Twitter's alleged bias towards left-wing trolls.

Silentcorner

rossie1977 wrote: »

Trump massively increased bombings in Middle East compared to his predecessor and it got so bad he stopped reporting it.

He helped back the Saudis in their war in Yemen which killed thousands.



Black unemployment is continually up and down. When black unemployment fell Trump took credit, when it rose again not a peep.

What specifically did Trump do to increase black employment?

Certainly didn't do anything in White House..
https://twitter.com/AmandiOnAir/status/1270361553968205827




LGBT rights fell massively under Trump.

1. He firstly sought to reverse health care protection for trans people
2. Banned trans from serving in military
3. Eliminated rules protecting trans students
4. Tried to introduce a ruling where companies could fire gay people under religious exemption
5. Tried to introduce ruling whereby gay people wouldn't be protected under sex discrimination law.



His black vote was still low. Much lower than George Bush Jr. Similar to Romney and McCain who were running against a black man..

So you can't name a war he started over his 4 year term.
So you can't show me where the black community reached higher employment and earnings achieved prior to his term.
Can you explain how he managed to increase his share of the LGBT vote?

His policies specifically for the black community were the Special Investment Zones in predominantly black neighbourhoods, his First Step act which allowed non violent criminals early release from draconian sentences and incentivized companies to hire these people, he allocated funding for Black colleges...

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/horace-cooper-trump-policies-obama/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/trump-praised-pro-black-white-house-prison-reform-event-n896526
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/30/trump-lgbtq-voters-support-silver-lining/

It is not easy to find unbiased media outlets to back either position, such was the nature of the last 4 years...but hatred of Trump began long before he won the election in 2016 so I don't pay too much attention to it!!!

FTA69

Silentcorner wrote: »

Identity politics, which is rooted in Marxist ideology is the preserve of the political and ideological left,.

Nope. Not even close.

Marxism is a set of ideas that hinges on class as the innate divide and contradiction in society. The idea that wealth in the economy is produced by those who work or ‘sell their labour’ and a capitalist class that exploits it to garner profit or ‘surplus value’. It also hinges on a materialist analysis, ie the idea that our circumstances and consciousness etc are all derived from the way society and the economy are constructed.

While you can have Marxist analyses of women and race etc, they are framed within a wider class based analysis of capitalism. What you are describing is liberal identity politics, hinged on the individual and a specifically anti-materialist philosophy called Postmodernism. Now have swathes of the political left become influenced by liberalism? Yes. Is the type of thing you’re describing Marxist? No.

Lastly identity politics isn’t limited to the left. You have people on the right obsessed with “traditional way of life”, talking about “the white working class”, “Judeo-Christian civilisation” and even “ethnostates”. These are all forms of identity politics as well.

Silentcorner

FTA69 wrote: »

Nope. Not even close.

Marxism is a set of ideas that hinges on class as the innate divide and contradiction in society. The idea that wealth in the economy is produced by those who work or ‘sell their labour’ and a capitalist class that exploits it to garner profit or ‘surplus value’. It also hinges on a materialist analysis, ie the idea that our circumstances and consciousness etc are all derived from the way society and the economy are constructed.

While you can have Marxist analyses of women and race etc, they are framed within a wider class based analysis of capitalism. What you are describing is liberal identity politics, hinged on the individual and a specifically anti-materialist philosophy called Postmodernism. Now have swathes of the political left become influenced by liberalism? Yes. Is the type of thing you’re describing Marxist? No.

Lastly identity politics isn’t limited to the left. You have people on the right obsessed with “traditional way of life”, talking about “the white working class”, “Judeo-Christian civilisation” and even “ethnostates”. These are all forms of identity politics as well.

Not even close, identity politics and liberal identity politics aren't even close? They sound like the exact same thing except replacing class with gender or race!!!!!

So instead of the plain old enemy of capitalists, the new enemy is white male capitalists!!!

FTA69

Silentcorner wrote: »

Not even close, identity politics and liberal identity politics aren't even close? They sound like the exact same thing except replacing class with gender or race!!!!!

So instead of the plain old enemy of capitalists, the new enemy is white male capitalists!!!

What isn’t close is your assertion that liberal identity politics are a part of “Marxist ideology” because they aren’t, that stuff is rooted in liberal postmodernism - not Marxism.

Marxists would say that capitalism itself is a repressive economic system regardless of the race or sex of the capitalists involved eg a class-based, material analysis. To boil it down further, it’s simply some people own all the stuff in the world despite others doing the work that produces that profit getting f*ck all. That’s very distinct from the idea that we should have more black CEOs and more women landlords.

Retr0gamer

BloodBath wrote: »

Oh please, Obama was even worse than Bush. He might have pulled troops out but bombings and drone strikes went through the roof.

Are you forgetting about Libya and Syria as well? Also Somalia and Yemem.

He was no saint but the drone strikes and bombings were a symptom of the technology advancing and his policy to protect the troops.

The conflicts you mention he didn't start and was drawn into. There were mistakes made but he never did anything as cowardly as pulling the troops out of Syria to leave his allies to be massacred or assassinate members of state he wasn't at war with.

You are also ignoring that Trump has authorised more drone strikes and bombings than Obama ever did.

Silentcorner

FTA69 wrote: »

What isn’t close is your assertion that liberal identity politics are a part of “Marxist ideology” because they aren’t, that stuff is rooted in liberal postmodernism - not Marxism.

Marxists would say that capitalism itself is a repressive economic system regardless of the race or sex of the capitalists involved eg a class-based, material analysis. To boil it down further, it’s simply some people own all the stuff in the world despite others doing the work that produces that profit getting f*ck all. That’s very distinct from the idea that we should have more black CEOs and more women landlords.

Feminists and the BLM movement often say that capitalism itself is a repressive economic system...the do it all the time!!! When they say they want to tear down the system (which they both do), which system do you think they are talking about?

Getting a wage isn't f##k all....it's selling your labour, you can do that or you can use your own labour to start your own company and enrich yourself, that is free market capitalism!!!

You are doing my work for me here....thanks!!!

CtevenSrowder

Tony EH wrote: »

That only depends upon who is using them and for what gain. At their base level, both systems are quite different. But that doesn't mean that the likes of Communism can't be used by whomever to achieve totalitarian goals. As we have seen historically, it can be utilised by totalitarians to garner support among the "masses", as it's the "masses" that stand to benefit from its basic tenets.

But it's not a given thing, as it almost assuredly is with a system like fascism.

The only genuine overlap between both systems is an anti democratic nature of sorts and a rejection of liberalism to varying degrees. But Communism isn't necessarily anti democratic. Technically, you could have a Communist state, with democracy of sorts. That's probably not possible with a Fascist state, which by its very nature, demands a dictatorial head and is more easily used as a means of despotism.

Yes, in theory you could, but as discussed practically you don't. Which is the point. H 2-D explicitly stated he was talking about the practical application of the ideologies (as was I), both of which always end up going the same way.

Theory is theory, what matters is the real World application. And when that occurs, they end up being very similar in a lot of respects.

FTA69

Retr0gamer wrote: »

He was no saint but the drone strikes and bombings were a symptom of the technology advancing and his policy to protect the troops.

The conflicts you mention he didn't start and was drawn into. There were mistakes made but he never did anything as cowardly as pulling the troops out of Syria to leave his allies to be massacred or assassinate members of state he wasn't at war with.

You are also ignoring that Trump has authorised more drone strikes and bombings than Obama ever did.

He made a conscious decision to intervene in Libya with disastrous consequences.

Silentcorner

Retr0gamer wrote: »

He was no saint but the drone strikes and bombings were a symptom of the technology advancing and his policy to protect the troops.

The conflicts you mention he didn't start and was drawn into. There were mistakes made but he never did anything as cowardly as pulling the troops out of Syria to leave his allies to be massacred or assassinate members of state he wasn't at war with.

You are also ignoring that Trump has authorised more drone strikes and bombings than Obama ever did.

Whereas Obama bravely took on the Libyans!!!!

I've asked you a few times but can you explain why you called me a bigot please?

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

My argument is nothing. Fascists cannot be left wing.

You are, objectively, fundamentally wrong.

I never said they could be. And I am not. You have not demonstrated how, when either ideology is actually implemented, they are vastly different. I have given a list of similarities.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I am not objectively wrong. Your whole argument is backwards. In theory they are different but in practice similar (which is what my point is). Both systems/ideologies result in severe income inequality, both lead to brutal oppression of dissenters, are highly authoritarian, are anti-democratic, means of production are ultimately directed by the state, both give little prominence to the individual etc.



Which has got nothing to do with the differences/similarities between fascism and communism.

You are fundamentally wrong.

Communism vs. Fascism is like comparing Jupiter to Mars.

What you're describing is authoritarianism.

FreudianSlippers

Silentcorner wrote: »

Feminists and the BLM movement often say that capitalism itself is a repressive economic system...the do it all the time!!! When they say they want to tear down the system (which they both do), which system do you think they are talking about?

Getting a wage isn't f##k all....it's selling your labour, you can do that or you can use your own labour to start your own company and enrich yourself, that is free market capitalism!!!

You are doing my work for me here....thanks!!!

This is such a nonsense post that I'm not really sure where to start, but certainly tarring all feminists and people who believe black lives matter as anti-capitalist is some of the biggest load of waffle I have ever seen on this hellsite full of nonsense.

FTA69

Silentcorner wrote: »

Feminists and the BLM movement often say that capitalism itself is a repressive economic system...the do it all the time!!! When they say they want to tear down the system (which they both do), which system do you think they are talking about?

Getting a wage isn't f##k all....it's selling your labour, you can do that or you can use your own labour to start your own company and enrich yourself, that is free market capitalism!!!

You are doing my work for me here....thanks!!!

Some feminists and some BLM supporters will say that, others won’t. Many feminists are perfectly content with more female representation under capitalism and likewise within black politics in the USA.

And yes I know what free-market capitalism is thanks, I dunno why you’ve produced that as some sort of ‘gotcha’. You’ve basically alluded to this idea of liberal identity politics (which doesn’t contradict capitalism at all really) being rooted in Marxism which it isn’t. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world and he flew the Afrika colours from his factory, is he a Marxist? His ex-wife is one of the richest people in the world and champions “women’s rights” is she a Marxist as well? JK Rowling the billionaire, another Marxist?

If you are not anti-capitalism and don’t see class as the primary schism and determiner of power in society in broad collective terms then you’re not a Marxist.

CtevenSrowder

FTA69 wrote: »

What isn’t close is your assertion that liberal identity politics are a part of “Marxist ideology” because they aren’t, that stuff is rooted in liberal postmodernism - not Marxism.

Marxists would say that capitalism itself is a repressive economic system regardless of the race or sex of the capitalists involved eg a class-based, material analysis. To boil it down further, it’s simply some people own all the stuff in the world despite others doing the work that produces that profit getting f*ck all. That’s very distinct from the idea that we should have more black CEOs and more women landlords.

The Marxism aspect results from the idea of their being an oppressor and oppressed class. This used to be simply based around wealth, or class as you suggest, but has now been expanded to race, sex, sexual orientation, whether trans or not etc. And then there are sub-groups within each of those categories.

FreudianSlippers

I'm probably historically one of the most capitalist posters on this site for the last 14 years. I support BLM and feminists.

Point disproven.

FTA69

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The Marxism aspect results from the idea of their being an oppressor and oppressed class. This used to be simply based around wealth, or class as you suggest, but has now been expanded to race, sex, sexual orientation, whether trans or not etc. And then there are sub-groups within each of those categories.

But it isn’t mate, Marxism is specifically engineered around economic class and one’s relationship to the ‘means of production’ eg industry and capital; nothing else.

The idea that all women are oppressed by all men for instance is radical feminism, not Marxism. They’re two different things.

Mike Murdock

FTA69 wrote: »

Some feminists and some BLM supporters will say that, others won’t. Many feminists are perfectly content with more female representation under capitalism and likewise within black politics in the USA.

And yes I know what free-market capitalism is thanks, I dunno why you’ve produced that as some sort of ‘gotcha’. You’ve basically alluded to this idea of liberal identity politics (which doesn’t contradict capitalism at all really) being rooted in Marxism which it isn’t. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world and he flew the Afrika colours from his factory, is he a Marxist? His ex-wife is one of the richest people in the world and champions “women’s rights” is she a Marxist as well? JK Rowling the billionaire, another Marxist?

If you are not anti-capitalism and don’t see class as the primary schism and determiner of power in society in broad collective terms then you’re not a Marxist.

They are Champagne "Socialists".

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

You are fundamentally wrong.

Communism vs. Fascism is like comparing Jupiter to Mars.

What you're describing is authoritarianism.

What you are describing is the theoretical underpinnings of the ideologies (which are different) versus their practical implications which are quite similar. I have given examples of how they are similar, of which authoritarianism is one aspect they both have in common. All communist regimes have been severely repressive, from Vietnam to the USSR. Likewise fascist regimes.

Mike Murdock

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The Marxism aspect results from the idea of their being an oppressor and oppressed class. This used to be simply based around wealth, or class as you suggest, but has now been expanded to race, sex, sexual orientation, whether trans or not etc. And then there are sub-groups within each of those categories.

That's as much Foucault and Power dynamics as it is Marxism.

CtevenSrowder

FTA69 wrote: »

But it isn’t mate, Marxism is specifically engineered around economic class and one’s relationship to the ‘means of production’ eg industry and capital; nothing else.

The idea that all women are oppressed by all men for instance is radical feminism, not Marxism. They’re two different things.

What I have described is usually classed as post-Marxism for the reasons I gave, I should've made that clear.

Retr0gamer

Silentcorner wrote: »

I've asked you a few times but can you explain why you called me a bigot please?

No. I don't need to get into an internet pissing contest and take this even further off topic when:

a) I didn't technically call you a bigot, it was addressing your comments and
b) the quoted post is why I said what I did. It's all there.

FreudianSlippers

Mike Murdock wrote: »

They are Champagne "Socialists".

Not really, Amazon for example is more of a "free market welfare" model as opposed to true capitalism. It's a use of fundamental free market ideals to make States bring your business to them - nobody is going to turn down a free subsidy after all!

Champagne socialists are really those that take advantage of a more pure socialist system to accumulate wealth; it's not that they're not redistributing it, but they're skimming the cream.

CtevenSrowder

Mike Murdock wrote: »

That's as much Foucault and Power dynamics as it is Marxism.

Yes, but Foucalt was influenced by Marx was he not? He was a member of a communist party at one stage in his life.

Sonics2k

BloodBath wrote: »

Oh please, Obama was even worse than Bush. He might have pulled troops out but bombings and drone strikes went through the roof.

Are you forgetting about Libya and Syria as well? Also Somalia and Yemem.

So here' a fun thing. Obama literally campaigned on a program of removing troops from overseas conflicts, and using "other methods" such as Drones instead. Fun fact, McCain said the same thing.

Even Bush Jnr was saying it in the run up to his second term.

Americans don't seem to give a crap about the absolute carnage they wreck across the world to suit their benefits, but they just didn't want their own kids to die in the process.

Obama's drones numbers of the 8 years were of course the highest to date, because the technology barely existed and was still in it's early days in the early 2000's, in terms of it's full military use.

Trump, in like two years, managed to catch up with Obama's number and then told the DoD and White House to stop reporting the numbers.

Silentcorner

Retr0gamer wrote: »

No. I don't need to get into an internet pissing contest and take this even further off topic when:

a) I didn't technically call you a bigot, it was addressing your comments and
b) the quoted post is why I said what I did. It's all there.

I asked you to explain why you called me a bigot, and you haven't bothered to, that is your style clearly...I have no problem with some one who can validate their issue with any of my posts, but resorting to throwing a repugnant insult without explanation doesn't exactly shed you in good light!!!

Silentcorner

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is such a nonsense post that I'm not really sure where to start, but certainly tarring all feminists and people who believe black lives matter as anti-capitalist is some of the biggest load of waffle I have ever seen on this hellsite full of nonsense.

But if I had said some feminists and some members of the BLM movement then...would it be nonsense?

rossie1977

Silentcorner wrote: »

So you can't name a war he started over his 4 year term.

Actually most US presidents past 60 years didn't start a war. Trump though as previously stated increased bombings and casualties compared to previous administration.

So you can't show me where the black community reached higher employment and earnings achieved prior to his term.

Black unemployment has seen steady fall since 2010 when it peaked at 17%. Its fall under Trump continued yes but then rose again.

Can you explain how he managed to increase his share of the LGBT vote?

He didn't. His vote was 14%. Right wing media and twitter rejoiced at an exit poll claiming support doubled but that was small sample size with huge margin of error https://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/112704544

His policies specifically for the black community were the Special Investment Zones in predominantly black neighbourhoods, his First Step act which allowed non violent criminals early release from draconian sentences and incentivized companies to hire these people, he allocated funding for Black colleges...

'HBCUs received a total of $1.9 billion from the federal government in appropriations, grants and contracts in 2017-2018, compared with $1.8 billion in 2016-2017 and between $1.8 billion and $2.4 billion annually under Obama'

So under Trump funding for black colleges dropped..

It is not easy to find unbiased media outlets to back either position, such was the nature of the last 4 years...but hatred of Trump began long before he won the election in 2016 so I don't pay too much attention to it!!!

Media made a huge deal out of Obama not saluting and tan suit, playing with selfie stick and djion mustard.

Any other president not named Trump would have been hounded out of office within first year with same number of incidents. Media don't hate Trump.. they have enabled him

Retr0gamer

Silentcorner wrote: »

I asked you to explain why you called me a bigot, and you haven't bothered to, that is your style clearly...I have no problem with some one who can validate their issue with any of my posts, but resorting to throwing a repugnant insult without explanation doesn't exactly shed you in good light!!!

I quoted your post. It's all there.

FreudianSlippers

Silentcorner wrote: »

But if I had said some feminists and some members of the BLM movement then...would it be nonsense?

Some feminists are anti-capitalists, some BLM supporters are anti-capitalists, some everyone are anti-capitalists. I'm not sure I see your point?

Silentcorner

FTA69 wrote: »

Some feminists and some BLM supporters will say that, others won’t. Many feminists are perfectly content with more female representation under capitalism and likewise within black politics in the USA.

And yes I know what free-market capitalism is thanks, I dunno why you’ve produced that as some sort of ‘gotcha’. You’ve basically alluded to this idea of liberal identity politics (which doesn’t contradict capitalism at all really) being rooted in Marxism which it isn’t. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world and he flew the Afrika colours from his factory, is he a Marxist? His ex-wife is one of the richest people in the world and champions “women’s rights” is she a Marxist as well? JK Rowling the billionaire, another Marxist?

If you are not anti-capitalism and don’t see class as the primary schism and determiner of power in society in broad collective terms then you’re not a Marxist.

No, you brought liberal identity politics into this, I'd never heard the term before, and your description of liberal identity politics is very similar to Marxism...by your own description.

Feminism is such a mess of shallow logically inconsistent arguments I shouldn't have used the term in the fashion that I did, I do take that back!

The BLM movement have been pretty explicit in what they are!