I think it's a false choice. Keep calling out bigotry but do a way better job of telling people how electing you is going to make their lives better too. The latter is what was not clear. I think that was largely because the media totally ignored policy, but Democrats have been bad at making that connection explicit for years. That's exactly how we lost '04, too.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+16
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
As much as I want those responsible for Trump's presidency to feel even a sliver of the pain they just caused, I care more about helping the people they hurt. If that means convincing people I loathe that we have mutual interest so we can get their votes, so be it.
To be crude, I'd prefer we used these people rather than the GOP doing so. And you can't make them do anything if they dismiss you immediately.
This. The ends justify the means.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
One of the things that's really ruining rural America right now is drug addiction. Conservatives are pushing harder punishments as the solution, where as democrats are pushing for rehabilitations.
I wonder if advocacy from people like Macklemore, where they showcase their vulnerability rather than starpower, can help temper the idea of liberal smugness.
Hatch and Graham are both on record saying that they think killing the fillibuster is a bad idea.
That means it's 50-50 right now.
IF they hold. If.
John McCain, if the man I've ever respected is still in there, now would be a good damn time to step up.
Trump said he wasn't a war hero, and that he, Trump, preferred people who didn't get captured. McCain still said he would support the nominee. I don't think the actual maverick exists anymore.
He never existed. The Maverick Join McCain was a delusional fabrication of a bus-side slogan and a tire swing.
As much as I want those responsible for Trump's presidency to feel even a sliver of the pain they just caused, I care more about helping the people they hurt. If that means convincing people I loathe that we have mutual interest so we can get their votes, so be it.
To be crude, I'd prefer we used these people rather than the GOP doing so. And you can't make them do anything if they dismiss you immediately.
This. The ends justify the means.
That makes it sound...self-serving. I prefer to think of it as "to fight with honor when lives are on the line is arrogance".
Hatch and Graham are both on record saying that they think killing the fillibuster is a bad idea.
That means it's 50-50 right now.
IF they hold. If.
John McCain, if the man I've ever respected is still in there, now would be a good damn time to step up.
Trump said he wasn't a war hero, and that he, Trump, preferred people who didn't get captured. McCain still said he would support the nominee. I don't think the actual maverick exists anymore.
He never existed. The Maverick Join McCain was a delusional fabrication of a bus-side slogan and a tire swing.
Well, he stood up to that lady who accused Obama of being an Arab, at least.
An uncontrolled Trump isn't just bad for the democrats. It's also bad for the republicans, because the republicans can't reign him in either.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Sure they aren't all racists or sexists, but Trump was pretty fucking open about what vile kind of human being he is. I understand nuance, but not going to have much sympathy for them when they get hit by a broad brush because it's not like Trump hid and it's kind of shit to to be like "I'm not sexist/racist/insert horrible thing; however, I'm still voting for the awful ass hat that owns up to that shit because of issues." I feel like those things disqualify someone; especially, if they are only supposedly playing to that vile shit for votes.
You miss the point entirely. I don't give a shit if you give them sympathy.
I do give a shit if people whipping around their broad brushes alienates them and makes them less likely to vote D, or more likely to vote R.
Smugness in the face of a fully Republican government seems like failing to learn a lesson. Hey, if we keep it up maybe they can get enough of a majority across all levels to amend the Constitution without Democratic support.
You're absolutely right. I vow to watch my tone as the Ku Klux Klan lynches me. Don't want to hurt their feelings or anything.
Sure they aren't all racists or sexists, but Trump was pretty fucking open about what vile kind of human being he is. I understand nuance, but not going to have much sympathy for them when they get hit by a broad brush because it's not like Trump hid and it's kind of shit to to be like "I'm not sexist/racist/insert horrible thing; however, I'm still voting for the awful ass hat that owns up to that shit because of issues." I feel like those things disqualify someone; especially, if they are only supposedly playing to that vile shit for votes.
You miss the point entirely. I don't give a shit if you give them sympathy.
I do give a shit if people whipping around their broad brushes alienates them and makes them less likely to vote D, or more likely to vote R.
Smugness in the face of a fully Republican government seems like failing to learn a lesson. Hey, if we keep it up maybe they can get enough of a majority across all levels to amend the Constitution without Democratic support.
Yeah, but, we'll have the moral high ground
It's a great view over all these ashes
You know what? If asking Americans not to commit genocide against Muslims is a tall order, then maybe we shouldn't HAVE an America?
Well, are you more interested in preventing genocide, or being able to insult Trump voters?
Like, pretend you only get to pick one of those.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I feel like the moniker "low information" can be fairly ascribed to people who think all or most Trump supporters are racist.
The best case you can argue is that they are merely OK with blatant misogyny and bigotry and racism as long as they get whatever else they want.
This is a distinction without any meaningful difference beyond questions of electoral strategy.
where do you go from making assertions like this?
how do we get away from a point of permanent gridlock if you write off literally everyone on the other side?
You go about figuring out where you can find more votes without deluding yourself about the nature of the opposition.
i think saying everyone who voted for trump is an effective racist and there is no chance of appealing to them is the deluded position
Right. This is the same argument that paints me as a racist because I don't believe racial diversity should be considered in college admissions. It's a bad argument.
Sure they aren't all racists or sexists, but Trump was pretty fucking open about what vile kind of human being he is. I understand nuance, but not going to have much sympathy for them when they get hit by a broad brush because it's not like Trump hid and it's kind of shit to to be like "I'm not sexist/racist/insert horrible thing; however, I'm still voting for the awful ass hat that owns up to that shit because of issues." I feel like those things disqualify someone; especially, if they are only supposedly playing to that vile shit for votes.
You miss the point entirely. I don't give a shit if you give them sympathy.
I do give a shit if people whipping around their broad brushes alienates them and makes them less likely to vote D, or more likely to vote R.
Smugness in the face of a fully Republican government seems like failing to learn a lesson. Hey, if we keep it up maybe they can get enough of a majority across all levels to amend the Constitution without Democratic support.
You're absolutely right. I vow to watch my tone as the Ku Klux Klan lynches me. Don't want to hurt their feelings or anything.
Sure they aren't all racists or sexists, but Trump was pretty fucking open about what vile kind of human being he is. I understand nuance, but not going to have much sympathy for them when they get hit by a broad brush because it's not like Trump hid and it's kind of shit to to be like "I'm not sexist/racist/insert horrible thing; however, I'm still voting for the awful ass hat that owns up to that shit because of issues." I feel like those things disqualify someone; especially, if they are only supposedly playing to that vile shit for votes.
You miss the point entirely. I don't give a shit if you give them sympathy.
I do give a shit if people whipping around their broad brushes alienates them and makes them less likely to vote D, or more likely to vote R.
Smugness in the face of a fully Republican government seems like failing to learn a lesson. Hey, if we keep it up maybe they can get enough of a majority across all levels to amend the Constitution without Democratic support.
Yeah, but, we'll have the moral high ground
It's a great view over all these ashes
You know what? If asking Americans not to commit genocide against Muslims is a tall order, then maybe we shouldn't HAVE an America?
Well, are you more interested in preventing genocide, or being able to insult Trump voters?
Like, pretend you only get to pick one of those.
The first one, obviously. But calling out bigotry isn't an insult. It's calling a spade a spade. Or, as they like to say, "telling it like it is".
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
And the righteousness of your cause does not change this basic fact of human psychology.
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Yes and no.
As was said a couple of threads ago at this point;
"That's racist" is a very powerful thing to say and can often change minds. "You're racist" shuts down communication with the person being talked to altogether, so unless you're using them as an example to string up (for people who aren't going to leap to their defense out of a sense of community), you're pretty much done at that point.
If you run right at some one rhetorically yelling "racist" they're just going to dig in an oppose you. If you point out that things they support are racist, they might not realize that yet or can at least pretend that they didn't and save some face and might come around.
No matter how right you are, no hearts and minds get won through brute force browbeating.
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Yes and no.
As was said a couple of threads ago at this point;
"That's racist" is a very powerful thing to say and can often change minds. "You're racist" shuts down communication with the person being talked to altogether, so unless you're using them as an example to string up (for people who aren't going to leap to their defense out of a sense of community), you're pretty much done at that point.
If you run right at some one rhetorically yelling "racist" they're just going to dig in an oppose you. If you point out that things they support are racist, they might not realize that yet or can at least pretend that they didn't and save some face and might come around.
No matter how right you are, no hearts and minds get won through brute force browbeating.
I suppose that's a valid point. This whole situation has caused me to keep ping-ponging between frantically looking for answers, fear, and blind rage. I guess my biggest fear right now is the thought of the Democrats (and society in general) throwing away anti-bigotry because it's "divisive". I get that economics is important, but there's definitely room for both.
I feel like the moniker "low information" can be fairly ascribed to people who think all or most Trump supporters are racist.
The best case you can argue is that they are merely OK with blatant misogyny and bigotry and racism as long as they get whatever else they want.
This is a distinction without any meaningful difference beyond questions of electoral strategy.
where do you go from making assertions like this?
how do we get away from a point of permanent gridlock if you write off literally everyone on the other side?
You go about figuring out where you can find more votes without deluding yourself about the nature of the opposition.
i think saying everyone who voted for trump is an effective racist and there is no chance of appealing to them is the deluded position
Right. This is the same argument that paints me as a racist because I don't believe racial diversity should be considered in college admissions. It's a bad argument.
No, I don't see how not agreeing with racial diversity requirements in college admissions and voting for an openly bigoted monster promising to round up non-whites are at all comparable.
Hatch and Graham are both on record saying that they think killing the fillibuster is a bad idea.
That means it's 50-50 right now.
IF they hold. If.
John McCain, if the man I've ever respected is still in there, now would be a good damn time to step up.
McCain tends to side with Graham on these sorts of things.
Really, the fillibuster existing is a decent excuse for not burning down the country like their bases would like them to right now.
Yes
Keeping the filibuster is the smart move because it gives them someone to blame for everything (Democrats) and they don't actually have to drop the match into the pool of gasoline like their insane base wants
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
White Fragility is real and may need to be coddled to win elections.
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
White Fragility is real and may need to be coddled to win elections.
"Who's a pure white little precious snowflake? You are! You are! Goochie-goochie!"
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Yes and no.
As was said a couple of threads ago at this point;
"That's racist" is a very powerful thing to say and can often change minds. "You're racist" shuts down communication with the person being talked to altogether, so unless you're using them as an example to string up (for people who aren't going to leap to their defense out of a sense of community), you're pretty much done at that point.
If you run right at some one rhetorically yelling "racist" they're just going to dig in an oppose you. If you point out that things they support are racist, they might not realize that yet or can at least pretend that they didn't and save some face and might come around.
No matter how right you are, no hearts and minds get won through brute force browbeating.
I suppose that's a valid point. This whole situation has caused me to keep ping-ponging between frantically looking for answers, fear, and blind rage. I guess my biggest fear right now is the thought of the Democrats (and society in general) throwing away anti-bigotry because it's "divisive". I get that economics is important, but there's definitely room for both.
I don't think anyone who can reasonably call themselves a modern Democrat would argue that we can morally or responsibly drop the anti-bigotry parts of the party platform.
It looks like we're going to put a black muslim dude in charge of the DNC. The actual push for equality isn't going anywhere. We just clearly can't bank on it to the exclusion of believable economic rhetoric and expect the "white moderates" to come along.
I feel like the moniker "low information" can be fairly ascribed to people who think all or most Trump supporters are racist.
I think most people (I'm not excluding myself) have bits of racism in some way or another, beyond Scheck's level 1 racism, that shit runs deep
But that's not useful for an election, you never want to call the electorate racist if you're a politician. You aren't presenting a thesis statement to academics, you're selling yourself to customers. Even if some of the customers are racists you don't want to yell over the loudspeaker that the people in aisle 6 are racists and
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
White Fragility is real and may need to be coddled to win elections.
Not necessarily, fire up the liberal base will do the trick.
Trump got a 5 digit number of votes above Romney numbers* on a platform entirely focusing on coddling white fragility. Clinton got some 4 million* votes less than Obama, 4 million* votes that didn't go to Trump. Fire up the liberal, not-politics-nerds-like-us base and you win the election.
I think the #1 lesson for Democrats to learn from this election is that Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate (statistically speaking, spool I know there are exceptions). No more spending a month trying to convince them their extremist is extreme. Also probably a bad idea to cede July to them to raise money.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think the #1 lesson for Democrats to learn from this election is that Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate (statistically speaking, spool I know there are exceptions). No more spending a month trying to convince them their extremist is extreme. Also probably a bad idea to cede July to them to raise money.
No more praising Republicans at the convention, you mean.
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
White Fragility is real and may need to be coddled to win elections.
It's not real and it's a broadly insulting thing to suggest, not to mention being pretty racist on its own.
+8
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I think the #1 lesson for Democrats to learn from this election is that Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate (statistically speaking, spool I know there are exceptions). No more spending a month trying to convince them their extremist is extreme. Also probably a bad idea to cede July to them to raise money.
See also: Spending more time in Nebraska than in Wisc/Indiana/Mich combined, not paying your campaign staff there
No trying to convince them their extremist is extreme - this was intentional, though. That wasn't an effort to capture red voters, that was an attempt to raise turnout for blue voters, since Hillary was a Wonk and not an Inspirer.
DNC needs to start building the farm team to run a Inspirer next time.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Sure they aren't all racists or sexists, but Trump was pretty fucking open about what vile kind of human being he is. I understand nuance, but not going to have much sympathy for them when they get hit by a broad brush because it's not like Trump hid and it's kind of shit to to be like "I'm not sexist/racist/insert horrible thing; however, I'm still voting for the awful ass hat that owns up to that shit because of issues." I feel like those things disqualify someone; especially, if they are only supposedly playing to that vile shit for votes.
You miss the point entirely. I don't give a shit if you give them sympathy.
I do give a shit if people whipping around their broad brushes alienates them and makes them less likely to vote D, or more likely to vote R.
Smugness in the face of a fully Republican government seems like failing to learn a lesson. Hey, if we keep it up maybe they can get enough of a majority across all levels to amend the Constitution without Democratic support.
You're absolutely right. I vow to watch my tone as the Ku Klux Klan lynches me. Don't want to hurt their feelings or anything.
Yeah okay
Must really be nice for you to have literally no stakes in any of this, huh?
Literally no stakes?
Yeah okay
+4
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I feel like the moniker "low information" can be fairly ascribed to people who think all or most Trump supporters are racist.
I think most people (I'm not excluding myself) have bits of racism in some way or another, beyond Scheck's level 1 racism, that shit runs deep
But that's not useful for an election, you never want to call the electorate racist if you're a politician. You aren't presenting a thesis statement to academics, you're selling yourself to customers. Even if some of the customers are racists you don't want to yell over the loudspeaker that the people in aisle 6 are racists and
let me see if I can work a car analogy in as well
lawyer analogy
you don't insult the judge and the jury, even if they deserve it
Hillary Clinton’s condemnation of half of Trump supporters as a “basket of deplorables” was a famous wrong move on her part (as Romney’s 47 percent comment had been a wrong move on his). But it’s important to think about why it’s a bad approach: Why, even if some of your adversaries’ views really are deplorable, thinking this way isn’t useful.
If you’re trying to influence the public, think of yourself as a lawyer, and of voters as your judges and jurors. Except that there are no peremptory challenges or challenges for cause. You can’t strike people because they’re prejudiced, or because you think they are. You’re stuck with them, and they’ll be passing judgment on your client — on your ideas and ideals that you are arguing for. Now what are you going to do?
Good lawyers don’t deplore their judges and jurors. Partly that’s because they don’t want to alienate the people who will be passing judgment on them. Deploring obviously turns off the deplored.
Bold and italics are mine for emphasis. We are stuck with them. It is not enough to be offended, anymore.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
+1
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
Hatch and Graham are both on record saying that they think killing the fillibuster is a bad idea.
That means it's 50-50 right now.
IF they hold. If.
John McCain, if the man I've ever respected is still in there, now would be a good damn time to step up.
McCain tends to side with Graham on these sorts of things.
Really, the fillibuster existing is a decent excuse for not burning down the country like their bases would like them to right now.
Yes
Keeping the filibuster is the smart move because it gives them someone to blame for everything (Democrats) and they don't actually have to drop the match into the pool of gasoline like their insane base wants
Lets hope they're smart, and thinking long term!
where did I put that gin
This. Not every elected Republican is entirely insane. Not entirely. Some of them know there are policies being promoted that would be horrible if actually enacted, and they know they'll need an out that will still allow them to save face with their constituents. So keep the filibuster.
Or bring back earmarks. "Yes, I voted against funding an army of Sentinel robots to detect and hunt illegal immigrants. I felt the danger of them turning against us was too much. But I got those stupid libs to agree to a $350 million dollar highway project that will fund over 3,000 jobs in our great state for the next two years in exchange."
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
edited November 2016
If the democratic party moves to ingratiate themselves with racists, homophobes, or bigots of any stripe then I'm absolutely done with em. Finished. Bigotry must be combatted ferociously, not coddled and catered to. There can be absolutely no compromise on this issue.
The fact that trumps voters were actually pretty well off by and large seems to indicate that the argument for them being merely poor rural rubes is pretty much bullshit. And, by the way, I live in Wyoming, where rubes are manufactured, and economic policy ain't what they were talking about. They were talking about Muslims and those uppity police-hating blacks and illegal immigrant drug dealers and "pc culture" and guns. I have seen the face of America and it's angry and white and armed, and toooootally fine with casual racism, homophobia and misogyny. So even if their concerns were purely economic, they were still totally fuckin fine with all the other shit trump said. And that makes them bad people. End of story.
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
White Fragility is real and may need to be coddled to win elections.
It's not real and it's a broadly insulting thing to suggest, not to mention being pretty racist on its own.
White fragility is very real and it's not racist at all to suggest that. The very arguments being made here, that I'm pretty sure you've been hitting agree on, about how we should tone down talk of racism in order to not turn away white voters who totally think they aren't racist is an acknowledgement of it's existence. Like, the whole premise is that bringing up the issue makes white people defensive.
Like, quite simply if the argument is that the Democratic Party needs to lay off the calling out racism thing a bit in order to not turn away white voters, we are talking pretty explicitly about white fragility.
Hello all, I am a lurker who has come up for a moment to hopefully add something to the conversation.
A lot of comments about the "post-truth" media came up previously - as a habitual news reader, I have a few sources that might expand your reading list. I read a LOT of news media from many sources, some of which might not come across anyone's radar unless I post it here. I think the crappiness of modern "official" news media goes without saying--I combat this the only way I can as a citizen, which is by reading a large amount of "unofficial" media alongside it.
First, a disclaimer: I can't read or watch any part of the official "right-wing" media, such as Fox News or the relevant Reddit subforums, because it's so full of fear, hate and bat-shittiness that it gives me stress headaches. I'm sure that this limits my perspective, but I can't bring myself to spend any time there.
On the other hand, I have always been interested in the other side's point of view - even when I have made a policy or philosophical choice, I want to understand the other side's position as best I can (if only to justify my own view - I'm a human too - but I HAVE to feel I gave the other side a fair shake before feeling comfortable in my own position). This has led me to some interesting sources and places, which as a rule are well-written and reasonably argued.
A second disclaimer, given this forum: I am a white, employed, cisgendered straight American citizen who can easily afford to engage with this stuff on an academic level.
Given that, here's some sources:
Rod Dreher at the American Conservative
The main writer of The American Conservative, the Internet's only refuge for Burkean conservatism. He did not vote for Trump based on personality concerns but he also was deeply opposed to Clinton for policy reasons. Honest opinion, the man is a bit of a hysteric, and he fails to see his own blind spots, but he has one of the best-moderated comment sections I've ever seen. You get everyone from pagan liberals to erudite white nationalists in there, offering their point of view. Also, a good snapshot of the conservatively-religious-yet-still-retaining-some-sanity population, which is not one I have much personal experience with.
Anonymous at Star Slate Codex
This is just the personal blog of an anonymous citizen in the Midwest somewhere who has a background in mental health and statistics. The linked article contains a (oppositional, he is very nervous about this presidency) position on Trump I've heard literally nowhere else. Fine, I admit, I would love to hear any of the active commentors here engage with his specific points.
To go entirely apolitical - and when was the last time you heard any voice trying to change/better America in the public square that wasn't explicitly red or blue? - I have this site, one of my all-time favorites:
They're in a membership drive this week, but the focus is on land usage and budget solvency in American towns and cities. It's just boring enough to pull in points of view from literally every corner of the political landscape without co-option by any one of them. But if you want a vision - the only online vision I have ever seen - of a conversation that involves everyone, truly everyone, across the political spectrum, on one of the great issues of our time (that no-one ever talks about, seriously!!)... this is all I have for you.
I'll end it there, but that's just scratching the surface of what this site has in its archives.
Finally, I looked up BBCode and everything, but I couldn't figure out how to put stuff in spoiler tags. Let me know if this post is too unwieldy to engage with and I will try a bit harder ^^;
+10
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
Your post is fine.
If you want to use spoiler tags in the future, it's above the box where you type your post. It's in the dropdown menu under the paragraph symbol, next to the emojis.
knitdan on
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
If the democratic party moves to ingratiate themselves with racists, homophobes, or bigots of any stripe then I'm absolutely done with em. Finished. Bigotry must be combatted ferociously, not coddled and catered to. There can be absolutely no compromise on this issue.
The fact that trumps voters were actually pretty well off by and large seems to indicate that the argument for them being merely poor rural rubes is pretty much bullshit. And, by the way, I live in Wyoming, where rubes are manufactured, and economic policy ain't what they were talking about. They were talking about Muslims and those uppity police-hating blacks and illegal immigrant drug dealers and "pc culture" and guns. I have seen the face of America and it's angry and white and armed, and toooootally fine with casual racism, homophobia and misogyny. So even if their concerns were purely economic, they were still totally fuckin fine with all the other shit trump said. And that makes them bad people. End of story.
Pretty much. If the party decides they were too mean to racists and runs like that in 2018, i'll go off and register with the nearest non-Green group of socialists, plant myself on the fringe of American politics, and stay there until my party comes back.
I think the #1 lesson for Democrats to learn from this election is that Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate (statistically speaking, spool I know there are exceptions). No more spending a month trying to convince them their extremist is extreme. Also probably a bad idea to cede July to them to raise money.
The Democrats knew this before the election. Both sides ignore the other's core voters and go after the independents.
Posts
This. The ends justify the means.
One of the things that's really ruining rural America right now is drug addiction. Conservatives are pushing harder punishments as the solution, where as democrats are pushing for rehabilitations.
I wonder if advocacy from people like Macklemore, where they showcase their vulnerability rather than starpower, can help temper the idea of liberal smugness.
He never existed. The Maverick Join McCain was a delusional fabrication of a bus-side slogan and a tire swing.
That makes it sound...self-serving. I prefer to think of it as "to fight with honor when lives are on the line is arrogance".
Steam: pazython
Well, he stood up to that lady who accused Obama of being an Arab, at least.
An uncontrolled Trump isn't just bad for the democrats. It's also bad for the republicans, because the republicans can't reign him in either.
Well, are you more interested in preventing genocide, or being able to insult Trump voters?
Like, pretend you only get to pick one of those.
you like being contrarian, don't you rand?
Right. This is the same argument that paints me as a racist because I don't believe racial diversity should be considered in college admissions. It's a bad argument.
The first one, obviously. But calling out bigotry isn't an insult. It's calling a spade a spade. Or, as they like to say, "telling it like it is".
Steam: pazython
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I forgot about Rand Paul, the guy who built his entire reputation on the filibuster.
But he also has no principles, so let's give it even odds.
And the righteousness of your cause does not change this basic fact of human psychology.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Steam: pazython
Yes and no.
As was said a couple of threads ago at this point;
"That's racist" is a very powerful thing to say and can often change minds. "You're racist" shuts down communication with the person being talked to altogether, so unless you're using them as an example to string up (for people who aren't going to leap to their defense out of a sense of community), you're pretty much done at that point.
If you run right at some one rhetorically yelling "racist" they're just going to dig in an oppose you. If you point out that things they support are racist, they might not realize that yet or can at least pretend that they didn't and save some face and might come around.
No matter how right you are, no hearts and minds get won through brute force browbeating.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
and I laughed and laughed
I suppose that's a valid point. This whole situation has caused me to keep ping-ponging between frantically looking for answers, fear, and blind rage. I guess my biggest fear right now is the thought of the Democrats (and society in general) throwing away anti-bigotry because it's "divisive". I get that economics is important, but there's definitely room for both.
Steam: pazython
No, I don't see how not agreeing with racial diversity requirements in college admissions and voting for an openly bigoted monster promising to round up non-whites are at all comparable.
Yes
Keeping the filibuster is the smart move because it gives them someone to blame for everything (Democrats) and they don't actually have to drop the match into the pool of gasoline like their insane base wants
Lets hope they're smart, and thinking long term!
where did I put that gin
White Fragility is real and may need to be coddled to win elections.
"Who's a pure white little precious snowflake? You are! You are! Goochie-goochie!"
honestly i've wondered for a few election cycles now how michigan has stayed blue
it's been in the works a while i think
I don't think anyone who can reasonably call themselves a modern Democrat would argue that we can morally or responsibly drop the anti-bigotry parts of the party platform.
It looks like we're going to put a black muslim dude in charge of the DNC. The actual push for equality isn't going anywhere. We just clearly can't bank on it to the exclusion of believable economic rhetoric and expect the "white moderates" to come along.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I think most people (I'm not excluding myself) have bits of racism in some way or another, beyond Scheck's level 1 racism, that shit runs deep
But that's not useful for an election, you never want to call the electorate racist if you're a politician. You aren't presenting a thesis statement to academics, you're selling yourself to customers. Even if some of the customers are racists you don't want to yell over the loudspeaker that the people in aisle 6 are racists and
let me see if I can work a car analogy in as well
Not necessarily, fire up the liberal base will do the trick.
Trump got a 5 digit number of votes above Romney numbers* on a platform entirely focusing on coddling white fragility. Clinton got some 4 million* votes less than Obama, 4 million* votes that didn't go to Trump. Fire up the liberal, not-politics-nerds-like-us base and you win the election.
*Based on the last item I saw vote totals
No more praising Republicans at the convention, you mean.
God that was stupid.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I actually had a moment where I thought "Shit, Trump could actually win this" before the election when I watched this video;
But then I dismissed it. Trump surely wouldn't win, right?
Ah, the optimism of a mere two weeks ago.
It's not real and it's a broadly insulting thing to suggest, not to mention being pretty racist on its own.
See also: Spending more time in Nebraska than in Wisc/Indiana/Mich combined, not paying your campaign staff there
No trying to convince them their extremist is extreme - this was intentional, though. That wasn't an effort to capture red voters, that was an attempt to raise turnout for blue voters, since Hillary was a Wonk and not an Inspirer.
DNC needs to start building the farm team to run a Inspirer next time.
Literally no stakes?
Yeah okay
lawyer analogy
you don't insult the judge and the jury, even if they deserve it
sorry, you need them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/11/good-lawyers-dont-deplore-their-judges-and-jurors-advice-to-the-young-and-politically-minded/
Bold and italics are mine for emphasis. We are stuck with them. It is not enough to be offended, anymore.
This. Not every elected Republican is entirely insane. Not entirely. Some of them know there are policies being promoted that would be horrible if actually enacted, and they know they'll need an out that will still allow them to save face with their constituents. So keep the filibuster.
Or bring back earmarks. "Yes, I voted against funding an army of Sentinel robots to detect and hunt illegal immigrants. I felt the danger of them turning against us was too much. But I got those stupid libs to agree to a $350 million dollar highway project that will fund over 3,000 jobs in our great state for the next two years in exchange."
The fact that trumps voters were actually pretty well off by and large seems to indicate that the argument for them being merely poor rural rubes is pretty much bullshit. And, by the way, I live in Wyoming, where rubes are manufactured, and economic policy ain't what they were talking about. They were talking about Muslims and those uppity police-hating blacks and illegal immigrant drug dealers and "pc culture" and guns. I have seen the face of America and it's angry and white and armed, and toooootally fine with casual racism, homophobia and misogyny. So even if their concerns were purely economic, they were still totally fuckin fine with all the other shit trump said. And that makes them bad people. End of story.
White fragility is very real and it's not racist at all to suggest that. The very arguments being made here, that I'm pretty sure you've been hitting agree on, about how we should tone down talk of racism in order to not turn away white voters who totally think they aren't racist is an acknowledgement of it's existence. Like, the whole premise is that bringing up the issue makes white people defensive.
Like, quite simply if the argument is that the Democratic Party needs to lay off the calling out racism thing a bit in order to not turn away white voters, we are talking pretty explicitly about white fragility.
A lot of comments about the "post-truth" media came up previously - as a habitual news reader, I have a few sources that might expand your reading list. I read a LOT of news media from many sources, some of which might not come across anyone's radar unless I post it here. I think the crappiness of modern "official" news media goes without saying--I combat this the only way I can as a citizen, which is by reading a large amount of "unofficial" media alongside it.
First, a disclaimer: I can't read or watch any part of the official "right-wing" media, such as Fox News or the relevant Reddit subforums, because it's so full of fear, hate and bat-shittiness that it gives me stress headaches. I'm sure that this limits my perspective, but I can't bring myself to spend any time there.
On the other hand, I have always been interested in the other side's point of view - even when I have made a policy or philosophical choice, I want to understand the other side's position as best I can (if only to justify my own view - I'm a human too - but I HAVE to feel I gave the other side a fair shake before feeling comfortable in my own position). This has led me to some interesting sources and places, which as a rule are well-written and reasonably argued.
A second disclaimer, given this forum: I am a white, employed, cisgendered straight American citizen who can easily afford to engage with this stuff on an academic level.
Given that, here's some sources:
Rod Dreher at the American Conservative
The main writer of The American Conservative, the Internet's only refuge for Burkean conservatism. He did not vote for Trump based on personality concerns but he also was deeply opposed to Clinton for policy reasons. Honest opinion, the man is a bit of a hysteric, and he fails to see his own blind spots, but he has one of the best-moderated comment sections I've ever seen. You get everyone from pagan liberals to erudite white nationalists in there, offering their point of view. Also, a good snapshot of the conservatively-religious-yet-still-retaining-some-sanity population, which is not one I have much personal experience with.
John Greer at the Archdruid Report
Talk about a third way - this blogger is a practicing Druid in rural Vermont, with a religious (literally!) focus on human hubris, death and the full sweep of time. He is self-confessed on the autism spectrum as well.
Here is the post from January 2016 in which he predicted the outcome of this election.
Here, as a bonus, is one of the most beautiful and profound pieces on the nature of time that I have ever read.
Anonymous at Star Slate Codex
This is just the personal blog of an anonymous citizen in the Midwest somewhere who has a background in mental health and statistics. The linked article contains a (oppositional, he is very nervous about this presidency) position on Trump I've heard literally nowhere else. Fine, I admit, I would love to hear any of the active commentors here engage with his specific points.
To go entirely apolitical - and when was the last time you heard any voice trying to change/better America in the public square that wasn't explicitly red or blue? - I have this site, one of my all-time favorites:
Strong Towns
They're in a membership drive this week, but the focus is on land usage and budget solvency in American towns and cities. It's just boring enough to pull in points of view from literally every corner of the political landscape without co-option by any one of them. But if you want a vision - the only online vision I have ever seen - of a conversation that involves everyone, truly everyone, across the political spectrum, on one of the great issues of our time (that no-one ever talks about, seriously!!)... this is all I have for you.
Requisite basic argument of the site, that we are heading for an insolvency crisis in many of our towns, but that we can avoid it if we act intelligently, passionately and locally.
An evaluation of the crisis in Ferguson from the point of view of suburban land usage. A lot more insight about systemic racism than you might expect, especially from a Republican engineer.
A piece by a woman who managed to save a historic building through opening it up for use by her diverse, low-income community. Seriously I think this woman might be a saint, I cry when I read her pieces.
I'll end it there, but that's just scratching the surface of what this site has in its archives.
Finally, I looked up BBCode and everything, but I couldn't figure out how to put stuff in spoiler tags. Let me know if this post is too unwieldy to engage with and I will try a bit harder ^^;
If you want to use spoiler tags in the future, it's above the box where you type your post. It's in the dropdown menu under the paragraph symbol, next to the emojis.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Pretty much. If the party decides they were too mean to racists and runs like that in 2018, i'll go off and register with the nearest non-Green group of socialists, plant myself on the fringe of American politics, and stay there until my party comes back.
The Democrats knew this before the election. Both sides ignore the other's core voters and go after the independents.