The same people who scoff at mechanics and trade workers are the same people who claim to be fighting for them

>neoliberalism is leftist
How long have conservatives been conflating liberalism and socialism and is this the case in other countries?

Friendly reminder that socialism is for all political intents and purposes dead outside a handful of Third World guerilla movements and "socialism with Chinese/Cuban/North Korean characteristics" shitholes

Because of the rise of Asia as an economic power and technological advances, US mechanics and trade workers no longer wield the economic power they once did. There's fundamentally nothing that US elites could do about this, even if they wanted to, other than create more wealth redistribution programs and try to move closer to a European politico-economic model. People who advocate for making such moves, at least, are not being hypocritical or ignorant - it's the only model which improves matters and is known to work. As for scoffing at blue collar people, it's not nice, but many of the blue collar people scoff at others too.
There's also the matter of immigration of course - but keep in mind that limiting immigration wouldn't help the working class much if at all, since increases in wages they would get would be canceled out by increases in prices that would result from more expensive labor. Limiting immigration is probably good for other reasons, but I doubt it would make much of a difference economically.

Cont. I should probably explain why Asian economic power can hurt US mechanics and trade workers. First of all, instead of throwing out your equipment you can buy new stuff that's been made cheaper because of Asian production. Secondly, US mechanics and trade workers have less labor bargaining power because they can no longer use "if you don't give me a raise I'll go get a good job in manufacturing" as leverage.
Now, some people might say "well, we need the corporate types to pay US workers more". But you see, this is a form of wealth redistribution. So is protectionism. So is, to a large extent, increasing the military budget. Notice that Trump advocated for many such things on the campaign trail, although once elected he seems to have started only looking out for the economic elites. Oops, maybe people shouldn't have trusted a billionaire who put on a red hat and did a right-wing Michael Moore shtick.

t. Francis Fukayama

Only idiots believe that.

What? The only impact "socialists" have in Western countries is limited to socdem parties that abandoned gradualism decades ago.

Anyway, Western socialists support practically every liberal cause célèbre, you just tack on "capitalism delenda est" at the end of your arguments

Liberal causes like what?

Refugee resettlement, black lives matter, illegal immigration

None of those have anywhere close to universal support among liberals.

The idea is to keep giving them a better deal, not to make sure they keep a job that a robot can do. You scoff at the idea that the job cannot be replaced, you fight for a basic income so people can still be productive.

>The same people who scoff at mechanics and trade workers are the same people who claim to be fighting for them
>things i made up in my head for 350 Alec
When do leftists make fun of trade workers? never. The only thing you can even remotely point to in regards to that is the leftists valuing education and educated people.
Meanwhile American conservatives claim to be for the everyman while their polices fuck them or ignore them at every turn.
They also claim to be for the military men and have brainwashed them into voting Republican while many Republican openly call them welfaire recepeints and have repeatedly tried to de-fund the the VFA and other Veterans organizations while increasing spending on expensive contractors. Then they have the gall to point out 55% of defense spending is on personel when democrats try to stop increasing military spending.

>it's the "ASIA IS BOOMING" arguement!

China can barely hold it's ass together, Japan has been in a huge recession since the 90's. Please don't even mention SEA or the Flips or i'll laugh too hard and poop

The problem is Corporatism and Fiduciary responsibility laws. Laws that, ironically, were originally created to protect investors.

Asia has economic problems, of course, but my point is that in a few decades, they went from a bit player in the industrial world economy to a major player. This had profound consequences.

>misunderstanding his argument, the post
He didn't say Asia was booming, he said Asia can produce goods much cheaper than American companies can. This is an absolute fact and will be for at least 50 more years.

They absolutely loathe the stereotypical "white, working class, married, middle-aged man, who brings his family to church every sunday". Also, for them, this guy is a privileged shitlord while some millionaire popstar is oppressed.

Those are SJWs specifically you're thinking of, not liberals or leftists in general. The problem is, sane liberals have to appeal to those types in order to gain votes, just like Republicans have to appeal to Trump morons in order to gain votes. The fear is that whichever side told their own morons to fuck off would lose the next election. As a result, both sides are held hostage by their own morons.

wow you only think in memes don't you
privilege isn't a mechanism for white hate, not to mention liberal politicians barely even mention the privilege thing because it makes them uncomfortable and its too hard to explain when people actually start questioning it.
The idea that whites are under attack is hilarious.

>When do leftists make fun of trade workers?
All the time, you're lying to yourself.
>whataboutism
sad

In the US you can be a literal communist and if you don’t support those causes people will call you Nazi

>all the time
bullshit
you're just conflating two seperate things
>whataboutism
>literally EXACTLY what OP was doing
>i get to criticize liberals but you can't criticize conservatives!
heh

I go around questioning those causes all the time and I've never been called a Nazi. And I know a lot of SJW-ish people. I think if you go around making your arguments in a ranting angry way people will, unsurprisingly, call you a Nazi. If you make arguments calmly and rationally, they won't.

>privilege isn't a mechanism for white hate
>The idea that whites are under attack is hilarious.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>not all leftists
hmm
>Trump morons
There you go again making fun of the working class.

a lot of intelectuals and academics identify with being leftists, a lot of these dont do so well and end up being 'activists' since all they eventualy have left is clinging to some NGO or parliamentary party to pretty much leach out a meager buerocratic pay or a bit of state handout from whichever resor or fund, this way they always remain a sort of intellectual and political subclass, they never actualy gain any power but they do make as much of a thing as they can about it

its just that one way or another they are inevitably alienated from 'ordinary people', if we dont count the ones they buy weed from or the ones that fuck them on occasion

so what happens is they maintain a specific sort of salon-revolutionary mentality, kind of like if you took chomsky and made a bad copy of his thinking style and implicit values, this ensures they never even come close to 'the people' even if they are side by side, they exist in a world of their own where the mentality of a average working man or woman is at the same time primitive, offensive and incorrect, similar to how newatheists will just write off 70% of their own population as superstitious retards, except while a newatheist resents them for being nominaly theist or whatever thus prooving they are stoopid, the typical smalltime leftist intellectual does not so much resent the ordinary people, he cant cope with them, he finds them hard to tollerate, difficult to process, offensive and crude etc.

Cont. And more to the point, if you seem to have a hard-on for using centralized state violence backed by populism to address such issues (...cough... /pol/ ...cough...) people will be likely to call you a Nazi. If you don't, they won't. Makes sense to me.

>doesn't know the definition of whataboutism
It's when you deflect criticism of your group by criticizing another group, Republicans in your case.

OP wasn't doing that.

Anyone who genuinely likes Trump, as opposed to supporting him for tactical reasons, is a moron, end of story. Most people who support him for tactical reasons are morons too. This is not a matter that can be seriously debated by reasonable people.
You are conflating Trump supporters with the working class. Not all working class people like Trump. Not all Trump supporters are working class. Loads of upper middle class types voted for him.

I have a hard time believing you’re American. If you bring facts and evidence to a debate the SJW crowd will “shut it down” and try to ban “hate speech”

I live in San Francisco, man, and I have for the last 12 years. I'm surrounded by SJWs. I have literally never been called a Nazi, or even close to it.

>This is not a matter that can be seriously debated by reasonable people.
typical, next you'll be calling me a nazi

>Anyone who genuinely likes Clinton, as opposed to supporting her for tactical reasons, is a moron, end of story. Most people who support her for tactical reasons are morons too.

If you look at the NYT, HuffPost, etc, you will see that identity politics are dominating the left.
Maybe the majority of leftists are concerned with the working classes, rather than on forcing conservative working class people to call a transvestite a woman and on calling them biggots for not raising their sons as girls or their daughters as boys. But among the leadership, be it in the media or in the discourses of politics, it seems to be the opposite.

splinternews.com/never-forget-how-badly-white-people-wanted-roy-moore-to-1821249777

foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/dnc-chair-candidate-wants-to-shut-other-white-people-down.html

>Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument
its basically what OP was doing except without being prompted.
Meanwhile OP never provided any evidence of attacks on American workers by leftists, i disputed this. Its not "whataboutism" if OP never provided any facts to begin with.

Let's see...
youtube.com/watch?v=LTnDpoQLNaY

>i disputed this. Its not "whataboutism"
Disputing OPs position, followed by an irrelevant attack on Republicans to distract from the fact that you have no argument.

>fox news
oh wow
and if you actually read the article she never said anything even remotely demeaning to white people. If whites are actually upset over this its their fault for misunderstanding the context.

>fox news
This is irrelevant, isn't it?

>and if you actually read the article she never said anything even remotely demeaning to white people.
Other than that she would shut them up?

Here is another article on fox news for you:
foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/01/dnc-white-men-shouldnt-apply-for-tech-jobs.html

>Maybe the majority of leftists are concerned with the working classes, rather than on forcing conservative working class people to call a transvestite a woman and on calling them biggots for not raising their sons as girls or their daughters as boys. But among the leadership, be it in the media or in the discourses of politics, it seems to be the opposite.

Conservatives like that argument much more than 'should people get medical treatment?' or 'why do tax cuts go to the wealthy and tax hikes go to everyone?'.

I can just as easily say "Conservatives are forcing working class Americans to bend over and take fat cat cock in their ass" as easily as you can say Leftists are "forcing" people to do SJW stuff. Its simply not a reflection of whats actually going on.

Or another example:

youtube.com/watch?v=uMsi61OtkE4

They sure look like reasonable people you can debate with, don't they?

I'll bet you think huffpost or motherjones is a legitimate source.

>My job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt
>My job is to shut other white people down when they want to say I'm not prejudiced

try harder

How is it irrelevant?
His example isn't even true and I provided one of my own. An example of politicians blatantly not following their own rhetoric.
not really, they post inflammatory articles attacking leftist framing their positions as more extreme than they actually are all the time.

Not unless you give me reason to call you a Nazi.
Trump is a demagogue idiot who can barely say two coherent sentences in a row. I liked him a bit the first couple months of his campaign because I found his improvising speaking to be refreshingly different from calculated political speech. But then I realized what sort of person he was. For example, I saw him advocate torture in order to whip up crowds. I found this to be utterly disgusting. I also discovered that he's not actually honest. He seems honest to some people because he improvises a lot when he speaks. But he's not forthright. When pressed on issues, he hides behind a cloud of bluster and bullshit.

But that is literally 100% what is going on. Sad to say that the US will never be socially conservative and fiscally progressive simply because of one autist in Germany in the 30s and this will eventually lead to the collapse of this country.

The future of the Democrats is social justice, the future of Trumpism is corruption, and every small socialist and communist party is a fucking joke

Cont. Oh and by the way, I agree with your greentext about Clinton.

Did you read the article? She literally is just saying that many white people misunderstand racism. The words she used doesn't change that.
Again, did you read the article?
“The email in question was not authorized by the DNC nor was it authorized by senior leadership," spokesman Michael Tyler told Fox News. "All hiring decisions at the DNC are made consistent with the DNC’s commitment to equal employment opportunity and hiring an inclusive and talented staff that reflects the coalition of the Democratic Party, because our diversity is our greatest strength.”

>his improvising speaking to be refreshingly different from calculated political speech

But it was still without content. It just had the quirk of containing direct lies that were directly contradicted. You can't have rated him higher as a politician for doing that, only as an entertainer.

HuffPost, sure. They cater to the SJW crowd. NYT, no. If you actually read the NYT, you'll see that most of the political stuff they write is not SJWish in nature, but rather is fairly sober reporting.

She wants to correct perceptions on racism. If you think about for even a second you should realize there isn't actually any political consequences of this statement. Its an idea for conduct and literally couldn't be applied to policy.

>Meanwhile
whataboutism
it's irrelevant because nobody was talking about Republicans
all you're doing at the end of the day is attacking some politicians rather than others

This kind of stuff is rare. You'll find it in a few places, like probably Berkeley. But it's uncommon. The alt-right tries to make it seem more common than it actually is because it helps them to drive their own agenda forward.

>Conservatives like that argument much more than 'should people get medical treatment?' or 'why do tax cuts go to the wealthy and tax hikes go to everyone?'.
Maybe so. It doesn't change the fact that the leadership of the left also is focused on this kind of stuff.

Why not?

>not really, they post inflammatory articles attacking leftist framing their positions as more extreme than they actually are all the time.

Here is the video.
youtube.com/watch?v=bDjFs9x-f64

> scoff at trade unionists
> American liberals
How many lawsuits did Trump have against him for not paying contractors who worked on his hotels? Like 3000?

Wow it is almost as if both parties screw over the working class. Wow it is as almost as if working people have been getting screwed since forever. Wow.

sounds like a good reason not to support either party

OP asked for examples of this happening in other places. Its on topic...unless you're suggesting OP just wanted a anti-leftist global circle-jerk.
and again, I didn't use it to discredit or reflect, because I actually refuted his stance to begin with. What about you? why are you so concerned about whataboutism? Are you trying to deflect because you can't refute my comments? lol

>correct perceptions
thought crime is a bitch

>there isn't actually any political consequences of this statement
to you maybe, but that's because you're delusional and can't figure out how Trump got into office

*deflect

>Did you read the article? She literally is just saying that many white people misunderstand racism. The words she used doesn't change that.
Let's see what she says:

>DNC’s Data Service Manager Madeleine Leader purportedly wrote in an email that the desire for diversity excludes “cisgender straight white males.” Leader adds, “I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, as they are already in the majority.”

As for
>“The email in question was not authorized by the DNC nor was it authorized by senior leadership," spokesman Michael Tyler told Fox News. "All hiring decisions at the DNC are made consistent with the DNC’s commitment to equal employment opportunity and hiring an inclusive and talented staff that reflects the coalition of the Democratic Party, because our diversity is our greatest strength.”

This is just a standard PR answer written because this became a scandal.

>actually refuted his stance to begin with
>muh fallacy fallacy
I beg to differ.

You can keep misrepresenting the meaning of her speach it doesn't change the fact that it literally has no consequences to white people.
It would be like me calling Trump racist because of his Muslim bans...its just not a reflection of the intention of the bans.

nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/interracial-friendship-donald-trump.html

nytimes.com/2017/12/16/opinion/sunday/black-women-leadership.html

by "political" i mean "policy"
and Trump got into office because of Hillary much more than because of leftist rhetoric.

>calling Trump racist because of his Muslim bans
ISLAM
IS
NOT
A RACE

>Hillary much more than because of leftist rhetoric
are you implying Clinton was somehow separated from that rhetoric? She certainly never repudiated it, in fact she backed it.

Let's see:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3792918/New-video-shows-mob-Yale-students-encircling-professor-angrily-demanding-apology-told-just-look-away-offended-racist-Halloween-costumes.html

And if you say "but those are just dumb students", let's see how SJW professors do:
nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html

I agree now, but around the time of the start of Trump's campaign I was a lot more naive politically. Back then I had a more positive view of populism and radical change than I do now. Observing US politics over the course of the last couple of years, together with reading loads and loads about history, has made me realize that populism and the idea of "throwing a grenade into the system" are very dangerous, and that the average level of intelligence in the US make them more so. Now I think that gradual reform within a strongly liberal framework is the way to go in all but the most extreme situations. Given what the average person is like, populism and radical change are much more likely to make things worse than make them better.

I didn't make a fallacy fallacy argument. OP said leftists scoff at the working class, which is blatantly wrong, and then he implied that leftists don't "fight" for them. This may be the case but the implication is conservatives are a better alternative, when history and current policy shows thats not even remotely true. OPs statement is dependent on the relative policies and rhetoric of both parties.

The meaning of her speech is that she views reality in explicitly racial terms which is supposed to be a big no no but of course progressives are selective when they want this rule to apply. They like to talk about equality and how racial categories should have no basis in society but by embracing identity politics they actually strengthen the racial worldview. It is hypocrisy at its finest.

What is the intention of the bans?

Trump isn't racist, I agree. The intention of the bans is to appeal to anti-Muslim sentiment. Vetting for entry into America is already extreme, this is just refusing to vet certain people, based on religion.

It doesn't actually stop anyone getting in. It only stops considering people from certain places, there was never a situation where they were not vetted to the highest degree.

Oh wow, two opinion pieces (not editorials or articles), neither of which is even particularly SJWish in nature. Unless you think black people being worried about Trump's election is automatically SJWish, which I would find rather strange. I'd probably be worried about it if I was black, too. Not because I think Trump is a racist - I haven't seen any good evidence that he is - but because many of his supporters are.

Like I said, this stuff is rare. And mostly found nowhere other than college campuses and SJW-leaning Internet sites.

>ISLAM
>IS
>NOT
>A RACE
Obviously. Many leftists called him one because of it though, also most muslims are brown. Bigot, blah blah, whatever. His Muslim ban doesn't necesarily reflect any biases was my point (Obama had similar bans), even if his ham-handed rhetoric and inconsistent list of countries did a pretty bad job at making him look innocent.
And yes, Hillary was irredeemable. She was extremely uncharismatic and robotic which im almost positive is more important than policies...not that policies had no bearing on the election at all.

Well if you’re like ‘lol fuck Mexicans XD’ then yeah maybe, but if you point out, for example, that illegal immigration just ends with people being ruthlessly exploited by capitalists for wages below the legal minimum then you have some better ground to stand on.

It’s always amusing to watch conservatives whine about how it’s those damn sJews who can’t accept facts and logic, and then endlessly whine about anthropology, sociology, psychology, and climate science and ignore everything those disciplines produce because it contradicts their narrative.

>neither of which is even particularly SJWish in nature

Let's see what you consider to be a moderate text

>It is impossible to convey the mixture of heartbreak and fear I feel for him. Donald Trump’s election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped. I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.

>As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. When they ask, I will teach my sons that their beautiful hue is a fault line. Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside. I first have to keep my boys safe, and so I will teach them before the world shows them this particular brand of rending, violent, often fatal betrayal.

>why are you so concerned about whataboutism? Are you trying to deflect because you can't refute my comments?
>why do you care that my entire "refutation" is fallacious, stop deflecting, pointing out my fallacies is evidence you can't refute me

>leftists scoff at the working class, which is blatantly wrong
you have not established this as fact because 5 minutes on google is enough to btfo you

>the implication is conservatives are a better alternative
OP never implied anything like that, this is your strawman.

>populism and the idea of "throwing a grenade into the system" are very dangerous

If the problem is 'these guys are getting away with ... ' shaking up the system doesn't usually make it harder to get away with ... whatever it is.

Ending politics seems like a great idea but it really just means letting one faction get their way and that seems like a terrible idea.

>and that the average level of intelligence in the US make them more so

Actually I think Americans are pretty smart but yes I know what you mean.

Well you might be right. The bans weren't even on the right countries and it really just looked like a political move. My point is people turned the bans into something they weren't, ie: "Trump hates muslims!"

Then, what about the case of James Damore? He suffered a witch hunt.

>those people are just rare and harmless :^)
It's cool to see that you have no defense whatsoever for their behavior. These people may be in college and fringe (and not-so-fringe) sites now, but the way things are going they'll be mainstream in half a decade.

>It’s always amusing to watch conservatives whine about how it’s those damn sJews who can’t accept facts and logic, and then endlessly whine about anthropology, sociology, psychology, and climate science and ignore everything those disciplines produce because it contradicts their narrative.
True, both sides are filled with unbearable retardation. On another hand, the conclusions from
>sociology
>psychology
ought to be treated carefully, they've produced far too much nonsense for their own good.

>Muslim ban
he never banned all muslims, just everyone regardless of religion from 11 muslim majority countries that aren't currently stable. He couldn't give a fuck about Indonesia for example.

Jimmy Carter banned Iranian immigrants during the hostage crisis, but thanks to the complete (and probably deliberate) historical illiteracy of today you'd never know this from mainstream media.

I've said over and over, you can misrepresent the words of leftists all you want, it doesn't change the meaning behind the words. Even if it did, there has been no policy change in the last decade reflecting that (trans bathroom laws are an exception, though not racial).

Yep. I've realized that even if your group is genuinely well intentioned, when you shake up the system it causes a political vacuum to form... and your well-intentioned group will not be the only one rushing into that vacuum. Far from it. There will probably be nasty, sharklike groups rushing into it too. And because willingness to lie and use force gives a short-term political advantage, those groups are not unlikely to outcompete your well-intentioned group, causing the result of the whole thing to be making things worse rather than better.

>OP never implied that
His argument makes no sense otherwise and the history of political rhetoric on this website/board says otherwise.

How often has Trump referenced this earlier policy?

I explicitly said his "list of countries was inconsistent." Calling it a "muslim ban" is a perfect example of how it was misconstrued, basically intentionally. Either way it wasn't the point of my argument.

>you can misrepresent the words of leftists all you want
you don't even have to, they're conveniently explicit. Makes it easy.

In Britain:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5177299/End-traditional-mums-hopeless-dads-adverts.html

>Adverts that use traditional portrayals of the do-it-all housewife such as the Oxo Mum and the Fairy Liquid Housewife will be banned, watchdogs announced yesterday.

In the US:
foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/09/new-california-law-allows-jail-time-for-using-wrong-gender-pronoun-sponsor-denies-that-would-happen.html

That's not SJWish, that's straight-up black people being afraid. I think it's exaggerated and rather foolish, but given the history of black people in the US, I can sort of understand it. The same way I often feel scared if I walk through a heavily black neighborhood as a white guy, even though 99% of the time nothing bad happens, many black people feel uneasy with being an 18% minority in the US, with its history of slavery and so on. I get it.

>be in a state of de facto war with a single country
>take precautions specific to that country

vs

>fighting a non-state actor that operates in multiple countries
>better keep out anyone with the same religion

That second one is a fairly direct assault on "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"

I honestly think "it's racist, but it makes sense" is a more convincing argument than "it's not racist at all"

Or replace racist with "bigoted" because its a religion and not strictly a race. Whatever.

Change black and white in this text and then tell me this isn't super racist.

What argument? That modern leftists make fun of working class Americans?

You don't need to invoke a political dichotomy or conservatism to simply assert that, especially when it's obviously true prima facie. OP could easily just be a radical centrist.