|
Mr. Belding posted:Racial purity tests are being endorsed by supposed liberals here and now they are giving each other daps over it. What a world we live in. Asking white dudes to maybe not try and always demand leadership of every movement and to stop and listen to minorities = literally racism against white people, got it.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I like this. As a white progressive arguing mainly with other white progressives, I think this is precisely because the dominant white progressive narrative I keep hearing is, "more outreach to the racists working white class." I'm trying to to use my voice to get the rest of my white progressive voices to shut the gently caress up. The choice I've made is to 1) trust that the new Democratic Party, led by non-white voices, will find a way to run a 50-state strategy that can engage the white working class without selling out or 2) go do with that new party. I won't, however, advocate for a party that gives a single inch to racism, sexism, or xenophobia. Millions upon millions of them voted for Obama (twice) and Clinton. You really think they're all racist and we'll need racism to lure Obama's supporters back?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Atahualpa posted:Looks like Reince is going to be Trump's Chief of Staff and Bannon his Chief Strategist/Senior Counselor. Drain that swamp!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Asking white dudes to maybe not try and always demand leadership of every movement and to stop and listen to minorities = literally racism against white people, got it. The racist self-obsessed white liberals are currently promoting a black muslim as the savior of their party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:If Donald Trump was literally any other politician I would agree, but as we've seen from the past year and a half Trump is in no way, shape, or form your "usual" politician. I could see him running again, but he's also a big baby who changes his mind at the slightest of things. I don't think anyone can guess at the calculus that will be in his mind four years from now when he has to compare the work of the office (which he hates already) to the $$$ he can make going back to Trump Tower. He is now 'not a "usual"' president. He can and does have teams of staffers working on his re election campaign *(edit: Actually lets say by mid 2017) which he no longer has to run personally or pay for. You seem to be grasping at all these things that say he can't handle it, or some other spectacular personal failure that will.. make him not want to continue being president? He has achieved the epitome of his being, here. I would say the likelihood of anything else is incredibly low given that he will now have a personal physician, nutritionist, ect. Perhaps a psyc? That would be special. E:*
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
I just want to say that I think the racist base is pretty fully mobilized and went out to vote trump. If anyone has the idea that these are the voters democrats should be going after they are very loving misguided we ought to have in mind is capturing the votes of the people who just didn't give a poo poo this election and stayed home to vote because they thought everything would work itself out. DNC needs to give them something they think they can build and participate in, and it's gotta be something pretty grand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Everyone please read this before commenting further on what lost the election for Hillary. Posting exit poll data and voter turnout numbers really shows a lack of understanding of how our election works. The only thing that lost the election for Hillary was losing PA, WI, and MI. Low turnout doesn't explain large swings away from D and towards R in those states. If we can't win back the Rust Belt, we have no hope for 2020 unless somehow Texas flips, which won't happen yet. I've seen people handwave away the white working class of the Rust Belt and say we just need to increase voter turnout. Winning back (not even a very large percentage) the working class of the Rust Belt is a 64 point swing in the EC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It's really cool how people have been donating 10 dollars to Lowtax to own people for wrongthink instead of donating it to the ACLU Since the election I've stopped caring about the detractors. Do what you think is right, but don't feel the need to defend it. We don't have time for this poo poo. The time for understanding was a month ago. Action is all that matters now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Millions upon millions of them voted for Obama (twice) and Clinton. You really think they're all racist and we'll need racism to lure Obama's supporters back? I sincerely implore you to read about the history of the Civil Rights Movement in depth and why white liberals of the time were immensely unhelpful, to the point that MLK famously wrote letters specifically about the "white moderate." This idea isn't because of some dumb conspiracy against white people. There is historical precedence for it older than the last 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Asking white dudes to maybe not try and always demand leadership of every movement and to stop and listen to minorities = literally racism against white people, got it. maybe cool it on the contempt, even though it is well deserved
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Racial purity tests are being endorsed by supposed liberals here and now they are giving each other daps over it. What a world we live in. Accretionist posted:Millions upon millions of them voted for Obama (twice) and Clinton. You really think they're all racist and we'll need racism to lure Obama's supporters back? It doesn't matter what I think, and if either of you are white, it doesn't matter what you think either. We're not the ones that are going to be the first to suffer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The racist self-obsessed white liberals are currently promoting a black muslim as the savior of their party. I mean, I said it once, I'll say it again: Bernie Sanders is smarter than you (and I), Enkmar posted:maybe cool it on the contempt, even though it is well deserved He unironically thinks we're going to have racial purity tests like lmao.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The vindictive part of me really, really wants to point out that what they're asking for (jobs that pay decent wages when companies don't want to pay those wages) is literally welfare, but that's probably just going to be counterproductive. Not really. Working for a wage is the opposite of welfare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Asking white dudes to maybe not try and always demand leadership of every movement and to stop and listen to minorities = literally racism against white people, got it. A few pretty important "white dudes" have thrown support behind a progressive black Muslim for DNC chair. The thing that you think is happening isn't really happening and the way that you are responding to your hypothetical scenario is destructive and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I like this. As a white progressive arguing mainly with other white progressives, I think this is precisely because the dominant white progressive narrative I keep hearing is, "more outreach to the racists working white class." I'm trying to to use my voice to get the rest of my white progressive voices to shut the gently caress up. The choice I've made is to 1) trust that the new Democratic Party, led by non-white voices, will find a way to run a 50-state strategy that can engage the white working class without selling out or 2) go do with that new party. I won't, however, advocate for a party that gives a single inch to racism, sexism, or xenophobia. You shouldn't concede anything to those ideas but you do have to be able to work with people who hold them. We can get things done on prison reform, the drug war, the welfare state, and foreign policy by adding their voices to ours on those issues. That doesn't stop us from openly decrying the evils of the ism factors in our societies. We need to understand that people contain multitudes. We need to empower their better angels without condemning them along with their worst attributes. The only alternative is political irrelevance or conceding the world to people who do not care for it all until the demographics change. I don't think we can afford that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Sharkopath posted:I'm already seeing it in my circles with mostly white bernie supporters angry that people are protesting now when they didn't protest during the primary, so nobody should protest at all I guess. It seems really counterproductive in the name of righteous smuggery, which doesn't accomplish much. Or maybe some of them are angry that these sloppy protests are doing nothing more but making the left side look bad
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, I said it once, I'll say it again: Bernie Sanders is smarter than you (and I), So is my dog, I don't see your point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:A few pretty important "white dudes" have thrown support behind a progressive black Muslim for DNC chair. The thing that you think is happening isn't really happening and the way that you are responding to your hypothetical scenario is destructive and stupid. And before that happened one Howard Dean was going to run for that seat. Do you think Keith Ellison would've won on his own merits versus Dean, absent the party leadership backing him up? A party leadership made up of old white guys. See, I think they made the right play. They're cool. But they just as easily could've backed Dean instead, and that would've been a shame. steinrokkan posted:So is my dog, I don't see your point? My point is that Bernie was smart enough to look for young minorities to take up his platform. I think he learned the lessons of the primary quite well, even if some of us don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Not really. Working for a wage is the opposite of welfare. there's really not much difference when you're demanding widepread government intervention to create jobs. it's kind of like morality laundering, where the money the government pumps into the system has to pass through enough mechanisms to make it acceptable, where just a simple direct payment or one-step rule like minimum wage isn't enough to satisfy the protestant work ethic like the government could engage in an elaborate ritual of price fixing, trade barriers, and burdens on employers which incentivize them to produce goods inefficiently for worker benefit. or they could just cut you an unemployment check. either way the outcome is the same, more money in the worker's pocket, it's just that one mechanism is more palatable to people who deeply need to think of themselves as morally virtuous and "hard working" boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Rational prediction for the next 8 years in response to likely inefficiency in government, foreign policy, and domestic issues: America falls out of superpower status and loses almost all foreign influence to China, falling into irrelevancy and eventually bending a knee to China. China becomes the new "America" for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't think they're dumb, I just don't think that everyone is going to roll over to let progressives jump in to take over everything. There are legitimately a lot of Democratic voters that were happy with Hillary and her platform, as much as brogressives like to claim otherwise. The reason Dems lost is because they lost the support of the "brogressives" A lot of the Dems wanted Bernie Sanders but nah let's cheat him out of the candidacy, run a boring, run off the mill candidate and play it safe on an non-incumbent election year
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:You shouldn't concede anything to those ideas but you do have to be able to work with people who hold them. We can get things done on prison reform, the drug war, the welfare state, and foreign policy by adding their voices to ours on those issues. That doesn't stop us from openly decrying the evils of the ism factors in our societies. We need to understand that people contain multitudes. We need to empower their better angels without condemning them along with their worst attributes. The only alternative is political irrelevance or conceding the world to people who do not care for it all until the demographics change. I don't think we can afford that. If the new Democratic party, led by non-white voices, decides that engaging with people who hold racist, sexist, and xenophobic views is the way forward, then I'll look to their leadership on the method and manner of how to do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Not really. Working for a wage is the opposite of welfare. If a company refuses to pay fair wages (as defined by the people demanding them, not the people paying them) then the only recourse is to force companies to pay those wages through some form of regulation, subsidy, or other social effort. You're putting a few extra steps between yourself and the social welfare program that's allowing you to be paid fairly, but it's still there. If this makes you uncomfortable, then your only other option is direct payments or guaranteed government work at high enough wages that private industry is forced to compete for labor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:The reason Dems lost is because they lost the support of the "brogressives" it's pretty amazing that hillary could fabricate 3.5 million votes in the democratic primary but then lost her ability to fabricate 500k votes in the general
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:It doesn't matter what I think, and if either of you are white, it doesn't matter what you think either. We're not the ones that are going to be the first to suffer. How the gently caress have you not been banned yet with this poo poo? You're indistinguishable from a Stormfront falseflag deliberately trying to destroy the left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:there's really not much difference when you're demanding widepread government intervention to create jobs. it's kind of like morality laundering, where the money the government pumps into the system has to pass through enough mechanisms to make it acceptable, where just a simple direct payment or one-step rule like minimum wage isn't enough to satisfy the protestant work ethic If I recall correctly, this was one of the arguments for how reparations would be handled as well. My Linux Rig posted:The reason Dems lost is because they lost the support of the "brogressives" Voter suppression, of course, had no impact on the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
I don't want to protest a trump victory because I think voting matters and it would feel kind of rude in my eyes to tell my countryman he doesn't get to choose because he or she chose wrong. However what these protests are doing is probably a little more nuanced than "not my president!". I know the local Portland protester movement tried to mature itself into something called "Portland's Resistance" and they will have people seeking local election as well as petitioning any officeholders they can. I know they mentioned racism, misogyny, and rent control being part of their platform. So it's good and bad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:It doesn't matter what I think, and if either of you are white, it doesn't matter what you think either. We're not the ones that are going to be the first to suffer. What matters is influencing outcomes. How does marrying anti-racism and anti-poverty to fractious infighting help? Edit: Keith Ellison, who owns, just received major backing from three white guys. That's a gently caress up, right? Or is that a good thing for reasons that have nothing to do with those white guys' race and gender?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:And before that happened one Howard Dean was going to run for that seat. Do you think Keith Ellison would've won on his own merits versus Dean, absent the party leadership backing him up? A party leadership made up of old white guys. And Hillary could've won the election but she didn't. This is literally the most meaningless post. Shaming people because they could've made the wrong decision but didn't is really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Covok posted:Rational prediction for the next 8 years in response to likely inefficiency in government, foreign policy, and domestic issues: America falls out of superpower status and loses almost all foreign influence to China, falling into irrelevancy and eventually bending a knee to China. China becomes the new "America" for the foreseeable future. things aren't looking so peachy for China either, their economy is in a really precarious place and when it crashes it's gonna crash hard
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:The reason Dems lost is because they lost the support of the "brogressives" stdh.txt
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:And before that happened one Howard Dean was going to run for that seat. Do you think Keith Ellison would've won on his own merits versus Dean, absent the party leadership backing him up? A party leadership made up of old white guys. And so far it doesn't seem like "brogressives" are getting mad about Bernie's choice? So, um, maybe you underestimated the willingness of the progressive crowd to experiment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Upset dems screaming about the electoral college being unfair, based on the idea that the majority should rule. Upset dems screaming about how the majority(white cishet folks) are unfit to rule, should give control to the minority. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
I'm cranky about the masturbatory infighting. It is irl a problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:The reason Dems lost is because they lost the support of the "brogressives" The saddest part is that the boring middle of the road candidate could have won if she wasn't such an obvious corporate phony.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:How the gently caress have you not been banned yet with this poo poo? You're indistinguishable from a Stormfront falseflag deliberately trying to destroy the left.  Mahoning posted:And Hillary could've won the election but she didn't. This is literally the most meaningless post. I wasn't shaming anyone? I was pointing out that in the aftermath of our loss, a straight white dude jumped at the chance to lead. People taking the long view instead endorsed a young, fresh, minority face. This is an important lesson we should take to heart. steinrokkan posted:And so far it doesn't seem like "brogressives" are getting mad about Bernie's choice? So, um, maybe you underestimated the willingness of the progressive crowd to experiment. No they're not. I don't think the economic/social justice clash will come until the primaries for 2020. We'll see who runs and how nasty things get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:things aren't looking so peachy for China either, their economy is in a really precarious place and when it crashes it's gonna crash hard Then, who stands to take up America's reigns, serious question? I can't see America keeping the power and influence it has now with a government fighting itself and pushing for more isolationist policies. They both explicitly want to lock us off and they can't efficiently manage power abroad. Inexperience in foreign dealings means that almost every nation will get one up on us in dealings. If China crashes hard as well, I am seriously curious who decides to capitalize and America basically exiting their seat of world power. I know a lot of people want to say Russia, but it lacks infrastructure and suffers from the reality that, when Putin dies, it suffers from the very real problem of breaking into a series of squabbling nation states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:How the gently caress have you not been banned yet with this poo poo? You're indistinguishable from a Stormfront falseflag deliberately trying to destroy the left. If you think "the left" is threatened by saying that white voices should voluntarily stop talking and listen for a while, you're underestimating the left. Accretionist posted:What matters is influencing outcomes. How does marrying anti-racism and anti-poverty to fractious infighting help? They're elevating a non-white voice to a leadership position, sounds like a good thing to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:If the new Democratic party, led by non-white voices, decides that engaging with people who hold racist, sexist, and xenophobic views is the way forward, then I'll look to their leadership on the method and manner of how to do that. Fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
Covok posted:Rational prediction for the next 8 years in response to likely inefficiency in government, foreign policy, and domestic issues: America falls out of superpower status and loses almost all foreign influence to China, falling into irrelevancy and eventually bending a knee to China. China becomes the new "America" for the foreseeable future. lol way to buy into the "China Rising" myth. China's facing a much more dire crisis than the US is. Covok posted:Then, who stands to take up America's reigns, serious question? I can't see America keeping the power and influence it has now with a government fighting itself and pushing for more isolationist policies. They both explicitly want to lock us off and they can't efficiently manage power abroad. Inexperience in foreign dealings means that almost every nation will get one up on us in dealings. The US isn't going to lose power and influence because its power fundamentals remain as strong as they ever were.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:11
|
|
