Bernie Sanders endorsed TYT founder and carpetbagger Cenk Uygur in CA 25 Congressional Race (UP: Sanders retracts endorsement) [SEE STAFF POST]

[Deleted member 8561]

I'm not going to spend time to multi-quote because you've only repeated basically everything you've already said.

It's very obvious that your definition of being "left/right" wing are based on economic policies and you're deflecting the very right wing social aspects Europe faces because... a bunch of nations that have cultural homogamy were able to implement social welfare programs easily when they didn't start having influxes of non-white people immigrate.

It's very obvious that you only view economics as the litmus test because;

You mitigate the consequences, though. And as a result of that create a more equal and diverse society, because the systemic gatekeeping that works through privilege (which is to a large degree economic) gets reduced. And this result, the more diverse and equal society, is the best remedy for racism.
Racism is a form of prejudice, its a remnant of the way our animal brain needed to categorize between safe and threatening things. Fighting that is a generational task, but the necessary context is a fair and equal and diverse society. Otherwise, your fight against racism is constantly undone by the populist exploitation of differences between societal groups in order to saw hatred and unite behind a common picture of enemy.

Click to shrink...

You're literally repeating what I said but ignoring the actual criticism of a simplistic class warfare view of racism lol

I've already gone over why "Democrats are right wing" is dumb, and the only thing you've done is ignore why it's dumb and just pretend that everything litmus test based is 100% economics.

Completely ignoring that the economics in the United States of America is 100% influences from the social aspect of racism influencing the type of national efforts that Democrats have been trying to get done for years. Completely ignoring that you can't actually do economic reform in the US on a national level because you'll have instant blow back from the people you're trying to help, poor white "working class" voters who flip their shit over black Americans getting the same benefits.

Like, it's fucking ridiculous that this is even a discussion where I have to point out that trying to be a smartypants of ignoring the social aspects of the national Democratic platform for equality and the natural coalition of minority groups is "actually right wing".

It's stupid, you know it's stupid, but because you only seem to care about the US magically emulating countries with completely different social dynamics and political challenges, it doesn't fit your very limited definition, so it's all "right wing".

 

[Kazooie]

I don't agree at all. The FDP is economically liberal. The term liberal in Europe also refers to economic liberalism, while in the US it refers to social liberalism. So that's an important semantic oddity to keep in mind not to get confused.
However, the FDP is far from being a libertarian party. Libertarianism is about small-government philosophy, and that simply doesn't exist in Europe. At least not to the extent it would need to in order to be called "libertarianism".
The FDP is less libertarian than the Democrats, policy-wise. They are in favor of the welfare state, of free university, universal healthcare, mandatory public retirement funds etc.
That's a far cry from libertarianism.

Click to shrink...

You must be talking about a different FDP then, the FDP has been calling for privatising retirement (of couse not immediately, that would be sacked by the supreme court pretty quickly), they want to restructure the health system to make it a proper insurance, which means that what you pay for insurance is not dependent on your income (as it is right now), but according to individual risk, if you take a look at their concept, it is basically the US system with two distinctions:
(1) new borns have to be included in the insurance without additional cost (and cannot be regarded as an insurance risk)
(2) you are required to have an isurance by law (this was the case under Obama but has now been changed again under Trump)
They want to abolish the health care system and replace it by only private insurances. They want to exclude sick leave, dentists and similar "unnecessary" health care.
If the FDP could have their way, our health system would be ruined.

Next point, free universities, this is just not correct, the FDP has consistently fought for university fees. Of course they did not try to make university as expensive as it is in the US in one sweep, but they actually have implemented fees for universities in the states where they could. In Northrhine Westfalia, for instance, they introduced such fees, social democrats and greens removed them and when the FDP got back into power together with the conservatives, they tried to reimplement fees for universities (failed though because the CDU declined).

The FDP is more libertarian than the Democrats, they just lack the power to implement it.

 

[loquaciousJenny]

I'm pretty sure both Cenk and Bernie want all money out of politics, period. Why does it matter if it's Jewish?

Click to shrink...

So you're saying it's fine to make anti-Semitic statements or proliferate anti-Semitic conspiracies like that of Soros because in the end there is no difference and you support all money being removed from politics.

 

[Umbrella Carp]

So you're saying it's fine to make anti-Semitic statements or proliferate anti-Semitic conspiracies like that of Soros because in the end there is no difference and you support all money being removed from politics.

Click to shrink...

I didn't say any of that, but I admire your efforts to fill in your own blanks.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, where has Cenk been peddling anti-semitic conspiracy theories?

 

[Alavard]

I didn't say any of that, but I admire your efforts to fill in your own blanks.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, where has Cenk been peddling anti-semitic conspiracy theories?

Click to shrink...

It was literally in the tweeted video you quoted when you complained about 'the agenda'. Literally right fucking there.

 

[ak1287]

I didn't say any of that, but I admire your efforts to fill in your own blanks.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, where has Cenk been peddling anti-semitic conspiracy theories?

Click to shrink...

It was literally in the tweeted video you quoted when you complained about 'the agenda'. Literally right fucking there.

Click to shrink...

 

[chainlinkspiral]

I didn't say any of that, but I admire your efforts to fill in your own blanks.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, where has Cenk been peddling anti-semitic conspiracy theories?

Click to shrink...

Heh.

 

[loquaciousJenny]

I didn't say any of that, but I admire your efforts to fill in your own blanks.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, where has Cenk been peddling anti-semitic conspiracy theories?

Click to shrink...

What do you think telling conservatives "we're going to get George Soro's money out of politics" means? you quoted that post and pretended like the problem is that this woman doesn't like Bernie

 

[Deleted member 48897]

Completely ignoring that the economics in the United States of America is 100% influences from the social aspect of racism influencing the type of national efforts that Democrats have been trying to get done for years. Completely ignoring that you can't actually do economic reform in the US on a national level because you'll have instant blow back from the people you're trying to help, poor white "working class" voters who flip their shit over black Americans getting the same benefits.

Click to shrink...

Who says the people the left is trying to benefit primarily are the white working class? I appreciate the fact that ending injustice in this country is a herculean task but the idea that the support for the left is primarily a cause of white people is only borne out by the fact that they're a majority in this country. The justice dems are notably not white, and I would say that calling Cenk white by modern American standards is a fraught idea as well.

I think Cenk has a lot of baggage that makes him a very poor choice for rep here, but I think going on about racial justice as his stumbling block vs. casual misogyny (although I don't know if it's really casual misogyny if you're the head of a media platform) is missing the forest for the trees, or at least making unfair generalizations about the priorities of the left or who the left in this country actually is.

 

[Deleted member 8561]

Who says the people the left is trying to benefit primarily are the white working class? I appreciate the fact that ending injustice in this country is a herculean task but the idea that the support for the left is primarily a cause of white people is only borne out by the fact that they're a majority in this country. The justice dems are notably not white, and I would say that calling Cenk white by modern American standards is a fraught idea as well.

I think Cenk has a lot of baggage that makes him a very poor choice for rep here, but I think going on about racial justice as his stumbling block vs. casual misogyny (although I don't know if it's really casual misogyny if you're the head of a media platform) is missing the forest for the trees, or at least making unfair generalizations about the priorities of the left or who the left in this country actually is.

Click to shrink...

You misread what I wrote. I'm saying the efforts of "lifting everyone up" naturally include the racist white working class, who will revolt against said efforts even when they get obvious benefits.

Part of the logic of "class uplifting" is once you assist the poor racists, they will become less racist through said "uplifting" where they don't have to blame their previous economic distress on "the others".

Now, that's obviously not how reality works, but that's part of the logic of seeing things through a very specific "class" lens where you think pure economics can end racism in America, and part of that logic is if you assist everyone you'll not only be lifting up those affected by racism, but those who perpetuate it will stop doing so.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

You must be talking about a different FDP then, the FDP has been calling for privatising retirement (of couse not immediately, that would be sacked by the supreme court pretty quickly), they want to restructure the health system to make it a proper insurance, which means that what you pay for insurance is not dependent on your income (as it is right now), but according to individual risk, if you take a look at their concept, it is basically the US system with two distinctions:
(1) new borns have to be included in the insurance without additional cost (and cannot be regarded as an insurance risk)
(2) you are required to have an isurance by law (this was the case under Obama but has now been changed again under Trump)
They want to abolish the health care system and replace it by only private insurances. They want to exclude sick leave, dentists and similar "unnecessary" health care.
If the FDP could have their way, our health system would be ruined.

Next point, free universities, this is just not correct, the FDP has consistently fought for university fees. Of course they did not try to make university as expensive as it is in the US in one sweep, but they actually have implemented fees for universities in the states where they could. In Northrhine Westfalia, for instance, they introduced such fees, social democrats and greens removed them and when the FDP got back into power together with the conservatives, they tried to reimplement fees for universities (failed though because the CDU declined).

The FDP is more libertarian than the Democrats, they just lack the power to implement it.

Click to shrink...

You can only judge based on actual policy as well as party programs. What they would or could do under a hypothetical context is just speculation.
And these things don't bring them anywhere near libertarianism. They are simply a very neoliberal party.

I dislike them as much as the next guy but labeling them libertarian because they tend to argue for reductions of the german welfare state simply misses the point of what libertarianism is.
Besides, libertarians aren't necessarily economically liberal(they are simply for small government, which in turn often means businesses get to do whatever they want, but their motivation isn't based in economic ideas but distrust in government) and they are more often than not absolutely not neoliberal and neither are they socially liberal. The FDP is all those things.

Libertarianism is a uniquely American thing, deeply connected to US history. This kind of aversion to the government simply doesn't exist in Europe in this form, where everyone from far left to far-right considers the government a vehicle to realize their ideological vision.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Wow.... I just told you that he has disavowed the Genocide. And since I defend him, that means I "agree" with Genocide?
come on man.

Anyways the point is, I find a large amount of the criticisms posted towards Cenk are disingenuous. Especially considering the ones that have a basis in reality, he has disavowed and apologized numerous times. He has also shown in the past, that he is not quick to call for cancellation or firing of people for bad social media posts or whatever.

Look at the dude above claiming that Cenk promotes conspiracy theories about George Soros and Seth Rich?!?
Jesus, this is so OPPOSITE of anything I've ever seen on TYT, this is crazy. I mean. if you google Cenk George Soros, the first result i get is
George Soros Conspiracy Theory DEBUNKED
same for Seth Rich... I dont get it.



well the things I see he has done are
1. start the largest progressive news program
2. Start a project to get money out of politics that has actually gotten bipartisan support across multiple states and actually got the motion passed in some of them.
3. Start the Justice Democrats which helped to get some of the most progressive members of government in there.

maybe I'm more open to a person that can admit fault, because i am also, not a perfect person. I was raised in a place where everyone here has views that you may find extremely backwards and biggotted, but my personal views have progessed to see those views as wrong. Maybe because of my upbrining and growth in opinion, makes me more accepting towards another person who is able to grow and better themselves if they admit fault. Especially if they admit fault years and years and years before they even thought of going into office.

Click to shrink...

How can you possibly know when Uygar first contemplated running for political office?

I agree that admitting faults is an important and noble part of growing as a person. You said you didn't know what the TCA was, so I laid it out for you. Now you know. You have new knowledge about the situation; you are not beholden to your previous thinking on the matter. You have an opportunity to evolve it.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

You misread what I wrote. I'm saying the efforts of "lifting everyone up" naturally include the racist white working class, who will revolt against said efforts even when they get obvious benefits.

Part of the logic of "class uplifting" is once you assist the poor racists, they will become less racist through said "uplifting" where they don't have to blame their previous economic distress on "the others".

Now, that's obviously not how reality works, but that's part of the logic of seeing things through a very specific "class" lens where you think pure economics can end racism in America, and part of that logic is if you assist everyone you'll not only be lifting up those affected by racism, but those who perpetuate it will stop doing so.

Click to shrink...

Well one thing largely missing from the series of posts you've made in this thread is that a core reason this racism exists is because it benefits the hyper-wealthy to spread these attitudes. People like Rupert Murdoch -- and the advertisers on his networks like oil companies and precious metals exchanges -- are extremely happy to create the sorts of conditions that lead to this culture of perpetual grievance. Pilfering the pockets of the powerless has limited utility for, say, the white precariat, but it is easy to pull off both as a result of long-lasting propaganda and of course the fact that the targets of racist attacks have as a class limited money and power in the first place. The hyper-wealthy got to their positions through workplace conditions that are tantamount to slave labor; Jeff Bezos is the most notorious example because Amazon's business is inherent to the US, whereas most of this mistreatment is generally held at the hands of outsourced labor or contracted staff for "unskilled" positions like janitorial work. The existence of the underclass has been justified by racism from the most economically privileged since before this country was properly established.

It is very clear that having the hyper-wealthy in control of the media is bad, because they will actively restrict coverage of or selectively inform the public about issues or movements that would inconvenience them or reduce their status and privilege. This was a major issue in the way the recent UK election was being covered, where the Labour Party's challenges with anti-Semitism were given outsized concern and coverage over a host of racist behavior and attitudes informing the Tories' platform. Anyone turning out to vote should obviously prefer Labour on this front, but the focus of the coverage skewed peoples' perception of the issue and contributed to a wider narrative of Labour not being able to stand for anything (which their attitude toward the Brexit referendum didn't help either).

The question of economic justice is inherently tied to racial justice because racial justice can't be achieved without disempowering the people who benefit from broadcasting racist messages, and that has to be done by economic means, since these people can't simply be convinced to rescind their privileges. If it were reasonable to expect them to be generous and considerate, they wouldn't be hoarding wealth. The sorts of people with that level of money are willing to do all manner of violations of human dignity, and letting people spew out virulent racism on their behalf isn't even the worst of it. Deplatforming works, as the saying goes, and seizing the money / those media outlets stops the platform.

In establishing social benefits there's no point in doing something like means-testing based on antisocial attitudes. Nobody is taking a racial bias test in order to get a library card. It's a hassle that adds a layer of bureaucracy that may not be able to distinguish between manifestations of racism vs. attempts to reclaim culture, and it's better if shitheads keep their bad opinions to themselves anyway than be indirectly given a space to make their attitudes known. There are better ways to deal with racism in public than to just restrict access to social services, but even then we can and do kick people out of public spaces for being antisocial nuisances.

If you're going to try to explain my opinions to me you should probably do some work into making sure you understand what they are.

 

[loquaciousJenny]

I didn't say any of that, but I admire your efforts to fill in your own blanks.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, where has Cenk been peddling anti-semitic conspiracy theories?

Click to shrink...

You gonna explain to the class why you've come in here repeatedly to shift goal posts while apparently not even reading the posts you respond to? Also for somebody who isn't keeping up with the thread you sure have a high number of posts.

 

[Deleted member 8561]

I'm not explaining your opinions to you, you interjected with an incorrect reading of my post.

The only thing you're further doing is completely ignoring the original context of the post. Nobody is arguing that the rich benefit from fractured societies and they have used racial divides to further the goals of staying "at the top".

Similarly, the actual context of the post which you decided to interject on was that Democrats are magically right wing because we had someone from Europe ignore all social issues and decide because American leftism can't so easily achieve what has been done in culturally homogeneous societies, they are by default right wing because the economics don't line up.

And if you actually compare "left" parties in Europe by his metrics but also factor in the clear progressive nature of the Democratic party on a social level (since it's made up of social minorities of many groups), you start to muddle the picture from the very binary economic view of "Democrats are right wing because they don't fill in blank from Western European Welfare System"

So basically what I'm saying is, you've completely hijacked the comment thread about something which wasn't about what you're talking about and something I'm not really all that interested in discussing in a thread that isn't about what you're talking about.

The original context was Gigawatts thinks Democrats are right wing. That's a very silly thing to think because it requires a very narrow understanding and view of the Democratic party. I've already explained to him why such a reading of the Democratic party is willfully ignorant, beyond that I'm really not interested.

 

[Tfritz]

umbrella carp, my friend, i need you to understand that invoking the narrative that The Scary Jewish Billionaire Is Responsible For Everything You Don't Like About Politics is actually really antisemitic.

(it would also help to understand that conservatives think that george soros's money goes to funding, like, crisis actors for fake mass shootings, and hiring fake protesters to protest police brutality, or climate change, or sexual assault, or demanding medicare for all, or whatever, and that's why they want his money out of politics.)

 

[Kazooie]

You can only judge based on actual policy as well as party programs. What they would or could do under a hypothetical context is just speculation.
And these things don't bring them anywhere near libertarianism. They are simply a very neoliberal party.

I dislike them as much as the next guy but labeling them libertarian because they tend to argue for reductions of the german welfare state simply misses the point of what libertarianism is.
Besides, libertarians aren't necessarily economically liberal(they are simply for small government, which in turn often means businesses get to do whatever they want, but their motivation isn't based in economic ideas but distrust in government) and they are more often than not absolutely not neoliberal and neither are they socially liberal. The FDP is all those things.

Libertarianism is a uniquely American thing, deeply connected to US history. This kind of aversion to the government simply doesn't exist in Europe in this form, where everyone from far left to far-right considers the government a vehicle to realize their ideological vision.

Click to shrink...

I was specifically talking about their policy, not "what they say". But you do not need to take my word for it (assuming you speak German, which I assume because your profile says you're from Munich), for instance, here is their healthcare concept: https://www.fdp.de/files/363/fdp-gesundheitspolitik_faq.pdf

 

[Deleted member 48897]

The original context was Gigawatts thinks Democrats are right wing. That's a very silly thing to think because it requires a very narrow understanding and view of the Democratic party. I've already explained to him why such a reading of the Democratic party is willfully ignorant, beyond that I'm really not interested.

Click to shrink...

I mean I would say the same thing but "DSA" (which in practice is I think much closer to a Democrat caucus than a specific distinct party due to the way that candidates associated with it seek nomination in the Dem party, hmmm) and "white dudes" and stuff like that but it's clear you're not interested in having that discussion (honestly I can't tell what discussion you are trying to have here; my comments on privileged platforms and economic justice can't be separated out from the reason why people in this thread are supporting Cenk in spite of his history of, yes, frankly, bad commentary).

You're arguing that the Dems aren't right-wing because of the leftist caucuses in the party, then complaining that those caucuses exist at all. I guess you can do that, but you'll have a long way to go to convince anyone here that they should take you seriously as a progressive voice on that basis.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm pretty sure both Cenk and Bernie want all money out of politics, period. Why does it matter if it's Jewish?

Click to shrink...

Because the whole Right wing thing is that Jewish money is out to get us. That's the whole Soros conspiracy.

Cenk playing to that is garbage

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

I was specifically talking about their policy, not "what they say". But you do not need to take my word for it (assuming you speak German, which I assume because your profile says you're from Munich), for instance, here is their healthcare concept: https://www.fdp.de/files/363/fdp-gesundheitspolitik_faq.pdf

Click to shrink...

What they are demanding here is a universal healthcare system with a private insurance industry bound by a framework of laws defining mandatory coverage as well as the extent of the coverage.
How exactly is that libertarian? That's pretty much what the more progressive part of Democrats has been fighting for for decades, without success.
A libertarian approach would be to say that healthcare has nothing to do with the purpose of government.

I get what you mean, but what you are bemoaning here is neoliberal ideology, not libertarian ideology.

 

[Kazooie]

What they are demanding here is a universal healthcare system with a private insurance industry bound by a framework of laws defining mandatory coverage as well as the extent of the coverage.
How exactly is that libertarian? That's pretty much what the more progressive part of Democrats has been fighting for for decades, without success.
A libertarian approach would be to say that healthcare has nothing to do with the purpose of government.

I get what you mean, but what you are bemoaning here is neoliberal ideology, not libertarian ideology.

Click to shrink...

It is pretty much exactly Obamacare: Mandatory private health insurance that has to cover certain things that are considered a necessity and with a risk-based rate rather than an income-based one. Yeah, Obamacare is still too much for the Republicans, but that's why I call them (and the FDP) nuts.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Because the whole Right wing thing is that Jewish money is out to get us. That's the whole Soros conspiracy.

Cenk playing to that is garbage

Click to shrink...

Using the allegation of antisemitism to protect a system of legalized bribery in US politics is a tired trick.


One side(the right-wing, antisemitic side) argues from the perspective of an age-old conspiracy theory. The Nazis called it cultural bolshevism back in the day, Neo-Nazis call it cultural Marxism or "post-modernism". What they mean by that is the spreading of post-modern values. Moving past arbitrary concepts of identity, past nations, and religions. Basically: Moving past collectivist values (of national, religious and cultural identity) and towards post-modern values of individualist rights(human rights).
Jews have, in Academia, been one of the early groups to argue for these post-modern values. Obviously not exclusively, but they have been prominent. Which makes sense for people who had no home country and where between the lines of race, religious group and nation, constantly being attacked and othered, wherever they were.
Hitler was terrified of a world where all the labels and categories he and his kind relied on to make any sense of the world and their existence within it, suddenly were exposed as meaningless. In a world of equals, there is nothing to derive your superiority from, your pride and your constructed identity fall apart. This fear is literally what led Hitler to the conclusion that he had to industrially exterminate an entire people and invade the world.

And the very same battle between individualist and collectivist value systems is still raging on today.
Its the reason why Russia (big on collectivist values of national, religious and cultural identity) is supporting Trump(a self-proclaimed nationalist). And the reason why Russia(a socialist oligarchy) is supporting far-right populist parties across Europe.
These groups align ideologically in their embrace of collectivist values and they unite against the common enemy that is liberalism and its individualist values.
China is in on this as well. In their view, human rights are "a form of western imperialism" and the way they are acting in Hong Kong shows that the past few years(Trump, Brexit) have emboldened them and they no longer fear the strength of the liberal world order.
And why would they, with the US and the UK clearly turning their backs on liberal value structures? There is no one left to stand up for these values and against Chinas transgressions. Be it Hong Kong or the Uygur ethnic cleansing currently going on.

Neoliberalism has always flown under the radar of this cultural clash. It masked as an economic system even though it's a full-blown ideology informing and controlling all aspects of life. It is quintessentially globalist because it demands global and free markets, but it's only demanding this freedom for money and goods and can just as well arrange itself with nationalist and authoritarian regimes. Still, this globalism is where antisemites come in and see neoliberal policies as part of the evil plan of cultural Marxists. What they see is a world that getting ever more diverse and complicated, they see their concepts of identity dissipating and it scares them. And this fear is exploited by the likes of Trump, Johnson, LePen, Wilders, Putin, Bolsonaro...


Now to wrap this up, two things:

1. Neoliberal ideology is destroying the planet, it's creating insane inequality, its corrupting democratic systems, it's inherently unsustainable and it commodifies all aspects of our social life thereby distorting so many social issues to such a degree that it becomes impossible to even conceptualize human solutions.

2. But Nazis hate neoliberalism because it brought globalism and immigration and threatens their concepts of identity.

And what you do is equating the people who want to do something against the problem in 1. to the people of 2.
And that's, like come on... that's just shitty.

Heck, when I look at Academia in the US, specifically social sciences and I see the influence of the Frankfurt School around every corner(they are those pesky cultural Marxists who infected US Universities with their critical theory after they fled from the Nazis). But we are still in dire need of some Adorno up in here.

It is pretty much exactly Obamacare: Mandatory private health insurance that has to cover certain things that are considered a necessity and with a risk-based rate rather than an income-based one. Yeah, Obamacare is still too much for the Republicans, but that's why I call them (and the FDP) nuts.

Click to shrink...

With the important difference that Obamacare was never intended to be a universal healthcare system. But either way, no one would call that a libertarian piece of policy.

 

[Encephalon]

No one invoking George Soros is doing it out of an honest attempt to "get money out of politics."

 

[loquaciousJenny]

Using the allegation of antisemitism to protect a system of legalized bribery in US politics is a tired trick.


One side(the right-wing, antisemitic side) argues from the perspective of an age-old conspiracy theory. The Nazis called it cultural bolshevism back in the day, Neo-Nazis call it cultural Marxism or "post-modernism". What they mean by that is the spreading of post-modern values. Moving past arbitrary concepts of identity, past nations, and religions. Basically: Moving past collectivist values (of national, religious and cultural identity) and towards post-modern values of individualist rights(human rights).
Jews have, in Academia, been one of the early groups to argue for these post-modern values. Obviously not exclusively, but they have been prominent. Which makes sense for people who had no home country and where between the lines of race, religious group and nation, constantly being attacked and othered, wherever they were.
Hitler was terrified of a world where all the labels and categories he and his kind relied on to make any sense of the world and their existence within it, suddenly were exposed as meaningless. In a world of equals, there is nothing to derive your superiority from, your pride and your constructed identity fall apart. This fear is literally what led Hitler to the conclusion that he had to industrially exterminate an entire people and invade the world.

And the very same battle between individualist and collectivist value systems is still raging on today.
Its the reason why Russia (big on collectivist values of national, religious and cultural identity) is supporting Trump(a self-proclaimed nationalist). And the reason why Russia(a socialist oligarchy) is supporting far-right populist parties across Europe.
These groups align ideologically in their embrace of collectivist values and they unite against the common enemy that is liberalism and its individualist values.
China is in on this as well. In their view, human rights are "a form of western imperialism" and the way they are acting in Hong Kong shows that the past few years(Trump, Brexit) have emboldened them and they no longer fear the strength of the liberal world order.
And why would they, with the US and the UK clearly turning their backs on liberal value structures? There is no one left to stand up for these values and against Chinas transgressions. Be it Hong Kong or the Uygur ethnic cleansing currently going on.

Neoliberalism has always flown under the radar of this cultural clash. It masked as an economic system even though it's a full-blown ideology informing and controlling all aspects of life. It is quintessentially globalist because it demands global and free markets, but it's only demanding this freedom for money and goods and can just as well arrange itself with nationalist and authoritarian regimes. Still, this globalism is where antisemites come in and see neoliberal policies as part of the evil plan of cultural Marxists. What they see is a world that getting ever more diverse and complicated, they see their concepts of identity dissipating and it scares them. And this fear is exploited by the likes of Trump, Johnson, LePen, Wilders, Putin, Bolsonaro...


Now to wrap this up, two things:

1. Neoliberal ideology is destroying the planet, it's creating insane inequality, its corrupting democratic systems, it's inherently unsustainable and it commodifies all aspects of our social life thereby distorting so many social issues to such a degree that it becomes impossible to even conceptualize human solutions.

2. But Nazis hate neoliberalism because it brought globalism and immigration and threatens their concepts of identity.

And what you do is equating the people who want to do something against the problem in 1. to the people of 2.
And that's, like come on... that's just shitty.

Heck, when I look at Academia in the US, specifically social sciences and I see the influence of the Frankfurt School around every corner(they are those pesky cultural Marxists who infected US Universities with their critical theory after they fled from the Nazis). But we are still in dire need of some Adorno up in here.






With the important difference that Obamacare was never intended to be a universal healthcare system. But either way, no one would call that a libertarian piece of policy.

Click to shrink...

That's a whole lot of words to defend a pretty indefensible statement, he's the one using an anti-semitic trope to garner support from those of #2 as you put. Calling him out for that is not declaring somebody anti-semitic to protect the status quo and it's extremely gross for you to defend it as such, unless you happen to believe George Soros is actually the problem here

Honestly if this kind of take is prevalent in Europe it's no wonder that there's always news about anti-Semitism in labour

 

[TheHunter]

Even if it were wrong, for which there are no sociological or pol. sci theory to back it up, what would be the downside of reforming the economic system towards a more equal, fair and sustainable one.
One of the great things about Fridays For Future is that they realized that climate change isn't an environmental issue, but a societal one. So they are arguing for climate justice and a systems change.
This is the way to tackle this issue and this would also be the way to tackle societal issues like racism.
Unfortunately, that perspective isn't very widespread in the US. Neither Fridays For Future is big there nor a general push for a system change or even awareness of the fact that the current system is fundamentally broken and absolutely unsustainable and bring with it tons of collateral damage, from environmental destruction to insane inequality and ultimately also societal division along arbitrary lines like race, religion, heritage etc.


But what's the actual policy aspect of that criticism? It's obvious that economic reforms won't fix racism as a whole, but what policy could?


Why even play these things out against each other? It's not an either-or thing.


It's not a lack of understanding but a rather apparent shock in the face of the fact that despite the awareness of all its systemic flaws the US can't even conceptualize improving that system.
It's as if change doesn't even register as a possibility for most voters. This is depressing given how easily corporate America is able to constantly change even the most fundamental part of the American system in their favor.
But anyone else suggesting that things could be done in a different way is instantly labeled insane or extremist or unrealistic.


I don't see how that connects to what we are discussing. Normalizing blackface is an issue of cultural ignorance in Europe. The whitewashing of European culture has gone so far that people don't even see the racist root of some traditions anymore. So there is a certain dissonance when people who don't think of themselves as racist are suddenly confronted with the fact that they have for a long time simply accepted racist traditions.
That's a problem, but a completely different one from nationalist tendencies in western societies. Don't mix them up.



I wouldn't call it alt-right and I wouldn't call it new. Nazi parties have existed across Europe ever since before WW2, for the longest time they were branded as such and shunned by voters with the exception of 1-2% die-hard racists. Over the past 10 years, beginning with the Greece/Euro-crisis and in the light of the refugee crisis they managed to rebrand themselves as far-right conservatives and now they shot up to between 10 and 40% of the votes in many EU-countries. But ideologically they are the same Nazi parties as the ones before, in many cases, it's even the same people.
Their business is exploiting racist tendencies that exist in society by triggering the aversions through fearmongering and scapegoating.
That's the easy part, but the underlying ideology is to be taken seriously as well. Because its building international alliances.
That's the reason why Russia is supporting Nazi parties in the EU as well as Trump in the US. They are ideologically aligned.
I often cite these two quotes that reflect Russias point of view very well, both from representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is an integral part of Russian identity and politics:
"multiconfessionality, multiparty systems, separation of powers, competition, administrative conflicts—all that the present political system takes such pride in—are symptoms of spiritual unhealthiness. The very existence of a pluralistic democracy is none other than a direct result of sin"
and:
"the fundamental contradiction of our epoch...is the opposition of liberal civilized standards on the one hand, and the values of national, cultural and religious identity on the other"

This is what we are up against and it's important to be able to distinguish friend from foe.



You mitigate the consequences, though. And as a result of that create a more equal and diverse society, because the systemic gatekeeping that works through privilege (which is to a large degree economic) gets reduced. And this result, the more diverse and equal society, is the best remedy for racism.
Racism is a form of prejudice, its a remnant of the way our animal brain needed to categorize between safe and threatening things. Fighting that is a generational task, but the necessary context is a fair and equal and diverse society. Otherwise, your fight against racism is constantly undone by the populist exploitation of differences between societal groups in order to saw hatred and unite behind a common picture of enemy.


So what's your proposal?



Well, unless you apply a completely US-centric view of the political spectrum its simply a fact. Based on the policies they push the Democrats are a right-wing party.
Against the context of all democratic countries on this planet, US Democrats certainly aren't centrist, let alone left-wing.







I don't agree at all. The FDP is economically liberal. The term liberal in Europe also refers to economic liberalism, while in the US it refers to social liberalism. So that's an important semantic oddity to keep in mind not to get confused.
However, the FDP is far from being a libertarian party. Libertarianism is about small-government philosophy, and that simply doesn't exist in Europe. At least not to the extent it would need to in order to be called "libertarianism".
The FDP is less libertarian than the Democrats, policy-wise. They are in favor of the welfare state, of free university, universal healthcare, mandatory public retirement funds etc.
That's a far cry from libertarianism.

I'm also not too fond of placing US politicians on a german political spectrum.
There are several issues that make this basically impossible. Support for the welfare state is common sense in Germany. No matter how far right or left you go, you won't find anyone arguing against ist. People argue for reductions or increases, but the general idea that people's basic needs are to be provided by the government in case the person isn't able to provide for themselves is common sense here.
In the US this idea is generally rejected by all Republicans and some Democrats.
On the other many Democrats are more socially liberal than even some left-wing politicians in Germany.
And despite having the "C" for Christian in their name, the center-right CDU is much more secular than Republicans and even more secular than the Democrats, as Religion is not a topic politicians touch on during campaign here or use as a ground for arguments.




Yes, that's the one.
It's also the party that decided to take in more refugees than any other EU-country. Which isn't supposed to excuse anything, but instead should illustrate that this isn't a black and white issue. No pun intended.
Neither of those aspects define the positioning of the party on a left-right spectrum, nor does the issue of refugees suffice for a comparison between the ideological positioning between CDU and US Democrats. Because the topic of immigration and race relations in Germany and the US are completely different beasts.

And no, Democrats are not left-wing. The spectrum on which Democrats would rank as left-wing has to be invented first.
And it would be an extremely dangerous one because it would leave a considerable space to the right, which would legitimize far-right views as not much further from the center than basic centrist views.
This has nothing to do with "enlightened European standards". This is simply you not comprehending that your view is extremely US-centric. But the US is only one liberal democracy among many dozens.
It's actually rather ignorant to argue from a point of view where the US status quo and US views on political ideology are normalized and considered the standard. Especially when you accuse me of doing the same(enlightened European standards), when that's actually not at all the case.


One thing this whole ordeal has shown me is that moderate or establishment Democrats aren't shying away from using right-wing outrage tactics and rhetoric. No differentiation, no critical analysis. Leftists are made out to be the enemy since they are questioning the status quo, therefore they have to be attacked in every way possible.

This is in reference to that NYT piece completely fucking up their characterization of Cenk(by citing a right-wing Twitter troll btw.).
That's especially noteworthy considering that people like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Ann Coulter, and countless other proto-fascists are consistently provided uncritical platforms by parts of the US media, including the NYT.

As I recently said in another thread. This is the neoliberal establishment fighting against challenges to the status quo. And the status quo is more challenged from the left than the right currently. They are fine with the rights racism, sexism and anti-democratic nature, because none of these things challenge the neoliberal economic order of things. But fighting for a comprehensive welfare state, a fair tax code and the removal of money from politics is a massive threat to a lot of established actors.

Click to shrink...

Ah yes, social issues don't define left or right.

That would hurt the enlightened European model.

 

[Alavard]

Using the allegation of antisemitism to protect a system of legalized bribery in US politics is a tired trick.

Click to shrink...

If the specific example one uses about getting money out of politics is George Soros, yes, they are being antisemitic, by using an antisemitic right-wing talking point.

 

[Eeyore]

Man I'm pretty bummed that Sam Seder has been caping hard for this clown. I really like Sam and I like the way he's done debates in the past even if I think they're largely pointless. I had to unsub from him on YouTube sadly.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Using the allegation of antisemitism to protect a system of legalized bribery in US politics is a tired trick.


One side(the right-wing, antisemitic side) argues from the perspective of an age-old conspiracy theory. The Nazis called it cultural bolshevism back in the day, Neo-Nazis call it cultural Marxism or "post-modernism". What they mean by that is the spreading of post-modern values. Moving past arbitrary concepts of identity, past nations, and religions. Basically: Moving past collectivist values (of national, religious and cultural identity) and towards post-modern values of individualist rights(human rights).
Jews have, in Academia, been one of the early groups to argue for these post-modern values. Obviously not exclusively, but they have been prominent. Which makes sense for people who had no home country and where between the lines of race, religious group and nation, constantly being attacked and othered, wherever they were.
Hitler was terrified of a world where all the labels and categories he and his kind relied on to make any sense of the world and their existence within it, suddenly were exposed as meaningless. In a world of equals, there is nothing to derive your superiority from, your pride and your constructed identity fall apart. This fear is literally what led Hitler to the conclusion that he had to industrially exterminate an entire people and invade the world.

And the very same battle between individualist and collectivist value systems is still raging on today.
Its the reason why Russia (big on collectivist values of national, religious and cultural identity) is supporting Trump(a self-proclaimed nationalist). And the reason why Russia(a socialist oligarchy) is supporting far-right populist parties across Europe.
These groups align ideologically in their embrace of collectivist values and they unite against the common enemy that is liberalism and its individualist values.
China is in on this as well. In their view, human rights are "a form of western imperialism" and the way they are acting in Hong Kong shows that the past few years(Trump, Brexit) have emboldened them and they no longer fear the strength of the liberal world order.
And why would they, with the US and the UK clearly turning their backs on liberal value structures? There is no one left to stand up for these values and against Chinas transgressions. Be it Hong Kong or the Uygur ethnic cleansing currently going on.

Neoliberalism has always flown under the radar of this cultural clash. It masked as an economic system even though it's a full-blown ideology informing and controlling all aspects of life. It is quintessentially globalist because it demands global and free markets, but it's only demanding this freedom for money and goods and can just as well arrange itself with nationalist and authoritarian regimes. Still, this globalism is where antisemites come in and see neoliberal policies as part of the evil plan of cultural Marxists. What they see is a world that getting ever more diverse and complicated, they see their concepts of identity dissipating and it scares them. And this fear is exploited by the likes of Trump, Johnson, LePen, Wilders, Putin, Bolsonaro...


Now to wrap this up, two things:

1. Neoliberal ideology is destroying the planet, it's creating insane inequality, its corrupting democratic systems, it's inherently unsustainable and it commodifies all aspects of our social life thereby distorting so many social issues to such a degree that it becomes impossible to even conceptualize human solutions.

2. But Nazis hate neoliberalism because it brought globalism and immigration and threatens their concepts of identity.

And what you do is equating the people who want to do something against the problem in 1. to the people of 2.
And that's, like come on... that's just shitty.

Heck, when I look at Academia in the US, specifically social sciences and I see the influence of the Frankfurt School around every corner(they are those pesky cultural Marxists who infected US Universities with their critical theory after they fled from the Nazis). But we are still in dire need of some Adorno up in here.






With the important difference that Obamacare was never intended to be a universal healthcare system. But either way, no one would call that a libertarian piece of policy.

Click to shrink...

Phewwwwwww okay.

You wanna talk about the overall reach of money in politics, fine. Please, go nuts. It's a plague.

You wanna talk about ideology and economic systems - great. Plenty of discussion to be had there.

But you want to talk about a specific Jewish person and the accusation that he, personally, wields undue influence on the system through his nefarious Jewish money and then turn around and try to tell me that it's about money generally and no, sir, definitely not anti-Semitic?

No. Noooooope.

I don't know your background, so I'll try not to tell you anything you already know, but speaking as a Jewish person - anti-Semitism is complex. The lines you're trying to set up here to make "George Soros is a puppetmaster" type statements okay - they don't exist. That shit is not alright.

 

[Tfritz]

Using the allegation of antisemitism to protect a system of legalized bribery in US politics is a tired trick.

Click to shrink...

...and if the issue people had with Cenk's statement was about him just vaguely being against money in politics, that would be one thing, but it's not. the issue people have with Cenk's statement is that he claims he explicitly invokes antisemitic conspiracy theories about George Soros to persuade people to his side (a line that gets a whooping applause in the video, which, uh, that's a whole other issue).

 

[Tfritz]

And again, I want to reiterate: People who have Strong Opinions about George Soros don't criticize him for using his money to get lower taxes and cut social safety nets, they criticize him because they think he pays actors to protest cops killing unarmed black children and climate change and act as crisis actors to fabricate mass shootings so he can take their guns away. All of the organizing and volunteering, and work you do to try and create real change in our shithole of a country? They think he's behind it and want it to stop.

 

[NoName999]

It was literally in the tweeted video you quoted when you complained about 'the agenda'. Literally right fucking there.

Click to shrink...

Pictured: Umbrella Carp defending Cenk fucking Uygur

 

[Poodlestrike]

And again, I want to reiterate: People who have Strong Opinions about George Soros don't criticize him for using his money to get lower taxes and cut social safety nets, they criticize him because they think he pays actors to protest cops killing unarmed black children and climate change and act as crisis actors to fabricate mass shootings so he can take their guns away. All of the organizing and volunteering, and work you do to try and create real change in our shithole of a country? They think he's behind it and want it to stop.

Click to shrink...

This is definitely a thing to an extent, though I did hear this interesting argument the other day about how a lot of the current crop of real weird conspiracy shit isn't so much meant to be believed as it is meant to convince people not to believe anything.

But yeah, no, George Soros conspiracy theories are not okay.

 

[TheHunter]

The tell is the focus on those "establishment rightwing Dems" whilst ignoring social issues outright.

 

[ConHaki66]

Watched tyt back in the day when the show was much more crude, i kind of knew this stuff would come up.

Cenk is a bit rash but solid, hope he wins.

 

[VectorPrime]

Watched tyt back in the day when the show was much more crude, i kind of knew this stuff would come up.

Cenk is a bit rash but solid, hope he wins.

Click to shrink...

I too hope the virulent mysoginist wins the seat vacated by a woman forced to resign by people like him.

 

[ConHaki66]

I too hope the virulent mysoginist wins the seat vacated by a woman forced to resign by people like him.

Click to shrink...

are you talking about yourself?

 

[VectorPrime]

are you talking about yourself?

Click to shrink...

you just said that you hope Cenk wins.

 

[lmcfigs]

Yeah I'd trust Cenk Uygur more than the average dem on every single issue. it's not even close. He has spoken in offensive ways, but is there really doubts on where he would vote on issues?

 

[Kaitos]

Yeah I'd trust Cenk Uygur more than the average dem on every single issue. it's not even close. He has spoken in offensive ways, but is there really doubts on where he would vote on issues?

Click to shrink...

Even from a pure electoral calculus, he's said stuff that's probably a non-starter for most voters in a swing district. So if he loses, he doesn't get a vote and instead the seat is held by a Republican who would vote against these issues that I think most people in here care about 100% of the time.

He would get hammered on every single thing he's ever said from now until Election Day if he made the run off.

 

[methane47]

I too hope the virulent mysoginist wins the seat vacated by a woman forced to resign by people like him.

Click to shrink...

This is complete bullshit. Cenk has talked about how she should not have resigned, that the person who released the pics is terrible, that her relationship status should have no bearing on her work in office etc etc...

TYT just put out a video tonight basically talking about this. Including showing video of cenk 150% acknowledging the genocide.

https://youtu.be/jdegHfObNgc

 

[BlastProcessing]

Yeah I'd trust Cenk Uygur more than the average dem on every single issue. it's not even close. He has spoken in offensive ways, but is there really doubts on where he would vote on issues?

Click to shrink...

The Armenian Genocide counts as an issue FYI. So I'm just gonna give you an opportunity to adjust your statement.

 

[BlastProcessing]

This is complete bullshit. Cenk has talked about how she should not have resigned, that the person who released the pics is terrible, that her relationship status should have no bearing on her work in office etc etc...

TYT just put out a video tonight basically talking about this. Including showing video of cenk 150% acknowledging the genocide.

https://youtu.be/jdegHfObNgc

Click to shrink...

Always nice to have your very own media outlet to carry water for you.

 

[TyraZaurus]

This is complete bullshit. Cenk has talked about how she should not have resigned, that the person who released the pics is terrible, that her relationship status should have no bearing on her work in office etc etc...

TYT just put out a video tonight basically talking about this. Including showing video of cenk 150% acknowledging the genocide.

https://youtu.be/jdegHfObNgc

Click to shrink...

Does he state he's no longer supporting those groups that do deny it?

 

[luffie]

I too hope the virulent mysoginist wins the seat vacated by a woman forced to resign by people like him.

Click to shrink...

What an ignorant idiot. This reply is no different than those conservative's reply that is riddled with false facts. She was forced to resign by her own party, whose head is a woman. But please, keep on fighting for your superior purity litmus test.

 

[loquaciousJenny]

I wouldn't trust Uygur to vote for key legislation if it involved any amount of compromise, so I would take any generic Dem over his soapboxing ass. Luckily he's unelectable.

 

[Kaitos]

It does seem sort of weird that TYT, as an organization, is able to now exist to promote one candidate for Congress?

 

[Kaitos]

What an ignorant idiot. This reply is no different than those conservative's reply that is riddled with false facts. She was forced to resign by her own party, whose head is a woman. But please, keep on fighting for your superior purity litmus test.

Click to shrink...

If you're going to call someone an ignorant idiot, you probably should actually understand what happened. From Katie Hill's own op-ed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/opinion/sunday/katie-hill-resignation.html

People have speculated that Speaker Pelosi or the party leadership asked me to resign because of the photos and the allegations about me. That could not be further from the truth. In fact, one of the most difficult moments during my resignation process was my phone call to the Speaker, a woman I admire more than anyone and whom I had come to love. She told me I didn't have to do this, that the country needed me and that she wished I hadn't made this decision, but she respected me and what I felt I needed to do. I told her what I told everyone else when I announced my resignation: that it was the right thing to do.

Click to shrink...

 

[VectorPrime]

What an ignorant idiot. This reply is no different than those conservative's reply that is riddled with false facts. She was forced to resign by her own party, whose head is a woman. But please, keep on fighting for your superior purity litmus test.

Click to shrink...

I didn't mean that he literally called for her to resign I meant that people like him and his mysoginstic attitudes toward women as shown through literally years of published text and video help create a toxic atmosphere were women have to deal with things like Revenge Porn and the damage to their reputation that results from it. I'm glad to see that he's scrambling to make amends now that all his shit is being unearthed though because saying your sorry after getting caught definitely means you've changed.

 

[b-dubs]

What an ignorant idiot. This reply is no different than those conservative's reply that is riddled with false facts. She was forced to resign by her own party, whose head is a woman. But please, keep on fighting for your superior purity litmus test.

Click to shrink...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/opinion/sunday/katie-hill-resignation.html

People have speculated that Speaker Pelosi or the party leadership asked me to resign because of the photos and the allegations about me. That could not be further from the truth. In fact, one of the most difficult moments during my resignation process was my phone call to the Speaker, a woman I admire more than anyone and whom I had come to love. She told me I didn't have to do this, that the country needed me and that she wished I hadn't made this decision, but she respected me and what I felt I needed to do. I told her what I told everyone else when I announced my resignation: that it was the right thing to do.

I knew it was the best decision for me, my family, my staff, my colleagues, my community. But that didn't make it any easier, and in the days that followed, I was overwhelmed by everything — by how many people had seen my naked body, by the comments, the articles, the millions of opinions, the texts, the calls. I would start shaking, crying, throwing up. It was hard to talk to my family because I knew they were going through so much, too. I didn't want to talk to my friends because I was humiliated and didn't want to hear more pity and didn't know what to say. Many of my staff members had been with me for years, and we were, for better or worse, very close; now I feared that they all hated me.

Click to shrink...

In her own words. She left because of the harassment.

 

[Kaitos]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/opinion/sunday/katie-hill-resignation.html

In her own words. She left because of the harassment.

Click to shrink...

twins