|
Lightning Knight posted:I'm really curious what you think it would be acceptable for the left to dogwhistle because that whole line of reasoning is massively poo poo I Don't Want to Associate With. Exactly. Like, everyone has to compromise their humanity and their rights to satisfy white people.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
Non Serviam posted:I came to see if the lefties are still blaming anyone but themselves. They are. Cool, you gonna grace us with any more idiotic and oblivious smugposts or was this just a driveby?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You know that many of us who are saying that we need to reevaulate some things after this election actually were Hillary supporters, right? I voted for her in the 2008 primary, for gently caress's sake, and I'm still coming around to accept the fact that she was a bad candidate. Yes, and you aren't the people I was referring to, obviously. I have no problem with people criticizing Hillary Clinton, at least as long as their criticisms are based somewhere near planet earth anyway. I have a problem with people who came in here Wednesday morning and after talking about how they didn't vote or voted Trump/3rd party and now everyone owed them an apology for not electing Bernie-sama, then kept doubling down over and over again on people pointing out this was a really lovely thing to do (and also that it was all the fault of minorities and women and LGBTQ people that Trump was president, and not the fault of the people who actually voted for him or didn't vote at all). Also the people making the argument that Trump winning is better than Clinton because something something ideological purity is more important than a lot of people dying and every last bit of economic and social progress we've been fighting tooth and nail to get and hold on to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
That probably would have driven away even more white moderates, so we would have been in the same position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:50
|
|
are you hillaries still defending abuela? hillary did not lose because of racism, she lost because she was bad. look at all the democratic red meat hillary flat out ignored:
|
Lightning Knight posted:I'm really curious what you think it would be acceptable for the left to dogwhistle because that whole line of reasoning is massively poo poo I Don't Want to Associate With. "Hey everyone, check out this plan to boost the economy and jobs. EVERYONE will benefit from it." And then refine the wording of that idea so that marginalized groups and woke people realize that it means lifting said marginalized groups up in addition to economic policy. If we're truly in a nation of casual bigotry, we're going to have to trick bigots into voting in their best interests even if it means helping minorities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
PKJC posted:Cool, you gonna grace us with any more idiotic and oblivious smugposts or was this just a driveby? What part was inaccurate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:What part was inaccurate? I quoted it
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
How is this in any way bad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:"Hey everyone, check out this plan to boost the economy and jobs. EVERYONE will benefit from it." Ah, you meant reverse dogwhistling. As in dogwhistling to minorities. I feel like that would work in theory but it's a shortcut down a path of downplaying minorities. Like we can't escape the fact that we live in a country that has never atoned for centuries of enslavement, Jim Crow, mass incarceration, and presently murders black Americans at an alarmingly fast rate. We can't escape the fact that we the United States of America hosed Mexico up really bad and those poor people running here are coming to work in fields for subsistence living wages so their children can eat. We can't escape the fact that LGBT people aren't yet full human beings. All of that poo poo needs to be opposed with as much vigor as corporate power and the rich. Scent of Worf posted:How is this in any way bad? Yeah as a Midwesterner, gently caress the Midwest. We're the South without the charm or good cooking to make up for the segregation and racism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:"Hey everyone, check out this plan to boost the economy and jobs. EVERYONE will benefit from it." Give us an example, because racist white people watch the news and as soon as they see you giving the same message to black and brown people, they aren't voting for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I dunno. I strongly subscribe to the notion that you can't just build socialism in one country. Trying to go full FYGM and build your beautiful socialist utopia in just America is a frankly stupid and pointless exercise because it will be torn down from without. Thanks for the response -- I'll certainly consider it. I'm in a weird contradictory place of sympathizing with socialist goals but wanting any path forward to being pragmatic and logistically feasible, and I guess that notion of having more power to help poor Americans (as well as most friends and family being American) has served as a starting point for me to support various policies that aim to protect them at the expense of poor non-Americans. It's not morally consistent or something I'm happy about, but I don't know a viable alternative given our current nation-state system that has a chance of doing so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:I came to see if the lefties are still blaming anyone but themselves. They are. "Ha ha ha, it sure is funny that people are upset about dying, I will sit here and belly laugh about the minorities I'm pretending to care about being the ones that are already suffering for this. Truly, it is the liberals who are to blame for America electing an actual fascist on a platform of white rage and gently caress the browns, ho ho ho."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
negromancer posted:That probably would have driven away even more white moderates, so we would have been in the same position. you keep telling yourself lies like that man. democratic turnout was depressed in all categories except old, rich, and postgrad. hillary could've offered some basic resistance to trump's ideas if she wasn't spouting delirious things like "america's already great" she was a terrible candidate instead of the safe pick she was advertised as. she was complacent and foolish and her choices during this election have brought us to ruin. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-democratic-party-deserves-to-die_us_58236ad5e4b0aac62488cde5
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
PKJC posted:I quoted it Are you questioning the fact that Obama is a war criminal, or that he expanded the surveillance state? Because both things are pretty much self evident. Good job on keeping up the hypocrisy. Keep continuing to defend the Muslims that live in your city, while allowing the ones that live far away to be murdered by your government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:But my question I've posed before is, if all Republicans have to do is throw mud and slime at our candidates insistently and without regard for truth and it will work, what do we do about it? We can't rely on candidates to come from nowhere and be unknown every time. I think Clinton is kind of a special case, to be entirely honest. The right has hated her for longer than I've been able to vote, and I'm probably on the older side of the median age around here. I have otherwise very liberal friends who "just don't trust her," even though they held their noses and voted for her. I don't think that's always sexism, at least not directly. I think it's the result of an absurdly long propaganda campaign that wormed its way into some people's subconscious whether they wanted it to or not. Just look at Obama for a counterpoint. The right spent the last eight years trying to do the same thing to him, but it didn't work because they didn't have enough run up time. negromancer posted:True, but the same argument was made when we moved away from horses and "oh god what are the people who used to shovel all the horse poop gonna do?" Sure, but (gently caress me for saying this) I actually think things are different this time. It's easy to look at each major revolution in automation as its own self contained thing, but I think that we're really just approaching the end game of one long process that started with the industrial revolution. Keeping in mind that I don't think there won't actually be productive things for people to do. I just think eventually there won't be enough economically viable things for a normal labor market to function. I try not to be too pessimistic about this stuff in general since there's plenty of other things to worry about, though. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Suckthemonkey posted:Thanks for the response -- I'll certainly consider it. I'm in a weird contradictory place of sympathizing with socialist goals but wanting any path forward to being pragmatic and logistically feasible, and I guess that notion of having more power to help poor Americans (as well as most friends and family being American) has served as a starting point for me to support various policies that aim to protect them at the expense of poor non-Americans. It's not morally consistent or something I'm happy about, but I don't know a viable alternative given our current nation-state system that has a chance of doing so. I'm pretty much in the same place. I 100% believe democratic market socialism is the way forward but I don't believe that, that path is easy or quick and I have more of a willingness to compromise with less leftist people than I used to. As someone whose family came from Mexico to escape crushing poverty, I am immensely alarmed at the anti-immigrant, FYGMism, nationalistic America first attitude of much of the modern American left. Bernie Sanders opposed easing immigration restrictions and amnesty to prop up white unions and it immensely aggravates me because morally I don't believe the cousins and nieces and nephews I've never met in Mexico are any less worthy of not being poor and destitute than white (or black) Americans here. Nobody deserves to be poor. Regardless of what national borders the rich decided you belong to from birth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you keep telling yourself lies like that man. democratic turnout was depressed in all categories except old, rich, and postgrad. hillary could've offered some basic resistance to trump's ideas if she wasn't spouting delirious things like "america's already great" Hillary is not responsible for people electing Trump. The people who elected Trump by voting for him or not voting against him are. You can't square this circle. A very large amount of people decided that their ideological purity was more important than the lives of marginalized people because Hillary was only 90% of what they wanted instead of 100%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
negromancer posted:Give us an example, because racist white people watch the news and as soon as they see you giving the same message to black and brown people, they aren't voting for you. I don't have one but I don't know how we're otherwise going to swing elections our way without tricking the least egregious racists into voting liberal. The ruse doesn't need to last forever. Boomers are on their way to the grave and the electoral map of under 30 voters was painted blue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:"Ha ha ha, it sure is funny that people are upset about dying, I will sit here and belly laugh about the minorities I'm pretending to care about being the ones that are already suffering for this. Truly, it is the liberals who are to blame for America electing an actual fascist on a platform of white rage and gently caress the browns, ho ho ho." Yes, it is the liberals who did this. They cried wolf for years, they became a laughing stock, alienated middle America, defended their war criminal president, allowed him to continue a truly fascist surveillance policy, nominated a terrible candidate, and now pretend to be about human rights. So, yeah, it IS funny to see you like this, and it is perhaps the one silver lining to the orange menace having been elected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Are you questioning the fact that Obama is a war criminal, or that he expanded the surveillance state? Because both things are pretty much self evident. You assume a) a level of granularity in control of the government on the part of the voter that doesn't bear out in reality, and b) that there are candidates who would not either continue status quo policies that lead them to be war criminals by your chosen metric, or via isolationist withdrawal also lead to millions of dead people in other countries. You think we needed to line up behind Stein or Johnson?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I think Clinton is kind of a special case, to be entirely honest. The right has hated her for longer than I've been able to vote, and I'm probably on the older side of the median age around here. I have otherwise very liberal friends who "just don't trust her," even though they held their noses and voted for her. I don't think that's always sexism, at least not directly. I think it's the result of an absurdly long propaganda campaign that wormed its way into some people's subconscious whether they wanted it to or not. That's fair. What worries me though is that we won't always have Obamas, i.e. candidates that come from basically nowhere and sweep the field with their awesomeness. Eventually we'll have to run somebody a little like Hillary - somebody who has been in the game for awhile - and while it won't ever be as severe the mystical bullshit power Republicans have to delegitimize anyone to the left of Barry Goldwater is very concerning to me. Having a record of accomplishments to run on in America is now officially a bad thing. That's the level of our political discourse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Yes, it is the liberals who did this. They cried wolf for years, they became a laughing stock, alienated middle America, defended their war criminal president, allowed him to continue a truly fascist surveillance policy, nominated a terrible candidate, and now pretend to be about human rights. So the people who tried to stop Trump from being elected are the ones who got him elected, but not the ones who actually voted for him or sat home. Okay! Also it's funny that more marginalized people are going to die because marginalized people died and have been dying but those particular deaths are ones you care about and don't find funny. edit: Also liberals are all totally completely fine with the surveillance state and drone policy and haven't said anything bad about them during Obama's presidency, got it. You have a fascinating reality, but you can go away now that you have proven your rightness. kartikeya fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
PKJC posted:You assume a) a level of granularity in control of the government on the part of the voter that doesn't bear out in reality, and b) that there are candidates who would not either continue status quo policies that lead them to be war criminals by your chosen metric, or via isolationist withdrawal also lead to millions of dead people in other countries. You think we needed to line up behind Stein or Johnson? So your logic here is to support the war criminal you do have? Maybe if there had been a real opposition to those policies the candidate finally chosen by the Democrats would have reflected it, but during Obama's two terms no Democrat criticized him for the same things they criticized Bush for. At least admit you're not about human rights and anti fascism. You just want your guys to be the one doing the stomping.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:So the people who tried to stop Trump from being elected are the ones who got him elected, but not the ones who actually voted for him or sat home. Okay! Also it's funny that more marginalized people are going to die because marginalized people died and have been dying but those particular deaths are ones you care about and don't find funny. Are you one of those who think there will be a Sturmabteilung on the streets now? Lol, OK.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Cross-posting from politoons because it feels relevant to the way the discussion keeps swinging the last two days https://i.imgur.com/VE6Mj1o.jpg
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Are you one of those who think there will be a Sturmabteilung on the streets now? Lol, OK. No, I'm one of those who are paying attention to what Republicans are talking about getting ready to do and have been talking about this entire election season if not longer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:So your logic here is to support the war criminal you do have? Maybe if there had been a real opposition to those policies the candidate finally chosen by the Democrats would have reflected it, but during Obama's two terms no Democrat criticized him for the same things they criticized Bush for. Oh word? And I don't know if you've been told but LF is dead, friend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:So the people who tried to stop Trump from being elected are the ones who got him elected, but not the ones who actually voted for him or sat home. Okay! Also it's funny that more marginalized people are going to die because marginalized people died and have been dying but those particular deaths are ones you care about and don't find funny. Maybe instead of blaming the six million people that stayed home, the DLC should instead try asking them what it was about their chosen candidate's positions and/or history and/or reputation that made them stay home instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
PKJC posted:Cross-posting from politoons because it feels relevant to the way the discussion keeps swinging the last two days I can get behind this. It's everyone's fault, white people shut up and go help non-white people fight the KKK. Seems reasonable. Mister Macys posted:Maybe instead of blaming the six million people that stayed home, the DLC should instead try asking them what it was about their chosen candidate's positions and/or history and/or reputation that made them stay home instead. I mean we know exactly why they stayed home. They decided that some irrelevant quality of Hillary was enough to not vote against fascism. The fix to this problem is to not run Hillary. Too bad that won't matter now because pricks didn't care enough to vote against fascism and the country is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Maybe instead of blaming the six million people that stayed home, the DLC should instead try asking them what it was about their chosen candidate's positions and/or history and/or reputation that made them stay home instead. Maybe those 6 million who stayed home need to evaluate why their ideological purity and/or lack of excitement is more important than prevent social progress being set back decades and real harm coming to people they profess to be allied with. No candidate is perfect and no candidate ever will be, but if you sit on your hands and let poo poo like Trump and a fully republican government happen, knowing full well what that would mean (to people who aren't you, of course), you are an rear end in a top hat and should never claim to be progressive. The party and candidate may have failed politically. The people who allowed the outcome of this election failed morally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
So "fear alone" is enough, in your estimation, to vote for a candidate? Funny how it fails to work more often then. Hmm...
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
PKJC posted:Oh word? And I don't know if you've been told but LF is dead, friend. It must be really sad to live in a reality where you have to be a crazy libertarian to believe your government shouldn't commit war crimes and spy on its citizens. Keep up blaming everyone else for this election. I'm enjoy it thoroughly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
How many people put off by Clinton's reputation and history understood her actual reputation and history and were put off by discomfort with things like her voting record or her being buddies with kissinger vs falsehoods that crept into their consciousness out of the myriad of fake poo poo republicans flung at the wall for decades?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:So "fear alone" is enough, in your estimation, to vote for a candidate? Do you care enough about minorities to vote against the candidate who wants to literally murder them y/n should be enough, yes. Like Hillary wasn't great by any measure but literally the entire basis of progressive leftism is that we care about the disadvantaged enough to fight for them. Taking our ball and going home because we didn't get the candidate we wanted and leaving the disadvantaged out to dry makes you not a progressive leftist. It means you're just FYGM but you aren't yet privileged so you're fighting for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
chumbler posted:Hillary is not responsible for people electing Trump. The people who elected Trump by voting for him or not voting against him are. You can't square this circle. A very large amount of people decided that their ideological purity was more important than the lives of marginalized people because Hillary was only 90% of what they wanted instead of 100%. she's responsible for not driving democratic turn out. she made a ton of choices that depressed our turnout and even drove a small percentage of democratic voters to vote trump (more than her positions drew republicans to her). you guys have been ignoring the basics of a campaign this entire election. people have been telling you you have to inspire voters and hillary specifically refused to do that. it was obvious since bernie's rise from practically unknown to having an arguable seat of power in what remains of the democratic party that economic issues were really loving important this election. hillary could've had an economic AND racial justice platform, but she chose to ignore the former because it conflicted with what corporate america wanted. you keep on going on about people deciding their ideology was worth more than minority lives or something, but that is a facile view. it is ultimately and singularly hillary's responsibility to attract voters if she wants to be president. she figured she could corral voters into voting for her by orchestrating a hillary vs ruin election. her weak platform couldn't draw enough of the democrats who turned out for obama previously though, because she specifically ignored them though, and now we are stuck with the nightmare candidate. can you imagine what would've happened if this election was JEB! vs hillary? she ignored them because she was a fool. that's also why she let an untested algorithm chart the course for her election campaign against trump. if she had run a stronger campaign we would not have had trump. if she wasn't intentionally fostering trump during the primary, we might not have had trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Maybe instead of blaming the six million people that stayed home, the DLC should instead try asking them what it was about their chosen candidate's positions and/or history and/or reputation that made them stay home instead. Hi, I'm not the DNC, I'm someone who didn't choose that candidate but voted to stop the fascist who is wondering how my relatively privileged self and family are going to make it out of the next four years alive, while being horrified at what millions of people who don't have nearly as many protections as we do are going to have to go through because that six million stayed home and decided that none of us were worth stopping Trump for. Maybe you should go talk to the actual DNC instead of browbeating scared people on an internet forum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:https://twitter.com/reuters/status/796994661571239936
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
PKJC posted:How many people put off by Clinton's reputation and history understood her actual reputation and history and were put off by discomfort with things like her voting record or her being buddies with kissinger vs falsehoods that crept into their consciousness out of the myriad of fake poo poo republicans flung at the wall for decades? It's hard to tell. Probably some did indeed not vote for her because she was "guilty of treason" and other insane poo poo like that. There's no question the falsehoods propagated by the Trump campaign played a role.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:It must be really sad to live in a reality where you have to be a crazy libertarian to believe your government shouldn't commit war crimes and spy on its citizens. It sounds pretty cool having magical insight into the beliefs and motivations of people you have never interacted with before, how'd you come by that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
PKJC posted:How many people put off by Clinton's reputation and history understood her actual reputation and history and were put off by discomfort with things like her voting record or her being buddies with kissinger vs falsehoods that crept into their consciousness out of the myriad of fake poo poo republicans flung at the wall for decades? Me but I also voted for her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:21
|
|