C. Everett Koop posted:

The problem with the polling is that it changes drastically come actual election time, once the GOP propaganda machine revs up and The Base Comes Home. What looks like a slam dunk 12 months out suddenly becomes a toss-up or a losing effort once ballots actually have to be cast.

Ytlaya posted:

I feel like it's easy to throw that sort of thing out there, but a lot of the people who do that sort of thing rarely actually focus on giving anything material to minority communities.

Like, part of the reason I say this is that I understand the temptation. You can go into certain online spaces as a white person and talk about how terrible white people are and gain instant social acceptance. It's easy. Far easier than actually supporting the sorts of ideas and policy that might require you to make some material sacrifices for the sake of the minority groups in question.

For young liberals today, focusing on social justice in a way that generally neglects to bring up the topic of actual material redistribution (in the form of basically any dramatic expansion of government spending that would directly benefit minority communities) is very popular. Because it's easy. It demands almost nothing of the people in question. They can feel good about themselves while continuing to remain part of the materially privileged top ~20%. What a great deal! And while I don't think this is part of the motivation of the individuals in question, I don't think it's a coincidence that people are divorcing from the topic of social justice its material elements. The whole strategy characterized by the 2016 primary - painting social justice and economic justice as separate (if not directly at odds with one another) - allows people with otherwise good intentions to pursue their social justice goals in a way that doesn't actually threaten those with wealth and power.

Just to be clear, what I'm criticizing here isn't so much people saying these sorts of things, but more what they often don't say and do. I feel like we shouldn't give people praise and/or acceptance just because they're willing to condemn white people or whatever. They need to also express a greater commitment to reparations (in a broad sense referring to creating actual equal material outcomes in addition to fighting social bigotry).

Ytlaya posted:

Like, part of the reason I say this is that I understand the temptation. You can go into certain online spaces as a white person and talk about how terrible white people are and gain instant social acceptance. It's easy. Far easier than actually supporting the sorts of ideas and policy that might require you to make some material sacrifices for the sake of the minority groups in question.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Generally when I shout "loving white people" at the heavens it's right after I've hung up the phone in my office, not anywhere public or even online.

I get the joking aspect and I get the power differential aspect etc. But (without going into too much detail for fear of doxxing) my day job is literally working for a social justice nonprofit that works directly with minority communities. I don't expect a cookie for that -- I didn't so much choose this career as fall into the only available option I could find that wasn't morally horrible; I'm more lucky than anything else -- but when I see people respond to a Doug Jones' victory with "exterminate every single last white male" . . . it's . . . the best term would probably be "exasperating." I don't blame people for saying that stuff but, like, I really am trying here!

It's not a big deal but it's kinda a dick thing to say. On the other hand this site is not a hugbox and anyone who expects it to be won't survive here very long; if we policed all dick-ish speech we would run out of posters inside a week.

Point being, don't assume that just because this is an internet forum the people on the other end of the screen aren't actively out there working and making real sacrifices for social justice. Maybe there are a lot of "tumblerina" types out there just performing on social media and not doing, I don't know, but I do know there are a lot of people (and a lot of white people, even) out there actually doing concrete things to further social justice and it's a little irritating when that work gets dismissed or assumed away.

[While I'm on my soapbox, the term "social justice warrior" pisses me off for the same reasons, just coming from the other direction. Like, yes, that's what I do, that's a good thing, how the gently caress did that become a pejorative?!].

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Generally when I shout "loving white people" at the heavens it's right after I've hung up the phone in my office, not anywhere public or even online.

I get the joking aspect and I get the power differential aspect etc. But (without going into too much detail for fear of doxxing) my day job is literally working for a social justice nonprofit that works directly with minority communities. I don't expect a cookie for that -- I didn't so much choose this career as fall into the only available option I could find that wasn't morally horrible; I'm more lucky than anything else -- but when I see people respond to a Doug Jones' victory with "exterminate every single last white male" . . . it's . . . the best term would probably be "exasperating." I don't blame people for saying that stuff but, like, I really am trying here!

It's not a big deal but it's kinda a dick thing to say. On the other hand this site is not a hugbox and anyone who expects it to be won't survive here very long; if we policed all dick-ish speech we would run out of posters inside a week.

Point being, don't assume that just because this is an internet forum the people on the other end of the screen aren't actively out there working and making real sacrifices for social justice. Maybe there are a lot of "tumblerina" types out there just performing on social media and not doing, I don't know, but I do know there are a lot of people (and a lot of white people, even) out there actually doing concrete things to further social justice and it's a little irritating when that work gets dismissed or assumed away. I mean . .I know it's not enough and there is an immeasurable amount of work still to be done but . . .

[While I'm on my soapbox, the term "social justice warrior" pisses me off for the same reasons, just coming from the other direction. Like, yes, that's what I do, that's a good thing, how the gently caress did that become a pejorative?!].

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Generally when I shout "loving white people" at the heavens it's right after I've hung up the phone in my office, not anywhere public or even online.

I get the joking aspect and I get the power differential aspect etc. But (without going into too much detail for fear of doxxing) my day job is literally working for a social justice nonprofit that works directly with minority communities. I don't expect a cookie for that -- I didn't so much choose this career as fall into the only available option I could find that wasn't morally horrible; I'm more lucky than anything else -- but when I see people respond to a Doug Jones' victory with "exterminate every single last white male" . . . it's . . . the best term would probably be "exasperating." I don't blame people for saying that stuff but, like, I really am trying here!

It's not a big deal but it's kinda a dick thing to say. On the other hand this site is not a hugbox and anyone who expects it to be won't survive here very long; if we policed all dick-ish speech we would run out of posters inside a week.

Point being, don't assume that just because this is an internet forum the people on the other end of the screen aren't actively out there working and making real sacrifices for social justice. Maybe there are a lot of "tumblerina" types out there just performing on social media and not doing, I don't know, but I do know there are a lot of people (and a lot of white people, even) out there actually doing concrete things to further social justice and it's a little irritating when that work gets dismissed or assumed away. I mean . .I know it's not enough and there is an immeasurable amount of work still to be done but . . .

[While I'm on my soapbox, the term "social justice warrior" pisses me off for the same reasons, just coming from the other direction. Like, yes, that's what I do, that's a good thing, how the gently caress did that become a pejorative?!].

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Generally when I shout "loving white people" at the heavens it's right after I've hung up the phone in my office, not anywhere public or even online.

I get the joking aspect and I get the power differential aspect etc. But (without going into too much detail for fear of doxxing) my day job is literally working for a social justice nonprofit that works directly with minority communities. I don't expect a cookie for that -- I didn't so much choose this career as fall into the only available option I could find that wasn't morally horrible; I'm more lucky than anything else -- but when I see people respond to a Doug Jones' victory with "exterminate every single last white male" . . . it's . . . the best term would probably be "exasperating." I don't blame people for saying that stuff but, like, I really am trying here!

It's not a big deal but it's kinda a dick thing to say. On the other hand this site is not a hugbox and anyone who expects it to be won't survive here very long; if we policed all dick-ish speech we would run out of posters inside a week.

Point being, don't assume that just because this is an internet forum the people on the other end of the screen aren't actively out there working and making real sacrifices for social justice. Maybe there are a lot of "tumblerina" types out there just performing on social media and not doing, I don't know, but I do know there are a lot of people (and a lot of white people, even) out there actually doing concrete things to further social justice and it's a little irritating when that work gets dismissed or assumed away. I mean . .I know it's not enough and there is an immeasurable amount of work still to be done but . . .

[While I'm on my soapbox, the term "social justice warrior" pisses me off for the same reasons, just coming from the other direction. Like, yes, that's what I do, that's a good thing, how the gently caress did that become a pejorative?!].

DrNutt posted:

Doug Jones' victory is fantastic but looking at the demos is legitimately distressing. A majority of white people (men and women) would prefer a child molesting creep over a Democrat. As a white male I find that troubling on a lot of different levels, not least of which being the anxiety I feel when I imagine that most of my family probably would have voted for Roy Moore had they lived in Alabama. I feel increasingly estranged from them the more and more poo poo like this that happens and I feel genuinely sick about it.

So while "exterminate every last white person" seems a tad extreme, I completely sympathize where that comes from.

DrNutt posted:

Doug Jones' victory is fantastic but looking at the demos is legitimately distressing. A majority of white people (men and women) would prefer a child molesting creep over a Democrat. As a white male I find that troubling on a lot of different levels, not least of which being the anxiety I feel when I imagine that most of my family probably would have voted for Roy Moore had they lived in Alabama. I feel increasingly estranged from them the more and more poo poo like this that happens and I feel genuinely sick about it.

So while "exterminate every last white person" seems a tad extreme, I completely sympathize where that comes from.

Trabisnikof posted:

Consider that the of the majority of white non-evangelicals didn't vote pedo as a saving grace. It was the evangelical whites that voted for Moore overwhelmingly.

Ytlaya posted:

Trabisnikof posted:

Consider that the of the majority of white non-evangelicals didn't vote pedo as a saving grace. It was the evangelical whites that voted for Moore overwhelmingly.

Endorph posted:

Keep in mind that those numbers you see are becuase of how huge the evangelical christian community in Alabama is. The numbers on White voters if you remove evangelical christians are like 75/25 in favor of Jones. likewise if you remove white people over the age of 40 you get something like 65/35 in favor of Jones.

Race is definitely a factor, and there's a racial dimension to hardcore conservative Christianity, but boiling it down to just 'white people' is a little oversimplified.

DrNutt posted:

Thanks for reminding me of this. I still think there's very much a problem in this country in the vein of "what the gently caress is the matter with white men" that increasingly needs to be addressed.

Endorph posted:

Keep in mind that those numbers you see are becuase of how huge the evangelical christian community in Alabama is. The numbers on White voters if you remove evangelical christians are like 75/25 in favor of Jones.

Endorph posted:

saying 'white *men*' is also kind of an issue in this context since a greater percentage of white women voted for Moore than white men.

DrNutt posted:

Doug Jones' victory is fantastic but looking at the demos is legitimately distressing. A majority of white people (men and women) would prefer a child molesting creep over a Democrat. As a white male I find that troubling on a lot of different levels, not least of which being the anxiety I feel when I imagine that most of my family probably would have voted for Roy Moore had they lived in Alabama. I feel increasingly estranged from them the more and more poo poo like this that happens and I feel genuinely sick about it.

So while "exterminate every last white person" seems a tad extreme, I completely sympathize where that comes from.

Endorph posted:

saying 'white *men*' is also kind of an issue in this context since a greater percentage of white women voted for Moore than white men.

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Really you should be asking yourself "what's the matter with white boomers? (and older GenX people)" because they really are the absolutely epitome of garbage politics and beliefs.

The answer, in my anecdotal experience, is that they largely benefited from the welfare state and labor protections of the Greatest Generation while convincing themselves that they were self-made bootstrappers who outcompeted everyone in a Randian hellscape. You haven't lived until you've heard some Orange County firefighter chief who retired at 58 collecting a 140k a year pension rail against wasteful government from his second home (a condo in Hawaii)

Endorph posted:

Keep in mind that those numbers you see are becuase of how huge the evangelical christian community in Alabama is. The numbers on White voters if you remove evangelical christians are like 75/25 in favor of Jones. likewise if you remove white people over the age of 40 you get something like 65/35 in favor of Jones.

Race is definitely a factor, and there's a racial dimension to hardcore conservative Christianity, but boiling it down to just 'white people' is a little oversimplified.

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Really you should be asking yourself "what's the matter with white boomers? (and older GenX people)" because they really are the absolutely epitome of garbage politics and beliefs.

The answer, in my anecdotal experience, is that they largely benefited from the welfare state and labor protections of the Greatest Generation while convincing themselves that they were self-made bootstrappers who outcompeted everyone in a Randian hellscape.

DrNutt posted:

Thanks for reminding me of this. I still think there's very much a problem in this country in the vein of "what the gently caress is the matter with white men" that increasingly needs to be addressed.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Is this what delusion feels like?

Grapplejack posted:

There's a possibility that social isolation and a general feeling of not "belonging" is making people more ripe to get picked up by slavish conmen like bannon, et al; the insular nature of a lot of evangelical rhetoric and the 'do or die rapture style' also forces people to be more willing and open to compromising their own morals and ethics in order to further the ideals of the group, even at their own expense.

... that's probably too close to PJ's narrative stuff, I think. I don't know.

Chilichimp posted:

It cannot be said loud enough that Roy Moore's behavior was not controversial to evangelicals.

Grapplejack posted:

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/voters-think-trump-resign-harassment-allegations/


Sorry for the super long quote post but there's so much fascinating poo poo in the latest PPPolls that I couldn't help myself. I bolded some of the most fun poo poo. The Republican Party is loving trapped with Trump, and I assume internal polling is showing similar. They're totally hosed.

quote:

Trump voters... Just 45% say they would disapprove of Trump sexually harassing women while 22% actually say they would approve of him doing so,

C. Everett Koop posted:

The goal has always been to bring slavery back. With a name change and a fancy PR campaign you'd have people willingly putting themselves in chains and being none the wiser.

The only way out is through bloodshed. I've told you who the targets need to be.

Cerebral Bore posted:

It's very simple, actually. Basically the far-right chucklefucks have bought so hard into their own bullshit that they seriously think they can just make up accusations of sexual assault out of whole cloth, and everybody on the other side will automatically believe them without question. So of course they've only managed to come up with the most amateur hour poo poo possible.

Potato Salad posted:

If I understand correctly, the theory is that maga chuds think the evidence against the Trump admin and a bunch of gop politicians is wholly fabricated, so they've played themselves and actually gone and done what they thought everyone was already doing?

That's so plausible that it's probably at least a component of what actually went down. I can't think of any other reason Mike Cernovitch would not verify his source: he doesn't know that's something journalists do.

WampaLord posted:

No, and the fact that you think it's delusional says so much about you.

DrNutt posted:

Doug Jones' victory is fantastic but looking at the demos is legitimately distressing. A majority of white people (men and women) would prefer a child molesting creep over a Democrat.

Under the vegetable posted:

Slavery never left. When it was abolished with the thirteenth amendment they put that key part in there "abolished except as punishment for a crime." I wonder why black people have been disproportionately imprisoned and forced into labor ever since. Weird. I wonder why you and other posters who get so worked up about this supported candidates who used slaves and slave labor in their private lives in governor's mansions etc. Weird.

The only way out is through bloodshed, but vote for this nice white lady in the blue dress, she treats us nice. What the gently caress??

C. Everett Koop posted:

buddy if you think i voted for abuela you got another thing coming

cheetah7071 posted:

I mean honestly I can understand it. I have a senator coming up in 2018 and if it turned out she was a serial killer or whatever I would have to think long and hard about whether sending a message like that was worth the seat in congress. My preference in that case would probably be getting her seated then immediately expelled and replaced, rather than just electing her opponent.

Voting for Roy Moore would still have been a massive failing even if he weren't a pedophile though so

VitalSigns posted:

You could vote for the strongest write-in challenger, there would be one if we found out a Democratic senator were a serial killer a month before a general election, and hopefully the Democratic party would be supporting the write-in rather than cravenly funding a criminal like the RNC did.

Like you don't have to elect serial killers to government just to prove your loyalty to the Party.

cheetah7071 posted:

Yeah I'd vote for literally any credible write-in in that scenario. That's a good point that nobody on the republican side even tried to run a write-in campaign to help voters out of that corner.

Chilichimp posted:

It cannot be said loud enough that Roy Moore's behavior was not controversial to evangelicals.

Futuresight posted:

I think evangelicals don't really get that children are human beings. Like, letting them be abused by paedophiles is only arguably the worst thing that community will do to children. It has to compete with stuff like the abusive education programs and gay camps.