Political Discussion

My brother in-law, who I love tons and get along with well, has always had this undercurrent of (for lack of better description) right-leaning cultural views which seem to come with being Very Online. I've been guilty of this too, at least in a leftist manner, taking in opposing views from anonymous twitter accounts and commentators and sometimes forgetting that the general public face-to-face isn't as extreme or strident and unbudging as the teeming masses online.

This usually takes the form of idle conversations where he posits "well-intended questions" such as "in a world of such ambiguity, how does one know they're not behaving in a way that'll get them Me Too'd?", "how am I meant to keep track of everyone's pronouns?", or "if all movies are made in their present cultural context, what amount of retrograde culture is and isn't okay to keep watching?" I usually try not to get into the weeds, keeping to simple common-sense answers like "well, you know better than to violate someone's bodily autonomy or personal space," "if someone prefers a different pronoun, they'll let you know,"and "politics and culture are always changing, and that's always been a factor in the entertainment we choose." It all feels like stuff he clashes with as a thought experiment, and never in actual day-to-day life.

Recently, he brought up the Rings of Power and the blowback in its colorblind casting. And then he brought up the all-female Ghostbusters reboot. And how people who criticize those things for racist/sexist/political reasons seem to get lumped in with those who have valid grievances with the content itself. And he started sharing videos from a youtuber who claims his issues with modern movies has nothing to do with his own sensibilities, but rather that woke influences are diluting them; the issue isn't that Amazon cast a black elf, it's that Amazon is probably casting a black elf to appease the Woke Mob. And, golly, there's an odd trend across his other videos, in the sense that the movies he has issues with all feature women or people of color.

I've been stewing over this, and I'm not upset with my brother in-law, but I'm really mad at the choice of opinions he's taking in. He knows "I'm not racist but" is the lead-in to a racist statement, yet he seems really fixated on sidling as close as possible to a racist/sexist viewpoint. I really avoid getting into controversial political discussion, as I can get heated and unseated real quick, and I'm worried this shit is going to come up when I see him this weekend.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Just watched a piece on on the rate hikes the feds have been making, and someone explaining why they are still making them if interest rates will solve the current causes for our inflation.

And their answer was it's the unsaid elephant in the room. The fed is not going to directly say this, but every economics professional knows that the goal is to increase unemployment. Currently unemployment levels are at 3.5%. The only thing we can do as a country to indirectly affect inflation is to increase our unemployment rate. By getting our unemployment rate up to 6 or 7 percent inflation should start to cool down.

And we are talking about millions of people losing their jobs to make this happen and likely those who are already most hurt by inflation.
Click to expand...
I also read an article that suggests part of the reason OPEC is cutting production is so that it can directly oppose the Fed interest rate rise. I can't tell you how many articles I have read that suggest that the Fed is making a huge mistake that is going to have real human costs--as in cost in lives. OPEC is attempting to constrain supply in opposition in order to keep oil prices high so that the economies of exporters don't crash--which is also ultimately what will happen if American consumers can no longer afford imported goods.

There are so many problems with trying to constrain employment, the worst of which is that monopolies and oligarchies have already set wages way below what they should be in order for people to live, so any more constraint on this would be disastrous for a lot of people.
 
Bull Shannon said:
And he started sharing videos from a youtuber who claims his issues with modern movies has nothing to do with his own sensibilities, but rather that woke influences are diluting them; the issue isn't that Amazon cast a black elf, it's that Amazon is probably casting a black elf to appease the Woke Mob. And, golly, there's an odd trend across his other videos, in the sense that the movies he has issues with all feature women or people of color.
Click to expand...
I still don’t think I understand what the definition of “woke” is to the people who oppose it. In the context of media, what personal investment do these people have to these shows, movies, books, etc? I can’t imagine any of it truly affecting their day to day. If they disagree with it, why not just move on?
 
epyon415 said:
I still don’t think I understand what the definition of “woke” is to the people who oppose it. In the context of media, what personal investment do these people have to these shows, movies, books, etc? I can’t imagine any of it truly affecting their day to day. If they disagree with it, why not just move on?
Click to expand...
It’s a total boogeyman at this point. The definition is so fluid it can mean anything, but it’s mainly a dog whistle to help avoid having to voice blatant opposition to inclusion, progressiveness, or parity. It’s like “political correctness,” an easy way to frame common-sense compassion as nanny state scolding. “I’m all for inclusion, but doing it this way is somehow worse than doing nothing at all.”

But the “it’s not for you” part is what bugs me the most. There’s so much entertainment we choose to skip every day, but it seems certain entertainments, for…certain reasons, happen to get under these folks’ skin.
 
Jan said:
www.theguardian.com

The most terrifying case of all is about to be heard by the US supreme court | Steven Donziger

If the court upholds the rogue ‘Independent State Legislature’ theory, it would put the US squarely on the path to authoritarianism
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight. If by some miracle congress does pass some kind of voter legislation reform and address voter suppression, this ruling by the SCOTUS could make that a moot point as if it's upheld it would give states the absolute authority to regulate the elections and it would be unconstitutional for the federal law or lawsuits to intervene.

In other words, giving the red states the ability to lock in being red states for generations and likely tipping the balance of the presidential election and congress through voter suppression.

Straight up bull shit if you ask me.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
So, let me get this straight. If by some miracle congress does pass some kind of voter legislation reform and address voter suppression, this ruling by the SCOTUS could make that a moot point as if it's upheld it would give states the absolute authority to regulate the elections and it would be unconstitutional for the federal law or lawsuits to intervene.

In other words, giving the red states the ability to lock in being red states for generations and likely tipping the balance of the presidential election and congress through voter suppression.

Straight up bull shit if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Here is some explanation i found from the Brennan Center at NYU Law (Disclaimer: they advocte for progressive policies, so are not a neutral source)
www.brennancenter.org

Moore v. Harper, Explained

The debunked “independent state legislature theory” is on the Supreme Court’s docket, with potentially disastrous consequences.
www.brennancenter.org www.brennancenter.org
 
The United States is not part of OPEC and has no say. But both Iran and Russia are part of OPEC and are major players in making decisions as well as Saudi Arabia.

The United States has the most demand for oil. There have been some political experts saying the timing of this slash in production comes into question as it's right before the midterm elections. And the major players at OPEC would benefit from both the house and senate flipping to the right. Gas prices are unfortunately how many Americans rate how the government is doing. If gas prices are high, they are unhappy with the party in control.

Yes, profits and capitalism are part of why. But there are questions being asked if there are other ulterior motives by political analysts right now.
 
Came across this YouTube channel yesterday. I've changed a lot of my political and social understandings and leanings over the years. 14 years ago I was conservative and allowed religious ideology to influence most of my opinions on things. After leaving the Church, travelling a good bit, and meeting and befriending people outside that rural Baptist echo chamber I had to really re-examine my stances on things. These days I'm fairly liberal. I would never consider myself activist level, which I consider a weakness on my part, but I've become more outspoken. I believe the world needs to seriously change in order for us to make progress. I hope we get there some day and it doesn't take a disaster to do it. One of the first things I believe needs to change is the way we view wealth and success.

 
RenegadeMonster said:
The United States is not part of OPEC and has no say. But both Iran and Russia are part of OPEC and are major players in making decisions as well as Saudi Arabia.

The United States has the most demand for oil. There have been some political experts saying the timing of this slash in production comes into question as it's right before the midterm elections. And the major players at OPEC would benefit from both the house and senate flipping to the right. Gas prices are unfortunately how many Americans rate how the government is doing. If gas prices are high, they are unhappy with the party in control.

Yes, profits and capitalism are part of why. But there are questions being asked if there are other ulterior motives by political analysts right now.
Click to expand...

Oh for sure. America is also the largest producer of oil so OPEC cutting production by 2,000,000 a day shouldn't in theory hurt U.S. gas prices all that much. Problem to me is mainly speculation in the commodities market. I am no expert though. When I think of were we are at these days, I always think of this Carlin skit.

 
Twentytwo said:
Oh for sure. America is also the largest producer of oil so OPEC cutting production by 2,000,000 a day shouldn't in theory hurt U.S. gas prices all that much. Problem to me is mainly speculation in the commodities market. I am no expert though. When I think of were we are at these days, I always think of this Carlin skit.

Click to expand...


What's sad is there are already reports of gas stations going up by a dollar in California after the OPEC Cut.

It's an excuse to raise prices. It shouldn't in theory affect our gas prices all that much. But in reality it doesn't work out that way. Are inflated futures to blame?
 
RenegadeMonster said:
The United States is not part of OPEC and has no say. But both Iran and Russia are part of OPEC and are major players in making decisions as well as Saudi Arabia.

The United States has the most demand for oil. There have been some political experts saying the timing of this slash in production comes into question as it's right before the midterm elections. And the major players at OPEC would benefit from both the house and senate flipping to the right. Gas prices are unfortunately how many Americans rate how the government is doing. If gas prices are high, they are unhappy with the party in control.

Yes, profits and capitalism are part of why. But there are questions being asked if there are other ulterior motives by political analysts right now.
Click to expand...
The ulterior motives are that they don't want their economies hollowed out by cheap oil prices while their other exports are being squeezed due to the recession the federal reserve is causing by raising interest rates. Yes, they may benefit from republican led house and senate, but they really benefit from oil prices remaining high, especially if other exports fall--remember that India is a huge OPEC customer and if production falls there due to lower demand for exports, then OPEC looses money because India doesn't buy as much oil, the same is true for places like Indonesia and countries in South America. Last month, OPEC warned it would cut production by 100K barrels as a warning to the fed to keep inflation where it is, and they raised interest rates in September anyway. This is OPEC's response.


Edited to add:


Max Sterling said:
Came across this YouTube channel yesterday. I've changed a lot of my political and social understandings and leanings over the years. 14 years ago I was conservative and allowed religious ideology to influence most of my opinions on things. After leaving the Church, travelling a good bit, and meeting and befriending people outside that rural Baptist echo chamber I had to really re-examine my stances on things. These days I'm fairly liberal. I would never consider myself activist level, which I consider a weakness on my part, but I've become more outspoken. I believe the world needs to seriously change in order for us to make progress. I hope we get there some day and it doesn't take a disaster to do it. One of the first things I believe needs to change is the way we view wealth and success.

Click to expand...

Oooh, new book for me to read now, Capitalism in the 21st Century. Thanks for this. It's a very good video and shows what is happening to people and why inequality is deepening. This capitalist class is engaging in what scholars call financialized capitalism. Adam Smith and Marx railed against it as being divisive to society and unproductive. Many scholars throughout history have seen that it brings only instability into society. I have been thinking a lot about property rights lately, and how messed up this whole system is.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top