into what he said. While he may very well believe that, idk if it's what he meant or not.

As a flaming red socialist, I will say that (while it seems to have been effective), the "black jobs" rhetoric is disingenuous.

Saying that [x group] will take [y group] jobs is a standard thing. You could say, "California expats will take Texan jobs," for instance. This doesn't mean there is a specific class of job that Texans are suitable for. It means there are jobs that could be held by Texans that would be taken by California expats instead. In Trump's case, there is no evidence for such job-taking, but he clearly means to say something specific - and it isn't that jobs should be/are segregated.

So, anyway. It doesn't really matter so long as it hurts Trump, but this type of rhetoric is misleading, disingenuous, and ultimately harmful to the state of political discourse.

Edit: This caused a shit storm. This is the point I'm trying but apparently failing to make:

When we make criticisms of the other side, those criticisms are usually stronger in the long run if they're based on the actual positions they take rather than straw-manned ones. And I think this is "black jobs" rhetoric is a straw-manned critique.

Oh for sure. I only meant in the US where MIT is located. But it's already a useful breakthrough for everyone in civilized countries

Amazing how anything left of stormfront is "left" something

Now make mammograms not $500 and not have a 6 month waiting time and make them available for women under 40. Then this'll be a useful breakthrough

The primary difference being that the Dems are backing up the name calling with actual policies or things they've done.

Trump is weird bc he constantly says off the wall things, does weird shit, and supports unpopular policies (which are weird).

Vance is creepy because he believes and says super weird shit about women. Like how he believes women have to have kids to have value - that is creepy. If somebody said that on a date, there would not be another date. And how he nevertheless has no problem with childless couches - pretty hypocritical and creepy.

And from the repub side:

Schumer is a "member of Hamas" because.... it is inflamatory

Kamala is "laughing kamala" because.... she laughs sometimes. She is also a "radical democrat socialist" because.... she supports mainstream, popular, dem policies

It's partially that he does it so often and partially that many of the claims are so outlandish that no one takes them seriously. Like saying he'll bomb Mexico. On the one hand, "he says lots of shit" and on the other "Ok, he won't REALLY bomb Mexico. He's just saying that. Someone will stop him from bombing Mexico. "

Nah. It's something they don't get bent out of shape for for any other religious artwork. Like nobody is up in arms about the memes of that shitty restoration of the picture of Jesus

There's plenty of satirical art/speech/expression about Christianity and people don't go through life being enraged at all of it until they're told to have that opinion by media.

Plus, from what I understand, the only "sacrilegious" element was that there were drag performers doing it? There's not even anything inherently anti-christian there except in that wearing the other gender's clothing is prohibited in like 3 verses. But again, people aren't typically upset by the identity of the author except in this case. Christians are only so vehemently anti-drag in the US because of media spoon feeding them opinions.

Other examples they dont get mad about

Or infinitely many others including ones with RuPaul, futurama, rick and morty, marvel, the charmin bears, pretty much any IP you can name has a version of this somebody made of it that is equally "sacrilegious".

They weren't saying the event called the last supper wasn't in the bible, but that the artistic depiction of that event, "The Last Supper", isn't a part of the Christian religion. It is a painting.

But wait, Republicans, what about all the welfare queens with like 10 Democrat party welfare sponsored kids? Are they now the most powerful voting block? Or did they never exist?