rudatron posted:

Ah, no, it's at stone cold. The thread moves a little fast.

But if you're looking for evidence, I think Clinton losing an unlosable election, is demonstrating some serious problems, with the effectiveness of activist outreach.

I Killed GBS posted:

Rudatron, you didn't used to be anywhere close to this racist. Did Bernie break your brain?

stone cold posted:

rudatron posted:

I don't really see why you're asking some other, random poster, about the behavior or 3rd party, nor do I see how it's applicable to this debate. What other people say is not my responsibility. Could you care to explain yourself?

Chelb posted:

It'd be pretty cool if you could answer my original point - that dismissing the use of academic terminology or consensus in an argument is pretty much denying legitimacy to someone because they don't make you feel intelligent enough.

stone cold posted:

Like I can't even tell you how xenophobic it is to assume all foreigners are the hired help.

My grandpa came over to this country from the Philippines as a doctor, in the age when Filipinos were 'houseboys', you loving racist prick.

But nope, nebulous foreigners can only do menial labor in your world.

Cease to Hope posted:

what if nobody's interested in reaching you

rudatron posted:

Excuse me? I'm not, I take racism as a serious problem.

Those are not accurate readings of the post you are quoting, and anybody paying attention will notice. I cannot help but think you're intentionally misrepresenting what is being said.

the trump tutelage posted:

You've made a single post in this thread longer than three sentences and you seem to have a hard time not hurling insults at people who disagree with you. Why don't you just start a blog if you're not interested in dialogue?

the trump tutelage posted:

My turn my turn -- Okay, what do a fatass and a tranny have in common???

You're all a bunch of hypocrites.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

stone cold posted:

Assuming that a. housework is only done by nebulous foreigners b. foreigners only do housework isn't at all bigoted. Like, yikes dude. Also, I feel like that has a pretty big misogyny element to it.

Higsian posted:

Since I'm using me as a stand in for others then your reply is kinda the problem. If you're not trying to reach people why are you even talking? I'm becoming less and less convinced I am going to get through to people, but what possibility remains is the only reason I'm still talking.

Higsian posted:

Since I'm using me as a stand in for others then your reply is kinda the problem. If you're not trying to reach people why are you even talking? I'm becoming less and less convinced I am going to get through to people, but what possibility remains is the only reason I'm still talking.

Tesseraction posted:

True enough though the election is, I don't consider the Democratic Party an 'activist' group, or outreach - remember I'm a British-based poster, I see the Democratic Party as an overall-right-of-centre but well-meaning coalition. Taking into account personal bias I know they're left-of-centre, especially due to their social liberalism. I don't see the loss of Clinton as a rejection of her policies, necessarily, so much as a problem of messenger.

I can appreciate if that seems like I'm trying to move goalposts, but I promise it's not intentional!

Lt. Danger posted:

I don't quite agree with the narrative rudatron is building here (globalisation is as much about race as it is class) but that's not remotely what they're saying. Also, I feel like that's a pretty cheap shot at the end there.

Koalas March posted:

I asked because I want to hear your answer. Why are you so uncomfortable answering those questions?

Chelb posted:

I think it's reasonable, even, to claim that outreach of whatever form simply wasn't practiced enough in states like the midwest, as can be seen by the articles that came out afterward pointing to the Clinton campaign's fundamental problems and rectifiable failures to properly campaign and canvas in that area - not in an ideological sense but in the sense of basic political infrastructure.

But then there's also the issue that you never see articles like that written for the victors, only the losers, and every political campaign is going to have a certain level of inefficiency and poor decisions.

Also, maybe i'm derailing or something lol. I'm not sure if election chat is really a thing that should necessarily be going on here, I haven't read this thread through, so I'll just post my thoughts here and leave it at that.

stone cold posted:

Maybe you need to do some self-reflection if you really see no problems with your white-fragility.txt

I Killed GBS posted:

Somehow I'm not convinced you're all that interested in dialogue yourself.

quote:

Thread Rules:
1. D&D leans liberal. I want more conservative voices to be welcome in this thread. If a poster does post a really lovely and objectionable thing please respond by explaining why what they advocate is poo poo. Don't extend that to also claim they are poo poo. (No Ad Hominem attacks.)

...

3. This thread is about learning what each side wants. Not telling them what they want. You can tell them the consequences, you can explain the effects, you can link to facts and data and you can point out the flaws but please try to refrain from telling somebody what they're doing or what they believe.

Higsian posted:

I had lots of things to reply to.

I just fundamentally and completely disagree with your point. In an argument it is your responsibility to argue with that other person in mind. If they disagree with you because they feel you're attacking their intelligence then it's your loss. Also possibly their loss depending on what you're arguing about. But it's always at least your loss, so it's your responsibility to avoid making them feel like you're attacking their intelligence if you want to convince them.

stone cold posted:

You are a tone policing collaborator. Like you are the human embodiment of MLK's portrait of a white moderate.

Tesseraction posted:

True enough though the election is, I don't consider the Democratic Party an 'activist' group, or outreach - remember I'm a British-based poster, I see the Democratic Party as an overall-right-of-centre but well-meaning coalition. Taking into account personal bias I know they're left-of-centre, especially due to their social liberalism. I don't see the loss of Clinton as a rejection of her policies, necessarily, so much as a problem of messenger.

I can appreciate if that seems like I'm trying to move goalposts, but I promise it's not intentional!

the trump tutelage posted:

I caught a probation for that, though. And for good reason. I don't think I have a pattern of behaviour like that in D&D generally.

Like right in the OP of the thread:


The thread is obviously off the rails at this point. Do you see anything wrong with stone cold's antagonistic browbeating and insult-hurling or does she get a pass because you agree with her politics?

stone cold posted:

You don't think that there's a gendered element to the politics of housework?

rudatron posted:

But that's just one interpretation, and I don't think it's right. I also think that the rhetoric of the 'SJW' has, at this point, entered the modern lexicon, and that people are not generally looking on activists with sympathy anymore, or at least less so. That gives an opening for them to be sidelined, which the people in power are going to take. The amount of insane stuff coming out of campuses these days cannot simply be chalked up to 'bad apples', there has to be something that's enabling them to get away with their behavior.

stone cold posted:

Like, here's a thought. The framing of this bullshit culture war is SJW's vs deplorables, right? Maybe, when one side is a bunch of racist, white nationalist, bigoted cowards, who want to wipe out the other side, maybe that opinion isn't valid.

Like, none of you are gonna sit down and go, "well actually Hitler had some great points." This is literally a side that thinks, you know, maybe we should actually rectify both institutional and individual bigotry and uplift minorities to the same baseline as white cishet men, versus a side that wants to kick all the Hispanics and Muslims out (or put them in camps), thinks black people don't get shot enough in the streets, and wants LGBTQ people to undergo literal torture to fix them.

I have no interest in debating these people, because I don't think their viewpoint is legitimate in any way, shape, or form.

But this is a culture "war," right, like why do we even need to pretend these views are valid? Treating both sides as valid gives a pass and signals to these bigots, that no, maybe their views aren't that extreme, and perhaps the truth _is_ in the middle. And that's loving repugnant. Like now of all times is not the time to be tossing minorities under the bus, and honestly, that's what it feels like you do when you frame it as "dumbass college librul elite SJW's" vs. "salt of the earth white deplorables."

Lt. Danger posted:

Absolutely, but what does that have to do with rudatron's post?

rudatron isn't arguing that housework is the origin of the American culture war - that Donald Trump is going to be US President because of literally who cleans the kitchens of rich Democrats. It's a story they've made up to illustrate by analogy. rudatron's actual argument, correct me if I'm wrong, is that middle-class liberals are on some level aware of contradictions in their ideology (capitalism and equality are incompatible) and engage in the culture war in order to deflect that. Essentially, anti-racist/feminist/pro-LGBT rhetoric and ideology are co-opted by centre-left elites in order to avoid addressing their own exploitation of others - which includes, in this story, unskilled migrant workers.

There aren't any normative claims about housework or immigration in that post.

Jack Gladney posted:

If we're going in the direction of useless anecdotes, I was once yelled at for saying something stupid without realizing it, and that event caused me to think critically about myself and my assumptions and I became more thoughtful as a result.

What's funny is that the person who yelled at me probably wrote me off as a stupid rear end in a top hat who would never change.

So there, that's at least as meaningful as our hypothetical well-meaning moderate who does a reactionary hulk-out if told that it's rude to ask where an Asian-looking person is really from or whatever.

stone cold posted:

But this is a culture "war," right, like why do we even need to pretend these views are valid?

stone cold posted:

If you don't see a problem with the fact that for the analogy rudatron drew on the foreign housekeeper, then I guess that's your whole scene.

Chelb posted:

Framing debates as a singular contest with the goal of minimizing losses is a pretty sure-fire way to lead to nothing of worth being accomplished.

I definitely agree that persuasion only works if you have an understanding of the person you're persuading, and are trying to speak to them in some way. But if you're having a conversation with someone and they refuse to acknowledge your terminology, then they're the one not keeping you in mind, not the other way around. Understanding has to be a two way street for it to work.

Chelb posted:

I guess I'm just plain baffled at the idea that the people that need to be reached in any haste are those who'd handwave away terms like "microaggressions" as liberal elitism. There are many individuals out there willing to educate and engage themselves on a topic they're unfamiliar with, and they'll always be better listeners and allies than those that insist a conversation take place on their intellectual level. Persuasion is give and take, and plenty of minorities out there have been forced to give more than enough; they deserve to be met halfway.

Higsian posted:

If I got to pull aside each person before time was reversed to just before that point I'd tell the person who said microaggression to not use microaggression and to instead describe the concept directly because their opponent might get pissy otherwise, and I'd tell the other person to not worry if the person uses a word they don't understand and just ask them to explain it and that it doesn't mean they're dumb if they don't know it.

White Rock posted:

Those people won the election. Presumably you have to have some of them switch their vote to a new candidate for your side to win.

Simply labeling the other side as "repugnant", writing them off as politically radioactive and moving on does not practically solve the problem of getting more votes to your side, nor does it properly explain why these people are voting the way their do. That doesn't mean that one has to take their opinions at face value, but it does mean you have to know the reasoning behind their lovely opinions. For example, is the opposition to illegal immigration driven by a fear of job insecurity?

Then you formulate policies that effect those underlying causes, thus bypassing the need to either accept their views or writing of 46% of the population as "deplorable".
.

Tesseraction posted:

Uh. This comes across as suggesting the second person is unreasonable and stupid.

Lt. Danger posted:

So did rudatron say all foreign workers do housework and that's all they can do?

Higsian posted:

This gets tricky because I completely agree with you, but I also completely don't. I agree that it's a two-way street, but at the same time you only control yourself so it's kinda useless to care about the other person's responsibilities. Like say I saw two people arguing and one said microaggression and the other one got all upset and the argument exploded. If I got to pull aside each person before time was reversed to just before that point I'd tell the person who said microaggression to not use microaggression and to instead describe the concept directly because their opponent might get pissy otherwise, and I'd tell the other person to not worry if the person uses a word they don't understand and just ask them to explain it and that it doesn't mean they're dumb if they don't know it. Then I'd hope that at least one of them got it because it would hopefully only take one side changing their approach to fix the problem. If that makes sense.


About the framing debates as singular contexts I get what you mean. I'll think about that point some more.