Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Barrister]

Many years ago, Pierre Bourdieu suggested that « capital » should/could be understood as financial capital, symbolic capital, cultural capital and social capital.  To put it crudely, one could be rich in financial capital and cultural capital (old money), rich in financial capital and poor in cultural capital (nouveau riche), poor in financial capital and rich in cultural capital (artists, scholars), poor in financial capital and poor in cultural capital (workers). In each of these fields, you could find a different version of the « middle class », that is, people who aspire to and embrace the values of the upper class (whether money or culture), without fully commandeering all the necessary resources. For Bourdieu, each field polices its borders, so that things that are valued in one field don't translate well in another.

In the lexicon of our age - treat me like I'm a grade schooler.

What is the point you're making here?

I know it's connected to what Jos and I were talked about because of the reference to "symbolic capitalists" (which was a phrase Musa al-Gharbi used).  Bourdieu's point (that one can be rich in, say, financial capital, but poor in social capital) is one that seems obvious once it's pointed out but nevertheless bears repeating.

But what are you otherwise getting at?

(If you're trying to go all Socratic Method on me so be it, but I'm not getting it)

[Oexmelin]

Nothing much. I am just reminded of this every time the discussion of Josquius's class comes up. It's usually a dead end because Jos wants his values to be working class, but his financial situation puts him middle class or upper middle class. And, whether we agree with Jos or whether we want to create "class consciousness" in Jos, we are in effect policing the borders of that field, about whether or not he truly is working class.

[Razgovory]

Al-Gharbi's work is based on Bourdieu's.  Someone like Oex, who has symbolic capital could be an elite despite not having enormous sums of money or an inherited title.

[Barrister]

Nothing much. I am just reminded of this every time the discussion of Josquius's class comes up. It's usually a dead end because Jos wants his values to be working class, but his financial situation puts him middle class or upper middle class. And, whether we agree with Jos or whether we want to create "class consciousness" in Jos, we are in effect policing the borders of that field, about whether or not he truly is working class.

The thing with Jos is I have zero interest in trying to change his politics or self-image.  He can be a Labour voter and supporter.  He can proudly have what he feels are "working class values".

I just wish he was more self-aware about what that meant, and why other people might feel differently (even as he thinks they're wrong).

As a self-identified conservative right-winger, the last 10 years or so have opened my eyes that other fellow travelers on the right are not who I thought they were.  There's way more racism and conspiracy-mongering than I had ever thought.  That revelation has in no way made me change my own fundamental beliefs, but has caused me to be much more (for lake of a better term) "woke" about the ways of politics.

I just wish Jos could wake up - just a little bit.

[crazy canuck]

Many years ago, Pierre Bourdieu suggested that « capital » should/could be understood as financial capital, symbolic capital, cultural capital and social capital.  To put it crudely, one could be rich in financial capital and cultural capital (old money), rich in financial capital and poor in cultural capital (nouveau riche), poor in financial capital and rich in cultural capital (artists, scholars), poor in financial capital and poor in cultural capital (workers). In each of these fields, you could find a different version of the « middle class », that is, people who aspire to and embrace the values of the upper class (whether money or culture), without fully commandeering all the necessary resources. For Bourdieu, each field polices its borders, so that things that are valued in one field don't translate well in another.

That is a interesting way to think about it, and explains why there can be disagreement about who is "rich".  And particularly amongst people who had no cultural capital.  The one tweak I would suggest (and likely Bourdieu dealt with this) is that there is a strong correlation between cultural capital and financial capital.  Sure there are stories we all love to hear about a generation squandering the capital given to them. But much more often the financially rich had the cultural capital to backstop them and allow them to take risks others could not afford to take.

I think that is why people who grew up without cultural capital have a hard time accepting they are "rich" even though they themselves have amassed significant financial capital and will be passing on cultural capital to the next generation.

[Josquius]

Again, I'm not right wing. What you keep doing is dismissing every argument as "typical of the far right".  It's very tedious and dishonest.

You keep saying you're not right wing yet you keep taking right wing positions.
We are literally talking about the far rights appeal to the working class. It's simply idiotic, beyond fingers in ears, to say you're not allowed to mention anything is right wing when discussing this topic.

I fully admit that "stop all immigration" is stupid, but that isn't what we are talking about.  We are talking about what people want.  People may want stupid things, but you take this paternalist viewpoint that what people really want is what you want. In the US context this has been a problem.

How has the point so completely flown over your head?
Stop all immigration is an example of the kind of nonsense far right populist policy that really appeals to a lot of working class people. I brought it up as it seemed to be an easy one we are all familiar with.
You're suggesting if that's what they say they want left and centrist parties have to promise to do this. They cannot investigate why people are saying this and seek to tackle the core problem from a more sensible angle.

It has fuck all to do with what I want. That's rule number one of doing effective research. You don't go in with a solution in mind.
If you have reached the stage where you do have something then you're actively seeking to poke holes in it.

Subtle, no.

But backhanded, also no.

I said I don't like you but I'll give you full credit for listening to a podcast I recommended.  Nothing backhanded about it.

I mean " I hate you but in this one instance you did ok" is quite the backhanded compliment.

There you have it.
I'm not going to get dragged down into slinging insults so best to just stick to the points.

I just find it incredibly condescending to hear you say "people are complaining about immigration.  Well I happen to know that what they're actually upset about is housing."

Which, to loop around back to the podcast, is probably an issue that you are actually concerned about, but are going to claim that you're only concerned because of the lower classes.

Yes.

I can hardly speak for every person in every situation.  But why is it so hard to believe that people might not like immigration - because they don't like immigration?


Putting aside that you seem to be comparing opposition to immigration with crime...

In my nearly 25 years as a barrister, I'll let you in on a secret.

Most poor, disadvantaged people don't commit crime.  Nor do most minorities.

We can talk about "root causes" of crime all we want.  There is absolutely something to it - there's a definite correlation between poverty and crime (to pick just one factor).  But it is far from 100%.

Because criminals have agency too.  They choose to commit crime.

We have a whole branch of law dealing with people who don't have such agency.  If you literally can't choose to commit a crime (usually due to mental illness, but maybe due to coercion) then you're actually not guilty of a crime.

Yes but we've already established there's a solid chunk of people who just don't like immigrants.
The left attempting to win these people over isn't happening. They're always going to be voting the furthest right they can.
The main people we are looking at are the others. The majority of people supporting far right policies don't do so just because. Theres something that feeds into this.
I finger in air said 10% would hate immigration no matter what. Debate those numbers if you want. But no way is it 100%. The world does not work in such a neat black and white way as simple as that would be.

[crazy canuck]

I think you have lost the plot if you think Raz is right wing.

And BB was trying to be complimentary. 

I put it to you that you are the one lacking perspective, not them.

[Razgovory]

It's helpful to remember that Josq thinks that, despite about all his talk about avoiding black-and-white thinking, his world view is summed up as "left-wing good, right-wing".  So when he talks about right wing thinking or a rightwing lens he's just saying that it is evil, defective and bad.

[Josquius]

I think you have lost the plot if you think Raz is right wing.

And BB was trying to be complimentary. 

I put it to you that you are the one lacking perspective, not them.

It's up to him to identify how he wants.
I said he keeps saying right wing things. Far from uncommon for people to have a mix of views.
In this case his idea people can't actually be for equality and must have some sinister ulterior motive.... Yeah. Typical online rightist spleel that shows a fundmantal lack of comprehension of the idea people might have a different morality to them.

It's helpful to remember that Josq thinks that, despite about all his talk about avoiding black-and-white thinking, his world view is summed up as "left-wing good, right-wing".  So when he talks about right wing thinking or a rightwing lens he's just saying that it is evil, defective and bad.

As per usual rather than actually talking about the points it's an idiotic ad hom for you then.

What else could a failure to understand a left wing morality be but right wing thinking? I suppose it could just be apolitical idiocy.. But hey ho.
Good and evil doesn't come into this.
It's about difference.
I support freedom and equality because... They're good things in my book. Not because I stand to profit (which if I was the elite you think I am... Keep the status quo plz. Better let's roll it back a few years.)  but because they're my fundamental moral values.

[Barrister]

I mean " I hate you but in this one instance you did ok" is quite the backhanded compliment.

There you have it.
I'm not going to get dragged down into slinging insults so best to just stick to the points.

Here's the thing.

If you told me "hey you should listen to this hour-long podcast so you can understand the point I'm making" - I wouldn't have done it.  There would be no obligation on me to do it.  No reason for me to do it.

So the fact you actually did it - that's more than just "you did ok".  It's a sign of respect I didn't expect, and I wouldn't have shown you in turn.  Hence why I tried to compliment you.

But I've had you on ignore for awhile, yet I keep making the mistake of clicking through to see your posts.  This exchange shows my why I am mistaken to do so.

[HVC]

I like you Josq ( ), but you can be very frustrating. Also, ironically given it's your favourite catch phrase, you do have very black and white thinking .

[Josquius]

My thinking is black and white that the world isn't black and white and I get very frustrated when I see people who do see the world this way yes.

I mean " I hate you but in this one instance you did ok" is quite the backhanded compliment.

There you have it.
I'm not going to get dragged down into slinging insults so best to just stick to the points.

Here's the thing.

If you told me "hey you should listen to this hour-long podcast so you can understand the point I'm making" - I wouldn't have done it.  There would be no obligation on me to do it.  No reason for me to do it.

So the fact you actually did it - that's more than just "you did ok".  It's a sign of respect I didn't expect, and I wouldn't have shown you in turn.  Hence why I tried to compliment you.

But I've had you on ignore for awhile, yet I keep making the mistake of clicking through to see your posts.  This exchange shows my why I am mistaken to do so.

I had no idea you were such a horrible cunt.
Have a miserable Christmas.

[Barrister]

My thinking is black and white that the world isn't black and white and I get very frustrated when I see people who do see the world this way yes.

I mean " I hate you but in this one instance you did ok" is quite the backhanded compliment.

There you have it.
I'm not going to get dragged down into slinging insults so best to just stick to the points.

Here's the thing.

If you told me "hey you should listen to this hour-long podcast so you can understand the point I'm making" - I wouldn't have done it.  There would be no obligation on me to do it.  No reason for me to do it.

So the fact you actually did it - that's more than just "you did ok".  It's a sign of respect I didn't expect, and I wouldn't have shown you in turn.  Hence why I tried to compliment you.

But I've had you on ignore for awhile, yet I keep making the mistake of clicking through to see your posts.  This exchange shows my why I am mistaken to do so.

I had no idea you were such a horrible cunt.
Have a miserable Christmas.

Quoted for posterity.

Josquis I wish nothing to do with you in the future, yet hope you have a very nice Christmas.

[HVC]

Quoted for posterity.

Josquis I wish nothing to do with you in the future, yet hope you have a very nice Christmas.

I mean you kind of started it 

Although using Santa's holiday was a tad mean

[crazy canuck]

My thinking is black and white that the world isn't black and white and I get very frustrated when I see people who do see the world this way yes.

I mean " I hate you but in this one instance you did ok" is quite the backhanded compliment.

There you have it.
I'm not going to get dragged down into slinging insults so best to just stick to the points.

Here's the thing.

If you told me "hey you should listen to this hour-long podcast so you can understand the point I'm making" - I wouldn't have done it.  There would be no obligation on me to do it.  No reason for me to do it.

So the fact you actually did it - that's more than just "you did ok".  It's a sign of respect I didn't expect, and I wouldn't have shown you in turn.  Hence why I tried to compliment you.

But I've had you on ignore for awhile, yet I keep making the mistake of clicking through to see your posts.  This exchange shows my why I am mistaken to do so.

I had no idea you were such a horrible cunt.
Have a miserable Christmas.

My recommendation is that you take some time away from this place.  When you come back, reread what BB said to you.  I think you will likely want to apologize.