Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

751 to 800 of 4,260 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

An article about Obama voters who went for Trump and the reasons they did

Pro Trump America

Complementary article from back in November about black residents of Milwaukee who didn't vote for Hillary.

Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn’t Vote — and Don’t Regret It

Clinton's elitism was hard to choke down these good folks were not the only ones who had to pinch their nose to vote for her if they even bothered to vote. I don't blame them.

However,"As for Mrs. Clinton, “other countries probably wouldn’t have respected us because we had a woman running the country,” he said."
yessiree no sexiam in this race juts lefties makin good ol trump look bad for no good reason.....

My fave bit was when the dude in the chair in the first picture said he voted for Trump because he blamed Bill's crime bill for sending him to jail for 20 years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).

Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.

It also isn't likely to have Mount Fuji nearby either. You are comparing other locations to this location. I am saying within the context of this particular location, does this idea of "white privilege" have any meaning?
Well, since you just invented that use for the term white priviledge, you tell me. That isn't what the term traditionally describes though.

Here's what defines white privilege, recently in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, which is about as whitebread a small town you can get, me, my spouse, and a part black friend of mine were walking to the train station. My part black friend was the one who got stopped by the local police, and his ID ran through the circuit.

That's the demonstration of white privilege.

I wouldn't say that's white privilege. I'd say that's bigoted police.

I have issues with the term. It has grown into something other than it once was.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).

Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.

It also isn't likely to have Mount Fuji nearby either. You are comparing other locations to this location. I am saying within the context of this particular location, does this idea of "white privilege" have any meaning?
Well, since you just invented that use for the term white priviledge, you tell me. That isn't what the term traditionally describes though.

Here's what defines white privilege, recently in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, which is about as whitebread a small town you can get, me, my spouse, and a part black friend of mine were walking to the train station. My part black friend was the one who got stopped by the local police, and his ID ran through the circuit.

That's the demonstration of white privilege.

I wouldn't say that's white privilege. I'd say that's bigoted police.

I have issues with the term. It has grown into something other than it once was.

Of course it's bigoted police. White privilege generally means that as a white person, the bigotry isn't going to be aimed at you.

What exactly are the issues you have with it? What exactly has it "grown into"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Well sure, if you think that's the actual plan then the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans and probably working with them to run the con and all of politics is just a waste of time and we might as well just start blowing things up.

This is the conversation I keep having with the kids. They're all in love with Black Block and Antifa, and me and Mr. Comrade are all like, "you know what Lenin used to say about the left-wing terrorists? That they were 'enraged liberals', lacking the understanding or patience to organize the masses, so they just go try and shoot the tsar, or trash a Starbucks. Substitutionist liberal nonsense. Now, go sell the paper!"

...Wait, Comrade Anklebiter and Doodlebug Anklebiter are different people?

This is what I get for being too lazy to read your thread all these years.

I have met him before and did not know this. I thought it was just an alias.


Freehold DM wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Well sure, if you think that's the actual plan then the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans and probably working with them to run the con and all of politics is just a waste of time and we might as well just start blowing things up.

This is the conversation I keep having with the kids. They're all in love with Black Block and Antifa, and me and Mr. Comrade are all like, "you know what Lenin used to say about the left-wing terrorists? That they were 'enraged liberals', lacking the understanding or patience to organize the masses, so they just go try and shoot the tsar, or trash a Starbucks. Substitutionist liberal nonsense. Now, go sell the paper!"

...Wait, Comrade Anklebiter and Doodlebug Anklebiter are different people?

This is what I get for being too lazy to read your thread all these years.

I have met him before and did not know this. I thought it was just an alias.

I'm pretty sure they're both aliases.... unless some parents have weird ideas on how to name their babies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).

Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.

It also isn't likely to have Mount Fuji nearby either. You are comparing other locations to this location. I am saying within the context of this particular location, does this idea of "white privilege" have any meaning?
Well, since you just invented that use for the term white priviledge, you tell me. That isn't what the term traditionally describes though.

Here's what defines white privilege, recently in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, which is about as whitebread a small town you can get, me, my spouse, and a part black friend of mine were walking to the train station. My part black friend was the one who got stopped by the local police, and his ID ran through the circuit.

That's the demonstration of white privilege.

I wouldn't say that's white privilege. I'd say that's bigoted police.

I have issues with the term. It has grown into something other than it once was.

Of course it's bigoted police. White privilege generally means that as a white person, the bigotry isn't going to be aimed at you.

What exactly are the issues you have with it? What exactly has it "grown into"?

that it has become a massive conspiracy that does not punish individual perpetrators of bigotry and instead attacks an amorphous entity that cannot be truly fought against, only complained about. I prefer to hold individuals responsible, not time periods, ancient practices or other concepts.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The biggest thing I am tired of is the "lefties only argue emotion" meme. If you are discussing a minority group and claim they are "lazy and violent", then folks are going to call you a racist. If you claim that homosexuality is "wrong and those folks shouldn't be able to serve in the military or get married", that's homophobia. When you dictate women's actions based on their "biology", then that's sexism. When your logic breaks down to generalizations and stereotypes, then you don't have a leg to stand on. When you double down on those arguments, then you get called on it, and there isn't much else to discuss.

The most difficult thing about perception of the Dems is that they are too kind. Dems don't use cold hard facts in their reasoning. Can you take a good hard look at the current administration and honestly say they are reasonable, honest, and well thought out individuals?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Going back to the earlier part of this thread, I don't think it's so much that Clinton spent a lot of time talking about privilege and not the economy, but rather that Clinton (and the democrats of late for that matter) haven't bothered to do much actual outreach to those communities at all. Clinton barely visited Michigan and didn't visit Wisconsin at all. Even Bill Clinton was complaining that there was very little outreach to rural areas.

Clinton was banking on many blue states staying blue, without much effort put into them. For similar reasons Dems are just not investing effort/funds in supporting candidates in rural areas. Reaching out to said communities does mean putting economic issues first and foremost in those areas.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I'm pretty sure they're both aliases.... unless some parents have weird ideas on how to name their babies.

Doodlebug is a perfectly fine goblin name that has been passed down through many, many generations of Anklebiters, you racist.

Sovereign Court

MMCJawa wrote:

Going back to the earlier part of this thread, I don't think it's so much that Clinton spent a lot of time talking about privilege and not the economy, but rather that Clinton (and the democrats of late for that matter) haven't bothered to do much actual outreach to those communities at all. Clinton barely visited Michigan and didn't visit Wisconsin at all. Even Bill Clinton was complaining that there was very little outreach to rural areas.

Clinton was banking on many blue states staying blue, without much effort put into them. For similar reasons Dems are just not investing effort/funds in supporting candidates in rural areas. Reaching out to said communities does mean putting economic issues first and foremost in those areas.

Obama too pointed out the lack of attention to small town usa. Like Rommney's "47%" comment, folks just took HRC as an elitist and honestly she helped that narrative along.


Isn't there a Conservative Anklebiter with the same avatar who isn't a Doodlebug alias?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:
Isn't there a Conservative Anklebiter with the same avatar who isn't a Doodlebug alias?

Yes, and he most definitely is not the same person as Comrade Anklebiter


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).

Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.

It also isn't likely to have Mount Fuji nearby either. You are comparing other locations to this location. I am saying within the context of this particular location, does this idea of "white privilege" have any meaning?
Well, since you just invented that use for the term white priviledge, you tell me. That isn't what the term traditionally describes though.

Here's what defines white privilege, recently in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, which is about as whitebread a small town you can get, me, my spouse, and a part black friend of mine were walking to the train station. My part black friend was the one who got stopped by the local police, and his ID ran through the circuit.

That's the demonstration of white privilege.

I wouldn't say that's white privilege. I'd say that's bigoted police.

I have issues with the term. It has grown into something other than it once was.

Of course it's bigoted police. White privilege generally means that as a white person, the bigotry isn't going to be aimed at you.

What exactly are the issues you have with it? What exactly has it "grown into"?

that it has become a massive conspiracy that does not punish individual perpetrators of bigotry and instead attacks an amorphous entity that cannot be truly fought against, only complained about. I prefer to hold individuals responsible, not time periods, ancient practices or other...

That's the classic ignoring the forest for the trees approach. Fact of the matter is that bigotry is systemic and ingrained in this country, it's not just a creation of individuals, it's a facet of the society itself. Those police stopped my friend because it was the normative behavior for them to do so, not a concious decision of "We're going to harass some darkies today." It's that facet that is a major cause OF the bigoted individuals, and ignoring that aspect guarantees it's continuance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Isn't there a Conservative Anklebiter with the same avatar who isn't a Doodlebug alias?
Yes, and he most definitely is not the same person as Comrade Anklebiter

I know, right? It's obvious from the first word of his posts!

I agree with your point about Democratic rural outreach, but, like I said earlier, I think Sanders sucked a lot of air out of the Clinton campaign while Trump was campaigning unopposed. Like I also said earlier, I think it's simplistic to say that Sanders cost Clinton the election.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
that it has become a massive conspiracy that does not punish individual perpetrators of bigotry and instead attacks an amorphous entity that cannot be truly fought against, only complained about. I prefer to hold individuals responsible, not time periods, ancient practices or other...

The problem is that to "hold individuals responsible" you have to a specific and probably pretty egregious incident. That works with the KKK burning crosses. It works with job discrimination if the employer actually say "We don't hire X".

It doesn't work with the routine police harassment. It doesn't even work with police shootings on video most of the time, since there's always an excuse to call it a good shoot. Even in the worst cases, it's rarely the individual cop going out and shooting a black guy just because he hates blacks. If that was the problem it would be easy to handle. But when the cops rally round and the prosecutors back them up, it's not just individuals. That's the system.

Or when we start seeing studies on employment that show that people actually consider women less skilled just because of a female name, that's the system. It affects us all. It is amorphous. But it's not neatly broken down into individual evil perpetrators who need to be punished.

Sovereign Court

Hitdice wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Isn't there a Conservative Anklebiter with the same avatar who isn't a Doodlebug alias?
Yes, and he most definitely is not the same person as Comrade Anklebiter

I know, right? It's obvious from the first word of his posts!

I agree with your point about Democratic rural outreach, but, like I said earlier, I think Sanders sucked a lot of air out of the Clinton campaign while Trump was campaigning unopposed. Like I also said earlier, I think it's simplistic to say that Sanders cost Clinton the election.

I think its best to consider the loss a complex situation with many factors. The Sanders thing could have energized the campaign if HRC would have worked it correctly instead of dropping a few lines and ignoring it.


Pan wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Isn't there a Conservative Anklebiter with the same avatar who isn't a Doodlebug alias?
Yes, and he most definitely is not the same person as Comrade Anklebiter

I know, right? It's obvious from the first word of his posts!

I agree with your point about Democratic rural outreach, but, like I said earlier, I think Sanders sucked a lot of air out of the Clinton campaign while Trump was campaigning unopposed. Like I also said earlier, I think it's simplistic to say that Sanders cost Clinton the election.

I think its best to consider the loss a complex situation with many factors. The Sanders thing could have energized the campaign if HRC would have worked it correctly instead of dropping a few lines and ignoring it.

Indeed, I think the entire election cost Clinton the election. I just get bummed out when I hear people saying that Biden could have won, or Sanders could have won; given how narrow Trump's victories in the battleground states were, Clinton could have won.

. . . Not to Tuesday-Morning-Quarterback the election; YAY PATS!!!11!


Pan wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I agree with your point about Democratic rural outreach, but, like I said earlier, I think Sanders sucked a lot of air out of the Clinton campaign while Trump was campaigning unopposed. Like I also said earlier, I think it's simplistic to say that Sanders cost Clinton the election.
I think its best to consider the loss a complex situation with many factors. The Sanders thing could have energized the campaign if HRC would have worked it correctly instead of dropping a few lines and ignoring it.

Sanders (and his surrogates) spending the last months of the primary, especially after it was clear he wasn't catching up, attacking her as corrupt and a pawn of Wall Street didn't help and really couldn't have energized the campaign. A lot of the early rhetoric could and did help shift her and could have helped the campaign.

But, as you said, many factors.

The lack of rural campaigning may have been one, though I think it was overstating.
Comey was definitely one - there's a good deal of evidence that polls shifted in response to that announcement.
The Russian leaks through Wikileak were definitely another.

Mostly I think that Trump was much stronger than most suspected - the things that I thought would make him a weak general election candidate actually appealed to for more independent voters than I expected. That scares the hell out of me.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Pan wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I agree with your point about Democratic rural outreach, but, like I said earlier, I think Sanders sucked a lot of air out of the Clinton campaign while Trump was campaigning unopposed. Like I also said earlier, I think it's simplistic to say that Sanders cost Clinton the election.
I think its best to consider the loss a complex situation with many factors. The Sanders thing could have energized the campaign if HRC would have worked it correctly instead of dropping a few lines and ignoring it.

Sanders (and his surrogates) spending the last months of the primary, especially after it was clear he wasn't catching up, attacking her as corrupt and a pawn of Wall Street didn't help and really couldn't have energized the campaign. A lot of the early rhetoric could and did help shift her and could have helped the campaign.

But, as you said, many factors.

The lack of rural campaigning may have been one, though I think it was overstating.
Comey was definitely one - there's a good deal of evidence that polls shifted in response to that announcement.
The Russian leaks through Wikileak were definitely another.

Mostly I think that Trump was much stronger than most suspected - the things that I thought would make him a weak general election candidate actually appealed to for more independent voters than I expected. That scares the hell out of me.

One thing is for sure a solid unified base is a must have strength. Even though the RNC was sad and pathetic, the base was whipped up in a frenzy. When Cruz didn't endorse trump he was lucky to make it out alive. On the other hand, Bernie's crowd was pretty much ignored the entire time. "you are being ridiculous" Supposedly HRC was moved and was going to change but Bernie didn't believe it, and his voters didn't believe it either. Maybe they were ridiculous, maybe they were right to attack HRC, either way HRC shouldn't have ignored them. It was a huge failure she should have figured out a way to bring them back into the fold. IMO


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Pan wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I agree with your point about Democratic rural outreach, but, like I said earlier, I think Sanders sucked a lot of air out of the Clinton campaign while Trump was campaigning unopposed. Like I also said earlier, I think it's simplistic to say that Sanders cost Clinton the election.
I think its best to consider the loss a complex situation with many factors. The Sanders thing could have energized the campaign if HRC would have worked it correctly instead of dropping a few lines and ignoring it.

Sanders (and his surrogates) spending the last months of the primary, especially after it was clear he wasn't catching up, attacking her as corrupt and a pawn of Wall Street didn't help and really couldn't have energized the campaign. A lot of the early rhetoric could and did help shift her and could have helped the campaign.

But, as you said, many factors.

The lack of rural campaigning may have been one, though I think it was overstating.
Comey was definitely one - there's a good deal of evidence that polls shifted in response to that announcement.
The Russian leaks through Wikileak were definitely another.

Mostly I think that Trump was much stronger than most suspected - the things that I thought would make him a weak general election candidate actually appealed to for more independent voters than I expected. That scares the hell out of me.

One thing is for sure a solid unified base is a must have strength. Even though the RNC was sad and pathetic, the base was whipped up in a frenzy. When Cruz didn't endorse trump he was lucky to make it out alive. On the other hand, Bernie's crowd was pretty much ignored the entire time. "you are being ridiculous" Supposedly HRC was moved and was going to change but Bernie didn't believe it, and his voters didn't believe it either. Maybe they were ridiculous, maybe they were right to attack HRC, either way HRC shouldn't have ignored them. It was a huge failure she should have figured out...

She couldn't. It wasn't possible by then. Sanders endorsed her. Sanders said he was behind her.

But the campaign had spent months attacking, not her policies, but her personally - with her corporate connections and corruption and general untrustworthyness. Reinforcing decades of Republican smears, but from the left. You can't change policy to win over people who've been convinced that you're a corporate owned liar who'll say and do anything for power.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Not that we needed another demonstration of the baked in misogyny in this country, but some of you folks might have seen the Audi Superbowl commercial... the one with the girl with the soapbox derby.

Well Youtube has made it's dispeleasure known with 25,000 dislikes compared to 2,000 likes along with the following endearing comments.


"Can we start a petition to send these women to Saudi Arabia so they can experience true female oppression,"

"Tell your daughter to find a real man to marry, and to avoid the mistake that her mother made," says another upstanding citizen. "Tell her to buy a Dodge. "

"The wage gap does not exist," writes an expert on corporate finance. "There is no company that pays a woman less then a man for the same job."

I'm fully on board with the comment below>

The common theme in the comments is that this is liberal propaganda. Why? When did it become controversial to say that women should have the same rights as men? Have we stumbled through a Mario Warp Pipe into the Land of A@%&+!&s?


La Principessa and "The Snow Women"

Backstory Part One: "The Snow Women"

Spoiler:

I don't remember when it was, but I got a call from Comrade Patrick Curtin. He was moving and had to get rid of his voluminous library. I hated to be such a vulture, but he said he had tried everything and if I didn't come and take them, they would get thrown out. So, one weekend, I take Mr. Comrade down to the Cape and we rescued his library. Among other things, Mr. Comrade scores the entire seventies Ace series of the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser books.

A couple of months go by and he finally starts reading them. Right off the bat, boom, "The Snow Women" is a pretty bad ass solo tale for Fafhrd in which he, among other things, he is beset by his tribe's womenfolk, who, in typical misogynist fashion, are depicted as jealous, cunning and manipulative witches. "Problematic," I believe, is the preferred term for awesome stories with racist or sexist (or whatever) tropes, and "The Snow Women" certainly is problematic, but it is also pretty awesome. Mr. Comrade agreed.

Backstory Part 2: The Weimar RepubLic of Lowell and the 2016 Democratic National Convention

Spoiler:
To back up a bit: Mr. Comrade had gone through a messy divorce with Ex-Mrs. Comrade. She developed the seven year itch (four dating, three married) and decided the only way out for her to be sleep with other people and be polyamorous. After some consideration, she graciously conceded that he could sleep with other people, too, but he wasn't interested; he's a serial monogamist, born and bred. He even tried therapy to get himself okay with it, but in the meantime he'd catch her sexy chatting people (comrades, actually; getting involved with mutual friends is supposed to be verboten, polyamorous-wise, but imho, she was always pretty manipulative and selfish on Facebook and lying about it. It didn't take long for his therapist to tell him thatre was nothing wrong with him, that this was going to kill him, that he should get out. So, after four or five months of mutual torture and recrimination, he did.

He rebounds quickly (serial monogamist, as I said) with the Nigerian Princess. They live together for a year, but then during her last semester in grad school, the relationship goes awry. She wants to pursue her doctorate elsewhere and the stress of graduating and the uncertainty of their future together leads to much conflict. She also says she wants to pursue dating women, so they reach this compromise where they break up but continue to live and sleep together while encouraging each other to date other people. Which I told them was a disaster waiting to happen, your lease is up in three months, just keep it in your pants until then.

But, no. They go about their swinging for a couple of months and then, as I suspected would happen, he met somebody else. I dubbed her "Nancy Donovan" after the 30 Rock character for the purposes of these boards, but anyway, she turned out to be even more mentally disturbed, manipulative and selfish than Ex-Mrs. Comrade but that took some time to figure out. First sign, in retrospect, was when she pressured and cajoled him (after dating for all of 72 hours) of using all his sick days and accompanying her to Philadelphia for the DNC, which he does, and has a blast.

The Nigerian Princess who, I must admit, made a brave attempt at being okay with Mr. Comrade's having a new girlfriend, but when she realized how easily Nancy Donovan convinced him to drop everything, skip work and go to Philly after we had all agreed that we were going to stay local for the protests, instantly became anti-Nancy Donovan.

La Principessa arrives as part of her summer vacation somewhere in there, dislikes ND on sight, (before the NP. actually) and instantly sides with the NP, even though in all of the pre-graduation fights she had been on Mr. Comrade's side and even though I begged her to stay neutral like I was, but, nope. Sisterhood is powerful, I guess.

Anyway, Mr. Comrade and Nancy Donovan go to the DNC and Mr. Cormade throws himself into it and the new relationship. He goes to all the BlM and commie demos, participates in the taking down of the Mississippi state flag, gets interviewed by NPR, Abby Martin, a newspaper from the People's Republic of China, etc., etc., the whole time bombarding his FB page with pictures of him and "his love."

The Nigerian Princess and La Principessa go berserk. Nancy Donovan, of course, sussed out that they didn't like her and had her own tricks up her sleeve and fights back and it was bad. Oh, did I mention this is all going on in the wake of the shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile? And that, for the first time, fascist bands (Soldiers of Odin) and armed anti-communists (Oath Keepers) and racist street gangs (Manchester's own "The Bros") were showing up at our rallies and vigils? Yeah. so I was pretty stressed out.

Anyway, I was incommunicado with Mr. Comrade for most of his trip. He comes back when he runs out of sick days; Nancy Donovan stays to the end. Tons more drama, but this is pretty self-indulgent as it is, but point is: I was out in the parking lot with an inebriated Mr. Comrade after he got back, playing mediator while NP and LP were steaming in the apartment. Me: "She feeLs hurt and humiLiated that you posted so many pictures of you and Nancy Donovan." Him: "Why? She dumped me, remember?" "Yeah, I know, but I'm just teLLing you how she feeLs..." Etc., etc., etc. Somewhere in here he teLLs me that Ex-Mrs. Comrade had gotten in touch with him, too, and gave him a ton of shiznit about his recent Facebook posting.

I joked that Ex-Mrs. Comrade was going to bury the hatchet with the Nigerian Princess (seLf-expLanatory) and La Principessa (don't ask) based on their shared anti-Nancy Donovan position and Mr. Comrade laughed, "Yeah! It's just like in 'The Snow Women!'" (remember "The Snow Women?") and for the rest of the conversation referred to them as a "coven of winter witches."

I, in an unguarded, very stupid, moment, repeated the remark to La Principessa and chuckLed. She then got extremLy angry, so I bit my tongue and said nothing as she Lectured me sternLy for thirty to forty minutes about the historic and continued misogynist mistreatment of witches.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).

Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.

It also isn't likely to have Mount Fuji nearby either. You are comparing other locations to this location. I am saying within the context of this particular location, does this idea of "white privilege" have any meaning?
Well, since you just invented that use for the term white priviledge, you tell me. That isn't what the term traditionally describes though.

Here's what defines white privilege, recently in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, which is about as whitebread a small town you can get, me, my spouse, and a part black friend of mine were walking to the train station. My part black friend was the one who got stopped by the local police, and his ID ran through the circuit.

That's the demonstration of white privilege.

I wouldn't say that's white privilege. I'd say that's bigoted police.

I have issues with the term. It has grown into something other than it once was.

Of course it's bigoted police. White privilege generally means that as a white person, the bigotry isn't going to be aimed at you.

What exactly are the issues you have with it? What exactly has it "grown into"?

that it has become a massive conspiracy that does not punish individual perpetrators of bigotry and instead attacks an amorphous entity that cannot be truly fought against, only complained about. I prefer to hold individuals responsible, not time
...

I'm sorry we do not agree here. But I cannot hold society responsible in any real way. I can only punish the perpetrators when possible(read:at every opportunity). To shift the blame to society lets the individual off the proverbial hook.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Not that we needed another demonstration of the baked in misogyny in this country, but some of you folks might have seen the Audi Superbowl commercial... the one with the girl with the soapbox derby.

Well Youtube has made it's dispeleasure known with 25,000 dislikes compared to 2,000 likes along with the following endearing comments.


"Can we start a petition to send these women to Saudi Arabia so they can experience true female oppression,"

"Tell your daughter to find a real man to marry, and to avoid the mistake that her mother made," says another upstanding citizen. "Tell her to buy a Dodge. "

"The wage gap does not exist," writes an expert on corporate finance. "There is no company that pays a woman less then a man for the same job."

I'm fully on board with the comment below>

The common theme in the comments is that this is liberal propaganda. Why? When did it become controversial to say that women should have the same rights as men? Have we stumbled through a Mario Warp Pipe into the Land of A!#+~$$s?

I've been wondering that since Trump's speech in Nevada, when he was heard exclaim, "I loooove the poorly educated," and the crowd went wild, and I was left thinking about how we used to be unhappy about being poorly educated, and want a better future for our children.


thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
that it has become a massive conspiracy that does not punish individual perpetrators of bigotry and instead attacks an amorphous entity that cannot be truly fought against, only complained about. I prefer to hold individuals responsible, not time periods, ancient practices or other...

The problem is that to "hold individuals responsible" you have to a specific and probably pretty egregious incident. That works with the KKK burning crosses. It works with job discrimination if the employer actually say "We don't hire X".

It doesn't work with the routine police harassment. It doesn't even work with police shootings on video most of the time, since there's always an excuse to call it a good shoot. Even in the worst cases, it's rarely the individual cop going out and shooting a black guy just because he hates blacks. If that was the problem it would be easy to handle. But when the cops rally round and the prosecutors back them up, it's not just individuals. That's the system.

Or when we start seeing studies on employment that show that people actually consider women less skilled just because of a female name, that's the system. It affects us all. It is amorphous. But it's not neatly broken down into individual evil perpetrators who need to be punished.

if it were easy it wouldn't be worth doing. But that's just me I suppose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

La Principessa and "The Snow Women"

Backstory Part One: "The Snow Women"

** spoiler omitted **

Backstory Part 2: The Weimar RepubLic of Lowell and the 2016 Democratic National Convention

** spoiler omitted **

Those snow women were pretty badass with their snowballs, though, am I right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

La Principessa and "The Snow Women"

Backstory Part One: "The Snow Women"

** spoiler omitted **

Backstory Part 2: The Weimar RepubLic of Lowell and the 2016 Democratic National Convention

** spoiler omitted **...

bad Anklebiter! Such an awful book, you deserve to be yelled at!

Please inform La principessa of my profound disappointment.

Also, please send me either the book or la principessa, your choice.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

One thing which will be interesting to see is if Trump continues these attempts to 'rule by executive order'... and whether the Supreme Court goes along with it.

If so, it will represent the greatest increase in the power of the presidency in decades. By rights, they should slap him down even harder than they did Obama, but I think we all know that judicial impartiality has been almost entirely fictional for a long time now.

Of course, that means the Supreme Court could reverse course again the next time a Democrat wins the presidency... but it would be hard to walk back some of the sweeping power grabs being made by Trump. For example, Trump is claiming that he has unfettered authority to control immigration into the country. However, if that were true, then Obama's much narrower claim that he had the authority to prioritize enforcement of different immigration restrictions should have been upheld... but it wasn't. Despite similar claims having been approved by the courts in the past.

So, if Trump gets his way and the courts rule that he can block (or not) anyone and everyone from entering the country as he sees fit for 'national security' reasons... and not subject to "second guessing" by the courts then any future restrictions placed on the immigration policy of a Dem president would be even more transparently partisan.


I'm having troubLe with my "l" key, and am inserting with copy-and-paste, so please forgive me.

La Principessa and "The Snow Women"

I don't know how much time goes by, but somewhere around NY Comiccon, I'm at work texting her. It had been pretty tense of late, and we hadn't been talking or texting much, so I was trying to be playful. She'd also started hanging out with here paraeducational union sister who is into strange teas, herbalism, Tarot readings, etc. (I'm sure you can see where this is going.)

La Principessa had told me earlier in the week that she was going to a party with her Tarot-Reading Union Sister the night before I spoke to her. A "harvest party."

(From memory)

Me: How was the party? Did you meet any boys?

Her: There weren't any boys allowed

I let that pass, tried sexy talking her, she wasn't interested, asked her what she was doing the next day.

Her: I'm going to the Medieval Faire with [T-RUS]

This time I couldn't resist.

Me: Hold on. Harvest party, no boys allowed, medievalfaire. Are you sure you didn't join a coven?

I probably should have appended a winking emoji or something but I didn't and thus I received a harsh series of texts in which the word "brocialism" was used often, the history of the mistreatment of witches was repeated, and a series of my past piggishly chauvinist transgressions were rehashed. The latter was particularly galling because, like half of them weren't hings I had done, but things Mr. Comrade had said and I had repeated to her. I should really stop doing that.

Some lessons to be taken from this story:

1) When you break up with somebody, don't sleep with other people until one of you moves out.

2) Even steadfast champions of the marginalized need to maintain constant vigilance that they are not worn down by the chauvinism and filth of this decaying capitalist society.

3) Do not make jokes about witches to communist women, particularly communist women who might be witches.*

4) "The Snow Women" is awesome.

---
*Just last week she went to a "moon party" but refused to tell me what happened there because she "wasn't allowed to."


thejeff wrote:
r when we start seeing studies on employment that show that people actually consider women less skilled just because of a female name, that's the system. It affects us all. It is amorphous. But it's not neatly broken down into individual evil perpetrators who need to be punished.

Is it the governments job to fix that? It's essentially a thought crime.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
r when we start seeing studies on employment that show that people actually consider women less skilled just because of a female name, that's the system. It affects us all. It is amorphous. But it's not neatly broken down into individual evil perpetrators who need to be punished.
Is it the governments job to fix that? It's essentially a thought crime.

Yes it is.

It is not necessarily the government's job to punish individuals for "thought crime".

But especially when similar patterns show up in education and in government as well as private hiring. Yes. It's discrimination. Blatant and open or not, it's still a part of the problem that's keeping minorities and women in a second class status.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Also, please send me either the book or la principessa, your choice.

La Principessa is her own woman and is not my property, nor would I wish to possess a woman. If you wish to woo her, you must do so based on your own merits.


After getting through me, mo'fo'!


thejeff wrote:


But especially when similar patterns show up in education and in government as well as private hiring. Yes. It's discrimination. Blatant and open or not, it's still a part of the problem that's keeping minorities and women in a second class status.

So how do you do that as a government program without replacing subjective and subtle discrimination against women with overt and codified discrimination against men?


The government just CAN'T fix that, thejeff. No matter if it should or not, it is unable to. People will think what they will about others, and if the government tries to force them not to, it gets worse. It is, generally speaking, abysmal policy to try to tell people what to think and not. Nor is token hiring, mandating percentages or whatever the solution. The only way it is going to get better is if people see more of "the other" and learn to understand them. Shared situations, awareness, personal knowledge, and, of course, culture and expressions of that culture is what will get us there. Then the figures will get better. And whining that "since there is no way to get the cops to treat people decently, we must compensate blah blah blah" is useless - you CAN make sure the cops do what they should.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So fine.

We're back to, no matter what, as long as you don't actually admit to intentional discrimination, there is nothing the government can or should do - even in its own hiring practices. Or in public education.

No programs, no attempts can be made to address any form of subtle discrimination. Any such will simply backfire. The only thing we can do is wait and hope that someday, somehow we will integrate enough not to do it anymore.

In the meantime of course, any attempts by minorities to complain about their status need to be suppressed, lest they persuade the government to try something.

Oh and how can you make sure the cops do what they should? Especially since a lot of that is the exact same kind of subtle prejudice - leading cops to think African American males are more dangerous and thus feel more threatened and are more likely to use force (including lethal force) against them. The same prejudices can apply in jury trials as well, of course.

But there's nothing we can do about it because anything we do would be thought crime.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Also, please send me either the book or la principessa, your choice.
La Principessa is her own woman and is not my property, nor would I wish to possess a woman. If you wish to woo her, you must do so based on your own merits.

oh my goodness, that came out wrong.

Please simply inform La principessa of my thoughts on [redacted], then. Because, as discussed the evening we met, if it's wrong, I don't want to be right.


thejeff wrote:

So fine.

We're back to, no matter what, as long as you don't actually admit to intentional discrimination, there is nothing the government can or should do - even in its own hiring practices. Or in public education.

No programs, no attempts can be made to address any form of subtle discrimination. Any such will simply backfire. The only thing we can do is wait and hope that someday, somehow we will integrate enough not to do it anymore.

In the meantime of course, any attempts by minorities to complain about their status need to be suppressed, lest they persuade the government to try something.

Oh and how can you make sure the cops do what they should? Especially since a lot of that is the exact same kind of subtle prejudice - leading cops to think African American males are more dangerous and thus feel more threatened and are more likely to use force (including lethal force) against them. The same prejudices can apply in jury trials as well, of course.

But there's nothing we can do about it because anything we do would be thought crime.

this is why I take individuals to task, not society.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Outright Libertarian.... but this is a very interesting thread to read.


Hitdice wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Not that we needed another demonstration of the baked in misogyny in this country, but some of you folks might have seen the Audi Superbowl commercial... the one with the girl with the soapbox derby.

Well Youtube has made it's dispeleasure known with 25,000 dislikes compared to 2,000 likes along with the following endearing comments.


"Can we start a petition to send these women to Saudi Arabia so they can experience true female oppression,"

"Tell your daughter to find a real man to marry, and to avoid the mistake that her mother made," says another upstanding citizen. "Tell her to buy a Dodge. "

"The wage gap does not exist," writes an expert on corporate finance. "There is no company that pays a woman less then a man for the same job."

I'm fully on board with the comment below>

The common theme in the comments is that this is liberal propaganda. Why? When did it become controversial to say that women should have the same rights as men? Have we stumbled through a Mario Warp Pipe into the Land of A!#+~$$s?

I've been wondering that since Trump's speech in Nevada, when he was heard exclaim, "I loooove the poorly educated," and the crowd went wild, and I was left thinking about how we used to be unhappy about being poorly educated, and want a better future for our children.

See, that's your problem right there. You assume that these people actually want or even understand what's best for their children's future. Hell, your assuming that they even want to be educated.

Never seem human decency in people you don't know.


Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So fine.

We're back to, no matter what, as long as you don't actually admit to intentional discrimination, there is nothing the government can or should do - even in its own hiring practices. Or in public education.

No programs, no attempts can be made to address any form of subtle discrimination. Any such will simply backfire. The only thing we can do is wait and hope that someday, somehow we will integrate enough not to do it anymore.

In the meantime of course, any attempts by minorities to complain about their status need to be suppressed, lest they persuade the government to try something.

Oh and how can you make sure the cops do what they should? Especially since a lot of that is the exact same kind of subtle prejudice - leading cops to think African American males are more dangerous and thus feel more threatened and are more likely to use force (including lethal force) against them. The same prejudices can apply in jury trials as well, of course.

But there's nothing we can do about it because anything we do would be thought crime.

this is why I take individuals to task, not society.

I think, I hope, that thejeff was being sarcastic. Because there is much that can be done, but no quick fixes. Discrimination by race used to be dejure, now there is no restaurant that dares hang up a sign that reads "Whites Only". Government can play it's part by education. And that includes mandatory education of our police and armed forces. It's not a quick fix, it's a generational one. It's a far sight better than doing nothing.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So fine.

We're back to, no matter what, as long as you don't actually admit to intentional discrimination, there is nothing the government can or should do - even in its own hiring practices. Or in public education.

No programs, no attempts can be made to address any form of subtle discrimination. Any such will simply backfire. The only thing we can do is wait and hope that someday, somehow we will integrate enough not to do it anymore.

In the meantime of course, any attempts by minorities to complain about their status need to be suppressed, lest they persuade the government to try something.

Oh and how can you make sure the cops do what they should? Especially since a lot of that is the exact same kind of subtle prejudice - leading cops to think African American males are more dangerous and thus feel more threatened and are more likely to use force (including lethal force) against them. The same prejudices can apply in jury trials as well, of course.

But there's nothing we can do about it because anything we do would be thought crime.

this is why I take individuals to task, not society.
I think, I hope, that thejeff was being sarcastic. Because there is much that can be done, but no quick fixes. Discrimination by race used to be dejure, now there is no restaurant that dares hang up a sign that reads "Whites Only". Government can play it's part by education. And that includes mandatory education of our police and armed forces. It's not a quick fix, it's a generational one. It's a far sight better than doing nothing.

Sarcastic only in the sense that I was being told that nothing could or should be done.

Fixing explicit "Whites Only" policies was the easy part. The rest of the job is harder, but to steal from Freehold - "if it were easy it wouldn't be worth doing."


thejeff wrote:

No programs, no attempts can be made to address any form of subtle discrimination. Any such will simply backfire. The only thing we can do is wait and hope that someday, somehow we will integrate enough not to do it anymore.

When you have affirmative action programs in place you create the very perception that you're trying to avoid: that the person benefiting from affirmative action isn't as skilled or qualified as their coworkers. You also can't tell me discrimination is bad, but that you're going to favor minorities in hiring, promotion and retention practices. (that last is almost word for word out of the employee handbook)

The programs might be worth it despite the drawbacks. But as jobs get harder and harder to get you can't blame people for not liking something that makes it harder for them to get jobs, even if you think it was too easy for them before.

Quote:
In the meantime of course, any attempts by minorities to complain about their status need to be suppressed, lest they persuade the government to try something.

Didn't say that. Didn't hint that. Didn't imply that.

Look, arguing against an idea is not silencing you. It's not suppression, derailment, disfranchisement or whatever term it is you need to come up with. It means I think there's a problem with your idea, You can either convince me that the cure is better than the disease or accept that you're going to lose my support when you push on that issue.
Passively aggressively playing the victim with "help help i'm being supressed" isn't a left only phenomenon, but its definitely not an argument either.

Quote:
Oh and how can you make sure the cops do what they should? Especially since a lot of that is the exact same kind of subtle prejudice - leading cops to think African American males are more dangerous and thus feel more threatened and are more likely to use force (including lethal force) against them. The same prejudices can apply in jury trials as well, of course.

You don't blame the cop for feeling more threatened you blame them for what they do about it. It is impossible to separate the mechanicsc of what goes on in someone's head and say it was race and not the fact that it was a bad neighborhood. I'm saying fix or ameliorate the fact that it's a bad neighborhood and in a generation or two the perception will go away. Its not happening sooner than that.

Until then put some camera's on them, have a blanket policy not to bring up the camera's for anything other than public interaction (ie, don't use them to catch an officer for sleeping in their car) and then you can get some legal oversight and feedback about what was or was not articulable suspicion for a stop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhusquatch wrote:
I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Outright Libertarian.... but this is a very interesting thread to read.

Libertarian usually means "republican in denial" these days...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cthulhusquatch wrote:
I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Outright Libertarian.... but this is a very interesting thread to read.
Libertarian usually means "republican in denial" these days...

These days? When was it ever not the case? Back in the pre-Tea Party days, there was a lot of overlap between Libertarians and fiscal conservative/socially liberal Republicans, but Libertarians these days, will hitch their wagon to anyone who promises to destroy regulation. They're probably finding Trump to be their wet dream.


Maybe it was just how the primaries went, but as someone who leaned more Libertarian last cycle, I'm very strongly against the Republican party at the moment. o wo ...Not sure if that means I was just a bad Libertarian or what, but I've accepted the idea that some things, at least, probably should be regulated.

(Adequate testing of medicine, workplace safety, food safety, requiring people offering services to put customers first and avoid inappropriate risks, etc.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's also long been a fairly big difference between libertarianism and the Libertarian Party (which tends to have a more AnCap than libertarian base). As someone who also tends to lean libertarian (little "L"), I do NOT support the current Republican or Libertarian parties. I also tend to not support the Democrat Party much except when necessary (like in the last election, very begrudgingly and with LOTS of alcohol).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

Maybe it was just how the primaries went, but as someone who leaned more Libertarian last cycle, I'm very strongly against the Republican party at the moment. o wo ...Not sure if that means I was just a bad Libertarian or what, but I've accepted the idea that some things, at least, probably should be regulated.

(Adequate testing of medicine, workplace safety, food safety, requiring people offering services to put customers first and avoid inappropriate risks, etc.)

You're definitely a bad Libertarian. :)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Rednal wrote:

Maybe it was just how the primaries went, but as someone who leaned more Libertarian last cycle, I'm very strongly against the Republican party at the moment. o wo ...Not sure if that means I was just a bad Libertarian or what, but I've accepted the idea that some things, at least, probably should be regulated.

(Adequate testing of medicine, workplace safety, food safety, requiring people offering services to put customers first and avoid inappropriate risks, etc.)

You're definitely a bad Libertarian. :)

Congratulations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait. What brand of Libertarianism are we trouncing here? Collectivist anarchism? Libertarian socialism? Anarcho-capitalism? I'm Canadian I don't know you Americans like your Libertariansim.

751 to 800 of 4,260 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards