>In any case, everyone knew what that person meant by “the left”, and I personally find this insistence on “correcting” that use of the term, to be a bit annoying. Though, of course, I recognize that you likely find the use in question of the phrase “the left” annoying. So, uh. Hm.
Then I shall annoy you further. I, as an American, am clear on the fact that there is no serious "left-wing" party or movement in the US. The farthest we may get is Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are in point of fact centrists who lean slightly left.
The US Democratic Party runs from center-right to center-left, but much more on the center-right side.
Calling a center-right party "the left" is disingenuous in the extreme, IMNSHO.
That they're "left" of the far-right Republican Party isn't saying much. The Republican Party today would reject folks like Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan as communists, given their respective foci on environment regulation, universal healthcare, immigration and a raft of other issues that were never "leftist."
I get it. It's nice to have the cover of "conservative" as that presents the idea that the views of those who call themselves that are trying to "conserve" the good things about our society.
But the Republican Party of today isn't conservative. It is a far right (think Nigel Farage/Reform, AfD, etc.) radical reactionary party uninterested in democratic norms unless they try to use them to beat their opponents over the head with them to win political points.
U mad now bro? I hope so. The problem is that you're mad at the wrong folks.
>Speaking of MLK Jr...The last thing he would have advocated was a "color-blind" way of seeing the world.
Where did you get that idea? Retcon much?
Doctor King said[0]:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
of their character. I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with
its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and
nullification, one day right down in Alabama little Black boys and Black
girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as
sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.
The last thing he would have advocated was a "color-
blind" way of seeing the world.
Which is ridiculous (your link[1] notwithstanding) on its face. Whether Dr. King meant six days from that speech or six centuries from that speech, he specifically called for a society that didn't care about melanin content.
Claiming that since we weren't there in 1963 and still aren't there -- meaning there's still work to be done -- doesn't invalidate or diminish the aspirational content of that speech, nor does it reduce the power and value of that aspiration.
While the article you linked claims that bigoted assholes have tried to hijack the words I quoted as "arguments" against efforts to bring real equality to all humans in the US, that doesn't make Dr. King's aspirations any less important or valuable.
I am nonplussed by your shallow dismissal of Dr. King -- whatever the reason. For shame!
>If you only read this one thing then you might come away with this misunderstanding.
>MLK supported reparations and other policies that explicitly provided for black people.
What misunderstanding? Of course MLK supported (and rightly so) a variety of things to make those who'd been oppressed, spit on, beaten, enslaved and murdered for centuries de facto full citizens and members of US society, not just de jure.
Once we've achieved that, then Doctor King's dream will be fulfilled. That I refer to his aspirations (which, sadly, GP blithely dismissed) isn't in conflict with the idea that until such a de facto state is achieved positive steps toward that (including, but not limited to, those advocated by Dr. King) are still required.
There is no dichotomy or cognitive dissonance here -- at least not for me.
>The tl;dr is that we aren't there yet, and pretending otherwise allows the status quo of systemic racism to persist unchallenged.
Where, exactly, did I say anything of the sort? I won't leave you in suspense -- I said nothing of the kind, nor did I imply anything like it.
Rather, I took issue with (my perception of at least) your shallow dismissal of Dr. King's aspiration. Especially as I share that aspiration and am quite in favor of achieving the goal he set out there.
No, we're not there yet. But that doesn't mean Dr. King was lying. It just means we have more work to do.
>This part of the conversation is always tedious so I'll just post some articles and bow out.
No I haven't retconned anything, I've just read more of King's words than that single part of that single speech. This part of the conversation is always tedious so I'll just post some articles and bow out.
The tl;dr is that we aren't there yet, and pretending otherwise allows the status quo of systemic racism to persist unchallenged.
Yeah! Washington, DC is right on the border! I mean WTF is wrong with people! It's so important to make sure that the border between it, Maryland and Virginia is secure! Those Virginians are comin' to steal our jerbs, eat our sandwiches (or throw them at our fearless masters!). I mean it's not like Marylanders are really human, are they?
Are you saying that once someone successfully crosses the border illegally, they should be able to move freely within the entire territory with impunity?
Why shouldn't we take every opportunity to identify and capture them?
>Do you really think many people are being charged and found guilty of felony assault for throwing a sandwich at a random person? He was only charged because the guy was part of a cop-like class.
To put a finer point on it, he was charged because the current administration wants to chill protest against their undemocratic (small 'd') and unlawful activities. In fact, that was the point of deploying ICE/National Guard/etc. to cities in the first place -- to sow fear and limit freedom of expression/assembly.
>Surely they could (will?) be charged with something though, right? I mean if I walk down the street now and launch a sandwich at a random stranger, it's some form of assault. "Attempt to cause bodily injury" is a bit much, but it's something.
Littering?
Another, similar case[0] was also brought, in Massachusetts some time ago. And there were, at least temporarily, some negative impacts on the defendant[1].
>A pretty small fraction of the NYPD budget could cover shortfalls. That's why it's brought up. These grocery stores, even if they never turn a profit, won't be costing the city $100M, or $10M. They likely won't even shortfall to $1M. For a city with a budget of billions, adding 1M in is really just a drop in bucket.
This. A city with not just a budget of "billions" but of USD$116 billion[0].
Even if each of the five pilot stores required USD$1 million in subsidies, that's 0.0000431% of the city budget or USD$0.61 per NY resident. We're definitely going bankrupt over that right?
And if it results in the poorest NYers getting access to cheaper, healthier food, that's good for business (healthier people work more), education (healthier people learn better), healthcare (healthier people consume less healthcare), quality of life (reasonably priced healthy food allows folks to live better lives) and a host of other benefits.
As a NYC resident, I'm happy to give the poorest folks in the city $0.61 a year or even $2.00 a year. Isn't $0.61 a reasonable price to pay for making the lives of thousands of your neighbors demonstrably better?
No. He's proposing a rent freeze on rent stabilized housing, not rent controlled housing.
Despite the widespread (and why would folks who don't live in NYC and shouldn't really care about local elections except as they repeat flat wrong assertions about Mamdani and his proposed policies) incorrect framing, in NYC (which is what we're talking about here), rent control is a specific program governed by a specific set of laws. Rent stabilization is a different specific program governed by a different set of laws.
While there are only ~24,000 rent controlled units, there are ~1,000,000 rent stabilized units.
The latter is what's affected by Mamdani's proposal. This isn't new either. Rent stabilization in pretty much its current form has existed for more than 40 years and rent control much, much longer.
So this isn't some new policy that "commie jihadi" is proposing. And freezes on rent stabilized units have been done repeatedly, the last time in 2020/2021.
>Sorry, I don't agree with that. The context of profit is money which shareholders are entitled to after accounting for the costs of their business. None of those things apply to government.
I have to disagree. In a very real sense, the residents of a political entity are the stakeholders within that political boundary and, at least in a democratic (small 'd') society, those stakeholders are, in fact, the owner/shareholders of that political entity.
That's neither very profound nor much of an intellectual stretch. Although, apparently you disagree. Why is that?
> I have to disagree. In a very real sense, the residents of a political entity are the stakeholders within that political boundary and, at least in a democratic (small 'd') society, those stakeholders are, in fact, the owner/shareholders of that political entity.
That still doesn’t mean it makes sense to categorize government income as “profit” (for the purposes of this discussion trying to discern whether or not NH taxes alcohol).
Governments and businesses have (or are supposed to have) different priorities, and are (theoretically) structured so that in exchange for the government being given a monopoly on violence for those who don’t pay, the government (ideally) is working towards providing services that benefit all of society, for the long term.
The New Hampshire government’s website linked above even states:
> $146m Annual Contribution To The General Fund
What difference does it make if the tax is not separated out like alcohol taxes in most other states? The bottom line is New Hampshire could be selling alcohol for less, but it chooses not to in order to use the extra money to fund government services. That is a tax.
>What difference does it make if the tax is not separated out like alcohol taxes in most other states? The bottom line is New Hampshire could be selling alcohol for less, but it chooses not to in order to use the extra money to fund government services. That is a tax.
Then I shall annoy you further. I, as an American, am clear on the fact that there is no serious "left-wing" party or movement in the US. The farthest we may get is Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are in point of fact centrists who lean slightly left.
The US Democratic Party runs from center-right to center-left, but much more on the center-right side.
Calling a center-right party "the left" is disingenuous in the extreme, IMNSHO.
That they're "left" of the far-right Republican Party isn't saying much. The Republican Party today would reject folks like Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan as communists, given their respective foci on environment regulation, universal healthcare, immigration and a raft of other issues that were never "leftist."
I get it. It's nice to have the cover of "conservative" as that presents the idea that the views of those who call themselves that are trying to "conserve" the good things about our society.
But the Republican Party of today isn't conservative. It is a far right (think Nigel Farage/Reform, AfD, etc.) radical reactionary party uninterested in democratic norms unless they try to use them to beat their opponents over the head with them to win political points.
U mad now bro? I hope so. The problem is that you're mad at the wrong folks.
reply