General Discussion

Last edited Tue Jul 25, 2017, 04:46 AM - Edit history (2)

of OP demanding the party abandon civil rights?

You yourself yourself worked to normalize efforts to proclaim anti-choice as "progressive," by pretending that sponsoring and voting for laws that restrict women's reproductive rights is the same as a personal, private opposition to abortion. We had members here insisting license plates were worse than stripping women of equal rights. We saw you and others ignore posts pointing out your claims were false, which showed me the subterfuge was deliberate. We also saw responses--and lack of responses--to information demonstrating that abandoning reproductive rights greatly increased poverty. We actually saw people respond to those posts claiming abortion rights got in the way of "economic equality," and quite clearly asserting that when they meant "economic equality," they meant only among a small group of Americans.

Of course none of that is leftist. That was the entire point of my thread. We see the language of leftism and social movements appropriated to promote a capitalist, even feudal (in the case of Chapo) goal of bringing the majority to submission to a more affluent, self-entitled minority.

This ruse you engage in of denying what is said multiple times of day has long worn thin. People have repeatedly provided you with links, and even in the this thread I suggested you read through the defenses of Chapo. You choose instead instead to focus your energies on defending the Chapo guy's opposition to means testing and insisting my failure to understand that funding education based on need was supported by "conservatives," something for which you provide exactly zero evidence because of course none exists. In our bizarro political world "progressive" has come to be defined by that which helps the white male middle and upper-middle class and "conservative" policies are those that seek to help the poor and marginalized.

If you opposed the efforts I discussed, I would expect to see you confront the people making those arguments rather than devoting yourself to telling people like me that what we see right in front of us doesn't exist. Instead, you construct an argument that begins and ends with labels, which has become a ubiquitous practice among "progressives." As Schumer discovered today, there is little that inspires more contempt from that crowd than agreeing with them on issues. I experienced something similar the other day when I told someone proclaiming his progressive superiority that I agreed with him on issues. He became incensed and insulted me, because the idea of disagreeing with someone who is clearly viewed as an inferior species cannot be tolerated. I had to be put in my place. Perhaps Schumer will now learn what matters is who someone is, not what they say. The labels--the hierarchy--are too important to be undermined by policy agreement.