Whither political leanings?

[garbon]

The trouble is in the example I made you are focusing on a relative inconsequential fact while ignoring a huge problem, that is income disparity and the likely fact that these men never had an opportunity to achieve the social and financial position that woman enjoys (and also that she is wearing a suit they would have to work for several years to earn). This is the problem with "identity politics" - it does not prioritise problems because of their societal effects or how badly they affect people - it prioritises them based on the identity of the victim.

So in this example, a minor inconcenience faced by the woman suddenly is more important than what seems like a huge inequality facing these men, because she is a woman and they are men. Identity politics at its finest.

I don't agree with that sentiment at all. I don't think a woman complaining about sexism detracts, distracts or prevents a discussion about wealth inequality. I don't think you have to be either for helping women or for reducing wealth inequality...I think you can support aims without feeling you have contradictory aims.

By the by, as S mentioned, I don't think cat calling is just minor harassment. Again not a woman, so not something I have to deal with much but I have talked with my sisters about it and how constant it is.  Is it a matter of life and death? No. Is it thoroughly unpleasant? Of course. (In fact the only time I can properly recall being catcalled was at night when a car was driving slowly so the driver could shout out 'endearing' things to me. I recall being freaked the fuck out.)

Are you arguing that we can't complain or care about 'smaller' issues until we've managed to solve a problem that has more or less plagued humanity since the concept of wealth was created? What is it about complaints from women and minorities that bother you so much?

[Martinus]

I am arguing that blowing relatively minor things out of proportion while at the same time ignoring big things is a sure road to a disaster.

[Razgovory]

Major things: Stuff that might affect Marty.  Minor things: Things that probably won't.

[Tamas]

The world is in an era of turbulent change for the better.

that is what you (edit: and everyone else, ideally. don't want to vouch for survivalists and such) hope. There are, throughout history, sufficient periods of turbulent change that were not for the better.
We'll know the answer once the turbulence end, but not before.

Maybe, although debatable.

However, in our particular case, the positive impacts are impossible to ignore. Tens if not hundreds of millions are being rised out of poverty, there is an unprecedentedly free flow of information and knowledge that in turns fuels a level of innovation and technological progress unseen in our history.

Make no mistake: the "let's divide back into nation states and just stop this nonsense of not hating everyone outside of our tribe, because change is bad mkay" people are fighting this. Maybe not directly but in effect they are working toward stopping and reverting this process.

[Martinus]

Major things: Stuff that might affect Marty.  Minor things: Things that probably won't.

Yes, catering for gay weddings does not affect me, but reduced opportunities for advancement for poor white kids do. Well done, Raz. You got me.

[garbon]

I am arguing that blowing relatively minor things out of proportion while at the same time ignoring big things is a sure road to a disaster.

Are they doing that? What sort of level of discourse / engagement do these masses need to be undertaking to not be considered as ignoring "big things" in your opinion?

[Martinus]

I am arguing that blowing relatively minor things out of proportion while at the same time ignoring big things is a sure road to a disaster.

Are they doing that? What sort of level of discourse / engagement do these masses need to be undertaking to not be considered as ignoring "big things" in your opinion?

Well, I already gave you a couple of examples. Income disparity, reduced opportunities for people born to working class parents, that kind of thing. Anything that prevents children to achieve more than their parents did.

I am not sure that focusing on homophobic bakeries and use of right bathrooms is the productive use of our resources.

[Hamilcar]

From what I've read, the core Trumpist constituency is not actually the losers themselves - in spite of the media narrative - but people who could perhaps be described as loser adjacent.

That seems to go against the conventional narrative. Do you have some good sources? I'm genuinely curious.

This is the main article I read on the matter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/12/a-massive-new-study-debunks-a-widespread-theory-for-donald-trumps-success/

Thanks!

[garbon]

I am arguing that blowing relatively minor things out of proportion while at the same time ignoring big things is a sure road to a disaster.

Are they doing that? What sort of level of discourse / engagement do these masses need to be undertaking to not be considered as ignoring "big things" in your opinion?

Well, I already gave you a couple of examples. Income disparity, reduced opportunities for people born to working class parents, that kind of thing. Anything that prevents children to achieve more than their parents did.

I am not sure that focusing on homophobic bakeries and use of right bathrooms is the productive use of our resources.

That's not what I meant. I meant are you saying that people aren't discussing those topics? I think those are pretty much the main topics discussed by young liberals in America (aka those who in large part when for Bernie).  Who is it that is not discussing these things?

Productive use of resources? What are these resources? People's free time spent discussing issues?

By the by, presumably it is easier for lawmakers to pass said regressive laws on bathroom use than actually fix systemic issues, no?

[Martinus]

Most questions that you are asking have been addressed in my earlier posts. If your idea of contributing to the society is to engage in discussions (and just that), then I guess we have an entirely different view of what productive means.

Perhaps focusing less on "engaging in a discourse" would be a good start.

[Martinus]

But yes I do think that the public has a finite (and very limited) attention span, so it is very easy to distract the public (which already is quite dumb) from real and important issues by bullshit trivial stuff, such as bathrooms for trannies, cakes for gay weddings, catcalling or online bullying.

[garbon]

Most questions that you are asking have been addressed in my earlier posts. If your idea of contributing to the society is to engage in discussions (and just that), then I guess we have an entirely different view of what productive means.

Perhaps focusing less on "engaging in a discourse" would be a good start.

I just did a quick scan and I'm not sure you've actually advanced what you want to see the masses doing instead. I saw this but there's little there as to what people should actually be doing (apart from engaging in discourse ).

"addressing growing functional illiteracy and reduced advancement opportunities among working class white males. "

If it action you want the common citizen to be taking, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is. As a relatively well off person, you probably have a lot of money that you could be donating to make substantive changes (donations, setting up advocacy groups, funding orgs who fight about the big issues). Some of that money you set aside for holiday and redecorating for instance.

[garbon]

But yes I do think that the public has a finite (and very limited) attention span, so it is very easy to distract the public (which already is quite dumb) from real and important issues by bullshit trivial stuff, such as bathrooms for trannies, cakes for gay weddings, catcalling or online bullying.

Who then is to be blamed for the 'distraction'? Is it the person who vents about how they were mistreated, the bloggers, the media for the stories they care to present, the lawmakers who initiate frenzies when they spend time passing regressive laws for no real reason?

[Valmy]

It does get wearisome when hunting for something somebody did somewhere in the country that was insulting to somebody is considered bit news. But my strategy is to stay off twitter and facebook. There. Problem solved.

[The Minsky Moment]

Rosseau wasn't a collectivist though, he was utopian.

I would give you a substantial ration of shit about this, but you make people type too much in response, and I hate that about you.

it's a debatable point, sure. Contrat social is not a model of clarity.  But IMO Emile is the key to understanding him.

see just 22 words.