"You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries?"
If there's anybody obsessed by identity politics and grudges, its you. As this outburst aptly illustrates.
"The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.
This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.
...Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.
The pound is rising quite sharply. Donald Trump has spoken to Theresa May with the prospect of an early meeting to discuss security and trade issues.
At the same time the EU are all at sea and frankly have not adopted the right tone with Trump, particularly Germany.
Today the Estonia government has collapsed and is likely to be replaced with a more pro Russia anti Nato government will the possibility of them leaving the EU.
The result yesterday can only be good for UK and Brexit and very worrying for the EU
These are remarkable days and have been since GE 2015.
How could anyone have written the script - just amazing
That's your view - not of course how things really are.
The pound has moved a little higher but is still below where it was at the start of October and hovers around $1.25. It may well move higher once the enormity of Trump's economic fallacies sinks in.
As for the EU, it has 27 voices, not one. The tones will vary - Trump will have to deal with the EU and it has huge significance, arguably more than the UK. American troops operate within the EU as part of NATO and until and unless Trump decrees otherwise, the US is still part of the NATO alliance.
As a courtesy, Trump and May have spoken - Trump has doubtless spoken to other world leaders and whether we derive some sense of our own importance from this is up to us. At least we didn't blunder into the US electoral process this time unlike in 1992 when the Conservatives supported George HW Bush against Clinton so Trump will likely give May a hearing.
One small point - since when does Trump have to deal with the EU.
Their attitude since yesterday is unlikely to build bridges and Trump's US simply has no need for Europe
The US needs China and Germany to keep funding its massive deficits. It's co-dependence,
Labour are looking at shellackings here because the party has no answers to the implications that globalisation have had on the working classes, that's why.
Yes, I think that is mentioned a lot on here.
Nowhere near as much as identity politics. This site believes that identity politics is the main course of Labour's (and the left in general) demise. Labour has always embraced identity politics, even when it won in 1997. A lot of Labour's reasons for not being power relate to bread and butter issues.
I don't get the same impression that that is the consensus on here, but maybe both our views are biased.
Ms. Apocalypse, men face systematic discrimination in custody courts and when it comes to distributing public spending for victims of domestic abuse.
Inconvenient truths for lovers of identity politics.
A.K.A. those fonder of being liked on fb than being in govt. power.
Not really. You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries? That's all happened, has it?
No, but that doesn't mean they don't feel ignored.
I don't deny that. They shouldn't be ignored.
@Morris_Dancer I think the trouble is, is that it's not really just the social situation of the 17th century. It's the social situation of 18th, 19th, 20th, and even the 21st century.
The BBC would do well to rewatch CNN's coverage of the US election. It was absolutely brilliant & they could learn a thing or two from it.
I hear Fox News was similiarly good.
CNN was brilliant, in my opinion. People might slate them for taking longer to call things but I'd rather they did that than call states wrong like in 2000. Their graphics were superb, clear and well-explained.
How long are the discredited British media going to spend posing outside the White House? There are no words to describe the absolute awfulness of the media coverage of this event.
Personally, I think Trump is going to make a much better President than most sneering lefties think.
Yeah, he does have the advantage that expectations are at an ultra low base.
"You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries?"
If there's anybody obsessed by identity politics and grudges, its you. As this outburst aptly illustrates.
I'm not obsessed with identity politics. This site is. I'm just offering an alternative view on it. It's not really an outburst. If it wasn't mentioned much on this site, I wouldn't be talking about it.
The BBC would do well to rewatch CNN's coverage of the US election. It was absolutely brilliant & they could learn a thing or two from it.
I hear Fox News was similiarly good.
CNN was brilliant, in my opinion. People might slate them for taking longer to call things but I'd rather they did that than call states wrong like in 2000. Their graphics were superb, clear and well-explained.
The BBC need someone like their analyst at the map on their team.
"You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries?"
If there's anybody obsessed by identity politics and grudges, its you. As this outburst aptly illustrates.
I'm not obsessed with identity politics. This site is. I'm just offering an alternative view on it. It's not really an outburst. If it wasn't mentioned much on this site, I wouldn't be talking about it.
While at the same time contributing to the site's obsession with identity politics
"You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries?"
If there's anybody obsessed by identity politics and grudges, its you. As this outburst aptly illustrates.
I'm not obsessed with identity politics. This site is. I'm just offering an alternative view on it. It's not really an outburst. If it wasn't mentioned much on this site, I wouldn't be talking about it.
While at the same time contributing to the site's obsession with identity politics
The pound is rising quite sharply. Donald Trump has spoken to Theresa May with the prospect of an early meeting to discuss security and trade issues.
At the same time the EU are all at sea and frankly have not adopted the right tone with Trump, particularly Germany.
Today the Estonia government has collapsed and is likely to be replaced with a more pro Russia anti Nato government will the possibility of them leaving the EU.
The result yesterday can only be good for UK and Brexit and very worrying for the EU
These are remarkable days and have been since GE 2015.
How could anyone have written the script - just remarkable and amazing
You really think Estonia is likely to leave the EU?
It's one of the most pro-EU countries in the EU.
That was before the Government collapsed today and is likely to be replaced by a more pro Russia one
Nevertheless, Estonia in 2014 didn't elect a single Eurosceptic MEP (unlike the UK or France, etc,), and has an economy utterly dependent on trade with the EU. According the Eurobarometer survey from July*, just 17% of people have a negative view of the EU.
Further, Russian Estonians are less than a quarter of the total.
If you want to bet on Estonia leaving I'll give you pretty good odds.
* Yes, yes, I know. Still, it's among the lowest of all the published figures.
Estonia is a client state of the EU. They can never leave without destroying their economy.
Immediately after independence, they made the deliberate decision to hitch themselves to Germany and the West, tying their currency to the DM and attracting service businesses for near-shoring.
Nowhere near as much as identity politics. This site believes that identity politics is the main course of Labour's (and the left in general) demise. Labour has always embraced identity politics, even when it won in 1997. A lot of Labour's reasons for not being power relate to bread and butter issues.
Surely the point is that they have emphasised identity politics at the expense of bread and butter issues, to the extent that they almost seem defined by identity politics.
The pound is rising quite sharply. Donald Trump has spoken to Theresa May with the prospect of an early meeting to discuss security and trade issues.
At the same time the EU are all at sea and frankly have not adopted the right tone with Trump, particularly Germany.
Today the Estonia government has collapsed and is likely to be replaced with a more pro Russia anti Nato government will the possibility of them leaving the EU.
The result yesterday can only be good for UK and Brexit and very worrying for the EU
These are remarkable days and have been since GE 2015.
How could anyone have written the script - just remarkable and amazing
You really think Estonia is likely to leave the EU?
''This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic. ''
Ms Plato I guess that (rightly or wrongly) those news organisations that were favourable to Trump (EG Breitbart), will get juicy tidbits from the new administration, whereas others may be left out in the cold?
I've seen a lot of comment about Trump possibly dumping the notion of a WH Press Corps per se. They're not invited to his visit to the WH today.
IMHO they've forfeited any rights to preferential treatment - hold press conferences with a variety of audience members - not press groupies with a very high opinion of themselves.
''This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic. ''
Ms Plato I guess that (rightly or wrongly) those news organisations that were favourable to Trump (EG Breitbart), will get juicy tidbits from the new administration, whereas others may be left out in the cold?
I've seen a lot of comment about Trump possibly dumping the notion of a WH Press Corps per se. They're not invited to his visit to the WH today.
IMHO they've forfeited any rights to preferential treatment - hold press conferences with a variety of audience members - not press groupies with a very high opinion of themselves.
Maybe it'll ONLY be Trump TV at the press corp lol.
The pound is rising quite sharply. Donald Trump has spoken to Theresa May with the prospect of an early meeting to discuss security and trade issues.
At the same time the EU are all at sea and frankly have not adopted the right tone with Trump, particularly Germany.
Today the Estonia government has collapsed and is likely to be replaced with a more pro Russia anti Nato government will the possibility of them leaving the EU.
The result yesterday can only be good for UK and Brexit and very worrying for the EU
These are remarkable days and have been since GE 2015.
How could anyone have written the script - just remarkable and amazing
You really think Estonia is likely to leave the EU?
It's one of the most pro-EU countries in the EU.
That was before the Government collapsed today and is likely to be replaced by a more pro Russia one
Nevertheless, Estonia in 2014 didn't elect a single Eurosceptic MEP (unlike the UK or France, etc,), and has an economy utterly dependent on trade with the EU. According the Eurobarometer survey from July*, just 17% of people have a negative view of the EU.
Further, Russian Estonians are less than a quarter of the total.
If you want to bet on Estonia leaving I'll give you pretty good odds.
* Yes, yes, I know. Still, it's among the lowest of all the published figures.
Estonia is a client state of the EU. They can never leave without destroying their economy.
Immediately after independence, they made the deliberate decision to hitch themselves to Germany and the West, tying their currency to the DM and attracting service businesses for near-shoring.
By and large, it's been a pretty big success.
And Tallinn is very pretty and quaint
Genius Sports Group (formerly Betgenius) has a very big operation in Talinn, employing perhaps 500 people. Excellent infrastructure, and all-in costs 70% less than London.
Labour are looking at shellackings here because the party has no answers to the implications that globalisation have had on the working classes, that's why.
Yes, I think that is mentioned a lot on here.
Nowhere near as much as identity politics. This site believes that identity politics is the main course of Labour's (and the left in general) demise. Labour has always embraced identity politics, even when it won in 1997. A lot of Labour's reasons for not being power relate to bread and butter issues.
If you want my tuppence worth, I think the two things are intertwined in Labour's case as they've (to my view) replaced doing anything about the working class with identity politics. A cynic would say it was a deliberate choice.
RealClearPolitics Michigan Poll average +3.6 Clinton (and it's only that low because of the single +2 Trump Poll, the only Trump lead in the previous 3 months, without it it woud have been +5.4 Clinton)
RealClearPolitics Wisconsin Poll Average +6.5 Clinton
No wonder this is a bit of a surprise. I would love to see the "All Respondents" figure for these polls.
Ms. Apocalypse, men face systematic discrimination in custody courts and when it comes to distributing public spending for victims of domestic abuse.
Inconvenient truths for lovers of identity politics.
A.K.A. those fonder of being liked on fb than being in govt. power.
Not really. You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries? That's all happened, has it?
Whilst I understand your earlier post (and don't instinctively dismiss it as other posters do): there is a point here. Positive discrimination just creates further injustice (though I am in favour of small, targeted schemes in areas such as education).
An oft-heard argument for positive discrimination is that generations of women have suffered, and therefore it is 'right' for women in the future to have positive discrimination to redress the balance. This is, in my view, rubbish, as the men being discriminated against now are not the original sinners, and are suffering in similar ways women were in the past. Will they have positive discrimination in the future to redress the imbalance being introduced now?
And yes, there are some big issues here. Domestic abuse is one that I've wittered on about endlessly here. About a third of victims are male, yet men (and boys) get a small proportion of the funding and media attention. Worse, the meme is women=victims, men=abusers. This is as unhealthy for women as it is for men. The scale doesn't matter, as each abuse is an individual story, not an agglomerated experience.
As I said, I think people are carelessly disregarding your OP. But they also have a point.
"You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries?"
If there's anybody obsessed by identity politics and grudges, its you. As this outburst aptly illustrates.
I'm not obsessed with identity politics. This site is. I'm just offering an alternative view on it. It's not really an outburst. If it wasn't mentioned much on this site, I wouldn't be talking about it.
Seriously? You talk endlessly about identity politics.
Labour are looking at shellackings here because the party has no answers to the implications that globalisation have had on the working classes, that's why.
Yes, I think that is mentioned a lot on here.
Nowhere near as much as identity politics. This site believes that identity politics is the main course of Labour's (and the left in general) demise. Labour has always embraced identity politics, even when it won in 1997. A lot of Labour's reasons for not being power relate to bread and butter issues.
'This site' believes nothing, but individuals on this site may believe what you claim. It's a difference you seem to struggle with.
Nowhere near as much as identity politics. This site believes that identity politics is the main course of Labour's (and the left in general) demise. Labour has always embraced identity politics, even when it won in 1997. A lot of Labour's reasons for not being power relate to bread and butter issues.
Surely the point is that they have emphasised identity politics at the expense of bread and butter issues, to the extent that they almost seem defined by identity politics.
I think Labour in the last decade have cared about bread and butter issues the most: it's just that gradually, as time has gone by they've found it more difficult to identify solutions to these issues. I think Ed Miliband's leadership is most illustrative of this:much of his conference speeches focused on issues relating to standards of living. It's just that he had no coherent set of policies to solve the problems he identified.
Labour are looking at shellackings here because the party has no answers to the implications that globalisation have had on the working classes, that's why.
Yes, I think that is mentioned a lot on here.
Nowhere near as much as identity politics. This site believes that identity politics is the main course of Labour's (and the left in general) demise. Labour has always embraced identity politics, even when it won in 1997. A lot of Labour's reasons for not being power relate to bread and butter issues.
If you want my tuppence worth, I think the two things are intertwined in Labour's case as they've (to my view) replaced doing anything about the working class with identity politics. A cynic would say it was a deliberate choice.
Arguably the Labour party seeing themselves as the party of the working class from the getgo is a form of identity politics. But as I said to Richard Nabavi, I don't think Labour have decided to abandon bread and butter issues. I think Labour is at a cross roads in terms of trying to find out how social mobility/equality can be delivered without a pot of money to fund it, as well as dealing with how globalisation threatens much of their aims for a better society.
Labour are looking at shellackings here because the party has no answers to the implications that globalisation have had on the working classes, that's why.
Yes, I think that is mentioned a lot on here.
Nowhere near as much as identity politics. This site believes that identity politics is the main course of Labour's (and the left in general) demise. Labour has always embraced identity politics, even when it won in 1997. A lot of Labour's reasons for not being power relate to bread and butter issues.
'This site' believes nothing, but individuals on this site may believe what you claim. It's a difference you seem to struggle with.
This site does have a consensus on various issues. It's not just a collection of individuals.
"You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries?"
If there's anybody obsessed by identity politics and grudges, its you. As this outburst aptly illustrates.
I'm not obsessed with identity politics. This site is. I'm just offering an alternative view on it. It's not really an outburst. If it wasn't mentioned much on this site, I wouldn't be talking about it.
Seriously? You talk endlessly about identity politics.
Yes, because I see it talked about a lot of this site!
"You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries?"
If there's anybody obsessed by identity politics and grudges, its you. As this outburst aptly illustrates.
I'm not obsessed with identity politics. This site is. I'm just offering an alternative view on it. It's not really an outburst. If it wasn't mentioned much on this site, I wouldn't be talking about it.
Seriously? You talk endlessly about identity politics.
Yes, because I see it talked about a lot of this site!
Ms. Apocalypse, men face systematic discrimination in custody courts and when it comes to distributing public spending for victims of domestic abuse.
Inconvenient truths for lovers of identity politics.
A.K.A. those fonder of being liked on fb than being in govt. power.
Not really. You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries? That's all happened, has it?
Whilst I understand your earlier post (and don't instinctively dismiss it as other posters do): there is a point here. Positive discrimination just creates further injustice (though I am in favour of small, targeted schemes in areas such as education).
An oft-heard argument for positive discrimination is that generations of women have suffered, and therefore it is 'right' for women in the future to have positive discrimination to redress the balance. This is, in my view, rubbish, as the men being discriminated against now are not the original sinners, and are suffering in similar ways women were in the past. Will they have positive discrimination in the future to redress the imbalance being introduced now?
And yes, there are some big issues here. Domestic abuse is one that I've wittered on about endlessly here. About a third of victims are male, yet men (and boys) get a small proportion of the funding and media attention. Worse, the meme is women=victims, men=abusers. This is as unhealthy for women as it is for men. The scale doesn't matter, as each abuse is an individual story, not an agglomerated experience.
As I said, I think people are carelessly disregarding your OP. But they also have a point.
I wasn't making an argument for positive discrimination. I think issues related to racism and sexism can be solved without it. My post was more about explaining why many see themselves in terms of identity politics, and explaining the background around that. I also agree that male domestic violence is a worrying issue that doesn't get much attention.
Labour are looking at shellackings here because the party has no answers to the implications that globalisation have had on the working classes, that's why.
Yes, I think that is mentioned a lot on here.
Nowhere near as much as identity politics. This site believes that identity politics is the main course of Labour's (and the left in general) demise. Labour has always embraced identity politics, even when it won in 1997. A lot of Labour's reasons for not being power relate to bread and butter issues.
'This site' believes nothing, but individuals on this site may believe what you claim. It's a difference you seem to struggle with.
This site does have a consensus on various issues. It's not just a collection of individuals.
I disagree. It's a collection of individuals, some of whom agree on some issues (and often in different configurations). We are not a collective issuing a manifesto... and we don't have to sign up to any 'consensus' before making comments.
-4.20% NM -0.90% TX 0.10% NV 1.00% GA 1.40% AZ 2.30% FL 2.40% CO 3.30% MI 3.80% NC 3.80% VA 4.20% PA 5.30% ME 5.50% MN 6.90% WI 7.10% NH 7.60% OH <- Most polled in this sample 8.50% IA 9.20% SC 10.00% UT 11.00% MO
4.42% Mean polling bias to Clinton 3.92% Std Dev
4.93% Mean polling Error 3.22% Std Dev
National polls look like they were around 3% off on average.
''This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic. ''
Ms Plato I guess that (rightly or wrongly) those news organisations that were favourable to Trump (EG Breitbart), will get juicy tidbits from the new administration, whereas others may be left out in the cold?
I've seen a lot of comment about Trump possibly dumping the notion of a WH Press Corps per se. They're not invited to his visit to the WH today.
IMHO they've forfeited any rights to preferential treatment - hold press conferences with a variety of audience members - not press groupies with a very high opinion of themselves.
"You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries?"
If there's anybody obsessed by identity politics and grudges, its you. As this outburst aptly illustrates.
I'm not obsessed with identity politics. This site is. I'm just offering an alternative view on it. It's not really an outburst. If it wasn't mentioned much on this site, I wouldn't be talking about it.
Seriously? You talk endlessly about identity politics.
Yes, because I see it talked about a lot of this site!
Maybe because you talk endlessly about it!
Tbh, a lot of the posts on identity politics aren't responses to me, they are critiques of the left!
Nowhere near as much as identity politics. This site believes that identity politics is the main course of Labour's (and the left in general) demise. Labour has always embraced identity politics, even when it won in 1997. A lot of Labour's reasons for not being power relate to bread and butter issues.
Surely the point is that they have emphasised identity politics at the expense of bread and butter issues, to the extent that they almost seem defined by identity politics.
Just like the Dems in the US were tis cycle. No one heard a peep out of Hillary on any policies or what she would do about day to day concerns of people. Just about how to maximise the Hispanic vote and how Obama was going to drive the black vote.
Labour are looking at shellackings here because the party has no answers to the implications that globalisation have had on the working classes, that's why.
Yes, I think that is mentioned a lot on here.
Nowhere near as much as identity politics. This site believes that identity politics is the main course of Labour's (and the left in general) demise. Labour has always embraced identity politics, even when it won in 1997. A lot of Labour's reasons for not being power relate to bread and butter issues.
If you want my tuppence worth, I think the two things are intertwined in Labour's case as they've (to my view) replaced doing anything about the working class with identity politics. A cynic would say it was a deliberate choice.
Labour's problem is that there are - and have been - far too few people at the top who actually 'understand' the working class. Of Blair, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn, I think only Brown showed any true knowledge (perhaps through his manse background).
This might be because over the last twenty years it has proved very hard for someone with true working-class experience to get near the top of Labour. Going to university should not be a prerequisite for politics.
There's also sometimes a rather large amount of condescension towards the working class within the upper ranks of Labour, as has been seen by comments in the past.
-4.20% NM -0.90% TX 0.10% NV 1.00% GA 1.40% AZ 2.30% FL 2.40% CO 3.30% MI 3.80% NC 3.80% VA 4.20% PA 5.30% ME 5.50% MN 6.90% WI 7.10% NH 7.60% OH 8.50% IA 9.20% SC 10.00% UT 11.00% MO
4.42% Mean polling bias to Clinton 3.92% Std Dev
4.93% Mean polling Error 3.22% Std Dev
National polls look like they were around 3% off on average.
Yup, see the chart below. Clinton caught up with vast overperformance on the West Coast. Very reminiscent of Brexit in that the result was more geographically extreme than expected (London more Remain, the North more Leave), on top of the underlying miss.
-4.20% NM -0.90% TX 0.10% NV 1.00% GA 1.40% AZ 2.30% FL 2.40% CO 3.30% MI 3.80% NC 3.80% VA 4.20% PA 5.30% ME 5.50% MN 6.90% WI 7.10% NH 7.60% OH 8.50% IA 9.20% SC 10.00% UT 11.00% MO
4.42% Mean polling bias to Clinton 3.92% Std Dev
4.93% Mean polling Error 3.22% Std Dev
National polls look like they were around 3% off on average.
Ms. Apocalypse, men face systematic discrimination in custody courts and when it comes to distributing public spending for victims of domestic abuse.
Inconvenient truths for lovers of identity politics.
A.K.A. those fonder of being liked on fb than being in govt. power.
Not really. You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries? That's all happened, has it?
Whilst I understand your earlier post (and don't instinctively dismiss it as other posters do): there is a point here. Positive discrimination just creates further injustice (though I am in favour of small, targeted schemes in areas such as education).
An oft-heard argument for positive discrimination is that generations of women have suffered, and therefore it is 'right' for women in the future to have positive discrimination to redress the balance. This is, in my view, rubbish, as the men being discriminated against now are not the original sinners, and are suffering in similar ways women were in the past. Will they have positive discrimination in the future to redress the imbalance being introduced now?
And yes, there are some big issues here. Domestic abuse is one that I've wittered on about endlessly here. About a third of victims are male, yet men (and boys) get a small proportion of the funding and media attention. Worse, the meme is women=victims, men=abusers. This is as unhealthy for women as it is for men. The scale doesn't matter, as each abuse is an individual story, not an agglomerated experience.
As I said, I think people are carelessly disregarding your OP. But they also have a point.
I wasn't making an argument for positive discrimination. I think issues related to racism and sexism can be solved without it. My post was more about explaining why many see themselves in terms of identity politics, and explaining the background around that. I also agree that male domestic violence is a worrying issue that doesn't get much attention.
Fair enough. You are more moderate than some of our feminist friends.
Ms. Apocalypse, men face systematic discrimination in custody courts and when it comes to distributing public spending for victims of domestic abuse.
Inconvenient truths for lovers of identity politics.
A.K.A. those fonder of being liked on fb than being in govt. power.
Not really. You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries? That's all happened, has it?
Whilst I understand your earlier post (and don't instinctively dismiss it as other posters do): there is a point here. Positive discrimination just creates further injustice (though I am in favour of small, targeted schemes in areas such as education).
An oft-heard argument for positive discrimination is that generations of women have suffered, and therefore it is 'right' for women in the future to have positive discrimination to redress the balance. This is, in my view, rubbish, as the men being discriminated against now are not the original sinners, and are suffering in similar ways women were in the past. Will they have positive discrimination in the future to redress the imbalance being introduced now?
And yes, there are some big issues here. Domestic abuse is one that I've wittered on about endlessly here. About a third of victims are male, yet men (and boys) get a small proportion of the funding and media attention. Worse, the meme is women=victims, men=abusers. This is as unhealthy for women as it is for men. The scale doesn't matter, as each abuse is an individual story, not an agglomerated experience.
As I said, I think people are carelessly disregarding your OP. But they also have a point.
I wasn't making an argument for positive discrimination. I think issues related to racism and sexism can be solved without it. My post was more about explaining why many see themselves in terms of identity politics, and explaining the background around that. I also agree that male domestic violence is a worrying issue that doesn't get much attention.
Fair enough. You are more moderate than some of our feminist friends.
I think you're the only person on this site that sees me as moderate! Tbh even I don't think I am a moderate. I'm definitely quite left wing, and I'll admit to that!
"You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries?"
If there's anybody obsessed by identity politics and grudges, its you. As this outburst aptly illustrates.
I'm not obsessed with identity politics. This site is. I'm just offering an alternative view on it. It's not really an outburst. If it wasn't mentioned much on this site, I wouldn't be talking about it.
Seriously? You talk endlessly about identity politics.
Yes, because I see it talked about a lot of this site!
Maybe because you talk endlessly about it!
Tbh, a lot of the posts on identity politics aren't responses to me, they are critiques of the left!
Maybe because we who are not on the left are able to see how hollow and divisive identity politics is. I'm what you would say is a minority, and yet I don't want special treatment or status. It is demeaning and creates a sense of resentment among those who don't get it. It creates a barrier between the political haves and have nots. If you can't see that then you're a fool.
Ms. Apocalypse, men face systematic discrimination in custody courts and when it comes to distributing public spending for victims of domestic abuse.
Inconvenient truths for lovers of identity politics.
A.K.A. those fonder of being liked on fb than being in govt. power.
Not really. You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries? That's all happened, has it?
Whilst I understand your earlier post (and don't instinctively dismiss it as other posters do): there is a point here. Positive discrimination just creates further injustice (though I am in favour of small, targeted schemes in areas such as education).
An oft-heard argument for positive discrimination is that generations of women have suffered, and therefore it is 'right' for women in the future to have positive discrimination to redress the balance. This is, in my view, rubbish, as the men being discriminated against now are not the original sinners, and are suffering in similar ways women were in the past. Will they have positive discrimination in the future to redress the imbalance being introduced now?
And yes, there are some big issues here. Domestic abuse is one that I've wittered on about endlessly here. About a third of victims are male, yet men (and boys) get a small proportion of the funding and media attention. Worse, the meme is women=victims, men=abusers. This is as unhealthy for women as it is for men. The scale doesn't matter, as each abuse is an individual story, not an agglomerated experience.
As I said, I think people are carelessly disregarding your OP. But they also have a point.
I wasn't making an argument for positive discrimination. I think issues related to racism and sexism can be solved without it. My post was more about explaining why many see themselves in terms of identity politics, and explaining the background around that. I also agree that male domestic violence is a worrying issue that doesn't get much attention.
Fair enough. You are more moderate than some of our feminist friends.
I think you're the only person on this site that sees me as moderate! Tbh even I don't think I am a moderate. I'm definitely quite left wing, and I'll admit to that!
"You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries?"
If there's anybody obsessed by identity politics and grudges, its you. As this outburst aptly illustrates.
I'm not obsessed with identity politics. This site is. I'm just offering an alternative view on it. It's not really an outburst. If it wasn't mentioned much on this site, I wouldn't be talking about it.
Seriously? You talk endlessly about identity politics.
Yes, because I see it talked about a lot of this site!
Maybe because you talk endlessly about it!
Tbh, a lot of the posts on identity politics aren't responses to me, they are critiques of the left!
Maybe because we who are not on the left are able to see how hollow and divisive identity politics is. I'm what you would say is a minority, and yet I don't want special treatment or status. It is demeaning and creates a sense of resentment among those who don't get it. It creates a barrier between the political haves and have nots. If you can't see that then you're a fool.
Well equally, as someone on the left who understands why identity politics exist, I can say why it isn't 'hollow' and 'divisive', but the that the conditions which led to its creation are. I'm minority too, but given that most minorities have tended to vote for left-wing parties, I'd say that most have a bit of a different view to you. I also don't advocate special treatment or status, either. And somehow, I doubt that the biggest concern the WWC have is feeling like a 'political have not'. I say this as someone who comes from a working class background, and lived in an area where the majority of people were white working class. So that's my experience. Most of the WWC are concerned with bread and butter issues.
Nowhere near as much as identity politics. This site believes that identity politics is the main course of Labour's (and the left in general) demise. Labour has always embraced identity politics, even when it won in 1997. A lot of Labour's reasons for not being power relate to bread and butter issues.
Surely the point is that they have emphasised identity politics at the expense of bread and butter issues, to the extent that they almost seem defined by identity politics.
I think Labour in the last decade have cared about bread and butter issues the most: it's just that gradually, as time has gone by they've found it more difficult to identify solutions to these issues. I think Ed Miliband's leadership is most illustrative of this:much of his conference speeches focused on issues relating to standards of living. It's just that he had no coherent set of policies to solve the problems he identified.
Labour are looking at shellackings here because the party has no answers to the implications that globalisation have had on the working classes, that's why.
Yes, I think that is mentioned a lot on here.
Nowhere near as much as identity politics. This site believes that identity politics is the main course of Labour's (and the left in general) demise. Labour has always embraced identity politics, even when it won in 1997. A lot of Labour's reasons for not being power relate to bread and butter issues.
If you want my tuppence worth, I think the two things are intertwined in Labour's case as they've (to my view) replaced doing anything about the working class with identity politics. A cynic would say it was a deliberate choice.
Arguably the Labour party seeing themselves as the party of the working class from the getgo is a form of identity politics. But as I said to Richard Nabavi, I don't think Labour have decided to abandon bread and butter issues. I think Labour is at a cross roads in terms of trying to find out how social mobility/equality can be delivered without a pot of money to fund it, as well as dealing with how globalisation threatens much of their aims for a better society.
Labour have abandoned those demographics that no longer vote for them, and embraced fully those that do. London is Labour's future vision of how they want the rest of Britain to look. A nightmare, I would suggest, for the vast majority of Middle England, and the reason why I believe Labour will never again be a majority governing party.
Labour have abandoned those demographics that no longer vote for them, and embraced fully those that do. London is Labour's future vision of how they want the rest of Britain to look. A nightmare, I would suggest, for the vast majority of Middle England, and the reason why I believe Labour will never again be a majority governing party.
Perhaps younger people just pick up the phone more than old people to pollsters, I do remember my gran saying "Never tell people how you voted".
Reason for the apparent left wing bias that we witnessed both here and in GE2015 ?
Hence with the GE2020 polling given Corbyn's appeal to the younger demographic and not really to pensioners, how much should we add on to the Tory score.
What does a forecast of Conservative 45%, Labour 23% look like ?
The pound is rising quite sharply. Donald Trump has spoken to Theresa May with the prospect of an early meeting to discuss security and trade issues.
At the same time the EU are all at sea and frankly have not adopted the right tone with Trump, particularly Germany.
Today the Estonia government has collapsed and is likely to be replaced with a more pro Russia anti Nato government will the possibility of them leaving the EU.
The result yesterday can only be good for UK and Brexit and very worrying for the EU
These are remarkable days and have been since GE 2015.
How could anyone have written the script - just remarkable and amazing
You really think Estonia is likely to leave the EU?
It's one of the most pro-EU countries in the EU.
That was before the Government collapsed today and is likely to be replaced by a more pro Russia one
Nevertheless, Estonia in 2014 didn't elect a single Eurosceptic MEP (unlike the UK or France, etc,), and has an economy utterly dependent on trade with the EU. According the Eurobarometer survey from July*, just 17% of people have a negative view of the EU.
Further, Russian Estonians are less than a quarter of the total.
If you want to bet on Estonia leaving I'll give you pretty good odds.
* Yes, yes, I know. Still, it's among the lowest of all the published figures.
Estonia is a client state of the EU. They can never leave without destroying their economy.
Immediately after independence, they made the deliberate decision to hitch themselves to Germany and the West, tying their currency to the DM and attracting service businesses for near-shoring.
By and large, it's been a pretty big success.
And Tallinn is very pretty and quaint
Genius Sports Group (formerly Betgenius) has a very big operation in Talinn, employing perhaps 500 people. Excellent infrastructure, and all-in costs 70% less than London.
Which shows why countries with high standards of living at the moment are losing jobs to those with lower costs - and why Trumpsays he wants to try and stop it. (How he'll do that is veiled in mystery.)
Labour have abandoned those demographics that no longer vote for them, and embraced fully those that do. London is Labour's future vision of how they want the rest of Britain to look. A nightmare, I would suggest, for the vast majority of Middle England, and the reason why I believe Labour will never again be a majority governing party.
I think that Labour have been complacent in regard to many demographics. They believe working class people of all ethnicities will always vote for them, and have deluded themselves that they can win without middle England.
Labour will get in power again one day, it'll just be a long time before they do. People thought Cameron couldn't get a Conservative majority, and probably thought Labour would never be in power again in the 1980s/90s as well.
Labour have abandoned those demographics that no longer vote for them, and embraced fully those that do. London is Labour's future vision of how they want the rest of Britain to look. A nightmare, I would suggest, for the vast majority of Middle England, and the reason why I believe Labour will never again be a majority governing party.
Mr. Corporeal, I agree. That doesn't mean men and whites aren't discriminated against as well. Racism isn't something done by evil whites. Sexism is not the sole preserve of brutal men.
[As an aside, racism presented me with a conundrum when I wrote Bane of Souls, which takes place in a city with people of varying races. I decided to make everyone a little bit racist].
"You really believe white men have faced systematic oppression on the scale of minorities and women? That societies have been run on an ideology that white men are inferior? That there are systematic barriers with the economic, political, and legal system which have all affected white male opportunities? That culturally, white men have been demonised for centuries?"
If there's anybody obsessed by identity politics and grudges, its you. As this outburst aptly illustrates.
I'm not obsessed with identity politics. This site is. I'm just offering an alternative view on it. It's not really an outburst. If it wasn't mentioned much on this site, I wouldn't be talking about it.
Seriously? You talk endlessly about identity politics.
Yes, because I see it talked about a lot of this site!
Maybe because you talk endlessly about it!
Tbh, a lot of the posts on identity politics aren't responses to me, they are critiques of the left!
Maybe because we who are not on the left are able to see how hollow and divisive identity politics is. I'm what you would say is a minority, and yet I don't want special treatment or status. It is demeaning and creates a sense of resentment among those who don't get it. It creates a barrier between the political haves and have nots. If you can't see that then you're a fool.
Well equally, as someone on the left who understands why identity politics exist, I can say why it isn't 'hollow' and 'divisive', but the that the conditions which led to its creation are. I'm minority too, but given that most minorities have tended to vote for left-wing parties, I'd say that most have a bit of a different view to you. I also don't advocate special treatment or status, either. And somehow, I doubt that the biggest concern the WWC have is feeling like a 'political have not'. I say this as someone who comes from a working class background, and lived in an area where the majority of people were white working class. So that's my experience. Most of the WWC are concerned with bread and butter issues.
Surely the point is that anyone can see themselves as part of a minority if they choose to (or are persuaded to). I prefer to think of myself as an individual with the power to change some aspects of my life and I would rather spend my time and energy using the power I have than feeling hard done by about those things that I can't change.
Surely the point is that anyone can see themselves as part of a minority if they choose to (or are persuaded to). I prefer to think of myself as an individual with the power to change some aspects of my life and I would rather spend my time and energy using the power I have than feeling hard done by about those things that I can't change.
I don't think minorities have made to active choice to define themselves by race. I think society has done that (as history shows). Also, I think being concerned and upset by racism is more than just 'feeling hard done by'.
Jeremy Stangroom The problem with a left politics that has identity at its center is that it necessarily emphasizes what divides people from each other.
Jill Stein on a disturbingly high 1.4% in Washington State.
My God they're slow.
Some fucking California counties went over 2% Stein .
Your bet on Stein below 1% has been the most entertaining subplot of the election.
Well it was always predictable that the greenies would be concentrated in Cali and equally predictable that they would be among the last to declare. So always a bet for those who prefer their suspense long and slow. Where are we at?
He seems to be advertising for 4000 political appointees....?
They shouldn't be advertised for?
He says 'help wanted'...!
Yes, and?
I suppose I just find it a bit bizarre to advertise for 'appointees'. It includes ambassadors; do they have to go through an interview process? I genuinely don't know.
Comments
If there's anybody obsessed by identity politics and grudges, its you. As this outburst aptly illustrates.
@Morris_Dancer I think the trouble is, is that it's not really just the social situation of the 17th century. It's the social situation of 18th, 19th, 20th, and even the 21st century.
There is no such thing as free money. There is always a risk factor, even if remote.
IMHO they've forfeited any rights to preferential treatment - hold press conferences with a variety of audience members - not press groupies with a very high opinion of themselves.
RealClearPolitics Wisconsin Poll Average +6.5 Clinton
No wonder this is a bit of a surprise. I would love to see the "All Respondents" figure for these polls.
An oft-heard argument for positive discrimination is that generations of women have suffered, and therefore it is 'right' for women in the future to have positive discrimination to redress the balance. This is, in my view, rubbish, as the men being discriminated against now are not the original sinners, and are suffering in similar ways women were in the past. Will they have positive discrimination in the future to redress the imbalance being introduced now?
And yes, there are some big issues here. Domestic abuse is one that I've wittered on about endlessly here. About a third of victims are male, yet men (and boys) get a small proportion of the funding and media attention. Worse, the meme is women=victims, men=abusers. This is as unhealthy for women as it is for men. The scale doesn't matter, as each abuse is an individual story, not an agglomerated experience.
As I said, I think people are carelessly disregarding your OP. But they also have a point.
(Rhetorical question.)
Edit: Huh, apparently not
I think you are on the point of calling us a bunch of sexists and racists.
Trouble is, that would kind of stop you debating with us. After all, who debates with sexists and racists?
9 day median Polling Average - Actual margin
-4.20% NM
-0.90% TX
0.10% NV
1.00% GA
1.40% AZ
2.30% FL
2.40% CO
3.30% MI
3.80% NC
3.80% VA
4.20% PA
5.30% ME
5.50% MN
6.90% WI
7.10% NH
7.60% OH <- Most polled in this sample
8.50% IA
9.20% SC
10.00% UT
11.00% MO
4.42% Mean polling bias to Clinton
3.92% Std Dev
4.93% Mean polling Error
3.22% Std Dev
National polls look like they were around 3% off on average.
The site has talked about race a good deal recently, because that's how the pollsters view it when they talk about the US election.
This might be because over the last twenty years it has proved very hard for someone with true working-class experience to get near the top of Labour. Going to university should not be a prerequisite for politics.
There's also sometimes a rather large amount of condescension towards the working class within the upper ranks of Labour, as has been seen by comments in the past.
And how if you were a woman, there was no way you could vote for Trump.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters
I like their maps.
Realistically these days PM's and Presidents can communicate daily or even hourly by email and why fly to each others countries when they can SKYPE?
Sometimes it's like politics is still in 1960's...
Its beyond awful.
There is still racism and sexism. Not all of it is against women and non-whites.
Mr. D, the space cannon is wonderful for turning people into puree.
https://twitter.com/Propertysummit/status/796754603144515586
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM
2-3, but she'll end up around 1%.
I'd guess her supporters are mainly younger.
Perhaps younger people just pick up the phone more than old people to pollsters, I do remember my gran saying "Never tell people how you voted".
Reason for the apparent left wing bias that we witnessed both here and in GE2015 ?
Hence with the GE2020 polling given Corbyn's appeal to the younger demographic and not really to pensioners, how much should we add on to the Tory score.
What does a forecast of Conservative 45%, Labour 23% look like ?
Labour will get in power again one day, it'll just be a long time before they do. People thought Cameron couldn't get a Conservative majority, and probably thought Labour would never be in power again in the 1980s/90s as well.
[As an aside, racism presented me with a conundrum when I wrote Bane of Souls, which takes place in a city with people of varying races. I decided to make everyone a little bit racist].
Washington Examiner
Donald Trump's transition website is called https://t.co/1YllCKFDXA https://t.co/ISiSVPVyaB https://t.co/oRNrkInCL9
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/10/junior-doctors-lift-strike-threat-and-pledge-to-work-with-govern/
The problem with a left politics that has identity at its center is that it necessarily emphasizes what divides people from each other.
Ultimately, that will collapse too. We've seen it with the anti-semitism row where courting one minority turns one faction against another.
https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/796759716621942784
https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/796743456194437120
https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/796745055717519360
https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/796745226929012736
https://twitter.com/JerryBurnes/status/796760605407531008
In the exit polls Trump won 50% of unionized workers.