Left-wing Extremism: A "Diversity" of Tactics

[Senkaku]

Equating the upper classes (including the upper-middle, yes, lol) of the antebellum South with “the average colonist” is a pretty big reach that isn’t substantiated by the figures BK is showing. Yes, many well-off smallholders in the South also had a few slaves, but they didn’t control a majority of slaves or the bulk of the capital invested in the slave economy (income and wealth inequality are heightened in latifundia-based agrarian societies, and those disparities are also evident in slaveholding terms). That this slaving petit-bourgeois extended a bit more broadly through the middle class in historic slaver centers like South Carolina does not in any way refute anything Sordhau’s said thus far— slavery, as a business and a practice, was largely a rich man’s game.

And as it turned out, the slavers rebelled anyways, even without a government proposal to arm the slaves, so maybe it would’ve been better to get it over with sooner rather than later.

Considering that it wouldn't just be the south revolting, it would be everyone, because almost everyone was racist and absolutely everyone realized how awful an idea it would be to give slaves guns, and that the small continental Army would be completely demoralized, starving, unequipped, and unprepared to fight geurilla war with their neighbors after fighting Professional British armies for so long, I really do not think that the Founding Fathers would've won that civil war. Not to mention that the Continental Army would probably switch sides after having been paid in nothing Continental Currency for so long, which were completely worthless by the time the Constitution was penned.

The point is not “it would have been a practical idea politically and tactically for the Founding Fathers to try to arm American slaves immediately after the revolution,” it’s the following: firstly, arguments like you’ve been making here to legitimize one of history’s great moral crimes as something basically everyone was complicit in are just not accurate, even if the truth is more complex than there having been just a few caricatured villains responsible for everything (as Sordhau apparently thought). Secondly, the slave power was always eventually going to revolt against being part of a free republic, and that we who have the benefit of historical hindsight should question the impulse to give the Founding Fathers a pass for not coming to that conclusion themselves. But I suppose it’s easier to fall back on bickering over tactical minutiae and alternative-history dick measuring than address those, so…

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

Considering that it wouldn't just be the south revolting, it would be everyone, because almost everyone was racist and absolutely everyone realized how awful an idea it would be to give slaves guns, and that the small continental Army would be completely demoralized, starving, unequipped, and unprepared to fight geurilla war with their neighbors after fighting Professional British armies for so long, I really do not think that the Founding Fathers would've won that civil war. Not to mention that the Continental Army would probably switch sides after having been paid in nothing Continental Currency for so long, which were completely worthless by the time the Constitution was penned.

The point is not “it would have been a practical idea politically and tactically for the Founding Fathers to try to arm American slaves immediately after the revolution,” it’s the following: firstly, arguments like you’ve been making here to legitimize one of history’s great moral crimes as something basically everyone was complicit in are just not accurate, even if the truth is more complex than there having been just a few caricatured villains responsible for everything (as Sordhau apparently thought). Secondly, the slave power was always eventually going to revolt against being part of a free republic, and that we who have the benefit of historical hindsight should question the impulse to give the Founding Fathers a pass for not coming to that conclusion themselves. But I suppose it’s easier to fall back on bickering over tactical minutiae and alternative-history dick measuring than address those, so…

To the first point, I was referring to the last sentence in your post, specifically.
And, I'm not arguing that everyone was complicit in Slavery, I'm arguing that it wasn't just the Scrooge Mcducks of the 18th and 19th century. Upper-Middle class people also owned slaves. And yes, the Pro-Slavers would never accept a transition out of slavery in America, so they were always going to revolt. We know that now, obviously. But, at the time of the Founding Fathers, the Abolitionist movement wasn't nearly as big as it was in the 1860s, and Slavery was mostly accepted. I don't personally know if I would have assumed an innevitable civil war, had I been in their shoes. However, we can look at what the Founding Fathers did agree upon at their various meetings to get a glimpse at their potential thoughts at the time. Specifically, the banning of the African Slave Trade in 1808 which was suggested and generally agreed upon at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. I personally think that this compromise shows that at the time, the leaders of america assumed, foolishly, that the Slavery issue could be solved diplomatically, over time, like in other countries around the world. Ultimately, we'll never know for sure if they at all considered a civil war likely, but I don't specifically see why they would guess so.

[Southern Republic of Dixie]

Given the Discussions going on and Being the "Not the Official Confederate Flag"

I just want to say i agree slavery is bad. Should have been abolished long ago. I do find the arguement done. Over and over again.
The Democrat South under Slavery was The Main Reason. The other "reasons" are just nitpicking.
The Republican North were trying to Preserve the Union. Than it turned into Abolishing Slavery.
[As Well as the advancements in years of Racial rights.](Not correlation to political party)

I Despise the Democrats of the Time. Secession would have been ruled as legal. Which is why Alot of Officals of the Confederate weren't tried for treason and were given pardons.
(And is why i still see the Modern Democrats as the same ol democrats . Republicans Looking down on others doesn't help either. But eh Seems accurate for the party so they are also problematic)

Mending old wounds is Much better than Torching the ground you stand on.... Unless your Georgia. It was post Burned.

It's why I accept gay rights and Lgbtq rights. I want to reach out a hand to those who feel wrong by both sides of the Political Aisle. Much as I still have Bad Habits that Die Hard.

[Suriyanakhon]

All this shit about communists having to win elections is such a waste of time to be discussing, anyway. Communism isn't a movement whose purpose is to culminate in some peaceful transition that respects the pluralist concerns of diverse groups in society; it is a movement that is entirely particular to the world-historical mission of the proletariat, and that means going directly against opposing class interests, even if they constitute a simple majority, and obliterating the facts of life that give rise to those interests in the first place.

To rephrase the content of the The Democratic Principle, there should be no automatic deference to majority opinion of "the people", because to even speak of the "the people" is to speak of bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, proletarians, lumpenproletarians, each of which in turn has varying layers and subgroups with contradictory interests. Realizing this, it would then be absurd to suggest that the very movement that seeks to carry out one particular set of interests should then accede to majority opinion, if this majority opinion is itself the by-product of persons with a vested class interest in preserving the status quo.

Yep. I ain't a communist, and the biggest gripe I have with lots of them is their focus on electoralism for what seems a really pointless exercise.
You want to dismantle those systems - the idea you can be the "good guy" with the system has been seen before. It doesn't work out.

To some extent, I agree that being entirely focused on electoralism is bad and misses the forests for the trees. But ignoring electoralism can be just as bad as obsessing over it. Elections are important to raise awareness and reach out to as many members of the working class as possible, especially in a time where economic dissatisfaction has been reaching a breaking point. Even marginal improvement in the status of the proletariat is good while being a temporary measure at best.

[Khurkhogur]

Given the Discussions going on and Being the "Not the Official Confederate Flag"
I just want to say i agree slavery is bad. Should have been abolished long ago. I do find the arguement done. Over and over again.
The Democrat South under Slavery was The Main Reason. The other "reasons" are just nitpicking.
The Republican North were trying to Preserve the Union. Than it turned into Abolishing Slavery.
[As Well as the advancements in years of Racial rights.](Not correlation to political party)

Obviously by far the dominant reason for risking and then going to war for the South was slavery. But boiling the North's motivations down to "they wanted to preserve the Union" is really naive. The North and its elites were not just interested in preserving the Union, they wanted to develop a liberal-nationalist society. This meant homogenizing and centralizing the laws of the country, centralizing power, making all men equal before the law (removing enforced classes like the slaver aristocracy and allowing for social mobility), and allowing everyone to sell their goods and labor freely (the foundation of a capitalist economy). The South was feudal and backwards, the North was progressive and industrial.
And this is also why you cannot clearly cut the North and South into "good" and "bad." The South was the party of slavery, repression, and backwardness, sure. The North was the party of aggressive nationalism. While the Trail of Tears was admittedly Andrew Jackson's doing (although Georgia, a slave state, challenged it in the Supreme Court), the later expulsion and assimilation of the natives and colonization of the West were the nationalist North's doing. In contrast, the Confederacy was allied with various Native tribes - one of which fought the last battle of the war against the Union (if I'm not mistaken). The US' later imperialism and brutality across Latin America and the Philippines was the direct result of similar Northern policies.

I Despise the Democrats of the Time. Secession would have been ruled as legal. Which is why Alot of Officals of the Confederate weren't tried for treason and were given pardons.
(And is why i still see the Modern Democrats as the same ol democrats . Republicans Looking down on others doesn't help either. But eh Seems accurate for the party so they are also problematic)

This is close to being true. The Dems have gone through much more political evolution than the Republicans, who have held very consistent views over the past 150-odd years. The Republicans have always been the party of national-capitalism. They want a standard national culture and unmanaged capitalism. This means that they have always sought to integrate minorities, maintain trade dominance overseas, and empower capital.

[Khurkhogur]

lWhile the Trail of Tears was admittedly Andrew Jackson's doing (although Georgia, a slave state, challenged it in the Supreme Court), the later expulsion and assimilation of the natives and colonization of the West were the nationalist North's doing. In contrast, the Confederacy was allied with various Native tribes - one of which fought the last battle of the war against the Union (if I'm not mistaken).

I was mistaken. The last Confederate general to surrender (Stand Watie) was a Native American.
Also, this wasn't meant to imply that the Confederates were somehow nice and tolerant to the natives they allied with. They were just feudal, and the CSA's native allies managed to negotiate autonomy and privileges in exchange for military support. This kind of negotiation is characteristic of feudalism.
The North, in contrast, was not willing to grant the Natives any rights or privileges beyond those afforded to other US citizens. In the North's conception of things, the Natives would either submit to the US' culture and be integrated, or be driven out of their lands (which they often were). This explains why the majority of Native tribes in the Indian territory were much more willing to ally with the CSA.

[Mattopilos III]

This... doesn't really change the fact the south were fighting for slavery. You don't have to say the north is good to think what the south fought for was shit.

[Transsibiria]

Also, this wasn't meant to imply that the Confederates were somehow nice and tolerant to the natives they allied with. They were just feudal, and the CSA's native allies managed to negotiate autonomy and privileges in exchange for military support. This kind of negotiation is characteristic of feudalism.
The North, in contrast, was not willing to grant the Natives any rights or privileges beyond those afforded to other US citizens. In the North's conception of things, the Natives would either submit to the US' culture and be integrated, or be driven out of their lands (which they often were). This explains why the majority of Native tribes in the Indian territory were much more willing to ally with the CSA.

Thats an interesting perspective, I hadn encountered before ngl. Do you have any sources or additional information on that? I am very curious.

[Disgraces]

NationStates is the worst place to ask that, like 99.99999% of the players are communist

[Nilokeras]

And, I'm not arguing that everyone was complicit in Slavery, I'm arguing that it wasn't just the Scrooge Mcducks of the 18th and 19th century. Upper-Middle class people also owned slaves. And yes, the Pro-Slavers would never accept a transition out of slavery in America, so they were always going to revolt. We know that now, obviously. But, at the time of the Founding Fathers, the Abolitionist movement wasn't nearly as big as it was in the 1860s, and Slavery was mostly accepted. I don't personally know if I would have assumed an innevitable civil war, had I been in their shoes.

This is of course the thing with slave societies. Lots of societies throughout history have had slavery as part of their social or economic fabrics, oftentimes for very long periods of time. Comparatively few have been what we'd call slave societies - societies where the entire economic, social and political superstructure revolved around the practice of slavery. Rome and Sparta stick out as examples, where the Roman economy was dependent on a ready supply of war captives to feed into its system of slavery, and in Sparta where helots outnumbered the citizen Spartans seven to one.

Like the Spartans, slaves outnumbered free citizens in many of the Thirteen Colonies, which combined with the utter dependence of their economies on slave labour produced an incredibly profound societal obsession with the maintenance and justification of slavery. It wasn't enough to just practice it, you needed to justify why it was good and reflective of the Natural Order of Things. You had good old southern gentlementwaxing poetic about the irrational slave desire to run away (drapetomania) and how the black slave's natural childlike traits meant that they could never thrive in a harsh, 'free' world.

In a bubble that hermetically sealed, the only way the end of slavery could come about was through violent confrontation. That could come either from the outside world, like through the North's divergence away from its slave society cousins/the colonial empires closing off the slave trade, or through a slave revolt a la Haiti that swept away the slaveowning class. There was no real other way forward.

[Senkaku]

The point is not “it would have been a practical idea politically and tactically for the Founding Fathers to try to arm American slaves immediately after the revolution,” it’s the following: firstly, arguments like you’ve been making here to legitimize one of history’s great moral crimes as something basically everyone was complicit in are just not accurate, even if the truth is more complex than there having been just a few caricatured villains responsible for everything (as Sordhau apparently thought). Secondly, the slave power was always eventually going to revolt against being part of a free republic, and that we who have the benefit of historical hindsight should question the impulse to give the Founding Fathers a pass for not coming to that conclusion themselves. But I suppose it’s easier to fall back on bickering over tactical minutiae and alternative-history dick measuring than address those, so…

To the first point, I was referring to the last sentence in your post, specifically.
And, I'm not arguing that everyone was complicit in Slavery, I'm arguing that it wasn't just the Scrooge Mcducks of the 18th and 19th century. Upper-Middle class people also owned slaves.

Sure, but the slave economy didn't exist primarily for their enrichment, and they didn't control most of it. The "Scrooge McDucks," as you say, were the dominant players in that society and its economy, controlling and operating the plantations that produced the bulk of its output and most of the slave labor that worked to produce that output.

I don't personally know if I would have assumed an innevitable civil war, had I been in their shoes.

I mean, maybe anyone foreseeing such a conflict could've reasonably drawn a conclusion that forcing the issue would've led to a slaver victory, given the relative weakness of abolitionism at the time, but I'm not convinced that that means they should be given a pass for not foreseeing the war. Happily, though, we're both far too historically contaminated to be able to offer meaningful thoughts beyond that.

However, we can look at what the Founding Fathers did agree upon at their various meetings to get a glimpse at their potential thoughts at the time. Specifically, the banning of the African Slave Trade in 1808 which was suggested and generally agreed upon at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. I personally think that this compromise shows that at the time, the leaders of america assumed, foolishly, that the Slavery issue could be solved diplomatically, over time, like in other countries around the world.

Which, with the benefit of historical hindsight, seems like wishful thinking-- and in my view even without it should have been seen as such, but I can hardly claim I could've done better or differently, given that there's a few centuries between us that I have exclusive knowledge of in this comparison.

The US' later imperialism and brutality across Latin America and the Philippines was the direct result of similar Northern policies.

What the fuck are you talking about? Taking Cuba from Spain was an old slaver fantasy, and the centers of American imperial franchising for Latin America have all been in the South (El Paso, New Orleans, Miami) and the economic boons of our imperial activities there have flowed through Southern ports and rail terminals, while Southerners have served in the fleets and armies that brought the Caribbean to heel and served as state and corporate proconsuls all over the Western Hemisphere and beyond.

lWhile the Trail of Tears was admittedly Andrew Jackson's doing (although Georgia, a slave state, challenged it in the Supreme Court), the later expulsion and assimilation of the natives and colonization of the West were the nationalist North's doing. In contrast, the Confederacy was allied with various Native tribes - one of which fought the last battle of the war against the Union (if I'm not mistaken).

I was mistaken. The last Confederate general to surrender (Stand Watie) was a Native American.
Also, this wasn't meant to imply that the Confederates were somehow nice and tolerant to the natives they allied with. They were just feudal, and the CSA's native allies managed to negotiate autonomy and privileges in exchange for military support. This kind of negotiation is characteristic of feudalism.
The North, in contrast, was not willing to grant the Natives any rights or privileges beyond those afforded to other US citizens. In the North's conception of things, the Natives would either submit to the US' culture and be integrated, or be driven out of their lands (which they often were). This explains why the majority of Native tribes in the Indian territory were much more willing to ally with the CSA.

A post ago you mentioned that Andrew Jackson, a Southerner, oversaw the Trail of Tears. Northerners had also negotiated autonomy and privileges with indigenous people during the Seven Years' War and the Revolution; they promptly reneged and continued expanding westward and crushing native populations once they had the upper hand, and the Southerners would have done the same had the Confederacy won the war. Pretending otherwise is just silly.

[Khurkhogur]

Also, this wasn't meant to imply that the Confederates were somehow nice and tolerant to the natives they allied with. They were just feudal, and the CSA's native allies managed to negotiate autonomy and privileges in exchange for military support. This kind of negotiation is characteristic of feudalism.
The North, in contrast, was not willing to grant the Natives any rights or privileges beyond those afforded to other US citizens. In the North's conception of things, the Natives would either submit to the US' culture and be integrated, or be driven out of their lands (which they often were). This explains why the majority of Native tribes in the Indian territory were much more willing to ally with the CSA.

Thats an interesting perspective, I hadn encountered before ngl. Do you have any sources or additional information on that? I am very curious.

About what specifically? Do you mean relations between ethnic minorities and the feudal state? Cause there are lots of parallels you could draw there. Byzantium and all the various "barbarian" groups that passed through its lands are pretty good examples. For example, they settled the Goths in Moesia in exchange for military service iirc. They also used Armenians, Bulgarians, Magyars, and most notably Anatolian Turks as mercenaries at various times - which eventually resulted in Turkish mercenaries using their expanded privileges to spread their power over the Bosporus strait and form the Ottoman Empire. The other examples were also sometimes disastrous for the Byzantine state.
The Lipka Tatars in Poland-Lithuania are also a pretty good example. They were allowed to settle on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and in exchange, they served the Polish-Lithuanian army for centuries.
In all of these cases, autonomy was part of the deal. The ethnic minority or group in question would settle, fight as mercenaries or auxiliaries, and got to manage their own affairs in peace. The Natives that fought for the CSA were very concerned that the Indian Territory would be incorporated as states by the North. They saw the loss of their (feudal) autonomy and privileges as a serious threat.
If you're just interested in the part about Natives being more aligned with the CSA, a cursory look at Wikipedia on its own is very interesting and informative. Stand Watie's article is pretty illuminating. I haven't read any serious academic sources on the matter though and I'm not about to start looking, too much of a bother

[Khurkhogur]

The US' later imperialism and brutality across Latin America and the Philippines was the direct result of similar Northern policies.

What the fuck are you talking about? Taking Cuba from Spain was an old slaver fantasy, and the centers of American imperial franchising for Latin America have all been in the South (El Paso, New Orleans, Miami) and the economic boons of our imperial activities there have flowed through Southern ports and rail terminals, while Southerners have served in the fleets and armies that brought the Caribbean to heel and served as state and corporate proconsuls all over the Western Hemisphere and beyond.

I was mistaken. The last Confederate general to surrender (Stand Watie) was a Native American.
Also, this wasn't meant to imply that the Confederates were somehow nice and tolerant to the natives they allied with. They were just feudal, and the CSA's native allies managed to negotiate autonomy and privileges in exchange for military support. This kind of negotiation is characteristic of feudalism.
The North, in contrast, was not willing to grant the Natives any rights or privileges beyond those afforded to other US citizens. In the North's conception of things, the Natives would either submit to the US' culture and be integrated, or be driven out of their lands (which they often were). This explains why the majority of Native tribes in the Indian territory were much more willing to ally with the CSA.

A post ago you mentioned that Andrew Jackson, a Southerner, oversaw the Trail of Tears. Northerners had also negotiated autonomy and privileges with indigenous people during the Seven Years' War and the Revolution; they promptly reneged and continued expanding westward and crushing native populations once they had the upper hand, and the Southerners would have done the same had the Confederacy won the war. Pretending otherwise is just silly.

On the point about Andrew Jackson - Jackson was a Southerner and a slaver, but he didn't have elite heritage. He was from Appalachia. This is important because the slaver aristocracy of non-Appalachian regions were not comfortable with the expulsion of the Natives (as evidenced by Georgia's Supreme Court challenge to Jackson). The Native tribes that were thrown out - the Cherokee, Choctaw, and others - had become part of Southern slaver society and while there was no harsh outcry against their expulsion, it didn't enjoy broad support either.
The point being that the South as a whole was not the party of manifest destiny and endless expansion. They had dreams of incorporating and even subjugating places like Cuba, Mexico, and the West, but not to make them part of the nation. They wanted to ally with the slaver classes in Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, and even among the Natives out of convenience. The North, on the other hand, had a national project in mind, which involved laying down ties to the West coast and pushing Mexico and the Natives out to do so.
The later policies of securing Hawaii, Latin America, and the Philippines as areas of exclusive American influence (as well as opening China and Japan up to trade) were the natural result of this project. Take Hawaii. What was the purpose of securing Hawaii? The purpose was to create a naval base for the resupply of the American navy in order to extend American control across the Pacific. This isn't the policy of a raw goods producer like the South, which has no interest in wasting scarce, precious, and stagnant resources to dominate foreign markets. This is the policy of an industrial-capitalist society that needs room to grow and has the military-economic capacity to make that happen.
The fact that Southerners participated is meaningless - after the Civil War, they were brought into the national fold. Of course they contributed resources. But note that it was the Republican party (the party of nationalism and capitalism) that pushed for this sort of expansion. The Democrats, the former party of the slavers, became ardent isolationists and anti-imperialists after the Civil War and before Wilson.

[Sordhau]

NationStates is the worst place to ask that, like 99.99999% of the players are communist

I fucking wish

[Disgraces]

NationStates is the worst place to ask that, like 99.99999% of the players are communist

I fucking wish

I wish it wasn't true

[Juristonia]

I fucking wish

I wish it wasn't true

Inventing weird things that aren't true and then wishing the weird things you weirdly invented weren't true is a weird way to spend your time.

[Disgraces]

I wish it wasn't true

Inventing weird things that aren't true and then wishing the weird things you weirdly invented weren't true is a weird way to spend your time.

A lot of NS users being extreme left is a weird thing that isn't true?

[Laasmistan]

Inventing weird things that aren't true and then wishing the weird things you weirdly invented weren't true is a weird way to spend your time.

A lot of NS users being extreme left is a weird thing that isn't true?

Extremists of all stripes hang out on this site.

[Drongonia]

I was speaking generally, but sure, conservative values too if that's what a portion of the workers value.

I'm also working class. I have my own reasons for opposing progressive ideas which are not "I watch Fox news" (which I don't).

Yes, when talking about the "vast majority" I was excluding proud bigot like yourself and one particularly disgusting individual I am forced to share an assembly line with.

The three people who talk to you in the lunchroom are not the "vast majority of the working class".

Most working class people are more worried about where their next meal is coming from, rather than whether or not they're getting pronouns correct or whatever other progressive horse-shit is getting shoehorned into their day.

[Necroghastia]

Yes, when talking about the "vast majority" I was excluding proud bigot like yourself and one particularly disgusting individual I am forced to share an assembly line with.

The three people who talk to you in the lunchroom are not the "vast majority of the working class".

Most working class people are more worried about where their next meal is coming from, rather than whether or not they're getting pronouns correct or whatever other progressive horse-shit is getting shoehorned into their day.

Maybe because the only people that kick up a weird fuss over pronouns are the extreme right?

[Drongonia]

The three people who talk to you in the lunchroom are not the "vast majority of the working class".

Most working class people are more worried about where their next meal is coming from, rather than whether or not they're getting pronouns correct or whatever other progressive horse-shit is getting shoehorned into their day.

Maybe because the only people that kick up a weird fuss over pronouns are the extreme right?

Pronouns were just an example, I suppose it's semantically correct that the working class will "accept" these sorts of things since they're too busy fighting to stay out of poverty to care about them.

[Necroghastia]

Maybe because the only people that kick up a weird fuss over pronouns are the extreme right?

Pronouns were just an example, I suppose it's semantically correct that the working class will "accept" these sorts of things since they're too busy fighting to stay out of poverty to care about them.

Or, you know, they do care and that's precisely why they aren't weird about it.

[Drongonia]

Pronouns were just an example, I suppose it's semantically correct that the working class will "accept" these sorts of things since they're too busy fighting to stay out of poverty to care about them.

Or, you know, they do care and that's precisely why they aren't weird about it.

The majority of the working class likely do not care about progressive talking points, whether they are pronouns, trans rights-related stuff, refugees, LGBT representation in the media, gender equity or whatever.

This is in the same way that they likely do not care about conservative talking points, whether they are pronouns, trans rights-related stuff, refugees, LGBT representation in the media, gender equity or whatever.

They are simply too busy avoiding starving. The working class are not some progressive revolutionary force waiting to be activated. They are tired, poor and starving.

[Laasmistan]

Or, you know, they do care and that's precisely why they aren't weird about it.

The majority of the working class likely do not care about progressive talking points, whether they are pronouns, trans rights-related stuff, refugees, LGBT representation in the media, gender equity or whatever.

This is in the same way that they likely do not care about conservative talking points, whether they are pronouns, trans rights-related stuff, refugees, LGBT representation in the media, gender equity or whatever.

They are simply too busy avoiding starving. The working class are not some progressive revolutionary force waiting to be activated. They are tired, poor and starving.

You just described me to a tee.

[Necroghastia]

Or, you know, they do care and that's precisely why they aren't weird about it.

The majority of the working class likely do not care about progressive talking points, whether they are pronouns, trans rights-related stuff, refugees, LGBT representation in the media, gender equity or whatever.

This is in the same way that they likely do not care about conservative talking points, whether they are pronouns, trans rights-related stuff, refugees, LGBT representation in the media, gender equity or whatever.

They are simply too busy avoiding starving. The working class are not some progressive revolutionary force waiting to be activated. They are tired, poor and starving.

Frankly, it's pretty fucking demeaning and belittling of you to think that a) such issues are wholly divorced from the working class's issues and b) that the working class is so cognitively inept as to be unable to care about anything other than the basest of biological needs.