That Kingsman movie video of Trump murdering networks, individuals, and social movements was something else

Assmann — Hanover

same

In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West by Wendy Brown

@180 Proof I'm over halfway through Black Rights/White Wrongs and I highly recommend it. A powerful corrective course for liberalism as typically articulated and defended by white men illiterate to the complexities and inequalities of race and racism produced in society. Charles Mills believes we can keep liberalism (which he defines, by way of John Gray, as Individualist, Egalitarian and Universalist) and strengthen it by acknowledging race experience and the history of racism, and integrating the moral and political philosophies found within it into liberalism (in conjunction with Feminism and Marxism/classism). Pairs very well with the New York Times' 1619 Project, particularly Nikole Hannah-Jones gushingly fantastic essay here.

Well, places where Trump was very popular were places in the rust-belt and not the most well off prosperous places. (And white, of course) From this chart you can see that typically the more well off households did vote for Clinton than Trump. Now, we can argue about the statistics and have a discussion about them, but what I'm just saying is that dismissing totally the video with such ferocity and hurling so many accusations on it comes off to me as quite arrogant. — ssu

As the Washington Post article from which you ostensibly pulled this from notes, Trump won in poorer counties, but did better with wealthier voters over Hillary Clinton (and of course not everyone within a given county voted at all!). Even the percentage difference between the median HHI of counties that voted Trump vs. voted Hillary is quite low: just 8.5%. But regardless of the precise statistics or the framing between counties vs. individual voters, the thesis of the video was that there was a potent dyad between how the working class voted and how the wealthy elite voted, and with economic anxiety being the prime motivator for Trump voters. This is at best vastly overstated, and at worst simply incorrect.

This is an aspect of racism that now permeates throughout American culture and is spreading, to the point that it has become institutional, manifesting in policies such as “diversity training” for example. It is being taught in school. — NOS4A2

human bodies no less end up becoming the brick and mortar to their failed schemes, long before the dogma is abandoned — NOS4A2

oh wow

What exactly is the definition of racial constructionism, how are we confirming that there is such a thing, and how are we confirming its effect on people? — Terrapin Station

Feel free to check out Ibram X. Kendi's excellent book, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America, if you doubt the historicity of racism

Again you show your arrogance quite well. — ssu

Feel free to refute the counterpoints I provided! The irony is the circle jerk that devolved in this thread over the arguments made in the video, despite no substantive research to support them (including a women presented as an expert who was caught lying and fabricating interviews)

Historically people have been treated as members of racial groups, convicted of some form or other of essentialism, and treated accordingly. It seems to me prudent to refuse engaging in racism if we want to banish it. — NOS4A2

Accepting the history (and continuance!) of racism, as you acknowledge in this first sentence here, does not mean "engaging in racism". The best way to refuse to engage in racism is to understand how it affects people.

Your opening post simply santizes the history and continued practice of racial subjugation, prejudice, exclusion, etc. History is nowhere awknowledged in your opening. The only way in which colorblindness is a viable anti-racist practice is if there was never a history of racial constructionism in the first place.

we are always already engaged in it

'Color-blindness' ignores the history of racial constructionism, which was and continues to be a sociological reality that affects people in ways both material and ideological. The path towards a more equal society is to acknowledge how this racial construction materialized in history, how it manifests itself today, and how it has affected society and its subjects. Ignoring it only serves to perpetuate it and leaves us unable to combat it.

Yep. Right now the majority support impeachment and removal. — frank

This is why I advocated for an impeachment process in the Donald Trump thread. I sincerely doubt the GOP controlled senate will remove him, which will impact their own re-election if impeachment still enjoys majority approval.

Also important to distinguish between someone who voted for Trump in 2016 (and who may or may not support him now), and those that continue to praise and support him and his policies now.

The rhetoric comparing Trump’s supporters to Nazis justifies their persecution. — NOS4A2

Both Trump supporters and protesters have engaged in violent acts.

But, fourth link, I don't accept the analogy between these camps and holocaust concentration camps. (this leaves me open - link me to the concentration camp specialists.) — csalisbury

You can read an article from the NY Review of Books by historian Andrea Pitzer, who recently wrote a book about the history of concentration camps.

the close-reading of the cartoon — csalisbury

oh here's the problem

I do recognize that. I tried to show in my post that I understand the point of the cartoon, and I also understand Hanover's argument, and I tried to show the disconnect between the cartoon and what it's cartooning. I think I did a good job of that and whether you agree or disagree with my points, I wish you had engaged with it.

You didn't, and I suspect that that's because it was a speedbump in the way of composing the hyperlinked second post. — csalisbury

I didn't, because you are over-analyzing a cartoon in a digression that I'm not following whatsoever.

The cartoon is making the exact same bad political/rhetorical move he was decrying. — csalisbury

As I said, the cartoon is a response to a specific form of argumentation that Hanover had made.

Most of your points are less points, than jabs, expulsions of anger, sharp needles looking for soft bellies. The points nestled among the jabs are lost because the people responding, correctly, read these points as merely the means to an end of Expressed Contempt. — csalisbury

Yeah I do often have contempt for some people here if they say stupid shit. Hanover decides to define Nazism as genocide despite the Final Solution being put in place in 1941. When I point out that Nazism existed and was in power prior to this he ignores it. When I point out that immigrants are being called infestation and vermin, and point out the state of children in concentration camps, he ignores this and just states that we're not putting people in gas chambers, which started in 1939. When I criticize his reliance on defining Nazism by its concluding years, ignoring the conditions which lead to genocide, he ignores it and goes back to talking about genocide. I find this frustrating and contemptible.

The point of the cartoon is to lampoon the argument that calling a person, or group of people Nazis, or Racists, or Fascists will eventually make them embrace those very positions. Or in Hanover's terms, calling them Nazis will "strengthen their resolve" and lead them to embrace their political leaders who...call immigrants vermin and throw them into concentration camps in inhumane conditions, which is totally not Nazi-like.

Not sure what conversation you'd like me to have with Hanover and others, when the points I'm making are constantly ignored.

Between Hanover justifying separating families and wanting to vote for Trump, despite not liking him, just to see democrats have a second meltdown, I think 'deplorable' is a pretty apt appellation

1. Many of the immigrants separated are seeking and announcing asylum, which is legal.
2. Many of the immigrants are from countries that were destabilized by the US Government through coups and supplying militia with weapons and training.
3. Even granting that USA has sovereignty over it's borders, this doesn't justify family separation as an acceptable policy. This is sheer victim blaming 'look at what you made me do' thinking.

I've made and flushed out these points to you several times, but you simply ignore them.

At least people generally avoided engaging with Maw for a while (progress there I guess — I like sushi

Yeah thank Christ on that one

And some of us seem to enjoy being arrogant and condescending. — ssu

Anyone who has been keeping up with post-2016 political discourse and election analysis should have found it fairly easy to point out the bullshit discussed in that documentary, as I did. I've spend the last few years making the effort to keep myself informed, and I'm not going to take kindly to people who continually think they can get away with not doing their homework, yet act as if their thoughts and speculation on the matter are more valid than mine.

Sorry...Ayn Rand? Who is that?

This song is so fucking good

Oh and by the way, I just realized that one of the woman "experts" in the video is Saleno Zito, who infamously lied in her book, The Great Revolt, about interviewing swing voters, when in fact they were Republican officials or long-time GOP voters, or simply made up quotes that supported GOP talking points from uncertain voters. What a complete joke.

Nazi Germany and Hitler are the worst to draw parralels to, because it's overused as a method to do the most damage to your "political opponents". — Judaka

Yes, when I see families separated and placed in camps that historians, including historians of concentration camps call them concentration camps, in sinister and inhumane conditions that I've outlined here and elsewhere, approved by a president who calls immigrants "vermin", who "infest our countries", which, uh yeah, very much has Nazi precedence, or spreading conspiracy theories that lead the the worst massacre of Jews in America (and continues to do so), then yes, I will continue to draw parallels between Nazism and Trumpism, and give fuck-all to how my political opponents feel about this when they shrug it off, enable it, or outright support it. Conservatives are the biggest fucking crybabies I swear.

Literally the only thing that would convince some of you that drawing an analogy between Nazi Germany is when the US Government starts shoving people into gas chambers, and the point is to ensure that it doesn't get to that point.

Caring about immigration ≠ racism either — Judaka

Except I didn't say that concern with immigration is tantamount to being racist. What I actually wrote was that the documentary's main focus was that the primary concern and motivation of Trump voters was the economy. It offered no stats to bulwark that. Just some talking heads and some Trump voters they interviewed. The stats pulled from the exit poll show otherwise. The thesis of the video is incorrect.


Once again, some of you don't read, and it really shows.

Are you quoting David Bowie's Starman?

the left heaps upon the right by calling them Nazi-like does nothing but strengthen their resolve and increase their loyalty to their political leaders. — Hanover

Just evergreen commentary from you

Most of you clearly don't read any relevant political material, and it shows in your comments.

Not wanting to pull troops at this current time =/= wanting perpetual war

Tiff this is a very silly question you are asking. As the current situation stands, pulling troops out at this time will be (is) devastating to our allies, so I would simply not pull out at this time.

Hillary's "Basket of Deplorables" comment was correct, actually.

If I was the commander in chief i would simply not move forward with a decision that would allow thousands of our allies to die

To be clear, I don't think impeachement is inherently anti-democratic or anything. In fact it's obviously an important mechanism for guaranteeing it. I'm just saying that it should be wielded strategically. — StreetlightX

That's fair, I just found the anti-impeachment sentiment expressed near the end of the video puzzling and nonsensical, particularly the statement made by the economist Lowery you quoted earlier for some of the reasons I provided and for additional reasons which maybe I'll delineate on tomorrow.

The point I take away is that it's no good to respond to these world events by doubling down on undemocratic measures ('if the people are dumb and ignorant, then we'll do the right thing for them'). The people must be built. They must be constituted. And we do that by engagement. — StreetlightX

I mean I certainly agree, but as I've previously pointed out to you, impeachment simply isn't a black and white democratic vs. non-democratic process as you've been making it out to be, given that the Democrats won the House in the biggest wave since the early 70s, and an impeachment inquiry is part of that responsibility as elected officials in the occupations they serve. And while not synonymous with a democratic vote by any means, the desire to at least have an impeachment inquiry is enjoying a majority in the polls. I mean, I'm curious, do you think that Nixon should have been impeached? I would assume no, then?

I am looking to support a responsible way out. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Ok but this aint it.

Is this where I draw a distinction between gas chambers for Jews sought out from every corner of Europe and temporary detention centers for those who have sought out residency in the US in open violation of its laws? — Hanover

Again, your ahistorical insistence on narrowly defining Nazism by it's concluding years, rather than taking into account the conditions in which it began to arise, and the conditions which laid the foundations for the acceptance of gas chambers (e.g. constantly referring to an marginalized out-group as subhuman, "rats", "vermin" , while also excluding the conditions that the immigrants are escaping from and what caused them (it was the USA). I've explained all of this multiple times in other threads, to you and to others. Maybe you should get a bunch of tattoos like the main character in Momento so that I don't have to waste my time further repeating myself?

Mark Twain is (apocryphally) have said that "history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes", and I think that's a useful phrase to take into account when calling modern people Nazi's or Fascists, which were essentially political parties that had gained power under specific conditions for a period of time in a particular place. So no, we likely never going to see any exact repetition of these movements and events, but that does not mean that we should discard these otherwise politically salient terms, especially when we seem them echo again so clearly in modernity.

I think some of the most hard hitting stuff was from Lowry, the economist, near the end of the video — StreetlightX

"The way to defeat Trump is to get 50.1% of the vote" — StreetlightX

But this isn't true!!! And he should know this!!!

Whatever you might think of the weirdos at Spiked, I think this is a pretty good video. It's far from a deep or original analysis, but it makes some points that I mostly agree with and that I think people have to learn from, especially Leftists. And really I just like it because it stands up for people who are being derided in liberal and Left circles. I have a humble desire: that we understand what led people to vote the way they did, rather than dismiss them. Their concerns should be ours. — jamalrob

I just watched the video and it's laughably awful, unsurprisingly shallow, biased, and filled with discredited presumptions and absurd claims that we're somehow meant to accept at face value. Rather than providing studies or statistics, it treats anecdata as meaningful, substance analysis. It's been nearly three years since Trump won the 2016 election and we have ample evidence to confirm that racism in fact played a key role in mobilizing votes for Trumps. Not "economic anxiety". In fact, I would challenge anyone to find studies that do show economic uncertainty was the key issue for Trump voters. Unfortunately, a random gym owner does not count. Despite the video claiming that a majority of Trump voters were enticed by his message due to economic struggles, more Hillary voters claimed that the economy was a more important issue than Trump voters (52% vs. 41%), while a majority of Trump supporters claimed that immigration was one of their biggest issues (64% vs 33%). The video claims that Trump voters have been struggling financially while Hillary voters mainly comprised of coastal elites, a majority of voters with income <$50K voted for Hillary (53%) over Trump (41%), while voters with an income over $100K were split 47% vs. 47%.

Much of the framing in the documentary is patently absurd. After several British stay voters said that leave voters (at 10:00) based their decisions on racism and xenophobia, a writer retorts "well actually, in many polls, leave voters said they are not hostile to migrants and they don't have racist views". Well of course few would claim otherwise, so that's not a proper way of measuring whether or not they actually were motivated by racism. What did any of you expect? A interviewee looking straight into the camera and saying "yes, I hate blacks and Mexicans and that's why I voted Trump"?

Then they pivot to Obama voters who subsequently voted for Trump, despite not offering any stats on whether or not this is a significant voting segment. In fact, only about 9% to 12% of Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016, and racial resentment nevertheless played a role in that switch. Oh, but I guess we'll never actually know the truth since that one gym owner said he had several biracial grandkids so he couldn't possibly be racist.

While none of this economic anxiety bullshit stands up to scrutiny, I think it's interesting how we're are supposed to be overly sympathetic to ostensibly economically struggling whites, despite other ethnic groups, particularity Black Americans, having also struggled (in more meaningful ways) yet have never resorting to a voting for a overtly racist, fascist-adjacent strong man.