Trump's Suicide Mission

I think comparing Australia to America is enlightening. They established a ban on certain kinds of weapons, with certain kinds of capacity, but left others totally alone. This has resulted in an end to mass shootings there, and it’s immensely popular. It didn’t cause a war. It didn’t provoke Australians to shoot other Australians in order to cling to their guns to the death. They accepted its logic, the common sense of it and moved on. Again, it’s incredibly popular in Australia — that legislation.

In America, however, thanks primarily to the NRA since 1977, shilling for the gun industry, too many Americans have bought into the absurd paranoia of their screaming about slippery slopes and gun confiscation and “false flag” operations by “the state.” Too many Americans have lost their minds because of this endless pimping for the gun industry and they refuse to see reason.

Pretty much the entire world thinks we’re insane when it comes to guns. They think we’re nutz. Mostly because pretty much the entire world has sane gun laws and they work and they haven’t led to a “slippery slope” of any kind whatsoever.

Regardless, I hope someday we’ll evolve at least to the level of the Australians on this.

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

Her policies are essentially the same as Bill’s and Obamas. More of the same, with some likely Identity Politix window-dressing.

AND stuff on women’s choice, race, sexuality…that’s only window dressing if you’re a white male. Don’t be shocked at me saying that…it’s true. Sometimes we tell each other truths here so they can be looked at hard. That’s among friends. It should at least be open for discussion. I know I have been told that it’s heavily pro-Hillary whites males who say that, but I am not one of those. I say it because I think it’s an unavoidable deep issue in our world, and I say it as a decades long left progressive who could give a shit what Hillary loyalist nazis say.

When a man drives out to pick up a crabmeat club sandwich, there are times when his mind drifts to the great issues of his time, and he thinks…I didn’t misread anyone on the public forum did I.

And yes, I did. I took WV as saying that race/gender/sexuality are window dressing.

No, on 2nd read, he is saying those things are window dressing for Hillary.

I disagree with that but still, it’s a far cry from saying those issues in themselves are that.

So I take back my misreading, and humbly ask the gods to have mercy on me.

—————
No, you were right the first time. I was not saying they are window-dressing for Hillary. I was saying they are window-dressing compared to the complete destruction of the Biosphere by corporate-power. They are window dressing compared to the sixth great extinction which is in process now, due to corporate-power….

So, the gods will strike you down for taking back your non-mis-reading.

…like i said though, my “window-dressing” language is always me
being grouchy and fed up with the media’s lack of coverage of
the LINK between the destruction the biosphere and corporate-capitalism.
They cover the destruction but dont LINK it to corporate-capitalism.
So that pisses me off. It pisses me off that they cover identity politics twenty-four hours a day, but never LINK anything to corporate-capitalism.
Blah blah blah….

And as for my criticism being a ‘white male perspective’, no its not. And yes it is. And no, its not. It would take a LONG post to flesh that all out, and i dont have the energy for that.

w
v

zn wrote:

—————————————-
I am not the least bit shocked that you would say that. But I dont agree. I posted articles by an african american writer, who says exactly what i say about Identity politics.

If the house is burning down, there are priorities.

Now I am confused. I said you said something. Then figured I misread. You didn’t acknowledge me saying I misread, then seemed to say the thing I said was a mistake on my part to think you said. So again…lost and confused (??) That’s sincere, I am confused.

But to plow ahead anyway. You apparently have a priority issue. That’s fine. I say that just means we have to be upfront about where we;re coming from. So it’s not that there’s a truth and you see it, it’s that you have a priority issue among these issues. That’s you, that’s not “reality” speaking there. Same with anyone who differs.

I personally never endorse exclusionary choices on these things. I suppose THAT is my priority. I think it is always a mistake every single direction, no matter what gets excluded. Those who exclude the economic are making a mistake, those who exclude the issues of race, gender, and sexuality are equally making a mistake (I don;t call that stuff identity politics btw, at this point calling that stuff identity politics signals you have a particular stance on those issues…it’s not a neutral name for those issues)

—————

Well you have a longstanding habit of pointing out this:

“it’s not that there’s a truth and you see it, it’s that you have a priority issue among these issues. That’s you, that’s not “reality” speaking there. Same with anyone who differs.”

I dont know why you keep pointing that out. We ALLL agree on that. All the old core regulars, here. We know that. We agree on that. And we could ALLL write that in response to anyone elses post we disagree with. Or agree with.

So, no need to point out that ‘my view’ is not ‘the’ truth. Never said it was, never thought it was, etc, and so forth. (again, no heat here. Just yacking to an old lefty-friend)

So, back to my view. (i dont even call it ‘my truth’ just my view on this particular day. I might change my mind ten seconds from now) — to me there are hierarchies of importance. A speed-limit issue is not as important as a Biosphere-destruction issue. A football issue is not as important as a biosphere destruction issue. There’s always hierarchies imho. To ‘me’ Identity politics, while very important, is not as important as the link between Corporate power and the destruction of the biosphere.

The media loves identity politics. It does not love the issue of corporate-capitalism. That annoys me. So, i grouse about identity-politics and the attention it always gets from the mainstream media.

You see it differently. Lots of people do. No big deal to me. No ‘truth’ here.

w
v

• This reply was modified 8 years, 2 months ago by wv.

zn wrote:

And I think they’re inseparable issues (and I also note again that it’s only people who resist it who call race, gender, sexuality issues “identity politics.” That’s a rejection term. It’s similar to what happens in football when the neutral term “ball control” becomes “playing not to lose.” The latter term is a deliberate rejection.)

Imagine it this way, so at least my own view of this will seem more compatible to you. Imagine you could isolate a 100 people with real socio-economic power. The big owners and policy makers and biggest beneficiaries of how things are. Let’s say you knew you could give a speech that would change them and therefore change much of the ideological landscape. Make things better because that 100 is converted.

Well. What would they look like. All the hookers waiting for them back at the hotel, what would their sex be. Etc.

Just one hypothetical to stress why I don’t think this stuff is separable.

Plus, I wasn’t telling you there things were perspectives not truths. I was saying that conversation goes better if people act on that recognition and openly acknowledge that all upfront in how they talk (and no it’s not widely understood that that’s the case–more often than not it’s completely forgotten.)

I mean we’re either debating what the “real” priorities are, which is one kind of discussion, or we’re each saying where we’re coming from—which is just a better, less tense and less conflicted conversation.

Why does it look like X to me. Why does it look like Y to you. How do we answer that if the conversation rules of the game dictate in advance that we cannot say “because x/y is the truth.”

…

=============

I totally agree “identity politics” is a ‘rejection term”. Thats why i use it.
I do it intentionally. And i understand why others (including you) reject the rejection-term. It reflects our disagreement.

As to whether identity politics is ‘inseparable’ from corporate-power-destroying-all-life-on-Earth….hmmmm. I think about that from regularly. I am not sure I would agree that it’s inseparable. Though, it might be.

I could live with it being ‘inseparable’ and I’d ‘still’ insist there is a hierarchy. And Identity politics is not at the top of the inseparable-hierarchy. To me.

But again, let me be perfectly clear — i do think ID-politix is very very important. It’s in the top five or so. Thats pretty damn important.
Just not as important as the whole-entire-fucking-Biosphere that all life depends on. Blacks, whites, women, the rich, the poor, the polar bears, the amphibians, the leatherneck turtles…..Mass extinction trumps all other issues to ‘me’.

I didn’t understand anything you wrote after your first paragraph, btw.

I am in the middle of a yard-sale. Yard-sales are second in wv-ram’s-inseparable-Hierarchy-of-critical-Issues. What price should i put on a snow-globe with elves in it? What about a dvd of “punch drunk love” ? Fifty cents?

PS — …if i were talking to 100 strangers about all this, I would use a much softer, gentler, more neutral language, etc. I rant HERE because I know I can. I speak differently to different audiences. My principles are the same, but my ‘terms’ and pace and language would be different. Fwiw.

PPS — How do YOU interpret what bell is saying below?

w
v
“… I have to engage feminism because that becomes the vehicle by which I project myself as a female into the heart of the struggle, but the heart of the struggle does not begin with feminism. It begins with an understanding of domination and with a critique of domination in all its forms. I think it is in fact, a danger to think of the starting point as being feminism. …I think we need a much more sophisticated vision of what it means to have a radical political consciousness. That is why I stress so much the need for African Americans to take on a political language of colonialism…. to frame our issues in a larger political context that looks at imperialism and colonialism and our place as Africans in the Diaspora so that class becomes a central factor….” bell hooks

• This reply was modified 8 years, 2 months ago by wv.

Nice discussion, WV and ZN, you two old knuckleheads. I think you need to spruce it all up, though. Throw in some fucks and talk of mermaids and shit and flip over a cart before a horse or two, and then HBO may want to sign ya.

:>)

I agree with WV that the planet and its atmosphere are the top of the heap of issues, and epitomize the whole Nero plays the fiddle while Rome burns thing.

As we’ve discussed before, I also agree that it’s a huge problem that the media and our politicians and our schools won’t talk about the obvious connection with corporate capitalism — though I’d just leave out the “corporate” qualifier and say capitalism all by itself, in any form. IMO, it’s a mistake to think a different kind of capitalism would work, or that the corporate part isn’t already baked in or inevitable.

But, yeah, I’d say that all tops the list.

. . . .

I disagree, however, with the perspective and the truth-claim that says using “identity politics” is necessarily a rejection of . . . . something. Who makes that call? Who decides? What, exactly, is being rejected? There are obviously different ways of using the term, and people coming from vastly different points of view — left, right and center, etc. etc. So does it make any sense to claim that anyone and everyone who uses the term is automatically rejecting — whatever it is we’re supposed to be rejecting? I don’t think so.

My own occasional use of the term stems from the lack of alternatives. If there are better ways to shorten the field from “issues of race, gender, sexuality . . . .” then I’m all ears. To me, it’s clumsy and takes up too much space to repeat that list, which can still offend people for not being inclusive enough. Saying “identity politics” is pretty neutral, IMO, and I’ve seen it used “positively” by feminists, black activists and so on, so I just don’t see it as necessarily being a rejection, or dismissive, or . . . what have you. And, again, of what? It’s yet another form of “prejudice” to make the truth claim that it is necessarily a rejection, etc. etc.

Anyway . . . I need to practice what I preached above, so fuck all of this. I saw a mermaid riding on the back of a dinosaur the other day, and it completely destroyed my concept of what is true and what is an illusion.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 2 months ago by Billy_T.

zn wrote:

I disagree, however, with the perspective and the truth-claim that says using “identity politics” is necessarily a rejection of . . . . something. Who makes that call? Who decides? What, exactly, is being rejected?

It just is. That’s its usage. No one says they do identity politics; rather, the term is then used to portray someone else as focusing narrowly on identity issues. It actually comes from an earlier stage of minority rights movements when activists said “is it enough to ask what it means to be black/gay/a woman?” So “identity politics” is always meant as something someone ELSE does that is by definition too narrowly focused. Or the added thing is, it’s presumably “trivial” in comparison to something which is then represented as being comparatively more significant.

When the term is broadened to encompass anyone who is concerned with issues of race, or gender, or sexuality it then is basically rejecting all concerns with race, gender, or sexuality as being insufficiently universal and blind to bigger issues. Basically to me that’s not that different from shouting “all lives matter” back at the “black lives matter” movement. I see saying that not as MORE progressive or aware in some way, I see it as regressive and insensitive and UNaware in a lot of ways.

Because I see that that way, I do not separate any of the “issues.” They are all tied together, they are all mutually connected, it;s a web….you can’t touch one thing without touching the others.

Again, that’s your perspective, and you’re making a truth claim. I don’t agree with it. I don’t agree that everyone who uses the term uses it the way you think they do.

I do, however, get pissed off at the “all lives matter” rejoinder, just as you do. “Black lives matter” has always implied the “too.” They matter too. It’s always been about the fact that black lives have never been valued as much as white lives in America, and we’re still at the place in time when too many people with the power of life and death see them this way, consciously or subconsciously. So, the rejoinder, IMO, is really asinine and ignorant.

As in, for me, I see that AND I think using “identity politics” is just fine, and I don’t reject concerns about race, gender, sexuality, etc. etc. etc. Never have. Never will. The problem you’re setting up is that you’ve made a sweeping truth claim, and you haven’t allowed for any diversity of usage or viewpoint — or context. Different people, in different situations, using terms in different ways, to different effect, for different reasons.

That happens. It’s my perspective and my truth claim that this is what happens. You disagree. That’s your perspective and you’ve made your own truth claims.

Life goes on.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw,

Please don’t click “quote” if you’re not going to quote someone.

Beyond that, Heston shows the complete and utter idiocy of anyone who would prefer death to a slight reduction in consumer choice, or a slight increase in paper work.

Death: “I choose death rather than giving up my access to guns that weren’t even legal twenty years ago!!!! Arrrrrrrgggggghhhhh! Frotttthhh, blagggghhhh!!!”

“I choose death rather than going back to the way things were in pretty much every state in the US until roughly twenty years ago, when conceal carry laws were virtually non-existent!!! Arrrrrrggghhhhh!!!!! Grrrrrrhhh, barrgggle gurrrrgggle!!!”

Since the amendment was written — and isn’t “original intent” a big deal for gun nuts? — since it was written, consumer choice for weaponry has accelerated astronomically, beyond the wildest dreams of anyone in the late 18th century. So people in 2016 now have options for weapons that did not exist one, five, ten, twenty, thirty years ago. If you couldn’t own an AR-15, for example, but you could still buy shotguns and .357 magnums and a host of other kinds of guns . . . . you’d rather die than lose the massive increase in consumer choice that wasn’t even there in the past? You’d rather die than lose something that was never, ever your “right” in the first place?”

Oh, well. If you’re intent on committing suicide . . .

I did quote you. That is why your name is there. I quoted your post about boats. Why your post didn’t show up I do not know.

As for “legal” guns I’ve already told you that the AR-15 (the latest bugaboo du jour) has been legal and offered to the public for over 50 years.

As for Heston he merely stated that he would fight to his death for his 2nd Amendment right. Sad that you would support the government murdering someone over it. Chew on that.

Um, bnw, I don’t support the government murdering anyone. Never have. Never will. It would actually be the Hestons of this world who attempted murder, not the government. It would be the folks who think the government is being “tyrannical” by simply limiting consumer choice, or placing a few commonsense restrictions on weaponry, who would be doing the murdering. It would be the gun nuts who shoot government officials for simply implementing the law doing the murdering. Not the government.

If someone is willing to fight to the death over their guns, that’s just flat out insane, and it means they don’t have the mental capacity necessary to handle them in the first place.

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

Because I see that that way, I do not separate any of the “issues.” They are all tied together, they are all mutually connected, it;s a web….you can’t touch one thing without touching the others.

————–
Do you agree or disagree that in the ‘cluster’ of ‘issues of domination’, in the mainstream-media,
CLASS is the one that gets minimized, marginalized, ignored, more than, say,
race, sex, gender…?

I rant about class, in part because i think its at the top of the hierarchy, and in part because it gets IGNORED. The other ‘inseparable issues’ do not get ignored. (though, they often get distorted)

…I’m actually quite glad there are people out there saying issues-of-domination-and-oppression are “inseparable.” I think its good to have those voices. In a way they ‘are’ inseparable — but the mass-media HAS separated them. They’ve ignored the biggest one. So, I rant about the biggest one. (i know you think they are all equally big, inseparable, etc)

I dont really care about the ‘inseparable’ issue, what i care about is that Class/Corporate-Capitalism is ignored by the corporate-capitalist press.

w
v

We agree. Much of America has always had a problem even admitting we have classes here. It goes against our sense of pride in our difference from Europe. We didn’t start out with an official, heritable “aristocracy,” though we grew one. So I think nations that actually fought to bring down their own actually have a clearer sense of what “class” is, does and means. We don’t really know what “class” is because we never had to take down perhaps the most obvious example.

That and the fact that we took over from England as the main cheerleader/exporter for capitalism, which means we have to basically deny the existence of class, too, or it doesn’t really work. The delusion and illusion is that anyone can rise to the top of the heap, and if anyone can do that, then “classes” don’t really exist. At least not more than temporary speed bumps along the way to living like pashas.

As already mentioned, I’m against the hierarchies we supposedly can easily climb in the first place. But that’s another story.

Billy_T wrote:

Also, Nietzsche and the double-edged sword:

When someone says straight up, in paraphrase, alludes to or echoes, etc. etc. that There is no truth, only perspective . . . . Well, that’s a perspective too and, ironically, a truth-claim.

So you can end up with a kind of infinite regress of sorts, with all kinds of shaggy dogs chasing their tales of woe and wonder.

That was clever and I enjoyed it. But, now, I am going to switch to pedantic mode.

I really don’t take the position than nothing is true. In fact there are logical truths. There are also empirical facts. They can be interpreted in various ways but their factuality is either established or not.

What I said in this thread was 2 things.

First, that no political vision—ie. ideas about the nature of human beings, about the ideal structure of society, or about modes of government—is “true.” I think they enter the domain of belief and persuasion. We believe certain things, we persuade others if we can. (Or kill them if they get in the way, but that’s the more advanced version of this.) (Kidding.)

Second, and far more importantly, and much closer to the actual point, it is my experience that the conversation goes better if people begin by acknowledging point 1. So instead of “you should vote libertarian because that is the truth,” it makes for a better conversation to say “because I am a libertarian who believes x, I think y on this issue.” Sort of approaching it as a “see how I see it” issue.

However, since I also acknowledge that there are logical truths, I submit that saying that there is no “true” political vision (just different ones) is a factually and logically accurate claim. It’s a descriptive statement which describes how political discourse works. It can be logically true because it’s about the logic of how certain statements based upon belief tend to work. Why are they just “based on belief?” Because it is impossible to prove that this or that political vision is more real or true (you can make the case that this or that one is preferable for x or y reasons but then that’s a rhetorical move, not logical one.)

So saying that all political positions are visions and therefore not truths is a logically straightforward claim about how belief, perception, and desire work. Namely, no one holding a political position can ever demonstrate its truth, though they can try to persuade you to accept their position as for the best, or valid, or better, or worthwhile, etc.

So what’s not “true” but yet “believed” in political discussion is the basic vision.

At the same time of course facts matter, though they are always open to discussion and debate. So for example saying that fascist doctrine is socialist is false. Yet saying socialism is true and other views are lies is also false…a political vision cannot logically claim to be based on a demonstrable truth. It’s always a vision. Even when everyone believes it.

Again, my whole point was that we should just say that: “Speaking as a pre-maoist libertarian royalist, I believe x, and I think I can get you to see the value of believing x.”

ZN, is this really something you find yourself needing to say, even now? I guess I was really lucky growing up. Had two highly educated parents, with highly educated parents of their own, etc. etc. Most of the extended family was/is. Not monied — with a couple of exceptions. But very learned.

Well I am not clear what you mean by “need to say it.” The very way you put that makes me wonder if you got the actual point.

I said that as analysis of mass media news. My claim was that mass media news absolutely does not get that. I made that point because I thought it would be one most readers of this forum already knew and understood. So since we all get that race is cultural etc, isn’t it interesting that mass media news doesn’t get that.

Do we agree that mass media news doesn’t get that? That’s the point.

…

zn wrote:

ZN, is this really something you find yourself needing to say, even now? I guess I was really lucky growing up. Had two highly educated parents, with highly educated parents of their own, etc. etc. Most of the extended family was/is. Not monied — with a couple of exceptions. But very learned.

Well I am not clear what you mean by “need to say it.” The very way you put that makes me wonder if you got the actual point.

I said that as analysis of mass media news. My claim was that mass media news absolutely does not get that. I made that point because I thought it would be one most readers of this forum already knew and understood. So since we all get that race is cultural etc, isn’t it interesting that mass media news doesn’t get that.

Do we agree that mass media news doesn’t get that? That’s the point.

…

I’m thinking now my response was clumsy and poorly stated. What I meant really was “It’s a shame that has to be said this late in the game.”

Yes, I agree that our media do not seem to get that there is no such thing as “race,” that it IS a social construct.

I threw in the issue of religion at the end — with the post itself being kinda (too much?) thinking aloud — as one possible explanation.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Um, bnw, I don’t support the government murdering anyone. Never have. Never will. It would actually be the Hestons of this world who attempted murder, not the government. It would be the folks who think the government is being “tyrannical” by simply limiting consumer choice, or placing a few commonsense restrictions on weaponry, who would be doing the murdering. It would be the gun nuts who shoot government officials for simply implementing the law doing the murdering. Not the government.

If someone is willing to fight to the death over their guns, that’s just flat out insane, and it means they don’t have the mental capacity necessary to handle them in the first place.

Implementing law by the barrel of a gun. Spoken like a true leftist.

As a libertarian socialist, I advocate for the opposite of that. You advocate for the use of guns, to the death if needbe, to keep your guns even after they’ve been deemed illegal. You advocate for violence. I advocate for peace.

I also advocate for an end to empire, on our way to a stateless society. You still cling to the insane idea that you get to decide for everyone else when the government is “tyrannical,” because, guns, and that it’s okay to shoot and kill government employees who are just implementing the law. Again, they wouldn’t be the folks who initiated the violence. It would be you and your fellow gun nuts who did that.

Billy_T wrote:

IMO, some political visions can get closer than others, especially if we zoom in and focus on aspects like the economy, education, the environment and so on.

Depends on what you want from those things. And the answer to that will always be a vision of.

I try to operate from the starting points of rights and democracy. I think I can make a case that a genuine sense of human rights and a fully realized democracy will not be subject to the economic power of a few.

But on the other hand some counterpart of ours in the past humbly offered that fallen human nature must be ruled because it is corrupt, and therefore a just god ordained that there would be those who by blood, birth, and higher right were the patricians, protectors, and lawgivers of society at large.

I don’t think you can put either vision in an acid solution and declare the one that turns blue is true.

But at the same time I will fight for mine because I believe it is better.