How many facebook friends did you loose this week?

[The Ginger Beard Man]

What do you guys see as the most effective way to effect social change? Protests seemed to work much better when there were far fewer of them. These days an individual cause protest tends to get lost in the noise of the fairly constant stream of protests going on daily for anything and everything. Out of control protesting which end in riots, burning, and looting not only don't seem effective but seeming resulted in a major backlash from among others the rural whites and helped put Trump into the White House. What might be a better way to effect change? If this is working - I'm not seeing it.

Using honey rather than vinegar. My bet is that gay marriage happened not because of protests and parades, but because judges socialized with professionals who happened to play for the other team.

And I don't think it was necessarily fewer protests, but better protests. MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks didn't riot, didn't damage property, and didn't help themselves to free TVs. Not sure if there have been any protests (of any stripe) since that got results.

Social change takes time.
I've mentioned elsewhere the Sam Harris podcast with Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan made the point that over a fifteen year period Americans were presented with rational arguments in favor of gay marriage. And about one third of Americans changed their minds. And gay marriage is legal.
So time plus rational arguments equals social change.

[Turdacious]

What do you guys see as the most effective way to effect social change? Protests seemed to work much better when there were far fewer of them. These days an individual cause protest tends to get lost in the noise of the fairly constant stream of protests going on daily for anything and everything. Out of control protesting which end in riots, burning, and looting not only don't seem effective but seeming resulted in a major backlash from among others the rural whites and helped put Trump into the White House. What might be a better way to effect change? If this is working - I'm not seeing it.

Using honey rather than vinegar. My bet is that gay marriage happened not because of protests and parades, but because judges socialized with professionals who happened to play for the other team.

And I don't think it was necessarily fewer protests, but better protests. MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks didn't riot, didn't damage property, and didn't help themselves to free TVs. Not sure if there have been any protests (of any stripe) since that got results.

Social change takes time.
I've mentioned elsewhere the Sam Harris podcast with Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan made the point that over a fifteen year period Americans were presented with rational arguments in favor of gay marriage. And about one third of Americans changed their minds. And gay marriage is legal.
So time plus rational arguments equals social change.

Sullivan's wrong on this one. Voters time and time again shot down gay marriage amendments. Jurists changed their minds, but there's not strong evidence voters did. That may have been different this election cycle if millennials had known that they would have received free stickers for voting, and that they could take selfies of themselves wearing the stickers and post that shit to instagram.

[bennyonesix]

F-ing F*ggot.

Yes, I heard it myself. If I didn't does that mean it's made up?

People lie. People are lying a lot more about these things now than they did before. I know of at least two elaborately faked incidents involving homophobia. So yes, it matters to me if you heard it yourself.

Okay, so now do you believe me? Or, do you think I'm lying too?

Does it change your thinking at all?

I wouldn't have asked you if I thought you were dishonest.

No. It doesn't. It is ridiculous to claim that open homosexuals receive more abuse today than they did even last year, let alone 10 or even 20 years ago. The liberal reaction to this election result is hysterical and completely unwarranted.

You seem a reasonable man and I am not interested in fighting you. But if that is what you want, we can do it. But you'll have to be more direct and drop the pretense we are discussing issues.

I'm not fighting anyone. I disagree that it is all hysterical overreaction. I'm being as direct as I can without typing out some kind of dissertation. Of course we are not comparing 2016 to the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s, but are there people that think things have not escalated over the past three or so years?

Both sides of the divide are saying enough is enough, and both sides have very reasonable arguments.

It is hysterical overreaction. I see no escalation over the past three years other than the Cultural Left going from victory to victory: from Gay Marriage to Bake The Damn Cake Bigot to Trannys in Ladies Rooms. And of course even BLM is just a subset of this ideological dominance.

Okay, Benny. Jesus... those damn geyhs and rag heads should just understand that some people don't like their kind and move along politely, right? And screw that Travon kid in FL, right? No mature teenager would overreact to some asshole tailing their ass, right?

What you see as (apparently unequivocal) victories, some see as people just demanding the rights that others have always had. But you know this argument and I know it's falling on deaf ears.

The rag heads are here because the elite decided to import a new lower wage and more left-leaning citizenry against the wishes of the then populace. Additionally, and intentionally, the wealth of the middle class was transferred to this new citizenry but mostly to those same elites. Additionally additionally, that same to be replaced citizenry was ethnically cleansed from the cities and their quality of life was utterly destroyed.

So, what I would say to the rag heads is, you are the instrument of our replacement and impoverishment. We did not want you here and we did not need you here. But here you are. We will now fight for what is left of the country our ancestors built. Because the elites, under guise of "rights" and "opportunity" and "demographic collapse" decided the benefits of a multi ethnic empire to them were worth it.

I have no idea what is going on with the gays despite having experience in my own family. I know in the aggregate they are an extremely pathological group re: domestic violence, drug use and recreational sex and attendant diseases. But few know this because actual studies are rarely done and negative results suppressed. For my own part, I consider them a different tribe that should be with their own kind.

Regardless of that, their "rights" are manufactured by the same elites to fragment the working class. Hr Depts serve the owners. They turn the workers against each other and also atomize them; thereby making organized efffort impossible. It is no coincidence that the biggest supporters of lgbtqiablah blah are the corporations and especially the new plutocrats like zuckerberg. The desire for traditional marriage is almost non existent among gays. As are the actual number of trannys. But stressing their "rights" does shatter the culture and make plutocratic and corporate profits more secure and motivates single women who have adopted these groups as pets very motivated to vote.

So yeah, I would like the gheys and rag heads to have some understanding of what is happening and how they are being used and how a lot of people had their patrimony donated to others by elites because of them. And they should expect us to fight hard for what is left. Tribalism is their way and it will now be ours.

I will say this. Escalation did not occur over the last 3 years. But it is coming: here and abroad. The neoliberal long con has been uncovered. And we will unwind it as far as we can. Putin, Trump, Orban, Duterte, Le Pen, Farage etc are just the first wave of nationalists, they aren't coincidences.

[bennyonesix]

What do you guys see as the most effective way to effect social change? Protests seemed to work much better when there were far fewer of them. These days an individual cause protest tends to get lost in the noise of the fairly constant stream of protests going on daily for anything and everything. Out of control protesting which end in riots, burning, and looting not only don't seem effective but seeming resulted in a major backlash from among others the rural whites and helped put Trump into the White House. What might be a better way to effect change? If this is working - I'm not seeing it.

Using honey rather than vinegar. My bet is that gay marriage happened not because of protests and parades, but because judges socialized with professionals who happened to play for the other team.

And I don't think it was necessarily fewer protests, but better protests. MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks didn't riot, didn't damage property, and didn't help themselves to free TVs. Not sure if there have been any protests (of any stripe) since that got results.

Social change takes time.
I've mentioned elsewhere the Sam Harris podcast with Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan made the point that over a fifteen year period Americans were presented with rational arguments in favor of gay marriage. And about one third of Americans changed their minds. And gay marriage is legal.
So time plus rational arguments equals social change.

Gay marriage and gay cakes were imposed by judicial fiat absent any legal authority. Which means, they were imposed by the elite. Andrew Sullivan is an inveterate liar and not to be trusted on any subject let alone homosexuality.

[dead man walking]

Additionally, and intentionally, the wealth of the middle class was transferred to this new citizenry but mostly to those same elites.

the wealth of middle america was taken by the walton family, who hollowed out small towns everywhere, and everyone happily goes to wal-mart to buy the cheapest goods, which are made in asia.

it's called capitalism

[bennyonesix]

Additionally, and intentionally, the wealth of the middle class was transferred to this new citizenry but mostly to those same elites.

the wealth of middle america was taken by the walton family, who hollowed out small towns everywhere, and everyone happily goes to wal-mart to buy the cheapest goods, which are made in asia.

it's called capitalism

That's real, but just a small part believe it or not.

[Turdacious]

Additionally, and intentionally, the wealth of the middle class was transferred to this new citizenry but mostly to those same elites.

the wealth of middle america was taken by the walton family, who hollowed out small towns everywhere, and everyone happily goes to wal-mart to buy the cheapest goods, which are made in asia.

it's called capitalism

Middle America had been dying long before that. When my parents moved to my hometown, there was a theater, three grocery stores, a furniture store, a new car dealership, two implement dealer, a hardware store, and a local department store. A couple years before before the Wallyworld came to a neighboring town, only the hardware store, one implement dealer, and one grocery store remained (the hardware store's gone now). FWIW, the town population actually increased over time too.

And while Walmart did kill a lot of businesses that had been in decline for decades, it also brought in significantly lower prices which allowed a lot of families who were living paycheck to paycheck (including mine) to stretch their dollars a lot farther. They also got access to goods that they wanted that local businesses weren't supplying because Walmart had a far superior understanding of demand.

Besides, Walmart doesn't get the sales tax exemption that online businesses got for decades. I'd argue that that is a bigger factor in the decline of middle america than Walmart.

In my hometown, a big factor was also the Chicano movement in the 70's-- farmers responded to demands for higher wages and the threat of strikes by purchasing expensive equipment at late 70's interest rates. The seasonal tripling in population probably played a big part in businesses bottom lines. I suspect that this, and other regional trends, played a big role in a lot of other small communities too.

[bennyonesix]

Hmmm what happened toward the end of Reagans second term? Amnesty? And what happened around the early 1990's? Wasn't there a trade deal of some kind? Like TPP?

wealth-distribution10-15.jpg (76.49 KiB) Viewed 5986 times

[dead man walking]

And while Walmart did kill a lot of businesses that had been in decline for decades, it also brought in significantly lower prices which allowed a lot of families who were living paycheck to paycheck (including mine) to stretch their dollars a lot farther. They also got access to goods that they wanted that local businesses weren't supplying because Walmart had a far superior understanding of demand.

yes, i made that point. cheap goods from mexico and asia.

and yes, our vast midlands were in economic distress as the fundamental business structure of farming changed. get big or get out. capital continued to replace labor. smaller farms were, to use technical language, fucked, and were absorbed by neighbors. the local economy, which to some extent supported many farms was, likewise, fucked.

so you could argue wal-mart responded to events, but you gotta admits, it's part of the evil empire of reptilian oligarchs.

[Turdacious]

most of the value created by the company is actually pocketed by its customers in the form of lower prices. There is general agreement that Wal-Mart prices are significantly lower than its competitors. Assuming that the company's prices are 8 percent lower—at the low end of the estimates from various studies summarized in a recent report by Global Insight—and applying that to Wal-Mart's domestic sales volume, U.S. consumers save on the order of $18 billion per year. And because Wal-Mart forces its competitors to charge lower prices as well, this figure is a fraction of the company's real impact. These kinds of savings to customers far exceed the costs that Wal-Mart allegedly imposes on society by securing subsidies, driving employees toward public welfare systems, creating urban sprawl, and destroying jobs in competing operations. Thus, juxtaposing these customer savings against the estimate cited by Fishman and others that Wal-Mart destroyed 2,500 jobs (on a net basis) in 2005 yields customer savings of more than $7 million per year for each job lost.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-real-wal-mart-effect

Small towns have been in decline for about a century now.

[Turdacious]

Hmmm what happened toward the end of Reagans second term? Amnesty? And what happened around the early 1990's? Wasn't there a trade deal of some kind? Like TPP?

wealth-distribution10-15.jpg

Also the advent of IRAs, quality focus in manufacturing, Japanese superiority in car manufacturing during the 70's and 80's, etc...-- it's more complicated than that.

[nafod]

In the summer of 1979, while a college student, I spent the summer working for the Green Giant company in Le Sueur, MN. I was a combine mechanic, of all things. What a great town, with its own corporation to provide a base for the community. I remember that was the year Pillsbury bought them, promising to keep them in the town. Yeah, right. This is a sad story, played out all over the country.

http://www.southernminn.com/le_sueur_ne ... 54c4b.html

In 1979 Pillsbury purchased Le Sueur-based vegetable production company Green Giant. Over the next two decades, the company slowly pulled out of town, and with it, the executives and white collar workers who led the city. So, too, left the seasonal work and the entry-level positions that drew in hundreds of young people.

[bennyonesix]

Hmmm what happened toward the end of Reagans second term? Amnesty? And what happened around the early 1990's? Wasn't there a trade deal of some kind? Like TPP?

wealth-distribution10-15.jpg

Also the advent of IRAs, quality focus in manufacturing, Japanese superiority in car manufacturing during the 70's and 80's, etc...-- it's more complicated than that.

Bullshit. All but the IRA are knock on effects from immigration (legal and illegal) and "free trade" as pushed by the Chamber and Koch types. For example, Japanese superiority was an artefact of tariffs almost entirely. And what percentage of wealth transfer is due to IRAs?

Why do you peddle this nonsense here? Your masters don't care what we think. You can give it a fucking rest for a second.

[dead man walking]

Small towns have been in decline for about a century now.

that trend reversed for a period in the 70s-80s

perhaps that was merely a blip, like the so-called "pause" in global warming.

[Turdacious]

The superiority of the Civic and Camry over the Vega and Pinto was not a matter of tariffs.

[bennyonesix]

Small towns have been in decline for about a century now.

that trend reversed for a period in the 70s-80s

perhaps that was merely a blip, like the so-called "pause" in global warming.

What possible meaning could the phrase "small towns have been in a decline for about a century" have? A century ago was 1917.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a6 ... troyed-gm/

[Turdacious]

You guys are also forgetting that the Reagan free trade push was also an instrument of foreign policy, and a very effective one.

[bennyonesix]

The superiority of the Civic and Camry over the Vega and Pinto was not a matter of tariffs.

Oh it absolutely was:

The Vega wasn't fast, but it was handsome, drove OK and carried the "GM Mark of Excellence."

And the Vega sold in huge numbers. During its first model year, 1971, Chevrolet pushed 277,700 of them through its dealerships. During 1972 out went another 394,592 units, then 395,792 in 1973 and 452,886 for 1974. John DeLorean and the engineers at Chevrolet may have disliked the Vega, but the public was gobbling them up.

However, the lack of engineering focus and the drive to keep the price low resulted in a car with notoriously thin sheetmetal only haphazardly covered in anti-rust primer. Soon the Vega was earning a reputation as a rust-prone bucket. It wasn't uncommon for rusted Vega front fenders to need replacing after only one or two seasons driving in the salted slop of northeastern winters. Even in states like California or Arizona where rust was almost unknown, Vega owners would see corrosion eating away at their cars.

Even at this early date, GM saw the writing on the wall. They had to reduce build quality to compete with Japanese vehicles because of the protectionist policies of Japan. This was the story of the death of US manufacturing.

[bennyonesix]

You guys are also forgetting that the Reagan free trade push was also an instrument of foreign policy, and a very effective one.

Yeah. That's great. The neocons absolutely fucked everything up.

[Turdacious]

The superiority of the Civic and Camry over the Vega and Pinto was not a matter of tariffs.

Oh it absolutely was:

The Vega wasn't fast, but it was handsome, drove OK and carried the "GM Mark of Excellence."

And the Vega sold in huge numbers. During its first model year, 1971, Chevrolet pushed 277,700 of them through its dealerships. During 1972 out went another 394,592 units, then 395,792 in 1973 and 452,886 for 1974. John DeLorean and the engineers at Chevrolet may have disliked the Vega, but the public was gobbling them up.

However, the lack of engineering focus and the drive to keep the price low resulted in a car with notoriously thin sheetmetal only haphazardly covered in anti-rust primer. Soon the Vega was earning a reputation as a rust-prone bucket. It wasn't uncommon for rusted Vega front fenders to need replacing after only one or two seasons driving in the salted slop of northeastern winters. Even in states like California or Arizona where rust was almost unknown, Vega owners would see corrosion eating away at their cars.

Even at this early date, GM saw the writing on the wall. They had to reduce build quality to compete with Japanese vehicles because of the protectionist policies of Japan. This was the story of the death of US manufacturing.

Wow.

[Turdacious]

You guys are also forgetting that the Reagan free trade push was also an instrument of foreign policy, and a very effective one.

Yeah. That's great. The neocons absolutely fucked everything up.

How is enticing countries out of the Soviet sphere fucking everything up?

[bennyonesix]

The superiority of the Civic and Camry over the Vega and Pinto was not a matter of tariffs.

Oh it absolutely was:

The Vega wasn't fast, but it was handsome, drove OK and carried the "GM Mark of Excellence."

And the Vega sold in huge numbers. During its first model year, 1971, Chevrolet pushed 277,700 of them through its dealerships. During 1972 out went another 394,592 units, then 395,792 in 1973 and 452,886 for 1974. John DeLorean and the engineers at Chevrolet may have disliked the Vega, but the public was gobbling them up.

However, the lack of engineering focus and the drive to keep the price low resulted in a car with notoriously thin sheetmetal only haphazardly covered in anti-rust primer. Soon the Vega was earning a reputation as a rust-prone bucket. It wasn't uncommon for rusted Vega front fenders to need replacing after only one or two seasons driving in the salted slop of northeastern winters. Even in states like California or Arizona where rust was almost unknown, Vega owners would see corrosion eating away at their cars.

Even at this early date, GM saw the writing on the wall. They had to reduce build quality to compete with Japanese vehicles because of the protectionist policies of Japan. This was the story of the death of US manufacturing.

Wow.

This fucking guy. This is what he does. Remember his tendentious and sophisitic and relentless defense of TPP? Zero value added; much value taken.

[Turdacious]

As I recall I said the TPP didn't appear to be much more than a trade deal, and that declining prices have to be looked at in conjunction with job losses. Also, blaming the decline of manufacturing solely on trade is a little simplistic.

[bennyonesix]

As I recall I said the TPP didn't appear to be much more than a trade deal, and that declining prices have to be looked at in conjunction with job losses. Also, blaming the decline of manufacturing solely on trade is a little simplistic.

That's great. Thanks.

[The Ginger Beard Man]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/16 ... s-20120716
This is from 2012. I'll concede that gay marriage has come from the courts, but I suspect it would eventually have come about through legislation.
I haven't found it yet, but I could swear I read all the way back in 2008 that a poll had show that a slight majority of registered republicans supported gay marriage. I'll keep looking.
Or maybe I'm just in a Brooklyn bubble.