Will the Left Survive the Millennials?

[Eddie Teach]

The Left will never ever survive unless they are a little crazy.

[CountDeMoney]

The Left will never ever survive unless they are a little crazy.

Bah;  they've survived--and thrived--precisely because they haven't been crazy.  Clintonian centrism made them relevant.  No more Eugene McCarthys Humpreys or Walter Mondales.

[garbon]

Fuck, I'd thought we'd already run you off again.

[CountDeMoney]

Why?  Because it took me longer to get home than usual?

[garbon]

Not you. I was off at my employee's wedding so not like I would have noticed.

[Berkut]

I feel almost guilty it was so easy to have Raz stroll straight into the very stereotype of the dumbshit lefty who is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face.

Moderate democrats are segregationists! Who knew! Raz!

[Legbiter]

For Hami and other connoisseurs .

[Delirium]

Two good examples from this country:

An article on the second biggest gaming convention in the country praised the event, but there was a serious problem that the organizers really needed to turn their attention to: the complete absence of brown or black people.

A culture journalist in a serious newspaper had only one but grievous problem with the final Harry Potter movie: the ending confirmed heterosexual family stereotypes.

[celedhring]

A culture journalist in a serious newspaper had only one but grievous problem with the final Harry Potter movie: the ending confirmed heterosexual family stereotypes.

Pauline Kael (and dozens of others) would have written that in the 1960s. It's actually the whole point of cultural film analysis.

Regarding the other example, I don't see what's wrong with pointing out that minorities are for whatever reason being excluded from gaming culture.

Sure, there's loads of examples of identity politics gone hysterical. But those two are fine imho.

[Delirium]

Fair points, let me address them.

Pauline Kael (and dozens of others) would have written that in the 1960s. It's actually the whole point of cultural film analysis.

In brief, in the 1960s there was nothing but hetero families portrayed. Today, there is anything but. Is it really problematic that a story about wizards ends with two of them (a boy and a girl!) sending their children to Hogwart's? To escape critique, do they have to be childless? Split up and end up gay?

Regarding the other example, I don't see what's wrong with pointing out that minorities are for whatever reason being excluded from gaming culture.

But are they excluded so much as not interested? Here my view is that this conclusion is relevant in the Houses of Parliament - where are the minorities? But why should a geeky pastime be a matter of counting skin colour? Not to mention that other minorities are present, and warmly embraced, in gaming culture: young and old game side by side, boys, girls, parents, children; transgender people are openly present. Everybody is welcome, right? In this country there was talk about why immigrant children from the Middle-East do not start to play hockey. But why is that an end in itself? Is the country segregated as long as every part of it comes out approved in a background check?

Sure, there's loads of examples of identity politics gone hysterical. But those two are fine imho.

Well, hysterical they are not, but representative of a way of thinking that is quite beyond me. Much as, I suppose, the radicals in the 60s were incomprehensible to their parents. School segregation, skewed representation in parliament, lower wages for women in the same job as men, structuralized racism: those are important issues.

Holding the belief that affirmative action is necessary in all parts of society is something else entirely. Behind it all, I suppose, is the belief that nobody can understand a minority, let alone speak for that minority, except its own members. As for example Kenan Malik has written on numerous occasions this is dangerous: raising more barriers between people, emphasizing differences and distance between peoples. This part of multi-culturalism is bad, pure and simple. We need more people saying we are all the same, not the opposite.

[celedhring]

I don't believe that affirmative action has to be present in all parts of society, that's certainly stupid, and we don't live in a society where this happens. But in the case of say, the gaming convention, it is fair to ask the question if minorities are being excluded out of their own volition or if there's something else. I have no answer, but I think it is fair to raise the point, debate it, and then shut it down or not depending on what we find.

Regarding Harry Potter, I think it is also fair to take aim at Hollywood's idea of a happy ending (I know, English book, but bear with me), and the cultural charge that comes behind it. You don't need to think this point is relevant for your enjoyment of the movie - it wouldn't affect mine much certainly - but if pointing the finger to this kind of things leads in the future to more cultural variety in mainstream films, I think we'll all be richer for it. At the end of it all, films are criticized for dozens of stupid and very subjective things, so this one ain't out of order.

Ultimately, those two examples seem to me legitimate discourses - it's not college students trying to get speakers banned or shit like that - which we can agree or disagree with.

Yes, as a leftist I believe income inequality is the #1 priority - and there's a definite race bias to income inequality too so it's not like those are unrelated issues at the end of it all -, but I don't think political discourse is a binary "this or that" thing were we can only focus on a single issue.

On the larger point of the thread. I don't believe we are worse off than in generations past. Thanks to social media we live in an unique era were fringe groups - like the alt right at the other end - have the tools to band together and make their views heard in ways that weren't available to them in times past, and this makes them look stronger even though they don't represent - imho - a significant part of society.

[The Minsky Moment]

Two good examples from this country:

An article on the second biggest gaming convention in the country praised the event, but there was a serious problem that the organizers really needed to turn their attention to: the complete absence of brown or black people.

If a mass market industry appears to be failing to reach large segments of the population, isn't that a problem for the industry?

[Delirium]

I do not believe that counting heads of different colour at any gathering of people that is entirely voluntary and apolitical is proof of anything at all except the intent of the person doing the counting to assign characteristics to people based on their looks. It was wrong when it was done a hundred years ago, and it is still as wrong today.

[garbon]

I do not believe that counting heads of different colour at any gathering of people that is entirely voluntary and apolitical is proof of anything at all except the intent of the person doing the counting to assign characteristics to people based on their looks. It was wrong when it was done a hundred years ago, and it is still as wrong today.

I don't see why it isn't worth at least questioning and then likely dismissing?

[grumbler]

I do not believe that counting heads of different colour at any gathering of people that is entirely voluntary and apolitical is proof of anything at all except the intent of the person doing the counting to assign characteristics to people based on their looks. It was wrong when it was done a hundred years ago, and it is still as wrong today.

I don't see why it isn't worth at least questioning and then likely dismissing?

Questioning by whom, based on what?  Dismissing by whom, based on what?  Who or what is the authority on how many minorities must attend a convention in order for that convention to avoid "questioning?"

I think that it would make an interesting topic of discussion here, but I don't think we know enough to go from discussion to judgement.