I don't watch cable news and I don't pay attention to Jeff Teidrich or whoever so I don't know where this bullshit is coming from. At least one person responding is nominally anti-genocide, so I don't think that's the reason. Another came back with something about the funding bill for FEMA as if it's a gotcha.
What's their logic?
There's a simple explanation, it's because the hurricane hit red states. It might even be an organic thing, libs have no compassion.
A total absence of class consciousness has led to libs having insane regional resentments, all premised on the idea that the poorest southerners are the ones that really hold power in the US and need to die.
This is lacking logic. Even if everyone in FL dies except 3 people, and 2 of them vote for Republicans, FL gets 2 Senators.
We need a new Constitution, but that's unthinkable among the Brunch bunch.
need a dotp not a new constitution but neither one is happening so what's the difference I suppose
It's not even regional resentments, TBH. Though that (and regional chauvinism/"enlightenment," and also while they won't admit it racism) also plays a part.
Libs are racist, classist, shitty people. That's the inherent core of their belief and how it plays out in practice, the only difference between them and open conservatives is that they fetishize a specific kind of poverty (while the conservatives fetishize/celebrate another, the "good ol' boy, poor rural redneck etc" poverty). All the "liberal strongholds" in the west are not paradises for the poor and disenfranchised, rather the opposite and simply looking at the conditions of any of them will show just how blatantly that is the case.
Libs wash their hands of their guilt through their fetishization/etc, but the reality is that their status and livelihoods are entirely predicated upon racism, classism, and all the other same things conservatives' are. They put on airs about how diverse they are (tokenism by-and-large) while gentrifying neighborhoods, harboring immense and blatant resentments against those minorities who compete with them and thus challenge their historical (and remaining) privileged race-caste, they actively engage in all of the same brutal policing, prison slavery, exploitation and theft of indigenous lands and of non-white peoples' lands abroad, etc... while voting blue and at most, donating pittances as their indulgence for the crimes they participate in.
I've lived rural and urban and in various provinces (not USA, Klanada) and this is what I've seen, I'm not sure if I can even say what is worse sometimes. Libs are just as racist and hateful (and classist) as their counterparts can be, and wherever you go the hatred and racism tends to be towards whatever minorities are most populous (natives, blacks, or Latinos depending where you are in rural Anglo North America, Asians, blacks, Latinos, etc. in urban Anglo NA, etc).
They haven't been "led" to resentment, they created these resentments to justify their own "superiority" and exploitation, it's the same story each and every time. Their class interests (or pretensions/ambitions towards such class interests) all but require that they make up the chauvinism after (this same mechanism also goes for conservatives- two sides of the same coin really)
Good summary. I grew up in a rural part of the US, and have lived in a few metropolitan regions of the Midwest. My take is a gross oversimplification- but the racism in rural areas seems mean-spirited, but directed by those without any sort of real power and often driven by ignorance. In metropolitan and more bourgeois circles, there’s often 99% awareness and buy-in of the fact that the “first world” is built with the blood of the “third world”, and a tacit approval through lack of action. My fairly poor parents in rural America, once expressed ignorant, reactionary opinions regarding unhoused and Indigenous peoples- I “strongly urged” a course correction in thought. Since then, they’ve attended a few Indigenous speakers at our local library and a powwow hosted by a local tribe. They’ve also volunteered with the temporary housing, and (low bar alert) didn’t express the ignorant opinions others did wrt my travels to San Francisco and Portland for work.
My wife’s folks are from the same region, but have a bit more wealth. They’re very conservative, and much more entrenched in that thought. They literally don’t take in new opposing view points, despite being more formally educated. Without giving too much information- the step dad is an environmental engineer who doesn’t “believe in” climate change, and the mom is a teacher who actively supports anti-teacher state policy. (Fortunately their only “action” is voting).
Compare that with the few state department people I’ve interacted with, where there’s no ignorance in their racism- just conscious, bourgeois liberal white supremacy. And a dedication to maintaining it, and the power to do so.
Like you said- the further removed one sees themselves from those being oppressed- the more smug they are over the blind fortune that they’re not on the receiving end of it.
It's nice to hear how your parents have grown and learned as people- gives some hope for the Anglosphere, admittedly (not much but it's something).
Not white, and my experiences rural were when I was growing up as well, and while there was a lot that was alienating or even some that was really fucked up (in hindsight), there was also an incredible amount of humanity to be seen and given, the likes of which are increasingly lacking as you go up the class ladder.
Fr. WRT my parents - I wouldn’t give them too much leeway lol but they were a startling, real-time example of isolation and mass news media consumption during the “lockdown” in the US.
Got to see their rhetoric shift from things that annoyed me (typical boomer jingoism) to things that enraged me (transphobic, homophobic, anti-homeless, opinions wrt riots etc.) following isolation from their (surprisingly progressive) church groups, friends, and consumption of mass news media.
I like to think that the conversations I (loudly) had with them when those things came up and the years-long embargo from our home had some effect of spurring self-crit and growth, but the settler mindset runs deep so who knows. I’d previously passed along Braiding Sweetgrass, which my mom didn’t finish because it made her feel too sad- so hearing that they were learning from Indigenous knowledge keepers and attending community events was a great surprise. So growth is possible. I also had a lifetime friend remind me that in 8th grade I “didn’t believe in climate change”, and now that’s essentially what my life revolves around lol so pobodys nerfect.
My hometown has been gutted enough by capital that they recognize its effects if not in terminology, then in the friends that lost jobs when the pallet factory, drill-bit factory, paper mill, etc. closed in the late 90s/early 00s, or more recently when an investment firm acquired the largest employer in town (mail order retail) on behalf of a competitor with the sole purpose of immediately shuttering it. Seems like so many pieces that led to my “lefty” development have been there, if one understands them that way and not as a lizard-person conspiracy lol.
Frankly, this website has taught me so much about the importance of self-crit in an era where you can get any dogshit opinion validated online or on tv. There seems to be a common theme among settler crackkkers where you avoid discussing things that make you uncomfortable wrt the atrocities of past generations, and it’s so crucial to be beaten over the head with those lest they be forgotten.
Idk where I was going with this necessarily- just enjoyed (as usual) engaging with someone on this site.
Sorry sweaty, you're just helping Trump win if you point out the U.S.'s thirst for blood overrides any concern for collapsing infrastructure or the well being of the population.
Sorry sweaty
You can just say "no offense" and then say something offensive
Any Critical statement about decisions Biden may be involved in are a vote for Trump!
The window for being critical of Biden’s administration was after the 100 days and before the critical 1,290 days prior to the election!
You can only cheer in joy for the blue team, anything less is doing a fascism.
If Republicans say something, that means that it's wrong and anyone who says it got it from them and is essentially spreading conspiracy theories.
There is money tree for murder, there is no money tree for literally anything else.
The question most of us are faced with: do you want change? Not a little bit, unraveling heaving world-historic change?
And libs said, no, they just want things to be a little bit better (preferably for them). You are getting in the way of the mindscape that let's them think that the system can produce limited small "good" change. They don't want to think about the genocide in Gaza, or the invasion of Lebanon, or countenance that their support for blue MAGA could mean an attempted invasion of Iran - or at least an unlimited bombing campaign. They don't want to think about the people outside the wire, especially if those people are there political "enemies" they've identified as citizens in the south. What they want are Pell grants to people creating small businesses in undeserved communities for 5 years or student loan forgiveness after 15 years of service as an underpaid teacher. They don't want to think about the faceless masses living coterminous lives of suffering on the exact city streets they invisibly occupy.
When you had to confront that question - you said "yes I want change, I want the wars of imperialism to end, I don't want people to be genocided and I'm ready to take apart the means of that genocide"
Anything other than enthusiastic and uncritical support for Harris is seen as helping republicans.
I do rather enjoy seeing the USA criticize North Korea with the claim that they are ruled by an unelected leader and then defer to Dear Leader Kamala who was of course elected to represent her party by...?
Right-wingers do commonly say "there should be no foreign aid given until we fix our problems". The problem is, there's a difference between giving aid to another country that just had a really bad natural disaster, vs giving money and military aid to help another country commit a genocide.
Also worth noting that foreign aid isn't done out of the kindness of their hearts, it's usually used as a tool of US imperialism. Trump and his base are just too stupid to realize that.
Thought-terminating cliché. If you just proclaim it to be a "right wing talking point" you can dismiss it out of hand without having to engage with the statement. They don't want to have to defend their policy of funding genocide while their own people suffer at it's own merits.
Just reply "Sending money to isntreal to commit genocide is right-wing"
Literally any criticism of the Biden admin is a "Russian disinformation" to them.
Trump and Co. were talking about how the money for hurricane relief was going to transgender migrant surgeries but not about israel i think. There was a separate thing going around about how FEMA is short $9B, and we just approved that amount for israel. Though they didnt literally take it from FEMA, they should be giving additional funding to FEMA and are choosing to not do a damn thing except genocide
In my opinion:
Short version:
Republicans don't want to talk about how they denied the funding to help Americans impacted by disasters, so they are attempting to shift the narrative.
The longer version:
First, because the point does not include of how Republicans voted against funding FEMA while taking no action to restrict the transfers of arms to Isreal (unless there has been a resolution that I am not aware of). This makes it something of a disingenuous argument attempting to spread the narrative that "Democrats support genocide more than the they support struggling American citizens".
Second, it is an attempt to tie two unrelated events together to keep topics damaging to the Democrat election machine alive while the news cycle has shifted to a topic that could hurt the Republicans election machine.
Third, it offers no suggestions for how to correct either situation. Nor examples of failed / blocked attempts from either party to remedy the situation. Attempts like the Democrats attempt to increase funding to FEMA which was blocked by Republicans.
This makes it something of a disingenuous argument attempting to spread the narrative that "Democrats support genocide more than the they support struggling American citizens".
Except this is completely true, both parties care more about funding a genocide than helping people
it is an attempt to tie two unrelated events together to keep topics damaging to the Democrat election machine alive while the news cycle has shifted to a topic that could hurt the Republicans election machine.
The idea that every event and subject should be separated and looked at in a vacuum is peak liberal bullshit and probably the most overlooked ideology that makes our society suck so much
Everything is connected and not in a
wayAttempts like the Democrats attempt to increase funding to FEMA which was blocked by Republicans.
Did they try when they had a majority and could've pushed through whatever they wanted without opposition? No? Then maybe they aren't serious about passing anything that helps people
Except this is completely true, both parties care more about funding a genocide than helping people
I totally agree. The current political climate is very much one of "why try to solve a problem when you can profit off of it."
My issue is in the choice of language. Trying to make it seem like one party is to blame when both are.
The idea that every event and subject should be separated and looked at in a vacuum is peak liberal bullshit and probably the most overlooked ideology that makes our society suck so much
There is a difference between direct and indirect connections. In this instance, the aid sent to Isreal has no direct or immediate impact of federal aid to the communities impacted by the hurricanes. It is, however, connected in that it shows the priorities of current legislators.
Did they try when they had a majority and could’ve pushed through whatever they wanted without opposition? No? Then maybe they aren’t serious about passing anything that helps people
I am very confused by this argument. Are you suggesting that if a party does not push legislation when they have control over both houses then they should never try to pass it in the future, or that conditions and opinions are not allowed to change resulting in a shift of priorities? Please, can you expand on what you mean by this?
It is, however, connected in that it shows the priorities of current legislators.
Yes, exactly. That's what I meant, but I think people took it in a partisan way.
Are you suggesting that if a party does not push legislation when they have control over both houses then they should never try to pass it in the future, or that conditions and opinions are not allowed to change resulting in a shift of priorities?
Speaking for myself, if I was in charge of a political party that had just gained majority power, I'd have a plan ready to pass as much priority legislation as possible in that term, knowing that I could lose the majority at the next election. The Republicans understood this, which is why we're still dealing with a lot of Trump's executive orders and appointees.
What this lib said. They actually believe the obstructionist bullshit and think Biden would help if he could but his hands are tied. Fairy tale shit.
Liberals, conservatives and moderates in the narrow sense that you are using those terms are just mildly different flavors of liberal ideology, in the original sense of the word.
What "narrow sense"? I literally just said "Moderate, not liberal nor conservative."
In the narrow, U.S. centric sense that you think those are categorically different things when in reality conservatives and moderates are also liberals ideologically.
Hmm, that was not my intent at all. Is there a more appropriate or accurate word you can suggest for somebody that does not fit nicely into either of the two popular US political Ideologies and depending on the topic will either side with a party (which party depends on the topic) or think that nobody has presented a good idea?
Independent voter or non-partisan I guess.
Your terminology is fine in the narrow context of talking to other American libs about mainstream American politics but you’re commenting on a forum full of communists so to us you’re a lib and calling yourself a moderate is meaningless hair-splitting.
Lol. if you think there's a functional (key word) difference between the two, beyond aesthetics, you're a
. Sorry, I don't make the rules. Take it up with the parliamentarian.I mean, I would prefer to call them chuds, but yes colloquially they would fit as libs. Both parties can get their panties in a bunch over culture war theater all they want, but at the end of the day their ultimate goal is serving Capital and dismantling any aspect of government that isn't protecting private property or funneling wealth to the top.
Interesting. I have not had the word "lib" explained in such a way. I am more familiar with "snowflake" being used in that context.
I believe that most people associate the word "lib" with a political ideology and by using it you are, even if unwittingly, saying that you think one party is better than the other and should be in power.
I agree and share in your disgust of the current government of the USA. Neither party seems interested in helping the American people unless it profits them directly.
I believe that most people associate the word "lib" with a political ideology and by using it you are, even if unwittingly, saying that you think one party is better than the other and should be in power.
You can thank Rush Limbaugh for that. He spent his entire career using Liberals as an epithet meant to give the illusion of distance between the socially liberal Democrats and the socially regressive Republicans, but both Parties fell under the umbrella of Classical Liberalism in their Economic policies. We don't hold to such illusions here on hexbear. If you take a class based analysis you quickly see that the two "sides" are still moving in lockstep towards the goals mentioned earlier. Lib is especially insulting for us, as it's our politics they're wearing as a mask as they do evil shit. But no, you'd be hard-pressed to find a preference among us for which party should be performing genocide. Chud stands cannibalistic human under dweller, if you still have any misconceptions about how we feel about Trump and his ilk.
You may find the classic Yellow Parenti video interesting. Seems up your alley and I think you'd find it quite enlightening as to our views around here. Plus, Parenti is just a joy to listen to. Dude spoke at the Whitehouse.💁
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xP8CzlFhc14
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Ok so what I'm hearing is that it makes the Democrats look bad. Which I'm fine with, they suck.
Third, it offers no suggestions for how to correct either situation.
I thought that was pretty obvious: stop sending money and weapons and troops to Israel, and send emergency aid to communities hurt by the hurricanes.
stop sending money and weapons and troops to Israel, and send emergency aid to communities hurt by the hurricanes.
Unfortunately, these are two completely separate pools of money. The USA could stop all military aid to all countries across the globe tomorrow and the freed up money could not be redirected to the communities impacted by the hurricanes without an act of Congress which, thanks to Republicans, just said no to doing that.
Ok I get that they're different funds, different bills, whatever. I don't really care how the sausage of the federal budget gets made, just the results. Stafford Beer said "The purpose of a system is what it does." And right now the American system of government is to kill people in the Middle East. The same Congress said "meh, not right now" to disaster relief, and "hell yeah!" to genocide. I don't see a lot of daylight between the two parties on the issue of genocide.
I'm also inclined to agree with Eisenhower on this one:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
To stay focused on your original question, this is why people think statements comparing disaster relief to genocide is a Republican talking point.
The conversation has shifted from who voted for or against providing federal assistance to how the US uses its military and the genocide being committed by Isreal. Without trying to take a side on either topic, this sort of misdirection is the purpose of such statements.
I was never talking about who voted for or against providing federal assistance
To keep this on topic:
You asked why people say that it is a "right wing taking point" when you say "it's fucked up that more money is going to Isntreal than to hurricane relief" and the answer is that you are using a topic Republicans don't want scrutinized as you counter point thus directing the conversation away from what Republicans are trying to avoid. You could have used health care, education, VA benefits, or something more ambiguous. Instead you use an active topic that could erode Republican support and steer the conversation away from a Republican sore spot and towards a Democrat sore spot.
That is why some people are calling it out as a "right wing taking point". I'm simply trying to answer your question.
"What can we do? The system we created and maintained only guarantees that we pay for war."
Generations of democrats have worked to bring us here. The century since the Russian Revolution could've been spent reorienting the economy away from supporting wars on behalf of private capital and instead towards elevating the lives of workers. Democrats chose to be part of the cold war instead. They're shooting misses at weather balloons and fabricating genocides in China. These are people that don't care if you live or die. They're not regretting that they can't do better emergency response. Grow up, nerd.
