Identity politics hasn't been a national debate topic... ever? Unless you count "the presidential candidate is a woman/black" as identity politics. Harris was quiet on trans issues in her campaign and Obama didn't talk much at all about gay marriage in 2008. Maybe he was more accommodating in 2012, but it didn't come up in his campaign.
If you read through any of the DNC talking points of any given campaign, you're not going to see much on social issues until you maybe get to Kennedy. It's just not really something that's a pressing issue for a presidential run.
And honestly, I can't think of any social policies in the last 50 years that was seriously pushed by a sitting president. They at best pay lip service by painting a rainbow on some building, often years after the actual legal and legislative battles were won.
----
Now, to directly answer your question: I'd rather not rely on deplorables to vote progressive. the nature of how they approach life simply won't allow that, even if they are otherwise in full agreement with every point. We need to energize the entire 3rd of the country that took one of the most important elections in the past 60 years and simply shrugged, staying home. We need to give them someone who will fight for them.
> will you give up identity politics for the deplorables vote?
That phrase gets used a lot, I'm curious what you mean by that.
If you mean "woke", then you're probably missing the irony of how that is actually used politically. Based on the phrasing of your question, I'm guessing you might have an irony deficiency. But please go on.
Political discussion here is frowned upon because it usually devolves into partisan name calling -- which justifies it not being tolerated.
But if you want to discuss policy or "hacking society", please do. I am of no political party and am more than happy to acknowledge the foibles of those I might associate with, as well as any of my own because everybody makes mistakes, no?
So, who in the US is actually using identity politics as a distraction?
I ask because as an outsider I overwhelmingly see US identity politics issues being raised by the new "Republicans" and to a lesser degree by the old Republicans.
> if you materially make peoples lives better they will vote for you.
This doesn't explain the last election in the slightest unless relaxed to "if you pinky promise to materially make peoples lives better..."
I agree with the former, and conceptually with latter. But we've seen people vote against their best interests because of the promise of destroying those who've they've been taught to hate. Contemporary US immigration "policy" is a case in point.
No, we haven't. People do not "vote against their interests", as much as commenters online love to claim that. What actually happens is that they believe what they vote for will advance their well-being, and you disagree with their assessment. That's a very, very different thing.
The idea that there are any significant number of people out there deliberately hurting themselves for hate's sake is a complete myth. People reach for it because it feels good to imagine that your opponents are hate-warped idiots, but there is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim. When you actually talk to people (and not just assume you know what's in their heads), you find out that they, like you, are just trying to do good in an imperfect world.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear about "vote against their interests".
Of course nobody's going to vote for a candidate who doesn't promise what they want. But if the promises are lies and never honored, and instead the winner does things that leads to making things worse for them, they have effectively voted against their own interests.
Very little of what Trump promised was related to the common voter's best interests:
* lowering prices and inflation
* ending the war in Ukraine (in one day, to boot!)
* "fix" US trade
Most of the other stuff was ideological red meat, much of which he actually has done, but I'd argue that it wasn't in the interest of the common person in the end (tariffs fucked up US manufacturing and businesses, and in the end was revoked because it was illegal).
Meanwhile, he started a new war with no clear way out, has ballooned the national debt, destroyed the US's relationships with our allies (likely permanently), etc. In the interest of brevity I'm just putting some relevant nuggets, but the list is quite long.
If you look at his promises and platforms, a majority of it was a revenge and hate spree, and the hunger for that hate was actively indoctrinated into his base.
Non-US PoV - US identity politics as an actual threat to panic and pearl clutch about seems to be largely a creation of the US right.
Actual US identity expression "issues" (visible drag queens, actually trans people, sports questions) seem to be small number small beer problems that should fall under US principles of "We let Nazi's march, so why not Furries" ?
> an actual threat to panic and pearl clutch about seems to be largely a creation of the US right.
"woke" has been a goldmine for the Right. Who needs policy when fear, panic, and anger get the voters in those booths? After all, drag queens and trans people are scary -- think of the children!
>Given that you apparently share their goals (a better world,) isn't it worth at least hearing them out on their methods?
Their methods are about convincing others that things that enrich and empower themselves at the expense of others is "improving the world". This isn't the stance of serious people who want to improve the world.
Please don't confuse AI researchers and AI safety researchers (although there is some overlap.) That's like confusing the people from the Manhattan project with the people who protested 3 Mile Island, because they're both focused on nuclear technology. One effect of EA is that every AI researcher says they're trying to make the world better. Some of them are full of shit, but not all.
I'm fairly certain the authors would be happy to see AI shut down indefinitely. They just don't believe that the coordination problem is solvable. This is their best attempt to come up with something workable in the real world, or at least get people started thinking about it.
Right, the so-called "AI safety researchers" are worthless clowns and grifters with nothing of value to contribute. We would all be better off if they spent their time on something productive like writing entertaining sci-fi stories. They certainly seem to have the rich imagination necessary for that occupation.
Now this is an unserious comment, just throwing insults without explaining your reasoning at all. Do you believe that AI itself is worthless? Or that it's just incapable of causing harm? Do you resent the safeguards placed on AI because they are personally inconvenient to you? When introducing a new technology at this scale, don't you think it's worth looking before leaping?
So called "AI safety researchers" are themselves unserious so of course I don't take them seriously. LLMs are extremely useful, I use them constantly for a wide variety of tasks. LLMs don't cause harm: humans cause harm. There's no real need to intentionally cripple or restrict the models in the name of "safety"; that's just stupid and done only to prevent corporate embarrassment.
I'm confused, the authors of the website are arguing that the development of AI should be slowed down so that society can adapt. What do you think they are trying to convince others of?
how so? because people don't like when you move into their area and buy your way into everything? Displacing the people around? The "artisanal farmer" with 100M cap investment into gear.
People who don't shun and humiliate these silverspooners are more damaging than the gambling.
And what's your solution for this gross asymmetry of wealth? "Engineers" working 4 hours a week from resorts for enormous salaries? PE and VC run rampant, politicians bought and paid for, lobbying for corporate interests... I don't see why they should be allowed to keep accumulating more power and wealth..
Clearly not capital punishment? A lack of capital punishment ≠ lack of punishment. Boycotts, protests, new supply chains, political pressure, etc? The bourgeoisie still need the proletariat, thus, the proletariat can influence the bourgeoisie through solidarity. Commentator above said nothing about not punishing the bourgeoisie anyways.
The chant, as officially translated by the government itself [1] means "Down with the USA". "Death to" is a purposeful (literal) mistranslation to make it sound like it's a genocidal statement.
Is that to say the Islamic Republic of Iran don't necessarily want to eradicate the USA but merely want to see its downfall? I don't have much sympathy for that; it's not like there's some more liberal, more democratic, alternative superpower waiting in the wings.
