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.
God that was stupid.
Right?
Dear god it felt like I was watching a convention Reagan would put together at points
Yeah the Sanders people were being ridiculous at the convention, and then they bring out the nationalism flag and wave it around
who's vote were you trying to get with that shit
Democrats. Democrats are are very nationalist too and the Sanders people getting ridiculed at the convention were being ridiculous. Meanwhile Sanders himself was getting some good vibes.
The Democrats were explicitly trying to throw off the framing of them as the "party that hates America" that they've been living under since the Vietnam War protests. A framing that is inaccurate and harmful to the party's chances. And also to contrast themselves with Trump's "America sucks" message.
They were also trying to appeal to moderate Republicans to cross the aisle just the one time, but it wasn't with the nationalism. Or that wasn't exclusively the point anyway.
Basically, ignoring what Trump is is stupid because then you try to appeal to voters who are primarily interested in white supremacy because they look just like the voters you actually need to win who can be persuaded by blaming elites like Wall Street and Pharma fucking them over. You'll waste energy if you don't actually get what's motivating people. There are even racists who aren't activated by racism, and we can win those people, because they care more about other stuff (honesty, "character issues," corruption, the economy, health care, etc).
Basically, you can't try to be Trump-lite and downplay racial issues because you'll simultaneously depress your base turnout among racial minorities (see this thread) while also losing the people who are activated by racial animus, because they'll take the real thing rather than someone pretending.
You also can't ignore the people who were activated by the populism and blaming of governmental and media elites (who have also failed) thinking that they were in fact motivated by racism so we'll never win them.
In other words, emulate Obama.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
White Fragility is the name of the term. Look it up, it's the actual name in the literature. It's not intended to insult or belittle, unless you think a bunch of academics are just out to stick it to whiter for some weird reason. I don't know why this is getting you so worked up.
White Fragility is about the reaction of white people in North America (that's the specific place the original paper coining the term was about anyway) to people bringing up racial issues. Essentially they become very defensive and angry and stressed out about the whole situation. It is a character of white people in america in that white people are the dominant racial group and so are not used to dealing with the issue because they are insulated from it by virtue of them being the privileged "default" in society.
When you talk about people getting defensive or angry over racism being brought up, this is what you are talking about. When people are saying "we shouldn't drop social justice, but we should be more careful about how we message it because we don't want to alienate those white voters we need to win" this is an explicit call for coddling them to get around white fragility.
As to the first bolded, I kinda do yeah. I'm neither surprised that "the literature" attempts to describe some characteristic of "white people" without even a hint of self-awareness, or that it would settle on a term like this to describe the phenomenon.
As to the others, you're saying racist things.
As to the concept, unsurprisingly the academic left has once again hit upon the most insulting way to describe a term for a thing they dislike. The idea that it's not intended to insult or belittle is laughable. Of course it is - when you think about "fragility" as a character trait, there are no positive concepts connected to it.
"Hey, you're just, you know, fragile. Because you're white, understand. That's a thing white people have. Fragility. I'm not trying to insult, I'm just saying is all. Just saying.
Why are you so upset about it anyway? I guess you just proved I was right!"
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.
God that was stupid.
Right?
Dear god it felt like I was watching a convention Reagan would put together at points
Yeah the Sanders people were being ridiculous at the convention, and then they bring out the nationalism flag and wave it around
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.
God that was stupid.
Right?
Dear god it felt like I was watching a convention Reagan would put together at points
Yeah the Sanders people were being ridiculous at the convention, and then they bring out the nationalism flag and wave it around
who's vote were you trying to get with that shit
... mine?
Trading a Texas Republican for like four Detroit Democrats is... not a great plan.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Here's the thing, I'm not going call every Trump voter a racist/sexist/what have you, but I sure am not going to go the fuck out of my way reign in people that give them shit about being those things. There are consequence for one's actions and when backs the piece of shit, that is very open about it's bigotry, they don't get to be butthurt when people start accusing them of being just like the piece of shit they voted for. The thing that pisses me off is these people failed this country. They knew Trump was a vile piece of shit, but they decided they would rather normalize and reward those vile behaviors because their policies were more important. Those people have to make amends for their failure and their asses better be working hard to get every fucker like Trump out of office (aka instead of being focused on what people think of them, they should be taking actions show that they really aren't the vile sorts that Trump and his ilk are).
As we see things set in. I don't really feel like talking about what Trump did to win because most of it is the same things that let to Hilary's defeat. I mean Republicans have had no issue falling in line and showing up, sadly they do that for piece shit like Trump.
Democratic failures and other factors.
-E-mail scandal, fuck Comey. It's a shame that ratfucker won't get shit canned because people will cry partisanship witch hunt, when he really did do something that warrants it. For the record, if he had pulled this shit against Trump, I'd still be calling for his head, even if I still felt Trump was a piece of shit. Our law enforcement should be minimizing their impact on elections and it seems like Comey went out of his way to maximize his influence on this year's election.
-Honestly Clinton should have stayed out of this. I think she would have been a great President, but she brought a ton of baggage and our media is pretty shitty. Her running probably kept the field clear of people. I was really hoping she would have done something along the lines of appearing to run, but withdraw failure quickly, since being in one or two early primaries would have been enough to get the the wealthy on the right to piss away a shit ton of money to try and stop her.
-Democrats failed in messaging. We let a bunch of assholes portray social justice and economic justice and being at odds they are not. This is probably why a bunch of people stayed home. They didn't like Republicans, but felt that democrats weren't' going to address their concerns. It doesn't help that is is downright frustrating to explain why we do certain things that might seem contradictory (minority-majority districts being a great example). We also need to break some of the bullshit narratives that currently (Both sides are the same! Bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship because it's always good (not really if one side isn't making a good faith effort and/or bugfuck crazy)! Our problems are over night fixes (if you govern right, eventually, the remaining problems are the difficult issues that take time and even some of the minor stuff takes time). The only office that matters is the Presidency.) They missed an opportunity to peel of voters, I'm not in favor of shitty of people for differences of opinion and I'm sure with better messaging we probably could have peeled of some Republicans that foolishly voted for Trump and probably got a small number that stayed home last Tuesday.
-Our media fucking sucks at it's job. Trump got plenty of mileage out of them not properly reporting. Hell, the media being more interested in ratings and access, is partly to blame for the GOP going batshit crazy.
-Not building up at the local level in all 50 states. I'm wondering if in a alternate US, if Clinton managed to get a win because the democrats had contested more local races from 1990 on and thus prevented the GOP from implementing as many voter suppression efforts. Voter suppression probably cost her NC and maybe it played a roll in some of the other rust belt states. Though I'll reiterate that a fair number of people that would have voted for her, decide to stay home for no good reason (aka they weren't dying, they didn't have a loved on in the hospital, they weren't in the hospital nor were they fucked over by voter suppression tactics because no one could challenge their ballot and they could afford to stand in line).
-I'd also say a fair number of democrats and liberals got complacent. I suspect some of the people that stayed home, did so because they figured everyone else would keep the orange shit goblin from winning.
Basically, ignoring what Trump is is stupid because then you try to appeal to voters who are primarily interested in white supremacy because they look just like the voters you actually need to win who can be persuaded by blaming elites like Wall Street and Pharma fucking them over. You'll waste energy if you don't actually get what's motivating people. There are even racists who aren't activated by racism, and we can win those people, because they care more about other stuff (honesty, "character issues," corruption, the economy, health care, etc).
Basically, you can't try to be Trump-lite and downplay racial issues because you'll simultaneously depress your base turnout among racial minorities (see this thread) while also losing the people who are activated by racial animus, because they'll take the real thing rather than someone pretending.
You also can't ignore the people who were activated by the populism and blaming of governmental and media elites (who have also failed) thinking that they were in fact motivated by racism so we'll never win them.
In other words, emulate Obama.
...I do not know how much this is true, though.
The conditions today are different than those that won Obama his first term; the great recession was kicking in and this is presumably a big reason that the 'Change' / 'Yes We Can' message was so successful; programs like TARP were over-shadowing other long-standing rust belt issues. Also, his opponents were McCain / Palin, which was just a terrible combination.
2012 was much closer in terms of margins, but Obama had the incumbent advantage & Romney looked / smelled like a used car salesman.
This year & last year were dominated by headlines of terror attacks, instability in the Persian Gulf & areas recovering from the recession. This would bring those long-standing economic issues back to the forefront, since they never went away & were in some ways worsened (like with the lead poisoning in Flint).
Obama's platform worked in part because of the backboard he had to bounce it off of, and because he was a fresh new face in an era where a big brand name in politics had really screwed things up. I'm not at all sure that the same approach could have worked for Clinton in today's climate & when she is not a fresh new face (...not in areas like Michigan or Pennsylvania, anyway. Obviously she did just fine overall, but I digress!).
With Love and Courage
+1
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered 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.
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.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
White Fragility is the name of the term. Look it up, it's the actual name in the literature. It's not intended to insult or belittle, unless you think a bunch of academics are just out to stick it to whiter for some weird reason. I don't know why this is getting you so worked up.
White Fragility is about the reaction of white people in North America (that's the specific place the original paper coining the term was about anyway) to people bringing up racial issues. Essentially they become very defensive and angry and stressed out about the whole situation. It is a character of white people in america in that white people are the dominant racial group and so are not used to dealing with the issue because they are insulated from it by virtue of them being the privileged "default" in society.
When you talk about people getting defensive or angry over racism being brought up, this is what you are talking about. When people are saying "we shouldn't drop social justice, but we should be more careful about how we message it because we don't want to alienate those white voters we need to win" this is an explicit call for coddling them to get around white fragility.
As to the first bolded, I kinda do yeah. I'm neither surprised that "the literature" attempts to describe some characteristic of "white people" without even a hint of self-awareness, or that it would settle on a term like this to describe the phenomenon.
As to the others, you're saying racist things.
As to the concept, unsurprisingly the academic left has once again hit upon the most insulting way to describe a term for a thing they dislike. The idea that it's not intended to insult or belittle is laughable. Of course it is - when you think about "fragility" as a character trait, there are no positive concepts connected to it.
"Hey, you're just, you know, fragile. Because you're white, understand. That's a thing white people have. Fragility. I'm not trying to insult, I'm just saying is all. Just saying.
Why are you so upset about it anyway? I guess you just proved I was right!"
Obama should have gotten crushed by most objective measures in 2012. Economy was still awful, the wars kept going longer than he said they would, ACA passed on purely partisan lines and its positive aspects hadn't really come online yet. Dude is really good at campaigning. And had the good fortune to come up against Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney. Which Clinton did too, but failed to take advantage of it. I'm going to be about that for the rest of my life.
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.
God that was stupid.
Right?
Dear god it felt like I was watching a convention Reagan would put together at points
Yeah the Sanders people were being ridiculous at the convention, and then they bring out the nationalism flag and wave it around
who's vote were you trying to get with that shit
... mine?
Trading a Texas Republican for like four Detroit Democrats is... not a great plan.
Obama should have gotten crushed by most objective measures in 2012. Economy was still awful, the wars kept going longer than he said they would, ACA passed on purely partisan lines and its positive aspects hadn't really come online yet. Dude is really good at campaigning. And had the good fortune to come up against Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney. Which Clinton did too, but failed to take advantage of it. I'm going to be about that for the rest of my life.
Hm. This is a good point.
Do we have data from out of Michigan or Pennsylvania for Obama's 2012 run? Exit polls, etc?
I know people like that 'We're voting for the n*****!' quote, but that's from the 2008 run. Conditions may have been entirely different for the 2012 win.
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.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
White Fragility is the name of the term. Look it up, it's the actual name in the literature. It's not intended to insult or belittle, unless you think a bunch of academics are just out to stick it to whiter for some weird reason. I don't know why this is getting you so worked up.
White Fragility is about the reaction of white people in North America (that's the specific place the original paper coining the term was about anyway) to people bringing up racial issues. Essentially they become very defensive and angry and stressed out about the whole situation. It is a character of white people in america in that white people are the dominant racial group and so are not used to dealing with the issue because they are insulated from it by virtue of them being the privileged "default" in society.
When you talk about people getting defensive or angry over racism being brought up, this is what you are talking about. When people are saying "we shouldn't drop social justice, but we should be more careful about how we message it because we don't want to alienate those white voters we need to win" this is an explicit call for coddling them to get around white fragility.
As to the first bolded, I kinda do yeah. I'm neither surprised that "the literature" attempts to describe some characteristic of "white people" without even a hint of self-awareness, or that it would settle on a term like this to describe the phenomenon.
As to the others, you're saying racist things.
As to the concept, unsurprisingly the academic left has once again hit upon the most insulting way to describe a term for a thing they dislike. The idea that it's not intended to insult or belittle is laughable. Of course it is - when you think about "fragility" as a character trait, there are no positive concepts connected to it.
"Hey, you're just, you know, fragile. Because you're white, understand. That's a thing white people have. Fragility. I'm not trying to insult, I'm just saying is all. Just saying.
Why are you so upset about it anyway? I guess you just proved I was right!"
Seemin pretty fragile.
Literally shattered into bits all over my kitchen floor right now
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.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
White Fragility is the name of the term. Look it up, it's the actual name in the literature. It's not intended to insult or belittle, unless you think a bunch of academics are just out to stick it to whiter for some weird reason. I don't know why this is getting you so worked up.
White Fragility is about the reaction of white people in North America (that's the specific place the original paper coining the term was about anyway) to people bringing up racial issues. Essentially they become very defensive and angry and stressed out about the whole situation. It is a character of white people in america in that white people are the dominant racial group and so are not used to dealing with the issue because they are insulated from it by virtue of them being the privileged "default" in society.
When you talk about people getting defensive or angry over racism being brought up, this is what you are talking about. When people are saying "we shouldn't drop social justice, but we should be more careful about how we message it because we don't want to alienate those white voters we need to win" this is an explicit call for coddling them to get around white fragility.
As to the first bolded, I kinda do yeah. I'm neither surprised that "the literature" attempts to describe some characteristic of "white people" without even a hint of self-awareness, or that it would settle on a term like this to describe the phenomenon.
As to the others, you're saying racist things.
As to the concept, unsurprisingly the academic left has once again hit upon the most insulting way to describe a term for a thing they dislike. The idea that it's not intended to insult or belittle is laughable. Of course it is - when you think about "fragility" as a character trait, there are no positive concepts connected to it.
"Hey, you're just, you know, fragile. Because you're white, understand. That's a thing white people have. Fragility. I'm not trying to insult, I'm just saying is all. Just saying.
Why are you so upset about it anyway? I guess you just proved I was right!"
Yeah, even assuming we allow the argument that it's a term from "the literature" with an "academic" meaning that's not intended to be insulting, 75% of Americans will never take any sort of sociology or ethnic studies class, and a majority will never get a college degree, and you're going to alienate the fuck out of those people if they hear that term.
And you can smugly joke that herpaderp, guess they were fragile after all....meanwhile, President Trump.
But then I dismissed it. Trump surely wouldn't win, right?
Ah, the optimism of a mere two weeks ago.
Michael Moore is a blowhard but he gets something the DNC didn't and it might be worth taking his opinion seriously on what midwest/rustbelt America wants, regardless of how melodramatically he presents it
edit: Don't take from this video with its stupid music that Moore actually thinks voting for Trump is a good idea though
So you would think the Democrats would be cleaning up, election after election. Obviously not. The Democrats appear to be professional losers They are so pathetic in their ability to win elections, they even lose when they win! So when you hear Democrats and liberals and supporters of Barack Obama say they are worried that John McCain has a good chance of winning, they ain't a-kidding. Who would know better than the very people who have handed the Republicans one election after another on a silver platter? Yes, be afraid, be very afraid.
Obama should have gotten crushed by most objective measures in 2012. Economy was still awful, the wars kept going longer than he said they would, ACA passed on purely partisan lines and its positive aspects hadn't really come online yet. Dude is really good at campaigning. And had the good fortune to come up against Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney. Which Clinton did too, but failed to take advantage of it. I'm going to be about that for the rest of my life.
Hm. This is a good point.
Do we have data from out of Michigan or Pennsylvania for Obama's 2012 run? Exit polls, etc?
I know people like that 'We're voting for the n*****!' quote, but that's from the 2008 run. Conditions may have been entirely different for the 2012 win.
Look at the counties along Lake Erie and west of Cleveland, especially in the Toledo area. There's like a 15 point swing. Toledo is a heavy auto industry reliant area.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
In Michigan, Obama was stronger everywhere (500k better than Clinton), but the decisive blow was in Detroit where 90k fewer people showed up and Macomb County which went from Obama +16k to Trump +50k. Auto industry areas.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
White Fragility is the name of the term. Look it up, it's the actual name in the literature. It's not intended to insult or belittle, unless you think a bunch of academics are just out to stick it to whiter for some weird reason. I don't know why this is getting you so worked up.
White Fragility is about the reaction of white people in North America (that's the specific place the original paper coining the term was about anyway) to people bringing up racial issues. Essentially they become very defensive and angry and stressed out about the whole situation. It is a character of white people in america in that white people are the dominant racial group and so are not used to dealing with the issue because they are insulated from it by virtue of them being the privileged "default" in society.
When you talk about people getting defensive or angry over racism being brought up, this is what you are talking about. When people are saying "we shouldn't drop social justice, but we should be more careful about how we message it because we don't want to alienate those white voters we need to win" this is an explicit call for coddling them to get around white fragility.
As to the first bolded, I kinda do yeah. I'm neither surprised that "the literature" attempts to describe some characteristic of "white people" without even a hint of self-awareness, or that it would settle on a term like this to describe the phenomenon.
As to the others, you're saying racist things.
As to the concept, unsurprisingly the academic left has once again hit upon the most insulting way to describe a term for a thing they dislike. The idea that it's not intended to insult or belittle is laughable. Of course it is - when you think about "fragility" as a character trait, there are no positive concepts connected to it.
"Hey, you're just, you know, fragile. Because you're white, understand. That's a thing white people have. Fragility. I'm not trying to insult, I'm just saying is all. Just saying.
Why are you so upset about it anyway? I guess you just proved I was right!"
Yes dude, it's those dastardly academics in multicultural education who are just out to get white people. They just fucking hate white people so much. Of course. Like, are you even listening to yourself? You are being ridiculous.
They use the term fragility because the whole concept is that white people are fragile when it comes to issues of race. They cannot deal with it because their environment, in which they are the dominant group, has not given them the tools to cope. Your premise that a freaking professor of multicultural studies is out to insult and belittle white people is nothing but your own projection.
That you keep throwing out how it's all so racist is equally funny because I literally already explained why it's specifically white fragility in this case (ie - it refers to behaviour among a group in a place where they are the dominant racial group to the point where they are the default) Shit, even Apothe0sis literally like 1 post above mine got the concept independently.
You are being ridiculous dude. Listen to what you are throwing out here. You are basically getting incredibly defensive by throwing out wild theories that academics are out to get you because they hate white people.
Obama should have gotten crushed by most objective measures in 2012. Economy was still awful, the wars kept going longer than he said they would, ACA passed on purely partisan lines and its positive aspects hadn't really come online yet. Dude is really good at campaigning. And had the good fortune to come up against Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney. Which Clinton did too, but failed to take advantage of it. I'm going to be about that for the rest of my life.
Hm. This is a good point.
Do we have data from out of Michigan or Pennsylvania for Obama's 2012 run? Exit polls, etc?
I know people like that 'We're voting for the n*****!' quote, but that's from the 2008 run. Conditions may have been entirely different for the 2012 win.
Look at the counties along Lake Erie and west of Cleveland, especially in the Toledo area. There's like a 15 point swing. Toledo is a heavy auto industry reliant area.
Do we have any exit poll surveys from this time period, though? I want to know what people were voting for, not just who they voted for.
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.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
White Fragility is the name of the term. Look it up, it's the actual name in the literature. It's not intended to insult or belittle, unless you think a bunch of academics are just out to stick it to whiter for some weird reason. I don't know why this is getting you so worked up.
White Fragility is about the reaction of white people in North America (that's the specific place the original paper coining the term was about anyway) to people bringing up racial issues. Essentially they become very defensive and angry and stressed out about the whole situation. It is a character of white people in america in that white people are the dominant racial group and so are not used to dealing with the issue because they are insulated from it by virtue of them being the privileged "default" in society.
When you talk about people getting defensive or angry over racism being brought up, this is what you are talking about. When people are saying "we shouldn't drop social justice, but we should be more careful about how we message it because we don't want to alienate those white voters we need to win" this is an explicit call for coddling them to get around white fragility.
As to the first bolded, I kinda do yeah. I'm neither surprised that "the literature" attempts to describe some characteristic of "white people" without even a hint of self-awareness, or that it would settle on a term like this to describe the phenomenon.
As to the others, you're saying racist things.
As to the concept, unsurprisingly the academic left has once again hit upon the most insulting way to describe a term for a thing they dislike. The idea that it's not intended to insult or belittle is laughable. Of course it is - when you think about "fragility" as a character trait, there are no positive concepts connected to it.
"Hey, you're just, you know, fragile. Because you're white, understand. That's a thing white people have. Fragility. I'm not trying to insult, I'm just saying is all. Just saying.
Why are you so upset about it anyway? I guess you just proved I was right!"
Yeah, even assuming we allow the argument that it's a term from "the literature" with an "academic" meaning that's not intended to be insulting, 75% of Americans will never take any sort of sociology or ethnic studies class, and a majority will never get a college degree, and you're going to alienate the fuck out of those people if they hear that term.
And you can smugly joke that herpaderp, guess they were fragile after all....meanwhile, President Trump.
And yet again, this argument will be meaningful when this thread becomes a spokesperson for the Democratic Party. Till then it's nothing but an attempt to derail and shutdown other posters.
You'd never have a politician talk about this. The same way they'd never get up there and talk about privilege or tell someone their concerns were stupid or that small town america isn't the heart and soul of the nation or any of the other enumerable things politicians don't say because they aren't morons. None of that applies to you or me or anyone here discussing what happened and how to do better next election though.
This goes right back to the top of the quote tree. In order to avoid upsetting a bunch of white voters the Democratic party needs to be careful about how it messages about america's awful horrible wide-spread racism so as not to run smack dab into white fragility.
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
It's not exactly backed by any form of research we have any reason to view as authoritative.
It's not the result of extended research into psychological data, nor a meta-analysis of other research, it's theory crafting within a pre-existing theoretical framework
Also of note, one of the symptoms of "white fragility" is the tendency to undertake "defensive moves" such as "arguing".
But then I dismissed it. Trump surely wouldn't win, right?
Ah, the optimism of a mere two weeks ago.
Michael Moore is a blowhard but he gets something the DNC didn't and it might be worth taking his opinion seriously on what midwest/rustbelt America wants, regardless of how melodramatically he presents it
edit: Don't take from this video with its stupid music that Moore actually thinks voting for Trump is a good idea though
So you would think the Democrats would be cleaning up, election after election. Obviously not. The Democrats appear to be professional losers They are so pathetic in their ability to win elections, they even lose when they win! So when you hear Democrats and liberals and supporters of Barack Obama say they are worried that John McCain has a good chance of winning, they ain't a-kidding. Who would know better than the very people who have handed the Republicans one election after another on a silver platter? Yes, be afraid, be very afraid.
Yeah, Moore has been beating this kind of drum for ages. I mean, maybe he's been right and it's just taken like a decade for this chicken to finally come home to roost (the man is all about the rust belt and how it's been fucked really, it's his thing), but I'm not ready to call him any sort of prophet here.
Obama should have gotten crushed by most objective measures in 2012. Economy was still awful, the wars kept going longer than he said they would, ACA passed on purely partisan lines and its positive aspects hadn't really come online yet. Dude is really good at campaigning. And had the good fortune to come up against Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney. Which Clinton did too, but failed to take advantage of it. I'm going to be about that for the rest of my life.
Hm. This is a good point.
Do we have data from out of Michigan or Pennsylvania for Obama's 2012 run? Exit polls, etc?
I know people like that 'We're voting for the n*****!' quote, but that's from the 2008 run. Conditions may have been entirely different for the 2012 win.
Look at the counties along Lake Erie and west of Cleveland, especially in the Toledo area. There's like a 15 point swing. Toledo is a heavy auto industry reliant area.
Do we have any exit poll surveys from this time period, though? I want to know what people were voting for, not just who they voted for.
Obama lost the 90% of Ohioans who did not have a family member working in the auto industry by 2 points. He won the state by 3 points. Even accounting for exit poll errors which are usually substantial, that result is... dramatic.
(If you want exit polls just search 2012 (state name) exit polls and click the CNN link that should be in the top five results, then shift to the exit poll tab.)
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
White Fragility is the name of the term. Look it up, it's the actual name in the literature. It's not intended to insult or belittle, unless you think a bunch of academics are just out to stick it to whiter for some weird reason. I don't know why this is getting you so worked up.
White Fragility is about the reaction of white people in North America (that's the specific place the original paper coining the term was about anyway) to people bringing up racial issues. Essentially they become very defensive and angry and stressed out about the whole situation. It is a character of white people in america in that white people are the dominant racial group and so are not used to dealing with the issue because they are insulated from it by virtue of them being the privileged "default" in society.
When you talk about people getting defensive or angry over racism being brought up, this is what you are talking about. When people are saying "we shouldn't drop social justice, but we should be more careful about how we message it because we don't want to alienate those white voters we need to win" this is an explicit call for coddling them to get around white fragility.
As to the first bolded, I kinda do yeah. I'm neither surprised that "the literature" attempts to describe some characteristic of "white people" without even a hint of self-awareness, or that it would settle on a term like this to describe the phenomenon.
As to the others, you're saying racist things.
As to the concept, unsurprisingly the academic left has once again hit upon the most insulting way to describe a term for a thing they dislike. The idea that it's not intended to insult or belittle is laughable. Of course it is - when you think about "fragility" as a character trait, there are no positive concepts connected to it.
"Hey, you're just, you know, fragile. Because you're white, understand. That's a thing white people have. Fragility. I'm not trying to insult, I'm just saying is all. Just saying.
Why are you so upset about it anyway? I guess you just proved I was right!"
Yeah, even assuming we allow the argument that it's a term from "the literature" with an "academic" meaning that's not intended to be insulting, 75% of Americans will never take any sort of sociology or ethnic studies class, and a majority will never get a college degree, and you're going to alienate the fuck out of those people if they hear that term.
And you can smugly joke that herpaderp, guess they were fragile after all....meanwhile, President Trump.
And yet again, this argument will be meaningful when this thread becomes a spokesperson for the Democratic Party. Till then it's nothing but an attempt to derail and shutdown other posters.
You'd never have a politician talk about this. The same way they'd never get up there and talk about privilege or tell someone their concerns were stupid or that small town america isn't the heart and soul of the nation or any of the other enumerable things politicians don't say because they aren't morons. None of that applies to you or me or anyone here discussing what happened and how to do better next election though.
This goes right back to the top of the quote tree. In order to avoid upsetting a bunch of white voters the Democratic party needs to be careful about how it messages about america's awful horrible wide-spread racism so as not to run smack dab into white fragility.
I would suggest that the messaging of everyday liberals matters as well. A lot.
Hell, we paint Trump, at least in part, as being the "candidate of white supremacists." Well, that makes Clinton the "candidate of smug academics." Of every latte-slinging liberal arts major who thinks he's better than you because he knows a few latin words. Oh, and he says you're fragile.
The party, and the campaign, is more than the candidate. If you think the rhetoric in this thread is limited to this thread, you're wrong.
Like remember how racist McCain's crowds were? With all the fun monkey memes and such? And how that made him look?
Better, because he shot that shit down. Palin... not so much.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+7
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I don't think the argument that academics aren't inherently without bias is a paranoid delusion that they're out to get white people. When we're talking about a term created under the auspices of and submitted to a journal dedicated to a philosophy of education that is explicitly political (and I also note, one that is certainly well intentioned and possibly historically important). But it's also not the fruit of the sort of academic labour we ought consider authoritative in and of itself.
Obama should have gotten crushed by most objective measures in 2012. Economy was still awful, the wars kept going longer than he said they would, ACA passed on purely partisan lines and its positive aspects hadn't really come online yet. Dude is really good at campaigning. And had the good fortune to come up against Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney. Which Clinton did too, but failed to take advantage of it. I'm going to be about that for the rest of my life.
Hm. This is a good point.
Do we have data from out of Michigan or Pennsylvania for Obama's 2012 run? Exit polls, etc?
I know people like that 'We're voting for the n*****!' quote, but that's from the 2008 run. Conditions may have been entirely different for the 2012 win.
Look at the counties along Lake Erie and west of Cleveland, especially in the Toledo area. There's like a 15 point swing. Toledo is a heavy auto industry reliant area.
Do we have any exit poll surveys from this time period, though? I want to know what people were voting for, not just who they voted for.
Obama lost the 90% of Ohioans who did not have a family member working in the auto industry by 2 points. He won the state by 3 points. Even accounting for exit poll errors which are usually substantial, that result is... dramatic.
(If you want exit polls just search 2012 (state name) exit polls and click the CNN link that should be in the top five results, then shift to the exit poll tab.)
*checks exit poll surveys*
...The age demographic breakdown makes me blind with fucking rage.
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.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
White Fragility is the name of the term. Look it up, it's the actual name in the literature. It's not intended to insult or belittle, unless you think a bunch of academics are just out to stick it to whiter for some weird reason. I don't know why this is getting you so worked up.
White Fragility is about the reaction of white people in North America (that's the specific place the original paper coining the term was about anyway) to people bringing up racial issues. Essentially they become very defensive and angry and stressed out about the whole situation. It is a character of white people in america in that white people are the dominant racial group and so are not used to dealing with the issue because they are insulated from it by virtue of them being the privileged "default" in society.
When you talk about people getting defensive or angry over racism being brought up, this is what you are talking about. When people are saying "we shouldn't drop social justice, but we should be more careful about how we message it because we don't want to alienate those white voters we need to win" this is an explicit call for coddling them to get around white fragility.
As to the first bolded, I kinda do yeah. I'm neither surprised that "the literature" attempts to describe some characteristic of "white people" without even a hint of self-awareness, or that it would settle on a term like this to describe the phenomenon.
As to the others, you're saying racist things.
As to the concept, unsurprisingly the academic left has once again hit upon the most insulting way to describe a term for a thing they dislike. The idea that it's not intended to insult or belittle is laughable. Of course it is - when you think about "fragility" as a character trait, there are no positive concepts connected to it.
"Hey, you're just, you know, fragile. Because you're white, understand. That's a thing white people have. Fragility. I'm not trying to insult, I'm just saying is all. Just saying.
Why are you so upset about it anyway? I guess you just proved I was right!"
Yeah, even assuming we allow the argument that it's a term from "the literature" with an "academic" meaning that's not intended to be insulting, 75% of Americans will never take any sort of sociology or ethnic studies class, and a majority will never get a college degree, and you're going to alienate the fuck out of those people if they hear that term.
And you can smugly joke that herpaderp, guess they were fragile after all....meanwhile, President Trump.
And yet again, this argument will be meaningful when this thread becomes a spokesperson for the Democratic Party. Till then it's nothing but an attempt to derail and shutdown other posters.
You'd never have a politician talk about this. The same way they'd never get up there and talk about privilege or tell someone their concerns were stupid or that small town america isn't the heart and soul of the nation or any of the other enumerable things politicians don't say because they aren't morons. None of that applies to you or me or anyone here discussing what happened and how to do better next election though.
This goes right back to the top of the quote tree. In order to avoid upsetting a bunch of white voters the Democratic party needs to be careful about how it messages about america's awful horrible wide-spread racism so as not to run smack dab into white fragility.
I would suggest that the messaging of everyday liberals matters as well. A lot.
Hell, we paint Trump, at least in part, as being the "candidate of white supremacists." Well, that makes Clinton the "candidate of smug academics." Of every latte-slinging liberal arts major who thinks he's better than you because he knows a few latin words. Oh, and he says you're fragile.
The party, and the campaign, is more than the candidate. If you think the rhetoric in this thread is limited to this thread, you're wrong.
Okay.
I'm not interested in political allies that want to draw equivalence between Neo-Nazis & smug academics who create terms to troll white people within a culture that is overwhelmingly favorable to white people (aside from some smug cheap shots from the ivory tower every now and then which will never likely impact their lives at all).
I don't think the argument that academics aren't inherently without bias is a paranoid delusion that they're out to get white people. When we're talking about a term created under the auspices of and submitted to a journal dedicated to a philosophy of education that is explicitly political (and I also note, one that is certainly well intentioned and possibly historically important). But it's also not the fruit of the sort of academic labour we ought consider authoritative in and of itself.
The argument wasn't that academics lack bias, it was that academics are out to "belittle and insult" white people. A wee bit different then what you are claiming and certainly exactly as ridiculous as I pointed out it was.
I'm not interested in political allies that want to draw equivalence between Neo-Nazis & smug academics who create terms to troll white people within a culture that is overwhelmingly favorable to white people (aside from some smug cheap shots from the ivory tower every now and then which will never likely impact their lives at all).
Equivalence? No. Never suggested equivalence.
Just making the point that messaging within our own circles does impact the campaign. Take it or don't. But we are really truly going to experience President Trump. That's happening. I'd prefer it be four years instead of eight.
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.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
White Fragility is the name of the term. Look it up, it's the actual name in the literature. It's not intended to insult or belittle, unless you think a bunch of academics are just out to stick it to whiter for some weird reason. I don't know why this is getting you so worked up.
White Fragility is about the reaction of white people in North America (that's the specific place the original paper coining the term was about anyway) to people bringing up racial issues. Essentially they become very defensive and angry and stressed out about the whole situation. It is a character of white people in america in that white people are the dominant racial group and so are not used to dealing with the issue because they are insulated from it by virtue of them being the privileged "default" in society.
When you talk about people getting defensive or angry over racism being brought up, this is what you are talking about. When people are saying "we shouldn't drop social justice, but we should be more careful about how we message it because we don't want to alienate those white voters we need to win" this is an explicit call for coddling them to get around white fragility.
As to the first bolded, I kinda do yeah. I'm neither surprised that "the literature" attempts to describe some characteristic of "white people" without even a hint of self-awareness, or that it would settle on a term like this to describe the phenomenon.
As to the others, you're saying racist things.
As to the concept, unsurprisingly the academic left has once again hit upon the most insulting way to describe a term for a thing they dislike. The idea that it's not intended to insult or belittle is laughable. Of course it is - when you think about "fragility" as a character trait, there are no positive concepts connected to it.
"Hey, you're just, you know, fragile. Because you're white, understand. That's a thing white people have. Fragility. I'm not trying to insult, I'm just saying is all. Just saying.
Why are you so upset about it anyway? I guess you just proved I was right!"
Yeah, even assuming we allow the argument that it's a term from "the literature" with an "academic" meaning that's not intended to be insulting, 75% of Americans will never take any sort of sociology or ethnic studies class, and a majority will never get a college degree, and you're going to alienate the fuck out of those people if they hear that term.
And you can smugly joke that herpaderp, guess they were fragile after all....meanwhile, President Trump.
And yet again, this argument will be meaningful when this thread becomes a spokesperson for the Democratic Party. Till then it's nothing but an attempt to derail and shutdown other posters.
You'd never have a politician talk about this. The same way they'd never get up there and talk about privilege or tell someone their concerns were stupid or that small town america isn't the heart and soul of the nation or any of the other enumerable things politicians don't say because they aren't morons. None of that applies to you or me or anyone here discussing what happened and how to do better next election though.
This goes right back to the top of the quote tree. In order to avoid upsetting a bunch of white voters the Democratic party needs to be careful about how it messages about america's awful horrible wide-spread racism so as not to run smack dab into white fragility.
I would suggest that the messaging of everyday liberals matters as well. A lot.
Hell, we paint Trump, at least in part, as being the "candidate of white supremacists." Well, that makes Clinton the "candidate of smug academics." Of every latte-slinging liberal arts major who thinks he's better than you because he knows a few latin words. Oh, and he says you're fragile.
The party, and the campaign, is more than the candidate. If you think the rhetoric in this thread is limited to this thread, you're wrong.
Yes, we are turning off all the Trump voters reading this thread. Silly us. If only we'd been nicer to ... who exactly?
You like to paint a nice broad picture, but it all falls apart the minute you actually think about it because the people you are worried about offending are not here.
Yes, we are turning off all the Trump voters reading this thread. Silly us. If only we'd been nicer to ... who exactly?
You like to paint a nice broad picture, but it all falls apart the minute you actually think about it because the people you are worried about offending are not here.
This particular thread? Nah.
But you think liberal blogs and op-eds are somehow firewalled to only be read by liberals? Okay. You think people don't hear us talking?
I'm not interested in political allies that want to draw equivalence between Neo-Nazis & smug academics who create terms to troll white people within a culture that is overwhelmingly favorable to white people (aside from some smug cheap shots from the ivory tower every now and then which will never likely impact their lives at all).
Equivalence? No. Never suggested equivalence.
Just making the point that messaging within our own circles does impact the campaign. Take it or don't. But we are really truly going to experience President Trump. That's happening. I'd prefer it be four years instead of eight.
You sure make it sound equivalent when you constantly make these arguments, just so you know. Tone is a two way street. 'White fragility' sounds dumb to me, but whatever; I'm not at higher risk of being picked-up off of the road and murdered because of it, unlike those impacted by actual systemic racism where I live.
If we are literally going to lose elections because sometimes white people get trolled by smug academics, then again, I don't see the point of this exercise. Them eggshells are not going to support the weight of any kind of campaign.
The Ender on
With Love and Courage
+2
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
If someone is so stung by a conversation about privilege and race that they decide to side with actual nazis and the kkk, fuck em.
I think most people still only use the internet superficially. And why not? There is no real place that is a welcoming environment to discussion for political beginners.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If someone is so stung by a conversation about privilege and race that they decide to side with actual nazis and the kkk, fuck em.
... or they decide to not vote at all, or vote for a third party candidate.
Academic language can be pretty off putting to a lot of people! I don't see the necessary harm in recognising this and suggesting that maybe we should make a conscious effort to change the language of the left to be slightly less off putting to those who we'd like to vote for our candidates.
Yes, we are turning off all the Trump voters reading this thread. Silly us. If only we'd been nicer to ... who exactly?
You like to paint a nice broad picture, but it all falls apart the minute you actually think about it because the people you are worried about offending are not here.
This particular thread? Nah.
But you think liberal blogs and op-eds are somehow firewalled to only be read by liberals? Okay. You think people don't hear us talking?
I'm not seeing what relevance that has to what we are saying in this thread. Cause that's what you were complaining about, what we were saying in this thread.
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.
We are losing a war of attrition. We cannot win without capturing some of the people who voted for Obama once, and voted for Trump now.
Ask yourself whether or not vulnerable populations are safer by paying lip service to some racists and getting their vote and then getting a Dem in power, or whether they're safer by taking a principled stand and then playing Making America Great Again a second time in 2020.
Appealing to racists is a great way to lose the dem base. So your first option doesn't follow.
Again, you don't "appeal to racists"
You appeal to people who are indifferent (either due to lack of exposure, or do to being more concerned about their own problems) either way to racial politics; or to people who disliked Trump's racial rhetoric, but held their nose and voted for him anyway because they felt his overall message was better for them than Hillary's.
These people aren't actively malicious, they're just not in positions to share the same value assessments about racial politics that you and I are. You get them on board by offering to help them, winning you elections and allowing you to push other progressive policies.
Even with the most dour opinion of Trump supporters, there's got to be at least 1% of them we can get on our side by just not acting like they should be written off. We tried that and it cost us badly.
Posts
Democrats. Democrats are are very nationalist too and the Sanders people getting ridiculed at the convention were being ridiculous. Meanwhile Sanders himself was getting some good vibes.
The Democrats were explicitly trying to throw off the framing of them as the "party that hates America" that they've been living under since the Vietnam War protests. A framing that is inaccurate and harmful to the party's chances. And also to contrast themselves with Trump's "America sucks" message.
They were also trying to appeal to moderate Republicans to cross the aisle just the one time, but it wasn't with the nationalism. Or that wasn't exclusively the point anyway.
Basically, you can't try to be Trump-lite and downplay racial issues because you'll simultaneously depress your base turnout among racial minorities (see this thread) while also losing the people who are activated by racial animus, because they'll take the real thing rather than someone pretending.
You also can't ignore the people who were activated by the populism and blaming of governmental and media elites (who have also failed) thinking that they were in fact motivated by racism so we'll never win them.
In other words, emulate Obama.
As to the first bolded, I kinda do yeah. I'm neither surprised that "the literature" attempts to describe some characteristic of "white people" without even a hint of self-awareness, or that it would settle on a term like this to describe the phenomenon.
As to the others, you're saying racist things.
As to the concept, unsurprisingly the academic left has once again hit upon the most insulting way to describe a term for a thing they dislike. The idea that it's not intended to insult or belittle is laughable. Of course it is - when you think about "fragility" as a character trait, there are no positive concepts connected to it.
"Hey, you're just, you know, fragile. Because you're white, understand. That's a thing white people have. Fragility. I'm not trying to insult, I'm just saying is all. Just saying.
Why are you so upset about it anyway? I guess you just proved I was right!"
... mine?
Trading a Texas Republican for like four Detroit Democrats is... not a great plan.
As we see things set in. I don't really feel like talking about what Trump did to win because most of it is the same things that let to Hilary's defeat. I mean Republicans have had no issue falling in line and showing up, sadly they do that for piece shit like Trump.
Democratic failures and other factors.
-E-mail scandal, fuck Comey. It's a shame that ratfucker won't get shit canned because people will cry partisanship witch hunt, when he really did do something that warrants it. For the record, if he had pulled this shit against Trump, I'd still be calling for his head, even if I still felt Trump was a piece of shit. Our law enforcement should be minimizing their impact on elections and it seems like Comey went out of his way to maximize his influence on this year's election.
-Honestly Clinton should have stayed out of this. I think she would have been a great President, but she brought a ton of baggage and our media is pretty shitty. Her running probably kept the field clear of people. I was really hoping she would have done something along the lines of appearing to run, but withdraw failure quickly, since being in one or two early primaries would have been enough to get the the wealthy on the right to piss away a shit ton of money to try and stop her.
-Democrats failed in messaging. We let a bunch of assholes portray social justice and economic justice and being at odds they are not. This is probably why a bunch of people stayed home. They didn't like Republicans, but felt that democrats weren't' going to address their concerns. It doesn't help that is is downright frustrating to explain why we do certain things that might seem contradictory (minority-majority districts being a great example). We also need to break some of the bullshit narratives that currently (Both sides are the same! Bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship because it's always good (not really if one side isn't making a good faith effort and/or bugfuck crazy)! Our problems are over night fixes (if you govern right, eventually, the remaining problems are the difficult issues that take time and even some of the minor stuff takes time). The only office that matters is the Presidency.) They missed an opportunity to peel of voters, I'm not in favor of shitty of people for differences of opinion and I'm sure with better messaging we probably could have peeled of some Republicans that foolishly voted for Trump and probably got a small number that stayed home last Tuesday.
-Our media fucking sucks at it's job. Trump got plenty of mileage out of them not properly reporting. Hell, the media being more interested in ratings and access, is partly to blame for the GOP going batshit crazy.
-Not building up at the local level in all 50 states. I'm wondering if in a alternate US, if Clinton managed to get a win because the democrats had contested more local races from 1990 on and thus prevented the GOP from implementing as many voter suppression efforts. Voter suppression probably cost her NC and maybe it played a roll in some of the other rust belt states. Though I'll reiterate that a fair number of people that would have voted for her, decide to stay home for no good reason (aka they weren't dying, they didn't have a loved on in the hospital, they weren't in the hospital nor were they fucked over by voter suppression tactics because no one could challenge their ballot and they could afford to stand in line).
-I'd also say a fair number of democrats and liberals got complacent. I suspect some of the people that stayed home, did so because they figured everyone else would keep the orange shit goblin from winning.
...I do not know how much this is true, though.
The conditions today are different than those that won Obama his first term; the great recession was kicking in and this is presumably a big reason that the 'Change' / 'Yes We Can' message was so successful; programs like TARP were over-shadowing other long-standing rust belt issues. Also, his opponents were McCain / Palin, which was just a terrible combination.
2012 was much closer in terms of margins, but Obama had the incumbent advantage & Romney looked / smelled like a used car salesman.
This year & last year were dominated by headlines of terror attacks, instability in the Persian Gulf & areas recovering from the recession. This would bring those long-standing economic issues back to the forefront, since they never went away & were in some ways worsened (like with the lead poisoning in Flint).
Obama's platform worked in part because of the backboard he had to bounce it off of, and because he was a fresh new face in an era where a big brand name in politics had really screwed things up. I'm not at all sure that the same approach could have worked for Clinton in today's climate & when she is not a fresh new face (...not in areas like Michigan or Pennsylvania, anyway. Obviously she did just fine overall, but I digress!).
Seemin pretty fragile.
fair point
Hm. This is a good point.
Do we have data from out of Michigan or Pennsylvania for Obama's 2012 run? Exit polls, etc?
I know people like that 'We're voting for the n*****!' quote, but that's from the 2008 run. Conditions may have been entirely different for the 2012 win.
Literally shattered into bits all over my kitchen floor right now
Yeah, even assuming we allow the argument that it's a term from "the literature" with an "academic" meaning that's not intended to be insulting, 75% of Americans will never take any sort of sociology or ethnic studies class, and a majority will never get a college degree, and you're going to alienate the fuck out of those people if they hear that term.
And you can smugly joke that herpaderp, guess they were fragile after all....meanwhile, President Trump.
Or broken clocks?
Michael Moore Predicts ‘President Romney’ In November
Even in 2008 when Obama would clearly win
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Here's Ohio:
2012
2016
Look at the counties along Lake Erie and west of Cleveland, especially in the Toledo area. There's like a 15 point swing. Toledo is a heavy auto industry reliant area.
Yes dude, it's those dastardly academics in multicultural education who are just out to get white people. They just fucking hate white people so much. Of course. Like, are you even listening to yourself? You are being ridiculous.
They use the term fragility because the whole concept is that white people are fragile when it comes to issues of race. They cannot deal with it because their environment, in which they are the dominant group, has not given them the tools to cope. Your premise that a freaking professor of multicultural studies is out to insult and belittle white people is nothing but your own projection.
That you keep throwing out how it's all so racist is equally funny because I literally already explained why it's specifically white fragility in this case (ie - it refers to behaviour among a group in a place where they are the dominant racial group to the point where they are the default) Shit, even Apothe0sis literally like 1 post above mine got the concept independently.
You are being ridiculous dude. Listen to what you are throwing out here. You are basically getting incredibly defensive by throwing out wild theories that academics are out to get you because they hate white people.
Do we have any exit poll surveys from this time period, though? I want to know what people were voting for, not just who they voted for.
And yet again, this argument will be meaningful when this thread becomes a spokesperson for the Democratic Party. Till then it's nothing but an attempt to derail and shutdown other posters.
You'd never have a politician talk about this. The same way they'd never get up there and talk about privilege or tell someone their concerns were stupid or that small town america isn't the heart and soul of the nation or any of the other enumerable things politicians don't say because they aren't morons. None of that applies to you or me or anyone here discussing what happened and how to do better next election though.
This goes right back to the top of the quote tree. In order to avoid upsetting a bunch of white voters the Democratic party needs to be careful about how it messages about america's awful horrible wide-spread racism so as not to run smack dab into white fragility.
It's not exactly backed by any form of research we have any reason to view as authoritative.
It's not the result of extended research into psychological data, nor a meta-analysis of other research, it's theory crafting within a pre-existing theoretical framework
Also of note, one of the symptoms of "white fragility" is the tendency to undertake "defensive moves" such as "arguing".
Yeah, Moore has been beating this kind of drum for ages. I mean, maybe he's been right and it's just taken like a decade for this chicken to finally come home to roost (the man is all about the rust belt and how it's been fucked really, it's his thing), but I'm not ready to call him any sort of prophet here.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/OH/president/
Obama lost the 90% of Ohioans who did not have a family member working in the auto industry by 2 points. He won the state by 3 points. Even accounting for exit poll errors which are usually substantial, that result is... dramatic.
(If you want exit polls just search 2012 (state name) exit polls and click the CNN link that should be in the top five results, then shift to the exit poll tab.)
I would suggest that the messaging of everyday liberals matters as well. A lot.
Hell, we paint Trump, at least in part, as being the "candidate of white supremacists." Well, that makes Clinton the "candidate of smug academics." Of every latte-slinging liberal arts major who thinks he's better than you because he knows a few latin words. Oh, and he says you're fragile.
The party, and the campaign, is more than the candidate. If you think the rhetoric in this thread is limited to this thread, you're wrong.
Better, because he shot that shit down. Palin... not so much.
*checks exit poll surveys*
...The age demographic breakdown makes me blind with fucking rage.
They didn't ask the question about terrorism. Closest question was just about foreign policy, and apparently nobody gave a shit about it.
Okay.
I'm not interested in political allies that want to draw equivalence between Neo-Nazis & smug academics who create terms to troll white people within a culture that is overwhelmingly favorable to white people (aside from some smug cheap shots from the ivory tower every now and then which will never likely impact their lives at all).
The argument wasn't that academics lack bias, it was that academics are out to "belittle and insult" white people. A wee bit different then what you are claiming and certainly exactly as ridiculous as I pointed out it was.
Equivalence? No. Never suggested equivalence.
Just making the point that messaging within our own circles does impact the campaign. Take it or don't. But we are really truly going to experience President Trump. That's happening. I'd prefer it be four years instead of eight.
Yes, we are turning off all the Trump voters reading this thread. Silly us. If only we'd been nicer to ... who exactly?
You like to paint a nice broad picture, but it all falls apart the minute you actually think about it because the people you are worried about offending are not here.
This particular thread? Nah.
But you think liberal blogs and op-eds are somehow firewalled to only be read by liberals? Okay. You think people don't hear us talking?
You sure make it sound equivalent when you constantly make these arguments, just so you know. Tone is a two way street. 'White fragility' sounds dumb to me, but whatever; I'm not at higher risk of being picked-up off of the road and murdered because of it, unlike those impacted by actual systemic racism where I live.
If we are literally going to lose elections because sometimes white people get trolled by smug academics, then again, I don't see the point of this exercise. Them eggshells are not going to support the weight of any kind of campaign.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
... or they decide to not vote at all, or vote for a third party candidate.
Academic language can be pretty off putting to a lot of people! I don't see the necessary harm in recognising this and suggesting that maybe we should make a conscious effort to change the language of the left to be slightly less off putting to those who we'd like to vote for our candidates.
I'm not seeing what relevance that has to what we are saying in this thread. Cause that's what you were complaining about, what we were saying in this thread.
Again, you don't "appeal to racists"
You appeal to people who are indifferent (either due to lack of exposure, or do to being more concerned about their own problems) either way to racial politics; or to people who disliked Trump's racial rhetoric, but held their nose and voted for him anyway because they felt his overall message was better for them than Hillary's.
These people aren't actively malicious, they're just not in positions to share the same value assessments about racial politics that you and I are. You get them on board by offering to help them, winning you elections and allowing you to push other progressive policies.
Again, we're not talking about 50% of Trump supporters, or 25% or 10% or even 5%. Five Thirty Eight has an article staying that if 1 out of a 100 of Trump supporters had voted for Hillary, she would have crushed him.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/
Even with the most dour opinion of Trump supporters, there's got to be at least 1% of them we can get on our side by just not acting like they should be written off. We tried that and it cost us badly.
Fair enough.
Not sure why I care. IIRC, I literally have no stakes in any of this.