“Progressive economics” isn’t really a thing tho lol. Socialists itt may want to claim that word because it sounds like a good thing, but it was originally used to describe the policies of people like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson to allow more benefits for workers and less abilities for corporations to form monopolies or abuse power relative to before, but this was all very strictly in a capitalist framework. Now that people like Woodrow Wilson can not possible be seen as progressive by modern standards, the word means more about accepting minorities and things like that. The vast majority of people in the west who consider themselves progressive are not in favor of planned economies. Social democrats are progressive, and so are regular liberals like Obama who are far closer to them socially than they are to conservatives.

That being said though, it’s hard to be a progressive while supporting conservative economics, so I see what you mean by progressivism can’t be fully separated from economics. But still, the umbrella of progressivism extends beyond the left

A lot of people virtue signal, regardless of political affiliation.

What was this post fam?
You basically just gave the reasoning behind what Biden is doing but in an overtly verbose way to justify abusing studies, many of which aren't needed.

You don't need to cite studies or statistics to show that black women are highly educated. This isn't the 1950s, we aren't questioning the education levels of black american woman.

We know that black women are stigmatized and discriminated against. This is a foregone conclusion due to the intersectional criteria of race and gender related issues. No one, absolutely no one, is questioning whether Black Women are discriminated against.

Your last point about Black Women's voices being muted. Is literally why Biden is putting a Black Women on the Supreme Court. It goes without saying; he doesn't need to explain why having a black women's perspective on a predominantly white team of justices helps black households.

Biden doesn't need to explain things that are implicitly stated. We know why he's choosing a Black Woman for a Supreme Court position.

A PBS article just came out on Tara Reade that talked about the environment that Biden had on Capitol Hill. Him hiring women to higher positions has been a thing he's been doing for 40 years.

All you did was negatively interpret an action you yourself agree with because you dislike them. It's real "Bitch eating crackers syndrome"

You're also heavily abusing citations as if this is a high school essay. If you are running for office, you don't need to literally pull out a study to argue that Black Women have been discriminated against when you're appealing to voters live on television. That is an extremely OCD thing to do.

In fact, reevaluate your stances for an hour or so. You don't realize it but you typed up the verbal equivalent of "I agree with Greta Thunberg, but I F***ING HATE HER BECAUSE SHE'S A STUPID KID WHO DOESN'T ACTUALLY KNOW ANYTHING" when all she's said is listen to the research.

Biden putting a black women on the SC is a statement that doesn't need explanation unless you are the dullest of individuals. Unless you're writing an academic paper or an op-ed, there is 0 need to wantonly span citations when Biden himself announced these things on public television.

The stuff you asked for is just a very roundabout way of saying "I dislike x because I think they do things I like by accident."

Most of these people can probably explain the rationale behind having a female vice president or a black supreme court judge regardless of pure optics. Also the fact you felt you needed to cite a study to validate the education of black women in 2020...

They're not animals you know, we have plenty of competent black judges right now. We don't need to cite the competence of white judges when you add them to the courts, you do realize that? Obama and Biden didn't cite the intelligence of hispanic judges when they added Sotomayor. Biden placing one on the court is a matter of representation and how the SC should accurately represent the population it works for. 66 percent of the weird research methods college jargon you stated is borderline unnecessary.

In fact, what you said is probably more offensive than just placing a Black woman on the court. We really need to verify every minorities intellect and disenfranchisement in a governing body that is predominantly white? We want to have more representatives of color. Why are you gate keeping minorities out of government positions? If you disagree well, reread your post.
You essentially stated we need to verify the intellect of black women via scientific a***ysis as if to correct an assumption that black women aren't capable of being SC justices? You don't need to cite that unless you're refuting something

conservatives are protesting in the streets rn bc they want things to open back up and for the economy to be "saved"

at the same time holding up god bless america signs and USA flags, praising the same country that spends trillions towards the military while the working class (the protesters) go broke.

tell me who's the stupid ones?

Re-read and reinterpret what I wrote. Because towards the tail end of your post, you show you clearly didn't get a good 60-70% of it. Spend an hour or so

The one thing I will respond to from that...curious interpretation is what you said about sources and citing. And again here you read into some wild s*** bc I never said anything to the effect of "this needs to be made into a speech for live television during elections". And my response is simply this: studies, facts and yes, sources shouldn't be devalued.

I don't need to reread it
Why are you assuming they don't have studies or facts backing their choices?

Most people, generally assumed the reason Biden wants a black women on the SC is because of much needed representation in regards to the federal judiciary.

The stuff I said was wild because what you're implying is wild. No one is devaluing facts or studies, but the types of studies you stated you would use set weird precedents.
You don't need a study to verify that black women as a whole are capable of being members of the SC.
You don't need to flat out state that Black women are disenfranchised.
You don't need to flat out state that Black women are underrepresented in aspects of the judiciary.

We don't need such a high level of neurotic detailing to justify placing a Black women on one of the highest courts of the land.

Also Biden mentioned putting a black women on the SC on live TV. Why would he have all of these citations in to justify his appointment? It's not like he's doing a policy prescription for affirmative action. He is broadening representation in the judiciary. He doesn't need to qualify why he should put disenfranchised peoples on the supreme court.

You think I misinterpreted your post when it's more like you just don't understand what you actually typed

It's not even meant to be intellectual it's just elementary level political knowledge that Americans seem to be lacking in the most in the W*st, so people socialists bring it up before people confuse is with the likes of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.

Nah, it’s definitely just him being a pseud.

It’s something that he interjects into just about every political discussion in a vague, cynical and douchey manner to try and attack people.

Synopsis derives self worth from bullying kids online that aren’t as well-read as him.

Guys brain is fried lol. Gotta feel for ppl who's whole knowledge of pol ideology is confined to America and then get offended when others dont confine themselves to that

Crazy that these niggas basically posted

"I-I-I don't want people to call Hillary or Joe socialists! That's our name!"

Yeah, guess what! They don't want to be called socialist either! I guess you guys have something in common!

Basing your grievances on the fact that Conservatives in America use Socialist as an insult is a very sad state of affairs.

Also, America has literally had socialist parties that fought for worker's rights, which is something most people would realize if they ever actually studied American history. It's 2020, if you want to read Karl Max, we surely aren't stopping you and Pinochet'ing you off helicopters to do so.

I don't even know what @Synopsis is typing. No one cares if you want to align yourself as a socialist, democratic socialist, socialist democrat, libertarian socialist, etc etc

The problem is, you're a bad faith actor. Socialism has nothing to do with it

left wing policies dont support woke politics for the sake of identity, it's because such politics are required for leftist theory to make sense because they depend on truly egalitarian attitudes being directed towards the general population

liberal policy plays on these woke politics to appear welcoming to all walks of life but they still depend on artificial economic hierarchies because of their belief in "ethical capitalism"

I don't know why you guys make these weird arguments in an attempt to demonize other groups.

You could have just said that many American liberals tend to be minorities or a part of disenfranchised groups and thus are supporting policies and moving the party platform in a way that ensures their survival.

You're just meandering around to label some ulterior motive towards certain liberals making inclusive policies.

And you can have Left wing policies and just ethnically cleanse the rest of the population. The USSR literally did things like Holodomor.

I don't see your point, in fact. If America did this, they would have UHC by now due to how much certain groups of people hate having to subsidize the healthcare of minorities or other disenfranchised groups such as the LGBTQ.

You need to stop jumping the gun and generalizing entire voting blocks as if they're made of one monolithic individual. The liberals we're even talking about, probably have 0 idea of economic systems and do not view things from solely a class based lens.

If you've ever worked in any field of science, you would realize, some people propose policies for the betterment of a group. Not everyone, who isn't you, has some ulterior evil motive to get gay kids buying McDonalds every Gay Pride day.

tl;dr
You don't need to deem everyone you dislike as a monolithic evil group who is going out of their way to promote beneficial outcomes for a group of people because they're just aiming for something else. You need to stop strawmanning individuals and stop questioning their every action as if you're some paranoid schizophrenic.
You can relax...

Also what is wrong with identity politics. Everything in America is identity politics, sorry but these things mean a lot to most people. You're under the impression that Socialist in America have some hivemind level of regard for one another. Sorry, but you aren't a unified voting bloc either. I know for sure, that some black socialist would rather have an ethnostate than hang out with white people and vice versa. You are not as unified as you think. Hell weren't members of the USSR mixed concerning LGBT rights and Stalin even recriminalised s***between men?

Why are we acting like everyone is a monolithic group of people lmao. Some liberals are black and desire to elevate their ethnic groups quality of life. Some white people have sympathies with disenfranchised people and hope to correct prior wrongs that lead to their disenfranchisement.

Some socialist literally don't care about any issue outside of class and think that by ameliorating class issues, everyone will be fine.

Example?

Why are we pretending that everyone agrees all of a sudden? Pathos appeals exist

Cause liberals suck at making memes.

U tried ur best but im sorry to tell u the guy you're responding to is a pro at missing the point