|
Oh Snapple! posted:Someone in this forum once joked that American feminism is about putting women in a position to oppress the underclass and I sometimes fear that this was not only not a joke for a chunk of feminists, but applies to other social movements as well. Liberalism is about supporting the rights of women, minorities and the lgbt community ...to step on the necks of the poor NumberLast has issued a correction as of 23:21 on Nov 10, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
Pick posted:American feminism doesn't mean anything at present, because it has literally no cohesive identity or belief, and is not expressed in any coherent movement. And the well's so completely loving poisoned on discourse about it, both by the people with weird fringe viewpoints trying to co-opt the whole movement, and by the fuckers on the alt-right who've gleefully co-opted any possible term you could use to describe to the weird-fringe-viewpoint people and started using it to apply to 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
NumberLast posted:Liberalism is about supporting the rights if women, minorities and the lgbt community People I saw on this forum are a big part of why that fear exists~
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:People I saw on this forum are a big part of why that fear exists~ It wasn't a joke 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:I'm only going to respond to this because this sums up how wrong about everything you are and incapable of self examination. You've mistakenly assumed I'm a neoliberal Clintonite, I'm an actual 'Sanders is just a social democrat' socialist and have advocated the democratic party move left economically to recover from this debacle from my first substantial post in this thread. I'm just sceptical of the degree to which the victory this will deliver will involve winning more than a marginal number of white voters back from Trump outright, rather than improving the collapsed Clinton turnout, and insistent that compromising on racial politics out of a belief it'll make you more palatable to whites as a few have advocated is a bad move.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:And the well's so completely loving poisoned on discourse about it, both by the people with weird fringe viewpoints trying to co-opt the whole movement, and by the fuckers on the alt-right who've gleefully co-opted any possible term you could use to describe to the weird-fringe-viewpoint people and started using it to apply to I remember being at a Republican's house that was playing Fox news. And it went for a comment from a young, African-American co-ed. When she was asked to explain whatever it was that was going on, she went into a string of lingo so dense even I couldn't parse it, with multiple digressions into other intersectional topics. And I remember thinking, holy poo poo. No one can agree with you if they don't even loving know what you are saying. You are probably correct about it, whatever it was, but no one understood it. Pick has issued a correction as of 23:27 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:And the well's so completely loving poisoned on discourse about it, both by the people with weird fringe viewpoints trying to co-opt the whole movement, and by the fuckers on the alt-right who've gleefully co-opted any possible term you could use to describe to the weird-fringe-viewpoint people and started using it to apply to this. you either get the weirdos on twitter who get "triggerd" about everything and want play moral guadian censor or you get some right wing psycho who thinks women are basicaly only usefull as holes and shouldnt ever leave the house with out the MRA equivlant of a burqqa and face covering. gently caress em all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Peel posted:You've mistakenly assumed I'm a neoliberal Clintonite, I'm an actual 'Sanders is just a social democrat' socialist and have advocated the democratic party move left economically to recover from this debacle from my first substantial post in this thread. I'm just sceptical of the degree to which the victory this will deliver will involve winning more than a marginal number of white voters back from Trump outright, rather than improving the collapsed Clinton turnout, and insistent that compromising on racial politics out of a belief it'll make you more palatable to whites as a few have advocated is a bad move. I don't think anyone would suggest you compromise on racial or identity politics; I think that you can't win solely on those issues (and hey, you can't) so maybe include some other elements to your messaging that might appeal to, say, the largest voting bloc in the United States of America
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
saying you oppose racist policies like the muslim ban isn't what turned off white voters it was saying what those white voters are racists
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Peel posted:You've mistakenly assumed I'm a neoliberal Clintonite, I'm an actual 'Sanders is just a social democrat' socialist and have advocated the democratic party move left economically to recover from this debacle from my first substantial post in this thread. I'm just sceptical of the degree to which the victory this will deliver will involve winning more than a marginal number of white voters back from Trump outright, rather than improving the collapsed Clinton turnout, and insistent that compromising on racial politics out of a belief it'll make you more palatable to whites as a few have advocated is a bad move. The bottom line is, there has to be a genuine campaign for socialist policies because they will benefit everyone. It can't be sold as a wonkish policy "product" to seize the now-coveted white working poor demographic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:considering that two straight white Christian men were just elected in recommending the Democrats find some of those are their candidates Stupid. Obama won 2008 and 2012. The Democrats need someone who can fight and campaign and win first and foremost, be they black, white, latino, whatever. Hillary could not and did not fight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:saying you oppose racist policies like the muslim ban isn't what turned off white voters yeah haha this is how the Democrats win in 2020 - if you're white, you're a racist™
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Holy gently caress I forgot that was real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The bottom line is, there has to be a genuine campaign for socialist policies because they will benefit everyone. It can't be sold as a wonkish policy "product" to seize the now-coveted white working poor demographic. This phrase still gives me whiplash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/796838538641833990
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
yells
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
He had some of the best twitter meltdowns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
guts and bolts posted:I don't think anyone would suggest you compromise on racial or identity politics; I think that you can't win solely on those issues (and hey, you can't) so maybe include some other elements to your messaging that might appeal to, say, the largest voting bloc in the United States of America It's not common but at least one person has explicitly advocated so in this thread, and I think it's something even the well-meaning among us can slip toward. And as I said, I think those elements of messaging aren't just important for the white working class specifically. Trump did level with Romney among minorities. That's a shameful state of affairs. Pener Kropoopkin posted:The bottom line is, there has to be a genuine campaign for socialist policies because they will benefit everyone. It can't be sold as a wonkish policy "product" to seize the now-coveted white working poor demographic. Yes, this exactly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
the pushback of the new democrats begins
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Interim chair, sure, but we need leadership that wasn't compromised by corporate America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
I'm glad we're back to being constantly afraid of nukes like this is 1945-1991 again
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
guts and bolts posted:I don't think anyone would suggest you compromise on racial or identity politics; I think that you can't win solely on those issues (and hey, you can't) so maybe include some other elements to your messaging that might appeal to, say, the largest voting bloc in the United States of America Nobody is saying to try to go and do another run solely on those issues unless it turns out like, Trump is literally loving Hitler at which point maybe 100% racial identity politics is the correct answer because gently caress Hitler. But the Hitler comparison makes me think. Hitler got where he was at least in part because he used economic distress and perceived international unfairness to legitimize overt racism and genocide. It might be easier to sell 'we need less identity politics and more genuine inclusive socialism' to minorities when you're selling it as a way to prevent a Hitler figure from hijacking legitimate grievance and turning it against minorities as a weapon. Because we don't just have to sell this to the voters, we have to sell it to the party base as well, and minorities with a strong concern for minority rights are part of that base too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Reminder that an overbroad campaign strategy was like reason #2 Clinton lost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
is he that bad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Interim chair, sure, but we need leadership that wasn't compromised by corporate America. we already have an interim chair, keith ellison wants it and bernie is backing him. dean can eat a bag of dicks
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Reminder that an overbroad campaign strategy was like reason #2 Clinton lost. 50 state is more about supporting local elections so you have grassroots support and take state legislatures than trying to grab every state in a pres run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Pick posted:Oh, and to be honest, there's an equivalent "deplorables" attitude towards second-wave feminists that has driven a lot of them into FYGM territory. People tend to think "political correctness" is a white men v. everybody proposition, and that is a huge oversimplification. A lot of older, 50-something white women do not like being chastised by tattooed, pierced, poly millennial women with undercuts. Whether it's justified or not, knowing as many older women as I do, I am confident this phenomenon is very real. Progressivism can't take women for granted either, and can't condescend to them. A lot of people are pissed at the idea they have to be in lock-step with the loudest voice in the room. That's not an age difference, it's just a moderate versus radical difference. Both me and most of my friends are in the orbit of those issues and we're college students, and I empathize with the people who don't want to get taken for granted, a lot. Mostly because I am one of them. It's expressed differently by different generations, since the younger ones aren't associating the general culture-wide changes that have happened with the social ones that are at fault here, but it's fundamentally the same toxic attitude either way. Being told that I have to be a Marxist or else I'm a traitor to my gender and sexuality doesn't make me feel enthusiastic about left-wing politics, it makes me genuinely consider spitefully leaving the presidential section blank or even protest-voting because I'm in California, it's not like it matters. Considering how election night went, I'm glad that I didn't go through with that because it'd be just my luck that California would somehow go red if I had decided to do nothing. I'm so loving tired between people who want to use me as a political prop to scare their extremist religious wing to the polls and people who want to use me as a political prop to smash the status quo. For the most part, I like the status quo. I'm a traitor for wanting a normal life (admittedly recognizing it's not possible any time soon) where I don't identify in any way as trans, where I can just be a normal, boring-rear end upper middle class tech shithead, where I can find a woman I love and marry her and start a family and live a whitebread normal life without my gender identity or sexuality mattering. The obsession with identity politics is just going to make all of this worse and worse, not better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:we already have an interim chair, keith ellison wants it and bernie is backing him. dean can eat a bag of dicks 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
it's likely that whatever remains of the new democrats will back Dean as an "acceptable" compromise with the progressives. this is the first fight. the civil war is on and you need to start fighting now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Reminder that an overbroad campaign strategy was like reason #2 Clinton lost. Dean's 50 state strategy was basically building up democrats in conservative areas ("Blue Dogs") and having a bottom-up organization rather than a top-down strategy like Clinton's. Even after it went by the wayside for whatever the gently caress happened post-08 it got us dividends in Virginia. I mean don't make him chair by all means but the guy seems to have a pretty good head for campaign strategy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Peel posted:I'm just sceptical of the degree to which the victory this will deliver will involve winning more than a marginal number of white voters back from Trump outright, rather than improving the collapsed Clinton turnout, and insistent that compromising on racial politics out of a belief it'll make you more palatable to whites as a few have advocated is a bad move. Addressing the concerns of poor white Americans is not mutually exclusive with advancing social justice in racial matters. ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS OF POOR WHITE AMERICANS IS NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE WITH ADVANCING SOCIAL JUSTICE IN RACIAL MATTERS. ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS OF POOR WHITE AMERICANS IS NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE WITH ADVANCING SOCIAL JUSTICE IN RACIAL MATTERS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Well What Now posted:Addressing the concerns of poor white Americans is not mutually exclusive with advancing social justice in racial matters. New thread title IMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:we already have an interim chair, keith ellison wants it and bernie is backing him. dean can eat a bag of dicks 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Well What Now posted:Addressing the concerns of poor white Americans is not mutually exclusive with advancing social justice in racial matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:is he that bad? It was reported in January that he became a Pharma lobbyist that may have directly advocated against improving the ACA with Single Payer and other health reform. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/howard-dean-cashing-in-hi_b_12790388.html He is getting rightfully destroyed in the replies to that tweet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Someone else asked, this, but what /is/ the best way to fight against the neoliberal faction of the democratic party. Protests? Calls? Is there some way to get involved with the politics of the party locally? I'm out of school, so it's not like I can just join a campus club. How does someone who up until now has just be like 'eh gently caress it' try and start influencing things (even on a small/regional level).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
SerCypher posted:Someone else asked, this, but what /is/ the best way to fight against the neoliberal faction of the democratic party. Guillotines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
I've always thought Dean's 50-state strategy was a bit overrated, since it ended up giving us a bunch of blue-dog reps and senators who ultimately ended up getting wiped out in Tea Party waves Like, I understand the whole "more and better Dems" concept, but it seems like they only accomplished the first half of that and never really got around to doing the second half
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Zikan posted:it's likely that whatever remains of the new democrats will back Dean as an "acceptable" compromise with the progressives. this is the first fight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
MJ12 posted:Dean's 50 state strategy was basically building up democrats in conservative areas ("Blue Dogs") and having a bottom-up organization rather than a top-down strategy like Clinton's. I don't have a particular opinion on Dean as chair but I'm not sure if committing resources to Oklahoma and Kentucky is going to pay dividends in the short, mid, or even long term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:48
|
|