Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,906|5531|949

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I have been told that it isn't voting against your own interests if cultural issues are more important to you than economic issues. I could understand someone being willing to accept diminished income in order to live in a society of their culture. I wouldn't do that but some people would.
I would like an example of this
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+450|2618
You are lower middle class but you voted for kelly Loeffler because Blue Lives Matter.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,906|5531|949

How is an abstract concept a cultural issue?
uziq
Member
+393|2351
it is actually a changing trend in politics in general, and has been noted by left and right theorists. the hoary old marxian ‘economic base’ dividing everyone into tectonic class relations is not as relevant now as it was in former periods (i.e. fordist or taylorite economies).

lots of people now act and vote politically based on cultural issues or identification. one of the most salient divides in modern britain, for example w/r/t brexit, is between university and non-university education. well that doesn’t really translate into neat economic strata anymore: the non-u tradespeople are making a helluva lot more money and probably own their own homes, whereas the formerly ‘bourgeois’ university grads might not. et cetera.

i know ‘cultural capital’ and more forms of wealth than economic, yada yada, but that in-itself is a post-marxian bit of french sociology and still presupposes pretty rigid class hierarchies. people no longer behave quite so much in the interests of these broad economic classes; solidarity and class consciousness is very outmoded.

you could probably argue that modern media/technology has contributed to this new atomisation. people construct their identities on tumblr rather than through their domestic or workplace ‘habitus’.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,906|5531|949

That's making a rather broad assumption that self-interest is purely economic, isn't it?
uziq
Member
+393|2351
a bit of a tautological argument here. i just made the entire point that interest, whether self or collective, is moving away from considerations of economic class and into groupuscules and 'identities'.

being speculative again, one could probably say that 40-years of neoliberal orthodoxy, trickle-down (up) economics, and the general stagnation of wages and living conditions has brought all of those big brow-beating economic causes to an impasse. the answer to the 2008 financial crisis, a genuine opportunity for structural change, as per the fed and EU, turned out to just be more neolib high-finance chicanery.

Last edited by uziq (2021-02-24 18:52:07)

KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,906|5531|949

Fair enough, but I'd still make the argument that it boils down to an economic argument, it's just that belonging to a group is a way to disengage from the idea that you're a poor, uneducated laborer. It's distraction, and one that is promoted by capital interests. I don't agree with the idea that because people identify more closely with "cultural" classes that economic class is pushed aside. I do tend to agree that identity politics is amplified in order to distract from class consciousness, without a doubt, which is always why I find the argument that leftist ideology pushes identity politics so amusing.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+450|2618
For what it is worth I don't think expect a lot of our most debated social issues to be in any way improved if we reorganized our economic system in the way Bernie wants. Homophobes, racist, generally low IQ people would still be themselves but with a little bit of more money. Actually it might make them worse.
uziq
Member
+393|2351

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Fair enough, but I'd still make the argument that it boils down to an economic argument, it's just that belonging to a group is a way to disengage from the idea that you're a poor, uneducated laborer. It's distraction, and one that is promoted by capital interests. I don't agree with the idea that because people identify more closely with "cultural" classes that economic class is pushed aside. I do tend to agree that identity politics is amplified in order to distract from class consciousness, without a doubt, which is always why I find the argument that leftist ideology pushes identity politics so amusing.
the left has critiqued liberal identity politics for almost 30 years at this point, but of course 'america', where everything left of bill clinton gets smushed into one ambiguous 'socialism'.
uziq
Member
+393|2351

SuperJail Warden wrote:

For what it is worth I don't think expect a lot of our most debated social issues to be in any way improved if we reorganized our economic system in the way Bernie wants. Homophobes, racist, generally low IQ people would still be themselves but with a little bit of more money. Actually it might make them worse.
i think there are roughly two issues interwoven into one here.

the first is the general argument for economic equality being good for the health and comity of a society generally. there's oodles of research on this stuff to back up the thesis that inequality is very bad for societal stability and peace.

the second, and the stuff that cultural conservatives focus on, the 'culture wars' stuff, is part of a general trend in western demographics, in my opinion. we have falling birthrates and make up for most of our population/economic growth using migrants from our neighbours or the global south. it's a sort of managed decline and everyone spends their time getting angry about the skin colour, language or religion of the new imported migrant worker underclass, but doesn't reckon with the wider economic or demographic picture. similarly, people seem to care an exorbitant amount about the sex lives or transgenderism of 5% or 0.3% of the population or whatever, like that's a threat.

our societies are ageing and not producing kids. the reasons for which, refer to point 1. the elderly and the rich hold all of the wealth and assets and rely on those property and asset bubbles to prop themselves up.

Last edited by uziq (2021-02-24 19:22:01)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+450|2618

uziq wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

For what it is worth I don't think expect a lot of our most debated social issues to be in any way improved if we reorganized our economic system in the way Bernie wants. Homophobes, racist, generally low IQ people would still be themselves but with a little bit of more money. Actually it might make them worse.
i think there are roughly two issues interwoven into one here.

the first is the general argument for economic equality being good for the health and comity of a society generally. there's oodles of research on this stuff to back up the thesis that inequality is very bad for societal stability and peace.

the second, and the stuff that cultural conservatives focus on, the 'culture wars' stuff, is part of a general trend in western demographics, in my opinion. we have falling birthrates and make up for most of our population/economic growth using migrants from our neighbours or the global south. it's a sort of managed decline and everyone spends their time getting angry about the skin colour, language or religion of the new imported migrant worker underclass, but doesn't reckon with the wider economic or demographic picture. similarly, people seem to care an exorbitant amount about the sex lives or transgenderism of 5% or 0.3% of the population or whatever, like that's a threat.

our societies are ageing and not producing kids. the reasons for which, refer to point 1. the elderly and the rich hold all of the wealth and assets and rely on those property and asset bubbles to prop themselves up.
Obviously vast inequality isn't good for the body politic of the country. But I will point out that America's worst civil rights abuses against its own citizens took place during periods of economic growth and our overall geopolitical ascension. A great economy might make people more defensive of the status quo than they are now.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,906|5531|949

SuperJail Warden wrote:

For what it is worth I don't think expect a lot of our most debated social issues to be in any way improved if we reorganized our economic system in the way Bernie wants. Homophobes, racist, generally low IQ people would still be themselves but with a little bit of more money. Actually it might make them worse.
I think economic divides impact cultural divides more than you give credit. It's no secret that current American discourse is a battle between rural vs. urban voters, and rural living has more than a casual relationship with economic status.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,888|5670|USA

uziq wrote:

our societies are ageing and not producing kids. the reasons for which, refer to point 1. the elderly and the rich hold all of the wealth and assets and rely on those property and asset bubbles to prop themselves up.
Case in point, I watch a lot of properties in my area. Anything at a low price is immediately snapped up and flipped for an absurd markup, or turned into a rental. Of the latter, a lot of the new owners are *checks notes* old people with money.

Same with commercial properties. The owners my company deals with are getting older and older. Good luck being in your 20s or 30s and buying a site within reasonable range of your clientele, unless you've got a lot of green to work with.

Some locations have been permavacant since before the Great Recession because the owners just want too much for rent. Commercial wasteland up in this bitch.

e:

The only homes within range of what I'd be willing to pay for are too far out to justify a physical commute. Tons of expensive rentals and flips. Sometimes expensive while being in disrepair due to location or speculation. My parents got their small house for like $50k (curr. valued at like $350k-$400k+ as a fixer, which isn't nice for their property taxes) or something in the 80s.

Even if I was so inclined, I probably couldn't justify buying the house I grew up in.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+450|2618
Regarding the old...it blows my mind that our current president is 78 years old. For reference, Franklin R. died at 63 in '45. Can you imagine Roosevelt running for office a 10th time in 1960 and winning?
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+450|2618

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The only homes within range of what I'd be willing to pay for are too far out to justify a physical commute. Tons of expensive rentals and flips. Sometimes expensive while being in disrepair due to location or speculation. My parents got their small house for like $50k (curr. valued at like $350k-$400k+ as a fixer, which isn't nice for their property taxes) or something in the 80s.

Even if I was so inclined, I probably couldn't justify buying the house I grew up in.
A lot of teachers in North Jersey commute from PA because it is too expensive in NJ. That's funny since their NJ certificates aren't even useable in PA. I couldn't do that commute. My dream is to walk down the street to work.
uziq
Member
+393|2351

SuperJail Warden wrote:

uziq wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

For what it is worth I don't think expect a lot of our most debated social issues to be in any way improved if we reorganized our economic system in the way Bernie wants. Homophobes, racist, generally low IQ people would still be themselves but with a little bit of more money. Actually it might make them worse.
i think there are roughly two issues interwoven into one here.

the first is the general argument for economic equality being good for the health and comity of a society generally. there's oodles of research on this stuff to back up the thesis that inequality is very bad for societal stability and peace.

the second, and the stuff that cultural conservatives focus on, the 'culture wars' stuff, is part of a general trend in western demographics, in my opinion. we have falling birthrates and make up for most of our population/economic growth using migrants from our neighbours or the global south. it's a sort of managed decline and everyone spends their time getting angry about the skin colour, language or religion of the new imported migrant worker underclass, but doesn't reckon with the wider economic or demographic picture. similarly, people seem to care an exorbitant amount about the sex lives or transgenderism of 5% or 0.3% of the population or whatever, like that's a threat.

our societies are ageing and not producing kids. the reasons for which, refer to point 1. the elderly and the rich hold all of the wealth and assets and rely on those property and asset bubbles to prop themselves up.
Obviously vast inequality isn't good for the body politic of the country. But I will point out that America's worst civil rights abuses against its own citizens took place during periods of economic growth and our overall geopolitical ascension. A great economy might make people more defensive of the status quo than they are now.
i think we can do better than robber-barons and gilded ages for the beau monde.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,888|5670|USA

SuperJail Warden wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The only homes within range of what I'd be willing to pay for are too far out to justify a physical commute. Tons of expensive rentals and flips. Sometimes expensive while being in disrepair due to location or speculation. My parents got their small house for like $50k (curr. valued at like $350k-$400k+ as a fixer, which isn't nice for their property taxes) or something in the 80s.

Even if I was so inclined, I probably couldn't justify buying the house I grew up in.
A lot of teachers in North Jersey commute from PA because it is too expensive in NJ. That's funny since their NJ certificates aren't even useable in PA. I couldn't do that commute. My dream is to walk down the street to work.
I think there's a handful of states where teacher wages are sub-livable by like $10k? Ridiculous.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+450|2618
According to the survey, 15.9 percent of Generation Z identifies as LGBT, followed by 9.1 percent of millennials (those born 1981-1996), 3.8 percent of Generation X (born 1965-1980), two percent of baby boomers (born 1946-1964), and 1.3 percent of traditionalists (born before 1946). Nearly three-quarters of Generation Zers who consider themselves LGBT identify as bisexual, specifically.
https://media.breitbart.com/media/2021/02/GettyImages-1148709433-640x480.jpg
Gen Z is probably the most hedonistic generation. They are all pan sexuals who grew up in the age of legal marijuana and HD streaming pornography.
uziq
Member
+393|2351
i think gen-z are actually pretty tame in their proclivities compared to hippies or gen x'ers. there's no self-destructive hedonism or bacchanalia. they're all very 'online' and very 'woke' (if you insist), but that doesn't carry into hedonism.

the most politically active generation in a hot minute, i'll give you that.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+450|2618
A Colorado baker who won a case before the Supreme Court in 2018 over his refusal to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple is facing a new lawsuit after declining to make a birthday cake that celebrated a transgender woman’s transition.

Autumn Scardina tried to order a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside in honor of her gender transition from Masterpiece Cakeshop on the same day in 2017 that the Supreme Court announced it would hear baker Jack Phillips’ appeal in the wedding cake case.

Scardina said during a virtual trial on Monday that she attempted to order the birthday cake as a test to see whether Phillips would make good on his assertions that he would sell any other type of product, but opposed making a gay couple’s wedding cake because, as a Christian, he was opposed to the religious ceremony involved, according to CBS Denver.
I really hate that this guy is now going to get anti-gay donations sent his way because he won't bake some cakes.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,888|5670|USA

I don't know how turning this bakery into a hill for both sides to die on is going to help. Just take your business literally anywhere else.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,906|5531|949

No no you don't understand, she is going to prove the baker to be a liar. It's very important!
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+450|2618
Also saw a cake meme today
https://preview.redd.it/lovut86gtto61.jpg?width=686&auto=webp&s=56741cfffa31888ef5caeafc4f5888c45d3c1086
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5005|eXtreme to the maX

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

No no you don't understand, she is going to prove the baker to be a liar. It's very important!
The important thing is people aren't going to be getting their cakes.

I'm sure everyone is tired of people making stupid points like this.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2021-03-23 23:58:56)

#FreeBritney
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,888|5670|USA

Hasn't the point has been made against this bakery long ago? Who cares anymore? Risking spit in your cake mix, as well as drawing more centrists to his side, does not seem worth it. I guess there's the lawsuit money and instagram likes or whatever, if you don't care about giving your own cause a black eye.

I don't think we need to dogpile companies like bakeries in pandemic-laced economic crisis.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard