|
Blind Pineapple posted:Has anyone kicking around the "maybe their feelings were hurt for being called racist" talking point offered any solutions on how to address that while still combating bigotry, or is it always empty concern trolling? It's something a lot of the anti-politically correct crowd is pushing. However, it's bullshit as Trump had less votes than Romeny. Dems lost because of a huge turnout fall for their party.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:Has anyone kicking around the "maybe their feelings were hurt for being called racist" talking point offered any solutions on how to address that while still combating bigotry, or is it always empty concern trolling? The point of that argument, when coming from the left (never the right), is that focusing on the racism itself is neither going to win you voters or change any opinions. This is difficult to communicate to anyone who has never worked in selling or the ground floor of election campaigns but when talking to the electorate the last thing you ever want to do when trying to sell them on something is starting an argument or debate. What you need is a sales pitch, you need to find common ground with the individual you are talking to so that you can then swing around and use that to motivate why they should support minorities, the poor or whatever the issue of that election is. All of the modern lefts arguments are grounded in either marxism(class), utilitarianism(greater common good) or post-structuralism(identity politics). As such, they are very difficult to sell by approaching the issue from a strictly rational angle, what you need is to incite empathy, because their own pre-conceptions are rarely rational in origin. This is a very delicate process and the second you start insinuating fault or hurling insults it just doesn't work anymore, because now you're having a rational discussion about a fundamentally irrational topic. You need to work your way around these pre-conceptions when trying to sell ideas that threaten them. This assumes as basis of good faith. In public debates or when confronting organizations like the KKK it obviously isn't appropriate. I'd also imagine its a lot harder to apply in the US than over here due to how race issues are more often than not issues of life and death.  Well that's my angle, when someone on the right tells you that it's the same 'my freedom of speech' drivel that we have been hearing for years about hurt feelings and people being afraid to speak their mind which is such a laughably easily falsifiable claim in 2016. People have never been more open about their horrible beliefs in my lifetime. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:Clinton is clearly the champion of the left. HillaryClinton2016 posted:"Everybody who’s ever been in an election that I’m aware of is quite bewildered because there is a strain of, on the one hand, the kind of populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory kind of approach that we hear too much of from the Republican candidates. And on the other side, there’s just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we’ve done hasn’t gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don’t know what that means, but it’s something that they deeply feel. So as a friend of mine said the other day, I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don’t have much company there. Because it is difficult when you’re running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is — I don’t want to overpromise. I don’t want to tell people things that I know we cannot do." This is precisely why Hillary is bland and unexciting: she's incapable of forming a grand vision behind which to rally the crowds and with which to inspire them. It's so sad because America put a man on the Moon in 1969, which is almost half a century ago. And yet things like free college and singlepayer healthcare are somehow impossible in the YOOL 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
She is also objectively wrong. The state of congress is the only reason the US is not and can not do the things she describe, the issue is one of politics. Economically, the US is way richer then almost all of the other countries that do all of those things. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be difficult but by saying that it is impossible she is making it impossible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
I think my biggest problem with it is that much of the left's anti-bigotry position is perpetuated by the targets of said bigotry. It almost comes across as victim blaming to say that speaking out on issues of bigotry cost us the election. Obviously there should be more substance to the arguments beyond just saying "that's racist (or sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc)," but it's pretty hard to leave that out of the argument altogether with a lot of issues. I'm wondering if it's feasible at all to truly represent marginalized groups and reach out to average voters without putting the onus on them to change themselves. Of course, that's just hypothetical, I agree with a couple posts up that this election can be laid at the feet of the very out-of-touch Hillary Clinton and DNC. I don't think hurt feelings had much to do with it, but everything is worth examining at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:It's something a lot of the anti-politically correct crowd is pushing. However, it's bullshit as Trump had less votes than Romeny. Dems lost because of a huge turnout fall for their party. People keep blaming Clinton for this decline in voters but I wonder how much the length of the election factors into it. Like never before I heard people consistently remark on there fatigue with the election, candidates, and politics in general. I also think the fact that Clinton and Trump were discussed in the same forums for such a prolonged period of time did a lot to normalize him and criminalize her. Also, is there anyway we could pass a law that doesn't do away with the electoral college, but binds it to vote based on the popular vote instead of state popular vote? Or would that also require a constitutional amendment?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:Also, is there anyway we could pass a law that doesn't do away with the electoral college, but binds it to vote based on the popular vote instead of state popular vote? Or would that also require a constitutional amendment? It wouldn't require a national constitutional amendment (maybe some state constitutions, I'm not sure on that front.) The states decide how to apportion their votes in the electoral college and a number of states have already adopted the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:I think my biggest problem with it is that much of the left's anti-bigotry position is perpetuated by the targets of said bigotry. It almost comes across as victim blaming to say that speaking out on issues of bigotry cost us the election. Speaking out on issues of bigotry is fine. The problem is that the Democrats spoke out on issues of bigotry at the expense of issues that are, frankly, far more important, namely jobs and the economy. Bill Clinton understood this really, really well back when he ran. Hillary didn't, and probably still doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
We've somehow ended up in a position where we have to choose between supporting white voters and supporting minority voters and that's utterly horrifying to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:We've somehow ended up in a position where we have to choose between supporting white voters and supporting minority voters and that's utterly horrifying to me. The fact that you think those are two mutually exclusive positions is what is utterly horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Speaking out on issues of bigotry is fine. The problem is that the Democrats spoke out on issues of bigotry at the expense of issues that are, frankly, far more important, namely jobs and the economy. Bill Clinton understood this really, really well back when he ran. Hillary didn't, and probably still doesn't. Pollyanna posted:We've somehow ended up in a position where we have to choose between supporting white voters and supporting minority voters and that's utterly horrifying to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:Has anyone kicking around the "maybe their feelings were hurt for being called racist" talking point offered any solutions on how to address that while still combating bigotry, or is it always empty concern trolling? An angry Jewish guy from Vermont spent an entire primary season showing Democrats how to win substantial chunks of the working class white vote without coddling racists. The only people concern trolling are the ones who pretend this never happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
Oneiros posted:The fact that you think those are two mutually exclusive positions is what is utterly horrifying. I'm saying that because it's what I keep hearing, somehow. I don't know, I'm just scared that we'll never actually manage to get along.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:An angry Jewish guy from Vermont spent an entire primary season showing Democrats how to win substantial chunks of the working class white vote without coddling racists. The only people concern trolling are the ones who pretend this never happened. Not just that, but many on the left (including posters on this very forum!) began to point fingers at his rallies being "awfully white" and not considerate enough to racial issues which is hilarious in retrospect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
negativeneil posted:Not just that, but many on the left (including posters on this very forum!) began to point fingers at his rallies being "awfully white" and not considerate enough to racial issues which is hilarious in retrospect. I never actually understood this sentiment during the primary's. Like what honestly did he do to deserve the amount of distrust he got?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I never actually understood this sentiment during the primary's. Like what honestly did he do to deserve the amount of distrust he got? It was all made up; just like the Bernie Bro bullshit. It's one of the reasons they got annihilated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:People keep blaming Clinton for this decline in voters but I wonder how much the length of the election factors into it. Like never before I heard people consistently remark on there fatigue with the election, candidates, and politics in general. I also think the fact that Clinton and Trump were discussed in the same forums for such a prolonged period of time did a lot to normalize him and criminalize her. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438481/chuck-schumer-democrats-will-lose-blue-collar-whites-gain-suburbs “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” -- Chuck Schumer Trump didn't win. Hillary lost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:People keep blaming Clinton for this decline in voters but I wonder how much the length of the election factors into it. Like never before I heard people consistently remark on there fatigue with the election, candidates, and politics in general. I also think the fact that Clinton and Trump were discussed in the same forums for such a prolonged period of time did a lot to normalize him and criminalize her. Interesting thought, but I doubt it. I suspect if that were the case, it would have mostly been the Republicans who would have suffered more because 90% of the election talk was about him. Pollyanna posted:We've somehow ended up in a position where we have to choose between supporting white voters and supporting minority voters and that's utterly horrifying to me. You do realize that less whites went out to vote for Trump than they did Romney correct?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:It was all made up; just like the Bernie Bro bullshit. It's one of the reasons they got annihilated. Bernie Bro poo poo absolutely existed. They ruined the PR of his candidacy in the same way that anarchists are loving up peaceful protests in Portland right now. They maybe less than 5% of the total population involved but they're so vocal and toxic that they're defining. If you have a huge wart on your nose and are a wonderful person people that meet you in passing are going to focus on the wart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:We've somehow ended up in a position where we have to choose between supporting white voters and supporting minority voters and that's utterly horrifying to me. People keep saying this without realizing that the point that is being made is that the DNC needs to keep supporting minority voters AND focus on economic populism. It's additive. If you don't realize that the DNC focuses on social justice and minority voters and LGBT issues, frequently to the exclusion of all else, because it lets them be "leftist" without pissing off Wall St. I don't know what to tell you. The modern DNC are just Rockefeller Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:Bernie Bro poo poo absolutely existed. They ruined the PR of his candidacy in the same way that anarchists are loving up peaceful protests in Portland right now. They maybe less than 5% of the total population involved but they're so vocal and toxic that they're defining. If you have a huge wart on your nose and are a wonderful person people that meet you in passing are going to focus on the wart. In the words of uberlord-elect Trump: "Wrong!" If they did exist they were an online phenomena that didn't even register with people who don't spend all day camping /r/politics
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
negativeneil posted:Not just that, but many on the left (including posters on this very forum!) began to point fingers at his rallies being "awfully white" and not considerate enough to racial issues which is hilarious in retrospect. It's even more hilarious as he won the young minority vote. Even the young blacks. Sanders is a generational gap. MiddleOne posted:I never actually understood this sentiment during the primary's. Like what honestly did he do to deserve the amount of distrust he got? Because he's a threat to establishment Democrats policies and strategy, so they painted him as a threat. There is a reason that people who have successful implemented progressive change were always painted negatively during their time. The Puppy Bowl posted:Bernie Bro poo poo absolutely existed. They ruined the PR of his candidacy in the same way that anarchists are loving up peaceful protests in Portland right now. They maybe less than 5% of the total population involved but they're so vocal and toxic that they're defining. If you have a huge wart on your nose and are a wonderful person people that meet you in passing are going to focus on the wart. I have literally never seen or heard from any of these people. If it wasn't for Something Awful, I don't even think I would have heard of this term. I feel that this is part of the same bubble establishment Dems were in, the very same one that said Hillary was a wildly beloved candidate by the American people at large. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:An angry Jewish guy from Vermont spent an entire primary season showing Democrats how to win substantial chunks of the working class white vote without coddling racists. The only people concern trolling are the ones who pretend this never happened. No they'll just say he could never win because he's a Jew and working class white guys all hate Jews.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Can someone explain to my straight white boy face why it's a bad thing that a politician came around on the issue of gay rights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:People keep saying this without realizing that the point that is being made is that the DNC needs to keep supporting minority voters AND focus on economic populism. It's additive. I want to believe this. I know it's true, and I'll keep fighting for it. I want to have my cake and eat it too, and I don't want to have to choose. gently caress that bullshit, it's a false division and I won't stand for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Can someone explain to my straight white boy face why it's a bad thing that a politician came around on the issue of gay rights? Which politician in particular?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Can someone explain to my straight white boy face why it's a bad thing that a politician came around on the issue of gay rights? In short, it's someone you could be reasonably unsure about until proven otherwise, as they only offered their support when it was already enjoying popular support, and thus they had nothing to lose. Dunno if that's what you meant, but hope it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
rum sodomy Rainbow Dash posted:If it's more recent it can look like something done in response to public opinion than any sort of principles. Basically a politician who has politics rooted in whatever gets them votes/support. Say there's a wave of anti-gay sentiment in the coming months. Well, the politician may not speak out or even do an about-face on gay rights because they see which way the winds are blowing. No, I think that's the answer I was looking for. And I can understand that frustration. I'd rather someone come around on something like gay rights if they thought it would make them more popular than not at all. Like, F.W. de Klerk surprised a lot of people when he became president of South Africa and with the reputation he had as a staunch conservative, came out against apartheid and made it his top priority to end it. I think he did it because of the pressure the rest of the world was putting on South Africa, not out of the kindness of his heart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:No they'll just say he could never win because he's a Jew and working class white guys all hate Jews. Please, we elected a black president twice, racism in America is dead. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
so we need to run a roosevelt. Star Man posted:Can someone explain to my straight white boy face why it's a bad thing that a politician came around on the issue of gay rights? it rings hollow when you happen to come around after a majority of americans already have. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I'm saying that because it's what I keep hearing, somehow. I don't know, I'm just scared that we'll never actually manage to get along. You have the least appropriate username
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:You have the least appropriate username I'm with them in that after the right wing ran a campaign successfully on going after minorities, the centrists paying lip service to it and apathy defeating them, and some people on the left wing even starting to turn on minority issues and protesting in general the country might be in the middle of a deeper rightward shift than some people want to believe. I'm not afraid of it but I want other people to at least think of it as a possibility going forward. Worst case in that scenario even if you excised the party entirely of social issues and ran on purely left wing economic issues you'd be defeated, If you work on a platform of both you'll be defeated, and definitely social issues first you'll be defeated. Sharkopath fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Sharkopath posted:I'm with them in that after the right wing ran a campaign successfully on going after minorities, the centrists paying lip service to it and apathy defeating them, and some people on the left wing even starting to turn on minority issues and protesting in general the country might be in the middle of a deeper rightward shift than some people want to believe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
yeah there was some poll years ago and like kilroy said before, when you divorce the questions from politically loaded terminology it turns out most americans wouldn't be out of place in the nordic states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Oneiros posted:It wouldn't require a national constitutional amendment (maybe some state constitutions, I'm not sure on that front.) The states decide how to apportion their votes in the electoral college and a number of states have already adopted the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's bizarre to me that more states haven't adopted this. I can completely understand how the current system suits places like Iowa and Florida just fine, but why the hell does it seem to be purely blue states? OK, sure, we've now seen two Republican presidents come about who lost the popular vote but won in the college. But it could just as easily go the other way - a lot of people thought it would go the other way with Trump - and I don't understand why Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma and every other safe state in the country wouldn't be signing up to this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
freebooter posted:It's bizarre to me that more states haven't adopted this. I can completely understand how the current system suits places like Iowa and Florida just fine, but why the hell does it seem to be purely blue states? OK, sure, we've now seen two Republican presidents come about who lost the popular vote but won in the college. But it could just as easily go the other way - a lot of people thought it would go the other way with Trump - and I don't understand why Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma and every other safe state in the country wouldn't be signing up to this. Because if you're one of the smaller states having two "free" electoral votes because of your Senate representation benefits your EC weight more - we need larger red states (Texas, maybe) to sign up, which will only happen if the tables turn and a Democrat wins the EC but not the popular vote, or swing states that end up with a democratic governor and legislature that chose to prioritize the issue, which will only come from our pressure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
freebooter posted:It's bizarre to me that more states haven't adopted this. I can completely understand how the current system suits places like Iowa and Florida just fine, but why the hell does it seem to be purely blue states? OK, sure, we've now seen two Republican presidents come about who lost the popular vote but won in the college. But it could just as easily go the other way - a lot of people thought it would go the other way with Trump - and I don't understand why Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma and every other safe state in the country wouldn't be signing up to this. (Just kidding, the Democrats would just find new and exciting ways to lose, but anyway that's the reason.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
The Republicans have won the popular vote once after 1988 but have won three terms in the White House. No red state is going to adopt the compact, ever. "But what if it happens to us some time" is not the sort of thinking Republicans engage in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Still think a country that can't beat a racist on the sole basis of his racism is pretty loving bad
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
of course it is. i thought clinton would win in a landslide even though the dnc crowned the wrong candidate. boy have i never been more wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:59
|
|