Anything that really matters should never be followed with a "but". I despise that use of the word when something is fact. I also have a low tolerance for the buttheads who constantly use it just to seem intelligent.

Two sides of the same coin.

For them it does- that much is obvious. I'll take a restoration of women's reproductive rights over a salary increase any day over the week. I'd do better getting equal pay instead of all boats getting equally lifted. Reparations!
When people are so easy to dismiss these issues as solvable by more money for everyone - I know they don't care I'd still be treated as a second class citizen. Nope.

Or imagining that more money will "solve" the other issues - as I have very frequently read here- is baloney. Someone actually said hey- you're privileged enough to fly somewhere for an abortion- problem solved! And people here trying to explain to POC that they'll be able to afford a lawyer when they're unfairly targeted. It's not just tone deaf- it's fucking ignorant and dismissive. From people who's number one concern is their own bank account. You do the math.

So much for solidarity.

I was at the March for Womens Lives in DC, in 2004. 1.2 Million people, by many accounts the largest assembly on the mall ever.

Coincidentally enough, that was the last time I saw Hillary Clinton speak on stage. She did great.

Maybe it's time for another one.

And allowed absolute lunatics to dominate the conversation for too long.

It's always a good idea to remind the fundamentalists and anti-choicers, every once in a while. If it takes another big march, I'm in.

I don't normally hear environmental concerns put in that category.

She makes a compelling case that a systemic response to climate change could result in societal transformation, including the phase-out of large scale capitalism. Great read and one that makes you think deeply. I think she's definitely on the right track.

But it's not normally framed in the context of traditional social justice concerns.

If anything I've noticed a tendency on the part of some social justice advocates to treat environmentalism as the sort of thing effete, privileged prius-drivin' types talk about.

There are a lot of circular firing squads and purer-than-thou types on the left.

As happens frequently here. It's an environments issue. huge, but no reason to conflate the two.

But then there's also not much reason to invent massive divisions that don't exist, in our party.

I don't think there is some giant caucus of people who want glass-steagal reinstated and a livable minimum wage, who simultaneously don't give a shit about reproductive rights.

Message though. I fear he's going to sputter out way too quickly if he doesn't widen it beyond economics and the enviornment. That would suck.

I think given everything that's happened in the past year, issues like incarceration rates, injustice, police abuse and the like ought to be front and center, among other things. And obviously given the state assaults on choice that needs to be hammered by all our candidates as well. Just because they all agree on it, doesn't mean they can't talk about it.

And you would see that he addresses all those issues.

Nobody is diluting anything. You guys just don't want to talk about economics. So you do this instead. The whole 'one vs the other' thing is just nonsense.

Btw, economic justice is a vital component of social justice- just as civil rights are.

How would you react to an OP with "poverty" in quotes?

"Poverty" in America is not like poverty in Africa or India. That's a direct copy-paste from that OP, thank you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026783758

And if someone posted an OP about how poverty is an important issue, I doubt we'd be seeing the resistance that this OP is getting.

The non existent 'one vs the other' thing. Why not just admit you don't want to talk about economic issues?

Seems like you just don't want to talk about social issues.

It comes across as dismissive to me, the quotation marks around the words.

I'd hope that an OP on poverty wouldn't meet with resistance, but there have been posts where it has. It shouldn't. Nor should one on social justice. I think people are angry and hurt and talking past each other a lot of the time on which issues are more important, or should be more important. I like Balian's speech in Kingdom of Heaven, when he said, "None have claim; all have claim [to Jerusalem]." And that's where I'm at. To me, social and economic justice go hand in hand. You can have one without the other, sure, but society would still be lacking.

The housing crisis and bank bailout were an attack on minority communities.

Job killing trade deals are a war on WORKERS and have destroyed black communities in cities like DETROIT, CLEVELAND and BALTIMORE.

When 50 schools are closed in Chicago to make way for the charter school industry, that is a racial attack.

When the water is shut off to thousands in Detroit, that is an attack on black people.

When sea levels rise and drown the poorest neighborhoods in New Orleans and New York City, that is an attack on poor and working class people, particularly people of color.

I'm convinced people who keep instigating this PHONY distinction between "social justice" and whatever else are really just trying to create a wedge for some political advantage.

There are also issues that effect people of color more specifically. Like police should stop harassing and killing black people. And there are way too many people in prison.

And those issues absolutely need to be top priorities. We all agree about that. Yet people try to drive this wedge.

Thread winner.

And it's appallingly dishonest to portray people who are concerned about economic justice as being unconcerned about social justice. The divide in the Democratic party isn't about social issues, it's about economic ones. It's the legacy of triangulation.

Agreed.

So many divisive ops trying to force us to PICK ONE!!1!

I don't know who started it and I don't care, I'm sick of it.

They don't want to talk about economics. So they made up this false dichotomy.

And they wonder why no one takes their daily GD purity tests seriously...

And I only see Third Way neo-liberals attempting to separate the two incessantly.

*thumbs up*

I'm a non-heterosexual disabled woman. If I lost my subsidized housing or social security (which I continually worry about), what kind of social justice would there be for me? Equal pay for equal work doesn't mean anything if there aren't any living wage jobs. I wouldn't much care if I could legally marry someone I cared about, if neither of us have enough to eat. Marriage, I can do without. Food, I can't. And I've been hungry before, really hungry. And I fucking hated it. I get tired of hearing how women/POC/LBGT people don't care about economic justice, because it's not true. I care the most about having a roof over my head, food in the fridge, and a dignified life. Poor people get totally treated like shit and ignored politically, and I've been tired of that all my life. We need a basic standard of living for everyone in this country (and this earth), or there is no justice, period.

It's not a competition for whose pet issue is more important. I'm just sick of that whole framing.

All the issues are important.

Gay people should be able to get married and have full benefits. It's a matter of basic fairness. What's right is right.

social issues as secondary or somehow subsumed by economic issues.

Jobs are not a social justice issue according to your vocabulary.

When Wall Street crashes the economy and millions of black lives are destroyed, life savings gone, that is not a social justice issue in your vocabulary.

When SNAP gets cut that is a social justice issue. But not in your language apparently.

When whole cities like DETROIT and CLEVELAND are destroyed and black communities devastated by free trade deals and Wall Street economics, that is a social justice issue.

It's totally phony to exclude these vitally important issues from the category of social justice.

Phony and divisive.

Though the cheapest shot I've seen is the one that suggested that if you don't separate social justice from economic justice then that's the same as adding a "but" on to BlackLivesMatter#

J'Accuse the lot of you of hijacking every decent social cause you can find to attempt to shed the economic issues - and lurking behind that is just the usual Third Way Style politics. Congratulations on growing up in such an economically secure environment that you can attempt to ditch all the people who still need to make economic issues a priority.

The sad thing here - and I think it speaks to relative positions of power - is that the people who do care about the economic issues are always smoothing things over and saying: "Yes, social issues are just as important. Yes racism was the dominant factor in police encounters. Yes, we're on board with feminist issues...etc., etc..."

But what do we get back from the people who prioritize social issues? Only strawman accusations and manipulative OPs about how people who don't separate the economic from the social most have this and that character flow.

You might want to think about how your actions appear.

People see you trying to cut off the economic left - and that's the part of the Democratic party that represents the weak, the vulnerable, and the poor.

Is that the message you want to convey?

Right now there's an OP where "social justice" is in quotes. And that represents the opinions of an unfortunately sizeable part of the "economic left" that you talk about.

I'm laughing at the paranoia it takes to say that with a straight face.

Just a shade away from "how dare you" incredulousness: any defense of the left is to offend women and people of color.

This entire political attack, meant to split those who care about poverty from those who care about racism, feminism, the environment, etc. is just LOW. And I'm not the only one getting super-irritated by it.

Alienate away! I'm pretty certain Bernie will run the campaign he wants, and it's likely not to be influenced by any of the paranoid conspiracy theories I read of here.
I hope he will improve his outreach and get his message out to more segments of the Dem base. I don't give a rats ass who is offended to hear he needs to anymore either.

I have no idea what your point is. This OP I'm responding to is obviously of a piece with all of them that are splitting off social justice (including racism and feminism) from economic issues - and I've given my reasons why I'm disgusted with that.

Hearing "it's all economic"'. It's insulting and over simplistic (and generally coming from people who suffer little direct impact) and will alienate voters.

It ain't a plot against economic populism (Sanders will obviously stick to his focus on that) it is a whole seperate thing that also deserves attention.

You are just making up what other people are saying to start a fight and split off the left. You are the one doing the alienating. The only one who has a motive to split off the social here is Hillary, so taking this tactic is just alienating people who care about economic issues.

And then you can freak out and make accusations of racism all you want, and people still won't vote the way you want, because YOU have already alienated THEM.

Is so palpable I just gotta walk away after saying one thing- no one here called Sanders a racist - and you are embarrassing yourself repeating that hateful shit. No one actually believes it because it didn't happen.
Hillary is not the devil incarnate. Thinking that does not make one a mole for her.

I feel really bad for the many kind and intelligent Sanders supporters here that they have to cope with the raving paranoia and disrespect for anyone who uses the words social justice around here.
Fuck that. Get a grip.

every comment has to include a smear: paranoid, hateful...etc. I feel like I should break out into a rousing chorus of the childhood rhyme "I am rubber, you are glue..." just so you get how much hostility you are projecting.

Ironically, your socialist vs. economic acrobatics isn't even finding the right target. I don't like Hillary because of her weakness on economic issues. But I've repeatedly what a difficult position Hillary put me, and many women in, because it's long past time to get the first woman President into the White House. Before Bernie formally announced, I asked him to consider promoting a run for Barbara Lee instead.

I'm not comfortable supporting another white man for the White House. But he is the only one offering what, in my view, is an inclusive platform. If there were another good choice out there, I would take it. But right now, Bernie is all people who care about poverty issues have got.

Where did I refer to socialism vs economics - I didn't speak to any of that except to say there are other things In addition to economic solutions. Other additional things.

And you really need to relook at your own hostility.
Because pointing it out to isn't actually hostile, it's just pointing it out to you.
I get that your deeply disappointed that some here do not share your priorities. Just know you're not really going to win over with the tack you've been taking- hurling unfounded accusations and putting words and ideas in people's mouth. That's not nice, and you will get called on it.
See ya.

I'm expressing the fact that these "social" vs. "economic" posts are getting tiresome, and I don't buy they are an actual cause. I'm protesting these posts that apparently think they are persuading of THEIR priorities...I'm not sure who.

I'm not here to win you over and don't care what your priorities are. But I will note that you invoke your "priorities" after claiming the "socialist" vs. "economic" thing is all in my head. I came here to call an annoying thing annoying, and I'm glad to see other people in the thread are explaining why it's so annoying better than I did.

First you say "I don't like Hillary because of her weakness on economic issues."

Then you say you are sick of "social vs economic" posts. Not realizing that you just made one...

Hillary's weakness on economic issues means that she has to split the social off from the economic. She wouldn't be weak on economic issues if she was incorporating real poverty issues.

I'm not sure whether all these "we must split the social from economic" are all stealth Hillary support posts - some may be separate issues (such as #BlackLivesMatter, which brings the focus on race) that have simply been hijacked in an opportunistic way. Either way, it's getting old.

You just happen to disagree with her on certain economic issues. Fair enough. Other people think Bernie doesn't address their concerns about certain social issues. Again, fair enough.

Mashing all issues into one is silly. There are a lot of important issues that need to be addressed. Social issues are among these. So are economic issues. And environmental issues. And so on.

It's worded in a tricky way and no different from Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform As We Know It. As much as I want to vote for a woman, this thing in particular makes it impossible for me to support Hillary Clinton in the primary.

As for your second point - we will have to agree to disagree. IMHO, economic issues play a causative role to many social issues. That does NOT mean that sometimes other issues are relatively *more* causative, such as when racism causes widespread employment discrimination in Silicon Valley, but it does mean I'm not going to put all these issues into separate boxes.

But I think you need to delink "women" and "POC" and stop trying to use POC use for your agenda.

It's ironically condescending and patriarchal though I am sure "mansplaining" will be the next thing out of your mouth.

Similar lines. I dont need to decouple them to please you, Bonobo- coalitions exist, even if you've spent your whole life ignoring them.

Even if I did I'm sure I'd get the "you don't speak for women" bullshit next. Lol. And some "strong woman" come in and tell me I should only worry about women's "serious"'issues in another country, because I'm too privileged. Fuck that.

I know the games- and you know what the polls say, and candidates ignore them at their own risk.

You know the funny thing is you think you're so aware of others' bias and prejudice and privilege, but seem completely oblivious to the mote in your own eye, Betty.

See if you can build a coalition that matters. Good luck!

I'm not really so concerned about anyone courting your particular vote for my candidate when I pick one. Not one bit.

Who brought up anything about courting people for their candidate?

Try and keep up.

There is no country on earth without economic justice that has social justice. Not a one.

It's a strawman.

I reject dogmatism in all forms. I think for myself, and I think nothing is closed to discussion.

the legitimate interests of social justice from the trigger-warning-happy trans-ethnic otherkins infesting the movement?

Suffice it to say that a lot of ridiculousness is being claimed as legit under the banner of "social justice."

concept of social justice. And, yes, I'm aware that the internet is full of such people.

Something is something - and also is oppressed..... If they claim to be. Basically some nutty joke to discredit "SJWS" . Yeah, it's a hipster version of the bike Rush Limbaugh has spewed for thirty years.
Says volumes about those who use it.

If you're going to use the terminology, use it correctly. Social justice is a unified approach, combining both social and economic issues. When you speak of it in terms of economic justice and social justice, you're doing it wrong.