Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
This whole thing is getting No True Scotsman. If someone doesn't self-identify as part of a group that doesn't have rigidly established criteria boundaries in the first place, then you can't force them to or tell them that they're wrong.
It's like with religious affiliations. It's like trying to persuade a Muslim that they're really a Christian because both groups worship the same Abrahamic God or that all three are Jews because they're both technically descended from the religion of the Old Testament.
![]()
![]()
That's not what I'm trying to tell you. What I am attempting to explain is that the philosophical basis of modern feminism is fundamentally rooted in Marxist class dynamics. You can call yourself whatever you want.
Yes, I suppose this belongs in the philosophy thread, or general politics.
edited 8th Jul '16 2:41:49 PM by CaptainCapsase
"Modern" feminism is not a monolith. Feminism exists in a ton of forms. Some explicitly Marxist, some Marxist inspired or adjacent, some actively anti-Marxist, some based on concepts that Marxism may have made a priority or codified into a particular form but long predated it by at least a century. You're trying to argue that "modern" feminism is a monophyly, when it's more like a broad polyphyly.
edited 8th Jul '16 2:47:40 PM by AlleyOop
We may have just entered a Bizarro World, as Newt Gingrich has recently stated that "If you are a normal white American, the truth is you don’t understand being black in America... [and you] instinctively underestimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk"
. He even went so far as to point out that, in spite of advances made during his own lifetime, there's a long ways to go yet when it comes to addressing matters of racial disparity.
This is the same guy that called Obama the "food stamp President".
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"At the end of The Communist Manifesto Marx outright states that the confrontation between the Elites and the Proletariat will be violent, but since the proletariat are the ones who support the Elites and because there way more proletariat than the Elites, the proletariat will win.
Marx was very clear that a violent revolution would be needed to bring his vision of Communism into fruition.
And certain Feminist ideologies have elements of the Marxist ideology, but as a whole the initial momentum gained by feminists began with the right to vote and representation movements that preceded Marx works.
No, it wasn't but it was his most famous work and it became a guideline for many parties everywhere. Even if he wrote another books on the subject, he established that his vision of Communism would have a violent revolution on the Communist Manifesto. Even with The Capital and his books over the economy published, they don't matter at all when it comes to the Marxist idea of Communism, because the Manifesto was the one responsible for setting the guideline on how to reach Communism.
And then you have the Anti-Semitic "The Jewish Question" book written by Marx, as he saw the Jews as the living embodiment of Capitalism. I'd hardly call Marx someone virtuous or peaceful given the things he wrote.
edited 8th Jul '16 3:09:56 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges
In fairness the Food stamp thing seemed to me more about him making the economy so shitty that everyone had to go on food stamps. His most tone deaf moment though was proposing low incomes students work a janitors at their own schools. Pity he was the only one with a good Space policy.
A page or so back, someone mentioned something that I thought I'd expand on:
A lot of white conservative people I talk to down here in the South place the blame for racial tension on non-white people. They view them as being the antagonists who are pushing an agenda and agitating the political situation, when they ought to just be quiet and stay where they are.
This is a major component of a lot of southern politics, so that's not a surprise. It's one of those 'maintain the white power structure' things that others aren't aware they're backing up.
Left overs from the civil rights era, primarily.
I think the KKK is going to have a rally in a city near me this month. Dallas is only going to inflame those lunatics. I fear for the safety of people living there.
I have some suspicion that Trump never really intended to get as far as he had, though I doubt that Trump would scuttle his campaign at this point. Otherwise, he wouldn't be declaring a willingness to go third party should the GOP refuse to back him.
Leviticus 19:34Obama's on the Tonight Show currently. Being extremely diplomatic about current politics, generally thinks Bernie's primary challenge is healthy for the Dems, is "worried" about the Republicans in the sense of hoping the current upheaval will force them to re-focus as a center-right party.
Also reminds me that whatever I might think of him on a policy or leadership level, strip away the politics and he seems a fundamentally decent person.
a few pages back there was a discussion on what political direction the United States leans internationally, well I would like to add in the opinion of one of Britain's most respected journalists and the most sued man in British legal history
edited 9th Jul '16 4:54:14 AM by FieldMarshalFry
advancing the front into TV TropesSo a woman in Yuma County, AZ was shot by police
, and people are up in arms over it (and/or the "lack of coverage" compared to Alton Sterling and Philando Castile), but according to officers, she attacked them with a knife almost immediately after opening the door. Didn't take long for people to go "What, they couldn't disarm a woman with a knife?", which is sexist as all hell by diminishing the damage a woman could do with a weapon.
edited 9th Jul '16 5:18:44 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Do the officers have body cams?
On the other hand, I'd have trouble not opening fire if someone charged me with a knife in close quarters, regardless of age, ethnicity or gender.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
I hope so, and I'll agree with the latter sentiment. Rochester NY had a similar (and possibly more tragic) situation similar to that occur about a decade ago - an officer responded to a call from a mother concerned about her daughter's depression (a classmate of hers had been killed in the crossfire of a drive-by shooting not long before), and when he got there, the girl came at him and her mother with a sizeable knife down a narrow hallway, at which point he shot her. There was a lot of naysaying about how he should have "just disarmed her", but people vastly overestimate how easy it is to do that with anyone, even if you have more physical strength - or at least how easy it is to do so without serious injury to anyone involved.
No word yet on whether their department had body cameras or not.
edited 9th Jul '16 6:10:43 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

So basically you're telling me I have to consider myself a marxist because... i vote in public elections? Really?!
I genuinely don't even know how to respond to that.