|
Fluffdaddy posted:This thread has gotten weird to the point that I feel like I will be eventually doxxed so I will peace out of it. You can find me in tgrs if you feel you need to police my posting any further.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
twodot posted:I was under the impression you are the one that wants to paper bag test people's language. I'm in favor of blanket ban, but you say things like: By calling people shitheads, same way we 'enforce' it in real life. Kilroy posted:Good job you stupid idiot assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:I was under the impression you are the one that wants to paper bag test people's language. I'm in favor of blanket ban, but you say things like: This is just policing a black man on using language about his own race. Can you cut this out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Why is it so controversial to just say no racial slurs
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
gowb posted:Why is it so controversial to just say no racial slurs
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Just take people at their word about their race on the forums unless you have convincing evidence otherwise. There's no indication that Fluffdaddy isn't a black dude. This isn't that complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:So the parallel you are making to Manning here is that if we tactically don't support her, her policies will wind up being enacted through reverse psychology? I'm happy to discuss tactics, but if we're in a situation where it's somehow good tactics to support bad policies something weird has happened, and we need to figure out what's going on. The tactic i’m discussing right now is “don’t run candidates that 30% of your base wants to imprison.” Chomskyan posted:
Digging into that survey. Joe Biden has a 14 point net approval advantage compared to Bernie. 53/29 (+24) to 48/38 (+10) Joe Biden has a 20 point net “would you vote for” advantage compared to Bernie. 48/44 (+4) to 39/55 (-16) Joe Biden has a 20 point net “would you vote for” advantage among democrats 75/16 (+59) to 66/27 (+39) The last two are real bad for Bernie. Is this an outlier? JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Shut the gently caress up gowb. Okay my bad, I'll come back after scamming hundreds out of tgrs and attacking trans folk and then calling a random black guy a coon right after saying that Ive never been perjorative toward any minority. then maybe you'll mourn my leaving (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I don't know, I don't think the theoretical possibility of a racist white person very convincingly posing as a black person so that they can get away with using racial slurs (but always in the culturally-appropriate context, because to do otherwise would give the game away) is a good enough reason to restrict the speech of black people and other minorities. Like, you realize what you're proposing would not affect white people on this forum at all, right? (Excepting of course the ones who are faking their identity.) 1) Minorities can use appropriate slurs, but only if they are overtly and consistently performing their identity, minorities who use slurs but haven't demonstrated their identity sufficiently get punished (this seems bad) 2) Anyone can use slurs so long as their is some token indicators of identity (this seems bad) 3) No one uses slurs (I really don't see anything wrong with this one)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
gowb posted:Okay my bad, I'll come back after scamming hundreds out of tgrs and attacking trans folk and then calling a random black guy a coon right after saying that Ive never been perjorative toward any minority. then maybe you'll mourn my leaving
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
twodot posted:The issue comes down to people who aren't overtly communicating their identity. The available options seem to be:
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Alternative option: everyone was doing fine with the current situation and you instead came through with some weird worrying that a black person might not actually be black and attempting to limit their speech. Accept that some universal principle is not applicable here without offending people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
If you have a problem with ever using that language just report the post and let the mods sort it out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I agree it's tricky but it doesn't really seem like it's my place to police that, nor yours. edit: sirtommygunn posted:If you have a problem with ever using that language just report the post and let the mods sort it out. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:The issue comes down to people who aren't overtly communicating their identity. The available options seem to be: This is a bit like Voter ID: a solution burdensome on a select population addressing an imaginary problem
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean, yeah, it's not my place to police it as I am literally not a moderator of this forum, but this is a forum with moderators, so I don't expressing a preference for a rule for this forum is crazy out there. Like people are saying context matters, while talking about real life interactions, and ignoring where we're having this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:The issue comes down to people who aren't overtly communicating their identity. The available options seem to be: The problem with this formulation is it’s white-normative. It assumes everyone’s white unless proven otherwise. Using a slur is itself an identifying act. Either you’re communicating that you’re not white (or male or cis) and the use is reclaimative, or you’re communicating that you’re a white (or male or cis) with some unexamined bias. If POC want to use reclaimative language and simultaneously reveal parts of their identity, why should we stop them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Holy poo poo i see this is your first encounter with gowb
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The problem with this formulation is it’s white-normative. It assumes everyone’s white unless proven otherwise. Using a slur is itself an identifying act. Either you’re communicating that you’re not white (or male or cis) and the use is reclaimative, or you’re communicating that you’re a white (or male or cis) with some unexamined bias. If POC want to use reclaimative language and simultaneously reveal parts of their identity, why should we stop them? It takes gowb to make JC post good opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The problem with this formulation is it’s white-normative. It assumes everyone’s white unless proven otherwise. Using a slur is itself a communicative act. Either you’re communicating that you’re not white (or male or cis) and the use is reclaimative, or you’re communicating that you’re a white (or male or cis) with some unexamined bias. If POC want to use reclaimative language and simultaneously reveal parts of their identity, why should we stop them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The problem with this formulation is it’s white-normative. It assumes everyone’s white unless proven otherwise. Using a slur is itself an identifying act. Either you’re communicating that you’re not white (or male or cis) and the use is reclaimative, or you’re communicating that you’re a white (or male or cis) with some unexamined bias. If POC want to use reclaimative language and simultaneously reveal parts of their identity, why should we stop them? This is good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:Lincoln kinda had his hand forced on ending slavery with the whole war thing though, so I don't think this is the comparison you are looking for. my history thesis was on how actually slaves running away from confederate owners basically forced the government's hand on freeing the slaves btw if anyone is interested in reading a shitload of primary documents related to slavery and the civil war barbara fields and ira berlin made a fantastic multi-volume collection called Freedom: A Documentary History of Emancipation
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:my history thesis was on how actually slaves running away from confederate owners basically forced the government's hand on freeing the slaves I would actually be interested in reading that if you still have it. Your thesis, that is. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i see this is your first encounter with gowb yeah what a heinous little honkey
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Congratulations on your first good and correct post ever on these forums, JeffersonClay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The tactic i’m discussing right now is “don’t run candidates that 30% of your base wants to imprison.” People still think Biden is his Onion character, if he were actively involved with politics again I feel those numbers would come down. His policy positions would be possibly more boring and uninspiring than Clinton’s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:People still think Biden is his Onion character, if he were actively involved with politics again I feel those numbers would come down. His policy positions would be possibly more boring and uninspiring than Clinton’s. Possibly but by historical standards Biden has every reason to be popular: vice president from a successful recent presidency, didn't run last cycle so not tainted by a recent loss, and he's a white male. He'd probably be less popular once he started running sure but there's no reason to think he couldn't varnish the floor with Trump's brains.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:People still think Biden is his Onion character, if he were actively involved with politics again I feel those numbers would come down. His policy positions would be possibly more boring and uninspiring than Clinton’s. That may be, but I’m skeptical about the penetration of the Onion Biden internet meme into the electorate at large. What seems far more likely is people miss Obama and that’s what Biden represents. I’d still worry more about the 39/55 deficit Bernie’s getting on the “would you vote for this person” question. That’s real bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Shut the gently caress up gowb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Look up Hilary’s numbers this far from election season, she looked good too. I’m not saying Biden would ever achieve HRC levels of unpopularity, but the guy who literally complained about millennials does not seem to me to be the right choice to energize people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
He also had that "rich people are patriotic too Bernie!!" quote recently which sounds really dumb. He's the type that gets out of a Democratic primary because he's the party's guy but then fails miserably in the general like Kerry since he's a tool. He's also the kind of politician that does better the less you know about him. When he's a VP it's fine but when he's actually running for president his voting record is going to be under a lot more scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:People still think Biden is his Onion character, if he were actively involved with politics again I feel those numbers would come down. His policy positions would be possibly more boring and uninspiring than Clinton’s. nothing possibly about it, he was a great VP but has entirely too many actively horrible policy positions I'd vote for this universe's O'Malley or goddamn Booker over him in the primary, never mind actual decent candidates
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Yeah I'd vote Booker over Biden without a second thought if I was given that choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Radish posted:He also had that "rich people are patriotic too Bernie!!" quote recently which sounds really dumb. He's the type that gets out of a Democratic primary because he's the party's guy but then fails miserably in the general like Kerry since he's a tool. He's also the kind of politician that does better the less you know about him. When he's a VP it's fine but when he's actually running for president his voting record is going to be under a lot more scrutiny. I imagine you'll see this big time with his history re: bussing and integration
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I would actually be interested in reading that if you still have it. sure, hopefully this link works as i know fuckall about dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/s/17muji9p8wsmgt4/thesis%20final%20-%20Copy.docx?dl=0 the first couple of pages deal with the historiography of the emancipation debate, the actual work on runaway slaves begins on page 5
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah I'd vote Booker over Biden without a second thought if I was given that choice. He’d be easier to attack from the left if elected, though. Much harder for Neera Tanden to shriek “RACESEXISM!” over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Also let's say Biden won, ok great now we're turbo-hosed when he and the Dem party continue to do nothing about any of the underlying problems. Sure we get some nice rhetoric and the good feelings of beating the GOP and then the reality will set in: Biden Dems will continually capitulate to corporations and the mil-industrial complex for 4 more years while literally hundreds of thousands more midwesterners die of opoid overdose and more people end up permanently indebted in poverty with no way out and even more end up hanging by their fingertips over the abyss and forced to bust their asses harder and harder just to keep what they've got. Then Trump 2.0: This Time He's Actually Competent comes along. I don't want to play those odds. Can't wait to hear Uncle Joe tell millennials that they're just imagining making 20% less than their parents while carrying heavier debt loads and priced out of the primary wealth-building mechanism of America (owning a home) and that they need to get tough or whatever other stupid Old White Guy poo poo he comes up with. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Radish posted:He also had that "rich people are patriotic too Bernie!!" quote recently which sounds really dumb. He's the type that gets out of a Democratic primary because he's the party's guy but then fails miserably in the general like Kerry since he's a tool. He's also the kind of politician that does better the less you know about him. When he's a VP it's fine but when he's actually running for president his voting record is going to be under a lot more scrutiny. Ok but he’s polling better than Bernie, even among democrats. His approval rating is higher, and his “would you want to vote for him” total is substantially higher—again even just among democrats. This last question has less to do with biden’s numbers being great (48/44) than it does with Bernie’s numbers being pretty abysmal (39/55). Bernie’s closer to trump on that question (34/62) than he is to Biden. Is this a new phenomenon?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Of course Biden is going to have super positive numbers at this point. He has the highest name recognition of any democrat who hasn't had to run a campaign in the past few years and is not currently in politics. He hasn't faced a second of public criticism and hasn't had to put forward any actual proposals. The fact that Biden's net favorables among democrats is only 7 points higher while Bernie was in one of the most contentious primaries in democratic history and is still frequently attacked by Clinton acolytes while Biden has been able to stay mostly above the fray doesn't bode well for him.
joepinetree fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
JeffersonClay, IIRC any politician who is not currently in politics has their approval numbers slowly rise. That's very common. Also IIRC, HRC was one of the exceptions to this. If I'm wrong somebody correct me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:46
|
|