Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Snoopy said:
Torillian said:

Research indicates that they do it less than the native population. If decreasing those kinds of crimes are your goal you'd be statistically better off throwing out random citizens than the same number of illegal immigrants.

They use up our resources and don't pay taxes, thus stealing. So nope, you're wrong again. Also, I would love to throw out all the thugs that steal and hurt people. For one it will make sure only good outstanding people live in America and Democrats will lose voter base. It's a win-win.

I'd be interested to see research indicating that illegal immigrants you up more resources than they bring to the country. What I've heard of indicates that they are at worst a wash from a fiscal standpoint but are an economic boon. 



...

Around the Network
HylianSwordsman said:

You truly are a radical feminist aren't you? I mean that ideologically, not pejoratively, of course. That's a very radical feminist position, the idea that prostitution is inherently bad for women from a power perspective, and thus should not be legalized. I'm curious, are you against pornography as well? The same logic would seem to apply, and it is another common radical feminist position that I've seen. Well, I say common, but I haven't actually had a conversation with many radical feminists. But at least from what I've read from them.

Personally, I am pro legalization, but not in the industry's current state. Surely decriminalization of sex work would appeal to you though? As in making it not a crime to be a sex worker, but still a crime to be a pimp? I think that would help to protect vulnerable women in that industry, and would probably be my first step if I had a magic wand that changed laws and politics. But what if a women genuinely wants to be a prostitute? Not from a position where she's coerced in any sense by the power dynamics of her situation, but because she evaluated the possibility and her own feelings about it and came to a rational conclusion that she was comfortable with sex work and in fact wished to pursue it? Shouldn't she be free to do so? For that to be possible, the industry would have to change, but the only way for that to happen is for it to be legalized so that a regulatory framework can be set to ensure that women aren't taken advantage of in any way. So to your point about prostitution making women "public property", that's only if they were working under a pimp, and even then, only if they didn't have absolute power to refuse any request without fear of backlash from her employer. In my mind, it's literally her body; if she wants to sell services with her body, that's her absolute choice and no one else's. So I would think legalizing prostitution without any fear of making women public property in the way you describe would require that pimps be outlawed, so that no one but her could have any contractual or legal say in the matter. If she were self-employed as a prostitute by her own rational choice, I don't see how you could credibly argue that she had become public property. In such a scenario, she is her own property. No man can claim ownership or entitlement to her services simply because she's a prostitute. So long as she had absolute right to refuse any service with any person for any reason without legal risk to her for doing so, I don't see how you could claim that she's anyone's property, public or private, except her own.

All of this said, I don't think misogyny should be ideologically labeled. It's like labeling terrorism after its ideological source. What does it matter? It's terrorism! If you don't simply call it what it is and instead attach a political or ideological label to it, all you accomplish is to divide society along political or ideological lines for or against you, and then you typically accomplish nothing, or if you accomplish anything, it takes a terribly long time. Furthermore, you can hardly say that the right wing of politics is the sole domain of those who would view women as private property, nor that the left wing is where you would find all those who view them as public property. For example college fraternity brothers are not remotely associated with the left, quite the opposite really, yet their culture often views women as the public property of anyone attending their party, or at least that's how some of them speak and behave. On the other hand, the Democratic party elite think that simply by being the less misogynistic party, that all women in America owe them their votes, which effectively means they view women as the private property of their organization. They spoke with such indignation at white women when they saw that Hillary had "lost" the white female vote. Nevermind that she had won just barely under half of them and thus the Dems were writing off effectively half of the white female population as if they counted for nothing just because they felt owed the other half, but would have written off the other half as not existing had their half been nominally bigger. And of course, there are plenty of right wingers that support legalization of prostitution, such as libertarians, and there are plenty of possessive boyfriends that vote Democrat and probably even some that call themselves democratic socialists, even as they treat their girlfriends like a piece of property. Then you have the up and coming specters of female sex robots and VR rape experiences, which are already attracting interest across the political spectrum for public and private use, and carrying with them all sorts of troubling implications. I guarantee you that while they might eventually get polarized as well as a more clear political narrative develops around them, there will still be an audience for them across the political spectrum using them in both public and private settings, regardless of what ends up being legal in the end. Misogyny is wrong, no matter who it comes from, or what ideology they use to justify it, and we're weaker in fighting it when we apply identity based labels to it that encourage people to take sides.

You listed the beauty industry alongside the sex industry and gender identity. Do you regard the beauty industry as left leaning? I mean I'd be hard pressed to make such a judgement but I guess the elites of the beauty industry probably lean left, but what does the larger political left have in its narrative that affirms the goals of the beauty industry? Because from what I see, the left as a whole tends to regard the beauty industry with disgust. Perhaps that's confirmation bias as I'm a psychology educated left-leaning environmentalist and animal advocate so I hate the beauty industry for the harm its done to the environment, animal rights, and the mental health of people, especially women, so I might just talk to a lot of likeminded people. But from what I read from most left leaning news outlets and pundits, there doesn't seem to be a lot of love on the left for the beauty industry. I haven't seen any left motivated arguments in their favor. Like, ever.

There's a great deal there to respond to and I don't think I can get around to it all today, so I'm just gonna skim the surface here:

Responding to your first paragraph, yes, I plainly describe myself as a radical feminist. (More specifically a lesbian feminist.) It's worth pointing out though that a lot of the views that are today consigned to the radical feminist movement used to be embraced by virtually all feminists decades ago, including the liberals. If you go back to the late 1970s, for example, you'll find that it wasn't just radical women like Kate Millett, Germaine Greer, and Janice Raymond who opposed prostitution, pornography, what we today would call transgenderism, etc., it was also the leading ordinary liberal feminists of the day like Gloria Steinem, Eleanor Smeal, and Betty Friedan. The radicals were distinguished not by their opinion of things like the sex industry back then, but by their prioritization of cultural change over legal reforms. They worked to create an autonomous women's culture that could raise the class conscious of women toward the goal of radically transforming society and abolishing and replacing most of its existing institutions of male privilege, among which were commonly counted marriage, religion (especially faiths centering on the worship of male deities), heterosexuality, capitalism, and so on. That's what distinguished feminist radicals from the liberals back then; institutions that the liberal feminists have simply sought to reform, not abolish. Today, the differences have grown larger and more fundamental.

Regarding your second and third paragraphs, personally I'm in favor of what has become known as "the Nordic model" of prostitution policy, which is to say that I strongly believe that purchasing sex, as well as brothel ownership, pimping, that sort of thing, should be treated as criminal offenses punishable by jail time, not as civil offenses punishable by mere fines like we typically do here in the U.S. The Nordic model, as it has come to be known, is the policy endorsed by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and has been adopted by many countries over the last 20 years, with the Nordic countries famously leading the way. (This policy recognizes prostituted women and other sex trade "employees" as victims of exploitative industry and accordingly doesn't penalize survivors of prostitution. This is also a better approach to prostitutes themselves than we typically use here in the U.S. (most of which are informed by the conservative idea that prostitution is a danger to family life, not to females as a class) in that punishing prostitutes discourages them from coming forward and reporting abusive treatment and in that way helps keep them trapped in the business.)

I don't believe in identity politics and I'm not a "choice feminist". I fully believe that a given group can, even in its majority, be dead wrong about what is in their better interests. Prostitution is a major problem in my community (and I don't just mean among younger women) for two basic reasons: 1) because drugs are a major problem in my community, and 2) because, resulting in no small part from the former, sexual abuse is also not uncommon.

Most of the prostituted women here had experienced both drug addiction and sexual abuse at the hands of a loved one before entering the field, and both of those things really seem to play a role. Pimps often pay women in drugs, for example, to keep them trapped in the business and rape is something that I can attest to from first-hand experience tends to tell you a lot about what you're worth to the world. Personal liberty is not an appreciable factor in the equation, in my observation. Most of them hate working as prostitutes, and indeed many investigations have born out that prostitutes tend to survive by dissociating themselves from their situation in the moment (as in pretending that they're somewhere else, doing something else), which I think tells you just how much "fun" they're actually having. I mean it ought to tell you something that a recent survey of American high school students found that most wouldn't have sex with someone they didn't want to for less than $2 million, while the average prostitute does so for less than $200. What does that tell you about the level of self-worth that's involved?

Around the same time frame that Sweden adopted what has since become known as the Nordic model at the turn of the century, a rival approach revolving around properly legalizing the prostitution of women also gained some traction in Europe as well and was adopted in such places as Germany and the Netherlands in the early 2000s. The Nordic model continues to be adopted by more countries all the time. Full legalization, by contrast, hasn't had any new takers in over a decade now. That's because it's proven to be a disastrous, self-defeating experiment. In the Netherlands, for example, most of the legal brothels have now been closed because they've been caught trafficking sex slaves in (which isn't legal) and the same is true of those famous communities in Nevada where prostitution has been formally legalized here in the U.S. Likewise, Germany's "brothel king", Jurgon Rudloff, is currently serving a five year prison sentence for similarly trafficking sex slaves in from abroad to service the heightened demand for prostitute services that resulted from legalization. Indeed, Amsterdam's new mayor, Femke Halsema of GroenLinks (a left-leaning environmentalist party similar to the Green Party here in the U.S.), who is also the city's first female mayor, will be banning tours of the city's (in)famous red light district starting next year in a policy move supported by 80% of the city's prostitutes and is actively weighing other major changes such as banning prostitute windows. The city has been overrun by wealthy, foreign partiers, who now outnumber actual citizens on any given day of the year, as a result largely of legalizing brothels. That's how well it's going. One senses a definite policy direction here away from limitless permissiveness and toward cracking down. Perhaps this is why the project of full legalization hasn't had any new takers in quite some time now.

Concerning the beauty industry, I would simply ask if you have ever read their publications like Vogue or Cosmopolitan before. It's very clear that their politics are Democratic Party-aligned today, as one can readily sense not only by their rhetoric, but also by their formal candidate endorsements. I mean even the former Miss Universe Pageant owner Donald Trump is himself, until recently, a formerly pro-choice, left wing Democrat who championed Medicare for all, beat most Democratic members of Congress to calls for exiting the Iraq War.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 07 July 2019

Torillian said:
Snoopy said:

They are criminals, why do you think they call them ILLEGAL? Not our problem if they get sick. There are billions of people who get sick on earth, doesn't mean it is our responsibility to take care of them. They should fix their own Country instead of leaching off of us.

well I mean shit if they call them illegal you got me there, not like politics could play any part of that decision and they used to be called undocumented. 

https://qz.com/1336110/its-illegal-aliens-not-undocumented-immigrants-says-the-us-department-of-justice/

If I call you an illegal poster can I decide you're a criminal that should be jailed without having to make any real arguments about why your illegal actions are more meaningful than some other non-jailable illegal actions?

You're right, we're not responsible for anything citizen or not, but I'd rather not specifically let people in this country die if I have a say in it. 

Undocumented means you don't have the proper paperwork to live or do something here which is also another way of saying illegal. Also, VGChartz can ban me if I break their TOS. There are rules and you should follow them. As an Admin you of all people should know.



Torillian said:
Snoopy said:

They use up our resources and don't pay taxes, thus stealing. So nope, you're wrong again. Also, I would love to throw out all the thugs that steal and hurt people. For one it will make sure only good outstanding people live in America and Democrats will lose voter base. It's a win-win.

I'd be interested to see research indicating that illegal immigrants you up more resources than they bring to the country. What I've heard of indicates that they are at worst a wash from a fiscal standpoint but are an economic boon. 

https://metrovoicenews.com/undocumented-immigrants-cost-u-s-113-billion-annually-averaging-over-2-billion-per-state/

I've got more articles too.



the-pi-guy said:
Snoopy said:

They use up our resources and don't pay taxes, thus stealing. So nope, you're wrong again. Also, I would love to throw out all the thugs that steal and hurt people. For one it will make sure only good outstanding people live in America and Democrats will lose voter base. It's a win-win.

So very wrong

Illegals pay sales tax, property tax, and some pay income taxes.  

Stealing has a specific definition.  Which that does not match.  

I don't think it's very likely that would cause Democrats to lose voter base.  

Sorry but if you're argument is that Democrats are criminals, that's about the lowest one can go.  

Snoopy said:

They are criminals, why do you think they call them ILLEGAL? Not our problem if they get sick. There are billions of people who get sick on earth, doesn't mean it is our responsibility to take care of them. They should fix their own Country instead of leaching off of us.

-No one said it was our responsibility, but some people believe helping others is a good thing.  

-our country was built off leaching off other countries.  

Only a few Illegal immigrants pay income taxes, State taxes or property taxes. This is because illegal immigrants get paid under the table and they also do illegal activities like drug trafficking. This is why they can't pay federal taxes for example. Furthermore, many illegal immigrants can't even speak English, what makes you think they know how to do taxes lol.

Last edited by Snoopy - on 07 July 2019

Around the Network
jason1637 said:
Locking illegal immigrants in prison is a terrible proposal to fix our immigration problems.

You're right, that's why we need to build a wall and charge the country that sent them here a fine or else we keep putting sanctions on them.



Snoopy said:
jason1637 said:
Locking illegal immigrants in prison is a terrible proposal to fix our immigration problems.

You're right, that's why we need to build a wall and charge the country that sent them here a fine or else we keep putting sanctions on them.

A wall wouldn't be that bad if it can help reduce illegal immigration but a fine and sanctions would just cause the amount of illegal immigrants coming to the US to increase.



Snoopy said:

Undocumented means you don't have the proper paperwork to live or do something here which is also another way of saying illegal. Also, VGChartz can ban me if I break their TOS. There are rules and you should follow them. As an Admin you of all people should know.

Ridiculous comparison.  If you're banned off VGC, you're fine. 

People don't die, trying to log into VGC.

People don't come to VGC, trying to avoid getting murdered.  

No one has lived in VGC for their entire childhood, only to get sent over to a country they have absolutely no memory of.  

For empathy's sake, what if you found out that you were an illegal immigrant.  Suppose your parents came over illegally when you were 3.  Would you find it fair, if you were deported right now?

Snoopy said:

Only a few Illegal immigrants pay income taxes, State taxes or property taxes. This is because illegal immigrants get paid under the table and they also do illegal activities like drug trafficking. This is why they can't pay federal taxes for example. Furthermore, many illegal immigrants can't even speak English, what makes you think they know how to do taxes lol.

About half of all illegals pay income taxes.  

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17229018/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes

>they also do illegal activities like drug trafficking

Factually, illegal immigrants commit less crime than citizens.  Although more crime than legal immigrants.  

> Furthermore, many illegal immigrants can't even speak English, what makes you think they know how to do taxes

The crazy thing is, the IRS has a spanish website to help out questions.

https://www.irs.gov/es/spanish

Snoopy said:

You're right, that's why we need to build a wall and charge the country that sent them here a fine or else we keep putting sanctions on them.

Wall doesn't fix the problem.  Most illegal immigrants come over by other methods.  About 10% of all illegals come from Asia.  

>charge the country that sent them here a fine 

Countries aren't "sending" people.  That's completely ludicrous.  




There's a great deal there to respond to and I don't think I can get around to it all today, so I'm just gonna skim the surface here:

Responding to your first paragraph, yes, I plainly describe myself as a radical feminist. (More specifically a lesbian feminist.) It's worth pointing out though that a lot of the views that are today consigned to the radical feminist movement used to be embraced by virtually all feminists decades ago, including the liberals. If you go back to the late 1970s, for example, you'll find that it wasn't just radical women like Kate Millett, Germaine Greer, and Janice Raymond who opposed prostitution, pornography, what we today would call transgenderism, etc., it was also the leading ordinary liberal feminists of the day like Gloria Steinem, Eleanor Smeal, and Betty Friedan. The radicals were distinguished not by their opinion of things like the sex industry back then, but by their prioritization of cultural change over legal reforms. They worked to create an autonomous women's culture that could raise the class conscious of women toward the goal of radically transforming society and abolishing and replacing most of its existing institutions of male privilege, among which were commonly counted marriage, religion (especially faiths centering on the worship of male deities), heterosexuality, capitalism, and so on. That's what distinguished feminist radicals from the liberals back then; institutions that the liberal feminists have simply sought to reform, not abolish. Today, the differences have grown larger and more fundamental.

Regarding your second and third paragraphs, personally I'm in favor of what has become known as "the Nordic model" of prostitution policy, which is to say that I strongly believe that purchasing sex, as well as brothel ownership, pimping, that sort of thing, should be treated as criminal offenses punishable by jail time, not as civil offenses punishable by mere fines like we typically do here in the U.S. The Nordic model, as it has come to be known, is the policy endorsed by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and has been adopted by many countries over the last 20 years, with the Nordic countries famously leading the way. (This policy recognizes prostituted women and other sex trade "employees" as victims of exploitative industry and accordingly doesn't penalize survivors of prostitution. This is also a better approach to prostitutes themselves than we typically use here in the U.S. (most of which are informed by the conservative idea that prostitution is a danger to family life, not to females as a class) in that punishing prostitutes discourages them from coming forward and reporting abusive treatment and in that way helps keep them trapped in the business.)

I don't believe in identity politics and I'm not a "choice feminist". I fully believe that a given group can, even in its majority, be dead wrong about what is in their better interests. Prostitution is a major problem in my community (and I don't just mean among younger women) for two basic reasons: 1) because drugs are a major problem in my community, and 2) because, resulting in no small part from the former, sexual abuse is also not uncommon.

Most of the prostituted women here had experienced both drug addiction and sexual abuse at the hands of a loved one before entering the field, and both of those things really seem to play a role. Pimps often pay women in drugs, for example, to keep them trapped in the business and rape is something that I can attest to from first-hand experience tends to tell you a lot about what you're worth to the world. Personal liberty is not an appreciable factor in the equation, in my observation. Most of them hate working as prostitutes, and indeed many investigations have born out that prostitutes tend to survive by dissociating themselves from their situation in the moment (as in pretending that they're somewhere else, doing something else), which I think tells you just how much "fun" they're actually having. I mean it ought to tell you something that a recent survey of American high school students found that most wouldn't have sex with someone they didn't want to for less than $2 million, while the average prostitute does so for less than $200. What does that tell you about the level of self-worth that's involved?

Around the same time frame that Sweden adopted what has since become known as the Nordic model at the turn of the century, a rival approach revolving around properly legalizing the prostitution of women also gained some traction in Europe as well and was adopted in such places as Germany and the Netherlands in the early 2000s. The Nordic model continues to be adopted by more countries all the time. Full legalization, by contrast, hasn't had any new takers in over a decade now. That's because it's proven to be a disastrous, self-defeating experiment. In the Netherlands, for example, most of the legal brothels have now been closed because they've been caught trafficking sex slaves in (which isn't legal) and the same is true of those famous communities in Nevada where prostitution has been formally legalized here in the U.S. Likewise, Germany's "brothel king", Jurgon Rudloff, is currently serving a five year prison sentence for similarly trafficking sex slaves in from abroad to service the heightened demand for prostitute services that resulted from legalization. Indeed, Amsterdam's new mayor, Femke Halsema of GroenLinks (a left-leaning environmentalist party similar to the Green Party here in the U.S.), who is also the city's first female mayor, will be banning tours of the city's (in)famous red light district starting next year in a policy move supported by 80% of the city's prostitutes and is actively weighing other major changes such as banning prostitute windows. The city has been overrun by wealthy, foreign partiers, who now outnumber actual citizens on any given day of the year, as a result largely of legalizing brothels. That's how well it's going. One senses a definite policy direction here away from limitless permissiveness and toward cracking down. Perhaps this is why the project of full legalization hasn't had any new takers in quite some time now.

Concerning the beauty industry, I would simply ask if you have ever read their publications like Vogue or Cosmopolitan before. It's very clear that their politics are Democratic Party-aligned today, as one can readily sense not only by their rhetoric, but also by their formal candidate endorsements. I mean even the former Miss Universe Pageant owner Donald Trump is himself, until recently, a formerly pro-choice, left wing Democrat who championed Medicare for all, beat most Democratic members of Congress to calls for exiting the Iraq War.

In regard to your feminist identity, I'm aware of a good bit of the terminology around feminism but am not remotely as well read on the subject as yourself. I'm more familiar with the liberal feminists than the radical ones. I can appreciate the desire for cultural reform, however, because if liberal feminists limit themselves merely to political and legal reform, they will never achieve equality. Culture around women itself must change. I've a question for you though, you say you describe yourself as a "lesbian feminist" and say that the lesbian label adds specificity to your feminism. How so? Is it simply a matter of your being a lesbian informing your perspective? Or are you hinting that you're a lesbian separatist? Or does your lesbianism inform your ideology in some other way that differentiates you from a heterosexual feminist? Sorry if I'm reading too much into it.

You provide a lot of perspective here that I simply don't have comparable experience to respond to. You make a powerful and compelling argument. I confess I haven't given it as much thought as the politicians in those countries that have tried to put some form of legalized prostitution into practice. Based on what you present here, it sounds like the Nordic model is more or less what I described in my first step, that is, decriminalizing being a prostitute, so that we stop punishing survivors of human trafficking and discouraging them from reporting abuses against them. I had my skepticism that brothels and pimps could be legalized in a way that wouldn't be inevitably exploitative, so it sounds like there's a great deal of evidence that my instincts were right on that, and that brighter minds than I have tried and failed spectacularly to make it work without it leading to sex slavery and the like. That said, I maintain that if you had someone who was able to maintain full control over her own bodily autonomy, working autonomously and independently, able to refuse any service with any person for any reason without fear of legal retribution, it may be possible to have prostitution without it being exploitative. I'm sure you're right that most prostitutes today hate working as prostitutes and would rather do something else, and for the vast majority, personal liberty isn't a factor. But if there's even one woman out there would not just be willing, but actively desire to sell sex with her as a service, given that she could choose which services and with which people, and given that she didn't arrive at this decision as a result of or informed by experiences of drugs or sexual abuse, shouldn't that woman be free to do so? If it could be shown that such a woman cannot exist, that inherently, prostitution has to be exploitative, then I'd agree with you that the Nordic model is where things should stop. But look at your example of the teens that wouldn't sell sex for less than $2 million. Note that it says "sex with someone they didn't want to" as the condition. If prostitution were the selling of sexual services, but you could choose to sell them to only those you do want to, it completely reframes the question. We have sex with people we do want to have sex with for free, and don't consider that abuse. Imagine you could get money for it too? I'd bet that many people of both sexes would be willing to prostitute themselves in that case. I don't understand how that is exploitative.

I myself am quite skeptical of identity politics, as I see it as inherently exclusive, not inclusive. I also think that all that "progressive" identity politics tends to do is to replace a rightwing, straight white male identity politics with multiple leftwing, other identity politics. Good progressive politics should combat identity politics, undo the straight white male identity politics already in place (like the laws aimed at disenfrancising certain voters of certain races, or racial gerrymandering, or not allowing gays to adopt, or allowing businesses to not serve LGBTQ people, or the failure to stop the rape of women in the armed forces), and not replace them with identity politics of opposing identities but merely creating an inclusive politics that is fair to everyone. I too agree that it is quite possible for even a majority of a group to act against their better interests. Case in point, white women in the 2016 election. They did vote majority for Trump (if only barely), and I maintain that the Democrat's rhetoric was self-defeating and took those women for granted, but those women were definitely voting against their best interest. But I don't think that prostitution as a concept is inherently against the interests of women. I think in reality it is, but we could change that reality to empower women and fundamentally change the industry so that instead of creating sex trafficking victims, it instead gives them the power to make money off their sexual choices if that's what they want.

I haven't ever read Vogue or Cosmopolitan, but I'm aware of what they are. I detest them. Every time I would see the cover of one of their issues at a grocery store checkout line, all I could think was how vapid they looked, and how toxic the underlying message to women was. I guess I'm aware that they tend to lean left politically, but I never got the impression that their endorsements were all that valued or sought after by any politicians I gave a damn about, and I maintain that I've never seen a Democrat propose policies that seemed designed to appeal to the beauty industry. I wouldn't consider them major allies to Democrats or the left.



https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/451916-marianne-williamson-campaign-uses-fundraising-email-to-help-rival-2020
Williamson's campaign is sending out fundraising emails to helping Mike Gravel make the July debates.