Midterms 2018 and beyond

[mustang]

jel kalifornija na kraju izbrojala listice od primary? i dalje nemam pojma ko je pobedio. nista nisu javili

 

gojko te kvotive bi migao da navedes barem od koga su a ne da navadjamo

Edited June 24, 2020 by mustang

[NevenMan]

3 hours ago, Ivo Petović said:

Postade NY prestonica socijalizma u USA.

 

Minimum 4 Bernijeva kandidata su prošla za kongres iz NY - AOC landslide, Bouman razvalio Hilari/Izrael/Šumer backed kandidata, koji je bio 30 godina u Kongresu.

 

Kentaki još uvek neizvesno.

Eliot Engel je special piece of shot i ovo je bas big deal. A i srbovi ce da se obraduju jer je lik glavni Albanski lobista.

[NevenMan]

On 3.6.2020. at 14:29, mustang said:

ljudi, tramp dobija makar biden poceo da izgleda 20godina mladje

 

ono sto je zabrinjavajuce je da li cemo doziveti taj period do izbora u miru ili haosu

 

levica se maksimalno trudi da nonstop seje paniku, strah, sada vidimo i nasilje i optuzuje trampa da je kriv za ovakva stanja. u medjuvremenu ozbiljne se teme resavaju, sudjenje hilari, obamagate, glasanje putem poste, finansiranje ilegalnih emigranata iz dzepova poreznika itd. o tim temama se uopste ne prica u mejnstrim medijima..it’s ok...izgubice anyway.

 

ne jebe lep nego uporan. istina ce kad tad isplivati

 

nama veceras curfew od 9pm  

Can someone be this dumb 🤦🏻

[Weenie Pooh]

5 hours ago, Ivo Petović said:

Postade NY prestonica socijalizma u USA.

 

Minimum 4 Bernijeva kandidata su prošla za kongres iz NY - AOC landslide, Bouman razvalio Hilari/Izrael/Šumer backed kandidata, koji je bio 30 godina u Kongresu.

 

Ima Douthat u NYT iznenađujuće dobar take koji se dotiče "Bernijevih kandidata" i budućnosti "socijalizma" koji guraju.

 

Spoiler

 

The Second Defeat of Bernie Sanders
In a revolutionary summer, he may be losing the battle for the future of the left.

 

Three months ago, Bernie Sanders lost his chance at the Democratic nomination, after a brief moment in which his socialist revolution seemed poised to raze the bastions of neoliberal power. But the developments of the last month, the George Floyd protests and their cultural repercussions, may prove the more significant defeat for the Sanders cause. In the winter he merely lost a presidential nomination; in the summer he may be losing the battle for the future of the left.

 

Throughout his career, Sanders has stood for the proposition that left-wing politics lost its way after the 1970s by letting what should be its central purpose — the class struggle, the rectification of economic inequality, the war against the “millionaires and billionaires” — be obscured by cultural battles and displaced by a pro-business, pro-Wall Street economic program. This shift has made left-of-center political parties (in Europe as well as the United States) steadily more upper middle class and conservatism steadily more blue collar, but the promise of Sandersism was that the transformation need not be permanent: A left that recovered the language of class struggle, that disentangled liberal politics from faculty-lounge elitism and neoliberal economics, could rally a silent majority against plutocracy and win.

 

The 2016 Sanders primary campaign, which won white, working-class voters who had been drifting from the Democrats, seemed to vindicate this argument. The 2020 Sanders campaign, however, made it look more dubious, by illustrating the core challenge facing a socialist revolution: Its most passionate supporters — highly educated, economically disappointed urbanites — aren’t natural coalition partners for a Rust Belt populism, and the more they tugged Sanders toward the cultural left, the easier it was for Joe Biden to win blue-collar votes, leaving Sanders leading an ideological faction rather than a broader working-class insurgency.

 

Now, under these strange coronavirus conditions, we’re watching a different sort of insurgency challenge or change liberalism, one founded on an intersectional vision of left-wing politics that never came naturally to Sanders. Rather than Medicare for All and taxing plutocrats, the rallying cry is racial justice and defunding the police. Instead of finding its nemeses in corporate suites, the intersectional revolution finds them on antique pedestals and atop the cultural establishment.

 

And so far, as my colleague Sydney Ember noted last week, this revolution has been more unifying than Sanders’s version — uniting the Democratic establishment that once closed ranks against him, earning support from just about every major corporate and cultural institution, sending anti-racism titles skyrocketing up the best-seller list, even bringing Mitt Romney into the streets as a marcher and inducing Donald Trump to make grudging noises about police reform.

 

Ember quotes the law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, the theorist of intersectionality, marveling at the change: “You basically have a moment where every corporation worth its salt is saying something about structural racism and anti-blackness, and that stuff is even outdistancing what candidates in the Democratic Party were actually saying.”

 

All this, from one perspective, vindicates critics who said Sanders’s vision of revolution was too class-bound and race-blind all along.

 

But the longer arc of the current revolutionary moment may actually end up vindicating the socialist critique of post-1970s liberalism — that it’s obsessed with cultural power at the expense of economic transformation, and that it puts the language of radicalism in the service of elitism.

 

The demand for police reform at the heart of the current protests doesn’t fit this caricature. But much of the action around it, the anti-racist reckoning unfolding in colleges, media organizations, corporations and public statuary, may seem more unifying than the Sanders revolution precisely because it isn’t as threatening to power.

 

The fact that corporations are “outdistancing” even politicians, as Crenshaw puts it, in paying fealty to anti-racism is perhaps the tell. It’s not that corporate America is suddenly deeply committed to racial equality; even for woke capital, the capitalism comes first. Rather, it’s that anti-racism as a cultural curriculum, a rhetoric of re-education, is relatively easy to fold into the mechanisms of managerialism, under the tutelage of the human resources department. The idea that you need to retrain your employees so that they can work together without microaggressing isn’t Marxism, cultural or otherwise; it’s just a novel form of Fordism, with white-fragility gurus in place of efficiency experts.

 

In our cultural institutions, too, the official enthusiasm for the current radical mood is suggestive of the revolution’s limits. The tumult and protest is obviously a threat to certain people’s jobs: The revolutionaries need scapegoats, examples, wrongthinkers to cast out pour encourager les autres, superannuated figures to retire with prejudice. But they aren’t out to dissolve Harvard or break up Google or close The New York Times; they’re out to rule these institutions, with more enlightenment than the old guard but the same fundamental powers. And many of the changes the protesters seek are ones that the establishment can happily accommodate: I can promise that few powerful people will feel particularly threatened if the purge of Confederate monuments widens and some statues of pre-World War II presidents and Franciscan missionaries come crashing down as well. (Though renaming Yale might be another matter …)

 

So the likely endgame of all this turbulence is the redistribution of elite jobs, the upward circulation of the more racially diverse younger generation, the abolition of perceived impediments to the management of elite diversity (adieu, SAT) and the inculcation of a new elite language whose academic style will delineate the professional class more decisively from the unenlightened proles below. (With the possible long-run consequence that not only the white working class but also some minority voters will drift toward whatever remains of political conservatism once Trump is finished with it.)

 

Yes, serious critics of structural racism have an agenda for economic as well as cultural reform. But that agenda isn’t what’s being advanced: Chuck Schumer will take a knee in kente cloth, but he isn’t likely to pass a major reparations bill, the white liberals buying up the works of Ibram X. Kendi aren’t going to abandon private schools or bus their kids to minority neighborhoods. And in five years, it’s more likely that 2020’s legacy will be a cadre of permanently empowered commissars getting people fired for unwise Twitter likes rather than any dramatic interracial wealth redistribution.

 

I am a cynical conservative, so you can dismiss this as the usual reactionary allergy to the fresh air of revolution. But it’s also what an old-guard leftism, of the sort that Bernie Sanders attempted to revive, would predict of a revolutionary movement that has so much of the establishment on board.

 

The destiny of liberalism, for some time now, has looked like handshake agreements among corporate, academic and media power centers, with progressive rhetoric deployed either reassuringly or threateningly, depending on what’s required to keep discontented factions within the elite in line. The promise of the Sanders campaign was that the insights of the older left, on class solidarity above all, could alter this depressing future and make the newer left something more than a handmaiden of oligarchy, a diversifier of late capitalism’s corporate boards.

 

The current wave of protests will have unpredictable consequences. But right now, their revolution’s conspicuous elite support seems like strong evidence that Bernie Sanders failed.

 

 

 

[Peter Fan]

3 hours ago, Weenie Pooh said:

 

Ima Douthat u NYT iznenađujuće dobar take koji se dotiče "Bernijevih kandidata" i budućnosti "socijalizma" koji guraju.

 

 

+1

 

Da, evo sad cemo zajedno  "produbiti rasnu svijest i spoznaju o potlacenosti manjina ",  neki od crnaca ce cak postati i upravljaci / elita sto po kljucu, sto po zaslusi, a vi iz geta mozete za 5 godina da ponovo palite radnje, jer cete i dalje biti sirotinja. 

 

S time sto ja mislim da je rjesnje ne socijalizam, vec ravnopravnija distribucija unutar kapitalizma, o ova turbo idenditeska politika olicena u skrnavljenju simbola poretka ce tek da razmase blowback kod tihe vecine.

 

 But much of the action around it, the anti-racist reckoning unfolding in colleges, media organizations, corporations and public statuary, may seem more unifying than the Sanders revolution precisely because it isn’t as threatening to power.

 

The fact that corporations are “outdistancing” even politicians, as Crenshaw puts it, in paying fealty to anti-racism is perhaps the tell. It’s not that corporate America is suddenly deeply committed to racial equality; even for woke capital, the capitalism comes first. 

 

--

 

 

The revolutionaries need scapegoats, examples, wrongthinkers to cast out pour encourager les autres, superannuated figures to retire with prejudice. But they aren’t out to dissolve Harvard or break up Google or close The New York Times; they’re out to rule these institutions, with more enlightenment than the old guard but the same fundamental powers. And many of the changes the protesters seek are ones that the establishment can happily accommodate.

 

So the likely endgame of all this turbulence is the redistribution of elite jobs, the upward circulation of the more racially diverse younger generation, the abolition of perceived impediments to the management of elite diversity (adieu, SAT) and the inculcation of a new elite language whose academic style will delineate the professional class more decisively from the unenlightened proles below. (With the possible long-run consequence that not only the white working class but also some minority voters will drift toward whatever remains of political conservatism once Trump is finished with it.)

 

 

 

[Ivo Petović]

4 hours ago, Weenie Pooh said:

 

Ima Douthat u NYT iznenađujuće dobar take koji se dotiče "Bernijevih kandidata" i budućnosti "socijalizma" koji guraju.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The Second Defeat of Bernie Sanders
In a revolutionary summer, he may be losing the battle for the future of the left.

 

Three months ago, Bernie Sanders lost his chance at the Democratic nomination, after a brief moment in which his socialist revolution seemed poised to raze the bastions of neoliberal power. But the developments of the last month, the George Floyd protests and their cultural repercussions, may prove the more significant defeat for the Sanders cause. In the winter he merely lost a presidential nomination; in the summer he may be losing the battle for the future of the left.

 

Throughout his career, Sanders has stood for the proposition that left-wing politics lost its way after the 1970s by letting what should be its central purpose — the class struggle, the rectification of economic inequality, the war against the “millionaires and billionaires” — be obscured by cultural battles and displaced by a pro-business, pro-Wall Street economic program. This shift has made left-of-center political parties (in Europe as well as the United States) steadily more upper middle class and conservatism steadily more blue collar, but the promise of Sandersism was that the transformation need not be permanent: A left that recovered the language of class struggle, that disentangled liberal politics from faculty-lounge elitism and neoliberal economics, could rally a silent majority against plutocracy and win.

 

The 2016 Sanders primary campaign, which won white, working-class voters who had been drifting from the Democrats, seemed to vindicate this argument. The 2020 Sanders campaign, however, made it look more dubious, by illustrating the core challenge facing a socialist revolution: Its most passionate supporters — highly educated, economically disappointed urbanites — aren’t natural coalition partners for a Rust Belt populism, and the more they tugged Sanders toward the cultural left, the easier it was for Joe Biden to win blue-collar votes, leaving Sanders leading an ideological faction rather than a broader working-class insurgency.

 

Now, under these strange coronavirus conditions, we’re watching a different sort of insurgency challenge or change liberalism, one founded on an intersectional vision of left-wing politics that never came naturally to Sanders. Rather than Medicare for All and taxing plutocrats, the rallying cry is racial justice and defunding the police. Instead of finding its nemeses in corporate suites, the intersectional revolution finds them on antique pedestals and atop the cultural establishment.

 

And so far, as my colleague Sydney Ember noted last week, this revolution has been more unifying than Sanders’s version — uniting the Democratic establishment that once closed ranks against him, earning support from just about every major corporate and cultural institution, sending anti-racism titles skyrocketing up the best-seller list, even bringing Mitt Romney into the streets as a marcher and inducing Donald Trump to make grudging noises about police reform.

 

Ember quotes the law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, the theorist of intersectionality, marveling at the change: “You basically have a moment where every corporation worth its salt is saying something about structural racism and anti-blackness, and that stuff is even outdistancing what candidates in the Democratic Party were actually saying.”

 

All this, from one perspective, vindicates critics who said Sanders’s vision of revolution was too class-bound and race-blind all along.

 

But the longer arc of the current revolutionary moment may actually end up vindicating the socialist critique of post-1970s liberalism — that it’s obsessed with cultural power at the expense of economic transformation, and that it puts the language of radicalism in the service of elitism.

 

The demand for police reform at the heart of the current protests doesn’t fit this caricature. But much of the action around it, the anti-racist reckoning unfolding in colleges, media organizations, corporations and public statuary, may seem more unifying than the Sanders revolution precisely because it isn’t as threatening to power.

 

The fact that corporations are “outdistancing” even politicians, as Crenshaw puts it, in paying fealty to anti-racism is perhaps the tell. It’s not that corporate America is suddenly deeply committed to racial equality; even for woke capital, the capitalism comes first. Rather, it’s that anti-racism as a cultural curriculum, a rhetoric of re-education, is relatively easy to fold into the mechanisms of managerialism, under the tutelage of the human resources department. The idea that you need to retrain your employees so that they can work together without microaggressing isn’t Marxism, cultural or otherwise; it’s just a novel form of Fordism, with white-fragility gurus in place of efficiency experts.

 

In our cultural institutions, too, the official enthusiasm for the current radical mood is suggestive of the revolution’s limits. The tumult and protest is obviously a threat to certain people’s jobs: The revolutionaries need scapegoats, examples, wrongthinkers to cast out pour encourager les autres, superannuated figures to retire with prejudice. But they aren’t out to dissolve Harvard or break up Google or close The New York Times; they’re out to rule these institutions, with more enlightenment than the old guard but the same fundamental powers. And many of the changes the protesters seek are ones that the establishment can happily accommodate: I can promise that few powerful people will feel particularly threatened if the purge of Confederate monuments widens and some statues of pre-World War II presidents and Franciscan missionaries come crashing down as well. (Though renaming Yale might be another matter …)

 

So the likely endgame of all this turbulence is the redistribution of elite jobs, the upward circulation of the more racially diverse younger generation, the abolition of perceived impediments to the management of elite diversity (adieu, SAT) and the inculcation of a new elite language whose academic style will delineate the professional class more decisively from the unenlightened proles below. (With the possible long-run consequence that not only the white working class but also some minority voters will drift toward whatever remains of political conservatism once Trump is finished with it.)

 

Yes, serious critics of structural racism have an agenda for economic as well as cultural reform. But that agenda isn’t what’s being advanced: Chuck Schumer will take a knee in kente cloth, but he isn’t likely to pass a major reparations bill, the white liberals buying up the works of Ibram X. Kendi aren’t going to abandon private schools or bus their kids to minority neighborhoods. And in five years, it’s more likely that 2020’s legacy will be a cadre of permanently empowered commissars getting people fired for unwise Twitter likes rather than any dramatic interracial wealth redistribution.

 

I am a cynical conservative, so you can dismiss this as the usual reactionary allergy to the fresh air of revolution. But it’s also what an old-guard leftism, of the sort that Bernie Sanders attempted to revive, would predict of a revolutionary movement that has so much of the establishment on board.

 

The destiny of liberalism, for some time now, has looked like handshake agreements among corporate, academic and media power centers, with progressive rhetoric deployed either reassuringly or threateningly, depending on what’s required to keep discontented factions within the elite in line. The promise of the Sanders campaign was that the insights of the older left, on class solidarity above all, could alter this depressing future and make the newer left something more than a handmaiden of oligarchy, a diversifier of late capitalism’s corporate boards.

 

The current wave of protests will have unpredictable consequences. But right now, their revolution’s conspicuous elite support seems like strong evidence that Bernie Sanders failed.

 

 

 

 

a) Reč socijalizam sam upotrebio u zajebanciji

b) Koliko pre par nedelja si pričao nešto drugo i žalio za Bernijevim porazom kao poslednjom šansom za svet, sad je odjednom ipak i to bio fejk-identiti-kultural left pokušaj, a ne prava "radnička" kampanja?

c) Nikad nisi slušao šta ovaj Bowman ima reći, zar ne? Čovek prilično insistira na borbi za siromašne, rase vrlo retko pominje. Štaviše, takvi ljudi (afro-amerikanci) su sada najpotrebniji baš zato što je crnački establishment jedan od najvećih propagatora cultural only left politike. Likovi kao Bowman (kojeg crnački kokus nije podržao), lakše će objasniti običnim crncima koliko ih sistem sjebava.

d) Naravno da je kulturna priča sad flavor of the week, ali - kulturne stvari se relativno brzo rešavaju, levica je tu (za sada) odnela pobedu. Danas čak i ultrakonzervativni Supreme Court donosi odluke u korist LGBT, nešto što je pre 10-15 godina bilo teško zamislivo. Konzensus oko BLM je danas daleko veći nego pre samo 5 godina. To ne znači da će ova tema biti na meniju, koliko za dve godine - naprotiv, brzina kojom se kulturna pitanja rešavaju, govori da neće.

e) Opinion novinari moraju da zarade svoj novac, čačkajući kritičke aparate mislećih, naizgled zanimljivim iskazima, koji za 3 godine (živi bili pa vidjeli) neće puno vredeti. 

f) Velika je razlika u kvalitetu i veličini protivnika (ekonomska vs kulturna levica). Ekonomska pitanja za protivnika imaju najmoćnije ljude i korporacije na svetu - ergo, naravno da će ta bitka biti teža i trajati mnogo duže. To ne znači da je Berni izgubio bitku za levicu, naprotiv.

g) Naporno je biti sumjničav prema svakom pokretu i entuzijazmu, bilo čemu što nudi neku nadu, ako ne prolazi sve bullete sopstvenog purity testa i/ili od straha da ne budeš "prevaren"/ispadneš pametan zato što nisi verovao. Naporno i za sumnjičavog i za onog koji to čita/sluša. 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Ivo Petović

[Weenie Pooh]

Znaš kako, naravno da je naporno kad osećaš potrebu da na jedan link do teksta odgovoriš čaršavom od sedam tačaka na koji sad ja moram temeljno da odgovaram  

 

1) Da li si se zajebavao ili ne koristeći reč socijalizam savrešno je nebitno. Zovi to što trenutno glumataju "levicom" ako ti je lakše, uopšte ne menja stvari.

 

2) Naravno da je Bernijev neuspeh bio poslednja šansa, to ne vidi samo ko ne želi. Zašto nije uspeo je otvoreno pitanje, mada šanse nema da "modernizacija" platforme nije značajno doprinela.

 

3) Slušao sam Bowmana, ali on sa ovom širom pričom o stanju na levici nema mnogo veze. Češće sam slušao mučenu AOC, čiji landslide victory još uvek izaziva orgazme diljem severoistoka.

 

4) Kulturna™ priča nije flavor of the week nego je elegantno potisnula onu materijalnu još od kako je Berni prdnuo u čabar. Prvi jasni signali su krenuli u ranim danima COVID-19 krize.

 

5) NYT opinion columnist Douthat takođe uređuje the Atlantic; obično tradcath budala ali u ovom slučaju je 100% pogodio po ćorava koka principu; ne znam šta misliš da će se desiti za 3 godine.

 

6) Ekonomski aspekt je samo nesrećni Deda™ koliko-toliko držao na dnevnom redu, jedva su dočekali da ga se ratosiljaju i vrate se na šiljenje identitetske patke. Ne znam kakve veze ima što je ta bitka teška i mukotrpna, zar je to izgovor da se od nje odustane? Svaka je korporativna gnjida bez problema izrazila podršku za BLM, što valjda jasno govori koliko ih ne žulja ta tema, tj. koliko im je drago da se o raising taxes i health care reform više jednostavno ne priča.

 

7) (Vidi gore na temu naprezanja.) Uopšte nije reč ni o kakvim purity testovima, ja u Americi nemam pravo glasa pa im politička zbivanja pratim isključivo hobistički. Nemoj mi samo o nadi™ molim te, s obzirom na to da si pre nedelju dana posprdno seruckao o uzaludnosti nadanja u Sandersa. A sad je kao problem konstatovati da su aktuelna dešavanja mahom gubljenje vremena koje ništa nabolje promeniti neće?

 

Naravno da ne moraš da prihvatiš moje stavove, ni u šta te ne ubeđujem. Slobodno ostani pozitivan i navijaj dok AOC et al keep polishing brass on the Titanic. Ako doživim da nekim čudom spasete svet, vrlo rado ću priznati koliko sam duboko grešio sa svojim doom & gloom cinizmom. Samo što za taj ishod nema ni promila šanse. 

 

[Ivo Petović]

1 hour ago, Weenie Pooh said:

Znaš kako, naravno da je naporno kad osećaš potrebu da na jedan link do teksta odgovoriš čaršavom od sedam tačaka na koji sad ja moram temeljno da odgovaram  

 

Shvati to kao kompliment ; )  

 

1 hour ago, Weenie Pooh said:

6) Ekonomski aspekt je samo nesrećni Deda™ koliko-toliko držao na dnevnom redu, jedva su dočekali da ga se ratosiljaju i vrate se na šiljenje identitetske patke. Ne znam kakve veze ima što je ta bitka teška i mukotrpna, zar je to izgovor da se od nje odustane? Svaka je korporativna gnjida bez problema izrazila podršku za BLM, što valjda jasno govori koliko ih ne žulja ta tema, tj. koliko im je drago da se o raising taxes i health care reform više jednostavno ne priča.

Upravo o tome ti i pričam. Podrška BLM ne znači ništa, zato je kulturni rat mnogo lakše dobiti.

 

Što se tiče ekonomije - ne znam odakle učitavaš te stvari. Svakom od ovih kandidata su M4all i Green New Deal prve dve stvari na spisku polisija za koje se zalažu. AOC je (sa Markijem) predstavila Green New Deal (koji si onoliko, sa pravom (mada je u pitanju vrlo opšta priča), hejlovao), sad je AOC identititi, a ne ekonomija. Jedini razlog za to je što u svojim nastupima nešto veći issue stavlja na rasna pitanja u odnosu na Bernija. Sad su odjednom svi zaboravili na ekonomiju, zato što se protestuje protiv rasizma i policijske brutalnosti 

 

1 hour ago, Weenie Pooh said:

7) (Vidi gore na temu naprezanja.) Uopšte nije reč ni o kakvim purity testovima, ja u Americi nemam pravo glasa pa im politička zbivanja pratim isključivo hobistički. Nemoj mi samo o nadi™ molim te, s obzirom na to da si pre nedelju dana posprdno seruckao o uzaludnosti nadanja u Sandersa. A sad je kao problem konstatovati da su aktuelna dešavanja mahom gubljenje vremena koje ništa nabolje promeniti neće?

 

Naravno da ne moraš da prihvatiš moje stavove, ni u šta te ne ubeđujem. Slobodno ostani pozitivan i navijaj dok AOC et al keep polishing brass on the Titanic. Ako doživim da nekim čudom spasete svet, vrlo rado ću priznati koliko sam duboko grešio sa svojim doom & gloom cinizmom. Samo što za taj ishod nema ni promila šanse. 

 

 

Za koga se nabolje promeniti neće? Opet se postavljaš kao da rasizam nije bitan i da ga nema - tebi kao hobističkom posmatraču van USA to izgleda tako - nisam siguran da prosečan Džamal iz Bronksa, a naročito Buker iz Kentakija, deli tvoj sentiment. 

 

Purity test - zato što ne postoji čovek  ili ideja koja bi te inspirisala - kad se potrudiš dobro, i imaš sa čime - svemu je moguće naći neku falinku. To, kako bih ti rekao, nije poenta ničega na ovom svetu....

 

btw, just for the record po stoti put - nisam ja pozitivan uopšte, ja sam mnogo veći mizantrop i negativac od tebe.  Ovo o navijanju za AOC po peti put  i  sl, iako smo o tome diskutovali već 

 

 

[Weenie Pooh]

33 minutes ago, Ivo Petović said:

Upravo o tome ti i pričam. Podrška BLM ne znači ništa, zato je kulturni rat mnogo lakše dobiti.

 

Za koga se nabolje promeniti neće? Opet se postavljaš kao da rasizam nije bitan i da ga nema

U kom smislu je "kulturni rat" mnogo lakše "dobiti", kako uopšte zamišljaš tu pobedu? Hoće svi da se drže za ruke i pevaju pesmice?

 

Rasizam kao pojava je očigledna i neporeciva, problem je samo to što se protiv nje ne bori ukidanjem policije i rušenjem Kolumbovih statua (i Linkolnovih  i Isusovih  a evo čak i Muhamedovih  ) Neće se ukinuti ni pranjem crnih nogu ni kupovanjem White Fragility knjiga. Rasizam se promovisanjem esencijalističkih fantazija samo učvršćuje, ljudi se samo dodatno izoluju, prisilno grupišu u rasno čiste enklave. 

 

Jedini rezultat tog "kulturnog rata" koji ti podržavaš biće poneka sinekura tu i tamo, mahom za najglasnije i najljigavije nosioce prvoborske spomenice. Konkretnu situaciju ne da neće popraviti nego će je samo pogoršati - što nesvesno a što svesno, tj. iz ličnih interesa.

 

Klasna borba je, sa druge strane, užasno teška ako ne i nemoguća za dobiti... ali prosto mora da se vodi jer je bukvalno opstanak ljudske civilizacije u pitanju. A čak i ako ti je rasizam apsolutni prioritet, više ćeš postići i na tom planu tražeći zajedničke causes sa ljudima drugih rasa, aktivno promovišući solidarnost umesto da u nedogled produbljuješ podele. 

 

Pričali smo već i o tome i o blatantnom zanemarivanju ekonomije, da se ne vrtimo u krug, evo ti šta kaže rahmetli Hampton pa ti kako hoćeš. 

 

Quote

btw, just for the record po stoti put - nisam ja pozitivan uopšte, ja sam mnogo veći mizantrop i negativac od tebe.  Ovo o navijanju za AOC po peti put  i  sl, iako smo o tome diskutovali već 

 

Ne bih ulazio ni u mizantropometriju™ u ove sitne sate, ali moram da primetim da mi nije jasno kako možeš tako negativan da zagovaraš nadu i incrementalism.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Weenie Pooh

[Weenie Pooh]

Moram još samo ovo, na temu ekonomije o kojoj se danas totalno još priča jer je nimalo nisu potisnula identitarian sranja: 

 

https://twitter.com/openDemocracy/status/1275779564220923905/

 

Štiglić™ i njegov "progresivni kapitalizam" efektnu sumiraju gde stoji trenutni diskurs™ na tom planu. Muda <-> Bubrezi.

[Gojko & Stojko]

On 24.6.2020. at 18:54, mustang said:

gojko te kvotive bi migao da navedes barem od koga su a ne da navadjamo

Hm, ja obično ovde "ciljano" pišem pa ako ne znaš o čemu se radi to znači da nije za tebe. Ali kad me ovako lepo zamoliš moraću fundamentalno da obratim pažnju na ponašanje.

 

Elem, citat je iz jednog filma koji između ostalog prikazuje Njujorčane kao zaumne i duševne ljude (uz naravno i tada neke paradirajuće izuzetke čiji je naslednik recimo jedna Bari Vajs), za razliku od površnih i spoljašnjošću opsednutih stanovnika Los Anđelesa. I pored toga, film je dobio nagradu za najbolji film i možeš da vidiš njegovo ime ako se prošetaš malo niz ulicu do mesta gde se takve nagrade dodeljuju, drugi je odozdo sa leve strane kad počneš da se penješ uz stepenice. Dosta godina koje su prošle otkad je napravljen mu nisu oduzele ništa na duhovitosti i aktuelnosti, kao npr. scena gde na jednoj polovini ekrana triput nedeljno znači skoro nikad, a na drugoj non-stop.

 

SaE

[Gojko & Stojko]

 

SaE

[zorglub]

3 hours ago, Gojko & Stojko said:

(uz naravno i tada neke paradirajuće izuzetke čiji je naslednik recimo jedna Bari Vajs)

 

nema smajli s pivom, jbg

[Rowanoke]

Nista mi nije jasno zasto je AOC imala midterm u NY? zar nije ona skoro izabrana?

[Gojko & Stojko]

47 minutes ago, zorglub said:

nema smajli s pivom, jbg

Mogao sam da napišem i "ona Bari Vajs kojom me je gađao Zorglub", ali i bez toga ti je jasno. Paradirajući izuzetak o kome se radi je lik iz reda u bioskopu koji tvrid da "Beckett's got a technique, but doesn't hit me on a gut level", pa onda glavnom junaku dođe da uzme čarapu punu konjske balege da ga njom lupi po glavi.

 

SaE