United States Politics Thread 47

[Travis B.]

I hate to do this, but I have to come down on the side of bothsidism on this matter.

Yes, the effect Travis describes is real. Yes, telling people "You've sucked ever since you were born, and you have an obligation to support us!" is both ethically repulsive and politically suicidal.

But, well, sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and all the various -isms and -phobias are fucking real, too, and they need to be fought against, and that means that they need to be talked about. And it's really very, very convenient for cis straight men to dismiss that stuff as distractions from the things that really matter.

Besides, you can't really have much insight into the current right-wing without trying to analyze gender and race dynamics (NSFW though non-explicit):

https://www.liberalcurrents.com/the-int ... verything/

Oh, of course sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and so on are real -- but the solution is insisting on solidarity regardless of what categories one falls in, and rejecting those who refuse to have solidarity with others based on the categories they fall in, not attacking people because they don't have enough of the right adjectives or have too many of the wrong ones.

[Travis B.]

Are the side effects of PC culture really that bad in the US?
I don't think I've ever suffered any kind of prejudice whatsoever for being a straight cis white male.
At worst some activists I'll never even meet say bad things about categories I notionally belong too.

One could argue that the increase in right-wing politics amongst specifically young men in the US today is a reaction to this sort of thing. Tell young men, especially young working-class men, that they suck simply for being men, that they are somehow 'privileged' despite feeling like they have fewer opportunities than other people, and they naturally will be easy pickings for the right.

[Ares Land]

One could argue that the increase in right-wing politics amongst specifically young men in the US today is a reaction to this sort of thing. Tell young men, especially young working-class men, that they suck simply for being men, that they are somehow 'privileged' despite feeling like they have fewer opportunities than other people, and they naturally will be easy pickings for the right.

It's possible; but I don't think it's really the case. Do right-wingers, in this age of conspiracy theories and media bubbles even get an accurate picture of what the left is talking about? Or do they get the picture as filtered by right-wing pundits?

[Travis B.]

One could argue that the increase in right-wing politics amongst specifically young men in the US today is a reaction to this sort of thing. Tell young men, especially young working-class men, that they suck simply for being men, that they are somehow 'privileged' despite feeling like they have fewer opportunities than other people, and they naturally will be easy pickings for the right.

It's possible; but I don't think it's really the case. Do right-wingers, in this age of conspiracy theories and media bubbles even get an accurate picture of what the left is talking about? Or do they get the picture as filtered by right-wing pundits?

Even though their view is filtered by people like right-wing pundits, we shouldn't be helping them. Things like "Man or Bear" from a few years back weren't invented by right-wing pundits; we provided plenty of our own fuel for the right to exploit on our own account.

[Ares Land]

Even though their view is filtered by people like right-wing pundits, we shouldn't be helping them. Things like "Man or Bear" from a few years back weren't invented by right-wing pundits; we provided plenty of our own fuel for the right to exploit on our own account.

Does the far right even care about 'man or bear'? They're way past that. They object to things like women working (or even more typically, and sadly, women not having sex with them)

I think what it mainly does is annoy other leftists. (Insert Raphael's quote here.)

It's also important to note that the anger and radicalism has understandable motivations. To take radical feminism as just one example, there were a couple of decades when the problem was supposedly 'fixed, and what are you even complaining about?' when it very much was not. I don't know if the answer to that was ideal (probably not) but I don't think any other possible reaction was even possible.

[Travis B.]

Even though their view is filtered by people like right-wing pundits, we shouldn't be helping them. Things like "Man or Bear" from a few years back weren't invented by right-wing pundits; we provided plenty of our own fuel for the right to exploit on our own account.

Does the far right even care about 'man or bear'? They're way past that. They object to things like women working (or even more typically, and sadly, women not having sex with them)

I think what it mainly does is annoy other leftists. (Insert Raphael's quote here.)

It's also important to note that the anger and radicalism has understandable motivations. To take radical feminism as just one example, there were a couple of decades when the problem was supposedly 'fixed, and what are you even complaining about?' when it very much was not. I don't know if the answer to that was ideal (probably not) but I don't think any other possible reaction was even possible.

My example of 'man or bear' isn't exactly current, yes, but it was a clear example of a way we help the right out with their propaganda.

About specifically radical feminism, the real issue with that is that it negates everyone else's struggles by reducing everything to the patriarchy. No one other than women has a right to complain about anything, and even amongst women any struggles beyond the feminist one are negated. Oppression and exploitation by the capitalists is merely a manifestation of the patriarchy. Racism, classism, ableism, and so on are viewed as merely reflecting the patriarchy. Authoritarianism is simply the patriarchy at work. And so on.

[Travis B.]

(I should also note that radical feminism is often uncomfortably close to terf-ism, but that is another story.)

[Travis B.]

I could go on about the issues with radical feminism (note that it should be emphasized that radical feminism is only a specific subset of feminism), but that would be off-topic. (For those who are wondering what I mean, see this...)

[Raphael]

Well, the "RF" in "TERF" is theoretically supposed to be short for "radical feminist".

There might be a problem with different understandings of what, exactly, the term "radical feminism" means. People who are deep in the weeds of feminist theory and practice and activism seem to mean a very specific, carefully defined subdivision of feminism when they use that term. Or at least that's my impression; I don't really know anything about feminism except what I learned from reading some things some feminists had posted online.

More unengaged or, as they say, "normie" types, OTOH, might associate the term "radical feminism" with basically those forms of feminism that come across as "radical" to them. And outright fascists, of course, see all feminism as radical feminism, and some things that aren't really feminism as well for good measure.

[Travis B.]

Well, the "RF" in "TERF" is theoretically supposed to be short for "radical feminist".

There might be a problem with different understandings of what, exactly, the term "radical feminism" means. People who are deep in the weeds of feminist theory and practice and activism seem to mean a very specific, carefully defined subdivision of feminism when they use that term. Or at least that's my impression; I don't really know anything about feminism except what I learned from reading some things some feminists had posted online.

More unengaged or, as they say, "normie" types, OTOH, might associate the term "radical feminism" with basically those forms of feminism that come across as "radical" to them. And outright fascists, of course, see all feminism as radical feminism, and some things that aren't really feminism as well for good measure.

Radical feminism indeed refers to a very specific sort of feminism, as opposed to other sorts of feminism such as liberal feminism, intersectional feminism, Black feminism, etc. It does not refer simply to feminism that others may deem 'radical' in and of itself.

[Raphael]

Radical feminism indeed refers to a very specific sort of feminism, as opposed to other sorts of feminism such as liberal feminism, intersectional feminism, Black feminism, etc. It does not refer simply to feminism that others may deem 'radical' in and of itself.

But doesn't that raise the question of to which extent anyone should bother caring about "radical feminism" in the strict sense at all, for or against? OK, it might be a result of where I hang out online, but my impression is that those self-id-ed feminists whose posts I sometimes read don't have much interest in "radical feminism" in the strict sense these days. Are you really talking about more than a handful of excentrics?

Except for outright TERF-ism, of course. That is, unfortunately, very much a relevant force in many places and contexts.

[rotting bones]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femi ... /#RadiFemi

[Ares Land]

Oh, I wasn’t aware of that definition of radical feminist
In any case, I wasn’t using 'radical feminism' in that precise and specific sense, but rather in the broad sense of feminism that, well, happens to be radical

[rotting bones]

Ok, so instead of a military assault, Trump has decided to start drilling in Greenland without permission: https://youtu.be/NC5vl-GIvVQ Looks like he's just going to occupy the country like a squatter.

Eddy was right. I wasn't pessimistic enough.

[malloc]

Apologies accepted.

[Torco]

noooo, any statement to the effect that orange might do something is actually the delusion that he is the all powerful god emperor of reality entire. he'll be stopped by the power of Justice Democracy and Institutions, don't you worry. any minute now.

[Raphael]

Partly linguistic, partly cultural, partly political question:

The freshly nominated Democratic - well, to be pedantic, DFL - nominee for one of the Minnesota US Senate seats has the English name Peggy Flanagan - ok, Margaret Flanagan in more formal contexts - and the Ojibwe name Gizhiiwewidamookwe. Which makes me wonder, in which order or format should people write those two names if they want to name her by her full name?

To be honest, my first instinct would be to put the "Gizhiiwewidamookwe" between the "Peggy" and the "Flanagan". But I don't know anything about the relevant culture(s), so for all I know, it might be highly offensive to some people to do that. What other options are there? I guess you could connect the two names with an "AKA", but that might end up being highly offensive to some people, too. Or perhaps a slash?

I got curious enough about this that I even skimmed a bit through a Youtube video of her first inauguration as Lieutenant Governor, but there, neither she herself nor the judge administering the oath of office even pronounced the name. The dialogue was just something like, "Do you solemnly swear [etc.]" - "I do!"

Finally, the political question: Does anyone here know enough about Minnesota politics to be able to tell us whether she's any good? I'm asking because I find her Wikipedia article fairly impressive, but there are some kind of intangible things that aren't easily captured by Wikipedia articles and that can be fairly important in politicians. Like, "How good are they at getting people fired up?", or "How good are they at not putting people to sleep?", or "How good are they at proposing the right policies and getting the right policies passed and implementing the right policies?" So, does anyone here know anything about her in that regard?

[Richard W]

...the English name Peggy Flanagan ...

This initially confused me, because we didn't presume the same sense of 'English'. Flanagan is an Irish name, Ó Flannagáin in Irish.

[zompist]

Partly linguistic, partly cultural, partly political question:

The freshly nominated Democratic - well, to be pedantic, DFL - nominee for one of the Minnesota US Senate seats has the English name Peggy Flanagan - ok, Margaret Flanagan in more formal contexts - and the Ojibwe name Gizhiiwewidamookwe. Which makes me wonder, in which order or format should people write those two names if they want to name her by her full name?

I think you're assuming that people have a "full name" that incorporates everything they might be called, and that's not necessarily true. Wikipedia, which is usually finicky about these things, calls here "Margaret Flanagan", presumably her legal name. (Wikipiedia gives middle names if they're known— e.g. Tim Walz is Timothy James Walz; the president of Mexico is Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo.)

Chinese people sometimes have both a Western and a Chinese personal name. E.g. the scientist Henry Chang-Yu Lee or the politician Desmond Lee Ti-Seng. Note that these people put the personal name in different places. Most Chinese people in this situation use their Western name among Westerners, but their Chnese name speaking or writing in Chinese.

My guess is that the candidate uses Peggy Flanagan, and Gizhiiwewidamookwe among Ojibwe. If she has a different preference, news media would use that.

[bradrn]

Chinese people sometimes have both a Western and a Chinese personal name. E.g. the scientist Henry Chang-Yu Lee or the politician Desmond Lee Ti-Seng. Note that these people put the personal name in different places. Most Chinese people in this situation use their Western name among Westerners, but their Chnese name speaking or writing in Chinese.

I’m in this situation too. I have an English name (the one you all know) as well as a Hebrew name. For me, the names are completely separate and I can’t imagine when I’d use them together.