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.
But I don't necessarily bring that portion of it in when discussing it with a person who doesn't believe racism exists. My description was for Spool, telling him what groups might have the most difficulty believing in racism and having racism explained to them. It has nothing to do with how I explain the phenomenon to my sister, for example. Unless you're trying to tell me Spool doesn't believe that there are any groups that benefit from unconscious racism, which I'd have to hear from Spool himself before I'll believe it.
Spool is basically a textbook example of white fragility in this thread, ever since the concept came up.
Beyond that though, it truly isn't necessary for the concept of white fragility itself. People who are not knowingly affected by a negative phenomenon, and have a blindness to its very existence, are going to get angry and defensive when you tell them they are a part of the system that perpetuates that phenomenon whether they actually benefit from it or not.
I think whether they benefit or not plays a huge role in how hard they are to talk to about it, actually. I can talk to my sister about sexism because it's something that's negatively affected her. I can even talk to my mom about sexism despite the fact that she is still extremely conservative and would never call herself a feminist. I have to use different wording than "sexism", but I can talk to her about it. I can only now talk to my sister, carefully, about racism having introduced her to the subject, but there's no amount of coded language I could use with my mom to talk to her about it and not have her reject it outright.
Having been negatively impacted by something is completely different. The equivalent to your sexism examples when it comes to something like white fragility is that it would be easier to discuss racism with people of color who have been negatively affected by racism than it is to discuss it with white people who reject racism as it is commonly defined in a dictionary and find it very difficult to accept the notion that they perpetuate a racist system (in part because you are operating from a different definition of racism than they are). Of course it is, because people of color will actually be aware of systemic racism and how it has impacted 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.
That sounds hard. It is far easier if we just all call them idiots and lose 2020.
psn: PhasenWeeple
+5
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
If anything, I think white people who benefit the least from systemic racism are going to be the most difficult to talk to and convince. Whites who have grown up poor in a dead end town with little to no hope for a happy future are going to get pretty damn angry and defensive when you use terms like privilege and being advantaged. Whiteness does not benefit all white people in the same way, and those who have next to nothing and feel like they've been shit on their entire lives are going to resist the notion that they benefit simply by being white pretty fiercely.
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.
That sounds hard. It is far easier if we just all call them idiots and lose 2020.
I mean, yeah obviously. Let's appeal to voters.
I spoke to people whose number one issue going into the election was climate change, they were absolutely aware of the dire state we were and are in and they thought there was nothing more important than trying to pull out of the tailspin. They were committed to the idea that the top priority of the next Presidential administration should be climate change.
They saw that Hillary Clinton did not have that as her top priority, nor did Donald Trump.
Jill Stein did put that as her top priority, so they voted for her.
What is the appeal we make to that person, and how does it work?
It can't be "The Democratic candidate's top priority is climate change". Because if it's true, that's appealing to too few people, and regardless of if it's true, no one would buy the idea that a major party politician really cared exclusively about the environment. If they did, they'd be Green.
I know what made me vote for Hillary Clinton, despite also prioritizing climate change as one of the issues that matters most to me.
I voted for Hillary Clinton because regardless of the tepidity of her positions on certain environmental issues, she was in favor of the EPA remaining an organization with the capability to operate against climate change. She was in favor of a regulatory state that made short-term profit for long-term disaster less attractive. She was in favor of investing in renewables to a degree that would allow us to eventually wean ourselves into a less destructive society.
What's the argument I use for those voters who saw that, acknowledged that, and voted for Stein?
I know a lot of lovely people who spent considerable time, effort, and intellect figuring out how they could justify voting for Stein and frankly I don't have any good ideas about what I could have done to change their minds.
If anything, I think white people who benefit the least from systemic racism are going to be the most difficult to talk to and convince. Whites who have grown up poor in a dead end town with little to no hope for a happy future are going to get pretty damn angry and defensive when you use terms like privilege and being advantaged. Whiteness does not benefit all white people in the same way, and those who have next to nothing and feel like they've been shit on their entire lives are going to resist the notion that they benefit simply by being white pretty fiercely.
When who uses the term in what context?
I've heard this tossed around a bunch recently, and I can't disagree with the premise that if you shout at Imaginary Voter Who Is White And On Very Hard Times that they aren't really on hard times at all because they have white privilege you will make them feel aggrieved. That seems both like a reasonable assumption to make and a thing no one should do. I don't know that I've seen anyone report it happening, but it'd be bad if they did.
But the argument here also seems to be that the fact of the term existing, of it being used in any circle to describe a thing, is what's making people feel aggrieved. That we need to retire the phrase because it's making it hard to make headway with white people.
But I mean, you can switch to "majority privilege" or "minority disadvantage" or "a sense that you're the norm" or "the sense that you don't belong" or "the assumption that you're okay because you look a bit like the folks in charge" or like... you can swap every word and any word in and out and I bet you people will still be capable of saying "I know what you're saying but I don't have that because I'm on extremely hard times and you're an asshole for suggesting otherwise". The phrase isn't the issue unless you assume everyone it rankles is also a real big idiot who doesn't know that you can use multiple words to communicate the same ideas.
If the phrase is an issue, then the concept it communicates is the actual issue. If the proposal is that it's too dangerous to communicate that concept in any context because it hurts the electoral chances of the DNC or it inflames racial tension or ... something, I'd like more to go on than just the Imaginary Voter We Think Is Otherwise Cool But Really Hates The Concept Of White Privilege/Minorities Having Unique Disadvantages.
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.
That sounds hard. It is far easier if we just all call them idiots and lose 2020.
Don't forget 2018. Boy are we going to lose big then because of all those idiots.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
You'd think so! It was not a good sell.
The standard retort being that if everyone voted for a third party who told them that a third party had no chance, then a third party would have a chance.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
You'd think so! It was not a good sell.
The standard retort being that if everyone voted for a third party who told them that a third party had no chance, then a third party would have a chance.
Ask them who they would vote for if they did not vote third party.
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
You'd think so! It was not a good sell.
The standard retort being that if everyone voted for a third party who told them that a third party had no chance, then a third party would have a chance.
Ask them who they would vote for if they did not vote third party.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
You'd think so! It was not a good sell.
The standard retort being that if everyone voted for a third party who told them that a third party had no chance, then a third party would have a chance.
Ask them who they would vote for if they did not vote third party.
They wouldn't have voted.
Well then the problem is not that they liked Stein, it's that they did not like Clinton.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
You'd think so! It was not a good sell.
The standard retort being that if everyone voted for a third party who told them that a third party had no chance, then a third party would have a chance.
Ask them who they would vote for if they did not vote third party.
They wouldn't have voted.
Well then the problem is not that they liked Stein, it's that they did not like Clinton.
And now I expectantly wait for the inevitable refrain of but they should have liked her
I never once said that we need to stop fighting against racial discrimination, and neither did anybody else.
No but the "approach" means changes in what it means to be a Democrat. Everyone seems to want to push an economic populist message. Do you think such a change comes at no cost?
If people want to change to appeal to rural, low education, whites who voted Trump, do you think there's a non-marginalized place for "identity politics"? Bernie doesn't think so.
Well, here’s what you got. What you got is an African-American president, and the African-American community is very, very proud that this country has overcome racism and voted for him for president. And that’s kind of natural. You’ve got a situation where the Republican Party has been strongly anti-immigration, and you’ve got a Hispanic community which is looking to the Democrats for help.
But that’s not important. You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing? In the last election, in state after state, you had an abysmally low vote for the Democrats among white, working-class people. And I think the reason for that is that the Democrats have not made it clear that they are prepared to stand with the working-class people of this country, take on the big money interests. I think the key issue that we have to focus on, and I know people are uncomfortable about talking about it, is the role of the billionaire class in American society.
RYAN: There`s no question. I think we need – technologically, I think we need an upgrade. I think we`ve got to speak to the working class people,the blue collar people. We`ve got this beautiful tapestry of the Democratic Party and we`ve got to energize this base.
It`s not about one segment, it`s about all of us. If you look back to the progress we made as a party and as a country, you know, worker rights and
civil rights, you know, the 40-hour workweek, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, go through the whole list, that was when we were all together.
Like, we hung together as a party. Black, white, Latino, middle class, poor, we were all together. And that`s how we made progress. And so
whoever is the head of the DNC and I believe whoever is the head of our caucus needs to represent and understand that.
And I think Nancy Pelosi does. But we need to represent the entire party and these working class people rely on us. We need a strong Democratic
Party in the United States and right now, you know, we`re reeling.
edit- And that's obviously a incredibly ignorant and false history of the Democratic party in the early 20th century. Blacks were not co-equals then by any means even or especially in the Democratic party of the time -/edit
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
This is an argument that never ever works. Because it fundamentally misunderstands how 3rd party voters think. They've already rejected the whole "but they will never actually win the election" arguments. That's why they are 3rd party voters in the first place.
They always gripe about the corruption of the two party system and how the 3rd parties will finally smash it and how if everyone just didn't use that silly argument you are using then it wouldn't be true and 3rd parties could win and would be viable. About how X candidate is bad and I won't vote for them because they are bad and practically and who can actually win and pass legislation doesn't matter.
It's because ultimately 3rd party voters are a combination of "fuck the system" and seeing a vote primarily as a statement of personal moral conviction and so voting 3rd party is sending a message or some such.
I think the only way to reach them is to give them a candidate you can convince them represents a moral stand too, or at least is charismatic enough that it seems like one.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
"The Democratic Party will work tirelessly to implement RCV?"
Edit: the idea being growth of third parties in other offices so that we can have legitimate contention for higher offices. Also because it lets their voice be heard but still allows them to express a preference among the rest.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
I don't know what to say other than, "We don't have a parliamentary democracy. If you really want to be able to do that, you need to change our system." The way our system is explicitly designed means that voting for the major candidate who is more closely aligned to your values is the only way to participate meaningfully. It's a false choice being offered to vote third party.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
I don't know what to say other than, "We don't have a parliamentary democracy. If you really want to be able to do that, you need to change our system." The way our system is explicitly designed means that voting for the major candidate who is more closely aligned to your values is the only way to participate meaningfully. It's a false choice being offered to vote third party.
The system allows for third parties, they just have very little share of the vote. It's not a false choice, it's clearly presented right there on the ballot. If they get enough votes, they'd win. They just never do. And saying "Well third parties can't win" is upsetting to those voters because they clearly could. It's not the fault of the system it's the fault of the people who don't vote for them.
Telling someone their vote is dumb doesn't help. Telling them why your vote is the most awesome can work. Calling Trump supporters racist won't make them vote for Clinton, but telling everyone how awesome Clinton is might.
like, I can write up a really good explanation of how Duverger's Law works in FPTP systems and the American system in particular and what impacts that has on the expected policy outcome of elections and how that incentivizes people to vote... and even when people's eyes don't just glaze over, they don't give a shit. Nobody gives a shit. So I've stopped trying to explain it.
The lesson of this election, and I guess one that everybody has to periodically re-learn, is that candidates need to give people something to actually vote for. It needs to be fucking simple enough to be easily remembered and understood. Apparently under discussion is a voter whose primary interest is in climate change. What was Clinton's core message on climate change? I couldn't fuckin' tell you, which is the reason this person isn't interested in voting for Clinton.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
+6
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
I never once said that we need to stop fighting against racial discrimination, and neither did anybody else.
No but the "approach" means changes in what it means to be a Democrat. Everyone seems to want to push an economic populist message. Do you think such a change comes at no cost?
If people want to change to appeal to rural, low education, whites who voted Trump, do you think there's a non-marginalized place for "identity politics"?
Nobody wants to change to appeal to all of the rural, low education whites that voted Trump. People do want to figure out how you get back the segment of the white working class vote that went for Obama but not for Clinton.
Did Obama marginalize identity politics? Did he throw minorities under the bus? Push an agenda that appealed to working class whites at the expense of the rest of the Democratic coalition?
No, he didn't. So why does it suddenly become necessary to do so now in order to win those voters back? Maybe it doesn't, and people keep setting up these false dichotomies in which Dems can appeal to minorities or some working class whites but not both. Huh.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
"The Democratic Party will work tirelessly to implement RCV?"
Edit: the idea being growth of third parties in other offices so that we can have legitimate contention for higher offices. Also because it lets their voice be heard but still allows them to express a preference among the rest.
Implementing IRV would be a good idea, but like abolishing the electoral college, having the federal government in charge of federal elections, having non-partisan redistricting, and having a right to vote, it won't happen since the Republicans can block all that quite easily.
It's painfully obvious that the tangible racial abuses of this administration are going to go well beyond intangible abuses like white privilege. So you can keep discussing social justice without having to rely on abstract concepts.
Try to get them on our side on the big abuses, rather than turning them away on the tiny ones.
I never once said that we need to stop fighting against racial discrimination, and neither did anybody else.
No but the "approach" means changes in what it means to be a Democrat. Everyone seems to want to push an economic populist message. Do you think such a change comes at no cost?
If people want to change to appeal to rural, low education, whites who voted Trump, do you think there's a non-marginalized place for "identity politics"?
Nobody wants to change to appeal to all of the rural, low education whites that voted Trump. People do want to figure out how you get back the segment of the white working class vote that went for Obama but not for Clinton.
Did Obama marginalize identity politics? Did he throw minorities under the bus? Push an agenda that appealed to working class whites at the expense of the rest of the Democratic coalition?
No, he didn't. So why does it suddenly become necessary to do so now in order to win those voters back? Maybe it doesn't, and people keep setting up these false dichotomies in which Dems can appeal to minorities or some working class whites but not both. Huh.
I don't buy the "we need to sell out minorities" argument, but Obama had the advantage of the worst crisis since the Great Depression behind him. We can't expect to have that again, and trying to claim that we can win them in a boom cycle is as without evidence as the claim that we can't.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
I don't know what to say other than, "We don't have a parliamentary democracy. If you really want to be able to do that, you need to change our system." The way our system is explicitly designed means that voting for the major candidate who is more closely aligned to your values is the only way to participate meaningfully. It's a false choice being offered to vote third party.
The system allows for third parties, they just have very little share of the vote. It's not a false choice, it's clearly presented right there on the ballot. If they get enough votes, they'd win. They just never do. And saying "Well third parties can't win" is upsetting to those voters because they clearly could. It's not the fault of the system it's the fault of the people who don't vote for them.
Telling someone their vote is dumb doesn't help. Telling them why your vote is the most awesome can work. Calling Trump supporters racist won't make them vote for Clinton, but telling everyone how awesome Clinton is might.
Yes, you are demonstrating exactly why arguments to 3rd party voters about how the system actually works never change their minds. There's always some further reason. Because it's not about practical outcomes. That's why they don't want to hear about strategic voting. They don't want to feel constrained by the practicalities of the system. They want to feel like their vote is special and reflects them personally.
You have to appeal to them based on that idea. You have to sell them that voting for the Democratic candidate means something beyond just "electing Democrats to get actual legislation passed". Cause they don't give a shit about that part.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
I don't know what to say other than, "We don't have a parliamentary democracy. If you really want to be able to do that, you need to change our system." The way our system is explicitly designed means that voting for the major candidate who is more closely aligned to your values is the only way to participate meaningfully. It's a false choice being offered to vote third party.
The system allows for third parties, they just have very little share of the vote. It's not a false choice, it's clearly presented right there on the ballot. If they get enough votes, they'd win. They just never do. And saying "Well third parties can't win" is upsetting to those voters because they clearly could. It's not the fault of the system it's the fault of the people who don't vote for them.
Telling someone their vote is dumb doesn't help. Telling them why your vote is the most awesome can work. Calling Trump supporters racist won't make them vote for Clinton, but telling everyone how awesome Clinton is might.
Yes, you are demonstrating exactly why arguments to 3rd party voters about how the system actually works never change their minds. There's always some further reason. Because it's not about practical outcomes. That's why they don't want to hear about strategic voting. They don't want to feel constrained by the practicalities of the system. They want to feel like their vote is special and reflects them personally.
You have to appeal to them based on that idea. You have to sell them that voting for the Democratic candidate means something beyond just "electing Democrats to get actual legislation passed". Cause they don't give a shit about that part.
I think this comes back to what I said earlier. It sounds like it all boils down to "The issues matter."
Yeah, here's where I get stuck I guess. People being fucking morons and acting against their own interests even with the necessary information being presented to them is just something I don't know how to deal with.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
"The Democratic Party will work tirelessly to implement RCV?"
Edit: the idea being growth of third parties in other offices so that we can have legitimate contention for higher offices. Also because it lets their voice be heard but still allows them to express a preference among the rest.
Implementing IRV would be a good idea, but like abolishing the electoral college, having the federal government in charge of federal elections, having non-partisan redistricting, and having a right to vote, it won't happen since the Republicans can block all that quite easily.
Unlike those things, and perhaps because of the EC, IRV can be implemented state by state. It doesn't need to function at a federal level. Incremental rollout makes it an order of magnitue more feasible.
I never once said that we need to stop fighting against racial discrimination, and neither did anybody else.
No but the "approach" means changes in what it means to be a Democrat. Everyone seems to want to push an economic populist message. Do you think such a change comes at no cost?
If people want to change to appeal to rural, low education, whites who voted Trump, do you think there's a non-marginalized place for "identity politics"?
Nobody wants to change to appeal to all of the rural, low education whites that voted Trump. People do want to figure out how you get back the segment of the white working class vote that went for Obama but not for Clinton.
Did Obama marginalize identity politics? Did he throw minorities under the bus? Push an agenda that appealed to working class whites at the expense of the rest of the Democratic coalition?
No, he didn't. So why does it suddenly become necessary to do so now in order to win those voters back? Maybe it doesn't, and people keep setting up these false dichotomies in which Dems can appeal to minorities or some working class whites but not both. Huh.
Obama did "marginalise" identity politics as compared to Clinton this year. Ebum put it best I thought when he said Obama let his skin colour speak for itself. It came up, yeah, but it wasn't the centrepiece of his own rhetoric the way it was this year. He really held back on the issue and has throughout his entire tenure as President. Obama was far less explicitly running an anti-bigotry campaign as compared to Clinton.
I would say in 2008 at least he also wasn't running heavily on the kind of economic populism being suggested here either. In 2012 more so, but even then it was less "I Love You, You Love Me, Massacre the Bourgeoisie" and more "Romney is every guy that has ever fired your dad".
As much as it's sometimes used as a reductive insult to the man, Obama did essentially run on Hope and Change. On the idea that he was an inspirational figure and was gonna bring real new change to DC and that voting for him was a statement. Something you could tell your kids about. I don't think this is a repeatable strategy because our cup does not exactly runneth over with Obama-esque politicians. I don't think it's as useful an example as you are saying it is here.
I think it's going to be alot more difficult to marry identity politics and economic populism in a way that can appeal to places like the Rush Belt without a figure like Obama at the top of the ticket. And I think PantsB is correct in that at least at the moment alot of the signals coming out of various corners seem to suggest many are thinking the identity politics needs to be toned down and the economic populism played up.
shryke on
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
an interesting adjunct to the various bits of data about trumpy swings
the vast majority of voters for all parties don't conceive of elections as part of a long process that results in legislation. They aren't and they never will and I'm sorry if this comes as some type of surprise.
It's not as though the ~47% of the voting electorate that voted for Clinton are all sitting there considering 'well, if she wins and the senate swings but the house stays republican this is the kinda policy she might be able to advance...' The practical reality is banal and confusing and even lots of people who spend a lot of time following election news don't understand it.
What people vote for by and large is the candidate/party that aligns with the values they think are important; so here's Stein talking about climate change and GMO labeling and being vaguely anti-vax naturalist and a certain number of people go 'yeah those sound like the values I like' and they vote for her, without really giving a shit how many nonsense things she says. This (writ small) is the same reason a lot of people voted for Trump without having any fuckin idea what his policy positions are, and why anybody who directed anybody to go read Clinton's policy positions on her website deserves to be laughed out of the room. Nobody gives a shit about actual policy and if they do they already know who they're voting for anyway
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
I don't know what to say other than, "We don't have a parliamentary democracy. If you really want to be able to do that, you need to change our system." The way our system is explicitly designed means that voting for the major candidate who is more closely aligned to your values is the only way to participate meaningfully. It's a false choice being offered to vote third party.
The system allows for third parties, they just have very little share of the vote. It's not a false choice, it's clearly presented right there on the ballot. If they get enough votes, they'd win. They just never do. And saying "Well third parties can't win" is upsetting to those voters because they clearly could. It's not the fault of the system it's the fault of the people who don't vote for them.
Telling someone their vote is dumb doesn't help. Telling them why your vote is the most awesome can work. Calling Trump supporters racist won't make them vote for Clinton, but telling everyone how awesome Clinton is might.
Yes, you are demonstrating exactly why arguments to 3rd party voters about how the system actually works never change their minds. There's always some further reason. Because it's not about practical outcomes. That's why they don't want to hear about strategic voting. They don't want to feel constrained by the practicalities of the system. They want to feel like their vote is special and reflects them personally.
You have to appeal to them based on that idea. You have to sell them that voting for the Democratic candidate means something beyond just "electing Democrats to get actual legislation passed". Cause they don't give a shit about that part.
I think this comes back to what I said earlier. It sounds like it all boils down to "The issues matter."
No, it's the opposite. The issues don't matter. It's the candidate that does for them. Or, rather, the message is what matters and you can essentially highjack that via a candidate that can say "I am a message".
The issues don't matter for 3rd party candidates. They don't care about policy as an actual thing that happens, they care about policy proposals as a signal. As a message they can send via their vote and not as a piece of legislation that actually does things.
+2
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Obama delivered one of the strongest speeches on race ever delivered while he was running in 2008 as a result of the Rev. Wright shitstorm.
It is totally worth going back and listening to that to make sure we don't forget that he totally ran as a black man.
But he spent alot of time before and after that not playing up the race issue. He was trying not to be "the black candidate who talks about race all the time" and has continued that strategy throughout his presidency.
an interesting adjunct to the various bits of data about trumpy swings
one of my favorite sad little data points about this election is that it apparently turns out that in rust belt states at the county level, Trump support correlates pretty strongly with rates of opiod use and addiction
sigh
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Posts
Having been negatively impacted by something is completely different. The equivalent to your sexism examples when it comes to something like white fragility is that it would be easier to discuss racism with people of color who have been negatively affected by racism than it is to discuss it with white people who reject racism as it is commonly defined in a dictionary and find it very difficult to accept the notion that they perpetuate a racist system (in part because you are operating from a different definition of racism than they are). Of course it is, because people of color will actually be aware of systemic racism and how it has impacted them.
That sounds hard. It is far easier if we just all call them idiots and lose 2020.
I mean, yeah obviously. Let's appeal to voters.
I spoke to people whose number one issue going into the election was climate change, they were absolutely aware of the dire state we were and are in and they thought there was nothing more important than trying to pull out of the tailspin. They were committed to the idea that the top priority of the next Presidential administration should be climate change.
They saw that Hillary Clinton did not have that as her top priority, nor did Donald Trump.
Jill Stein did put that as her top priority, so they voted for her.
What is the appeal we make to that person, and how does it work?
It can't be "The Democratic candidate's top priority is climate change". Because if it's true, that's appealing to too few people, and regardless of if it's true, no one would buy the idea that a major party politician really cared exclusively about the environment. If they did, they'd be Green.
I know what made me vote for Hillary Clinton, despite also prioritizing climate change as one of the issues that matters most to me.
I voted for Hillary Clinton because regardless of the tepidity of her positions on certain environmental issues, she was in favor of the EPA remaining an organization with the capability to operate against climate change. She was in favor of a regulatory state that made short-term profit for long-term disaster less attractive. She was in favor of investing in renewables to a degree that would allow us to eventually wean ourselves into a less destructive society.
What's the argument I use for those voters who saw that, acknowledged that, and voted for Stein?
I know a lot of lovely people who spent considerable time, effort, and intellect figuring out how they could justify voting for Stein and frankly I don't have any good ideas about what I could have done to change their minds.
When who uses the term in what context?
I've heard this tossed around a bunch recently, and I can't disagree with the premise that if you shout at Imaginary Voter Who Is White And On Very Hard Times that they aren't really on hard times at all because they have white privilege you will make them feel aggrieved. That seems both like a reasonable assumption to make and a thing no one should do. I don't know that I've seen anyone report it happening, but it'd be bad if they did.
But the argument here also seems to be that the fact of the term existing, of it being used in any circle to describe a thing, is what's making people feel aggrieved. That we need to retire the phrase because it's making it hard to make headway with white people.
But I mean, you can switch to "majority privilege" or "minority disadvantage" or "a sense that you're the norm" or "the sense that you don't belong" or "the assumption that you're okay because you look a bit like the folks in charge" or like... you can swap every word and any word in and out and I bet you people will still be capable of saying "I know what you're saying but I don't have that because I'm on extremely hard times and you're an asshole for suggesting otherwise". The phrase isn't the issue unless you assume everyone it rankles is also a real big idiot who doesn't know that you can use multiple words to communicate the same ideas.
If the phrase is an issue, then the concept it communicates is the actual issue. If the proposal is that it's too dangerous to communicate that concept in any context because it hurts the electoral chances of the DNC or it inflames racial tension or ... something, I'd like more to go on than just the Imaginary Voter We Think Is Otherwise Cool But Really Hates The Concept Of White Privilege/Minorities Having Unique Disadvantages.
Don't forget 2018. Boy are we going to lose big then because of all those idiots.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
You'd think so! It was not a good sell.
The standard retort being that if everyone voted for a third party who told them that a third party had no chance, then a third party would have a chance.
Instead, they just harped on "Hillary is a criminal who belongs in jail, both sides are bad."
I got that more from the Johnson supporters than the Stein brigade.
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
Ask them who they would vote for if they did not vote third party.
They wouldn't have voted.
Well then the problem is not that they liked Stein, it's that they did not like Clinton.
And now I expectantly wait for the inevitable refrain of but they should have liked her
No but the "approach" means changes in what it means to be a Democrat. Everyone seems to want to push an economic populist message. Do you think such a change comes at no cost?
If people want to change to appeal to rural, low education, whites who voted Trump, do you think there's a non-marginalized place for "identity politics"? Bernie doesn't think so.
edit- And that's obviously a incredibly ignorant and false history of the Democratic party in the early 20th century. Blacks were not co-equals then by any means even or especially in the Democratic party of the time -/edit
"Sometimes as Democrats we try to slice that pie up, like this interest group that interest group..."
That's the cost with economic populism as the core message. In my opinion, those are the issues that aren't particularly negotiable.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This is an argument that never ever works. Because it fundamentally misunderstands how 3rd party voters think. They've already rejected the whole "but they will never actually win the election" arguments. That's why they are 3rd party voters in the first place.
They always gripe about the corruption of the two party system and how the 3rd parties will finally smash it and how if everyone just didn't use that silly argument you are using then it wouldn't be true and 3rd parties could win and would be viable. About how X candidate is bad and I won't vote for them because they are bad and practically and who can actually win and pass legislation doesn't matter.
It's because ultimately 3rd party voters are a combination of "fuck the system" and seeing a vote primarily as a statement of personal moral conviction and so voting 3rd party is sending a message or some such.
I think the only way to reach them is to give them a candidate you can convince them represents a moral stand too, or at least is charismatic enough that it seems like one.
If you want to get them voting democrat it doesn't matter what's easier, you have to appeal to the rurals.
"The Democratic Party will work tirelessly to implement RCV?"
Edit: the idea being growth of third parties in other offices so that we can have legitimate contention for higher offices. Also because it lets their voice be heard but still allows them to express a preference among the rest.
I don't know what to say other than, "We don't have a parliamentary democracy. If you really want to be able to do that, you need to change our system." The way our system is explicitly designed means that voting for the major candidate who is more closely aligned to your values is the only way to participate meaningfully. It's a false choice being offered to vote third party.
The system allows for third parties, they just have very little share of the vote. It's not a false choice, it's clearly presented right there on the ballot. If they get enough votes, they'd win. They just never do. And saying "Well third parties can't win" is upsetting to those voters because they clearly could. It's not the fault of the system it's the fault of the people who don't vote for them.
Telling someone their vote is dumb doesn't help. Telling them why your vote is the most awesome can work. Calling Trump supporters racist won't make them vote for Clinton, but telling everyone how awesome Clinton is might.
like, I can write up a really good explanation of how Duverger's Law works in FPTP systems and the American system in particular and what impacts that has on the expected policy outcome of elections and how that incentivizes people to vote... and even when people's eyes don't just glaze over, they don't give a shit. Nobody gives a shit. So I've stopped trying to explain it.
The lesson of this election, and I guess one that everybody has to periodically re-learn, is that candidates need to give people something to actually vote for. It needs to be fucking simple enough to be easily remembered and understood. Apparently under discussion is a voter whose primary interest is in climate change. What was Clinton's core message on climate change? I couldn't fuckin' tell you, which is the reason this person isn't interested in voting for Clinton.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Nobody wants to change to appeal to all of the rural, low education whites that voted Trump. People do want to figure out how you get back the segment of the white working class vote that went for Obama but not for Clinton.
Did Obama marginalize identity politics? Did he throw minorities under the bus? Push an agenda that appealed to working class whites at the expense of the rest of the Democratic coalition?
No, he didn't. So why does it suddenly become necessary to do so now in order to win those voters back? Maybe it doesn't, and people keep setting up these false dichotomies in which Dems can appeal to minorities or some working class whites but not both. Huh.
Implementing IRV would be a good idea, but like abolishing the electoral college, having the federal government in charge of federal elections, having non-partisan redistricting, and having a right to vote, it won't happen since the Republicans can block all that quite easily.
Try to get them on our side on the big abuses, rather than turning them away on the tiny ones.
I don't buy the "we need to sell out minorities" argument, but Obama had the advantage of the worst crisis since the Great Depression behind him. We can't expect to have that again, and trying to claim that we can win them in a boom cycle is as without evidence as the claim that we can't.
Yes, you are demonstrating exactly why arguments to 3rd party voters about how the system actually works never change their minds. There's always some further reason. Because it's not about practical outcomes. That's why they don't want to hear about strategic voting. They don't want to feel constrained by the practicalities of the system. They want to feel like their vote is special and reflects them personally.
You have to appeal to them based on that idea. You have to sell them that voting for the Democratic candidate means something beyond just "electing Democrats to get actual legislation passed". Cause they don't give a shit about that part.
I think this comes back to what I said earlier. It sounds like it all boils down to "The issues matter."
Unlike those things, and perhaps because of the EC, IRV can be implemented state by state. It doesn't need to function at a federal level. Incremental rollout makes it an order of magnitue more feasible.
Obama did "marginalise" identity politics as compared to Clinton this year. Ebum put it best I thought when he said Obama let his skin colour speak for itself. It came up, yeah, but it wasn't the centrepiece of his own rhetoric the way it was this year. He really held back on the issue and has throughout his entire tenure as President. Obama was far less explicitly running an anti-bigotry campaign as compared to Clinton.
I would say in 2008 at least he also wasn't running heavily on the kind of economic populism being suggested here either. In 2012 more so, but even then it was less "I Love You, You Love Me, Massacre the Bourgeoisie" and more "Romney is every guy that has ever fired your dad".
As much as it's sometimes used as a reductive insult to the man, Obama did essentially run on Hope and Change. On the idea that he was an inspirational figure and was gonna bring real new change to DC and that voting for him was a statement. Something you could tell your kids about. I don't think this is a repeatable strategy because our cup does not exactly runneth over with Obama-esque politicians. I don't think it's as useful an example as you are saying it is here.
I think it's going to be alot more difficult to marry identity politics and economic populism in a way that can appeal to places like the Rush Belt without a figure like Obama at the top of the ticket. And I think PantsB is correct in that at least at the moment alot of the signals coming out of various corners seem to suggest many are thinking the identity politics needs to be toned down and the economic populism played up.
It's not as though the ~47% of the voting electorate that voted for Clinton are all sitting there considering 'well, if she wins and the senate swings but the house stays republican this is the kinda policy she might be able to advance...' The practical reality is banal and confusing and even lots of people who spend a lot of time following election news don't understand it.
What people vote for by and large is the candidate/party that aligns with the values they think are important; so here's Stein talking about climate change and GMO labeling and being vaguely anti-vax naturalist and a certain number of people go 'yeah those sound like the values I like' and they vote for her, without really giving a shit how many nonsense things she says. This (writ small) is the same reason a lot of people voted for Trump without having any fuckin idea what his policy positions are, and why anybody who directed anybody to go read Clinton's policy positions on her website deserves to be laughed out of the room. Nobody gives a shit about actual policy and if they do they already know who they're voting for anyway
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
No, it's the opposite. The issues don't matter. It's the candidate that does for them. Or, rather, the message is what matters and you can essentially highjack that via a candidate that can say "I am a message".
The issues don't matter for 3rd party candidates. They don't care about policy as an actual thing that happens, they care about policy proposals as a signal. As a message they can send via their vote and not as a piece of legislation that actually does things.
It is totally worth going back and listening to that to make sure we don't forget that he totally ran as a black man.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Yes. It was a great speech.
But he spent alot of time before and after that not playing up the race issue. He was trying not to be "the black candidate who talks about race all the time" and has continued that strategy throughout his presidency.
one of my favorite sad little data points about this election is that it apparently turns out that in rust belt states at the county level, Trump support correlates pretty strongly with rates of opiod use and addiction
sigh
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget