• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The radical regressive left is ruining the democrats

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
What do you have against intersectionality?

I woild think that it's obvious that the experience and perspective of, say, a woman of colour would be different from that of a white woman or of a man of colour. Do you disagree?
Intersectionality generally turns into a contest of who has more victimhood points. Intersectionality has ruined the cohesion of the feminist movement as people within it segregate themselves into black feminist, white feminist, Latina feminist, etc. They're focusing on all the ways that they're different and thus splitting their efforts, rather than focusing on what they all have in common as women. As a man, I'm concerned with male issues and am happy to talk with men of any background about the issues we face in society and in our lives. As a man who has microtia, I'm also happy to get to know other people who have impairments or disabilities and learn more about the different challenges our different conditions present. As someone who struggles with chronic depression and occasional anxiety, I'm happy to talk to anyone who goes through the same struggles, regardless of their race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background or gender. I'm not looking at all my issues as one cohesive whole and saying to people who share at least one but not all of them "You don't understand what it's like to be a male with depression and a congenital birth defect, our issues are different."

As far as I'm concerned, intersectionality is about trying to see who can be the biggest victim rather than seeing how I can connect with people from many different demographics and work towards a common goal. A black woman and a white woman should both be able to sit down and talk about their shared challenges as women without trying to see whose race makes being a woman harder. A black man and a black woman should be able to talk about their shared issues being people of color. A black man and a white man should be able to talk about their shared struggles with trying to figure out what it means to be a real man in today's society.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Intersectionality generally turns into a contest of who has more victimhood points. Intersectionality has ruined the cohesion of the feminist movement as people within it segregate themselves into black feminist, white feminist, Latina feminist, etc. They're focusing on all the ways that they're different and thus splitting their efforts, rather than focusing on what they all have in common as women. As a man, I'm concerned with male issues and am happy to talk with men of any background about the issues we face in society and in our lives. As a man who has microtia, I'm also happy to get to know other people who have impairments or disabilities and learn more about the different challenges our different conditions present. As someone who struggles with chronic depression and occasional anxiety, I'm happy to talk to anyone who goes through the same struggles, regardless of their race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background or gender. I'm not looking at all my issues as one cohesive whole and saying to people who share at least one but not all of them "You don't understand what it's like to be a male with depression and a congenital birth defect, our issues are different."

As far as I'm concerned, intersectionality is about trying to see who can be the biggest victim rather than seeing how I can connect with people from many different demographics and work towards a common goal. A black woman and a white woman should both be able to sit down and talk about their shared challenges as women without trying to see whose race makes being a woman harder. A black man and a black woman should be able to talk about their shared issues being people of color. A black man and a white man should be able to talk about their shared struggles with trying to figure out what it means to be a real man in today's society.
I see it differently. I see it as saying "just because your committee/focus group/whatnot has a white gay man, a black man, and a white straight woman on it, don't assume that the feedback you've received from them properly captures the concerns of LGBTQ women of colour."
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
I see it differently. I see it as saying "just because your committee/focus group/whatnot has a white gay man, a black man, and a white straight woman on it, don't assume that the feedback you've received from them properly captures the concerns of LGBTQ women of colour."
If we focus on the issues of women, people of color and the LGBT community, then that inevitably will address the issues faced by LGBT women of color, as their concerns are shared by people in each of these different groups. Just because none of the three people you mentioned share all the issues of LGBT women of color doesn't mean that they don't each share some of them. Even if we consider that the issues of LGBT women of color are an emergent phenomenon that arise out of their concerns as women, as people of color and as LGBT people, if we get rid of the underlying issues tied to their race, gender and sexuality, then the emergent issues they face will also dissolve as the foundational issues on which they are based are resolved.
 

Woberts

The Perfumed Seneschal
You might want to check your facts on that "freed the slaves' thingy. That particular president was a Republican (and he had to do it against the protests of the Democrats in Congress at the time). Also, BTW, it was the Republicans who gave Lyndon Johnson the votes to pass the Civil Rights Act. Again, this was against his own Democrat Congress (i.e., the "Dixiecrats" among others). If you got this one wrong maybe you might be slightly mistaken about your other 'facts'.
Did the party do these things, or the people inside the party?
 

Woberts

The Perfumed Seneschal
The mental gymnastics required to call us regressive are astonishing. Let me remind you, we weren't the ones hanging blacks.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
The radical regressive left, most exemplified by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, has been supremely damaging for the democratic party. The amount of division she has sown is really hurting the democrats for the next election.

Where did all of these super far left democrats come from? What happened to the days when we just had a mainly center left party? Its almost like there are two democrat parties now.

What's it going to take for the democrats to move past this tunnel vision obsession with race, feminism, LGBT rights, and social justice? I feel like we have already removed most legal obstacles based on race, gender, etc, . I really want to know why people are really getting hysterical about this stuff.

If the democrats could just focus on important issues like improving education, repairing infrastructure, implementing carbon free nuclear power, expanding science and nasa funding, fixing social security and medicare funding, and maybe even trying to reduce the deficit, then I think they would attract a lot more people from the center.

We really need the democrats from the 80's and 90's to come back and right the ship. Identitarian politics seems to be alienating a lot of reasonable people to the right unfortunately. I don't have any citations for that, its just my impression from the news and what i've seen on youtube in addition to the last election.

Anyways do you guys agree or disagree that the identitarian/regressive left is ruining the democratic party? Are identitatrian politics important or is it all nonsense?
Lol, there's nothing "radical" about AOC. She's hardly far left. You must be a right wing extremist if center leftism is too much for you. The right uses identity politics all the time and I don't see you whining about it.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
What do you have against intersectionality?

I woild think that it's obvious that the experience and perspective of, say, a woman of colour would be different from that of a white woman or of a man of colour. Do you disagree?

Because its Identitarian.

White Supremacist are Identitarian just fyi.

When you treat/think someone is better than someone else for any reason at all, it is bigotry, plain and simple. Identitarism is not about equality, it is about obtaining and then sustaining supremacy.

I am egalitarian, which is about equality.

Egalitarianism - Wikipedia
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You might want to check your facts on that "freed the slaves' thingy. That particular president was a Republican (and he had to do it against the protests of the Democrats in Congress at the time). Also, BTW, it was the Republicans who gave Lyndon Johnson the votes to pass the Civil Rights Act. Again, this was against his own Democrat Congress (i.e., the "Dixiecrats" among others). If you got this one wrong maybe you might be slightly mistaken about your other 'facts'.
True, The Democrats haven't always been the 'liberals', nor the Republicans the conservatives. Maybe left vs right orientation would better track for social progress/torpor.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
The radical regressive left, most exemplified by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, has been supremely damaging for the democratic party. The amount of division she has sown is really hurting the democrats for the next election.

Where did all of these super far left democrats come from? What happened to the days when we just had a mainly center left party? Its almost like there are two democrat parties now.

What's it going to take for the democrats to move past this tunnel vision obsession with race, feminism, LGBT rights, and social justice? I feel like we have already removed most legal obstacles based on race, gender, etc, . I really want to know why people are really getting hysterical about this stuff.

If the democrats could just focus on important issues like improving education, repairing infrastructure, implementing carbon free nuclear power, expanding science and nasa funding, fixing social security and medicare funding, and maybe even trying to reduce the deficit, then I think they would attract a lot more people from the center.

????? If they did THAT, they'd be Republicans.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Maybe what America missing is a political party in the middle? Not Democrates or Republican, but something that is not far Right (republicans) or far left ( democrates)?

Libertarians? You know, the folks nobody likes?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
LOL -- the Democrats have never been as regimented as the right. We think for ourselves and challenge authority.

(grin) No you don't. You ARE the authorities, the dictators of what must be thought, said...even worn. It has always bemused me how, when a group 'rebels against authority' to 'think for themselves," they all say the same thing, think the same thing and wear the same tie dye t-shirts.

It's one of the great ironies of the universe, I think.

There are no "super far left" Democrats. You've been watching too much Fox news. The division has largely been stirred up by the GOP.

You are correct. There aren't. When the whole party moves as far left as a 'super far left," everything realigns; the center moves and what used to be 'super far,' becomes 'normal."

When were these "center left" days? Both parties have been moving steadily to the right for some time now.

Wrong direction.

Much of Nixon and Reagan's politics would be considered far left today.

Actually, they would be considered rather far right. John Kennedy's politics would be considered pretty right wing today. Carter and Johnson would still be 'left' (NO Republican would gut social security to pay for a war, for crying out loud! Only left wing 'The government can do anything it wants to for the 'greater good' would do that).

Our tunnel vision is focused on human rights, fairness, equality and prosperity.

Not really. 'Human rights" as long as it's the humans you approve of,

Fairness...as long as the result is that the folks most likely to vote for you win,

Equality...as long as the minorities don't get TOO 'uppity' and decide that they really ARE as good as anybody else and break away from the government teat and make their own way

Prosperity...as long as nobody gets TOO prosperous. Can't have that.

It's this tunnel vision that freed the slaves, gave women the vote, ended child labor and racial segregation, built our highway system and infrastructure, gave us the eight hour day, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Public education, AFDC, clean air, water, food, drugs, &c.

Almost all of that was done by (whisper this) REPUBLICANS. Do read your history.


Need I remind you that both moderates and conservatives fought all these "far left, socialist" policies tooth and nail? They're doing the same today.

Only if they identify as conservative. If they identify as liberal, they don't dare.

But these are exactly the issues we are focusing on! -- perhaps minus the nuclear option. It's the Republicans who seek to maintain the status quo and overturn popular social programs, its they who spend like drunken sailors and run up deficits.
You really don't read history, do you?

The '80s and '90s saw increasing debt, stagnant wages and increasing income inequality. It was a trickle up economy.
Maybe we need to revisit the policies that curbed the rapacious banks and industrialists that led to the Great Depression; the policies that produced America's golden age of growth and prosperity.
Oh, wait -- that would be the "super far left"...
Please clarify what policies you have issue with. I'm not seeing a regressive left. I'm seeing a resurgence of Roosevelt's politics; the policies that Made America Great.

Look, I'm not going to argue with someone who actually attributes the freeing of the slaves to DEMOCRATS. Here's a hint: Lincoln was a Republican. the KKK was the Democratic party 'action wing.'

The 'infrastructure,' ...like the great freeway and highway web that has allowed this nation to travel and move goods and people? Eisenhower. Republican.

Roosevelt didn't end the depression. WWII did. It has been argued that Roosevelt's polices actually extended the depression longer than it needed to go.

Brown v the Board of Education was enforced by REPUBLICANS against rather violent Democratic opposition. I keep reminding you guys that MLKjr was a Repubilcan. He was assassinated in 1968 by James Earl Ray, who was extremely influenced by George Wallace and his segregationalist policies.

George Wallace was a Democrat. You people darned near elected him president, except that a man named Bremer shot and paralyzed him. You can't even call his assailant 'partisan.' Evidently Bremer would have been just as happy to shoot Nixon.

Now you guys want to co-opt the entire history of the fight for equality and claim that YOU are responsible for the end of slavery, the end of segregation, and all the good things that have happened in America throughout the decades? You are calling conservatives 'racists' when it has been the Democrats who have been the racist enemy we've been fighting for a century or two? You are not only changing sides in your rhetoric, you are attempting to make Republicans guilty of all your sins.

And you folks are STILL the racists to be fought. You are just sneakier about it now, is all.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
That's because we aren't in the middle.
As we used to say (before they all died).....
We're to the left of Kennedy, & to the right of Reagan.

Well, that's true.

It's why I can't be a Republican OR a Democrat, though I'm definitely conservative.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Is this in the joke thread?

Why do you link 'radical' with 'regressive'? You are skewing the question, most of AOC's supporters would say she is radical (agreed) and PROGRESSIVE.

Regrad. You dont even know that term? It is like neocon
or altraight.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Kinda hard for ladies (or anyone) to get any pay if AOC is going to keep running off jobs in her district....just sayin'.

Have you been to NYC lately? There's like a lot going
on here, really a lot of people. Crowded, noisy, dirty,
and did I mention loud?
There is actually no very good reason to further strain
the capacity of this little bit of land.
 
Top