Also a specifically minority justice angle to his plan, yet another thing notably lacking from the 'front runners'.
This is not true. Pick a Warren plan at random on her Medium page. I will guarantee there's an element specifically targeted to narrow the wealth gap or justice gap or voting gap or whatever.
A rising progressive tide lifts all boats eh? Not really dude.
Gun Violence - one mention of minorities, in a paragraph related to racial violence. Nothing about addressing gun crime in minority communities, gang violence, none of it.
Maybe we're starting to sniff out why she doesn't resonate with black Americans...
Maybe because associating minority populations and "gang violence" is not a thing that should be part of a minority justice angle in a policy plan?
Nonetheless, she calls it out:
"And Black and Latinx Americans have borne the brunt of the gun violence tragedy in our country. In the past, those statistics have been used to justify increased policing and strict sentencing laws. Communities already traumatized by gun violence were doubly victimized by policies that locked up their young people and threw away the key. We’ve got a chance to show that we’ve learned from the past and to chart a new path. It starts by acknowledging that gun violence is a public health crisis, one that cannot be solved solely by the criminal justice system."
And more:
"The data in urban communities indicate that the majority of violence is perpetrated by a small number of offenders, and many cities have found success with programs that identify those at highest risk of becoming the victim or perpetrator of a violent gun crime, then employing strategies to interrupt the cycle of violence before it escalates. Programs that engage the surrounding community, employ mediation to prevent retaliation, build trust with law enforcement, and provide needed long-term social services have been proven to de-escalate tensions and dramatically reduce violence. As president, I’ll establish a grant program to invest in and pilot these types of evidence-based intervention programs at scale."
She also specifically calls out white nationalism in her gun policy. And says people who commit hate crimes should be prohibited from having guns.
Good lord this is exactly the problem with her. Like,exactly. Is she saying that communities were victimized by sending murderers to prison? It kinda sounds like that! Even her good ideas shy away from directness.
She used data in the plural, for god's sake. :rotate:
Data is a plural noun. Datum is the singular.
Also the very statement you made here tends to miss the forest for the trees. The only things that really do tend to reduce overall violence are the very programs she is talking about in the second paragraph. Interventions before violence occurs is the best place to reduce violence.
These communities were and still are victimized by the drug war and over aggressive policing strategies such as stop and frisk.
The thing is, she's at least partially right but the presentation is a mess. She doesn't call out stop-and-frisk, doesn't approach the issue directly.. Why not
"Communities already traumatized by gun violence were doubly victimized by over-aggressive policing that unfairly and unjustly jailed minority youths for minor offenses, and sometimes for no offense at all. We've got a chance to..."
Also, and we both know this, nobody who says 'datum' in public gets elected President. :P
Does there really need to be a specific distinction between saying “stop-and-frisk” instead of “over-aggressive policing”. They describe the same kinds of actions, S&F is just one particular kind of over-aggressive policing.
It’s an important subject, but it seems like you’re splitting hairs.
Both of those phrases were mine/Mazzy's; Warren says neither of them.
Warren's phrase was "increased policing and stricter sentencing", a far less direct presentation.
I mean.
That's a pretty accurate assessment of the problem. Instead of addressing the root causes of crime and violence, we use "increased policing and stricter sentencing" to throw more folks in jail and leave them there until they're good and broken, while also making sure that once you are convicted of a crime, your life is basically fucked.
I honestly think she does an exceptional job of balancing clear language and accurate summation. She doesn't quite pull off soaring oratory, but she's great at making you nod along with her points, and she obviously knows what the fuck she's talking about on any given subject.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Also a specifically minority justice angle to his plan, yet another thing notably lacking from the 'front runners'.
This is not true. Pick a Warren plan at random on her Medium page. I will guarantee there's an element specifically targeted to narrow the wealth gap or justice gap or voting gap or whatever.
A rising progressive tide lifts all boats eh? Not really dude.
Gun Violence - one mention of minorities, in a paragraph related to racial violence. Nothing about addressing gun crime in minority communities, gang violence, none of it.
Maybe we're starting to sniff out why she doesn't resonate with black Americans...
Maybe because associating minority populations and "gang violence" is not a thing that should be part of a minority justice angle in a policy plan?
Nonetheless, she calls it out:
"And Black and Latinx Americans have borne the brunt of the gun violence tragedy in our country. In the past, those statistics have been used to justify increased policing and strict sentencing laws. Communities already traumatized by gun violence were doubly victimized by policies that locked up their young people and threw away the key. We’ve got a chance to show that we’ve learned from the past and to chart a new path. It starts by acknowledging that gun violence is a public health crisis, one that cannot be solved solely by the criminal justice system."
And more:
"The data in urban communities indicate that the majority of violence is perpetrated by a small number of offenders, and many cities have found success with programs that identify those at highest risk of becoming the victim or perpetrator of a violent gun crime, then employing strategies to interrupt the cycle of violence before it escalates. Programs that engage the surrounding community, employ mediation to prevent retaliation, build trust with law enforcement, and provide needed long-term social services have been proven to de-escalate tensions and dramatically reduce violence. As president, I’ll establish a grant program to invest in and pilot these types of evidence-based intervention programs at scale."
She also specifically calls out white nationalism in her gun policy. And says people who commit hate crimes should be prohibited from having guns.
Good lord this is exactly the problem with her. Like,exactly. Is she saying that communities were victimized by sending murderers to prison? It kinda sounds like that! Even her good ideas shy away from directness.
She used data in the plural, for god's sake. :rotate:
You claimed she didn't address "gang violence," but she did.
If you want to quibble about which words she uses that's a different issue. Personally I'm pretty glad the loaded term "gang violence" is nowhere in her policy statement.
you are her audience though. It's no shock that an erudite professional with a graduate degree likes her papers.
Warren is struggling with people for whom "gang violence" is not a loaded term, it's the thing you call shit that happens on their block all the time. But, even granting that, the fact that she backs into calling the problem a public health issue instead does not lend much credence to the argument that Warren is not speaking to minority communities.
I feel like I need to once again clarify that I'll happily vote for Warren, and I'm very very grateful that she's putting so much effort into dragging our discourse toward actually arguing about policy. She's set the bar for what this ought to look like at least in structure if not in substance, and we're all better for it.
Also a specifically minority justice angle to his plan, yet another thing notably lacking from the 'front runners'.
This is not true. Pick a Warren plan at random on her Medium page. I will guarantee there's an element specifically targeted to narrow the wealth gap or justice gap or voting gap or whatever.
A rising progressive tide lifts all boats eh? Not really dude.
Gun Violence - one mention of minorities, in a paragraph related to racial violence. Nothing about addressing gun crime in minority communities, gang violence, none of it.
Maybe we're starting to sniff out why she doesn't resonate with black Americans...
Maybe because associating minority populations and "gang violence" is not a thing that should be part of a minority justice angle in a policy plan?
Nonetheless, she calls it out:
"And Black and Latinx Americans have borne the brunt of the gun violence tragedy in our country. In the past, those statistics have been used to justify increased policing and strict sentencing laws. Communities already traumatized by gun violence were doubly victimized by policies that locked up their young people and threw away the key. We’ve got a chance to show that we’ve learned from the past and to chart a new path. It starts by acknowledging that gun violence is a public health crisis, one that cannot be solved solely by the criminal justice system."
And more:
"The data in urban communities indicate that the majority of violence is perpetrated by a small number of offenders, and many cities have found success with programs that identify those at highest risk of becoming the victim or perpetrator of a violent gun crime, then employing strategies to interrupt the cycle of violence before it escalates. Programs that engage the surrounding community, employ mediation to prevent retaliation, build trust with law enforcement, and provide needed long-term social services have been proven to de-escalate tensions and dramatically reduce violence. As president, I’ll establish a grant program to invest in and pilot these types of evidence-based intervention programs at scale."
She also specifically calls out white nationalism in her gun policy. And says people who commit hate crimes should be prohibited from having guns.
Good lord this is exactly the problem with her. Like,exactly. Is she saying that communities were victimized by sending murderers to prison? It kinda sounds like that! Even her good ideas shy away from directness.
She used data in the plural, for god's sake. :rotate:
You claimed she didn't address "gang violence," but she did.
If you want to quibble about which words she uses that's a different issue. Personally I'm pretty glad the loaded term "gang violence" is nowhere in her policy statement.
you are her audience though. It's no shock that an erudite professional with a graduate degree likes her papers.
Warren is struggling with people for whom "gang violence" is not a loaded term, it's the thing you call shit that happens on their block all the time. But, even granting that, the fact that she backs into calling the problem a public health issue instead does not lend much credence to the argument that Warren is not speaking to minority communities.
She's speaking to you about minority communities.
Go back to the top of the quote tree. You said other front runners don't have a minority justice angle to their plan (on criminal justice). I think that's demonstrably not true. That's the point I was trying to make. Note in one of my posts I said I don't know if her policy positions including minority justice advocacy is actually moving the dial with minority voters or not, but to claim it's not there is incorrect.
Now is anyone else specifically calling for payments directly to people previously convicted of marijuana crimes? No, you're right, Beto is the only one doing that.
Also this?
Warren is struggling with people for whom "gang violence" is not a loaded term, it's the thing you call shit that happens on their block all the time.
Assumes an awful lot and I'm not going to get into it but maybe rethink what you're actually saying here.
Also a specifically minority justice angle to his plan, yet another thing notably lacking from the 'front runners'.
This is not true. Pick a Warren plan at random on her Medium page. I will guarantee there's an element specifically targeted to narrow the wealth gap or justice gap or voting gap or whatever.
A rising progressive tide lifts all boats eh? Not really dude.
Gun Violence - one mention of minorities, in a paragraph related to racial violence. Nothing about addressing gun crime in minority communities, gang violence, none of it.
Maybe we're starting to sniff out why she doesn't resonate with black Americans...
Maybe because associating minority populations and "gang violence" is not a thing that should be part of a minority justice angle in a policy plan?
Nonetheless, she calls it out:
"And Black and Latinx Americans have borne the brunt of the gun violence tragedy in our country. In the past, those statistics have been used to justify increased policing and strict sentencing laws. Communities already traumatized by gun violence were doubly victimized by policies that locked up their young people and threw away the key. We’ve got a chance to show that we’ve learned from the past and to chart a new path. It starts by acknowledging that gun violence is a public health crisis, one that cannot be solved solely by the criminal justice system."
And more:
"The data in urban communities indicate that the majority of violence is perpetrated by a small number of offenders, and many cities have found success with programs that identify those at highest risk of becoming the victim or perpetrator of a violent gun crime, then employing strategies to interrupt the cycle of violence before it escalates. Programs that engage the surrounding community, employ mediation to prevent retaliation, build trust with law enforcement, and provide needed long-term social services have been proven to de-escalate tensions and dramatically reduce violence. As president, I’ll establish a grant program to invest in and pilot these types of evidence-based intervention programs at scale."
She also specifically calls out white nationalism in her gun policy. And says people who commit hate crimes should be prohibited from having guns.
Good lord this is exactly the problem with her. Like,exactly. Is she saying that communities were victimized by sending murderers to prison? It kinda sounds like that! Even her good ideas shy away from directness.
She used data in the plural, for god's sake. :rotate:
Data is a plural noun. Datum is the singular.
Also the very statement you made here tends to miss the forest for the trees. The only things that really do tend to reduce overall violence are the very programs she is talking about in the second paragraph. Interventions before violence occurs is the best place to reduce violence.
These communities were and still are victimized by the drug war and over aggressive policing strategies such as stop and frisk.
The thing is, she's at least partially right but the presentation is a mess. She doesn't call out stop-and-frisk, doesn't approach the issue directly.. Why not
"Communities already traumatized by gun violence were doubly victimized by over-aggressive policing that unfairly and unjustly jailed minority youths for minor offenses, and sometimes for no offense at all. We've got a chance to..."
Also, and we both know this, nobody who says 'datum' in public gets elected President. :P
Does there really need to be a specific distinction between saying “stop-and-frisk” instead of “over-aggressive policing”. They describe the same kinds of actions, S&F is just one particular kind of over-aggressive policing.
It’s an important subject, but it seems like you’re splitting hairs.
Both of those phrases were mine/Mazzy's; Warren says neither of them.
Warren's phrase was "increased policing and stricter sentencing", a far less direct presentation.
I mean.
That's a pretty accurate assessment of the problem. Instead of addressing the root causes of crime and violence, we use "increased policing and stricter sentencing" to throw more folks in jail and leave them there until they're good and broken, while also making sure that once you are convicted of a crime, your life is basically fucked.
I honestly think she does an exceptional job of balancing clear language and accurate summation. She doesn't quite pull off soaring oratory, but she's great at making you nod along with her points, and she obviously knows what the fuck she's talking about on any given subject.
I hope your feeling gets more widespread as the campaign goes on.
Well, actually I hope Beto squashes Biden and Bernie and they have a spirited campaign that she loses, but I'll take either one.
people are not stupid, they're just too preoccupied with the problems immediately in front of them to be interested in abstractions
i mean it's frustrating that nobody really cares about e.g. climate change but getting mad at voters for it is not helpful, you just have to work with what you've got. the liberal idea that you can educate people into caring more is basically misguided, it's more effective to appeal to the shit that people already care about than trying to get them to care about something different
Also a specifically minority justice angle to his plan, yet another thing notably lacking from the 'front runners'.
This is not true. Pick a Warren plan at random on her Medium page. I will guarantee there's an element specifically targeted to narrow the wealth gap or justice gap or voting gap or whatever.
A rising progressive tide lifts all boats eh? Not really dude.
Gun Violence - one mention of minorities, in a paragraph related to racial violence. Nothing about addressing gun crime in minority communities, gang violence, none of it.
Maybe we're starting to sniff out why she doesn't resonate with black Americans...
Maybe because associating minority populations and "gang violence" is not a thing that should be part of a minority justice angle in a policy plan?
Nonetheless, she calls it out:
"And Black and Latinx Americans have borne the brunt of the gun violence tragedy in our country. In the past, those statistics have been used to justify increased policing and strict sentencing laws. Communities already traumatized by gun violence were doubly victimized by policies that locked up their young people and threw away the key. We’ve got a chance to show that we’ve learned from the past and to chart a new path. It starts by acknowledging that gun violence is a public health crisis, one that cannot be solved solely by the criminal justice system."
And more:
"The data in urban communities indicate that the majority of violence is perpetrated by a small number of offenders, and many cities have found success with programs that identify those at highest risk of becoming the victim or perpetrator of a violent gun crime, then employing strategies to interrupt the cycle of violence before it escalates. Programs that engage the surrounding community, employ mediation to prevent retaliation, build trust with law enforcement, and provide needed long-term social services have been proven to de-escalate tensions and dramatically reduce violence. As president, I’ll establish a grant program to invest in and pilot these types of evidence-based intervention programs at scale."
She also specifically calls out white nationalism in her gun policy. And says people who commit hate crimes should be prohibited from having guns.
Good lord this is exactly the problem with her. Like,exactly. Is she saying that communities were victimized by sending murderers to prison? It kinda sounds like that! Even her good ideas shy away from directness.
She used data in the plural, for god's sake. :rotate:
You claimed she didn't address "gang violence," but she did.
If you want to quibble about which words she uses that's a different issue. Personally I'm pretty glad the loaded term "gang violence" is nowhere in her policy statement.
you are her audience though. It's no shock that an erudite professional with a graduate degree likes her papers.
Warren is struggling with people for whom "gang violence" is not a loaded term, it's the thing you call shit that happens on their block all the time. But, even granting that, the fact that she backs into calling the problem a public health issue instead does not lend much credence to the argument that Warren is not speaking to minority communities.
She's speaking to you about minority communities.
Go back to the top of the quote tree. You said other front runners don't have a minority justice angle to their plan (on criminal justice). I think that's demonstrably not true. That's the point I was trying to make. Note in one of my posts I said I don't know if her policy positions including minority justice advocacy is actually moving the dial with minority voters or not, but to claim it's not there is incorrect.
Now is anyone else specifically calling for payments directly to people previously convicted of marijuana crimes? No, you're right, Beto is the only one doing that.
Also this?
Warren is struggling with people for whom "gang violence" is not a loaded term, it's the thing you call shit that happens on their block all the time.
Assumes an awful lot and I'm not going to get into it but maybe rethink what you're actually saying here.
I just don't agree with you, I think it has the shape of advocacy (sometimes) but not the substance.
And I think I was sloppy with pronouns but my point is that the the message she's putting out in these papers is not one of minority justice. It's one of justice generally, assuming you can parse it properly and forgive the academic nature of the argument.
I am kinda on board with it, tbh, at least in part, but I don't think it's the message she needs in order to court that wing of the party. Polling agrees, though as we've said it's mostly noise right now.
i don't understand the idea that warren is a good speaker at all
partly because i think liberal capitalism is a fundamentally creepy ideology, but also i was fully prepared to give her a pass until i actually sat down and listened to some of her speeches. she sounds like she's about to cry all the time, it's weird. also i don't want to hear any more cutesy stories about growing up in oklahoma
Also a specifically minority justice angle to his plan, yet another thing notably lacking from the 'front runners'.
This is not true. Pick a Warren plan at random on her Medium page. I will guarantee there's an element specifically targeted to narrow the wealth gap or justice gap or voting gap or whatever.
A rising progressive tide lifts all boats eh? Not really dude.
Gun Violence - one mention of minorities, in a paragraph related to racial violence. Nothing about addressing gun crime in minority communities, gang violence, none of it.
Maybe we're starting to sniff out why she doesn't resonate with black Americans...
Maybe because associating minority populations and "gang violence" is not a thing that should be part of a minority justice angle in a policy plan?
Nonetheless, she calls it out:
"And Black and Latinx Americans have borne the brunt of the gun violence tragedy in our country. In the past, those statistics have been used to justify increased policing and strict sentencing laws. Communities already traumatized by gun violence were doubly victimized by policies that locked up their young people and threw away the key. We’ve got a chance to show that we’ve learned from the past and to chart a new path. It starts by acknowledging that gun violence is a public health crisis, one that cannot be solved solely by the criminal justice system."
And more:
"The data in urban communities indicate that the majority of violence is perpetrated by a small number of offenders, and many cities have found success with programs that identify those at highest risk of becoming the victim or perpetrator of a violent gun crime, then employing strategies to interrupt the cycle of violence before it escalates. Programs that engage the surrounding community, employ mediation to prevent retaliation, build trust with law enforcement, and provide needed long-term social services have been proven to de-escalate tensions and dramatically reduce violence. As president, I’ll establish a grant program to invest in and pilot these types of evidence-based intervention programs at scale."
She also specifically calls out white nationalism in her gun policy. And says people who commit hate crimes should be prohibited from having guns.
Good lord this is exactly the problem with her. Like,exactly. Is she saying that communities were victimized by sending murderers to prison? It kinda sounds like that! Even her good ideas shy away from directness.
She used data in the plural, for god's sake. :rotate:
You claimed she didn't address "gang violence," but she did.
If you want to quibble about which words she uses that's a different issue. Personally I'm pretty glad the loaded term "gang violence" is nowhere in her policy statement.
you are her audience though. It's no shock that an erudite professional with a graduate degree likes her papers.
Warren is struggling with people for whom "gang violence" is not a loaded term, it's the thing you call shit that happens on their block all the time. But, even granting that, the fact that she backs into calling the problem a public health issue instead does not lend much credence to the argument that Warren is not speaking to minority communities.
She's speaking to you about minority communities.
Go back to the top of the quote tree. You said other front runners don't have a minority justice angle to their plan (on criminal justice). I think that's demonstrably not true. That's the point I was trying to make. Note in one of my posts I said I don't know if her policy positions including minority justice advocacy is actually moving the dial with minority voters or not, but to claim it's not there is incorrect.
Now is anyone else specifically calling for payments directly to people previously convicted of marijuana crimes? No, you're right, Beto is the only one doing that.
Also this?
Warren is struggling with people for whom "gang violence" is not a loaded term, it's the thing you call shit that happens on their block all the time.
Assumes an awful lot and I'm not going to get into it but maybe rethink what you're actually saying here.
I just don't agree with you, I think it has the shape of advocacy (sometimes) but not the substance.
And I think I was sloppy with pronouns but my point is that the the message she's putting out in these papers is not one of minority justice. It's one of justice generally, assuming you can parse it properly and forgive the academic nature of the argument.
I am kinda on board with it, tbh, at least in part, but I don't think it's the message she needs in order to court that wing of the party. Polling agrees, though as we've said it's mostly noise right now.
I mean, she's putting out stuff that's whollyfocused on minority justice. Idk man. If your argument is more about the way she's saying things and how that's inaccessible to people, alright I guess I disagree.
i don't understand the idea that warren is a good speaker at all
partly because i think liberal capitalism is a fundamentally creepy ideology, but also i was fully prepared to give her a pass until i actually sat down and listened to some of her speeches. she sounds like she's about to cry all the time, it's weird. also i don't want to hear any more cutesy stories about growing up in oklahoma
Said this before, but this "woman sound bad" stuff is probably in no small part due to technology being made by men, for men.
Also, this is subjective, but I have no idea why you think she's on the verge of tears. She sounds normal to me. Also also, it is very telling that we never hear this about men unless it's because they're actively sick and have sore throats or something.
+28
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
i don't understand the idea that warren is a good speaker at all
partly because i think liberal capitalism is a fundamentally creepy ideology, but also i was fully prepared to give her a pass until i actually sat down and listened to some of her speeches. she sounds like she's about to cry all the time, it's weird. also i don't want to hear any more cutesy stories about growing up in oklahoma
Said this before, but this "woman sound bad" stuff is probably in no small part due to technology being made by men, for men.
Also, this is subjective, but I have no idea why you think she's on the verge of tears. She sounds normal to me. Also also, it is very telling that we never hear this about men unless it's because they're actively sick and have sore throats or something.
And even then. Like, Bernie at the last debate sounded like he felt like garbage, but that isn't really what people talked about with him.
there's plenty of female politicians who i think have perfectly normal voices
also bernie's whole aesthetic in the last debate was entirely off the chain, he sounded like an ancient mummy returned from the grave to warn us all about the phararoh's curse. i'm pretty sure i said so at the time. everyone talked about it a lot in fact
Warren definitely sounds like she’s about to burst into tears, it’s not just him.
I have to wonder if maybe it’s a learned behavior. If people treat you better or you get special treatment every time you talk like you’re about to cry, you might just end up getting conditioned to talk like that all the time.
Whatever it is, it wouldn’t be a good look against Trump, and I suggest she start getting some speech training early.
I don't really hear this idiosyncrasy in her speech, but I wear beyerdynamic studio monitors with an external amp and DAC because I'm a tool, so I have an advantage when it comes to discerning high frequency ranges. Also, I still hear yanny more than laurel, meaning that senile presbycusis hasn't overtaken my ability to detect high pitched sounds. If there's a speech sample where this is apparent, I'd like to take a listen.
Older people can develop spastic problems of the vocal cords (or they don't) for a variety of reasons. What I'm listening for is most apparent in cases of spasmodic dysphonia, obviously exaggerated, but a good reference for detecting minor speech pathology. There is a little bit in Ms. Warren's voice, but nowhere near pathologic.
How is this relevant? It's relevant because it's not really relevant. The major complaint of the headphones I wear is that the mid-high frequency ranges are too pronounced, causing ear fatigue. People can have chronic medical issues of within normal severity that affect their speech as they age. The former effect can be modified by getting used to the stimulus, and the latter effect can be slightly helped by speech training, but not really. None of this has much to do with the leadership quality of an individual, and the tendency of society to infer value from the character of speech is not well correlated with who makes a good leader. You should fight that tendency if you don't want to be duped.
However, I do appreciate the difficulty of having to listen to speeches. I hate podcasts and one-sided conversations in general and will look for transcripts of videos or speeches that are important for me to know.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
To be fair, I can see how Warren's voice sounds a little weepy. I think it's just because she's passionate about what she's saying, and I don't find it offputting at all, but she has an emotional cadence to her voice that isn't just "normal woman voice".
I think the problem is less in noticing it and more in associating it with negative gender based connotations, though. Kind of like Bernie can get away with sounding angry all the time, but if Obama had sounded like that, it would've really hurt his chances, because black men don't get to sound angry. Similarly, women don't get to sound emotional.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This conversation about how Warren sounds when she speaks is super fucking gross tbh
Especially implying that she talks the way you think she does to get special treatment
Frankly it’s ridiculous and sexist
Speech is the most complex output a human can produce, and it's one of those things where the depth of subconscious and unconscious processing going on in our brains is so primordial that it is hard to realize how much a person sounds actually affects us. I think recognizing that you have a problem with someone's voice is actually healthy, and education can help redirect amateur theories trying to explain this reaction.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
i don't think bernie does get away with sounding angry all the time. everyone clowns on him for it constantly, it's like the main thing people don't like about him
male politicians also frequently sound bad over open air PA systems, because it's pretty difficult to project a speaking voice over an indeterminate area and have it sound good to all listeners at all positions. This is especially true for campaign stops where the setup is being thrown together probably day of and is not tested very extensively.
and (with a handful of notable exceptions) people mostly get that as it pertains to male candidates. Every politician does any number of events using shitty PA systems but only for women candidates does the sound of their voice seem to be a problem for people.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I watched a bit of Warren’s NYC speech and hearing her as opposed to just reading her just made me like her more. And I’m a Bernie fan in part because I like his angry old man thing.
I think Warren’s speech patterns are fine.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+5
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Bill de Blasio is ending his campaign for President.
Bill de Blasio is ending his campaign for President.
I saw that pop up this morning and was like, he is still running?
He never should have run. He should have stayed on as mayor of NYC and tried to run as governor of NY in a few years when Cuomo's term is up. Now he'll be lucky if NYC re-elects him.
there's plenty of female politicians who i think have perfectly normal voices
also bernie's whole aesthetic in the last debate was entirely off the chain, he sounded like an ancient mummy returned from the grave to warn us all about the phararoh's curse. i'm pretty sure i said so at the time. everyone talked about it a lot in fact
Bernie was sick. Also, like it says in that article, a lot of female politicians get vocal training so you finding some to be normal is not necessarily a dismissal of the technological bias.
Bill de Blasio is ending his campaign for President.
I saw that pop up this morning and was like, he is still running?
He never should have run. He should have stayed on as mayor of NYC and tried to run as governor of NY in a few years when Cuomo's term is up. Now he'll be lucky if NYC re-elects him.
Yes, he should follow in Cuomo's footsteps by securing the governorship so he can also Not Run for President.
I'm actually surprised Cuomo had the sense to stay out of the clown car this year.
Jokes aside, the Democrats must figure out a way to appeal to rural poor mostly white voters if they want to win, it is the only way they will win as long as the electoral college is a thing
Bill de Blasio is ending his campaign for President.
I saw that pop up this morning and was like, he is still running?
He never should have run. He should have stayed on as mayor of NYC and tried to run as governor of NY in a few years when Cuomo's term is up. Now he'll be lucky if NYC re-elects him.
De Blasio on paper looks like a guy you want in a governors mansion or the Senate.
De Blasio the actual person you don't want to run for school board, let alone anything where people might associate him with the Democratic party.
Dude sucks out loud.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Jokes aside, the Democrats must figure out a way to appeal to rural poor mostly white voters if they want to win, it is the only way they will win as long as the electoral college is a thing
Problem is, these guys seem to be single issue voters on the ol' racism. Only Biden has an advantage there.
+7
Options
CaptainPeacockBoard Game HoarderTop o' the LakeRegistered Userregular
Jokes aside, the Democrats must figure out a way to appeal to rural poor mostly white voters if they want to win, it is the only way they will win as long as the electoral college is a thing
And it's not going away any time soon
Kind of hard to appeal to people who've been told constantly by authority figures they implicitly trust that the dems are coming to take their guns and money.
Cluck cluck, gibber gibber, my old man's a mushroom, etc.
Jokes aside, the Democrats must figure out a way to appeal to rural poor mostly white voters if they want to win, it is the only way they will win as long as the electoral college is a thing
And it's not going away any time soon
Kind of hard to appeal to people who've been told constantly by authority figures they implicitly trust that the dems are coming to take their guns and money.
While making abortions mandatory or whatever bullshit they are saying now.
In a Post Blue Wave/Women's March 2018 world, I think our need to appeal to the true minority is overrated. Warren should be raising the banner for an even bigger blue wave.
Posts
I mean.
That's a pretty accurate assessment of the problem. Instead of addressing the root causes of crime and violence, we use "increased policing and stricter sentencing" to throw more folks in jail and leave them there until they're good and broken, while also making sure that once you are convicted of a crime, your life is basically fucked.
I honestly think she does an exceptional job of balancing clear language and accurate summation. She doesn't quite pull off soaring oratory, but she's great at making you nod along with her points, and she obviously knows what the fuck she's talking about on any given subject.
Elki where you at
you are her audience though. It's no shock that an erudite professional with a graduate degree likes her papers.
Warren is struggling with people for whom "gang violence" is not a loaded term, it's the thing you call shit that happens on their block all the time. But, even granting that, the fact that she backs into calling the problem a public health issue instead does not lend much credence to the argument that Warren is not speaking to minority communities.
She's speaking to you about minority communities.
I just think she won't beat Trump.
Go back to the top of the quote tree. You said other front runners don't have a minority justice angle to their plan (on criminal justice). I think that's demonstrably not true. That's the point I was trying to make. Note in one of my posts I said I don't know if her policy positions including minority justice advocacy is actually moving the dial with minority voters or not, but to claim it's not there is incorrect.
Now is anyone else specifically calling for payments directly to people previously convicted of marijuana crimes? No, you're right, Beto is the only one doing that.
Also this?
Assumes an awful lot and I'm not going to get into it but maybe rethink what you're actually saying here.
I hope your feeling gets more widespread as the campaign goes on.
Well, actually I hope Beto squashes Biden and Bernie and they have a spirited campaign that she loses, but I'll take either one.
i mean it's frustrating that nobody really cares about e.g. climate change but getting mad at voters for it is not helpful, you just have to work with what you've got. the liberal idea that you can educate people into caring more is basically misguided, it's more effective to appeal to the shit that people already care about than trying to get them to care about something different
Up front, slightly right, a pretty nice spot on be grass.
I just don't agree with you, I think it has the shape of advocacy (sometimes) but not the substance.
And I think I was sloppy with pronouns but my point is that the the message she's putting out in these papers is not one of minority justice. It's one of justice generally, assuming you can parse it properly and forgive the academic nature of the argument.
I am kinda on board with it, tbh, at least in part, but I don't think it's the message she needs in order to court that wing of the party. Polling agrees, though as we've said it's mostly noise right now.
partly because i think liberal capitalism is a fundamentally creepy ideology, but also i was fully prepared to give her a pass until i actually sat down and listened to some of her speeches. she sounds like she's about to cry all the time, it's weird. also i don't want to hear any more cutesy stories about growing up in oklahoma
I mean, she's putting out stuff that's wholly focused on minority justice. Idk man. If your argument is more about the way she's saying things and how that's inaccessible to people, alright I guess I disagree.
Said this before, but this "woman sound bad" stuff is probably in no small part due to technology being made by men, for men.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/a-century-of-shrill-how-bias-in-technology-has-hurt-womens-voices
Also, this is subjective, but I have no idea why you think she's on the verge of tears. She sounds normal to me. Also also, it is very telling that we never hear this about men unless it's because they're actively sick and have sore throats or something.
And even then. Like, Bernie at the last debate sounded like he felt like garbage, but that isn't really what people talked about with him.
also bernie's whole aesthetic in the last debate was entirely off the chain, he sounded like an ancient mummy returned from the grave to warn us all about the phararoh's curse. i'm pretty sure i said so at the time. everyone talked about it a lot in fact
I have to wonder if maybe it’s a learned behavior. If people treat you better or you get special treatment every time you talk like you’re about to cry, you might just end up getting conditioned to talk like that all the time.
Whatever it is, it wouldn’t be a good look against Trump, and I suggest she start getting some speech training early.
She'd do great against Trump, she's already had a bunch of practice dealing with petulant children.
Older people can develop spastic problems of the vocal cords (or they don't) for a variety of reasons. What I'm listening for is most apparent in cases of spasmodic dysphonia, obviously exaggerated, but a good reference for detecting minor speech pathology. There is a little bit in Ms. Warren's voice, but nowhere near pathologic.
How is this relevant? It's relevant because it's not really relevant. The major complaint of the headphones I wear is that the mid-high frequency ranges are too pronounced, causing ear fatigue. People can have chronic medical issues of within normal severity that affect their speech as they age. The former effect can be modified by getting used to the stimulus, and the latter effect can be slightly helped by speech training, but not really. None of this has much to do with the leadership quality of an individual, and the tendency of society to infer value from the character of speech is not well correlated with who makes a good leader. You should fight that tendency if you don't want to be duped.
However, I do appreciate the difficulty of having to listen to speeches. I hate podcasts and one-sided conversations in general and will look for transcripts of videos or speeches that are important for me to know.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Especially implying that she talks the way you think she does to get special treatment
Frankly it’s ridiculous and sexist
I think the problem is less in noticing it and more in associating it with negative gender based connotations, though. Kind of like Bernie can get away with sounding angry all the time, but if Obama had sounded like that, it would've really hurt his chances, because black men don't get to sound angry. Similarly, women don't get to sound emotional.
Speech is the most complex output a human can produce, and it's one of those things where the depth of subconscious and unconscious processing going on in our brains is so primordial that it is hard to realize how much a person sounds actually affects us. I think recognizing that you have a problem with someone's voice is actually healthy, and education can help redirect amateur theories trying to explain this reaction.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'd be shocked if it wasn't happening or planned to happen, but that goes for any candidate.
and (with a handful of notable exceptions) people mostly get that as it pertains to male candidates. Every politician does any number of events using shitty PA systems but only for women candidates does the sound of their voice seem to be a problem for people.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I watched a bit of Warren’s NYC speech and hearing her as opposed to just reading her just made me like her more. And I’m a Bernie fan in part because I like his angry old man thing.
I think Warren’s speech patterns are fine.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I saw that pop up this morning and was like, he is still running?
He never should have run. He should have stayed on as mayor of NYC and tried to run as governor of NY in a few years when Cuomo's term is up. Now he'll be lucky if NYC re-elects him.
Bernie was sick. Also, like it says in that article, a lot of female politicians get vocal training so you finding some to be normal is not necessarily a dismissal of the technological bias.
Yes, he should follow in Cuomo's footsteps by securing the governorship so he can also Not Run for President.
I'm actually surprised Cuomo had the sense to stay out of the clown car this year.
Maybe Booker can be Warren's VP and read her speeches for her, while she mimes.
And it's not going away any time soon
De Blasio on paper looks like a guy you want in a governors mansion or the Senate.
De Blasio the actual person you don't want to run for school board, let alone anything where people might associate him with the Democratic party.
Dude sucks out loud.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Problem is, these guys seem to be single issue voters on the ol' racism. Only Biden has an advantage there.
Kind of hard to appeal to people who've been told constantly by authority figures they implicitly trust that the dems are coming to take their guns and money.
While making abortions mandatory or whatever bullshit they are saying now.