Biden Announces Reelection Campaign

[Kaelik]

Why call me out? I have never NOT been pro-union.

I love Unions, I just deliberately undermine them whenever possible is the clarion call of the centrist. Joe Biden also claims to love unions when he's not strike breaking them.

[MGuy]

No dead DM I do not think you are specifically anti union or whatever. I think that you and people like you see a lot more value in the minimal support those in high positions give to those without and that it weighs heavier on your desire to support or not support certain things which is why I think that the shift toward more open support for labor is a sign that the cynical calculation being made at the top is a sign of growing labor support in this country. So when Biden says he's going to give people 2k when elected and gives them 1.4k instead whether or not that's a good thing that he did will depend more on what they tell you than if someone thought about the implications of that move.

[Sashi]

The union gave Biden credit. It's in the article.

Even if the union that credited Biden was the larger railworker's union that wouldn't matter. Your own post shows why it doesn't matter:

Playing politics means dealing with people who most of time do not care about you or your cause, and at worse against actors who are enemies. Imagining that there's some kind of more meaningful relationship between one set of actors attempting to act in their perceived best interest vs another group acting in their perceived best interest is childish.

That's the entire point! You're pretending that "the union praised Biden" is evidence that the union approves of what Biden did, but that's assuming the Unions have some kind of non-political relationship with Biden and can be completely honest. Using the union's praise of Biden as evidence that Biden did something good for the unions when the unions are acting under political duress after Biden literally broke their strike and took away their autonomy is, well, I mean you called it childish.

The thing you posted about the union not wanting to give up their right to strike does not counter the fact that they got concessions, ones the union agreed to that are talked about in the article I posted, and I don't know why you think that it does.
...
It could have been any Democrat. The important bit is that it's a sign that the cynical calculation they made to publicly support the workers is itself a good thing for workers.

Because Biden didn't support the rail workers! He undermined the rail workers and removed their autonomy (right to strike) then later threw them a bone. That's not a "concession" that's "largess". Actual support of the workers would have been to support their autonomy and right to strike, not break their strike and give them a candy bar to make up for it.

So that's a dead end thing you're presenting here and I encourage you to reread the post where I told you I don't know why you think an article about event A is a contradiction to event B occurring. You clearly understand these are two separate events given the intimate partner dynamic you keep bringing up. All that means is you don't care that B happened because of A and that's fine but didn't contradict a thing I've said.

Constantly bouncing between controlling someone and giving them gifts is literally an abuse cycle! It's not that event A contradicts event B, it's that the context of event A alters the meaning of event B. If your partner buys you an expensive gift that's nice! If they cheat on you and buy you an expensive gift that's not so nice. If they constantly cheat on you and buy you expensive gifts to "make up" for it that's definitely abuse!

That's before pointing out that you still haven't engaged with the point I made about how it's a good sign that politicians show even faux support for unions.

Everything has been an engagement with that. It's like saying we have to admit that an ex-boyfriend showing up at a woman's workplace with an edible arrangement is nice. No we don't have to admit that, the cycle of abuse means those strawberries are a threat and you're like the judge saying "Why do you want a restraining order after you said 'thank you' for the gift?"
Marginalized groups are literally in an abusive relationship with the Democratic party, it's not actually inconsistent to criticize politicians giving lip service to Union organizing as being the "love bombing" part of an abuse cycle.

[MGuy]

I do think it's childish that in the game of politics where everyone is acting in their own interest that you can assume any act of any actor that isn't in power isn't coming under duress. So pointing out that anyone who ever gives praise to the government because the government in the past has done something bad is indeed a childish way to understand politics.

For example: say if prisoners who got jailed for non violent drug offenses get released because the current government has relaxed laws pertaining to those drug offenses and the local government entities have cynically or otherwise decided that it is good for PR to release them. I think that is a good thing that happened even if I think that it's fucked up that those laws got enacted in the first place especially since the alternative is nothing.

The government is ever present and all reaching in everyone's lives for better or worse. It is constantly doing bad shit that I don't like. Want and every thing they do that isn't bad that gets praise or even that doesn't is coming with the background radiation of 100000000000 atrocities that are always being done. So likening that, in any way, to an interpersonal relationship is ridiculous.

Bringing it back to this rail strike (and I swear to God this is the last time I'm engaging with this dead end) it is completely in the realm of politics that the administration, working behind the scenes to pressure any kind of concession is a good thing because to not do so is also a completely likely thing that could've happened given that Biden indeed did break the strike. So yes, I believe it is a good thing that they did so and honestly the political benefits of doing so were muted anyway because that action wasn't heavily advertised by the Biden administration or the news media. The only reason we're even talking about it is because within the media diet I consume it got brought up as part of an ongoing effort. One that isn't being touted as a big win or exhibition by the Administration.

Did Biden hamper the strike? Yes.
Is that a bad thing to do? Yes, in all cases it is.
Does that mean that then this aid is coming after a harmful action? Yes.

The past you're missing is that this is politics. I am not saying and haven't said that Biden is himself good but that the calculation he made meant that his admin did something for them. Regardless of if you think that the thanks came under duress (and all thanks to a greater entity is going to be like that), this is the US government. It's also a move that they didn't need to make and they haven't leveraged into a greater narrative even now when visiting the picket lines is the big move he recently made.

There is a meme in right-wing circles about how people on my side of the spectrum have in some way paternalized the role of government in our lives. I do not believe I'm in a situation where the government is a parent, lover, or in any kind of personal relationship with me or any other lesser entity. The relationship I, and unions, have with the government is one of an authority and a political entity (Unions) or citizen (me). This isn't a relationship that you can just break off like some kind of spat with the husband. I am always at both the mercy of the government and public opinion. As a marginalized person I understand that when I do my political advocacy I'm not dealing with anyone related to me. I'm trying to convince people who aren't me, who do not have my issues, do not share my concerns, and do but have the same experience as I do. That's it.

I really don't understand what you or PS actually think the relationship between yourselves and the government/political parties, actually is at this point which is why I don't see these allusions to some kind of personal relationship as relevant.

What I'm looking at then isn't for Biden to be 'good' but I am abstracting what the meaning of the calculations he and his office are pointing toward. So if he calculated they doing a thing that is good, as in helpful to me or any of the causes I believe in, I am seeing that as a sign that my side is growing in prominence.

The thing PS has said over and over and now you're saying is that Biden didn't do a good thing because he also did a bad thing.

So let me ask you a question. Is there a difference to you between Biden shitting on unions and doing nothing for them at all and him at least publicly and in minor ways doing things for them?

If there is any difference between these two for you and the latter is a good thing (and not I remind that Biden is himself good and hasn't done bad things) to you then we have nothing to argue about and this has been yet another time when minute differences in perspective has spawned an entirely useless conversation.

If, instead there is no difference between these two actions, or worse you think the former is better than the latter then we just fundamentally disagree on

[PseudoStupidity]

Sashi pretty much nailed everything I'd been trying to convey, but Mguy still does not get it!


Mguy, this whole thing started when you said Biden's symbolic gestures are important and I disagreed and said he was a big dumb strike-breaking meanie. I think this is simply a disagreement that won't be resolved, because you think Biden saying things that his actions contradict means something and I think Biden saying things that his actions contradict does not mean something.

It is better that Biden show up to a strike than not show up to a strike, but it's better in the sense that promising to do good things is better than promising to do bad things. It's a nice gesture, totally and utterly unimportant to the material conditions of the workers, but still nice. You can think this is a signal of increasing labor power, but I think this is a signal of the Democrats doing the same thing they have always done and that Biden is aware there's an election coming up. It was a smart campaign move and nothing more, at least not until he does something that materially supports organized labor power in this country. But hey, maybe he will actually stand up for labor this time. After all, this is Honest Joe Biden. The man who announced he would be the most pro-union president in history and then broke what would have been a hugely impactful strike.

But to answer your question of "Is there a difference to you between Biden shitting on unions and doing nothing for them at all and him at least publicly and in minor ways doing things for them?"...

First, this is a bit misleading given your phrasing. It should be rephrased as "Is there a difference to you between Biden shitting on unions and doing nothing for them at all and him shitting on unions and at least publicly and in minor ways doing things for them?" to more accurately represent what Biden did. I'm going to answer the rephrased version of your question because it's important to note Biden already shit on unions via strikebreaking.

There is a minor material difference between just breaking strikes vs breaking strikes and then helping secure some sick days. The latter is better, but it is still an abusive relationship and Biden is the enemy of labor in both these cases. I don't understand why this is a sticking point for you. "Biden literally did anything at all that wasn't terrible and YOU MUST ADMIT IT!" is a very strange thing to focus on. Biden broke a strike, the worst fucking thing a president can do to oppose labor as it takes away labor's ability to negotiate. Any actions after Biden broke the strike are meant to convince people like Deaddm and apparently you that Biden is pro-labor in spite of him taking direct action against labor to support capital.

You can cast bones and read tea leaves as much as you want and say Biden walking on a picket line means something, but I can look at the things he does that actually affect people's lives and say "Biden sucks and it's weird that you think him doing a symbolic gesture means shit."

[deaddmwalking]

No dead DM I do not think you are specifically anti union or whatever.

Then I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't name-check me as a stand-in for whatever bugaboo you're on about. I don't really want to be involved in the discussion, but I also don't want to let slide a mischaracterization about my political beliefs. It's not in your interest to let the thread get derailed by discussing deadDMwalking's political positions, and it's definitely not in my interest to participate in a conversation I otherwise didn't feel a compelling need to comment on.

[Sashi]

PS did an excellent job addressing the specific "Is Biden showing up to the strike better than a poke in the eye?" question.

I do think it's childish that in the game of politics where everyone is acting in their own interest that you can assume any act of any actor that isn't in power is acting under duress.

That's why I said "political duress". I don't think Biden has a literal gun to the Union's head or has called a union leader up to say "praise me for this or I will hurt you more" but I do think the Unions understand that they have to clap for and praise Biden whenever he throws them a crumb instead of saying "we are insulted by your crumbs, come back to us when you're ready to provide real material support".

The government is ever present and all reaching in everyone's lives for better or worse. It is constantly doing bad shit that I don't like. Want and every thing they do that isn't bad that gets praise or even that doesn't is coming with the background radiation of 100000000000 atrocities that are always being done. So likening that, in any way, to an interpersonal relationship is ridiculous.

The government being ever-present in your life means you have a personal relationship with it! The abuse examples we are providing are intimate partner abuse, but that's called an analogy. I had an abusive relationship with my old employer where they practiced wage theft and also had a bunch of anti union posters on the walls of the break room. "We're going to steal $3/day from you which isn't enough for a labor lawyer's time and also make up a bullshit reason to fire you if we hear you trying to start a class action suit with your coworkers" is an abusive policy that directly impacted my life and was created by people who have no idea who I am. That's a less direct threat and more impersonal relationship than shouting "If you want to live under my roof you will abide by my rules!" at a twelve year old, but it's still abusive.

There is a meme in right-wing circles about how people on my side of the spectrum have in some way paternalized the role of government in our lives. I do not believe I'm in a situation where the government is a parent, lover, or in any kind of personal relationship with me or any other lesser entity. The relationship I, and unions, have with the government is one of an authority and a political entity (Unions) or citizen (me). This isn't a relationship that you can just break off like some kind of spat with the husband. I am always at both the mercy of the government and public opinion. As a marginalized person I understand that when I do my political advocacy I'm not dealing with anyone related to me. I'm trying to convince people who aren't me, who do not have my issues, do not share my concerns, and do but have the same experience as I do. That's it.

Do you actually think that a "paternal" role actually means a father/child dynamic where the government sits you on its knee and tells you its disappointed in you? That's not paternalism, it's "fatherly" like when Jimmy Carter told the country to turn down their thermostats and put on a sweater. Actual paternalism is making choices for other people like how a parent decides what clothes and food a toddler wears and eats. Paternalism is literally baked into the role of government: deciding what people can import/export from the country, speed limits on roads, age limits on cigarettes/alcohol, maximum interest rates on loans. As you said, the government is ever-present and far-reaching into your life, which means it's going to constantly be making decisions for you no matter what. Republicans call fuel surcharges and bus routes "paternalism" because they push people to use buses as if oil subsidies and zoning laws don't push people to use cars. Republicans don't even usually accuse Democrats of wanting a paternalist government, but a maternal government as if OSHA regulations are the government wiping your ass for you.

Bringing it back to this rail strike (and I swear to God this is the last time I'm engaging with this dead end)

The rail strike is not a dead end because it's a perfect example of an actual paternalistic relationship between people and the government that comes from strike breaking. The Unions were threatening to strike as part of negotiations and Biden told them to sit down, shut up, and do as they're told. The fact that Biden gave them something they were asking for is barely relevant to the more important analysis which is that Biden removed their ability to negotiate for themselves. It's basically a Darth Vader situation: Biden altered the deal, pray he does not alter it further.

Your entire argument feels like those weird climate-denying arguments where we "have to admit" that it still gets cold in the winter, as if a January blizzard is evidence that we're entering a new ice age and not part of a short-term cycle overlaid on a much longer-term and trend. I'm going to go further than PS in saying that Biden visiting the picket line isn't even a good thing because it probably defines the upper limit on how much support Biden is willing to give unions before the inevitable downturn. It's better for him to visit the picket line than to further undermine the unions, but it's also part of the historic trend in which Democrats actively undermine Unions and then pay them lip service around election time as if to remind them that their choice is to be undermined by Democrats or completely destroyed by Republicans.

[MGuy]

Biden has decided to show up at the picket line for auto workers. While I don't believe this means much to the effort overall I think it's a good sign that the office believes it is good to actually visibly side with workers. From what I understand the act of even showing up for this kind of thing is historic. With all the strikes starting up I hope that this is yet another good sign for the growth of labor power in this country.

This is what I actually said. Let me point out that I don't believe it's important to the effort overall but that it's a good sign of the position of labor. This is a hopeful assessment of the growing pro union consensus in this country. Fast forward to now and PS has shifted what I said to a more vague: "it's important" and highlighting how they are sure it didn't itself represent a material change for labor. The first is misleading and the latter isn't something I've claimed that move did.

Therefore PS's measure of this statement is at best misreading and continuing to misunderstand how I interpret that act and at worse a continued deliberate act to shift my original statement from what it was so they can replace it with a different argument that they actually want to have about an unrelated subject. Now I have reason to believe it might be the latter given that they've demonstrated in their last post that the government can do good things as well as bad and that those good things would be good and not tantamount to the act of an abusive partner in a personal relationship. At least I won't have to repeat that bit now. Whether intentional than not I think the fact that a strawman had to be constructed out of a tangent that they pushed is damning enough on its own. I just don't see the point in the exercise other than just the desire to argue.

Dead I'm not worried about your misreading of a thing I said causing a derailment. Since your flustered reaction was to a thing I didn't claim it's just a funny reaction you had to me. If you want to do it more be my guest.

[MGuy]

Oh. So you, Sashi, legit believe that you are in a personal relationship with the government. I see now why you use that rhetoric. I am at fault for thinking that attitude was just a negative stereotype the right invented for leftists.

Instead I will say I heavily disagree with that interpretation of a citizen's position to the government. I find it so bewildering that you actually, factually, buy into that way of seeing the government that I dismissed the idea without consideration that it is a thing you believe. The government makes decisions for the country. They don't decide what I wear. The government has priorities far outside of the needs of any individual or individual organizations. So when the President breaks a strike because they have made the assessment that they would rather not allow the harm for that to spread to every other point in the economy this is not the same as something like deciding whether my sister or I will get to decide what movie we all watch for that night. The kind of decisions a nation makes are simply nowhere near the kinds of decisions parents make for children. I don't like it but I don't see it as done kind of personal abandonment of parental duty that they did. Now there are places where the government has acted in that way and almost every time it does it is seen as a bad thing. Curfews, deciding who we can't marry, how we get to have sex, and such are typically things you don't want government to be doing because that's considered authoritarian. That's getting beyond the fact that the government is not a single person and doesn't even act as a single entity.

So yes, that's a dead end conversation for me that I'm not picking back up because while you imagine the government in that way I fundamentally don't. I don't have a personal relationship with all my neighbors or my co-workers or the people that I meet. Even when I go to meetings or organize with other locals it is a political project I'm generally working toward not done kind of intimate fraternity/sorority I'm entering into. I don't know if you see your fellow citizens (and if you do want organizing) political organizations you petition for as like family but I don't.

Edit: oh yes I forgot the question was answered favorably for my argument but I should address it myself anyway. For the purposes of this conversation it really didn't matter if I split that question into two or three. The only reason I listed a bad thing at all instead of nothing v something was because I assumed if I didn't include bad option that would've been what was complained about. The math ultimately checks out. Both (PS and Sashi ) seem to agree that doing something is indeed better than nothing, positive is better than negative. So the argument has largely been a waste of time because my original statement was too rich solid to poke holes into so a tangent and a strawman were necessary.

[Sashi]

Instead I will say I heavily disagree with that interpretation of a citizen's position to the government. I find it so bewildering that you actually, factually, buy into that way of seeing the government that I dismissed the idea without consideration that it is a thing you believe. The government makes decisions for the country. They don't decide what I wear. The government has priorities far outside of the needs of any individual or individual organizations.

Again, you seem to believe that "personal relationship" is a separate thing from "political relationship", but there's a reason civil rights movements have adopted "the personal is political" as a civil rights slogan. There's no bright line dividing the "personal" and "political" spheres and a parent can decide their child will only wear a polo shirt and khakis, but so can a school dress code. It doesn't matter if it's parental policy or school dress code, either way that kid is wearing a polo shirt to school tomorrow and that personally affects that child. The administrative decisions of the state affect you personally, therefore you have a personal relationship with the state, that is just what words mean. When my local government chooses to kill yet another municipal broadband proposal they didn't individually walk up to my house and say "We have decided that you must use Comcast for broadband internet service" but they did effectively make that decision for every individual in the city at once because that was the consequence of their actions. The fact that their "action" was voting "no" on a municipal broadband plan and not voting "yes" on an "everyone must buy broadband from Comcast" plan doesn't change that they made a decision, for me, about my internet provider.

So when the President breaks a strike because they have made the assessment that they would rather not allow the harm for that to spread to every other point in the economy this is not the same as something like deciding whether my sister or I will get to decide what movie we all watch for that night.

Yes it is. The same way your parent took the decision of what movie to watch out of your hands and made it for you Biden took the decision of whether to strike or not out of the Unions hand and made a decision for them. Notably, the government did not take the decision of whether to capitulate to the Union's demands out of the Rail Owner's hands, which they also could have done. "We have decided it would be too disruptive if the Rail Workers strike and so we have passed a bill ratifying all of their demands as new legal protections for rail workers" would have mooted their reason for striking while preserving their right to strike. While the government did not walk up to every rail worker and say "You, Steve, are not allowed to strike, you better go to work tomorrow." they just said it to all the rail workers at once from behind a podium.

The fact that one relationship is parent to child and the other is government to citizen changes what decisions it is appropriate to make, but it doesn't change that those decisions get made. We don't want the government to tell new parents exactly what food they are allowed to feed their baby, but we do want the government to make sure the baby formula available at the store isn't just a can of sugar and chalk. If the government fails to enforce regulations on baby formula I do think that is a moral and ethical lapse in responsibility and a child who gets sick because they were fed tainted baby formula has been personally failed by the government and I am a little bit worried that you might not.

The kind of decisions a nation makes are simply nowhere near the kinds of decisions parents make for children. I don't like it but I don't see it as some kind of personal abandonment of parental duty that they did. Now there are places where the government has acted in that way and almost every time it does it is seen as a bad thing. Curfews, deciding who we can't marry, how we get to have sex, and such are typically things you don't want government to be doing because that's considered authoritarian. That's getting beyond the fact that the government is not a single person and doesn't even act as a single entity.

No, it's not a dereliction of parental duty to protect a child, but it is a dereliction of governmental duty to protect the rights of labor. We don't want the government to reach into people's lives and say "We will arrest you if you have anal sex" but we do want the government to reach into people's lives and say "You can't fire your employee just because you found out they have anal sex". What kind of relationship is that other than a personal one?

[MGuy]

There is a reason for the phrase personal is political. That's because the consequences of politics can affect people's personal lives. That's not a relationship to political entities. My personal life is affected by politics. My personal life isn't what I'm participating in when I do politics that's not me dealing with family. There's no need for a bright line because these are different things all together. Not some kind of fuzzy scale.

Basically the rest can be summed to by the fact that none of these are actually tantamount to dealing with a parent and I really don't know why you'd want it to be our why you've decided this is going to be how you plant your flag. On this hill. On this tangent. You're welcome to idealize government as your mommy/daddy but I am not. Even the idea of doing so is disgusting to me. That you think my relationship with my employer is the same as what I do in private is as bewildering to me as you thinking the government as a parent. Like what? One is a public arrangement, me having sex and how I do it with a consenting adult is not.

As mind blowing as these revelations continue to be I also don't know why you and PS desire to argue with me about this. Broadly you both basically want to say Biden is bad over and over and I've already agreed. The thing we might disagree on is whether or not the office posturing clearly on the side of unions is at all noteworthy thing but given the twists and turns this back and forth has taken I'm not even sure if I can assume either of you know why unions do public outreach at all or what the purpose of marching or demonstrating is. I might have made an error not starting by explaining the reason people do those things before tying it back to how useful the president showing up at one of these things are. I thought I gave a pretty clear explanation when I talked about how a good portion of the voting public is influenced by these things or when I talked about how these calculations are generally made in consideration with changing public opinions. However, despite the fact that I've thought our political alignment was pretty close the way you two view politics might be completely foreign to me.

[Sashi]

Edit: oh yes I forgot the question was answered favorably for my argument but I should address it myself anyway. For the purposes of this conversation it really didn't matter if I split that question into two or three. The only reason I listed a bad thing at all instead of nothing v something was because I assumed if I didn't include bad option that would've been what was complained about. The math ultimately checks out. Both (PS and Sashi ) seem to agree that doing something is indeed better than nothing, positive is better than negative. So the argument has largely been a waste of time because my original statement was too rich solid to poke holes into so a tangent and a strawman were necessary.

No, actually, I disagreed with you about that. You know the thing in wills where someone leaves a family member $1 to make it explicit that they were not forgotten in the distribution of the estate? That's a case where something is worse than nothing because if you're simply left out of the will you can argue that you were accidentally forgotten (and people have done that).

My interpretation of Biden showing up to the picket line and paying lip service is like that. It is simply a reminder that at this moment Biden is choosing not to break the strike. The reasons for that are pretty clear: breaking the strike would probably require collaborating with too many republicans too close to an election, and the Republican debates have made clear the Republican position on Unions lies somewhere between "abolish all unions" and "hunt union organizers for sport". But it's not a positive sign for the future health of labor rights in the USA. It's also probably a sign that the UAW and SAG don't have the power to gum up the country the way rail workers can. "I will support your strike as long as it's not too much of a threat to global capitol" isn't really the kind of support labor needs.

And I hope I'm wrong! I hope Biden showing up to the UAW strike is a sign of future material support for labor rights! But right now I view this as a reminder that the current difference between the two parties is a slow decline in labor rights with the Democrats or a fast decline with Republicans.

[MGuy]

This is also an extension of the family thing and further evidence that you see the nature of, and acts taken, by the government through a lense that is completely different than mine. There have been multiple strikes that have started and are ongoing for years now. Thinking that Biden showing up at this one is a reminder of how dirty he could have been is just astounding.

[Sashi]

Basically the rest can be summed to by the fact that none of these are actually tantamount to dealing with a parent and I really don't know why you'd want it to be our why you've decided this is going to be how you plant your flag. On this hill. On this tangent. You're welcome to idealize government as your mommy/daddy but I am not. Even the idea of doing so is disgusting to me. That you think my relationship with my employer is the same as what I do in private is as bewildering to me as you thinking the government as a parent. Like what? One is a public arrangement, me having sex and how I do it with a consenting adult is not.

Wait a minute. Do you think it's okay for a parent to tell a child who they can have sex with? Like do you think it's okay for a parent to kick their 17-year-old kid out of the house because they found out they had sex? Because it genuinely sounds like that's what you think a "parental relationship" is.

Because, to be clear, "paternalism" is when you kick your trans teen out of the house because they're trans. "Parenting" is when you fulfill your responsibility to provide for your child's material needs and support their emotional wellbeing. Parents having a paternalistic relationship with their kids is not okay, actually. If your kid says they're a vegetarian you don't force them to eat meat, if they dye their hair against your wishes you don't hold them down and shave it off, if they gain 20 pounds you don't lock up the refrigerator.

When I say the government has a responsibility to provide for the rights and welfare of its citizens like a parent does for a child, I mean "like a parent" not "like a patriarch".

[MGuy]

I don't know why you're asking me another random question about this framing you continue wanting to use after I explicitly said I reject it. Whatever further twist you want to add on further is none of my business and I am not interested in this particular rabbit hole. You already alluded to this parent thing enough for me to get the idea where your head is at and I understand that our differences in perception are not going to be resolved through this medium.

Political entities and actions are tools to me and that's it. I want material benefits for myself and others like me. When I interact with these entities it is with that understanding, along with the understanding that others are also pushing and pulling at the same levers I am with goals, ideas, and biases that may or may not coincide with mine. I want more people who don't already want to do what I want then to do to align with me enough to push more levers than the people who don't want what I want. When I advocate for my positions I do so explicitly understanding this is the case and that is my goal So when a political act is undertaken I do not view it as an individual who 'should' feel any responsibility for me. I view it as an institution taking an action for any number of reasons.

Similarly I view others I don't know in the same light. You are not kin to me Sashi. However great you might be irl is meaningless to me because we're not on any kind of friendly terms. I don't know you. We are, however, likely aligned on many political things. Even if I think that internalizing this shit in that way is unhealthy I don't really care that you do beyond thinking it's weird. If, at the end of the day you stand for the same things that I do, and you're voting/advocating for representatives that are necessary for future goals I desire and not ones that I don't, whatever your perception of government is beyond that does not matter to me.

I, however, will never see the government, political entities, or whatever as part of my personal life.

[Sashi]

I don't know why you're asking me another random question about this framing you continue wanting to use after I explicitly said I reject it.

This isn't a random question, it's a very important one and the answer should be very easy, so easy that I am actively concerned you refuse to answer it.

Is it okay for a parent to kick their kid out of the house for being queer? Or an atheist? A vegetarian? Dying their hair? Having sex before marriage?

[MGuy]

I don't know why you're asking me another random question about this framing you continue wanting to use after I explicitly said I reject it.

[PseudoStupidity]

Biden has decided to show up at the picket line for auto workers. While I don't believe this means much to the effort overall I think it's a good sign that the office believes it is good to actually visibly side with workers. From what I understand the act of even showing up for this kind of thing is historic. With all the strikes starting up I hope that this is yet another good sign for the growth of labor power in this country.

Breaking this down in the classic obnoxious forum argument way because apparently you don't know what your own sentences mean. I'll skip the first sentence because it's a statement of fact.

"While I don't believe this means much to the effort overall I think it's a good sign that the office believes it is good to actually visibly side with workers. " - This statement means you believe Biden visibly siding with workers (by visiting a picket line, as you had stated in your first sentence) is a good sign, as evidenced by you literally saying it is a good sign. You don't think it means much, but you think it means something and that it is good. This sentence also means you think Biden actually is siding with workers by visiting a picket line, as visibly is just an adjective and siding with workers is the action you think he's taking. I don't think visiting a picket line means Biden has chosen a side, so I think you are flat-out incorrect about that.

"From what I understand the act of even showing up for this kind of thing is historic." - This is true, but it's also totally pointless and clearly meant to puff up the act of visiting a picket line (a symbolic gesture). Maybe you wrote this for reasons other than making the act of visiting a picket line seem more important, but this sentence exists only to draw more attention to and place more importance on the picket line visit.

"With all the strikes starting up I hope that this is yet another good sign for the growth of labor power in this country." - Bolding mine. You think the strikes are a sign of growling labor power in this country. Also, thanks to the bolded, we know that Joe Biden doing something to signal his support for unions (much like all the times he says he's the most pro-union president ever) is something you want to believe is a sign of growing labor power in this country.

My response to this was the following:

Symbolic gestures are worth nothing. Remember when the Democrats all wore kente cloth and kneeled, and then immediately began funding the police even more so they can better murder people of color? I'll believe Biden supports unions when he starts actually supporting unions. It is always good optics to look like you support popular things (and the UAW strike is very popular, 75% of the public is on their side), even Trump pulled a stunt last night to try and look like he supports the autoworkers (by speaking at a nonunion shop, which is fucking hilarious).

Publicly shitting on labor always looks bad, and it's why Trump is going to win the Republican primary. If anyone else watched the debate last night it was the most unpopular bastards in the country screaming at each other about how much they want poor people to shut up and be their serfs, among other things like how we should literally invade Mexico or how we should decide which countries South American countries are allowed to make trade deals with (this really happened).

Democrats are never stupid enough to publicly talk about how much they hate unions, they just quietly break strikes and support the capitalists while pretending to support labor. Biden personally fucked over the railroad workers last year!

My response was that Biden walking on a picket line means nothing and is standard campaigning, while Biden's actions are firmly anti-labor and pro-capital. Then a whole bunch of other shit happened, and finally you wrote this:

This is what I actually said. Let me point out that I don't believe it's important to the effort overall but that it's a good sign of the position of labor. This is a hopeful assessment of the growing pro union consensus in this country. Fast forward to now and PS has shifted what I said to a more vague: "it's important" and highlighting how they are sure it didn't itself represent a material change for labor. The first is misleading and the latter isn't something I've claimed that move did.

Therefore PS's measure of this statement is at best misreading and continuing to misunderstand how I interpret that act and at worse a continued deliberate act to shift my original statement from what it was so they can replace it with a different argument that they actually want to have about an unrelated subject. Now I have reason to believe it might be the latter given that they've demonstrated in their last post that the government can do good things as well as bad and that those good things would be good and not tantamount to the act of an abusive partner in a personal relationship. At least I won't have to repeat that bit now. Whether intentional than not I think the fact that a strawman had to be constructed out of a tangent that they pushed is damning enough on its own. I just don't see the point in the exercise other than just the desire to argue.

Bolding mine.

My response to the bolded is that you literally called Biden visiting a picket line both historic and a good sign. I certainly think somebody calling something historic and a good sign means they think it's important, but maybe you think historic things are not important and regularly call things that you consider unimportant to be historic. Nobody is misrepresenting you, you are just kind of shit at explaining yourself (according to your evolving opinion on the meaning and importance of Biden visiting a picket line). If you thought Biden walking on a picket line wasn't important you probably shouldn't have made a post about it where you called it both historic and good.

[deaddmwalking]

Dead I'm not worried about your misreading of a thing I said causing a derailment. Since your flustered reaction was to a thing I didn't claim it's just a funny reaction you had to me. If you want to do it more be my guest.

No, I am asking again that you leave me out of it. If you want to quote me directly and respond to it, have at it, but please don't say things like:

There are a lot of people like dead dm who need people like Biden and whoever writes the think pieces they read to act on these kind of things first before they too start believing it's a good thing.

I believe my request is extremely reasonable, and I don't know why I've had to ask multiple times. Please be aware that if you continue to do so, I will file a complaint with the Great Fence Builder.

[Kaelik]

I like that deadDM has decided that anything other then uncritically agreeing with his self claims is apparently against the rules.

It would in fact not be against the rules for Mguy to say "deaddm personally goes around strikebreaking unions in his spare time, no matter what he claims in posts, he just lies when he says he supports unions." That Mguy's actual claim is extremely boring "deaddm decides what he thinks is good after taking in the opinions of democratic party leaders" and he's still trying to pretend it breaks the rules to say things he doesn't want people to be allowed to say about him is extremely funny and at least provides some entertainment in this otherwise very annoying argument.

[MGuy]

Interesting. I don't know what my sentences mean.

In the bolding part I didn't say that it wasn't important but that your reducing my statement to just "it's important" and arguing from there is misleading. Not that you're misrepresenting my argument. The reason I say your iteration of my stance is misleading is because you have implied from my noting the event that I am giving props to Biden, or the dems, or whatever. In your estimation me noting it is important sign of what the dems or maybe the government might do or might not do. Which, no... The important part isn't whether or not it is a sign that dems are doing better (which is what you imply I believe in almost all your responses) but that the decision to make a historic move they believe the nation is at a point that pushes them to visibly support unions. Now you may just think showing up at a picket line is no big deal but it is historic because, as far as all the reporting goes, presidents don't do it. Given that I think even symbolic gestures are done based off of what they think public opinion happens to be, the fact that they took a bigger step than usual here is a good sign that the numbers they are looking at tells them that they should.

Conveniently you brought up your response so I can point out that in it you focus on whether or not the gesture means dems are going to do anything, whether this is going to bring material change, and that dems fucked the railroad strike. None of that 'really' has anything to do with my statement. My hopes are with the growth of pro union, pro labor, support in this country. Support by the voting public. You may not personally believe that marching, demonstration, pubic outreach is worth anything but I think it is the foundation of public advocacy. Given your continued refusal to engage with it I am getting more and more convinced that you don't really care about, participate in, or understand how public advocacy works.

[MGuy]

I like that deadDM has decided that anything other then uncritically agreeing with his self claims is apparently against the rules.

It would in fact not be against the rules for Mguy to say "deaddm personally goes around strikebreaking unions in his spare time, no matter what he claims in posts, he just lies when he says he supports unions." That Mguy's actual claim is extremely boring "deaddm decides what he thinks is good after taking in the opinions of democratic party leaders" and he's still trying to pretend it breaks the rules to say things he doesn't want people to be allowed to say about him is extremely funny and at least provides some entertainment in this otherwise very annoying argument.

Pretty much this. Like... I'm not even sure why he thinks I've brought it up multiple times. I responded to the thing he posted.

[PseudoStupidity]

This argument was so fucking pedantic already and yet here you are.

Interesting. I don't know what my sentences mean.

In the bolding part I didn't say that it wasn't important but that your reducing my statement to just "it's important" and arguing from there is misleading. Not that you're misrepresenting my argument. The reason I say your iteration of my stance is misleading is because you have implied from my noting the event that I am giving props to Biden, or the dems, or whatever. In your estimation me noting it is important sign of what the dems or maybe the government might do or might not do. Which, no... The important part isn't whether or not it is a sign that dems are doing better (which is what you imply I believe in almost all your responses) but that the decision to make a historic move they believe the nation is at a point that pushes them to visibly support unions. Now you may just think showing up at a picket line is no big deal but it is historic because, as far as all the reporting goes, presidents don't do it. Given that I think even symbolic gestures are done based off of what they think public opinion happens to be, the fact that they took a bigger step than usual here is a good sign that the numbers they are looking at tells them that they should.

Conveniently you brought up your response so I can point out that in it you focus on whether or not the gesture means dems are going to do anything, whether this is going to bring material change, and that dems fucked the railroad strike. None of that 'really' has anything to do with my statement. My hopes are with the growth of pro union, pro labor, support in this country. Support by the voting public. You may not personally believe that marching, demonstration, pubic outreach is worth anything but I think it is the foundation of public advocacy. Given your continued refusal to engage with it I am getting more and more convinced that you don't really care about, participate in, or understand how public advocacy works.

Bolding mine again, but also partially yours since one of the words in the bolded sentence was bolded.

The bolded is not true, I only said you were giving props to Biden when you began crediting Biden with doing good things for the workers. I said his presence at the picket line was meaningless in response to you saying it had meaning, anything else you infer from my post is not supported by the contents of my post (which is why you have to say I implied things instead of actually quoting the part where I say you think Biden or the Democrats were supporting labor). I just don't give a shit about this anymore though, it's pretty standard for you to claim you are being misrepresented while misrepresenting other people. Stop doing that please? Thanks.

[MGuy]

You implied it in your very first reply to that. You reposted your own response to it right there.

[PseudoStupidity]

I didn't imply it, you inferred it and assumed that I had implied the thing you inferred. If I implied it I would not be disagreeing with you about me implying the thing you say I implied.