|
Main Paineframe posted:Careful, if you kneejerk any harder you might kick yourself in your own face. What's so offensive about "we should talk to actual people to find out what they think about gun rights and how their individual lives are affected by them, rather than having party leadership dictate a Washington consensus down onto people"? I'd answer but the dog next door is barking like crazy every time I read the letter.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Their Gun Rights. Yes, gun rights being verboten in the democratic party has historically not worked well in bridging the city-rural divide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Their Gun Rights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Frankly, it's about time the Democratic Party endorsed the right to engage in autoselfdefense with a gun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Frohike999 posted:Since you're struggling here, he's saying assess how their gun rights have actually been affected, if at all. He's not saying we need to allow more gun rights. As a Dem who lives in a Red State, let me tell you what it means when a Dem from a Red State says Gun Rights: not what you think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:As a Dem who lives in a Red State, let me tell you what it means when a Dem from a Red State says Gun Rights: not what you think. I'm sure you have Pete down perfectly. That or you just have preconceived notions about how people and politicians should view the 2nd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I'm sure you have Pete down perfectly. That or you just have preconceived notions about how people and politicians should view the 2nd. I agree that as many people as possible ought to have the most effective means of autoselfdefense available. The disparity in autoselfdefense rates between men and women is attributable almost entirely to women having disproportionately less access to effective means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Careful, if you kneejerk any harder you might kick yourself in your own face. What's so offensive about "we should talk to actual people to find out what they think about gun rights and how their individual lives are affected by them, rather than having party leadership dictate a Washington consensus down onto people"? He's talking about talking to White People Rust Belters who saw loving children murdered in a school and don't care enough to demand change. In short, gently caress them? I am sure we can have a totally reasonable dialog on Gun Rights that doesn't amount to surrender on the issue. But what would I know about trying to have that dialog.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Well, yes, that is literally the job of the DNC chair. Perez and Ellison both know what the role entails and have signaled their full willingness to carry it out. Ellison has already demonstrated (with actions, not words) that he intends to back establishment candidates against progressive challengers, throw the public under the bus in order to please donors, and give his full and unconditional support to Pelosi and Schumer. It's just that it no longer matters what he says or does, because the narrative's already been built and no one's going to let pesky things like facts get in the way of daydreams about Keith destroying the Democratic establishment forever and singlehandedly laying the groundwork for full socialism at last. It's fair to point out that anyone who has a shot at winning the race for DNC chair is going to be palatable to party insiders and therefore obviously not the kind of firebrand that a lot of restless grassroots Dems would like. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that without throwing some symbolic concessions to the grassroots on the left the party is going to risk driving those people away. Whether or not Ellison was the best choice to be this standard bearer of the Bernie Bros, the die is now cast and rejecting him in favour of Perez is going to send the wrong message. This is true even if it turns out that Perez and Ellison would run the party in almost the same way. I think you're massively exaggerating what people are actually expecting to get out of the race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Their Gun Rights. Sorry you cannot comprehend that most Americans want to defend themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
That line is literally just saying "we need to communicate with people about how what the government does affects their lives in various ways." How in the gently caress would someone find it offensive? I especially like the implication that the "our marriages" part is somehow an anti-gay marriage dog whistle, despite the same article talking about how gay marriage is important to the existence of his future family as a gay man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Sorry, but I am really over coddling fragile white people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Sorry you cannot comprehend that most Americans want to defend themselves. That's right, defend themselves against themselves. They rationally conclude, at high rates, that they are the greatest threat to their own well-being and that of the people around them, and Messrs. Smith and Wesson are just one of the many organizations dedicated to assisting them in their moment of need, unlike fascistic hotlines and psychiatrists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Sorry you cannot comprehend that most Americans want to defend themselves. Fun fact: I'm a lifetime member of the NRA and have owned multiple guns, have lifetime hunting and fishing licenses. I am from like hicksville america dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Psychiatry is neoliberal fascism because it attempts to impose this consensus on people's brains, dictating that feelings of misery and despair be drugged and behavior-modified away, to be replaced with capitalist bullshit like self-esteem and happiness. As leftists, we must stand up for the goodness of panic attacks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:That line is literally just saying "we need to communicate with people about how what the government does affects their lives in various ways." How in the gently caress would someone find it offensive? I especially like the implication that the "our marriages" part is somehow an anti-gay marriage dog whistle, despite the same article talking about how gay marriage is important to the existence of his future family as a gay man. I wasn't including that in my particular bitching other than it was connected tot he end part I was phrasing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Sorry you cannot comprehend that most Americans want to defend themselves. No you don't understand. If you squint really hard at one sentence while ignoring the other 99% of what he said his statement is mildly objectionable. Therefore he is literally Hitler and will give shotguns to your toddlers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:No you don't understand. If you squint really hard at one sentence while ignoring the other 99% of what he said his statement is mildly objectionable. Therefore he is literally Hitler and will give shotguns to your toddlers. That is totally what I said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:No you don't understand. If you squint really hard at one sentence while ignoring the other 99% of what he said his statement is mildly objectionable. Therefore he is literally Hitler and will give shotguns to your toddlers. Toddlers should have guns with which to defend themselves from other toddlers and their parents and themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Careful, if you kneejerk any harder you might kick yourself in your own face. What's so offensive about "we should talk to actual people to find out what they think about gun rights and how their individual lives are affected by them, rather than having party leadership dictate a Washington consensus down onto people"? You're making a different point than the argument Bi Now quoted. Buttigieg is calling on Dems to connect to people on an individual level and having them reflect on what rights have actually been encroached on. Buttigieg's point (that I also misread at first, bi now) is that Dems and gays are dragged down by the narrative of the attack on traditional marriage and dems coming to steal your guns. You don't fight those deeply held pieces of common knowledge with big ad buys. You fight them with personal conversation, with pressing people to explain how buying guns is now harder for them, or how their marriage has been devalued. You probe until they realize that they were wrong and the people who made them panic lied. It's how you sway the small minority of people willing to hop parties. If that's 5% in a district, that can beat a gerrymander. One of the priorities of a reconstructed DNC needs to be on working with local parties and candidates for how to spread these messages in the grassroots manner Buttigieg suggests. It's why I'd rather Ellison not be in the role. As the Congressional Representative of the Bernie Movement-he can fundraise for and share his insurgent (notadogwhistle) playbook with progressive primary candidates. He's restricted (and supposedly barred) from doing that as Chair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:That's right, defend themselves against themselves. They rationally conclude, at high rates, that they are the greatest threat to their own well-being and that of the people around them, and Messrs. Smith and Wesson are just one of the many organizations dedicated to assisting them in their moment of need, unlike fascistic hotlines and psychiatrists. Remember everyone defending one's self is the same as being a member of the anti psychiatry movement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
I thought that was a pretty good article and that, that guy is pretty smart. He should run for Congress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember everyone defending one's self is the same as being a member of the anti psychiatry movement. Do you disagree that psychiatry is neoliberal imperialism on the mind? Telling people they should be "free" from anxiety attacks and mood swings and intrusive thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:You're making a different point than the argument Bi Now quoted. Buttigieg is calling on Dems to connect to people on an individual level and having them reflect on what rights have actually been encroached on. I am just not convinced that it's worth our time trying to hunt these ellusive white rust belters who's motivation isn't racism. Maybe I am just sour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:34
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Maybe I am just sour. Living where you do has that effect.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Do you disagree that psychiatry is neoliberal imperialism on the mind? Telling people they should be "free" from anxiety attacks and mood swings and intrusive thoughts? Did you decide to have another mood swing to third world maoism?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
How many layers of irony are you two even on Can you just say "I strongly disagree with [policy x] because [reasons]" without all this nauseating sarcastic condescension Also, of all the issues around gun ownership, their contribution to suicide rates is an awfully odd thing to get wrapped around the axle about. I'd suggest that we should combat the stigma around mental illness and provide much much greater funding (i.e. greater than what is basically zero) for support services instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That is totally what I said. The man made an entire page's worth of good points but you chose to ignore all that and write him off entirely because you read one sentence and assumed he was weak on gun control. I was close enough. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am just not convinced that it's worth our time trying to hunt these ellusive white rust belters who's motivation isn't racism. Maybe I am just sour. Yes. God forbid the party of the people try to appeal to the working classes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Did you decide to have another mood swing to third world maoism? Speak English please, I am not fluent in the language of "Gibbering Idiot". Sapozhnik posted:How many layers of irony are you two even on Friend, it sounds like you believe in telling people what to do. Telling them it's wrong to defend themselves against themselves, that they should receive "cognitive"-"behavioral" "therapy" and "selective" "norepinephrine" "reuptake" "inhibitors" if they feel that desire. Quite simply, much like how it's neoliberal evil for a politician to do that, to be political, it's even eviller for psychiatrists to exist and impose on our fundamental rights to self-defense and to make monkey love to firearms. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:How many layers of irony are you two even on Hey I strongly support raising taxes to invest in public mental health infrastructure. We have a real problem with letting people down in this country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am just not convinced that it's worth our time trying to hunt these ellusive white rust belters who's motivation isn't racism. Maybe I am just sour. Do you think Obama could have won in 2008 or 2012 without winning a share of those racist white rust belters? I think we can say with a fair degree of certainty that many Obama voters in places like Michigan would not have been comfortable with Obama dating their daughter. They still turned out to vote for him when he was either perceived as a change agent or when his opponent was successfully presented as a predatory vulture capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The man made an entire page's worth of good points but you chose to ignore all that and write him off entirely because you read one sentence and assumed he was weak on gun control. I was close enough. I didn't write him off entirely. I wrote off that specific idea entirely. If you want to me to talk about how I feel about the rest of his ideas about how we need to Talk To The White Working Class, then I will, but that wasn't what I was saying. readingatwork posted:Yes. God forbid the party of the people try to appeal to the working classes. White Working Class have never stopped being appealed to, the only difference is we also started talking about how other people's lives were important and, what do you know, suddenly fragile loving white people stopped thinking it was all about them. Helsing posted:Do you think Obama could have won in 2008 or 2012 without winning a share of those racist white rust belters? I think we can say with a fair degree of certainty that many Obama voters in places like Michigan would not have been comfortable with Obama dating their daughter. They still turned out to vote for him when he was either perceived as a change agent or when his opponent was successfully presented as a predatory vulture capitalist. I am for telling white people to get over ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
That doesn't answer my question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
I believe class is more important than race, he said, ignoring the racial history of the labor movement in America.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
I am surprised more people didn't get mad that he acknowledged the factories aren't coming back and that the future is in moving on to new things, to be honest. This guy got reelected with 80% of the vote and his town is experiencing economic renewal, we should be taking notes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:White Working Class have never stopped being appealed to, the only difference is we also started talking about how other people's lives were important and, what do you know, suddenly fragile loving white people stopped thinking it was all about them. It's true that white people have never stopped being appealed to, but the working class? The working class hasn't been appealed to in a substantive manner in ages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am for telling white people to get over ourselves. Well, just like that quote said, nobody is suggesting we even need to tongue-bidet white people in order to win. Give them a positive economic message and they'll fall in line, whether it's a black guy or a white supremacist crazy old rich white guy delivering that message. Like, write a bunch of Medium articles about how white people are the root of all evil and should be exterminated if it makes you feel better, it isn't really going to swing things appreciably one way or the other. The Gamergate MRA dipshits who get all bent out of shape about articles like that are never going to vote for you anyway, and they're not the battleground demographic either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Speak English please, I am not fluent in the language of "Gibbering Idiot". Brainiac Five posted:Friend, it sounds like you believe in telling people what to do. Telling them it's wrong to defend themselves against themselves, that they should receive "cognitive"-"behavioral" "therapy" and "selective" "norepinephrine" "reuptake" "inhibitors" if they feel that desire. Brainiac Five posted:Speak English please, I am not fluent in the language of "Gibbering Idiot".  Helsing posted:Do you think Obama could have won in 2008 or 2012 without winning a share of those racist white rust belters? I think we can say with a fair degree of certainty that many Obama voters in places like Michigan would not have been comfortable with Obama dating their daughter. They still turned out to vote for him when he was either perceived as a change agent or when his opponent was successfully presented as a predatory vulture capitalist. The answer to this is that plenty of passively racist midwesterners will vote for a non white person with a funny name if they can be made to believe its in the not being condescended to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It's true that white people have never stopped being appealed to, but the working class? The working class hasn't been appealed to in a substantive manner in ages. I think that threading the needle on "appeal to Midwestern white people without being racist" means taking an overt stand against the platform of people like Scott Walker. Stand up to right-to-work, at will employment, anti-union collective bargaining laws, anti-closed shop laws and anti-striking and organizing laws. Get these people invested in collective worker action and centralize the politics around that. Then figure out how to stop them from keeping black people out of their unions. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Helsing posted:That doesn't answer my question. If you're asking me should we dial back the racial and social justice plank of the platform to appease white voters with lies about stuff, then no. We should be honest and straight forward with them. What I chaffe at is this idea what we stopped talking to working class whites, or that we stopped having them in mind with our policies. Lightning Knight posted:I am surprised more people didn't get mad that he acknowledged the factories aren't coming back and that the future is in moving on to new things, to be honest. He won a municipal election in a town that hasn't elected a Republican for mayor since Nixon. Sapozhnik posted:Well, just like that quote said, nobody is suggesting we even need to tongue-bidet white people in order to win. They were given a positive economic message and chose to reject it for an idiot lying to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 19:56
|
|