Good God, why must Wendy Schiller turn every question into a 20 minute lecture based on old Democratic talking points?

Thanks for another excellent video. Love Blyth!

Wendy was spot on regarding driving bad ideas underground. She has highlighted one of the problems the KZread Heros campaign causes. If bad ideas are not in the open to be challenged because of censorship, how then can they be combated and be shown to be bad ideas?

With regards to whether it is an economic problem or a racism problem, I think Mark already knows the answer and I think he hints at it in this presentation. My opinion is that the racism is always there and is a natural aspect of everyone's makeup. However, economics is a multiplier and in hard times it is negative and in good times it is positive. I do not consider racism itself is not a problem that economics cannot deal with.

@shaaficiali3449

7 жыл бұрын

Brian John I disagree with ravism being our natural state but that doesnt matter. Your right. racism gets exponentially worse during recessions and minorities usually get scapegoated. During the ealry 1900s the tuscon riots happened. Black people that invested in there neighborhood and were business saavy became extemely rich and the neighborhoods flourished. They had plumbing and indoor water tap which even white people in that area did not have. Eventually the white people there decided to raze those neighborhoods instead of fighting the banks that cause there.Race just divides us when in reality its not white vs black but the 90% vs the 1%

@tonybparalegal

7 жыл бұрын

Brian John+ This is actually easy to fix but economics can't do it. The problem is not economic. In fact, it is barely political. It is about him as a person encouraging ppl to act on their baser instincts. You are right about racism always being there, but, it's one thing to "hint around the edges" about a particular ethnic group. It tells you what the person believes, but the fact that they have had a sense of restraint about it makes all the difference. Trump, through his actions and directly through words, over and over on international t.v. has given everyone who normally refrains from making comments that are racist, bullying, praise or incite violent, misogynistic or anything making to humiliate someone in public...he gave all these people the encouragement to say what they want. Rather than being presidential talking about goals, potential, taking the high road, etc, he humiliates people to gain favor with the people who think it's funny. Keep in mind, this is NOT about being overly sensitive to the same sentiment that has existed here all along. It is that him encouraging this type of speech has actually made things worse. This has been noticeable for many months now. People are emboldened to bully and humiliate others rather than having to exercise that annoying restraint out of respect for others. It is a VERY noticeable difference in how people treat each other. Complete strangers, in person, feel free to jump into your conversation if it's not favorable about trump. If generally, people in the country are treating each other worse and have reverted back to the lack of respect they practiced in 6th grade, there is no economic achievement that will make up for that. Btw, I'm not a part of any minority group affected in any way nor do I need government health insurance. NOBODY who is bothered by this gives a damn about an election nor politics in general. EVERYONE recognizes that he's just being a crappy person and encouraging everyone he can to be. It's just about how he makes people worse.

Looking at issues of gender and race is fine... but fixating on them and forgetting (or ignoring) the economics side is a sure way of alienating massive numbers of poor and working poor. THAT is my beef with identity politics. That question about gender at around 56 minute mark was really about how race talk takes away prime-time from gender (understand women) talk. So if all you care about is either gender or race, then people on the left will be divided... Fix the discrimination against the poor and you will see how many of the gender and race issues will be addressed. But many of those on the left who are fixated on identity politics are comfortably middle-class or higher, and who have assets that might be put in risk if they take any action against the current economic paradigm. So they don't feel comfortable with addressing these broad economic disparities. One more point, in this already long rant. What about the policies that identity politics has inspired? They, themselves, are often times authoritarian (e.g. policing language-if you choose the wrong gender identity pronoun, your whole point is automatically invalidated) and divisive. Anyone on the fence, anyone who can be persuaded to join the left's cause of economic equity, looks at these toxic policies and wonders: what is it in for me? And the answer is nothing. Identity politics, in its current form, in the current times, is a dead end for the left.

@johnhorton5627

7 жыл бұрын

Your assumption is clearly identity politics are the purview of the left, and i'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Republicans have been the party of white identity politics since the southeast flipped over to them in the 80s and that's before we bring up ideas like the Moral Majority. It's not some accident of history for example that Reagan starts his campaign in Philadelphia, MS in 1980 on a platform of state's rights, an area of the world famous for one thing the murder of three civil rights activists in the 60s. Trump's son also went there this election cycle. Just look at it on a map. It's near nothing. It matters not at all politically given 90% of white people in MS will vote Republican no matter what. Yet, it's mattered for 30 plus years because of white identity politics. Part of that neoliberalism that Mark Blyth was talking about regarding Clinton was tough on crime which targeted minorities disproportionately and was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans. This all came with a back drop of ignoring urban problems because they were disproportionately black for decades while these areas metastasized after they were de-industrialized and their communities collapsed. This has been seen for decades as evidence of innate cultural problems among urban black people by particularly white conservative voters who upon learning the rest belt has collapsed didn't fault innate cultural problems among working class whites, but managed to countenance the idea that systemic issues actually matter to formerly industrial areas and the local cultural collapse that inevitably follows when you take factories away and replace them with nothing is not evidence of laziness or federal dependence or whatever ills one believe black communities are infected with. This hypocrisy doesn't happen because only the left does identity politics. Ignoring one sides identity politics while complaining about the others is absurd. Further on a long enough time line white identity politics is the actual dead end and Trump is the effect of that.

@ryh5169

7 жыл бұрын

OP didn't say that identity politics are just a left concern, but rather that prioritizing it over economics hasn't been a good strategy. Sanders said this during the primary and was mocked for it by Clinton: "We could reign in Wall Street tomorrow, and women and minorities still wouldn't earn equal pay." This sort of logic works on registered Democrats, but it seems to fail on most everyone else.

I didn't like Wendy's talk as much during their election post-mortem. She said a few things that irritated me and sounded like pretty superficial analyses. This talk she really shows how knowledgeable she is though. Jealous of all these students who have access to these two.

How to talk like a college student. Say "like" every second word, and inflect your voice at the end of every sentence.

@LL-cz5ql

4 жыл бұрын

I was reading your comment just as it happened lol. It's a dialect

Guess who's gonna have to change their tune. Democrats... How come i knew Trump would win in January.

@bozo5632

7 жыл бұрын

It was close enough that I'd say you were wrong in January. Or "right" merely by coincidence. You couldn't have "known." I knew Clinton was in trouble in 2016 back in 2008, let alone by 2015. I knew the pundits were full of it. I didn't know who would win, but I knew it was a lot closer than the media was portraying it. I knew Trump COULD win. I knew the polls were (deliberately) screwy but I couldn't know how badly. I gave it 50/50 after the conventions, with more opportunity for Trump to gain than for Clinton. (He blew those opportunities imho...) my assessment went up and down, but I was back at 50/50 on Election Day.

@michaelmcclure3383

7 жыл бұрын

Well.. i knew that Trump would take no prisioners and Hillary Clinton would be vulnerable because of all the baggage she had and what she represented (the Clinton era).. I didn't see it as a possitive at all. This is just what i thought at that time. This is why it surprises me that some considered her a good candidate and i was even more surprised that the DNC elevated Trump because they thought it would be good for Hillary... umm no!

Love the shorts! :D

20:55 to skip the really annoying background noise

58:12 is interesting but discussing "patriarchy" will never go anywhere until we're willing to talk about why the patriarchy became a thing in the first place, which was to ensure that private property passed down the male line.

I've only learned on Mark Blyth recently. *How* the fuck does this guy have his hand on the pulse of what's going on? He called Trumpism, and he called misrepresentation through polls.

I wouldn’t want to speak before Blythe. Or after him. The guy is so interesting and funny that it’s nearly impossible to feel like anyone is here to listen to you. I feel sorry for Schiller.

I’ll vote for whoever punished the political establishment the most. They are bent!

Schiller was grotesquely WRONG...I feel sorry for folks being educated by her!!!

@jaidanielparker

7 жыл бұрын

To be fair the likes of Mark Blyth were very much in the minority with their analysis, pre-election. Now that this de-globalization phenomenon has confounded the polls and experts twice in the form of Brexit and Trump they're taking notice and have realised that the world has fundamentally changed.

Mark brought up quite an insightful question regarding polling inaccuracy during the Brexit campaign. However, I think both speakers have failed to realise that this is not a new issue with polling in the UK. Pollsters have been consistently been calling elections wrong by quite a large margin for decades. I think that it has more to do with the methodology of the pollsters than they care to admit and are using the peer pressure argument in order for their funding to be continued. Additionally, the UK has been going through a fundamental shift in politics for quite some time and the old party allegiances are breaking down as can be seen by the complete collapse of the Labour vote in Scotland over the past decade to the point that the Conservative Party who could hardly win a seat in the country 20 years ago are now the party of opposition to the SNP. Mark characterises this as global Trumpism which helps the Americans understand a phenomenon that is much older than the Trump campaign.

@whatfruit

7 жыл бұрын

I think it has just been a few years of black swan elections.

"the only way to combat racist feelings is to hear them" My concern is President Trump's ability to influence people who didn't have racist feelings before.. maybe as president, Trump (w the media's help) could persuade more people over to a more racist line of thinking.

@Ren_Davis0531

7 жыл бұрын

That quote is misleading. She was saying that you need to hear their racist feelings then ideologically kick them in the teeth with better ideas. Ignoring them and pretending that human beings aren't capable of horrible things just allows these problems to fester and fester until they find some way to claw themselves back to the surface. If you're so afraid that people who didn't harbor any racist feelings before Trump will suddenly become racist after hearing his message then go out and actually provide a counter message that dismantles Trump's message and promotes racial unity. It's not that hard to understand. Fight bad ideas with good ideas. The idea that racism will go away if you ignore it is silly and clearly has not worked out. Show the man behind the curtain of their terrible ideas and you will incentivize people to disregard those ideas.

touchscreen developed with Lodestar US airforce, a ww2 passenger airplane?? dafuq

Funnier than Frankie Boyle.

the reasons people voted for brexit are more nuanced than media and politicians think. to some extent racism was a part. so was democracy, economics, distrust of politicians, political correctness but mainly it was about unrestricted free movement from European nations driving down wages putting strains on services at a time of government austerity.arguments can be made that migration improved the amount of tax taken by government but nations don,t like change to happen quickly and in case of Britain mass immigration was unrestricted because of ineffective government

These two are chicken soup for the intellectual soul

you sound so American

blyth and Wolff

why not vote online ,we do taxes online . why not have politics ,reality tv style ?

@DonTekNO

7 жыл бұрын

it would be even easier to manipulate than it already is ....

@wosbwosb4128

7 жыл бұрын

we cant stop d rate of possible manipulation .potential . so control the manipulators

@bozo5632

7 жыл бұрын

+Mark Abrams - Not necessarily. There are centuries of examples of problems with non-computerized voting. With the right system, online voting could be far more secure than in-person voting. We bank and shop online, after all. BitCoin works... The issue is who writes the software. Open source software could solve that problem - no need to trust anyone, you can check it for yourself, and even improve it yourself. Each political party and a hundred other interested parties could run their own mirrored servers. Any discrepancy would be immediately obvious to all parties. It could be very secure, extremely (maybe perfectly) accurate, and the results would be virtually instantaneous. Any other system (paper ballots etc.) depends on the honesty of lots and lots of faceless, effectively unaccountable, partisan humans.

If Obama had addressed inequality and poverty, you wouldn't have had poor people voting in droves for Trump. The poor working people are sick of the 'new' left (of SJWs and identity politicians ).

Not the stupidest professor but close. Lol

Schiller was proven very wrong as far as the Latino vote in Trumps victory