Politics for DilettantesKawaii -- Wednesday, October 08, 2003 -- 10:08:43 PM
Apathetic? Uninformed? Don't even vote? Have your bread and want your circus?This thread is tagged: politics, republicans, democrats
(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
What drives me crazy is when people - particularly those who really ought to know better - post these wild-eyed memes that are readily proven inaccurate with about five minutes worth of research.
Yeah, Henry, FB got me back in touch with family and people I used to live with in Saudi Arabia. That's all I use it for anyway. And unlike most people on FB, I'm used to a wide variety of opinions.
That guy sounds a little out of the ordinary. A Mormon Democrat married to a black woman who voted for a third party over Obama in 2008?
He seems mostly uninterested in the ideas that drive politics and instead has replaced ideas with some weird mixture of identity politics. For example, he says he was originally a Democrat because he was in an interracial marriage. Okay, I get that. I don't believe in it for myself, but I get that many others do.
But then he's upset that some Democrats look askance at his wife because she's a black woman who voted Third Party over Obama in 2008?
But is that really "out of the ordinary"? Even if the majority of people are influenced by ideas rather than identity (which I'm skeptical is true), enough are motivated by identity that it should at least be considered an ordinary stance.
Consider: "Yes, anyone not a gun-toting, heterosexual, Jesus-loving cracker is screwed."
Followed by: "You forgot 'white'"
Especially among dilettantes (this thread) I would think identity politics prevails, partly (but not entirely) because of the MSM. It's easier to talk about women, Latinos, blacks, working-class whites, etc. than to frame the discussion in terms of ideas.
You're right. It's not out of the ordinary. Most people think that way.
It is, however, a little out of the ordinary for a man to write a several-thousand-word essay on his political beliefs and evolution and not deal substantively with any political ideas.
Most of the people primarily influenced by identity in their politics wouldn't go to that much trouble. Except perhaps women writers.
From one of the awesome commenters at Althouse:
Humlaut LeBlanc Fashion Icon of Fabulous...
I believe in the Empowerment of Women: it is SO sexy! I design my clothing for women who are Empowered, and very, very skinny...
When I see a woman with the buttocks of a young boy I can't help but be inspired! It is such the shame that Anorexia has got such a bad name, really: can not a woman take charge of what she doesn't eat? I do not understand the America, sometimes...
I especially like the women who are so comfortable in their Empowerment that they acknowledge their need for a Fabulous Gay Man to dress them...
I like to think my Designs teach skinny women to accept themselves as they are, if they have the money to buy my clothing to do so...
And I do not have a problem with Men wearing my women's clothing -- I think it makes a Great Statement, as long as they are skinny, too! I like a man's ass that is like a woman's ass that is like a young boy's ass: that is part of the Symmetry I infuse in my work...
My newest line is inspired by the impoverished Appalachians: they can be sooo thin from the meth and the lack of food. Starving people are Inspirational -- I found that out with my Line inspired by my trip to Auschwitz...
I am Humlaut LeBlanc, and I Believe in Fabulous…
I even like an ass's ass!
I try not to unfriend people over politics because the silo'ing of views is killing us.
One of my (progressive) friends who uses FB *a lot* for politics I do feel somewhat grateful to for a good deed she did me once a half dozen years ago. Still...
DO NOT POLITICIZE WINNIE THE POOH.
DO NOT PUT CURSE WORDS IN WINNIE'S AND PIGLET'S MOUTHS!
How is it killing us?
I would say the opposite is killing conservatism. The inability to take a stand and fight. If you're afraid of losing some liberal friends, then you won't win anyway. Certainly, liberals are not afraid of losing conservative friends to win a political battle.
I think the "siloing of views" is bad because it leads to stupidity and ignorance. Only yesterday, for example, you knocked Andonly's remark about "culture war fantasy laced with pretend economic grievance" as "beyond stupid." That comes from her viewing the other side as having no human merit.
Do you want to live in a Palestinian - Jewish situation? Do you want a repeat of the Civil War? I don't.
For that matter, something that has always affected my own thinking is reading about the atrocities of the Spanish Civil War within villages by people who had known each other their entire lives. But pick any example you want. History is replete with them of groups living side by side and in an apparently integrated society but having no real understanding or affection for one another. When conflict broke out, it was easy to resort to tribalism.
I'm not "afraid of losing friends."
I think it is silly, however, to forget when someone has done you a great favor in the past simply because you are irritated by her using a cartoon character (that is supposed to represent benign childhood innocence) to express views with which you disagree.
You remember a favor by returning a favor, not with political acquiescence. And you live your life by accepting few favors. Few people buy me dinner because I'm always faster when reaching for the check. I don't like to be beholden to anyone.
And the other side knows that, and leverages that knowledge to make you grant them concessions. So in the end you keep sliding back and they keep moving forward.
Your principles are your fetters, Nick. Even when you start from a position of strength, you are bound to lose.
There is no political acquiescence here.
Question: Do you truly think a person posting on Facebook something political does so because she is "leveraging the knowledge" I'm civil war averse-to gain a concession from me?
Hardly. Very little of such is meant to persuade at all but is for the choir. She assumes (and most likely correctly) that her friends in the main will be amused. That they will find her clever in some reflected way.
The problem with talking about almost anything with you is that you do want to make every pigeon fit in the holes you've carved over the last 20 years. What you believe is that, "Yeah, Nick, but this just is a symptom of how weak you are overall."
No, interpreting in that way lies the deadend, repetitious discussion we always get into (and you always get into with most people).
Let Pooh go!
You're the one who segued from a Facebook post to the possibility of civil war. It never occurred to me to make the connection on my own, but I admit I'm not surprised you made it.
I think lefties who know you sense weakness on your part and realize that you will ultimately back down on any issue if they push hard enough. Hence they won't be afraid of sharing their political views with you, boldly and brazenly, in ways that make you uncomfortable, because they believe someone with your views should be made uncomfortable.
If you're more afraid of how the other side will respond than they are afraid of how you will respond, you're setting yourself up for a loss. Let them worry about losing your friendship, about siloing your side of society into an opposing camp, about provoking your side into a civil war. Why should you be the one to worry about such an extreme possibility?
If you're not reading the (parody) Twitter feed of "Anthony Weiner" (@AnthonyVVeiner) -- particularly today, you're missing out on some of the most hilarious shit imaginable.