|
paranoid randroid posted:ive never been entirely clear what people are referring to, on the left, when they say we need to move focus away from identity politics. because theres a lot of really good, important causes that are inherently bound up in that term that the democrats should be aggressive about. Usually it's people going "it turns off my racist friends who I am trying to convice that we need to kill the bosses." It also partially serves as an excuse to "do away" with political correctness at that will get them votes. Some of it does come from a place of "these people are not as educated, stop being angry at them for not knowing stuff", which i can understand. But all too often it just plays into the fox news esc idea of "Shut up about your rights".
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
botany posted:Clinton won the popular vote by several million votes. She won the pop vote by less than 800k votes actually, unless I'm stupid for going off this website http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:Occupy was way bigger than zucotti park Right, but I'm on my phone here. Larger point is that Occupy was initially dismantled by a national campaign of physical force. Of course it went down the silly spiral after that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
botany posted:They are saying we should indulge white supremacy more. botany posted:Clinton is still going to win, take a deep breath everyone. Hm yes, quite...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Congratulations! How many SCOTUS nominations does she get to pick? The point, my friend, is that it's nonsense to pretend Dems can't win elections without catering to white supremacists. If the Dems hadn't run literally the least likeable D candidate in the history of polling, or if they had focussed on States like PA and MI instead of assuming those were in the bag anyway, we'd be looking at at least a generation of liberal SC judges, all without making racists feel like they're welcome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
If we could find some Jesuit Latino candidates that would be pretty awesome. I want some straight up Latin America leftist flavor in our politics Uh oh, the finger on the monkey paw just curled and it turns out we also got the civil wars and oppressive far-right regimes with the leftist politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:She won the pop vote by less than 800k votes actually, unless I'm stupid for going off this website California absentee ballots among others are still being counted. They cracked a million today and there's still tons to go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:"The internet doesn't affect politics in any way substantial to the phenomenon we're discussing. The internet isn't real" i'm not discounting the role of the internet in politics I'm making fun of people who were roasted so hard online that they're conflating their sore butts with mass politics offline "you made fun of me so hard that people just like me who share my pain didn't turn out to vote to get back at you" is both childish and kind of a widespread argument itt. like it's common enough for people who feel like they're losing an internet slapfight to resort to petty guilt trips but then to take that resentment and map it onto the decisions of millions of people... sheesh
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I disagree that they're the establishment. They're a dominant force but business Republicans have been pushing back and beating their primary challenges as of late. I think this is to our advantage. The Tea Party movement conservatives will fight business Republicans' attempt to leave social conservatism at the door. yeah that's fair I over-generalized but given what the Tea Party started as (crazy suburban dads in tricorn hats yelling about government conspiracies), they've done an incredible job of consolidating power. Trump is basically the Tea Party president, though, which IMO should say something about just how committed to social conservatism they really are. Xenophobia, sure, but they're mostly fighting against the perception of those snooty city elites telling them what to do through the government, not for their glorious vision of a Fourth Reich. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Nov 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:As a Wisconsin former Catholic I am well aware, though the Catholics in my community are overwhelmingly conservative. It's a divided religion in many ways, ironically. Maybe some kind of... Liberation Theology? I like where this is going.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
botany posted:The point, my friend, is that it's nonsense to pretend Dems can't win elections without catering to white supremacists. If the Dems hadn't run literally the least likeable D candidate in the history of polling, or if they had focussed on States like PA and MI instead of assuming those were in the bag anyway, we'd be looking at at least a generation of SC judges, all without making racists feel like they're welcome. This and Lightning Knight are what I support in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
botany posted:The point, my friend, is that it's nonsense to pretend Dems can't win elections without catering to white supremacists. If the Dems hadn't run literally the least likeable D candidate in the history of polling, or if they had focussed on States like PA and MI instead of assuming those were in the bag anyway, we'd be looking at at least a generation of SC judges, all without making racists feel like they're welcome.  not everyone who cares about things differently than you is a white supremacist
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
"The white working class is irredeemably racist and you don't need them in your coalition" -- D&D 'leftists'
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Usually it's people going "it turns off my racist friends who I am trying to convice that we need to kill the bosses." And when I want to kill the bosses, it turns off my... prejudiced friends who, incidentally, my "racist" friends avoid because of their racist sounding but totally actually just prejudiced rhetoric against whites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
botany posted:The point, my friend, is that it's nonsense to pretend Dems can't win elections without catering to white supremacists. If the Dems hadn't run literally the least likeable D candidate in the history of polling, or if they had focussed on States like PA and MI instead of assuming those were in the bag anyway, we'd be looking at at least a generation of SC judges, all without making racists feel like they're welcome. This is probably true, but progressives can tell that we can have more influence at this point than any in recent history so we're going to pretend that isn't true. Plus, a presidential victory without congress isn't really a victory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
The Bernie supporters that are trying to wave their finger and pretend like Bernie was a guaranteed win are hilarious. Talk about sore losers.  He had a lot of faults, even if you don't want to admit them. Mainly in the primary that he tried to reduce racial concerns over equality and economic equality down to a simple general equality issue. Which has been a dog-whistle in the past by people who claimed to be left leaning or for equality of some sort but had no real intention of helping the people in question. And that's not getting into the fact that his name was fairly unknown by most people prior to the election. Or that more than a fair share of his supporters threw a tantrum and were actively supporting Trump online in the lead-up to the election. Never mind that the RWM media machine was already gearing up to sow the seeds of a whole (and probably even worse than the one Hillary had to endure) new campaign of slander against the poor guy if he won the primary. I was already seeing people pushing a "communist scare" attempt due to his speeches prior to him losing. Hell, thanks to him running that's probably where Newt got the idea to propose a second "House of Un-American Activities" from. Anyone that thinks he'd have had a better shot is just deluding themselves and looking for a reason why basic human decency seems to have lost this election. Archonex fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Nov 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:
Abandoning the idea of more money for certain already wealthy groups is good. Abandoning the idea of support for disadvantaged groups is not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:it's nice that you learned a new word but Putin doesn't have anything like the same motivation to gently caress up Trump's reelection chances that he did the woman who made it a literal campaign plank to invade his ally and start a war with him. A little blackmail material never hurts but really just by being Trump he's already everything Russia could ever ask for. Of course he doesn't have the same motivation to gently caress them over. He does have the same motivation to fish the everloving poo poo out of Trump though, because every piece of dirty laundry he finds is another bargaining chip. Trump has a lot of dirty laundry and his goal in life is for people to think as highly about him as possible, and that combination seems to be a pretty good mix to allow him to be the puppet of a very amateur puppetmaster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:It's not like I only post here either but let's be honest, when over 60% of people get their news from Facebook, it's obvious we're all living our lives online. Again it's anecdotal experience but I've seen and heard about countless instances of Hillary people shouting down Bernie people and insisting that people even somewhat critical of her were just flat out incorrect, but refused to outline a cogent reason in her defense. It just struck me as a flawed message, and one look at the election returns would seem to prove me right. This is a fair point, and I do recognize that a lot of social progressives resort to shouting "racism!" or "sexism!" when it's not really helpful to the discussion at hand. The things we say online often do overlap with the way we behave IRL to at least some extent. That said, it still needs to be a priority of the left to call out these things when we see them happening, especially when an elected official like Trump has normalized them so much. It really is up to us to make sure that it doesn't ever become "normal." paranoid randroid posted:ive never been entirely clear what people are referring to, on the left, when they say we need to move focus away from identity politics. because theres a lot of really good, important causes that are inherently bound up in that term that the democrats should be aggressive about. A lot of it is bound up in the erroneous notion that, were we to eliminate income inequality and neoliberalism today, in one fell swoop, it would eliminate all of the social ills that progressive identity politics seeks to address. It's magical thinking, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Archonex posted:The Bernie supporters that are trying to wave their finger and pretend like Bernie was a guaranteed win are hilarious. Talk about sore losers. For one thing the support of Sanders supporters for Trump was lower than that of Hillary supporters for McCain. For Second, the fact that you are bringing up "nobody knows about him" as a bad thing considering the election we just had? That may well have been a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Yeah it was an excellent idea for Louisiana to have almost as much weight in the primary as Wisconsin, good call on this one my man. Maarek posted:"The white working class is irredeemably racist and you don't need them in your coalition" -- D&D 'leftists'
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Can we make a rule that no one in D&D is allowed to say "identity politics" in any threads until the end of the year? That might help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Abandoning the idea of more money for certain already wealthy groups is good. Abandoning the idea of support for disadvantaged groups is not. Trump got 16% more of the under $30,000 vote in 2016 by the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:The bad guys already won though. And smug Bernie Bros telling minorities like me we should have backed some old white guy from Vermont where it's all white people is dumb. He's never had to deal with diversity or multicultural needs in his home state so he barely has any understanding on why the "economy will raise all boats" message doesn't play with me. I think he would eagerly trade away any progress for people like me for economic policy gains. No the bad guys haven't won yet. You're still breathing right? Then fight them. Let's learn from our mistakes and not make them again. He has had to deal with multicultural needs, because guess what- he was all for the civil rights movement. And he even participated. While other people were making sure apartheid would ever end, he went against them. And no, I don't think he's the kind of man that would eagerly trade away progress for economic policy gains. Smug Bernie bros? Remember how smug the Clinton people were in these very forums? Even I succumbed to their smugness, using their evidence as proof that Hillary was gonna beat trump. Don't lose hope. Bernie and Keith Ellison and other awesome people are gonna try their best to lead us on, all we ask is that you just give them a chance. Just a chance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Knock this off please. poo poo like this is why the American political left can't show solidarity, and is instead constantly arrayed in the circular firing squad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Trump got 16% more of the under $30,000 vote in 2016 by the way. Among white voters. <30ks overall went Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Abandoning the idea of more money for certain already wealthy groups is good. Abandoning the idea of support for disadvantaged groups is not. NOBODY IS SAYING WE SHOULD DO THIS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:yeah that's fair I over-generalized but given what the Tea Party started as (actual crazy people in tricorn hats yelling about government conspiracies), they've done an incredible job of consolidating power. Trump is basically the Tea Party president, though, which IMO should say something about just how committed to social conservatism they really are. Xenophobia, sure, but they're mostly fighting against the perception of those snooty city elites telling them what to do through the government, not for their glorious vision of a Fourth Reich. I'm not sure I agree that Trump is the Tea Party president. They may have voted for him and supported him but he didn't really run on the same brand of broad social conservatism and was far more inconcise in his reactionary politics. They overlap but the Tea Party was essentially "people who are dumb enough to take Republican ideology at face value and subscribe to all of it" while Trumpists are "the desperate being manipulated by white nationalists and con men." Many Trumpists just want jobs and to deport Mexicans. The Tea Party wants theocractic oligarchy. Mecha Gojira posted:Maybe some kind of... Liberation Theology? I like where this is going. I'm not arguing that it doesn't already exist, I'm arguing that it was a strategic mistake to distance ourselves from it. Hillary actually tried this and it failed because nobody believed she's actually religious, which is kind of a shame because it was some of the most sincere feeling parts of her pitch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:If we could find some Jesuit Latino candidates that would be pretty awesome. I want some straight up Latin America leftist flavor in our politics  Me too! I love both my gay countries 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Of course he doesn't have the same motivation to gently caress them over. He does have the same motivation to fish the everloving poo poo out of Trump though, because every piece of dirty laundry he finds is another bargaining chip. Trump has a lot of dirty laundry and his goal in life is for people to think as highly about him as possible, and that combination seems to be a pretty good mix to allow him to be the puppet of a very amateur puppetmaster. What exactly do you think Trump is hiding that is so much worse than... everything he was perfectly open about on the campaign trail? Anyone who voted for him in 2016 isn't going to stop voting for him because you throw another personal peccadillo on the heap and anyone who didn't vote for him in 2016 isn't likely to start when he starts loving up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So you think the DNC should make the primary less Democratic next time, so that it better reflects the power balance of the EC, is that correct? No; I think the claim that Clinton was more 'electable' was largely based on her sweeping the south where neither candidate would get many electoral votes in the general. outside of maybe VA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right, but I'm on my phone here. Larger point is that Occupy was initially dismantled by a national campaign of physical force. Of course it went down the silly spiral after that. Nah, in most cities it was already having problems when all the cops were doing was yelling outside the park (or whatever it was for each city) asking them to move. By the time they actually started coming in and pushing people around, most of the encampments were stagnating and bogged down in arguing for days already. And of course, in a lot of the more minor cities it never got off the ground to have the cops come in to break it up to start with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
botany posted:They are saying we should indulge white supremacy more. outside of a few really terrible posters itt, i sincerely doubt that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
botany posted:Among white voters. <30ks overall went Clinton. Great. She still got 16% less of the poorest people than Obama did. Maybe you don't see why this is a problem, but for a Democrat that is humiliating. Acinonyx posted:No; I think the claim that Clinton was more 'electable' was largely based on her sweeping the south where neither candidate would get many electoral votes in the general. outside of maybe VA. Clinton is very popular with registered Democrats and that is why she won the Democratic primary. If that electorate picked the President she would have won in a landslide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Maarek posted:"The white working class is irredeemably racist and you don't need them in your coalition" -- D&D 'leftists' The left are mad at the white working class precisely because they *do* need them but they are leaving. You aren't even following this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
I feel like this thread really needs to shut the gently caress up about who's at fault and direct its ire at the new president who actually deserves it. Hillary got more votes. The Democratic platform got more votes. We picked up seats in Congress. It's not an existential crisis in the Democratic party, it's an existential crisis in our loving country and in our homes and we're sitting here writing loving fan fiction about what could have happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:
The quoted portion of Business Gorilla's post kind of highlights why Bernie was never going to get any real traction. You can't write off or appear to write off disadvantaged people when your party is the representative party of their rights. That's part of your constituency. Nor can you expect to say well "We/They just have different priorities than you!" when a number of minorities are looking at insane backlash (Women, african americans, anyone who is gay, anyone who is trans) from some really horrible examples of humanity if they don't finish up on the gains they've made over the last eight years then expect them not to roll their eyes at you and write you off as an ignorant and largely self-absorbed jackass. Edit: I mean, gently caress --- It's not like it was a big secret that a large portion of the republican constituency was slavering at the mouth at the idea of loving over those groups. Trump even held rallies during the primary where he literally straight up used it as a way to rally the crowd and get them hyped up for voting for him. Archonex fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Nov 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The left are mad at the white working class precisely because they *do* need them but they are leaving. You aren't even following this. botany posted:The point, my friend, is that it's nonsense to pretend Dems can't win elections without catering to white supremacists. If the Dems hadn't run literally the least likeable D candidate in the history of polling, or if they had focussed on States like PA and MI instead of assuming those were in the bag anyway, we'd be looking at at least a generation of liberal SC judges, all without making racists feel like they're welcome. I'm not saying this is all of D&D, but there clearly are some maniacs in this thread who literally believe this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
botany posted:The point, my friend, is that it's nonsense to pretend Dems can't win elections without catering to white supremacists. Who is advocating catering to white supremacists? How are they advocating this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:
I am not saying that you are saying it. I am simply putting my own spin on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:40
|
|