Pushing back against the narrative that the new deal era was only better if you're a white male

 So...I'm on a roll with the SJW stuff today, and given the stuff I discussed, I feel like this is yet another topic I should discuss today. 

I saw a thread asking if life was really better in say, the 1950s or the new deal era in general than it is now. I kinda expected the SJWs to flood the topic and point out that life was only better if you were a white male, and...they did not disappoint. Response after response was FULL of the same old SJW nonsense we see over and over, that life was only better if you were a white male and if you were black, a woman, or gay, your life was worse off.

Do I refute the idea that life was worse off for those people? No. It probably was. 

BUT, I do want to point out what these guys are doing here. They are, like they always do, putting the ideas of economic progress at odds with their social progress, implying we can only have good things if we throw minorities, women, and gay/trans people under the bus. And it's nonsense.

There is ZERO reason why we can't maintain the progress we made socially in the past 50 years, while also kind of relearning what we did back in the day about the economics of the situation. But...SJWs LOVE to pit economic ideas vs social ideas. They did it in 2016 constantly. Telling us "you see you white progressive, black people/women/lgbtq+ people don't care about XYZ blah blah blah" and basically telling us, screw you, you can't have nice things because all of politics is to be a circlejerk about identity issues. 

Really, they do it all the time. Perhaps it's just a clinton talking point against the bernie bros, but yeah, I really do think that this stuff is a psy op at this point. We gotta put all economic progress on hold for social issues, and if we have to choose, we HAVE to choose the social issues over the economic issues. Which is why we have these current rifts in the left, and why I'm so cavalier on the social issues. Because if i HAD to, and I really don't want to, but if I HAD to, yeah I do kinda care about economics more, and the social justice crap is offputting. When a white male like myself has issues, we wanna be heard too, we don't wanna be told to STFU because "privilege" or some nonsense. But that's what the left loves to pull these days. And it's one of the reasons I have such a checkered reputation with them. because push comes to shove I WILL push back on their BS and prioritize my issues.

Still, at the end of the day, I really don't believe there really IS inherent conflict. And I AM socially progressive. Maybe not in all the ways they want me to be. Again, I'm not a postmodernist explicitly, I don't do the privilege and intersectionality stuff explicitly, but my progressive liberal ideology is socially libertarian and egalitarian, and I do kinda agree in outcome with around 80% of social justice issues. I might reject some of the more weird extreme crap they do like reparations (unless UBI counts) or affirmative action, or anything that's too....preferential toward a specific group, but simply by being on the left and being socially liberal/libertarian, we're gonna agree more than we don't. Of course, I am only a dirty liberal in their eyes, but I'm starting to care less and less about what "leftists" think when they get all purity testy and start throwing around the term "liberal" as a slur. 

And...there's no reason we can't learn from the new deal, go back to those kinds of economics, or even expand on them, without going backwards socially. This is a false dilemma these types like to make to bully lefties into giving up our priorities for theirs. Again, our mold (something ugly and unattractive and a blight) is the ruling class's penicillin (serves to inoculate themselves against change). And we need to just say no. 

Again, the path forward as far as im concerned is up to them. if they care so much about their issues, I can work with them, if there's reciprocity involved. But these guys just want things to be their way or the high way. They wanna screw me over and bully me into supporting them. They wanna lecture me about how I can't have nice things because privilege, and I gotta just bow down and apologize for my ancestors' past (even though I'm mostly irish and if you know they're history that's rich), and take it. 

No, we should make life better for everyone. We should focus on economic goals. We should preserve and make social progress too. There's no reason why, in the American political system, these should be at odds. Heck, if anything they should complement each other, given our mutual enemy is the right, and given how they're the source of all social regressivism AND the source of fiscal conservatism. 

Maybe they'll have to lay off the superficial virtue signalling about minorities and women and gay people where they can't go 3 seconds without mentioning one of those groups, if not all 3 simultaneously (anyone ever notice they love to do this?, it's like they can't shut up about the topic for 5 seconds) and focus on a more dog whistley type approach to getting what they want, but still, they would get what they want. There's zero reason why the democratic party can't work toward those goals without the superficial virtue signalling. If anything, they'd probably have more success. Most peoples' issues with "wokeness" is more to do with the "shoving it down our throats" aspect rather than the idea of groups having rights and equality. It's more the fact that that stuff is an annoyance.

But then again, that's also why i think the left engages in it. Because again, it was a psy op to sabotage the left. It's inspired by the same logic behind the tower of babel in the bible. Sow confusion and division and cause infighting so the left is useless and can't do anything of value. And we have to learn to overcome it and inoculate OURSELVES against it if we ever wanna get crap done on our own.