Sorry I was not clear: my argument is that the USA has a culture problem, not a gun problem. If you simply try to increase gun regs here it will not have the same effect it did in other countries; culture isn’t like physics or engineering that apply everywhere.
Guns are only a “problem” due to culture - a gun or car won’t cause trouble on its own. A pitbull on the other hand…
Have you been listening to the Revolutionary Left Radio?
Hey McTraveller, which ones out of this list should be controlled through government regulation for nonconformation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_subculturesThe traditional route is through social pressures such as discrimination in hiring, encouraging their exclusion in social interactions (especially politics), and building of an enforcement state if the previous two are not effective in dominating subcultures refusing to conform to the expectations of conservative society.
Here is a good example of enforcement that is oftentimes individually sympathetic even in modern mainstream conservatism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_StatesSo when you hear authoritarians say "enforce all the laws prosecutor it's your job" remember that they may be advocating government interest in what you and your traditionally married wife may or may not partake of in the bedroom by mutual, consenting agreement. In my state for example there is an anti-sodomy law in the criminal code that has not been enforced since either to 1930s or 1950s, and IIRC the last application of it was against a politically active straight white male person who was essentially the target of a smear campaign for political reasons.
I find Palazzo's comment to be quite accurate in it's implication that the modern conservative movement is comparable in some ways to ancient Marxist strategy, but may need some explanation. The following link is worth reading even if you disagree with the theory's writers and political beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemonyFrom article:
In 1848, Karl Marx proposed that the economic recessions and practical contradictions of a capitalist economy would provoke the working class to proletarian revolution, depose capitalism, restructure social institutions (economic, political, social) per the rational models of socialism, and thus begin the transition to a communist society. Therefore, the dialectical changes to the functioning of the economy of a society determine its social superstructures (culture and politics).
To that end, Antonio Gramsci proposed a strategic distinction between the politics for a War of Position and for a War of Manœuvre. The war of position is an intellectual and cultural struggle wherein the anti-capitalist revolutionary creates a proletarian culture whose native value system counters the cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie. The proletarian culture will increase class consciousness, teach revolutionary theory and historical analysis, and thus further develop revolutionary organisation among the social classes.[7] After winning the war of position, socialist leaders would then have the necessary political power and popular support to realise the war of manœuvre, the political praxis of revolutionary socialism.
---
Now, if we turn that second paragraph completely around and apply "conservative" instead of "socialist" along with other appropriate subsititutions to reflect conservative authoritarian influences and political interests of expanding an already existing a system of societal dominance and control into authority for government intervention against those viewed impersonally as cultural opponents, is that not precisely the strategy apparent in modern conservative authoritarian leadership?
Note I did not use the name of either specific US party, and both are very susceptable. Before I get flamed for saying that (I admit the two parties are culpable to seperate degrees) here is a recent link to show how subcultures are used as public scapegoats. Sorry LGBTQ+ it looks like your turn under the bus is happening sooner than expected, with the moderate status-quo (prone to backstabbery of their allies I might add) all in a fluster after the election donation racket didn't surprisingly lead to effective leadership <cough Manchin>, and if the following article is emblematic of a new "strategy" (which being an opinion piece is not fair to judge it as), someone's pushing to blame you all in the hopes of pickups of moderate female voters concerned by the aborition ruling who are on the fence while usefully deflecting blame from the same legally bribable people in power the last decades.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/opinion/the-far-right-and-far-left-agree-on-one-thing-women-dont-count.htmlTo be fair, as abhorrant as the link above is, the following is one where LGBTQ+ is linked to the abortion decision in a non-blaming way. I don't mean to say the above link is a common opinion, it seems to be a spaghetti at the wall. I mostly posted it due to how recent it was.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/opinion/dobbs-griswold-abortion-rights-conformity.htmlAfter all, who else you gonna vote for? The other side is even worse for you, to the point there is a real risk of you becoming (potentially legally) unacceptable in polite society once again. First they came for the furries and all that...
If only there were an alternative
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/opinion/moderate-party-new-jersey.htmlFrom opinion piece:
The Moderate Party is an experiment: an alliance between Democrats of all stripes, independents and moderate Republicans hoping to win an election while pursuing a reform to the election laws that could empower swing voters to save our democracy from toxic polarization.
---
My suggestion to LGBTQ+ individuals would be to put out feelers and see if this new party would be amenable to listening to your positions on personal liberty. As a fusion party it will tend to be a moderating factor, which means it depends on where "moderate" is settled whether it is in your interests or not. My concern is different than that, in that I would like to see election finance reform as quintessential to longer term attempts at reforms relating to corporate and government legalized corruption. However I would feel far more comfortable supporting a party with an interest in personal liberty that has you in it as well.
The downside is a fusion party system helps to cement a status quo, so if this party were successful in it's aims and whatever hoped for disruptions of the status quo, that it would help cement the result later down the road to the detriment of either direction's wings. In my opinion this is a very good thing in the face of Trumpism and the authoritarians influencing the conservative movements, but to use my views as an example such a fusion party does pose a problem to what I view as necessary reforms should the post-election status quo not include campaign finance reforms.Thus I suggest to you and other qualified liberal leaning individuals of seeking a seat at the leadership table of this new party if it would be welcoming to you in their time of need, on the issues you support, now. If they aren't willing to work with you on mutually acceptable compromises, fuck em for promising to cement what's not working for you. Also as it's a plethora party the way I will be attempting to influence it from the distant sidelines as an unqualified person is not to demand so much that it compromises electability; it is after all a moderate party which means a seat at the table, not the overwhelming victory that contradicts and imposes upon those you are sitting with.
EDIT: Caught a spot where I didn't add "authoritarian" before conservative, which I corrected as the distinction is crucial. If there are other instances it's likely I meant in the authoritative aspect but didn't re-read the post for editing enough times to catch it.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 3589238 times)