1,000+ Pages of NeoGAF: The Story of Wasted Lives and Hardcore Salt

[Stoney Mason]

Saying conservatives "get" branding isn't really saying anything at all.  We're the brand of the most powerful majority in the country!  Wow, someone get this man a job.

Yeah I'm sure they get all those people to vote against their own economic interests simply because they're the most powerful majority.

They vote against their interests because people in America tend to vote demographically. Therefore a large chunk of white christian people (who also happen to be the largest group of people) vote in a similar manner. It's not so easy as "rebranding" without fundamentally altering those demographic patterns. Running coke style commercial ain't gonna change that. Those are slow generational changes that take much time and depend on how population patterns and class patterns change.

You see slow generational changes. I see clever messaging and branding and playing to your demographics.

There is a reason there are red states and blue states and those states don't flip flop all over the map every election. It's not a flavor of the month thing. So I disagree.


There are occasionally much bigger and much more dramatic demographic shifts reflected in voting. But it generally takes a watershed event for that to happen or the eventual tipping point when things have already been moving in a specific direction.

[Shadow Mod]

You're going to see women who earn more privilege as wondering why feminism exists until it hits them square in the face just why they need it. It's not exactly a mystery why a middle class white woman would be less likely to identify as one today than when the movement started and she was barred from certain professions or colleges.

[Phoenix Dark]

arguing about the name of things is sucker shit 99% of the time.

[I'm a Puppy!]

Saying conservatives "get" branding isn't really saying anything at all.  We're the brand of the most powerful majority in the country!  Wow, someone get this man a job.

Yeah I'm sure they get all those people to vote against their own economic interests simply because they're the most powerful majority.

They vote against their interests because people in America tend to vote demographically. Therefore a large chunk of white christian people (who also happen to be the largest group of people) vote in a similar manner. It's not so easy as "rebranding" without fundamentally altering those demographic patterns. Running coke style commercial ain't gonna change that. Those are slow generational changes that take much time and depend on how population patterns and class patterns change.

You see slow generational changes. I see clever messaging and branding and playing to your demographics.

There is a reason there are red states and blue states and those states don't flip flop all over the map every election. It's not a flavor of the month thing. So I disagree.

See I'd argue that states with a largely agrarian past will be the most likely to agree with an agrarian branding.
It's the reason why conservatives haven't found a way to really penetrate large metropolitan areas, because they focus on a huge front of agrarian branding that doesn't hold up at all in metropolitan areas. As these areas move to more metropolitan ideals the brand no longer makes sense to them and people leave. Some call this a generational gap, I'd call it a gap in proper brand direction.

[I'm a Puppy!]

You're going to see women who earn more privilege as wondering why feminism exists until it hits them square in the face just why they need it. It's not exactly a mystery why a middle class white woman would be less likely to identify as one today than when the movement started and she was barred from certain professions or colleges.

This is what I mean about branding problem.
You can't have a brand that people only need when things get dire. Not like this. Yeah middle class white women feel they're not feminists because they don't need to be. But what if they never get to a place where they don't feel they need to be? What if they're just fine where they are? You can't just have them out there on the sidelines.  It's hard when so many are just OK where they are.  Feminism can't just be  "when you need it" kinda thing. But honestly, it's a hugely difficult problem. I'd love to have the money to do a whole market research on it and see what the data yields.

[Himu]

How is this feminism's fault exactly? As a philosophy, feminism is pretty perfect. It's always people who fuck things up.

[Rman]

You're going to see women who earn more privilege as wondering why feminism exists until it hits them square in the face just why they need it. It's not exactly a mystery why a middle class white woman would be less likely to identify as one today than when the movement started and she was barred from certain professions or colleges.

This is what I mean about branding problem.
You can't have a brand that people only need when things get dire. Not like this. Yeah middle class white women feel they're not feminists because they don't need to be. But what if they never get to a place where they don't feel they need to be? What if they're just fine where they are? You can't just have them out there on the sidelines.  It's hard when so many are just OK where they are.  Feminism can't just be  "when you need it" kinda thing.

Feminism has been largely successful because even women who don't self identify as feminist benefit from it. It's all inclusive in that regard.  It even benefits the loco radical brand of feminists-such they ones that say the men should only make up 10 percent of the population.  So even women that shy away from the term, benefit from the movement.  That's part of its success.

Rich people who control the airwaves, newspapers and other media don't really benefit from liberal policies in the short term, hence the problem with liberalism.

[Himu]

I'm not understanding Ronito's argument. Someone help?

[Squiddy]

How is this feminism's fault exactly? As a philosophy, feminism is pretty perfect. It's always people who fuck things up.

Nothing is perfect in a vacuum. Feminism would for example be terrible in a world where men were oppressed, due to widespread matriarchy.

[Shadow Mod]

You can't have a brand that people only need when things get dire. Not like this. Yeah middle class white women feel they're not feminists because they don't need to be. But what if they never get to a place where they don't feel they need to be? What if they're just fine where they are? You can't just have them out there on the sidelines.  It's hard when so many are just OK where they are.  Feminism can't just be  "when you need it" kinda thing.

Your mistake is thinking Feminism is a brand. It's not. It wont ever be. There are plenty who fight against that kind of mentality because it doesn't allow for malleability in the face of changing norms, new issues and the idea of community decisions vs corporate top down imposition. I don't think you really understand feminism movements at all the way you keep lumping everyone under the same umbrella. Fact of the matter is, the closest you can get is the ultimate goal but there are so many different things going on within feminism circles to keep talking about "feminism" in the manner you are is just straight ignorant at this point I'm sorry to say.

[Himu]

Feminism is a philosophy, not a brand or product you buy. I'm so...confused. Now if he's talking about feminist ORGANIZATIONS, which have branding and marketing, I can understand, but feminism in general? What?

[Momo]

The DA and ANC are masters at getting people to vote against their best interests, ANC especially so for lots of reasons. The ANC of my father and my youth were Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, good people. The ANC of today is President Rapist McRape, Julius Malema and these fucks absolutely think their voters are idiots, it helps that they dont seem too interested in raising the level of education amongst their voters, as I recall there was a study showing a strong correlation between higher education and votes away from the ANC. Such a dishonest party these days, it's sad.

[I'm a Puppy!]

The thing is, I think that feminist isn't necesssarily something you "are" you shouldn't have to say "I believe people are equal."
The fact saying such is contraversial in some spheres is problematic.
As someone who deals with marketing quite a bit I'm interested in what it would take to fix this.
But then what do I know?

[Himu]

The thing is, I think that feminist isn't necesssarily something you "are" you shouldn't have to say "I believe people are equal."
The fact saying such is contraversial in some spheres is problematic.
As someone who deals with marketing quite a bit I'm interested in what it would take to fix this.
But then what do I know?

Feminism is less "I believe people are equal" and more "I believe there should be more equality between genders". There's no reason a woman should be talked down to just because she's a woman and there's no reason a man should have the fear to openly express his emotions just because he's a man. As such, both things are not within our current reality, thus the need for feminism, because things AREN'T equal. The goal of feminism is not to show what things are, that's something more along humanist philosophical grounds. The goal of feminism is to show how things SHOULD BE and working towards that.

[Shadow Mod]

The thing is, I think that feminist isn't necesssarily something you "are" you shouldn't have to say "I believe people are equal."
The fact saying such is contraversial in some spheres is problematic.
As someone who deals with marketing quite a bit I'm interested in what it would take to fix this.
But then what do I know?

It's more complicated than branding, here's why. You'll have women basically distancing themselves from the label but fighting for or believing in what are basically feminist ideals anyway. Feminism of today is more about choices than slogans. Before it was easy to rally behind each other because it was one thing: to vote, to work, to get BC. That's pretty much out of the way so you get more individualized problems for each and every woman out there. The woman next to me on the bus might have much different burdens to shoulder than me, so coming together about our issues as women is less rally behind this piece of legislation and more airing grievances with every day life or job specific problems. A lot of newer feminism is actually women of various professions coming together to hash out industry issues, They're not going to brand the meeting as Feminist but you will see a lot of women only business caucuses and that kind of thing. Feminism isn't broken, it's not a failed branding, a lot of it is just under the radar and people crying on the internet aren't really going to be aware of all the work done on the local, state, national and industrial levels that is going on right now.

[I'm a Puppy!]

The thing is, I think that feminist isn't necesssarily something you "are" you shouldn't have to say "I believe people are equal."
The fact saying such is contraversial in some spheres is problematic.
As someone who deals with marketing quite a bit I'm interested in what it would take to fix this.
But then what do I know?

Feminism is less "I believe people are equal" and more "I believe there should be more equality between genders". There's no reason a woman should be talked down to just because she's a woman and there's no reason a man should have the fear to openly express his emotions just because he's a man. As such, both things are not within our current reality, thus the need for feminism, because things AREN'T equal. The goal of feminism is not to show what things are, that's something more along humanist philosophical grounds. The goal of feminism is to show how things SHOULD BE and working towards that.

Right, but the fact that saying the word "feminism" raises so many haunches is problematic. One that shouldn't be.  yet it is.

[I'm a Puppy!]

The thing is, I think that feminist isn't necesssarily something you "are" you shouldn't have to say "I believe people are equal."
The fact saying such is contraversial in some spheres is problematic.
As someone who deals with marketing quite a bit I'm interested in what it would take to fix this.
But then what do I know?

It's more complicated than branding, here's why. You'll have women basically distancing themselves from the label but fighting for or believing in what are basically feminist ideals anyway. Feminism of today is more about choices than slogans. Before it was easy to rally behind each other because it was one thing: to vote, to work, to get BC. That's pretty much out of the way so you get more individualized problems for each and every woman out there. The woman next to me on the bus might have much different burdens to shoulder than me, so coming together about our issues as women is less rally behind this piece of legislation and more airing grievances with every day life or job specific problems. A lot of newer feminism is actually women of various professions coming together to hash out industry issues, They're not going to brand the meeting as Feminist but you will see a lot of women only business caucuses and that kind of thing. Feminism isn't broken, it's not a failed branding, a lot of it is just under the radar and people crying on the internet aren't really going to be aware of all the work done on the local, state, national and industrial levels that is going on right now.

I get this, but at the same time there BIG fights that feminism still has to fight, fights that touch nearly every woman.

[Shadow Mod]

Right, but the fact that saying the word "feminism" raises so many haunches is problematic. One that shouldn't be.  yet it is.

And you want to keep saying "feminism" has a branding problem when it's basically just another conservative vilification tactic that everyone is buying into, hence my post about "liberal."

Honestly when you say "feminism" has a branding problem too, you're just buying into the same ignorant shit I'm sorry. Its problem is people being willfully ignorant of what its about and repeating over and over it has problems.

[I'm a Puppy!]

Right, but the fact that saying the word "feminism" raises so many haunches is problematic. One that shouldn't be.  yet it is.

And you want to keep saying "feminism" has a branding problem when it's basically just another conservative vilification tactic that everyone is buying into, hence my post about "liberal."

Right and just like with liberal I think people shouldn't let it become an epithet.

[Stoney Mason]

As a thought experiment think about the states with highest percentage of republican voters. Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Idaho, West Virigina. 


Is "branding" the commonality here or is it demographics? What sort of branding is going to work to convince these people of the inherent value of feminism, or other liberal causes?

Note this isn't a value judgment. You could do the same with certain issues with democratic states.

There is a percentage of people who respond to "branding" although I wouldn't use that term as it sort of nebulous. But its not the largest percentage.

[I'm a Puppy!]

Right, but the fact that saying the word "feminism" raises so many haunches is problematic. One that shouldn't be.  yet it is.

And you want to keep saying "feminism" has a branding problem when it's basically just another conservative vilification tactic that everyone is buying into, hence my post about "liberal."

Honestly when you say "feminism" has a branding problem too, you're just buying into the same ignorant shit I'm sorry. Its problem is people being willfully ignorant of what its about and repeating over and over it has problems.

Ok then, let's not do anything about it then.

[Shadow Mod]

Right and just like with liberal I think people shouldn't let it become an epithet.

I guess my disconnect with you is that it's going to be a pejorative to a part of the population, that's a given but I think you're buying into it on some level yourself with your persistence in saying "well feminism does have a branding problem." What's the problem outside of people with agendas against feminism basically shaping the media because they're the ones with the money and influence?

[Momo]

It's kinda difficult to get men into feminism because there isnt really anything in it for most. Like every guy I know is apathetic towards it due to this.

[Stoney Mason]

Right, but the fact that saying the word "feminism" raises so many haunches is problematic. One that shouldn't be.  yet it is.

And you want to keep saying "feminism" has a branding problem when it's basically just another conservative vilification tactic that everyone is buying into, hence my post about "liberal."

Honestly when you say "feminism" has a branding problem too, you're just buying into the same ignorant shit I'm sorry. Its problem is people being willfully ignorant of what its about and repeating over and over it has problems.

Ok then, let's not do anything about it then.

Then how do we fix it? Give me concrete examples of how to "fix" feminism for the people who currently are against it?

[I'm a Puppy!]

Right and just like with liberal I think people shouldn't let it become an epithet.

I guess my disconnect with you is that it's going to be a pejorative to a part of the population, that's a given but I think you're buying into it on some level yourself with your persistence in saying "well feminism does have a branding problem." What's the problem outside of people with agendas against feminism basically shaping the media because they're the ones with the money and influence?

I'm saying it doesn't have to be a perjorative. Sometimes (most times) branding issues aren't issues with the brand actually. They're issues with letting others own the conversation about it. People assume that when I say "feminism has a branding problem" that the problem is with feminism. What I'm saying it needs is more messaging from the central organizations as to what it is.  Study after study show that when people are described what feminism is then most people agree with it. I say get the national women's rights orgs to do a blanket campaign about what they believe in. Follow that up with a nurture campaign to instill it deeper and let it foster out. They do this to an extent, but it needs to be pervasive.

[Himu]

It's kinda difficult to get men into feminism because there isnt really anything in it for most. Like every guy I know is apathetic towards it due to this.

Eh? Birth control doesn't affect men? Vilification of women's sexuality doesn't affect men? How you raise your family, your daughters, and living in a world where your daughters are seen as less than because they're girls? Your future wife's presumed lower pay check?

Um.

[Stoney Mason]

It's kinda difficult to get men into feminism because there isnt really anything in it for most. Like every guy I know is apathetic towards it due to this.

Eh? Birth control doesn't affect men? Vilification of women's sexuality doesn't affect men? Feminism doesn't affect how you raise your family, your daughters, and living in a world where their daughters are seen as less than because they're girls? Feminism doesn't affect your future wife's presumed pay check?

Sounds like most guys are just stupid.

What is he is more saying is that people are inherently selfish and that unless they see a direct benefit to supporting a position then they don't really care. There is some truth to that. People inherently vote/care about issues that impact them. So just based on that its harder to make men understand why feminism is important. In the same way that it is sometimes difficult to make a majority group understand why minority rights are important. It's easy to live in the bubble and be self interested. That is more the norm I would argue.

This isn't even taking into account those who are actively hostile to those concepts who see society only in the idea of win or lose so if somebody else is winning then I must be losing.

[I'm a Puppy!]

It's kinda difficult to get men into feminism because there isnt really anything in it for most. Like every guy I know is apathetic towards it due to this.

Eh? Birth control doesn't affect men? Vilification of women's sexuality doesn't affect men? Feminism doesn't affect how you raise your family, your daughters, and living in a world where their daughters are seen as less than because they're girls? Feminism doesn't affect your future wife's presumed pay check?

Sounds like most guys are just stupid.

What is he is more saying is that people are inherently selfish and that unless they see a direct benefit to supporting a position then they don't really care. There is some truth to that. People inherently vote/care about issues that impact them. So just based on that inherently its harder to make men understand why feminism is important. In the same way that it is sometimes difficult to make a majority group understand why minority rights are important. It's easy to live in the bubble and be self interested. That is more the norm I would argue.

Which again is what Emma Watson is really onto something.

[Shadow Mod]

The orgs are doing things like that? Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc. Again this is more I dont see it or its too behind the scenes for me therefore theyre not trying. At this juncture a lot of civil rights/nonprofit work is not going to be front and center for people out of the loop and before you say "it should", Im going to have to remind you these orgs are not going to spend money and energy on corporate rebranding while women are being denied this or that.

[Momo]

It's kinda difficult to get men into feminism because there isnt really anything in it for most. Like every guy I know is apathetic towards it due to this.

Eh? Birth control doesn't affect men? Vilification of women's sexuality doesn't affect men? How you raise your family, your daughters, and living in a world where your daughters are seen as less than because they're girls? Your future wife's presumed lower pay check?

Um.

I'm referring to the perception

[Momo]

What Stoney said.

[I'm a Puppy!]

The orgs are doing things like that? Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc. Again this is more I dont see it or its too behind the scenes for me therefore theyre not trying. At this juncture a lot of civil rights/nonprofit work is not going to be front and center for people out of the loop and before you say "it should", Im going to have to remind you these orgs are not going to spend money and energy on corporate rebranding while women are being denied this or that.

But there are people that DO have money.

Think back to that whole "Don't call me bossy thing."
To me I get what they were trying to do.
But if they really wanted to have a bigger impact I'd say take that star power, take the mountain of cash, and do a basic every woman "This is what feminism is and why I need it." (more than the silly people holding up the white papers cause those will just get photoshopped). That's the one thing that has time and again proven successful to getting people to understand.

[Shadow Mod]

Mountain of cash?

Bro do you know anything about nonprofits?

[I'm a Puppy!]

Mountain of cash?

Bro do you know anything about nonprofits?

Do you know anything about who was behind the "don't call me bossy" campaign?

and yes, I've consulted with over a dozen non-profits on such things as *gasp* branding. Just recently I helped a co-op of ranchers. It was really cool to help them. But that's another story.

[Himu]

It's kinda difficult to get men into feminism because there isnt really anything in it for most. Like every guy I know is apathetic towards it due to this.

Eh? Birth control doesn't affect men? Vilification of women's sexuality doesn't affect men? How you raise your family, your daughters, and living in a world where your daughters are seen as less than because they're girls? Your future wife's presumed lower pay check?

Um.

I'm referring to the perception

It's hard to take the perception argument seriously, but then I'm talking about from an American perspective. Just the other month, the supreme court ruled that a corporation may decide to not offer women's birth control on their health care if they don't want to. Now, if you're a man, and you've got a lady you're fucking on a daily basis - or even if you don't - I fail to see how any guy with a decent head on his shoulders fails to read between the lines and understand how such a move would affect him as well.

The same is true for the abortion debate. If the woman can't have an abortion this clearly impacts the man in the relationship as well. What if it's from a life threatening situation? You'll lose a partner. What if the baby has down syndrome? What if it was an accident and you guys just aren't prepared - mentally and fiscally - for a baby? This only affects the woman? The woman is the only person raising the child?

It's hard for me to take the "well it doesn't affect me" argument seriously, because anyone with a modicum of sense would realize that all of humanity is connected and relies upon each other even if we don't think we do. Taking away women's right to birth control affects, well, pretty much everyone. To me this is obvious.

[Momo]

I'm not saying it makes sense or that it's right, or it's something to take seriously. I'm saying most men in my experience do not think feminism will directly benefit them so they tend to be apathetic

[Himu]

Then we have to work to do on education.

[Pickles the Firecat]

The orgs are doing things like that? Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc. Again this is more I dont see it or its too behind the scenes for me therefore theyre not trying. At this juncture a lot of civil rights/nonprofit work is not going to be front and center for people out of the loop and before you say "it should", Im going to have to remind you these orgs are not going to spend money and energy on corporate rebranding while women are being denied this or that.

Adding to this, the de-legitimization of the word "liberal" was done with the specific intent of forcing left leaning activists off message and into a branding fight. The longer a cause spends arguing over its basic definition the less time it can spend promoting its agenda. So when "liberals" are more concerned with public perception of the word "liberal" than the increasing wealth gap, for instance, they're forced into more moderate positions on individual tax policy. Because that's the only way to fix the "perception issue" that liberals have: moving further to the right. Ironically, by offering up moderate positions instead of pushing further to the left and advocating more forcefully for inherently liberal positions, we on the left fucked ourselves. Our politicians and public voices are so afraid of being branded "leftist liberals" in some branding war that they fail to forcefully argue liberal philosophies and politics. Which means, again, we move further to the right as a general body. The way you solve the problem isn't withering in the heat. It's by countering arguments with your own solutions and hammering public outreach. Why is California so liberal? Because we have a fucking amazing row of liberal outreach organizations in state. Nobody here is afraid of the word liberal.

If the entire philosophy of feminism is forced into a branding war any and all progress the individuals and organizations that believe in it have made will grind to a halt. Straight up.

[Momo]

Then we have to work to do on education.

Agreed.


From my perspective there is a perception problem that needs fixing. I'm not even sure how the conversation will even start when the intended learners are apathetic towards your message to start with. It's kinda like when church people show up at your door, you nod your head and kinda shoo them along, never taking a word in at all. Thats the attitudes that will have to be dealt with and overcome if these people are to be brought into the fold.

[Shadow Mod]

Ronito for someone in marketing you should understand the energy, financial burden and resources major branding or campaigns take on even big companies and you want groups already dependent on donations since they dont deliver a product to go about this instead of lobbying, community outreach, etc? I just dont see the point.

[I'm a Puppy!]

Ronito for someone in marketing you should understand the energy, financial burden and resources major branding or campaigns take on even big companies and you want groups already dependent on donations since they dont deliver a product to go about this instead of lobbying, community outreach, etc? I just dont see the point.

Maybe it doesn't have to be them? Take a look at this Co-op I worked with.
It's a pet project of a big time CEO who in essence takes people's volunteered time (like mine) to help these ranchers put food on their table.
Almost their entire marketing is done pro-bono with some generous benefactors supplying the airtime and such.
Something like that could be used to great effect. I don't claim to have all the answers here. 

[etiolate]

feminism is already in a big ole branding war brehs

There hasn't been one, singular form of feminism for awhile (if ever). It was a vague term with ties to various movements.. until very recently. The idea of branding feminism as this whole encompassing ideology for "Boys and Girls!" is just more brand wars that defeat any good purpose.

[Kara]

Feminism has a branding problem like "liberal" does.

In all fairness, feminism wasn't spread around the world from one end of a gun (or to be more accurate these days, a JDAM) like liberalism was.

[Pickles the Firecat]

Ronito for someone in marketing you should understand the energy, financial burden and resources major branding or campaigns take on even big companies and you want groups already dependent on donations since they dont deliver a product to go about this instead of lobbying, community outreach, etc? I just dont see the point.

Maybe it doesn't have to be them? Take a look at this Co-op I worked with.
It's a pet project of a big time CEO who in essence takes people's volunteered time (like mine) to help these ranchers put food on their table.
Almost their entire marketing is done pro-bono with some generous benefactors supplying the airtime and such.
Something like that could be used to great effect. I don't claim to have all the answers here.

You're overestimating the access to money we have. I can spend four months chasing donors and raising funds only to come away with a fraction of what would be necessary for a properly funded fight like that. And if I did come up with the money it would almost always be better off spent on ballot initiatives, lobbying, and public outreach (signatures and list building in particular). Those are immediate actions that can help X or Y cause immensely overnight. A longterm branding war (within a philosophy without general consensus to begin with) would take long term money and planning before even seeing a dent. How do I keep donors sending checks if they can't see results on the ground? If an organization can find the money and time for that more power to them (and plz send me their info). But I would still say it'd be better spent locking up votes and voices on a college campus and cementing feminism as it stands as worthwhile to the public.

Again, the point of this on THE OTHER side is to keep us throwing money and time into a fight that will inevitably push us to the right. Why actively pursue their agenda for them?

[Himu]

kara tell us how you came to become a communist please

[Kara]

Communists talking about other ideologies being spread at the end of a gun (Image removed from quote.)

The RSDLP stood in elections, which is more than you can say about Parisian militias and Napoleon.

[I'm a Puppy!]

Ronito for someone in marketing you should understand the energy, financial burden and resources major branding or campaigns take on even big companies and you want groups already dependent on donations since they dont deliver a product to go about this instead of lobbying, community outreach, etc? I just dont see the point.

Maybe it doesn't have to be them? Take a look at this Co-op I worked with.
It's a pet project of a big time CEO who in essence takes people's volunteered time (like mine) to help these ranchers put food on their table.
Almost their entire marketing is done pro-bono with some generous benefactors supplying the airtime and such.
Something like that could be used to great effect. I don't claim to have all the answers here.

You're overestimating the access to money we have. I can spend four months chasing donors and raising funds only to come away with a fraction of what would be necessary for a properly funded fight like that. And if I did come up with the money it would almost always be better off spent on ballot initiatives, lobbying, and public outreach (signatures and list building in particular). Those are immediate actions that can help X or Y cause immensely overnight. A longterm branding war (within a philosophy without general consensus to begin with) would take long term money and planning before even seeing a dent. How do I keep donors sending checks if they can't see results on the ground? If an organization can find the money and time for that more power to them (and plz send me their info). But I would still say it'd be better spent locking up votes and voices on a college campus and cementing feminism as it stands as worthwhile to the public.

Again, the point of this on THE OTHER side is to keep us throwing money and time into a fight that will inevitably push us to the right. Why actively pursue their agenda for them?

Eh, maybe you're right. I'm not politician/activist.
I just know how marketing works.

[Pickles the Firecat]

tbh a lot of activists would tell you my approach is short sighted and fails to leverage the increasingly large network of liberals massive organizations like OFA have built over the past decade. That you can push an initiative/campaign through them and have it disseminate virally without feet on the pavement, so resources SHOULD be spent primarily on marketing unless you are organizing for a vote. So it can swing either way.

[headwalk]

it's about this point i usually post the isms clip from ferris bueller.

[Momo]

omg, why is earth final conflict so bad

[I'm a Puppy!]

Nevermind. I was wrong. It's hopeless.

[Kara]

kara tell us how you came to become a communist please

The short answer: I do not believe people can be free so long as they are compelled engage in alienating work to receive the material necessities of life. To my knowledge no philosophy other than M-L specifically makes targeting this situation a part of its program. (I find the fetishization of public ownership while ignoring this long-term goal you see in other socialist lines a profound case of missing the point.)

spoiler (click to show/hide)

There are thinkers on a wide spectrum that advocate for guaranteed minimum income which would in all likelihood accomplish this, even Hayek IIRC, yet for some strange reason it is not a universal component of social welfare.

It's almost like there's a economic class with a monopoly on power that doesn't want to surrender its reserve army of labor.

[close]

The long answer: http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=34032.msg1894582#msg1894582

[I'm a Puppy!]

Said the accountant/tax law guy

[Steve Contra]

kara tell us how you came to become a communist please

The short answer: I do not believe people can be free so long as they are compelled engage in alienating work to receive the material necessities of life. To my knowledge no philosophy other than M-L specifically makes targeting this situation a part of its program. (I find the fetishization of public ownership while ignoring this long-term goal you see in other socialist lines a profound case of missing the point.)

spoiler (click to show/hide)

There are thinkers on a wide spectrum that advocate for guaranteed minimum income which would in all likelihood accomplish this, even Hayek IIRC, yet for some strange reason it is not a universal component of social welfare.

It's almost like there's a economic class with a monopoly on power that doesn't want to surrender its reserve army of labor.

[close]

The long answer: http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=34032.msg1894582#msg1894582

Shorter answer

spoiler (click to show/hide)

spoiler (click to show/hide)

spoiler (click to show/hide)

but seriously

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[close]

[close]

[close]

[Kara]

Said the accountant/tax law guy

On the off chance you actually read the long answer which described how my work made me this way, for reasons I care not to discuss I cannot leave my field for the foreseeable future.

[Himu]

Oh, I remember reading that post.

how do you think communism will help, though?

[El Babua]

Kara is a living embodiment of #thedualities

[benjipwns]

34 minutes, yeah this dude sucks.

The fucking costume shit kills these videos for me. Oh, and the put on outrage.

NEVER 4GET

[Broseidon]

Judeo-Bolshevik menace

[benjipwns]

Adding to this, the de-legitimization of the word "liberal" was done with the specific intent of forcing left leaning activists off message and into a branding fight. The longer a cause spends arguing over its basic definition the less time it can spend promoting its agenda. So when "liberals" are more concerned with public perception of the word "liberal" than the increasing wealth gap, for instance, they're forced into more moderate positions on individual tax policy. Because that's the only way to fix the "perception issue" that liberals have: moving further to the right. Ironically, by offering up moderate positions instead of pushing further to the left and advocating more forcefully for inherently liberal positions, we on the left fucked ourselves. Our politicians and public voices are so afraid of being branded "leftist liberals" in some branding war that they fail to forcefully argue liberal philosophies and politics. Which means, again, we move further to the right as a general body. The way you solve the problem isn't withering in the heat. It's by countering arguments with your own solutions and hammering public outreach. Why is California so liberal? Because we have a fucking amazing row of liberal outreach organizations in state. Nobody here is afraid of the word liberal.

How about you just give the word liberal back, we can draw up some terms to give libertarian back to the openly socialist, and you guys can just stick with progressive.

We can work out the draft picks later.