|
Sephyr posted:Andrew Sullivan is back and asking the important questions of our time: "If racism is such a big deal, why are asian-americans so successful?" The best part of it is he puts their success down to the nuclear family. He's an openly gay man stating that the nuclear family is the only way to overcome discrimination.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:The best part of it is he puts their success down to the nuclear family. He's an openly gay man stating that the nuclear family is the only way to overcome discrimination. Gay conservatives are paid well to hate themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:The best part of it is he puts their success down to the nuclear family. He's an openly gay man stating that the nuclear family is the only way to overcome discrimination. I remember it being described as gay conservatives are just conservatives who lack the one privilege they feel they deserve.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
The funny thing about Andrew Sullivan is that the exact same criticisms that he made about Regnerus' same sex parenting study can be made about the Bell Curve (that the statistical findings are only that way because of methodological decisions that were made with the intention of finding those results). Yet Sullivan will attack anyone who mentions the Regnerus study as going against expert opinion, while claiming that the same expert opinion against the Bell Curve is evidence of the power of the PC police.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Gay conservatives are paid well to hate themselves. And here I've been doing it for free, like some kind of sucker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:I remember it being described as gay conservatives are just conservatives who lack the one privilege they feel they deserve. You see this with a lot of "progressives" whose only real issue with the GOP is drug policy. Just like how Democrats would clean up in the next election if they just came out for $15 minimum wage and single payer, Republicans would clean up if they came out in support of drug laws as a states' rights issue and cooled it on anti-gay poo poo for a while. ErIog fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
ErIog posted:You see this with a lot of "progressives" whose only real issue with the GOP is drug policy. Just like how Democrats would clean up in the next election if they just came out for $15 minimum wage and single player, Republicans would clean up if they came out in support of drug laws as a states' rights issue and cooled it on anti-gay poo poo for a while. Nah. Mass incarceration and disenfranchisement of non-whites is critical to keeping the GOP in power. The amount of college libertarians they could get is not worth giving up the drug war. Same with anti-gay poo poo: the religious right is a critical voting block and alienating them wouldn't be worth it. Libertarianism is really really unpopular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
I think it's more of a get out the base thing. Republicans rely on outrage to blind their coalition to its disagreements. They have a tough time cooling it on the gays because there's still a lot of highly politically active morals & Families types who will stay home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah. Mass incarceration and disenfranchisement of non-whites is critical to keeping the GOP in power. That's why I said "states' rights issue" instead of "legalization." State by state drug laws could allow for them to continue their private prison rackets while pretending the party had a sane stance. You'd still have stories around the margins about how it wasn't really doing anything for the jailing of minorities, but voter perception would be that the GOP had softened its position on drugs. This is why I compare it to the $15 minimum wage. It would be so easy for them to say it during campaigns and then weasel out of it when it came to implementation. It's odd to me that a lot of elected Dems won't even go as far as to lie about the minimum wage, and similarly a lot of the federal elected GOP won't even go as far as to lie about it or come to a position with better messaging potential. TheDeadlyShoe posted:I think it's more of a get out the base thing. Republicans rely on outrage to blind their coalition to its disagreements. They have a tough time cooling it on the gays because there's still a lot of highly politically active morals & Families types who will stay home. Yeah, this is probably true. It's a low effort way to get out the religious base the same way abortion is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GdkGwzSBxI
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
It's loving uncanny how well that fits. Thanks to Master Levin, I don't have to be sad about ATHF being cancelled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:It's loving uncanny how well that fits. Thanks to Master Levin, I don't have to be sad about ATHF being cancelled. Kinda makes me wonder; if Dana Snyder broke into Levin's studio, hijacked his show, and just started saying random bonkers poo poo in Master Shake's voice, would anyone actually notice?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah. Mass incarceration and disenfranchisement of non-whites is critical to keeping the GOP in power. The amount of college libertarians they could get is not worth giving up the drug war. Same with anti-gay poo poo: the religious right is a critical voting block and alienating them wouldn't be worth it. I think it's a similar situation to minorities and the Dems. What is the christian right going to do after spending decades convincing themselves that Jesus is actually a far-right gun nut with strong views on abortion and gay marriage? Vote for a liberal? They'll just mutter and go vote R anyway. I doubt most of them even have the guts to stay home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Yeah, the democratic strategy of not giving a poo poo about turnout has been paying dividends for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Yeah, the democratic strategy of not giving a poo poo about turnout has been paying dividends for them. Yeup. At the state/local level... Article: Republicans Now Control Record Number of State Legislative Chambers From: CBS News Date: November 16, 2016 quote:... Article: Have Democrats lost 900 seats in state legislatures since Obama has been president? | [True] From: Politifact Date: January 25, 2015 quote:...
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Just like how Democrats would clean up in the next election if they just came out for $15 minimum wage and single payer, Republicans would clean up if they came out in support of drug laws as a states' rights issue and cooled it on anti-gay poo poo for a while. Neither of these are true. They are both bizarre wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Neither of these are true. They are both bizarre wishful thinking. "Here's one weird trick to win every election!" Yeah, if only it were that simple.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Neither of these are true. They are both bizarre wishful thinking. I read that post as sarcastic for exactly that reason. Was I wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
ErIog posted:You see this with a lot of "progressives" whose only real issue with the GOP is drug policy. Just like how Democrats would clean up in the next election if they just came out for $15 minimum wage and single payer, Republicans would clean up if they came out in support of drug laws as a states' rights issue and cooled it on anti-gay poo poo for a while. No, the magic issue that got people back voting GOP was racism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:No, the magic issue that got people back voting GOP was racism. Exactly. And the war on drugs is all about imprisoning minorities anyways. Keeping brown people out of sight is a far larger benefit to them than the small chance that a cop will actually bother a nice white boy for smoking a little weed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
All Republicans are evil racists who lack empathy. They say nothing of importance. Hate them and conqueor them, it is just.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Exactly. And the war on drugs is all about imprisoning minorities anyways. Keeping brown people out of sight is a far larger benefit to them than the small chance that a cop will actually bother a nice white boy for smoking a little weed. Not that the white bois even use weed that much these days when they need their Heroin or other opiates for their fix.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
There was a large contingent of white moderate republicans who would normally have voted republican but voted for Obama for historical significance. Also to regular people being hard on drugs isn't primarily about oppressing blacks. It's about "law and order" which is a big sell for tons of people who lean republican, not because of the obvious racial implications, but because they dream of a world that never existed outside of 50's sitcoms and want it to "return." They aren't directly hoping for a world where black people don't exist, they are hoping for a world where drug crime and violent crime doesn't exist. A small group of them take it a step further and say that those are black problems, but the overwhelming majority don't, and don't fully realize that the consequences of the drug war are incredibly biased against blacks and other minorities and when confronted with that they either deny it or say "well, where there's smoke (the drug or violent crime arrests) there's fire. Claiming that racism is what brought back the Obama voting republicans is not accurate. Trump was particularly good at selling the "make America great again" bullshit that so many republicans cling to. Hillary Clinton had some historical significance too, but not enough to overcome the inherent anti-female bias in the nation today. It's way too complicated and ignorant to flatly say "racism." People -- even republicans -- are more complex than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
There's also the fact that it's easy for people who don't care so much to say "the drug laws are fine" because their cousin Bobby got caught with weed and the cop let him off with a warning. They don't pay attention that if Bobby was black the cop might have chucked hm into jail, or even shot him on the spot. So as far as they see it "mild" drug use can be done just fine, so why change the laws?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:It's way too complicated and ignorant to flatly say "racism." People -- even republicans -- are more complex than that. I agree. Across the Rust Belt, Democrats lost ~1.5m votes and Republicans gained ~0.5m votes, winning by ~0.1m. Based on the post-mortems I've read, I'm sold that sexism/racism was necessary for Clinton's loss/Trump's win but it's insufficient as a cause. There was no one big factor. There were a number of small factors. And, "don't take unnecessary risks," basically covers the ones we need to learn from if we're going to tighten up our game for '18 and '20, which is what's important here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:And, "don't take unnecessary risks," basically covers the ones we need to learn from if we're going to tighten up our game for '18 and '20, which is what's important here. What unnecessary risks do you think were taken by the Clinton campaign? Unless you're talking about the general strategy of appealing towards mythical moderate republicans for their votes instead of emphasizing liberals, the poor, minorities etc. in the campaign? I'd say that's less of an issue of "taking a risk" rather than an unfortunate and wrong choice resulting from the intrinsic nature of the candidate herself and her innate political instincts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:What unnecessary risks do you think were taken by the Clinton campaign? Unless you're talking about the general strategy of appealing towards mythical moderate republicans for their votes instead of emphasizing liberals, the poor, minorities etc. in the campaign? Based on what I've read, I tend to focus on the data operation, ground game strategy and aiming for a blowout. The mile-up perspective on what went wrong was that models of electoral turnout were off, compromising internal and external polling for both campaigns. They underestimated white turnout and overestimated female and minority turnout. Both campaigns were working off of incorrect information, hence their mutual shock. I believe a boilerplate campaign would have won due to low-risk strategy and so we can in turn ascribe some of Clinton's loss to unnecessary risks she had taken. [Data Operation] The campaign was centrally controlled from Brooklyn to an odd degree. The top-down control stymied bottom-up data collection, creating a 'garbage in-garbage out' problem which stoked overconfidence in their models. This exacerbated the disconnect between map and territory, compromising their strategies and blinding them to their problems. [Ground Game] They skewed deployment toward late-game due to research suggesting early voter contact isn't very impactful. Canvassing garners data so this strategy helped blind them. It also meant a lack of getting the kinks out before their final push. All across the rust belt, they were sending canvassers to nowhere, reminding Trump supporters to vote, etc. I've also read accounts of canvasser surveys which showed their were losing the Rust Belt simply being gathered and thrown out because look at the polls, look at Brooklyn's models, why waste money on data entry? [Aiming for a Blowout] The biggest thing here is shifting resources toward Democratic strongholds to run up the popular vote. Victory was taken for granted so they reprioritized toward hitting Day 1 with a lot of momentum from a huge popular vote lead and maybe some red states. A boilerplate campaign would've stayed focused on states they needed to win and would've entailed a more normal distribution of ground-game resources. They would've cottoned onto what was happening in the rust belt and compensated. Edit: Here's some articles I remember reading;
Accretionist fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:but not enough to overcome the inherent anti-female bias in the nation today. I'm not buying this argument at all. Hillary won the popular vote by almost three million. The EC is what doomed her, not "inherent anti-female bias."
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:I'm not buying this argument at all. Hillary won the popular vote by almost three million. The EC is what doomed her, not "inherent anti-female bias." California and middle America are not the same thing and don't have the same values. Eliminate New York and California (2 states she would have won even if each state had several million fewer Hillary voters and 2 states that don't reflect the values of the typical republican voter) The anti-female sentiment wasn't a factor in these particular states but it certainly was in most others. Democrats winning tons of votes in California and New York, even enough to influence the popular vote over the EC vote, is not an accurate reflection of the will of the people of the entire nation. She didn't get hosed by the EC. The EC did what it was supposed to do and not weigh the entire election based on blowouts in particular enclaves. If you think the fact that she was a woman wasn't a major factor in her losing the election or a factor in the way she was treated by her competitors and the media during the election I don't know what to say but you're dead wrong. The things I heard people (pundits and otherwise on both the republican and Bernie camps) mentioning about her period or her clothes are things that would never be said about a male candidate in any serious way. GutBomb fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:California and middle America are not the same thing and don't have the same values. Eliminate New York and California (2 states she would have won even if each state had several million fewer Hillary voters and 2 states that don't reflect the values of the typical republican voter) Because, you know, they voted for Clinton. Or do excess votes in blue states not count somehow, because they're not real america (presumably precisely because they consistently vote in a left-leaning way)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
I've seen the "two states shouldn't get to decide for the whole country" thing. "It isn't fair!" Not a peep about how a voter in Wyoming has four times the electoral college power than a New Yorker. So basically "fair" means "my side wins, even if there are fewer people voting that way"...
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:How does one measure "the will of the people of the entire nation" aside from how they voted? The founding fathers did not, and could not, predict how populations would skyrocket following industrialization, modern medicine, and agricultural sciences. It made some sense to give farmers more bargaining power because the population clusters in cities could more easily communicate with each other and organize better. Roughly 3/4 of the population were farmers at the turn of the 19th century. That number is now down to 2%. America needs a massive constitutional overhaul in our voting practices, but it's basically impossible at this point. Rich assholes created and push the "real Americans" narrative to make rural people feel good about loving over the "coastal elites" trying to mess with their traditions and way of life (by mandating better healthcare, wages, protecting the environment for current and future generations, etc.). The will of the nation was definitely more for Clinton than Trump, but that doesn't matter because she failed to play the rigged game correctly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:The founding fathers did not, and could not, predict how populations would skyrocket following industrialization, modern medicine, and agricultural sciences. Unfortunately the only people who want a massive constitutional overhaul want to do so solely for the purpose of adding pictures of stronk white men standing on minorities, women, atheists and non-Christian religious people, so as to fix the problem of its current fuzziness. Master Shake, I'm talking about Master Shake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:The founding fathers did not, and could not, predict how populations would skyrocket following industrialization, modern medicine, and agricultural sciences. When the first Electoral College met, there was already a ratio of 12.6x the population between the smallest state (Delaware) and the largest (Virginia). They were well aware that there would be massive disparity in state voting power, it was by intentional design. Sure it's now 66x between Wyoming and California, but we've had worse on the way - in 1890 the ratio was 126x between New York with 6 million and Nevada with under 48,000. Besides, most of the electoral college votes wouldn't be allocated by popular vote for decades to come. In the first presidential election, only Pennsylvania and Maryland appointed any electors via popular vote. And North Carolina and Rhode Island didn't actually vote due to not ratifying the Constitution yet. And NEw York didn't actually pick any electors because the state legislature was deadlocked on who to pick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Unfortunately the only people who want a massive constitutional overhaul want to do so solely for the purpose of adding pictures of stronk white men standing on minorities, women, atheists and non-Christian religious people, so as to fix the problem of its current fuzziness. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
MrUnderbridge posted:I've seen the "two states shouldn't get to decide for the whole country" thing. "It isn't fair!" "My side" didn't win. I'm quite a lefty. I'm just not so culty that I fall in to the trap of thinking all republican voters are racist monsters. Wyoming wasn't a factor, just like California wasn't a factor. Cut the EC votes for Wyoming to be even with New York and it makes no difference in the final outcome. There were just too many people in Michigan, Ohio, and Florida who bought in to the idea that a clown like Donald Trump of all people would be better than a woman when those same people voted for Obama twice. Sexism was a factor, and an idealized version of America was a factor. Racism is a (mostly) unintended consequence of creating and perpetuating that idealized version of America. GutBomb fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Oh poo poo, and here I thought they'd need to commission something but yes, you're looking at The Bill of Right of the New American Constitution Xtreme brought to you by Taco Bell and Master Shake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HappyHarryToons/status/853730921266257920
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:There was a large contingent of white moderate republicans who would normally have voted republican but voted for Obama for historical significance. Also to regular people being hard on drugs isn't primarily about oppressing blacks. It's about "law and order" which is a big sell for tons of people who lean republican, not because of the obvious racial implications, but because they dream of a world that never existed outside of 50's sitcoms and want it to "return." Yeah that's how Republicans market the drug war to your average suburban cul-de-sac dweller, but the party leadership absolutely knows the real strategy John Erlichman, Nixon strategist posted:You want to know what this was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. Jeffy Sessions knows exactly what he is doing, and knows that the future of the Republican party depends on taking away the voting rights of as many poors and nonwhites as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah that's how Republicans market the drug war to your average suburban cul-de-sac dweller, but the party leadership absolutely knows the real strategy Oh yeah I definitely feel like the party leadership is an incredibly racist horrible beast. I just think the vast majority of the voters aren't and don't realize what they are being duped into.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:25
|
|