Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

501 to 550 of 4,260 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, let's just take a moment and cut a very firm line: We need to be able to continue to analyze these issues while recognizing that some of them don't work in campaigning. A politician should never talk about some of this stuff.

That said, using them in debates will still elicit negative reactions. I say we accept that. This is still a civil rights movement, and abandoning the acknowledgement of, say, "privilege" is going to be very damaging to that movement. I don't think it's worth the potential political gains of dropping it.

Am I making full sense here?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

So, let's just take a moment and cut a very firm line: We need to be able to continue to analyze these issues while recognizing that some of them don't work in campaigning. A politician should never talk about some of this stuff.

That said, using them in debates will still elicit negative reactions. I say we accept that. This is still a civil rights movement, and abandoning the acknowledgement of, say, "privilege" is going to be very damaging to that movement. I don't think it's worth the potential political gains of dropping it.

Am I making full sense here?

Yeah, I think any addressing of these things by any mainstream politician, now or in the near future, is a shortcut to immediately disconnecting with white mainstream voters and non-voters that need to be reached. Obama got vilified for being existing as a black man even though he took great pains not to do so. On the campaign trail, HRC got vilified for tiptoing-up-to-but-not-quite discussing how everyone has some inherent preconceptions about others; the Press were almost gleeful to repeat her critics' accusations that she was "calling everyone racist."

But if the minorities can't ever find any acceptable language to describe what it's like trying to exist as a minority, how do all of us ever hope to recognize and work to effect equality and justice for all?


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:


But if the minorities can't ever find any acceptable language to describe what it's like trying to exist as a minority, how do all us ever hope to recognize and work to effect change?

You cannot reasonably ask someone to suspend their own discernment and judgement and replace it with someone elses merely on your say so and that's exactly what you're doing when you tell people they have to recognize the air they're in. You can see it but they can't. Why should someone believe you, random npc in the story of their lives, over themselves, their friends, their own life experiences, and those of the OTHER random npcs in the story of their lives (most of which have similar experiences to themselves..because geography is a thing)

Air was actually hard as heck to prove existed (17th century*, gravity as a force and not a fact of life was also hard to show. It is very hard to show something that has always been there which means you need a way to do it, not that you don't need to mention it.

*it would be ironic if that was only true from a western perspective, but a quick search didn't turn up any other similar proof in any other cultures


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
However, lets also look at this. What was Hillary's main opposition on his character? That he was a spoiled, rich man that didn't earn anything. Sounds a lot like the whole "white/male privilege" argument. Or commenting on his appearance, most notably his hair or weight. That he had no relevant experience, was stupid, ugly, etc. . . Or that he was a male, so just lead around by his penis, because that's what did the thinking. But, I guess that's ok, right because she is a she, so that doesn't count.

Just curious, can you dig me up a quote of where Hillary Clinton insulted Trump's appearance? I tried doing a couple searches and every time I only get a list of times Trump made comments about other people's appearance.

Honestly, I don't remember her commenting on his appearance at all.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:


But if the minorities can't ever find any acceptable language to describe what it's like trying to exist as a minority, how do all us ever hope to recognize and work to effect change?

You cannot reasonably ask someone to suspend their own discernment and judgement and replace it with someone elses merely on your say so and that's exactly what you're doing when you tell people they have to recognize the air they're in. You can see it but they can't. Why should someone believe you, random npc in the story of their lives, over themselves, their friends, their own life experiences, and those of the OTHER random npcs in the story of their lives (most of which have similar experiences to themselves..because geography is a thing)

Air was actually hard as heck to prove existed (17th century*, gravity as a force and not a fact of life was also hard to show. It is very hard to show something that has always been there which means you need a way to do it, not that you don't need to mention it.

*it would be ironic if that was only true from a western perspective, but a quick search didn't turn up any other similar proof in any other cultures

I get what you're saying BNW, but it's an argument for telling people to sit down, shut up and accept the status quo.

History doesn't remember people who sit down and shut up.


Perhaps a better question is figuring out why a privileged person would give up their societal privileges in the first place?

If equality and justice means giving up power, economic superiority, higher representation in government, unfair employment advantages and etc, than it probably doesn't sound worth a lot of privileged people's time to embrace when it means giving up the things that made their lives easier.

I mean, yeah, any decent human being would be willing to give up those things if they realized they resulted in human suffering, but not everyone's a decent human being and lot people stop being one when times are in the present tough, resulting in them looking to the past favorably, ergo Make America Great Again.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

So, let's just take a moment and cut a very firm line: We need to be able to continue to analyze these issues while recognizing that some of them don't work in campaigning. A politician should never talk about some of this stuff.

That said, using them in debates will still elicit negative reactions. I say we accept that. This is still a civil rights movement, and abandoning the acknowledgement of, say, "privilege" is going to be very damaging to that movement. I don't think it's worth the potential political gains of dropping it.

Am I making full sense here?

Yeah, I think any addressing of these things by any mainstream politician, now or in the near future, is a shortcut to immediately disconnecting with white mainstream voters and non-voters that need to be reached. Obama got vilified for being existing as a black man even though he took great pains not to do so. On the campaign trail, HRC got vilified for tiptoing-up-to-but-not-quite discussing how everyone has some inherent preconceptions about others; the Press were almost gleeful to repeat her critics' accusations that she was "calling everyone racist."

But if the minorities can't ever find any acceptable language to describe what it's like trying to exist as a minority, how do all of us ever hope to recognize and work to effect equality and justice for all?

Exactly. This is a hard problem and one I don't have an answer for. It's pretty clear to me that the path we've been on has created a pretty nasty backlash. The most common response to asking about options seems to be "Don't talk about it. Talk about white people's issues instead." That might work for politicians, but most of this isn't really driven by political campaigns.

The stuff causing the backlash has been grassroots - BLM, various LGBTQ groups & issues and of course the horrific monsters that are tumblr SJWs. Politicians have just been reacting to that when pushed.

So, is there a way to approach this kind of thing without alienating people we need? Or is it a doomed effort?


thejeff wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

So, let's just take a moment and cut a very firm line: We need to be able to continue to analyze these issues while recognizing that some of them don't work in campaigning. A politician should never talk about some of this stuff.

That said, using them in debates will still elicit negative reactions. I say we accept that. This is still a civil rights movement, and abandoning the acknowledgement of, say, "privilege" is going to be very damaging to that movement. I don't think it's worth the potential political gains of dropping it.

Am I making full sense here?

Yeah, I think any addressing of these things by any mainstream politician, now or in the near future, is a shortcut to immediately disconnecting with white mainstream voters and non-voters that need to be reached. Obama got vilified for being existing as a black man even though he took great pains not to do so. On the campaign trail, HRC got vilified for tiptoing-up-to-but-not-quite discussing how everyone has some inherent preconceptions about others; the Press were almost gleeful to repeat her critics' accusations that she was "calling everyone racist."

But if the minorities can't ever find any acceptable language to describe what it's like trying to exist as a minority, how do all of us ever hope to recognize and work to effect equality and justice for all?

Exactly. This is a hard problem and one I don't have an answer for. It's pretty clear to me that the path we've been on has created a pretty nasty backlash. The most common response to asking about options seems to be "Don't talk about it. Talk about white people's issues instead." That might work for politicians, but most of this isn't really driven by political campaigns.

The stuff causing the backlash has been grassroots - BLM, various LGBTQ groups & issues and of course the horrific monsters that are tumblr SJWs. Politicians have just been reacting to that when pushed.

So, is there a way to approach this kind of thing without alienating people we need? Or is it a doomed effort?

I hope that we'll eventually find a way of discussing these types of issues. But I'm afraid even if we do figure out it out, it'll quickly be co-opted and poisoned by those opposed to any change (and of course, by those seeking the LOLZ).


Delightful wrote:

Perhaps a better question is figuring out why a privileged person would give up their societal privileges in the first place?

If equality and justice means giving up power, economic superiority, higher representation in government, unfair employment advantages and etc, than it probably doesn't sound worth a lot of privileged people's time to embrace when it means giving up the things that made their lives easier.

I mean, yeah, any decent human being would be willing to give up those things if they realized they resulted in human suffering, but not everyone's a decent human being and lot people stop being one when times are in the present tough, resulting in them looking to the past favorably, ergo Make America Great Again.

Well, one answer is that's were the class analysis comes in: That racism is being used to divide the working class and that uniting against the bosses can help everyone (except the bosses).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
However, lets also look at this. What was Hillary's main opposition on his character? That he was a spoiled, rich man that didn't earn anything. Sounds a lot like the whole "white/male privilege" argument. Or commenting on his appearance, most notably his hair or weight. That he had no relevant experience, was stupid, ugly, etc. . . Or that he was a male, so just lead around by his penis, because that's what did the thinking. But, I guess that's ok, right because she is a she, so that doesn't count.

Just curious, can you dig me up a quote of where Hillary Clinton insulted Trump's appearance? I tried doing a couple searches and every time I only get a list of times Trump made comments about other people's appearance.

Honestly, I don't remember her commenting on his appearance at all.

Mostly unrelated, but I just remembered how terrible Rubio is at everything. Hee hee. If ever there was a candidate truly favored by the media...

Delightful wrote:
I mean, yeah, any decent human being would be willing to give up those things if they realized they resulted in human suffering, but not everyone's a decent human being and lot people stop being one when times are in the present tough, resulting in them looking to the past favorably, ergo Make America Great Again.

There's a MLK quote that sort of applies here.

"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Delightful wrote:
Perhaps a better question is figuring out why a privileged person would give up their societal privileges in the first place?

They never will when you use that term.

Try "do you believe that all americans* should have the same rights that you do?" and the answer is usually yes. I have the right for cops not to stop me at random, throw me up against the wall and search my pockets. I have a right for a cop to at least consider that he's going to be fired or go to jail if he shoots me in the back.

Enforcing that right for african americans would remove the "privlidged" position, but wouldn't change my actual position, hurt, or benefit me personally. It also doesn't imply that not being shot by the police is some unearned special status that I don't really deserve. You don't HAVE to give up anything for someone else to get something.

(i mean, technically all people should still have these rights, but hey. tribalism)


thejeff wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

So, let's just take a moment and cut a very firm line: We need to be able to continue to analyze these issues while recognizing that some of them don't work in campaigning. A politician should never talk about some of this stuff.

That said, using them in debates will still elicit negative reactions. I say we accept that. This is still a civil rights movement, and abandoning the acknowledgement of, say, "privilege" is going to be very damaging to that movement. I don't think it's worth the potential political gains of dropping it.

Am I making full sense here?

Yeah, I think any addressing of these things by any mainstream politician, now or in the near future, is a shortcut to immediately disconnecting with white mainstream voters and non-voters that need to be reached. Obama got vilified for being existing as a black man even though he took great pains not to do so. On the campaign trail, HRC got vilified for tiptoing-up-to-but-not-quite discussing how everyone has some inherent preconceptions about others; the Press were almost gleeful to repeat her critics' accusations that she was "calling everyone racist."

But if the minorities can't ever find any acceptable language to describe what it's like trying to exist as a minority, how do all of us ever hope to recognize and work to effect equality and justice for all?

Exactly. This is a hard problem and one I don't have an answer for. It's pretty clear to me that the path we've been on has created a pretty nasty backlash. The most common response to asking about options seems to be "Don't talk about it. Talk about white people's issues instead." That might work for politicians, but most of this isn't really driven by political campaigns.

The stuff causing the backlash has been grassroots - BLM, various LGBTQ groups & issues and of course the horrific monsters that are tumblr SJWs. Politicians have just been reacting to that when pushed.

So, is there a way to approach...

Why bother.

Division and us vs them are fundamental aspects of democracy and humanity in general. You are going to alienate people no matter how you colour your language or state your message, so trying to get everyone on your side is a waste of time.

People have said this over and over again and I hate to repeat it, but the fact is Hilary only barely lost. Democrats have the support they need more or less and just need to get those people to the polls. They also need to realize that as pretty much the only leftist part capable of winning and a lot of people are going (be they SJWs, Socialists, Neoliberals, etc) to bite the bullet and vote for them if means that the other guy doesn't win.

So, yeah, this explosive backlash against the social justice movement (which really should just be recognized as a modern day civil rights movement) isn't going away any time soon and the time of governmental gridlock that was seen with Obama is probably going to continue if a Democrat wins in 2020, but that's just the nature of the beast, Democrats are just going to suffer through it and try to get some things done in spite of that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
But if the minorities can't ever find any acceptable language to describe what it's like trying to exist as a minority, how do all us ever hope to recognize and work to effect change?
You cannot reasonably ask someone to suspend their own discernment and judgement and replace it with someone elses merely on your say so and that's exactly what you're doing when you tell people they have to recognize the air they're in. You can see it but they can't. Why should someone believe you, random npc in the story of their lives, over themselves, their friends, their own life experiences, and those of the OTHER random npcs in the story of their lives (most of which have similar experiences to themselves..because geography is a thing)

As a white woman of at least moderate intelligence, I can damn well recognize (at least partially) how much harder my life would be trying to get through it while also being black or Hispanic/Latina or Middle Eastern. I can damn well recognize (at least partially) how much harder my closeted life would be trying to get through it while also being perceived as openly gay or transgender or queer. I don't blame myself for the advantages (however meager, however unasked for) I lucked into. Acknowledging those advantages doesn't mean I didn't work hard for what I do have, or that I somehow don't deserve to have a livable life.

To me, it means that I should try to have empathy for those without my advantages, and that I should do what I can to change the system so that others are less disadvantaged. Part of that empathy means at least being willing to listen to those less advantaged without immediately assuming their appeal for basic equality somehow casts me as the villain. Or that they're just making sh!t up to get more of my stuff.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Delightful wrote:
Perhaps a better question is figuring out why a privileged person would give up their societal privileges in the first place?

They never will when you use that term.

Try "do you believe that all americans* should have the same rights that you do?" and the answer is usually yes. I have the right for cops not to stop me at random, throw me up against the wall and search my pockets. I have a right for a cop to at least consider that he's going to be fired or go to jail if he shoots me in the back.

Enforcing that right for african americans would remove the "privlidged" position, but wouldn't change my actual position, hurt, or benefit me personally. It also doesn't imply that not being shot by the police is some unearned special status that I don't really deserve. You don't HAVE to give up anything for someone else to get something.

(i mean, technically all people should still have these rights, but hey. tribalism)

On paper that makes a lot of sense BigNorseWolf, but as it turns out a lot of white people aren't seemingly treated that way by the cops so its not a problem in their minds and obviously just whining and overgeneralization by African Americans and SJW's.


DM Beckett wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The Democrats are seriously going to have to start talking to their progressive wing soon and admitting that Clinton just wasn't that good a candidate. It wasn't all her fault—sexism, biased media and a long campaign to paint her as unlikable and deceitful did a lot to screw her over—but at the core she was an uncharismatic career politician who campaigned on "America Is Already Great" and was way too moderate on issues progressives cared about.

Trump didn't beat Hillary Clinton. With that wretched turnout, he couldn't beat McGovern*. Secretary Clinton beat herself. She was carried through the primary debates by her party's blatant endorsement and half-won just by virtue of the media narrative saying she would win. People complained that Bernie Sanders was hampering her and weakening her prior to the general, forgetting that the point of a primary is to weed out easily-weakened candidates.

I just wanted to start off with the initial thing your party should change is the entire premise of this argument. Hillary didn't lose because of sexism, (or if it was at all a cause, it's so extremely marginal it's irrelevant). And lets face facts, the "biased media" AND the smear campaign to paint someone as "unlikable" absolutely favored her and affected the opponent. AND SHE STILL LOST.

I want to be absolutely clear here, because I am so sick of hearing this sort of rational. Hillary had all of the advantages and she still lost. And trying to paint anyone that contributed to that as wrong, evil, "ist", etc. . . is very disingenuous. Hillary lost and Trump won on their own merits and flaws. Pretending that Hillary was somehow unfairly robbed very much smacks of excuses. Not reason. "I wasn't ready, and the sun was in my eye, and I was distracted. In a "real" fight, I would have won."

So, let's start there. Hillary lost based on her own faults, largely her unescapable past history, her campaigns own treatment of her peers, (who realistically stood a chance), her lack of charisma,...

this is the most long-winded agreement I've ever read.


Delightful wrote:


On paper that makes a lot of sense BigNorseWolf, but as it turns out a lot of white people aren't seemingly treated that way by the cops so its not a problem in their minds and obviously just whining and overgeneralization by African Americans and SJW's.

Cel phone camera's have done a great job of assisting the argument with evidence. Stop and frisk statistics show that it's not Frank Reagans bad guy radar it's random searches. there are good arguments you can make appealing to objective facts. They won't work with everyone but i have to think they do better than the sjw jargon which i have NEVER seen do anything but get hackles up.

Trust me, i know raised hackles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Delightful wrote:
Perhaps a better question is figuring out why a privileged person would give up their societal privileges in the first place?

They never will when you use that term.

Try "do you believe that all americans* should have the same rights that you do?" and the answer is usually yes. I have the right for cops not to stop me at random, throw me up against the wall and search my pockets. I have a right for a cop to at least consider that he's going to be fired or go to jail if he shoots me in the back.

Enforcing that right for african americans would remove the "privlidged" position, but wouldn't change my actual position, hurt, or benefit me personally. It also doesn't imply that not being shot by the police is some unearned special status that I don't really deserve. You don't HAVE to give up anything for someone else to get something.

(i mean, technically all people should still have these rights, but hey. tribalism)

So they just need to find the correct language, politically speaking, to discuss it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
But if the minorities can't ever find any acceptable language to describe what it's like trying to exist as a minority, how do all us ever hope to recognize and work to effect change?
You cannot reasonably ask someone to suspend their own discernment and judgement and replace it with someone elses merely on your say so and that's exactly what you're doing when you tell people they have to recognize the air they're in. You can see it but they can't. Why should someone believe you, random npc in the story of their lives, over themselves, their friends, their own life experiences, and those of the OTHER random npcs in the story of their lives (most of which have similar experiences to themselves..because geography is a thing)

As a white woman of at least moderate intelligence, I can damn well recognize (at least partially) how much harder my life would be trying to get through it while also being black or Hispanic/Latina or Middle Eastern. I can damn well recognize (at least partially) how much harder my closeted life would be trying to get through it while also being perceived as openly gay or transgender or queer. I don't blame myself for the advantages (however meager, however unasked for) I lucked into. Acknowledging those advantages doesn't mean I didn't work hard for what I do have, or that I somehow don't deserve to have a livable life.

To me, it means that I should try to have empathy for those without my advantages, and that I should do what I can to change the system so that others are less disadvantaged. Part of that empathy means at least being willing to listen to those less advantaged without immediately assuming their appeal for basic equality somehow casts me as the villain. Or that they're just making sh!t up to get more of my stuff.

Yes, exactly. I can ask people to do so, because I can do so. Empathy is a pretty basic human trait. We do this kind of thing all the time. Fiction is actually a really good way of getting people to do this.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Delightful wrote:
Perhaps a better question is figuring out why a privileged person would give up their societal privileges in the first place?

They never will when you use that term.

Try "do you believe that all americans* should have the same rights that you do?" and the answer is usually yes. I have the right for cops not to stop me at random, throw me up against the wall and search my pockets. I have a right for a cop to at least consider that he's going to be fired or go to jail if he shoots me in the back.

Enforcing that right for african americans would remove the "privlidged" position, but wouldn't change my actual position, hurt, or benefit me personally. It also doesn't imply that not being shot by the police is some unearned special status that I don't really deserve. You don't HAVE to give up anything for someone else to get something.

(i mean, technically all people should still have these rights, but hey. tribalism)

So they just need to find the correct language, politically speaking, to discuss it?

That's one argument. I'm not sold on it. I think it's the concept that people react to, not the language. It's a hard damn thing to admit - especially once you move beyond things like cops shooting people and onto subtle preferences in employment and just in day to day interaction.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Delightful wrote:


On paper that makes a lot of sense BigNorseWolf, but as it turns out a lot of white people aren't seemingly treated that way by the cops so its not a problem in their minds and obviously just whining and overgeneralization by African Americans and SJW's.

Cel phone camera's have done a great job of assisting the argument with evidence. Stop and frisk statistics show that it's not Frank Reagans bad guy radar it's random searches. there are good arguments you can make appealing to objective facts. They won't work with everyone but i have to think they do better than the sjw jargon which i have NEVER seen do anything but get hackles up.

Trust me, i know raised hackles.

White people's hackles got raised when African-Americans asked to be seated at the same restaurant. Just because the people in power get upset about being told the truth isn't an argument to stop telling to truth.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I can damn well recognize (at least partially) how much harder my closeted life would be trying to get through it while also being perceived as openly gay or transgender or queer. I don't blame myself for the advantages (however meager, however unasked for) I lucked into. Acknowledging those advantages doesn't mean I didn't work hard for what I do have, or that I somehow don't deserve to have a livable life.

This is politics. The question isn't -what do i feel about this- the question is -what do i DO about this- or, what sometimes people forget to ask -what do i want to do about this that i think is important enough to send the lumbering if well intentioned behemoth of government into the fray-

Quote:
Part of that empathy means at least being willing to listen to those less advantaged without immediately assuming their appeal for basic equality somehow casts me as the villain. Or that they're just making sh!t up to get more of my stuff.

Listen, yes. But no one gets to not prove their point. People can be looking for an advantage. They can be well meaning an earnest but genuinely wrong. It might be racism, it might be economics, it might be geography (they're linked) and they have different responses.

Shadow Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:

Sorry, I seem to have stepped into my own miscommunication trap. I meant to say, "It looks like DM Beckett probably voted for HIllary (or abstained from voting) based on this quote."

I apparently flubbed that, so you know... carry on and stuff.

No worries. I'm not angry, and I fully understand that the lack of tone, familiarity, and other things can be read different ways.

I did not vote, but only because I realistically couldn't.

I do think that it was pretty clear from the start Trump would win, although I'm honestly a little surprised that the independents didn't do as well this election as I would have guessed.

Trump was clearly playing chess, taking a piece here, a piece there, and maneuvering the board while Clinton seemed to be playing a mixture of the Lottery and Prom, as far as I can tell. Clinton seemed to try to appeal to various groups (the mob), while Trump went for specific targets (law enforcement, the military, the bread winners, the folks that made their own fortunes, big or small). He didn't really target red/blue colored states, but rather the peoples of those states.

While Clinton and/or her supporters focused on trying to include everyone within every different group, Trump focuses on specific problems caused by factions within those groups that other members of that very group also suffered from. That's why so many females, Hispanics, etc. . . went his way despite all of the "he is a racist/sexist/anti-muslimist/____ist".


Freehold DM wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The Democrats are seriously going to have to start talking to their progressive wing soon and admitting that Clinton just wasn't that good a candidate. It wasn't all her fault—sexism, biased media and a long campaign to paint her as unlikable and deceitful did a lot to screw her over—but at the core she was an uncharismatic career politician who campaigned on "America Is Already Great" and was way too moderate on issues progressives cared about.

Trump didn't beat Hillary Clinton. With that wretched turnout, he couldn't beat McGovern*. Secretary Clinton beat herself. She was carried through the primary debates by her party's blatant endorsement and half-won just by virtue of the media narrative saying she would win. People complained that Bernie Sanders was hampering her and weakening her prior to the general, forgetting that the point of a primary is to weed out easily-weakened candidates.

I just wanted to start off with the initial thing your party should change is the entire premise of this argument. Hillary didn't lose because of sexism, (or if it was at all a cause, it's so extremely marginal it's irrelevant). And lets face facts, the "biased media" AND the smear campaign to paint someone as "unlikable" absolutely favored her and affected the opponent. AND SHE STILL LOST.

I want to be absolutely clear here, because I am so sick of hearing this sort of rational. Hillary had all of the advantages and she still lost. And trying to paint anyone that contributed to that as wrong, evil, "ist", etc. . . is very disingenuous. Hillary lost and Trump won on their own merits and flaws. Pretending that Hillary was somehow unfairly robbed very much smacks of excuses. Not reason. "I wasn't ready, and the sun was in my eye, and I was distracted. In a "real" fight, I would have won."

So, let's start there. Hillary lost based on her own faults, largely her unescapable past history, her campaigns own treatment of her peers, (who realistically stood a

...

Well, it's a qualified agreement. I disagree with Beckett on a great deal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I can damn well recognize (at least partially) how much harder my closeted life would be trying to get through it while also being perceived as openly gay or transgender or queer. I don't blame myself for the advantages (however meager, however unasked for) I lucked into. Acknowledging those advantages doesn't mean I didn't work hard for what I do have, or that I somehow don't deserve to have a livable life.
This is politics. The question isn't -what do i feel about this- the question is -what do i DO about this- or, what sometimes people forget to ask -what do i want to do about this that i think is important enough to send the lumbering if well intentioned behemoth of government into the fray-

I'm not claiming I have the answers, or even workable suggestions. I'm just saying the inequities in our society need to be acknowledged as actually existing, so they can then be discussed. And it seems pretty damn unfair to expect the disadvantaged to also come up with workable solutions when they can't even bring the topic up, let alone specific problems, without immediate attempts by the non-disadvantaged to shut the topic down by policing language and dismissing their specific examples.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I can damn well recognize (at least partially) how much harder my closeted life would be trying to get through it while also being perceived as openly gay or transgender or queer. I don't blame myself for the advantages (however meager, however unasked for) I lucked into. Acknowledging those advantages doesn't mean I didn't work hard for what I do have, or that I somehow don't deserve to have a livable life.

This is politics. The question isn't -what do i feel about this- the question is -what do i DO about this- or, what sometimes people forget to ask -what do i want to do about this that i think is important enough to send the lumbering if well intentioned behemoth of government into the fray-

Wait. What exactly are we trying "to send the lumbering if well intentioned behemoth of government into the fray" to do?

We've been talking in such generalities here that I've lost track. I thought we were talking about people voting in Trump because they were upset about tumblr SJWs.


DM Beckett wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I like how serious analysis of social issues has been reframed into "elitist jargon". I mean, sure, we're not gonna use "Check your privilege" in campaign ads, but if we aren't allowed to even discuss things like "zero-sum equality" and "privilege" because it'll offend the Right, we're being silenced on some very important issues.
How is that any different that the entire purpose of the privilege fallacy? It's literally there to silence others by falsely claiming your grass is greener, so you just don't understand real problems. Yes, yes, I mean to "educate others by silencing them" and all that.

No. No it isn't. It really isn't.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I like how serious analysis of social issues has been reframed into "elitist jargon". I mean, sure, we're not gonna use "Check your privilege" in campaign ads, but if we aren't allowed to even discuss things like "zero-sum equality" and "privilege" because it'll offend the Right, we're being silenced on some very important issues.

if you're ticking off the guy that thinks the biggest impediment to getting whales representatives in congress is no one's come up with transparent aluminum tanks yet then you're ticking off a lot more than the right.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If you want the vote of white people living in trailers on food coupons, you're going to have to stop referring to them as privileged. Even if they are, compared to a black person in the exact same situation. They don't compare themselves to a black person in the exact same situation -- they compare themselves to the societal average and see themselves as underprivileged. When they hear people saying they are privileged, what they hear is, "we have no interest in working to improve things for you, we're good with you being where you are".


Who is "you", Samy? Are you saying literally everybody has to stop talking about privilege, or are you talking about politicians?

I have no idea what BNW is alluding to, so I can't respond to him just yet.

For the record, "privilege" is more an argumentative device for explaining problems in finding common ground. "Oh, this is why you two are having trouble here—Jim has privilege with regards to not getting catcalled, so he's having trouble relating to Sarah's complaints." When it goes beyond that, it is being hazardously misused.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That's a good question. It's probably a spectrum. The more people who talk about it, the more often they hear it, the more annoyed the not-well-off whites will get. But there isn't a clear line separating who should talk and who shouldn't.


I would rather we focus on educating people about what privilege is so they don't have to get offended. It's not going to suddenly stop being a critical aspect of civil rights discussions just because it got inconvenient for politicians to bring up. Many causes—desegregation, gay marriage, abolition—were inconvenient and divisive, and many of them actually did lead to people losing elections. Imagine if all the abolitionists around Lincoln had said, "We must stop fighting to end slavery, as it is turning the South against us and making it more difficult to win Southern seats."


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's amazing how people upset by SJWs, trigger warnings, and safe spaces need to be handled with kid gloves as not to upset them.

How much of reality do democrats have to ignore in order to have a discussion with republicans? Is there still a point in having a discussion if facts are offensive?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I would rather we focus on educating people about what privilege is so they don't have to get offended.

Good luck. I don't think you'll get very far, but good luck.

Also, I must emphasize that talking less does not mean giving up the fight. Nothing says that you can't court the vote of the white poor and still vote progressively in legislature.


Samy wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I would rather we focus on educating people about what privilege is so they don't have to get offended.
Good luck. I don't think you'll get very far

Then civil rights will fail. Without an understanding of privilege, those who have it will never surrender it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Civil rights have progressed decade by decade without hammering the poor in the face with the word "privilege".


The word came into usage when it became part of the fight. It is used now because it is necessary to proceed.

Also, the poor aren't getting "hammered". There's just a lot of people who are far too easily offended by any implication that they have an advantage.


Samy wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I would rather we focus on educating people about what privilege is so they don't have to get offended.

Good luck. I don't think you'll get very far, but good luck.

Also, I must emphasize that talking less does not mean giving up the fight. Nothing says that you can't court the vote of the white poor and still vote progressively in legislature.

So say one thing but do another? Aside from the fact that seems to work much better for one political party than the other, is that really something you want more of?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:


I have no idea what BNW is alluding to, so I can't respond to him just yet.

Come on, can't make a star trek reference on THESE boards?

I am poking fun at some of my own loony left tendencies to point out that the terminology is annoying to more than those on the right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:


I have no idea what BNW is alluding to, so I can't respond to him just yet.
Come on, can't make a star trek reference on THESE boards?

What a f~#+ing nerd.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Samy wrote:
Nothing says that you can't court the vote of the white poor and still vote progressively in legislature.
So say one thing but do another? Aside from the fact that seems to work much better for one political party than the other, is that really something you want more of?

You're assuming the two purposes are in conflict. I don't believe they necessarily are.

If you tell the poor, "We want to make things better for you!", then there's nothing wrong with voting to make things better for minorities if you also vote to make things better for the poor too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Blayde MacRonan

I don't see anything there that isn't on the right as well. Or humans in general.

The right does it more, if anything. They elected the insulter if chief after all.

501 to 550 of 4,260 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards