Culture wars are a distraction from the class war, but 'social issues' aren't completely unimportant either...

Culture wars are a distraction from the class war, but 'social issues' aren't completely unimportant either, so how do you walk this line of not participating in distraction while still trying to influence questions of moral significance?

Attached: bc4d016a8d72e8fd1c88cdae6678b41a82eb82c8b378024ed9fe85bc693fb6f1.jpg (767x960, 111.48K)

Other urls found in this thread:

spooky as fuck

Social issues =/= culture war.
Social issues is stuff like discrimination in the court system.
Culture war is stuff like having female superheroes in movies.

Economics are the basis of all exploitation. You take away the system that allows racists/sexists/homophobes/whatever to oppress you, they become irrelevant. Think of Zig Forumsniggers neverending circlejerk about "muh aryan race". Nobody gives a shit about those retards, because they are utter subhumans, worth less than shit. The best thing is to ignore those dipshits and focus on actually combatting capitalism.

You ultimately don't. The elites weaponise ethnonarcissitic minorities to destroy those that attempt this.

Attached: Bernie-Sanders-Black-Lives-Matter-2869-700x467.jpg (700x467, 76.16K)

What does this suggest one should do in practice then? Only fight the class war?

Because morals are relative to time (history) and place (culture)

What question is this an answer to?

This have been discussed a billion times here and on Zig Forums already.
You cannot fix social issues in capitalism because its very own structure is build on social inequalities of all types, all racism/sexism/homophobia are systemic in capitalism, the most you'll achieve is paying lip service with bullshit like "oh, look! we have a black president" (while millions of blacks still suffer discrimination), or "zomg, a wymym CEO, u go gal!" (while women all around still have to deal with bullshit), and so on and so on.

But that's bullshit. Many forms of injustice have already been dramatically alleviated.

Sure they did, sure they did.

Attached: 451c03ecf98f8efa6f3ac09d03b600fd2e6063c8.png (972x1782, 372.1K)

That's not true, you can have a capitalism that isn't racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because such things aren't required for the wage labor relationship to exist. These things certainly are intertwined with actually existing capitalism and their expungement would take major reform/redistribution or a change in power, but it's a mistake for us to argue that struggle against them in capitalism is meaningless or that capitalism couldn't find a way to exist without rascism or sexism, even if in a radically different form like state capitalism or coop capitalism.

Attached: Dw--mqNWsAUjS8b.jpeg (1124x1404, 184.72K)

It is, it is in capitalism, therefor it is capitalism.

This is fundamentally tautological, saying nothing more than that all you put into your construction of capitalism, is fundamentally entangled to the whole of your construct of capitalism, because you define capitalism as such.

Why are people so obsessed with Gramsci? Do we really need a "cultural hegemony"?

Because he wrote simplistic little letters that confirm a liberal's biases.

if anything capitalism as a materialist phenomena rejects the various identity-based discriminations and works to resolve them, albeit at a pace slowed by the ideology of entrenched elites

Capitalism is not materialist

C'mon, son.
Is an openly gay man today less likely or just as likely to get beaten up or disowned than 40 years ago?
You know the answer is way less and you know it's a good thing too.

The fact that gay men are being accepted at all is a sign of societal degeneration under capitalism.

Yet he is significantly more likely to be evicted, sent to prison, or lose his job without prior warning. And "disowned?" What does it matter when hardly anybody inherits anything of any significance?

Now that's some proper materialism.

Are you literally claiming that in 2019 an openly gay man is 'significantly more likely to be evicted, sent to prison, or lose his job without prior warning' than in 1979?
Or are you attempting to move the goalposts from 'things are better' to 'things are perfect'?

Given rates of incarceration, the whole "Right to Work" bullshit, and the plain fact that hardly anybody can pay rent after missing two paychecks, yes I absolutely am. Your dumb ass can't see beyond the identitarian framing of what are ultimately economic issues. Gay men are not better off. Being gay is just less of an issue now, but now other issues make their situation even worse, just as they have for everyone else.

How is being ostracized by your community and disowned by your family a better situation for someone to be in, than living in a right to work state with higher levels of incarceration than those of 1979?

Even if you would you choose the former over the later, that's just you, not everyone else.

How is the threat of being ostracized by friends and family better than the imminent threat of poverty and prison? Well, the former is a lot of mean words that you can walk away from, and the latter is losing your freedom and livelihood.

Right to Work and incarceration rates do not mean that gay people face the immanent threat of poverty and imprisonment. As if the very fact that there are higher imprisonment rates, mean that imprisonment is an immanent threat everyone faces every day, which would mean that letting out all prisoners would be an immediate improvement to peoples safety, this isn't just bad statistics, it's straight up magical thinking. The risk of poverty is also lower, as people were fired and refused work for being gay, which put them a greater risk of poverty than Right to Work does.
If you have ever encountered other human beings, you surely must have noticed that being disowned by their family and ostracized by all those around them are among the worst things imaginable to them. Why then, do you claim to speak for everyone, when you cast this as insignificant mean words you can just walk away from, when it is so clear that this is only insignificant to you?

[citation needed]

Neither does being gay in the seventies mean being drummed out of your family. It can happen, but it will not necessarily happen. A person who keeps his head down will probably be alright. The same goes for some poor sucker living in a 2019 right-to-work police state. We are not talking about sure things. There is no universal experience for everyone in a group where the group is not defined by that experience.

That's all you, baby. You are the one talking about how "other human beings" all care more about their families' opinions than they do about their personal economic security (is that you, Zig Forums?). You are the one who is making the claim that guy people are happier now because feelz. I am just pointing out the fact the realities that people experience have gotten worse despite all the pride parades and rainbow flags.

Actually, they made that all up. Gays weren't discriminated in employment in 1979, that's just a lie concocted to sell rainbow flags.
There's no oasis of welfare and economic security to be found in 1979 that was then replaced by poverty, immanent threat of poverty and police state because of Right to Work and incarceration rates, which is the assumption of your argument, a dramatic turn fixated in these two things. When it comes to gay acceptance, there has been such a dramatic turn, that is the difference.
You're claiming people care and are affected by less by being disowned by their family (which you earlier mentioned as hardly mattering when there's no inheritance) than they do when it comes to Right to Work. I'm imploring you to think of all the people you've encountered and know of, and how many of them are one-dimensional, fixated socialists like yourself more occupied with overturning Right to Work than they are with their family relations. I now realize I stretched the boundaries of your empathetic and imaginative ability too far with that.
Yes, I'm the one making the claim that people are happier when they can be with whom they love and aren't disowned by their family and ostracized by their community. And now I'm the one asking myself if fedora tipping is so strong a force that people can actually dismiss the feeling of happiness as unrelated to happiness because feelz aren't realz or if I'm talking to someone who understands much better than I did before this interaction where such materialism leads to; a vulgar parody of capitalist materialism, one in which the importance of human relationships is categorically dismissed as not stuff, not consumable and therefor without value.

His ideas can be used against liberals too you know….

Supposed to be the first response about morals being spooks

Man, you're a dishonest one.
It is absolutely true that getting rid of capitalism will help every identity group more than any identity-based thing will. That's quite literally the premise of the thread. And yet it's better to have less identity-based discrimination - and there is objectively less of it now.

Show it to me. We are comparing quantifiable conditions, so let's see some actual figures. Actually, nevermind. I'll provide some. Your position is entirely based on assumption. You assume that the economic situation of gay people is better now, but there is nothing showing that it is. Hell, the situation is not even better relative to straight people. The same discrepencies are still in place despite all the electoral "progress" and all the cultural acceptence.

Oh yes there was. The Rust Belt rusted. The suburbs were transformed from white-picket Leave-It-to-Beaverland to impoverished, meth-addicted urban sprawl. The urban poor got forced out of their home cities. Pensions disappeared and real retirement along with it. Welfare proper ceased to exist. Private debt exploded. Tuition assistence evaporated while tuitions grew beyond the reach of all but the wealthy. Unions were stripped of their power and access. Things got a damn sight worse.

The thing is that acceptance doesn't change much. Think for a second about what it actually won for real gay people. It got gay people the right to enlist in the military, which is a dubious advantage. It got same sex marriage recognized, which is easily as much trouble as it's worth. It got people theoretical legal protection against workplace discrimination, which is toothless when employers can legally fire people without given cause anyway. As is often the case, the state handed out a whole package of rights to the very people that they were robbing blind.

Which, of course, happened to most gay people in the seventies, or so we assume, right? We also assume that that does not happen now with any regularity. While we are assuming, let us also assume that the individual families who did shun their gay family members would have not done so if they had been in the same circumstances forty years later. These are all things that we absolutely must take for granted in order to assume that any real progress has been made, because we have no reliable data to support the thesis.

Here you are limiting theconcept of happiness to acceptance, where I would argue that some things (eg. having a reliable source of income) have a far greater effect on how people feel about their own situations.

What actual difference does it make? It certainly does have an effect, but how much of an effect is it? And what is the nature of that effect? Knowing that would allow us to put it into context.

It is used against liberals, but mostly by reactionaries.

Leave goalposts where they are, son.
Now, if you want to reply along those lines to the actual question posed in the OP, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Being a capitalist (as opposed to, say, a socialist) is pure ideology, for sure, but capitalism as a method of organization is absolutely materialistic, and class-conflict in general is caused by the classes rationally following their own material interest. Whatever spooks capitalism shoves down workers' throats are there as a tactic with a material aim in the end.

OP is a fag, and nobody gives a shit about his question.

I can't help but notice your trying to change the subject.

What subject? That idpol reformist bullshit is a hinderance to class struggle?

hi pol

Attached: Hillary_Clinton_Banks_Racism_Sexism_Wall_Street_Presidential_campaign_2016_850_593.jpg (850x593, 276.84K)

most men turn gay when in prison due to lack of vagina.

everyday I see a reason, an opportunity for accelerationism, and another one presents itself. co-ed prisons. people used to joke about this as anti-SJW meme back ten years ago, but what if we really did that?

Would rather just abolish prison tbh.

I agree honestly but I just want to visualize carnage.

Attached: qwS8Nckh.jpg (768x960, 108.84K)

Checks out.

Defending the carceral state isn't marxism and WSWS was entirely in the right on that essay.

Both of those are completely inaccurate mischaracterizations of anti-identitarianism. Manarchist poster and brocialist poster had it right from the start.

Idpol oppression can be either explicit (i.e.: racial segregation, sexual disenfranchisement, etc.) or implicit (i.e.: redlining, glass ceiling, etc.). Explicitly idpol oppression can be distinguished from capitalism and legislated out of existence, which 99.999% of it was decades ago. However, capitalism requires that a class system exist, and that those in a higher class position have the power to arbitrarily oppress others for any unknowable (idpol or non-idpol) reason they feel like, their personal discretion as class superiors superceding any accountability for this oppression whatsoever. This omnipresent oppression necessary for capitalism to function provides a perfect camoflage of plausible deniability for implicit idpol oppression (were you denied a mortgage you're black, or because your banker is an asshole? Paid less because you're a woman, or because your boss is an asshole?). Due to the fact that explicit idpol is irrelevant, and implicit idpol is practically indistinguishable from capitalism, the one and only way to fight idpol is by exclusively fighting capitalism.

The issue isn't that idpol "can't be confronted alongside capitalism", but that any attempt to confront implicit idpol under capitalism IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Attached: On IDPOL.png (472x395, 251.69K)

Race and gender are used exclusively to perpetuate strife among people who should otherwise be united. Race and gender equity is apparent in America. Time to move on and unite the working class. Identity politics is a game we can't afford to keep playing. Sorry to the snowflakes but we have bigger fish to fry.

Attached: images (1).jpeg (590x787 309.79 KB, 87.77K)


Attached: 2609ec54a2fc9991a1f30d0ad39a2e435149ffd2.png (2518x1024, 222.23K)

WTF are you on about. Either you don't understand what free market socialism is or you've never actually read Bakunin

Attached: s35MKBy.jpg (275x283 23.93 KB, 28.82K)

awfully conviniennt overthrowing capitalism magcally fixes everything

Most of the issues being complained about by idpol'ers were already solved decades ago, which is precisely why they are a safe chewtoy to distract libs from the issues stemming from capitalism.

Are women chewtoys?

Dude, that meme sucks.

Explain how this "scientific" marxism isn't just blaming everything on capitalism.

eg. It doesn't blame your stupidity on capitalism.

Marxism cannot be proven.
It's all just feels, based off the spook of classless communism.

I want to contest this. shaming, call outs, and social climbing to facilitate influencing which ideologies are considered fashionable has done a perfectly good job reducing implicit idpol discrimination. Its been an excruciatingly slow and grueling process often requiring repugnant means to achieve its ends, all on account of having to act within capitalism, but culture can be changed.
Thats why saying 'race, class and gender are inseperable' is bullshit. Capitalism does not require either race nor gender necessarily, but it will make use of them and integrate them into its functions when they're already there, then dispose of them if they cease to be useful.
Attempting to confront implicit idpol under capitalism is not impossible, but it is deeply dysfunctional. It doesn't reduce the amount of discrimination backed by power but merely de-racializes and de-sexualizes it. It does so slowly and inefficiently, and has numerous problematic side effects along the way.

Read Capital, brainlet.

Show me this progress. From what I have seen, all that it has done is to create new "oppressed" groups as hatred of the more traditional oppressed groups has receded.

Attached: baffloat1.png (960x539, 1.01M)

There's about as much discrimination as there always was, but now it's either more subtle or it gets rationalized as part of the system.
You might change some liberals' minds and make them more tolerant but wokescold tactics are going to make bigots increase their resolve and operate from the shadows, seeing themselves as a persecuted minority.

Capitalism does need some division within the working class to keep proles busy fighting each other. That's largely the point of the discourse on idpol subjects within capitalism. It's part of why addressing them under capitalism is futile. The entire discussion is being tainted by shit-stirring meant to increase animosity and conflict. At the very least you need class consciousness in order to know the real enemy is capitalism and the bourgeoisie in the same way that a gladiator's real enemy isn't the other gladiator but the society and ruling class that make them fight.

Oh and let me just add to this:
And when you lump well-meaning-but-ignorant people (or people from an "oppressor" identity) into the same category as the bigots, you encourages them to go over to that side. All this woke idpol shit is in effect pushing people into the open arms of the reactionary right. The "left leaning" social democrats or democratic socialists or progressives who push this nonsense are an essential part of the alt-right pipeline because they act as a firewall against normies and people getting radicalized to keep them away from the "far left" (read: actual left).

Attached: educate yourself.png (871x567 31.05 KB, 134.21K)

Nah, this type of handwringing comes from people that have reactionary sympathies themselves.
The average racist or sexist isn’t living in poverty in the 1st world. Their ignorance doesn’t come from some good faith failure to grasp politics. It’s come from the spooked idea that their self interest lies white supremacy or matriarchy we really don’t have any vestiges of patriarchy anymore

Argumentum ad hominem

is an abstraction who does not actually exist.

Because it is the only appealing narrative that gets presented to them.

When you say "reactionary sympathies" I think you mean "working-class sympathies."
Galaxy brain take, my nigga.
That aside, people become convinced that racism works for them by being exposed to those ideas. They only seek those ideas out because the people promoting those ideas are not actively hostile toward them unlike:

Thats what I meant. You can't deny that it's reduced implicit anti-gay, anti-black, anti-woman sentiments(even if its extremely debateable how productive or healthy the use of neurotic fear of being an implicit bigot to achieve this is). At least where it matters, like in firms and education. But like

says, and like I was trying to say, the processes that have to be used to address those things under capitalism have a plethora of new toxic side effects. Its stupid to say that these idpol issues cannot be addressed under capitalism, the problem is that the methods necessary to address them under capitalism are agonizingly inefficient and create as much harm as they rectify.

I realize it seems like im being pedantic now, so let me explain why this is important to me:
Framing race and gender as inseperable from capitalism reinforces the belief that they in particular are as much a part of capitalism as class and wage labor, and that therefore, if they can be changed culturally, the material foundations of the system will be undermined and no longer able to support themselves. And that therefore, idpol is revolutionary praxis.

When in reality, race and gender in particular have nothing to do with capitalism, even though while they exist, they serve a purpose to it. If you get rid of racism, sexism, homohobia, etc, new things will take their place. Not necessarily new implicit bigotries against certain identities, maybe so, maybe not, but capitalism is flexible and as culture changes it will make use of what it finds itself in and reshape it to be of use to it.(Of coures, capitalism isnt an actual actor in itself, but this is to say that tendencies that are acceptable or even beneficial within the system are rewarded and ideas actually dangerous to it are punished, by where money is or is not allocated.)
Saying these particular identity issues are inseparable from capitalism is just wrong. They aren't inseparable from it because they serve useful functions within it, any more than my operating system is inseparable from my computer hardware because I couldn't use my computer without the OS. I could just as well install any other OS.

I’m sorry if I don’t believe the “lost lamb in the woods” narrative you reactionary apologists push. You’re purposely strawman I gotta my point. You’re saying that reactionaries are that way because they didn’t know better, and when SJWs take them at their word they get pushed into the right wing because the root cause of their beliefs, simple ignorance, was never addressed.
What I’m saying is that those people and your ARE LYING.
To paraphrase a GOP operative regarding th Southern Strategy,
“We can’t say n*gger n*gger n*gger anymore, but we can say welfare queens”
Well I’m saying those dog whistles are known now too and you can’t say welfare queen, but you can say idpol and feign ignorance about the conscious discussions white people make supporting white supremacy.
I’m also saying white supremacy is spooked because it is never class conscious and has never really benefited white people, just created a caste that’s more exploited then them.

"Dog whistles" are for paranoid idpolers that want to make everything about race/sex.

"Well ackchooally you don't *really* care about [issue], you just don't like seeing white people marginally uncomfortable #resist"

Reject reality all you want. Class comes first, and racism was made to placate the white working class not minority that were screwed by it and white people taking the Faustian bargain.
You can care about class and still be racist. You can also nominally care about class while actually caring about racism more, which describes angry reactionaries that just want the material legacy of chattel slavery and indigenous genocide because you still internalize capitalism’s zero sum logic and get butt hurt that recognizing that must be the reason white people turn away from the left. Not the relative material benefit white supremacy and sexism gives them.
NOPE gotta be those purple haired fat black ladies on Twitter. Because that the only type of person that concerns themes with these issues dontchaknow.

*which describes angry reactionaries that just want the material legacy of chattel slavery and indigenous genocide forgotten

Well you're wrong. Or at least, you're confusing terms and not distinguishing between different strands of conservativism.
The massive rise of Anti-SJW-ism in the 2010s was 100% about SJW's being full of shit and people being sick of hearing it, not reassertion of white/male supremacy, and the common understanding that SJWs are 'left' 100% drove large numbers of people who liked anti-SJW sentiments rightward. Most of them towards still rather mild lolbergism, "classical liberalism", etc etc, but the more people move to the center right, the more also move to the far right.

What you're describing explains the racism that /already existed/, there were no massive leaps in the material circumstances of women and brown people in the mid 2010s in particular that explain the spike in internet reactionaries if they were motivated primarily by identity-oriented zero sum logic.

Sure buddy
Lol you just admitted sexists and racist exists. The definition of a racist or sexist is someone that believes negative characteristics of someone based on their sex and race. Someone that accepts this is racist and sexist. But according to you you have to have patience with someone that litterally wants you oppressed based on an inalienable trait. Lol, you got autism or something?

Nope we got Trump, someone that came out of nowhere and absolutely destroyed all moderate Republicans in the primaries.
No I just don't take conservatism at it's word. It's been the Southern Strategy all the way for the last 70 years. Trump was only bad because he made it so nakedly clear. Trumps base IS the GOP base.
Hahaha that had nothing to do with right wing media pushing the narrative they are the left. Just watch Fox News at literally any point in time and you'll see this narrative being pushed by Republican power brokers as well.
Lol no, the modern GOP LOVES WAR. Which is anti antithetical to libertarian theory.
I'm describing the racism that still precists. LMAO I can't believe you think the racism that many white GOP voters hold is somehow different than when the Southern Strategy was first thought.
Many white people have been butt hurt since passage of the civil rights acts. You can see it in all the caterwauling they did over Obama. Trump pretty much carrying on most of Obama's neoliberal policies, but somehow he's beloved by them all of a sudden lol.

Attached: f5118624bd42908727c12a3a7e9126a1-d31eu13.jpg (792x1008, 190.85K)

pic related, me busting your spooks.


More to the point, actually, the racist internet rightards are spooked by white supremacy and the idea that any resource consumed by a black or a muslim is one not being consumed by them, BUT-
How the hell does that contradict what the other user was saying? That this is up to delusion and misunderstanding, partially caused by pseudo-leftists making it appear as though there was no alternative? This shit is a spook, like you said, its not actually in their best interests, and lots of the new-right on the internet come from liberal environments, so why did they spook themselves with this shit in the first place? Again:
Lots of these internet reactionaries did not come from environments where these spooks were so widespread and accepted that their belief in them can be put up to them learning it from other regular people around them. They adopted these ideas on the internet because they were the only alternative to neurotic tumblrism that was presented at the time.(or, more accurately, they adopted lolbert/sargonite ideas because they were the most non-threatening, liberal-adjacent alternative to neurotic tumblrism presented at the time, and from there it was easier for the right to radicalize them.)
You're making out like believing in these racist ideas indicates some essential character flaw, as though they were always like this, could never have been reached, and are just awful evil RACISTS so thinking about why people get drawn to the right is bad.

Show me all the really popular, well publicized leftist outlets that were critical of the SJW phenomenon during its moment in the limelight. I'll wait.

you're just pointing to the racists and going "MUH RAYSSISS" without any explanation as to what happened to differentiate it from the shit that already exists. You're literally saying Trump came as a suprise, and wasn't the same as the moderate republicans who kept their racism moreso under wraps, yet also saying the forces that elected him are somehow exactly the same shit that was previously only electing those 'moderates'.

What was different is that the right had gotten bigger. No, not because everyone was so butthurt that a nigger got in the oval office. SJWs had recently had their moment in the spotlight, and as a result, a lot of pepole had moved rightward. Usually not by that much at first, but it had made them more open than they were before to shitting on social liberalism. People who were already right of center were emboldened in their shitting on social liberalism. The people who only moved towards libertarianism or sargonite crap were easier to onboard to GOP idpol shit than they ever would have been before that point, and so many were. The existing base of GOP idpol shit was more energized and loud than it had been before.
Of course, in the end, trump won because of campaign donations, not culture wars, but nonetheless.

Yeah it's our version of those extra-self-righteous churchgoers. They probably do the virtue signaling to feel better about doing nothing, and they actively push people away because their narcissism requires lessers to feel superior to.

Take your fucking meds.



Can ANYBODY accuse of lying without being diagnosed with the crazy?

All this strawmanning, quite sad.

You're literally just spouting liberal/chapotista talking points about white people not voting for "their interests" (as defined by you) because muh republikkkanz muh Nixkkkon muh Southern strategy. It's 2019 dude, most white people politically aren't motivated by "If I vote x then black people don't get y"

I'll add to this that since then, it seems like many of the people who initially moved rightward, but never got pulled any further rightward(ie, the ones who were big on shitting on SJWs but didnt end up voting trump to own the libs), have now either moved a little leftward or settled firmly in the center.
"right" "left" and "center" here get their meaning from mainstream burger political discourse, as stupid as I know it is.

I fail to see what either of these have to do with my post.

Because it's not, again with this bullshit "Babe in the Woods" rationalization.
White people vote for Trump because they are racist, and see white supremacy as the best deal they can get through their liberal viewpoint. White supremacy provides material benefits that many of the older voters have living memories of.
White supremacy has created and continues to create a permanent underclass within the proletariat based on inalienable traits. It's natural rights and you apologists get angry at minorities and SJWs for reacting hostilely to these natural rights that would subjugate them, then have the gall to demand PATIENCE for the people with these demands.
Even a first grader can understand the social dynamics here. Hmmmm I don't understand why people get so mad at me when I say they I should have the ability to over rule some basic human rights.

Wow, thanks for enlightening me bro, how's the socialist haven of Detroit coming along by the way?

Don't be retarded. Racists use dogwhistles all the time. The problem with libtards is that they want to address the behavior of dogwhistling but not the underlying racism, which is itself de facto white supremacy because it's saying to the racists "people know the code. Be less obvious with the white supremacy."

Don't forget that a lot of premises of lolberts are gateway drugs to fascist tendencies.

No, chapo tards are spooked white people like you, they actually run cover for Trump voters as well, with bullshit like "There were a bunch of Bernie voters that voted Trump" with not proof and contrary to the history of GOP voter politics.
image believing this.
Explain all the people who voted Trump then? Oh he said something about NAFTA? Oh is that why they voted for him? Oh wait even a cursory look at his past shows he's been anti-worker since the day he made his first real estate deal. b-b-b-b-b-b-but those voters didn't know right, pretty convenient when white people can vote for a virulent racist, miss all the racism, but hone in on the sparse milktoast protectionism he once in a while said, but then just completely forget to look at ANY of his past.

So we've reached the end of the line on this discussion.
You're insisting that the surge of racism in the 2010s was nothing special, and I'm saying that it was.
So more or less, you're saying the shit that goes on on the internet doesnt matter, and I'm saying that it does.

Here's where I say:
"Get with the times grandpa."
And you say:
"Go outside loser."


Uh voting is specifically, did anyone have a gun to these white people's head when they voted for Trump? Is someone making all these white voters watch Fox news and tow GOP party lines on welfare, economics, race etc.
Yeah didn't think so. So yeah, when you DO SOMETHING you're CULPABLE for it to a large degree.
Someone how all these GOP voters can sniff out Democratic hypocrisy *rightfully so* a mile away but ARE TOTALLY BLIND to all the white supremacy spooks in their own party's platform.

Nah, just the economy eroding their livelihoods. But you're a liberal so you don't believe in systemic violence, right?


Found the liberal

More creative than "Go outside", good on you.

Who decided that? You? Kind of a a conflict interest there dontchathink?
It wasn't, the GOP's politics have always been virulently racist. We went into Iraq literally because "Scary Brown Man GONNA GET YOU" narrative.
The US Army giving literal Nazis in Ukraine munitions up to fixed mortars right now, but somehow GOP white voters seem more concerned with Venezuela.
No I'm saying you're nothing new. You're another white supremacy apologists. You identify with the white Trump voters, and feel that admonishing them for their racism reflects on you.
You are a basic bitch spooked white idenitiarian centrist that even Martin Luther King said is more insidious. At least alt-right assholes are honest about wanting to up hold white supremacy.
You want class consciousness? Then start looking at what's dividing proles, and it's not college kids being mean to white working class people LMAO.

Yeah and apparently you're blind to the white supremacy of the dems in the same way, for instance the fact that HRC:

Attached: 1449639941634.png (763x652, 112.69K)

Isn't there a Yang supporter on Twitter you should be harassing?

Wait, how many Democrats voted for that, again?

I never made a moral judgement. Just saying you have to literally be autistic to fail to understand why someone is hostile to another person that believes they should be in an under caste.