|
PT6A posted:Of course they can change! That's why it's right to expect them to change, and treat them like garbage when they don't. Do you think treating them like garbage is going to change them?
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:The best way to do that is economics and the hope that with time the racial tension that exists will dissipate without an economic drive pushing it forward. And then we can all go home on our flying horses. Ignoring racism and misogyny is not going to improve the situation, I promise you this. It never has, it never will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Acknowledging them as basically people with the same rights has been problematic in some of the threads in the forums. Check out that rural poverty thread for some hot takes. Yeah so? Things change, there's no guarantee there will be jobs in a place where there was jobs 50 or 100 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Do you think treating them like garbage is going to change them? Yes. Getting called out on my bullshit recently, whence I got this excellent redtext, made me reconsider a lot of things. I believe that people basically want to be good, and are capable of change. I believe that all people, including rural people, have agency and control over their actions. Therefore, I see no reason to simply accept views on society that are actively harming minorities including women, the LGBT community, people of colour, etc. These are not unthinking animals -- they are people who are capable of realizing the harm their attitudes are doing, and if they want to sit and pout about it anyway, then we should send them to bed without supper (metaphorically speaking of course).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I believe that people basically want to be good, and are capable of change. I believe that all people, including rural people, have agency and control over their actions. Therefore, I see no reason to simply accept views on society that are actively harming minorities including women, the LGBT community, people of colour, etc. These are not unthinking animals -- they are people who are capable of realizing the harm their attitudes are doing, and if they want to sit and pout about it anyway, then we should send them to bed without supper (metaphorically speaking of course). Have you ever considered nudging? Seems to work the best with my ultra-rightwing extended family members. edit. To speak to this a little more, if you're posting on these forums with people in active discussion you're already likely much closer in ideology to those you're arguing with than the people you're talking about changing the minds of. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:And then we can all go home on our flying horses. To be honest, the New Deal wouldn't have happened with that logic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1ced_story.htmlquote:But what King saw in 1968 — and what we all should recognize today — is that it is useless to try to address race without also taking on the larger issue of inequality. He was planning a poor people’s march on Washington that would include not only African Americans but also Latinos, Native Americans and poor Appalachian whites. He envisioned a rainbow of the dispossessed, assembled to demand not just an end to discrimination but a change in the way the economy doles out its spoils. America is still primed for a populist movement than can tap this vein. The worst thing that could happen for minorities at this point is for America to have any sort of economic success over the next four years because if Donald Trump cements himself at the head of that movement we are all so hosed it doesn't even matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:What? Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's been a huge upswing in anti-semitism, and Steve Bannon, a huge anti-semite, is currently a probable candidate for a very high-ranking position in the White House. I have seen nor heard such thing. I don't see how "coastal elites" and "globalists" refers to Jews. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
I have something that may give us some hope.Robert Reich posted:Why We Need a New Democratic Party DO not give up the fight, the dragons can be defeated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes. Getting called out on my bullshit recently, whence I got this excellent redtext, made me reconsider a lot of things. I believe that people basically want to be good, and are capable of change. I believe that all people, including rural people, have agency and control over their actions. Therefore, I see no reason to simply accept views on society that are actively harming minorities including women, the LGBT community, people of colour, etc. These are not unthinking animals -- they are people who are capable of realizing the harm their attitudes are doing, and if they want to sit and pout about it anyway, then we should send them to bed without supper (metaphorically speaking of course). I just want to disclaim this by saying that I in no way disagree with your basic stance that people need to be called out on their bullshit when it can be done. That said, there are ways to do this that don't involve insulting people to their face. Whatever the truth of your statements may be, most people do not respond to insults or attacks against their character. It's good that you were able to take it as an opportunity for self-reflection, but the simple truth is that most people don't possess much power of introspection. They spend their lives as busy as possible to avoid the existential angst examining one's beliefs really produces. Getting people to really examine their own beliefs is extremely difficult. The backfire effect is a thing and it means that really shifting someone's worldview requires a lot of time and effort and gentle coaxing. I get that it's galling as gently caress, because the beliefs we're trying to dissuade them from are abhorrent as all hell, but trying to shame people into changing like that is more commonly counterproductive and leads to further regression into lovely beliefs and behaviors. I wish I had the answer. I really do. But just because I don't know the right way doesn't mean I can't recognize the wrong way, and being insulting and condescending is definitely the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
You defeat racism in part by eliminating the catalysts of fear and anxiety which racists exploit. Income insecurity, healthcare, housing. Of course there will always be racists who fear and hate minorities but you don't need them. You only need to win the white people who are voting primarily due to economics and resentment towards the establishment that has forsaken them. So you win the portion of the white vote you need to pass progressive legislation at a national level and in doing so you help them, you help POC, all without coddling racists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
What really happened is that at one point in her life Hillary said in private that she would give anything for her Cubs to win the World Series. Lucifer took her up on that offer, so I think it's safe to say that the Cubs are to blame for her loss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:You defeat racism in part by eliminating the catalysts of fear and anxiety which racists exploit. Income insecurity, healthcare, housing. Of course there will always be racists who fear and hate minorities but you don't need them. You only need to win the white people who are voting primarily due to economics and resentment towards the establishment that has forsaken them. So you win the portion of the white vote you need to pass progressive legislation at a national level and in doing so you help them, you help POC, all without coddling racists. The KKK looks pretty silly when they don't have an economic blame game to exploit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Grognan posted:The KKK looks pretty silly when they don't have an economic blame game to exploit. And all you have to do is end capitalism!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Bates posted:And all you have to do is end capitalism! Nah man, last time when peeps had good jobs they just loving published their secret handshakes on the superman show and it wasn't cool to be part of them anymore. A bit harder to sell that again when people can't cash in #woke to pay rent. This is not to say that their stances have any merit, but that economic security was like really helpful in strangling support for it. Hard to double down on an panic scenario for the existence of white children when it was like "lol I can have kids and I don't have to give no shits about blacks or grand wizards." People are moving in poo poo directions because of economic pressures that have peaked over multiple decades. Edit: Capitalism is pretty poo poo and I think it is bad, but when you keep the loving plates spinning it works. I think enough plates fell down that we saw it in the EC system. Grognan fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Sorry but liberalism is over now. It's socialism or barbarism and those are the only two possible outcomes going forward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Bates posted:And all you have to do is end capitalism! Adam Smith is rolling in his grave.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
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. Holy poo poo Rorus Raz posted in my thread.  I like the talk that Hillary focused on the polls. Her positions seemed to shift to what was the most safe yet popular opinion to have at the time. As such, she didn't really come off as principled. She never seemed particularly sold on any of the stuff she campaigned about except a woman's right to choose. Seriously, that empassioned defense of women's choice during the third debate was stirring. I was moved. She seemed genuinely invested in this issue. Why couldn't she have been more like that on every other issue? (Oh yeah, she rarely talked about the issues or her policies at all, let alone with any passion. Just, "Read my book!" Or "Go to my website!"  )
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:The people who treat any direct outreach to rural American whites as "coddling racists." Everyone in this room is racist. The person telling the joke of course, and the people who truly laugh obviously, but also the people who normalize this behavior and refrain from calling it out for the bullshit it is. But, while the latter two groups are racist, they are not irredeemable. They know what's happening is wrong, but they lack the courage to say anything. You can call that a moral failing, and it is, but it is one they can work on, and they're certainly not going to be the type to vote against racial justice purely for the spite of it. We can appeal to this people on economic terms and explain both why racial justice is right and good and also how it's not about pushing them down, but lifting others up. As for the first two groups: gently caress them and everything they stand for. There is no use talking to such people. Conservative America is full of the first two groups. Those who defend rural America all the loving time I think often delude themselves about how big the problem is. We are not going to win these people over if we're talking about affirmative action and gay marriage, even if the economic platform might otherwise appeal to them. They're way too far up Rush Limbaugh's rear end in a top hat for us to ever reach them. But, we don't need to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Sorry but liberalism is over now. It's socialism or barbarism and those are the only two possible outcomes going forward. UBI may be a start, or maybe not. But it's not the end game at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Bates posted:And all you have to do is end capitalism! This, but unironically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Say you've got a room full of Trump voters, like having dinner or watching a football game or something. They're all white save for like one Hispanic or something who passes the paper bag test. One of them tells a racist joke, like a really bad one too. A couple people really laugh their asses off - they liked the joke and genuinely found it funny. A few more laugh politely, and a few others shift uncomfortably in their seats. Mostly with you here, but nah you have to reach out to the two first groups, too. With the economic message you are reaching out to them, the problem is culture and that can be changed, and peace of mind in the populous is a good way to allow that to happen. There's no way we get meaningful economic reform anytime soon (by which i mean, by your mean of choice, re-balancing the divides in top and bottom of wealth) but that's the long term (and only term) poo poo we should be shooting for. Inclusion is very important to any kind of movement actually working. I'm not say be all hippy dippy and silly about it either, like why would you discount an entire group of people in a general fashion as unreachable?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:I'm not say be all hippy dippy and silly about it either, like why would you discount an entire group of people in a general fashion as unreachable? Because some groups will vote Republican no matter what, e.g. Evangelicals, and thus one shouldn't waste limited resources on trying to achieve the impossible,
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I have seen nor heard such thing. I don't see how "coastal elites" and "globalists" refers to Jews. Have you ever listened to Alex Jones?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Say you've got a room full of Trump voters, like having dinner or watching a football game or something. They're all white save for like one Hispanic or something who passes the paper bag test. One of them tells a racist joke, like a really bad one too. A couple people really laugh their asses off - they liked the joke and genuinely found it funny. A few more laugh politely, and a few others shift uncomfortably in their seats. Yeah this is where it matters, we find the ones who can be persuaded on ecconomic policy, even if they have some idiotic views and make them our own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Clip-On Fedora posted:Have you ever listened to Alex Jones? Fringiest of fringe personalities. You might as well talk about how there is a rise and normalizing in the belief of Space Moors and the New Dark Ages for the average American. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Adam Smith is rolling in his grave. “All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems in every age of the world to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” - Adam Smith
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
So, I've been thinking about a bit of conventional wisdom. We've said multiple times in this forum - "Being ahead helps you on election day because people want to vote for a winner". Normally, reports that you "can't lose" motivates turnout EVEN MORE. However, we've never had an election where the two candidates had worse favorability than this one - normally, candidates have mild positive favorables. I'm wondering if Low Enthusiasm combined with Inevitability actually depressed Democratic turnout because people weren't that excited for Clinton. It's possible that all the "rules" are off the table with candidates that aren't liked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Isn't it the opposite? I don't remember anyone actually producing empirical proof but an overwhelming theme of the post-brexit poll analysis was that the misguided picture of a win for stay made stay voters stay home. (synonyms, who needs them  ) Basically, that the win was already taken for granted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would say he was less wrong, probably since his methodology gives more leeway but at the end of the day it is an poll aggregator. On one hand he can't go against his primary way of collecting data, but one the other hand polling in general has gotten far more inaccurate (especially internationally). Shook Nate's argument all along was that Hillary's lead was precarious enough across states that she needed to win that if the polls were off in her favor in a correlated way then she could lose. His model put the odds of that happening at 30%. There is no way to test those odds since we can't run the election 10 times, let alone the multiple thousands that I would want to be certain. What we can say is that if someone says something has a 30% chance of happening, then it happens, I find it strange to look at that person and say "Hah, you were wrong." Especially if everyone else you asked was saying that there was no way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Isn't it the opposite? I don't remember anyone actually producing empirical proof but an overwhelming theme of the post-brexit poll analysis was that the misguided picture of a win for stay made stay voters stay home. (synonyms, who needs them
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You joke, but you're not far off. Oh I wasn't joking, I'm 100% dead serious about this. People need to get their heads out of the sand and stop being in denial about what's happening in the real world. This is a life or death situation for a large portion of humanity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Fringiest of fringe personalities. You might as well talk about how there is a rise and normalizing in the belief of Space Moors and the New Dark Ages for the average American. "Globalists"/"World Bank(ers)" have been a far-right dogwhistle for Jews for basically loving forever and you've got your head in the sand if the rise of the alt-right hasn't popularized that take. Congratulations on not having heard about it until now, I guess, but it is absolutely a thing in far-right circles, and now more and more in even moderate conservative groups
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Fringiest of fringe personalities. You might as well talk about how there is a rise and normalizing in the belief of Space Moors and the New Dark Ages for the average American. Before Trump, I would agree with you, but now that up is down and black is white, his star is on the rise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Over the last week I keep thinking about two precursors to Trump's election. The first is 1787, the second is 2009. 1787 being the Constitutional Convention in which we decided, amongst other things, that we would punt on the issue of slavery and the southern economy. The new nation would be hobbled without the strength of the plantations and the plantations could not run without slavery. The compromise here set the stage for so many things to come, to our detriment. It was the first time of many that America would be swayed by the Trojan horse of economic prosperity requiring oppression of minorities. It was an immense failure of imagination to think that there was no way to make money on the planations without slavery - of course their was. But it would have to be shared between landowner and labor, and almost a hundred years before Marx writes Capital. Had we taken the opportunity to rethink that relationship such that we could have wealth without so flagrantly making GBS threads on the morality at the heart of the Constitution a lot of things might have been different, but at some point you veer into alternate history weirdness. My point is mostly just to highlight that what worked then fundamentally hasn't changed right up until the present day. And then we have 2009, where unfortunately President Obama had to deal with the financial crisis and the Great Recession right off the bat, two issues that would have been extremely challenging even for presidents into their second term. TARP was probably within an order of magnitude the right choice for the financial sector - there needed to be bailouts, they needed to happen quickly, and I don't have the acumen in the area of financial regulation to quibble about details. The Great Recession, though, was handled in a middling way at best. The ARRA too small by perhaps an order of magnitude; Obama was too eager to reduce the size in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation despite being in the majority in Congress. He settled with avoiding a Second Great Depression while being satisfied with eight years of anemic growth (if not contraction) amongst many Americans. There was a lot of Common Wisdom being thrown around at the time that financial crises are just worse, they always take about a decade to work themselves out and we're living in the best possible world. We weren't and we aren't. There was a another failure of imagination at the beginning of the Obama administration, a failure to conceive of a domestic policy that reversed the economic trends of the past twenty-five years. I didn't think so at the time but I'm starting to come around to the notion that Obama was the terminal point of the Third Way, eventually destroyed by a profound inability to reconceive our economy for a better future. American capitalism has to change, has to stop treating people at the lower rungs of the ladder like disposable meat and find a new relation between the worker, consumer, and the market. The Third Way could never do that. So when someone comes along who uses literally the oldest sales pitch in American politics - You can be prosperous again but we have to beat down The Other to do it - Obama's inaction on the economy comes home to roost. The misery he allowed to fester because of bipartisan pragmatism may end up overturning every other good thing he accomplished in the last eight years. I want to talk more about how the new Democratic agenda must find a way to overturn the old sales pitch, but that's enough  for now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Obama's "majority in Congress" included a large number of blue dogs barely less conservative than the GOP itself, including at least one straight-up turncoat. He didn't have the free hand to reinvent everything that people seem to assume. Not that I think he was a secret radical, but even if he didn't try to play ball for longer than he should have his ability to make huge changes to everything in America forever was really limited, to put it mildly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Obama's "majority in Congress" included a large number of blue dogs barely less conservative than the GOP itself, including at least one straight-up turncoat. He didn't have the free hand to reinvent everything that people seem to assume. Didn't a bunch of democrats lost their seats because they voted for ACA? If that's he case, I don't think it was possible to push it any further than Obama did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted: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. Getting up and saying "Single payer will never, ever happen" to a bunch of >35 year olds who will become your core voting constituency was not a smooth move either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Didn't a bunch of democrats lost their seats because they voted for ACA? If that's he case, I don't think it was possible to push it any further than Obama did. The reasons they lost were hardly only the ACA but that was a big issue. A lot of those blue dog Democratic districts were incredibly competitive and Democrats relied on waives in 06 and 08. The wave ended up going the other way in 10 not just in Congress but in state capitols across the nation. Which means Republicans got to draw the majority of Congressional and state legislative maps throughout the country, meaning those formerly competitive seats are gerrymandered as gently caress to benefit Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Didn't a bunch of democrats lost their seats because they voted for ACA? If that's he case, I don't think it was possible to push it any further than Obama did. Ish, and funny story: the more likely you were to try to water down the ACA to try to save your seat, the more likely you were to lose your seat to the right
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:01
|
|