Danish Politician Convicted of Racism For Offending Muslims

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have to agree with you here. It focuses on the division rather than the unity.

Edit Add: MLK movement worked so well because it was more about unifying rather than division.

More than a few people called King divisive and named him an agitator. King wasn't shy about calling out people who were telling him to not rile things up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Social policing has always existed, yes--as have theft, prostitution and deceit.

One of these things is not like the other. Social policing is more like other things that have always existed, like community and love for one's neighbor.

As for BLM making a big long-term difference, how'd that Occupy Movement work out for ya?

Why don't we compare what the Democratic primary candidates are discussing today compared to the Dem primary candidates in 2004? Or even 2008? The front runner for Democratic nomination is talking about income inequality in a way that serious candidates for President haven't done since... the 1970s. Heck, a self-proclaimed socialist is running 2nd in the Democratic primary. It seems like the Occupy movement has some decent legs.

Btw, BLM already has forced the hand of the self-proclaimed socialist, who directly in response has hired a person on his campaign in charge of racial issues.

[Elok]

There is also the question of "the right's downfall"? I mean I can't be the only one that notices that the GOP controls the Senate, the House of Representatives and the majority of state governorships and state legislatures, right?

The social-conservative right, I mean--the ones doing the scolding. Marijuana's legalizing, gays are getting married, fornication is utterly unexceptional, the young generation is increasingly unchurched. Reagan's Jesus buddies have lost. His nice little gunsmith friends, of course, still have money, and that talks. And of course we still fear the Mexicans and the Moo-slims.

[Elok]

Seriously? He hired a campaign consultant for race issues? That means nothing. Get back to me when all the talk turns into decisive action.

And that lout Trump is leading the other side. You see America going left, I see America splitting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The social-conservative right, I mean--the ones doing the scolding. Marijuana's legalizing, gays are getting married, fornication is utterly unexceptional, the young generation is increasingly unchurched. Reagan's Jesus buddies have lost. His nice little gunsmith friends, of course, still have money, and that talks. And of course we still fear the Mexicans and the Moo-slims.

Things continually move in a liberalizing direction. The society is just going back to the path the country was on in the 1970s before the social-conservative right had their 2-3 decade bump. Pot was widespread in the 60s and 70s and probably would have been legalized well before now if there wasn't a War on Drugs. As for unchurched youth, church attendance basically had a 50 year bump - in the 1940s, attendance was actually pretty low prior to the civic-religion / semi-anti-communist-demonstration 1950s and going forward (though people named themselves Christian even if they went just twice a year).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Seriously? He hired a campaign consultant for race issues? That means nothing. Get back to me when all the talk turns into decisive action.

Well, he's not going to win. And I'll come back in 10 years... I note you aren't really contending with the Democrats become far more focused on income inequality and I didn't even mention the mass movement in cities to dramatically increase the minimum wage - that decisive action enough?

[Elok]

I meant decisive action for race issues. The Occupy Movement petered out what, four years ago? It lasted maybe a year. If you can give them credit for current developments, you can give anyone credit for anything.

As for things continually moving in a liberalizing direction, I disagree. You're skewing your interpretation of history so you can wave away decades-long periods of conservatism as statistical hiccups. It does not follow that we will inevitably become more liberal--there will be changes, reactions to the consequences of decisions we're making now, and not all of them will be in the direction of individual liberty. Indeed, infinite individual liberty (the logical endpoint of it) would be extremely undesirable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As a Christian you, as much as anyone, should realize that planting seeds sometimes takes years to develop ripe fruit. The current developments against income inequality can trace their path to the seeds sown during the Occupy movement.

Also I don't see how you cannot step back and see vast movements towards social liberalism, whether it be on race, gender, sexual orientation. As always, counter social revolutions will attempt to spring up, but the graphing of it is relatively clear.

[Elok]

As a Christian I am deeply aware of our human tendency to draw false correlations based on what we want to see. Some of us like to read every last negative event as numerically signifying 666. Others credit dead movements with current results. I think it's simpler to conclude that Occupy and these developments came from a common impulse than to claim they had a delayed effect after they went away and everyone quit laughing at them.

We are liberalizing at present for a number of reasons. Partly it is the collapse of the Moral Majority consensus, partly the result of various propaganda drives, partly the result of deep-rooted demographic or economic factors we can barely comprehend. The future is, if anything, likely to become radically conservative, if only because climate change will knock us on our asses and drive a reversion to past values and glories. We are also likely to witness a decline in American power, with a resulting loss of confidence, and whatever backlash comes from the overreaches of the present liberal blitz. But I could be wrong. I'd be a fool to believe I knew the future.

[giblets]

"Social liberalism" is a dumb term. Denying poor people access to health care isn't liberal. Economic inequality is social.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think it's simpler to conclude that Occupy and these developments came from a common impulse than to claim they had a delayed effect after they went away and everyone quit laughing at them.

Or we can actually give some credit to movements that changed our understanding of things, rather than the easier tendency of having to admit that our laughing at them was wrong.

(and I think some people are too eager to forget the "We are the 99%" meme that was created by Occupy, which obviously has had a massive influence on the debate - Elizabeth Warren being a supporter of Occupy tended to be important as well)

Here is an article from 2 years ago talking about Occupy's influence on the income inequality debate:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/occupy-wall-street-anniversary-effects

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Social liberalism" is a dumb term. Denying poor people access to health care isn't liberal. Economic inequality is social.

Baby steps.

It takes some folks a bit of a jump to see the social implications of economic issues.

[Elok]

By the same token, most social issues have economic aspects. Nothing is cleanly one or the other, but "social liberal" is a handy term to denote things that are not directly about money or labor (especially since "liberal" on those questions varies depending on what side of the pond you're on).

(EDIT: reading the Mother Jones Occupy hagiography as closely as I can stomach, will try to get through it all and get back to you)

Okay, if I'm following this correctly, OWS had the following long-term effects:

-the 99% and 1% memes
-some people in it went on to form other protest movements, e.g. Trayvon Martin's
-it enabled a general outpouring of grievances
-some laws were passed in the immediate aftermath
-a bunch of people got beaten or pepper-sprayed and it made cops look bad

The two memes are easily the most lasting of that set. The rest of your article is puffery comparing it to the Paris Commune and sundry other mass movements. No concrete sign of links to later movements, let alone causality. Granted, it would be very hard to prove causality, but seriously, do people outside progressive circles even remember that thing, except in the sense that they remember the Macarena?

[Elok]

I will concede, on reflection, that I was wrong to enjoy the hack of AM. I was blinded to my principles by the sheer sleaziness of the target--though I loathe AM much more than any of their customers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Elizabeth Warren? Bill de Blasio? (and the article was written prior to de Blasio's election)

No one doubts the Tea Party's influence when it elects people they want to win, but Occupy's push for Warren and de Blasio doesn't count because.... you want to continue to say you were right about laughing at them?

(Though Warren and Occupy is a far more tangled relationship than just they backed her - from Warren indicated that she created the background for Occupy and openly supporting them to Occupy backing her strongly. She's kind of like the Occupy Godfather... err Godmother)