Whether you call it white fragility or something else, there does not appear to be a good way to discuss the concept of racism or unconscious bias with a white person. I had the only serious fight I've ever had with my dearest sister when I was trying to describe unconscious bias, and I went into that conversation with the complete belief that the racist sentiments she's expressed to me were not as a result of hatred in her heart or any sort of intent and with a strong belief in her natural goodness. It still ended with her in tears. Granted I did gain some ground with her, and I might gain more, but we're two people who love each other and have a good solid relationship. I have no idea how I would do this with anyone I was less close to.
Camb I know this is an emotional topic for you but listen to what you're saying.
There's no good way to talk about racism with a white person? I don't think that, when statements like this are OK for you, that you're going to make a lot of headway with people.
Read it as: There is no good way to talk about unconscious bias with people that are not subject to the ill effects of this bias (worse yet with people that receive benefits from it).
In America, that group happens to be white people, it happens to be men, it happens to be straight, etc.
+12
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited November 2016
The way I see it, let's assume everyone has a baseline of racism. Myself included. Because tribalism is inherent with the human condition. Some people have pushed those instincts way down and learned to bury them deep / address them through shit like sports, and others have nurtured them / had them reinforced through their life, and a million steps inbetween.
But we are complex fucking animals and there are a lot of other issues that take priority or sit below our base tribal urges.
Obama, despite being a half black half white guy with connections to Kenya and a "madrassa" education, delivered a crisp message that spoke to people of all backgrounds and stripes that was labor friendly, and the issues he promised to address took a greater priority over things that would otherwise drive voters away. It did not remove the racism, it just reprioritized it further down the list.
Hillary, not hitting those messages as well as he did, allowed the us vs. them shit to rise back to its "proper" place, especially amongst labor folks who feel like they have gotten a raw deal.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The way I see it, let's assume everyone has a baseline of racism. Myself included. Because tribalism is inherent with the human condition. Some people have pushed those instincts way down and learned to bury them deep / address them through shit like sports, and others have nurtured them / had them reinforced through their life, and a million steps inbetween.
But we are complex fucking animals and there are a lot of other issues that take priority or sit below our base tribal urges.
Obama, despite being a half black half white guy with connections to Kenya and a "madrassa" education, delivered a crisp message that spoke to people of all backgrounds and stripes that was labor friendly, and the issues he promised to address took a greater priority over things that would otherwise drive voters away. It did not remove the racism, it just reprioritized it further down the list.
Hillary, not hitting those messages as well as he did, allowed the us vs. them shit to rise back to its "proper" place, especially amongst labor folks who feel like they have gotten a raw deal.
It almost sounds like what you are saying is, "It was the issues that mattered."
The way I see it, let's assume everyone has a baseline of racism. Myself included. Because tribalism is inherent with the human condition. Some people have pushed those instincts way down and learned to bury them deep / address them through shit like sports, and others have nurtured them / had them reinforced through their life, and a million steps inbetween.
But we are complex fucking animals and there are a lot of other issues that take priority or sit below our base tribal urges.
Obama, despite being a half black half white guy with connections to Kenya and a "madrassa" education, delivered a crisp message that spoke to people of all backgrounds and stripes that was labor friendly, and the issues he promised to address took a greater priority over things that would otherwise drive voters away. It did not remove the racism, it just reprioritized it further down the list.
Hillary, not hitting those messages as well as he did, allowed the us vs. them shit to rise back to its "proper" place, especially amongst labor folks who feel like they have gotten a raw deal.
I think a lot of people here dramatically overemphasize the extent to which people voted specifically for race concerns as opposed to people who simply ignored them, or voted despite them. This is not to excuse those who ignored them, but proper diagnosis is helpful for future outreach. We don't have a lot of evidence either way at this point, but thinking that multiculturalism lost instead of thinking that it simply isn't important to people is at the very least premature.
+10
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
The way I see it, let's assume everyone has a baseline of racism. Myself included. Because tribalism is inherent with the human condition. Some people have pushed those instincts way down and learned to bury them deep / address them through shit like sports, and others have nurtured them / had them reinforced through their life, and a million steps inbetween.
But we are complex fucking animals and there are a lot of other issues that take priority or sit below our base tribal urges.
Obama, despite being a half black half white guy with connections to Kenya and a "madrassa" education, delivered a crisp message that spoke to people of all backgrounds and stripes that was labor friendly, and the issues he promised to address took a greater priority over things that would otherwise drive voters away. It did not remove the racism, it just reprioritized it further down the list.
Hillary, not hitting those messages as well as he did, allowed the us vs. them shit to rise back to its "proper" place, especially amongst labor folks who feel like they have gotten a raw deal.
It almost sounds like what you are saying is, "It was the issues that mattered."
in the absence of reaching people with a better message, all they have are their preconceptions.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Whether you call it white fragility or something else, there does not appear to be a good way to discuss the concept of racism or unconscious bias with a white person. I had the only serious fight I've ever had with my dearest sister when I was trying to describe unconscious bias, and I went into that conversation with the complete belief that the racist sentiments she's expressed to me were not as a result of hatred in her heart or any sort of intent and with a strong belief in her natural goodness. It still ended with her in tears. Granted I did gain some ground with her, and I might gain more, but we're two people who love each other and have a good solid relationship. I have no idea how I would do this with anyone I was less close to.
Camb I know this is an emotional topic for you but listen to what you're saying.
There's no good way to talk about racism with a white person? I don't think that, when statements like this are OK for you, that you're going to make a lot of headway with people.
I'm sorry, you're going to have to be more explicit about what's wrong with my wording.
Maybe if I put it this way you'll find it less objectionable: people who are not negatively affected by a phenomenon have a hard time believing it exists. If they also benefit in some way from the phenomenon, they will become defensive and angry when you try to explain it.
This is true of racism, misogyny, rape culture, homophobia, xenophobia, and any other such topics. I gather in your world, spool, it's impossible to surmise which groups benefit from those circumstances, so every conversation where you try to discuss them it's a complete mystery how the person you're speaking to will react if you bring them up.
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
+8
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
The way I see it, let's assume everyone has a baseline of racism. Myself included. Because tribalism is inherent with the human condition. Some people have pushed those instincts way down and learned to bury them deep / address them through shit like sports, and others have nurtured them / had them reinforced through their life, and a million steps inbetween.
But we are complex fucking animals and there are a lot of other issues that take priority or sit below our base tribal urges.
Obama, despite being a half black half white guy with connections to Kenya and a "madrassa" education, delivered a crisp message that spoke to people of all backgrounds and stripes that was labor friendly, and the issues he promised to address took a greater priority over things that would otherwise drive voters away. It did not remove the racism, it just reprioritized it further down the list.
Hillary, not hitting those messages as well as he did, allowed the us vs. them shit to rise back to its "proper" place, especially amongst labor folks who feel like they have gotten a raw deal.
It almost sounds like what you are saying is, "It was the issues that mattered."
in the absence of reaching people with a better message, all they have are their preconceptions.
Could they not have heard the message, but just disagreed with it?
The way I see it, let's assume everyone has a baseline of racism. Myself included. Because tribalism is inherent with the human condition. Some people have pushed those instincts way down and learned to bury them deep / address them through shit like sports, and others have nurtured them / had them reinforced through their life, and a million steps inbetween.
But we are complex fucking animals and there are a lot of other issues that take priority or sit below our base tribal urges.
Obama, despite being a half black half white guy with connections to Kenya and a "madrassa" education, delivered a crisp message that spoke to people of all backgrounds and stripes that was labor friendly, and the issues he promised to address took a greater priority over things that would otherwise drive voters away. It did not remove the racism, it just reprioritized it further down the list.
Hillary, not hitting those messages as well as he did, allowed the us vs. them shit to rise back to its "proper" place, especially amongst labor folks who feel like they have gotten a raw deal.
It almost sounds like what you are saying is, "It was the issues that mattered."
in the absence of reaching people with a better message, all they have are their preconceptions.
Could they not have heard the message, but just disagreed with it?
All we can go on is data, and it is real clear that people never heard Hillary say anything about their needs and instead heard about scandals and emails and paid speeches and helping women/minorities get ahead. Regardless of if there were things in her platform that spoke to their needs they were never really in the conversation, which is a failing of the media AND a failing of her campaign to force the media to discuss it.
edit: so what we can more or less assume moving forward is that the media will not truck in discussing issues ever. It is on us 100% to figure out how to make sure the next candidate can twist the arm of the media apparatus to cover what they want them to cover.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Unfortunately there is only one Obama, and he's leaving the presidency. What he did was going to be difficult to replicate under the best of circumstances. Not to mention the circumstances are different when it's tried by a white woman like Hillary Clinton, who has to be less subtle with messaging for minority voting blocs.
Great but it has nothing to do with the post to which you responded
It did in that what Obama did was not something your average politician would do, otherwise he wouldn't be an exception. Politicians of Obama's pedigree are rare. Without someone liked that trying that approach the chances of that succeeding lower considerably.
I feel like this entire angle is subtly constructed to allow an argument that voting for Obama doesn't prove anything about the racism of a group of people, while simultaneously saying that voting for Trump is sufficient to accuse people of racism regardless of evidence to the contrary including that they also voted for Obama.
That doesn't seem like a legitimate set of positions to hold.
You keep using racism as outright conscious hatred when no one else is. Voting for Obama does not mean you aren't racist. I am racist despite having voted for Obama and Clinton.
The white Obama voters who voted for Trump use it that way. scheck's defs #2 and 3 are each more rarified and academic, and therefore more divorced from the common parlance.
+2
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Stop crying over spilled Brexit. There will always be a Stein, and there will always be Stein voters.
WI 2012 Stein voters 7,665
MI 2012 Stein voters 21,897
PA 2012 Stein voters 21,341
What argument are you actually intending to put forward here? You seem to believe that your point of view is so self-evident that you can drop in graphs and raw data without event attempting to explain. But I am looking at the exact same data as you and I suspect that the conclusions I draw are very different from yours.
Stop crying over spilled Brexit. There will always be a Stein, and there will always be Stein voters.
WI 2012 Stein voters 7,665
MI 2012 Stein voters 21,897
PA 2012 Stein voters 21,341
Yes, clearly Hillary should have done a better job of getting those voters on board.
I think that blaming the people who didn't vote for Hillary or the media are possibly the most spectacularly useless things we can do right now. The media will still be around next time. What does bemoaning its existence accomplish? What does shaking your fist at the people that our party failed to effectively rally do, other than assuage our own egos and prepare us for another paddling?
Whether you call it white fragility or something else, there does not appear to be a good way to discuss the concept of racism or unconscious bias with a white person. I had the only serious fight I've ever had with my dearest sister when I was trying to describe unconscious bias, and I went into that conversation with the complete belief that the racist sentiments she's expressed to me were not as a result of hatred in her heart or any sort of intent and with a strong belief in her natural goodness. It still ended with her in tears. Granted I did gain some ground with her, and I might gain more, but we're two people who love each other and have a good solid relationship. I have no idea how I would do this with anyone I was less close to.
Camb I know this is an emotional topic for you but listen to what you're saying.
There's no good way to talk about racism with a white person? I don't think that, when statements like this are OK for you, that you're going to make a lot of headway with people.
Read it as: There is no good way to talk about unconscious bias with people that are not subject to the ill effects of this bias (worse yet with people that receive benefits from it).
In America, that group happens to be white people, it happens to be men, it happens to be straight, etc.
The problem with reading to read into a phrase a definition that defangs the phrase and changes it's common meaning is that mostly people don't do it. People should say what they mean and not trade in insulting shorthand that is itself, when read plainly, racist.
I mean, I think you're still exhibiting racial bias with your rephrasing and I don't appreciate being lumped in with millions of others as "white people" and then painted with a bunch of insulting traits, but at least I'm not actively angry about the conversation.
+5
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
Whether you call it white fragility or something else, there does not appear to be a good way to discuss the concept of racism or unconscious bias with a white person. I had the only serious fight I've ever had with my dearest sister when I was trying to describe unconscious bias, and I went into that conversation with the complete belief that the racist sentiments she's expressed to me were not as a result of hatred in her heart or any sort of intent and with a strong belief in her natural goodness. It still ended with her in tears. Granted I did gain some ground with her, and I might gain more, but we're two people who love each other and have a good solid relationship. I have no idea how I would do this with anyone I was less close to.
Camb I know this is an emotional topic for you but listen to what you're saying.
There's no good way to talk about racism with a white person? I don't think that, when statements like this are OK for you, that you're going to make a lot of headway with people.
I'm sorry, you're going to have to be more explicit about what's wrong with my wording.
Maybe if I put it this way you'll find it less objectionable: people who are not negatively affected by a phenomenon have a hard time believing it exists. If they also benefit in some way from the phenomenon, they will become defensive and angry when you try to explain it.
This is true of racism, misogyny, rape culture, homophobia, xenophobia, and any other such topics. I gather in your world, spool, it's impossible to surmise which groups benefit from those circumstances, so every conversation where you try to discuss them it's a complete mystery how the person you're speaking to will react if you bring them up.
The bolded is an unnecessary qualifier that is only going to add to the defensiveness and anger, and does your argument a disservice. People who aren't negatively affected by a phenomenon and have a hard time believing it exists are going to have an even harder time swallowing the notion that they benefit from the phenomenon.
+1
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Perhaps the way to reduce Stein voters is to appeal to them, rather than telling them they're dumb and the worst and just obviously they should have voted for Clinton, even if they didn't like her, because surely that's definitely all of their second choices rather than not voting or whatever?
I am not certain where the future of the democratic party lies if everyone assumed that all the problems are everyone else is idiots with a trillion biases but we aren't.
+18
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Stop crying over spilled Brexit. There will always be a Stein, and there will always be Stein voters.
WI 2012 Stein voters 7,665
MI 2012 Stein voters 21,897
PA 2012 Stein voters 21,341
Yes, clearly Hillary should have done a better job of getting those voters on board.
I think that blaming the people who didn't vote for Hillary or the media is possibly the most spectacularly useless things we can do right now. The media will still be around next time. What does bemoaning its existence accomplish? What does shaking your fist at the people that our party failed to effectively rally do, other than assuage our own egos and prepare us for another paddling?
By blaming the media we can figure out WHY the media failed, and figure out how to exploit it to our advantage in the elections to come.
By blaming the people who didn't vote, we can then figure out WHY they didn't vote and then get in there and get them on our side if they are worth fighting for.
Pointing to the reasons we lost is not throwing up our hands in the air and accepting that as inevitable, it is helpping to understand why we lost. The conversation doesn't just go "the media and racists screwed us, oh well." There are many steps following those proclamations and we are less than two weeks out from the point it happened so give us some time to craft and strategize.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+6
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Perhaps the way to reduce Stein voters is to appeal to them, rather than telling them they're dumb and the worst and just obviously they should have voted for Clinton, even if they didn't like her, because surely that's definitely all of their second choices rather than not voting or whatever?
I am not certain where the future of the democratic party lies if everyone assumed that all the problems are everyone else is idiots with a trillion biases but we aren't.
There are elements of Steins platform that are attractive to dems.
Then there is the conspiracy-driven lunacy and the anti vax stuff.
If we make sure the Stein voters know that all the stuff that isn't fairy tale nonsense is available over on a team that can win without making them feel like jackasses for supporting the fairy tales we have a chance with them.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Perhaps the way to reduce Stein voters is to appeal to them, rather than telling them they're dumb and the worst and just obviously they should have voted for Clinton, even if they didn't like her, because surely that's definitely all of their second choices rather than not voting or whatever?
I am not certain where the future of the democratic party lies if everyone assumed that all the problems are everyone else is idiots with a trillion biases but we aren't.
Everyone is an idiot with a trillion biases, including us.
We need to understand that and work within that framework to achieve the results we want.
Think of it like rape culture. Rape culture doesn't mean everybody rapes; it means a few people rape, and many others make excuses for them, or downplay its importance, or simply don't care.
Voting for Trump doesn't make you a rapist, but it does make you an active participant in rape culture, because it means you made excuses for or didn't care about his history of sexual assault.
Likewise, voting for Trump doesn't automatically make you a racist. But it does mean you participated in "race culture," because you made excuses or didn't care about his racist views.
Have you ever considered throwing oil on a fire? I'm positive it will be an effective method of fightin fires.
Whether you call it white fragility or something else, there does not appear to be a good way to discuss the concept of racism or unconscious bias with a white person. I had the only serious fight I've ever had with my dearest sister when I was trying to describe unconscious bias, and I went into that conversation with the complete belief that the racist sentiments she's expressed to me were not as a result of hatred in her heart or any sort of intent and with a strong belief in her natural goodness. It still ended with her in tears. Granted I did gain some ground with her, and I might gain more, but we're two people who love each other and have a good solid relationship. I have no idea how I would do this with anyone I was less close to.
Camb I know this is an emotional topic for you but listen to what you're saying.
There's no good way to talk about racism with a white person? I don't think that, when statements like this are OK for you, that you're going to make a lot of headway with people.
I'm sorry, you're going to have to be more explicit about what's wrong with my wording.
Maybe if I put it this way you'll find it less objectionable: people who are not negatively affected by a phenomenon have a hard time believing it exists. If they also benefit in some way from the phenomenon, they will become defensive and angry when you try to explain it.
This is true of racism, misogyny, rape culture, homophobia, xenophobia, and any other such topics. I gather in your world, spool, it's impossible to surmise which groups benefit from those circumstances, so every conversation where you try to discuss them it's a complete mystery how the person you're speaking to will react if you bring them up.
The bolded is an unnecessary qualifier that is only going to add to the defensiveness and anger, and does your argument a disservice. People who aren't negatively affected by a phenomenon and have a hard time believing it exists are going to have an even harder time swallowing the notion that they benefit from the phenomenon.
We seem to be getting wires crossed.
Are we:
-Describing what we feel like is true
-Determining how to influence other people
Stop crying over spilled Brexit. There will always be a Stein, and there will always be Stein voters.
WI 2012 Stein voters 7,665
MI 2012 Stein voters 21,897
PA 2012 Stein voters 21,341
Yes, clearly Hillary should have done a better job of getting those voters on board.
I think that blaming the people who didn't vote for Hillary or the media is possibly the most spectacularly useless things we can do right now. The media will still be around next time. What does bemoaning its existence accomplish? What does shaking your fist at the people that our party failed to effectively rally do, other than assuage our own egos and prepare us for another paddling?
By blaming the media we can figure out WHY the media failed, and figure out how to exploit it to our advantage in the elections to come.
By blaming the people who didn't vote, we can then figure out WHY they didn't vote and then get in there and get them on our side if they are worth fighting for.
Pointing to the reasons we lost is not throwing up our hands in the air and accepting that as inevitable, it is helpping to understand why we lost. The conversation doesn't just go "the media and racists screwed us, oh well." There are many steps following those proclamations and we are less than two weeks out from the point it happened so give us some time to craft and strategize.
But that's not how blaming shakes out. Understanding the media, sure. Understanding non-voters, yes. Blaming them is asserting that we were morally correct in our course, it was they that were morally incorrect, and crucially, even if that is true, this thought process leads to complacency. We were doing everything right (and are, perhaps, tricked by the dual meaning of the word right as morally correct and right as in correct to advance our interests), so we must do it again.
Basically, once we're talking about blaming other people rather than seeing them as cogs which are misaligned, we start hyperfocusing on one or two things and become more intransigent to efforts to change our interactions with them (because, again, it's their fault, they need to change).
Perhaps the way to reduce Stein voters is to appeal to them, rather than telling them they're dumb and the worst and just obviously they should have voted for Clinton, even if they didn't like her, because surely that's definitely all of their second choices rather than not voting or whatever?
I am not certain where the future of the democratic party lies if everyone assumed that all the problems are everyone else is idiots with a trillion biases but we aren't.
There are elements of Steins platform that are attractive to dems.
Then there is the conspiracy-driven lunacy and the anti vax stuff.
If we make sure the Stein voters know that all the stuff that isn't fairy tale nonsense is available over on a team that can win without making them feel like jackasses for supporting the fairy tales we have a chance with them.
Perhaps the way to reduce Stein voters is to appeal to them, rather than telling them they're dumb and the worst and just obviously they should have voted for Clinton, even if they didn't like her, because surely that's definitely all of their second choices rather than not voting or whatever?
I am not certain where the future of the democratic party lies if everyone assumed that all the problems are everyone else is idiots with a trillion biases but we aren't.
Everyone is an idiot with a trillion biases, including us.
We need to understand that and work within that framework to achieve the results we want.
These, basically. The problem is that many people definitely want to make them feel like jackasses, or think we aren't all subject to the same forces. We all are. The question, if we're going to get all Machiavellian, is how to manipulate these forces for the greater good.
It would catch a couple atheist I suppose but there aren't a ton of us.
I have an extremely unfavorable view of most denominations (to use a probably wrong term) of islam. That view is comparable, though more intense, to my view of pentacostal or evangelical christianity.
It says nothing whatsoever about my feelings toward the various races of people that practice those religions.
It's important to remember that the bell of the ball here (non college whites) mostly don't think that being white helps them at all.
And, in many ways, it's true. It's not so much that being white helps them, just that being white does not hurt them.
The overall effect is the same, but the perception is different.
+1
Options
cptruggedI think it has something to do with free will.Registered Userregular
edited November 2016
I think the other thing that we tend to forget is that if you're gonna make conjecture about "If we only had the Stein voters!". Then you kinda gotta say, "Well.. then the Republicans could have had the Johnson voters." And at that point the whole exercise kinda becomes a mess.
I think A LOT of people simply didn't like both candidates this time and voted third party even though they aren't staunch Green or Libertarians. Trump was Trump and Hillary had such a bad rap that even a lot of Democrats didn't like her for one reason or another.
cptrugged on
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Think of it like rape culture. Rape culture doesn't mean everybody rapes; it means a few people rape, and many others make excuses for them, or downplay its importance, or simply don't care.
Voting for Trump doesn't make you a rapist, but it does make you an active participant in rape culture, because it means you made excuses for or didn't care about his history of sexual assault.
Likewise, voting for Trump doesn't automatically make you a racist. But it does mean you participated in "race culture," because you made excuses or didn't care about his racist views.
Have you ever considered throwing oil on a fire? I'm positive it will be an effective method of fightin fires.
I feel like you skipped a step there because I'm not sure how your metaphor relates to my post. Could you explain?
Stop crying over spilled Brexit. There will always be a Stein, and there will always be Stein voters.
WI 2012 Stein voters 7,665
MI 2012 Stein voters 21,897
PA 2012 Stein voters 21,341
Yes, clearly Hillary should have done a better job of getting those voters on board.
I think that blaming the people who didn't vote for Hillary or the media is possibly the most spectacularly useless things we can do right now. The media will still be around next time. What does bemoaning its existence accomplish? What does shaking your fist at the people that our party failed to effectively rally do, other than assuage our own egos and prepare us for another paddling?
By blaming the media we can figure out WHY the media failed, and figure out how to exploit it to our advantage in the elections to come.
By blaming the people who didn't vote, we can then figure out WHY they didn't vote and then get in there and get them on our side if they are worth fighting for.
Pointing to the reasons we lost is not throwing up our hands in the air and accepting that as inevitable, it is helpping to understand why we lost. The conversation doesn't just go "the media and racists screwed us, oh well." There are many steps following those proclamations and we are less than two weeks out from the point it happened so give us some time to craft and strategize.
I've seen it put forward on more than one occasion that Stein voters are why we failed. This, to me, betrays an alarming lack of sorely-needed introspection.
Stein voters aren't why we failed. We failed by not giving them enough of an affirmative reason to vote for Hillary. The DNC focused a huge part of their strategy on, "Look at what an asshole Trump is" (seriously, many of Hillary's ads were just children in front of a TV watching Trump do stupid shit)!
We failed to have a robust, competitive primary. We failed to nominate a candidate that wasn't historically unpopular with the general electorate. We failed to convince that electorate that she had reinvented herself and that she would go to bat for them.
We. Failed.
Nobody voted for Stein because they seriously thought she had a chance. They voted for her because they didn't like what Hillary was offering. Maybe next time we offer them something they like. Maybe they won't get on board just because we tell them how much they suck for voting Stein instead of the candidate that is so self-evidently the best one for them, because we know best.
Stop crying over spilled Brexit. There will always be a Stein, and there will always be Stein voters.
WI 2012 Stein voters 7,665
MI 2012 Stein voters 21,897
PA 2012 Stein voters 21,341
Yes, clearly Hillary should have done a better job of getting those voters on board.
I think that blaming the people who didn't vote for Hillary or the media is possibly the most spectacularly useless things we can do right now. The media will still be around next time. What does bemoaning its existence accomplish? What does shaking your fist at the people that our party failed to effectively rally do, other than assuage our own egos and prepare us for another paddling?
By blaming the media we can figure out WHY the media failed, and figure out how to exploit it to our advantage in the elections to come.
By blaming the people who didn't vote, we can then figure out WHY they didn't vote and then get in there and get them on our side if they are worth fighting for.
Pointing to the reasons we lost is not throwing up our hands in the air and accepting that as inevitable, it is helpping to understand why we lost. The conversation doesn't just go "the media and racists screwed us, oh well." There are many steps following those proclamations and we are less than two weeks out from the point it happened so give us some time to craft and strategize.
But that's not how blaming shakes out. Understanding the media, sure. Understanding non-voters, yes. Blaming them is asserting that we were morally correct in our course, it was they that were morally incorrect, and crucially, even if that is true, this thought process leads to complacency. We were doing everything right (and are, perhaps, tricked by the dual meaning of the word right as morally correct and right as in correct to advance our interests), so we must do it again.
Basically, once we're talking about blaming other people rather than seeing them as cogs which are misaligned, we start hyperfocusing on one or two things and become more intransigent to efforts to change our interactions with them (because, again, it's their fault, they need to change).
I will not give up the ground of us being morally in the right.
Strategically, tactically? Absolutely. We fucked up in many ways. And figuring out how to talk to these groups and the media and all sorts of things is something we have to address if we want to win.
But we had and have the moral high ground.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+1
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Whether you call it white fragility or something else, there does not appear to be a good way to discuss the concept of racism or unconscious bias with a white person. I had the only serious fight I've ever had with my dearest sister when I was trying to describe unconscious bias, and I went into that conversation with the complete belief that the racist sentiments she's expressed to me were not as a result of hatred in her heart or any sort of intent and with a strong belief in her natural goodness. It still ended with her in tears. Granted I did gain some ground with her, and I might gain more, but we're two people who love each other and have a good solid relationship. I have no idea how I would do this with anyone I was less close to.
Camb I know this is an emotional topic for you but listen to what you're saying.
There's no good way to talk about racism with a white person? I don't think that, when statements like this are OK for you, that you're going to make a lot of headway with people.
Read it as: There is no good way to talk about unconscious bias with people that are not subject to the ill effects of this bias (worse yet with people that receive benefits from it).
In America, that group happens to be white people, it happens to be men, it happens to be straight, etc.
Why is it only when 'our side's phrases something, I shall call for the sake of argument, unfortunately we're suddenly scrambling to put dramatically more compatible and arbitrarily nuanced explanations front and center?
If a Trump voter did this they would be drowning in domesticated canines right now.
Perhaps the way to reduce Stein voters is to appeal to them, rather than telling them they're dumb and the worst and just obviously they should have voted for Clinton, even if they didn't like her, because surely that's definitely all of their second choices rather than not voting or whatever?
I am not certain where the future of the democratic party lies if everyone assumed that all the problems are everyone else is idiots with a trillion biases but we aren't.
There are elements of Steins platform that are attractive to dems.
Then there is the conspiracy-driven lunacy and the anti vax stuff.
If we make sure the Stein voters know that all the stuff that isn't fairy tale nonsense is available over on a team that can win without making them feel like jackasses for supporting the fairy tales we have a chance with them.
Perhaps the way to reduce Stein voters is to appeal to them, rather than telling them they're dumb and the worst and just obviously they should have voted for Clinton, even if they didn't like her, because surely that's definitely all of their second choices rather than not voting or whatever?
I am not certain where the future of the democratic party lies if everyone assumed that all the problems are everyone else is idiots with a trillion biases but we aren't.
Everyone is an idiot with a trillion biases, including us.
We need to understand that and work within that framework to achieve the results we want.
These, basically. The problem is that many people definitely want to make them feel like jackasses, or think we aren't all subject to the same forces. We all are. The question, if we're going to get all Machiavellian, is how to manipulate these forces for the greater good.
I'm reminded of a thread a while back, where I admitted that I think most people on 'my side' of right issues are nearly as embarrassing as those against me--way too many people who are where they are on issues because they happened to land there and not because they put any thought into it. I think the specific example I was discussing was people who are happy to use the language of feminism to bully others, because they've found a place where THEY are strong and THEY can be dicks?
I mean, I fall into it too. I've been super pissed since the election, mostly towards the right but also towards the throw it on the ground crowd and the people who're trying to use this as an opportunity to dump social justice. I'm trying to reign it in and start feeling sorry for them again, but its hard.
Anyway, the point is, we're all dumb animals to some degree. We all do embarrassing, stupid, tribal crap. Which is something we need to work with moving forward.
We need to make sure we have savvy marketing people playing as big a role in what we do moving forward as policy people. Bigger, probably. And we need to throw out high-road AND low-road campaigns.
Thorough market segmentation is the key to the future in politics, I think. Prospects should be getting a message tailored to THEIR habits and interests and level of information, rather than the same message hitting everyone.
Of course, delivering that sort of segmented marketing and maintaining a cohesive brand is the difficult part, like it is anywhere else. You don't want to stink of inauthenticity whether you're selling left-wing politics or shoes.
Kamar on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It's important to talk about Stein and Johnson and the slim margins because it's important to teach people to how to vote effectively in a FPTP system. Apparently it's a lesson that needs repeating every 15 years or so.
This was a very slim loss and the margin is overdetermined--there are many reasons for it, and they all contributed. That means we need to address them all. One of those is third party voting. Let's not shut down useful discussion fo fear of whining or turning off people who aren't in this thread (seriously, any Stein voters here?).
Posts
Read it as: There is no good way to talk about unconscious bias with people that are not subject to the ill effects of this bias (worse yet with people that receive benefits from it).
In America, that group happens to be white people, it happens to be men, it happens to be straight, etc.
But we are complex fucking animals and there are a lot of other issues that take priority or sit below our base tribal urges.
Obama, despite being a half black half white guy with connections to Kenya and a "madrassa" education, delivered a crisp message that spoke to people of all backgrounds and stripes that was labor friendly, and the issues he promised to address took a greater priority over things that would otherwise drive voters away. It did not remove the racism, it just reprioritized it further down the list.
Hillary, not hitting those messages as well as he did, allowed the us vs. them shit to rise back to its "proper" place, especially amongst labor folks who feel like they have gotten a raw deal.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Link for campaign donation?
It almost sounds like what you are saying is, "It was the issues that mattered."
https://www.bustle.com/articles/195288-how-to-help-foster-campbell-the-louisiana-democratic-candidate-who-could-secure-a-sliver-of-hope
I think a lot of people here dramatically overemphasize the extent to which people voted specifically for race concerns as opposed to people who simply ignored them, or voted despite them. This is not to excuse those who ignored them, but proper diagnosis is helpful for future outreach. We don't have a lot of evidence either way at this point, but thinking that multiculturalism lost instead of thinking that it simply isn't important to people is at the very least premature.
in the absence of reaching people with a better message, all they have are their preconceptions.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Wisconsin Stein voters 104,061
Michigan Stein voters 51,012
Pennsylvania Stein voters 48,956
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'm sorry, you're going to have to be more explicit about what's wrong with my wording.
Maybe if I put it this way you'll find it less objectionable: people who are not negatively affected by a phenomenon have a hard time believing it exists. If they also benefit in some way from the phenomenon, they will become defensive and angry when you try to explain it.
This is true of racism, misogyny, rape culture, homophobia, xenophobia, and any other such topics. I gather in your world, spool, it's impossible to surmise which groups benefit from those circumstances, so every conversation where you try to discuss them it's a complete mystery how the person you're speaking to will react if you bring them up.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Stop crying over spilled Brexit. There will always be a Stein, and there will always be Stein voters.
Could they not have heard the message, but just disagreed with it?
There will not always be the same number.
And also Stein voters are the worst.
WI 2012 Stein voters 7,665
MI 2012 Stein voters 21,897
PA 2012 Stein voters 21,341
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
All we can go on is data, and it is real clear that people never heard Hillary say anything about their needs and instead heard about scandals and emails and paid speeches and helping women/minorities get ahead. Regardless of if there were things in her platform that spoke to their needs they were never really in the conversation, which is a failing of the media AND a failing of her campaign to force the media to discuss it.
edit: so what we can more or less assume moving forward is that the media will not truck in discussing issues ever. It is on us 100% to figure out how to make sure the next candidate can twist the arm of the media apparatus to cover what they want them to cover.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The white Obama voters who voted for Trump use it that way. scheck's defs #2 and 3 are each more rarified and academic, and therefore more divorced from the common parlance.
What argument are you actually intending to put forward here? You seem to believe that your point of view is so self-evident that you can drop in graphs and raw data without event attempting to explain. But I am looking at the exact same data as you and I suspect that the conclusions I draw are very different from yours.
Yes, clearly Hillary should have done a better job of getting those voters on board.
I think that blaming the people who didn't vote for Hillary or the media are possibly the most spectacularly useless things we can do right now. The media will still be around next time. What does bemoaning its existence accomplish? What does shaking your fist at the people that our party failed to effectively rally do, other than assuage our own egos and prepare us for another paddling?
The problem with reading to read into a phrase a definition that defangs the phrase and changes it's common meaning is that mostly people don't do it. People should say what they mean and not trade in insulting shorthand that is itself, when read plainly, racist.
I mean, I think you're still exhibiting racial bias with your rephrasing and I don't appreciate being lumped in with millions of others as "white people" and then painted with a bunch of insulting traits, but at least I'm not actively angry about the conversation.
The bolded is an unnecessary qualifier that is only going to add to the defensiveness and anger, and does your argument a disservice. People who aren't negatively affected by a phenomenon and have a hard time believing it exists are going to have an even harder time swallowing the notion that they benefit from the phenomenon.
I am not certain where the future of the democratic party lies if everyone assumed that all the problems are everyone else is idiots with a trillion biases but we aren't.
By blaming the media we can figure out WHY the media failed, and figure out how to exploit it to our advantage in the elections to come.
By blaming the people who didn't vote, we can then figure out WHY they didn't vote and then get in there and get them on our side if they are worth fighting for.
Pointing to the reasons we lost is not throwing up our hands in the air and accepting that as inevitable, it is helpping to understand why we lost. The conversation doesn't just go "the media and racists screwed us, oh well." There are many steps following those proclamations and we are less than two weeks out from the point it happened so give us some time to craft and strategize.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
There are elements of Steins platform that are attractive to dems.
Then there is the conspiracy-driven lunacy and the anti vax stuff.
If we make sure the Stein voters know that all the stuff that isn't fairy tale nonsense is available over on a team that can win without making them feel like jackasses for supporting the fairy tales we have a chance with them.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Everyone is an idiot with a trillion biases, including us.
We need to understand that and work within that framework to achieve the results we want.
Looking at the map, if every single Jill Stein voter had voted for Clinton, she would have still lost 258-280.
Have you ever considered throwing oil on a fire? I'm positive it will be an effective method of fightin fires.
We seem to be getting wires crossed.
Are we:
-Describing what we feel like is true
-Determining how to influence other people
But that's not how blaming shakes out. Understanding the media, sure. Understanding non-voters, yes. Blaming them is asserting that we were morally correct in our course, it was they that were morally incorrect, and crucially, even if that is true, this thought process leads to complacency. We were doing everything right (and are, perhaps, tricked by the dual meaning of the word right as morally correct and right as in correct to advance our interests), so we must do it again.
Basically, once we're talking about blaming other people rather than seeing them as cogs which are misaligned, we start hyperfocusing on one or two things and become more intransigent to efforts to change our interactions with them (because, again, it's their fault, they need to change).
These, basically. The problem is that many people definitely want to make them feel like jackasses, or think we aren't all subject to the same forces. We all are. The question, if we're going to get all Machiavellian, is how to manipulate these forces for the greater good.
I have an extremely unfavorable view of most denominations (to use a probably wrong term) of islam. That view is comparable, though more intense, to my view of pentacostal or evangelical christianity.
It says nothing whatsoever about my feelings toward the various races of people that practice those religions.
After nader and now stein I don't see how dems can see the green party as anything but poison at this point.
And, in many ways, it's true. It's not so much that being white helps them, just that being white does not hurt them.
The overall effect is the same, but the perception is different.
I think A LOT of people simply didn't like both candidates this time and voted third party even though they aren't staunch Green or Libertarians. Trump was Trump and Hillary had such a bad rap that even a lot of Democrats didn't like her for one reason or another.
I feel like you skipped a step there because I'm not sure how your metaphor relates to my post. Could you explain?
I've seen it put forward on more than one occasion that Stein voters are why we failed. This, to me, betrays an alarming lack of sorely-needed introspection.
Stein voters aren't why we failed. We failed by not giving them enough of an affirmative reason to vote for Hillary. The DNC focused a huge part of their strategy on, "Look at what an asshole Trump is" (seriously, many of Hillary's ads were just children in front of a TV watching Trump do stupid shit)!
We failed to have a robust, competitive primary. We failed to nominate a candidate that wasn't historically unpopular with the general electorate. We failed to convince that electorate that she had reinvented herself and that she would go to bat for them.
We. Failed.
Nobody voted for Stein because they seriously thought she had a chance. They voted for her because they didn't like what Hillary was offering. Maybe next time we offer them something they like. Maybe they won't get on board just because we tell them how much they suck for voting Stein instead of the candidate that is so self-evidently the best one for them, because we know best.
Again, Hillary would have still lost if every Stein voter voted for her instead.
I will not give up the ground of us being morally in the right.
Strategically, tactically? Absolutely. We fucked up in many ways. And figuring out how to talk to these groups and the media and all sorts of things is something we have to address if we want to win.
But we had and have the moral high ground.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Why is it only when 'our side's phrases something, I shall call for the sake of argument, unfortunately we're suddenly scrambling to put dramatically more compatible and arbitrarily nuanced explanations front and center?
If a Trump voter did this they would be drowning in domesticated canines right now.
I'm reminded of a thread a while back, where I admitted that I think most people on 'my side' of right issues are nearly as embarrassing as those against me--way too many people who are where they are on issues because they happened to land there and not because they put any thought into it. I think the specific example I was discussing was people who are happy to use the language of feminism to bully others, because they've found a place where THEY are strong and THEY can be dicks?
I mean, I fall into it too. I've been super pissed since the election, mostly towards the right but also towards the throw it on the ground crowd and the people who're trying to use this as an opportunity to dump social justice. I'm trying to reign it in and start feeling sorry for them again, but its hard.
Anyway, the point is, we're all dumb animals to some degree. We all do embarrassing, stupid, tribal crap. Which is something we need to work with moving forward.
We need to make sure we have savvy marketing people playing as big a role in what we do moving forward as policy people. Bigger, probably. And we need to throw out high-road AND low-road campaigns.
Thorough market segmentation is the key to the future in politics, I think. Prospects should be getting a message tailored to THEIR habits and interests and level of information, rather than the same message hitting everyone.
Of course, delivering that sort of segmented marketing and maintaining a cohesive brand is the difficult part, like it is anywhere else. You don't want to stink of inauthenticity whether you're selling left-wing politics or shoes.
This was a very slim loss and the margin is overdetermined--there are many reasons for it, and they all contributed. That means we need to address them all. One of those is third party voting. Let's not shut down useful discussion fo fear of whining or turning off people who aren't in this thread (seriously, any Stein voters here?).