|
pkay posted:I think you are missing ImpAtom's point. Why are you targeting resources to this specific group of people. They don't share any of your goals and are quite frankly very opposed to your stated goals. Also, while actively recruiting and appealing to said individuals you are indirectly demoralizing individuals who share your goals. because targeting your cohort proved to be a disastrous mistake in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, op. your friends, family, and coworkers can be trusted to vote Democrat once per decade on grounds they figure the Republicans have gone too far now. an electoral strategy based around these people is useful solely for justifying political impotence with "well, what was I supposed to do? talk to poors?"
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:If this was true we wouldn't have any more racists because it isn't like our culture has been quiet about racism being lovely. Learning to 'shut up' doesn't make it go away especially in the days of the internet where they can find plenty of open cultures who welcome their racist behavior. First off, I don't expect emotional labor from marginalized groups. Whites are the ones who need to use their privilege to make those spaces unsafe for white supremacy. Them learning to shut up actually does make the racism go away. If they don't open their mouths to spout out racist things because they're told to shut up whenever they do, this harms their ability to spread racism. Racists need to feel a certain amount of comfort to spread and maintain their views. This isn't something that non-whites can do though, or at least not often, and it's not something I expect from marginalized groups because it can put their safety at risk. What I'm talking about is that racism is usually uttered in private among other whites. The racist needs their words crammed down their throat to eliminate the safe spaces for racism. Not just in their political life, but their private lives as well. That means changing the culture and that is something that marginalized groups, again, really can't do. As a white guy, I do that. My safety generally isn't at risk. I make those spaces unsafe. Not physically, but I'll let them know that what they're saying is unacceptable and to eat poo poo. quote:Treating it like "oh gosh those poor racists/homophobes/etc just don't know better' is patronizing and ignoring the very real problem that they do know better. They just don't care because they enjoy having someone to hate and degrade. Asking people to constantly put themselves on the line for people who literally would be fine if they were tortured and murdered and in fact vote for their torture and murder every chance they get is unreasonable. Constantly giving, bending and acknowledging people who want you dead involves a *lot* of loving energy and when they turn around and throw it back in your face it takes a lot more energy to try again. So first off, I'm not talking about John Q. Chud. I'm talking about those 15% of people who voted for Obama then Trump and possibly Bernie in the primaries. The people who aren't bound by tribal affiliation when voting. They're able to be convinced. It's ridiculous to think that 100% of Trump voters are fascists. If they were all fascists we'd be pretty hosed. We'd probably all be dead, fled or hunted. So since you brought up homophones, let me talk about that for a second and throw some numbers at you. According to Pew, 37% of republicans now approve of gay marriage and 57% of them who lean republican approve. On the other hand, independents who lean democrat approve at 81%, but people who are affiliated with the democratic party are less at 71%. Which, in short, is to say that people are complicated and parties aren't a monolith even if they can seem that way. Parties are coalition affairs. Big tents for many people to populate who vote in the same direction enough to caucus together. People are gradually shifting towards approval for gay marriage over time with a slight drop from 2018 to 2019. Trends are strong though. And this is an honest question. If we cancel someone, excluding them from these social spaces, how do we ever convince people of anything if we reflexively tell them to gently caress off? Because I can guarantee you that a lot of those noes in the 2000's don't firmly stay noes while you pull solely from a pool of undecided people. I'd rather talk to undecided people because it's easier to convince them of a yes, but people do change their minds over time. Also the bigots are dying out faster than they can be replaced since they tend to be older. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ Remember that people are busy and that Trump is a conman who was getting good soundbites from the media to drive a horse-race narrative back in the day. Someone gets hit with the right soundbite and they'll make their decision to vote for or against him and justify that decision for the rest of the primaries, because human brains sort of suck that way. Trump courted the uneducated and the desperate and the busy and the pocketbook voters. Fascists are a part of his caucus, no doubt. They're also the most active part of his constituency, but they're not it. Someone who would vote for Trump right now? Well, poo poo, they most likely suck and I don't want to associate with them. But people change their minds. Not everyone is a fascist. I'd say that there are people who aren't bothered by hate, but don't subscribe to it either. They see it as a boutique issue when they're more interested in their own personal survival. And it's really hard to get people to care about others when they're desperately taking care of themselves and maybe their families if they have one. This is correct for survival, but only survival. People have been abused so hard that they think anything better is imposible. The democrats don't really do much to improve their material conditions and so they stuck with Trump. And I'm not talking about hardcore chuds. I'm talking about those swing voters who voted for Obama and then Trump and maybe Bernie in the primaries. You can get through to those people in a similar way that you can get to people who aren't politically engaged. Present a case for them, this is what we're about, what we want and how we want to do it. If they like it, sign them up, but hold them to certain standards with the understanding that these people are not going to be perfect. More on that later. If you can improve their material conditions or at least present a credible case that you will then you'll take the wind out of the sails of racism. It's not perfect, but you'll radicalize a lot of people with bread, peace and land and their modern equivalents. The rest though? Largely unsalvagable, yeah, and you leave them behind and marginalize them. We're probably in the top 95% of informed and engaged voters simply by being here. Most people I talk to don't even know the basics of how government works. They'll go with whomever gives them the best deal. They're political opportunists and what that often means is that they're most likely trying to survive. quote:This argument always boils down to "You must give everything because those other people are more important than you and it's your fault if you don't bow and whimper and beg and plead to them because they can't be expected to be adults or good people." This is something I see hurting a lot of places I work and volunteer with because people are human and have human limitations and expecting them to be ideal saints when they are degraded and hurt constantly and thrown under the bus by their own allies the moment it seems like it might appeal to the racist shits is ridiculous. I don't really understand what you're saying to me here. I won't bend over backwards for racists and I won't ask others to do it. They are terrible people and they know that what they say is largely socially unacceptable. My empathy has limits and this comes from being too empathetic and being punished for it. The paradox of tolerance is real and you can tolerate your own view or even yourself out of existence to be sure. So when what I said could be boiled down to something like "Accept being civilized or gently caress off", I mean it. I'm willing to give most people a chance if they're willing to act in good faith. When that good faith ends my patience ends. Prester Jane posted:This is a very complex subject, and it's a topic that's incredibly difficult for someone like Ice Phisherman to touch upon because he is himself not subject to the same forces of targeted oppression that minorities are in this country. Thank you. Yeah, I don't have the cultural credit, or street cred to tell people from marginalized groups what to do. I get that it's going to be demoralizing and I don't want to lose that hard core of activists that makes up any political movement because it draws heavily from those marginalized groups. I don't want to put more pressure on activists and I'm sorry if I came off that way. quote:I think the argument that Ice Phisherman was trying to make here was that when/if rural conservatives join Bernie's campaign as supporters that they shouldn't be thrown out the first time they screw up (and oh God will most of them screw up at least once or twice)- they can be potentially improved/re-socialized by spending time in a leftist activist environment. The people who you'll draw from will be along the rural/conservative line or will come from weird places. Imagine your average Juggalo. They're coarse and occasionally, if not often ignorant, have a strain of homophobia running through them and will say poo poo things sometimes, but there's something worth salvaging from them and honestly, learning from them as well. Their identity is complex has been staunchly anti-racist and anti-elite and anti-authoritarian for going on thirty years and they feel a strong sense of community. I'm not interested in courting Storm Front assholes. They can gently caress off. Who I'm talking about would be someone more along the lines of your average Juggalo. Not only them, but as a for instance. People who aren't going to neatly fit and will need some civilizing to get along, but actually can be civilized. They are 100% going to repeatedly gently caress up during that civilizing process and they could very well hit a wall in that process. Hell, I gently caress up and I'm trying my best not to. I feel that the secret sauce is a mix of good faith and the intent to learn. If they can come that far, which is drat far for most people, I'd be willing to risk some emotional labor and time to try and give them the Goofus and Gallant Highlights reels. quote:That said if you're a marginalized person you don't owe any jackass the time of day, and you certainly don't owe them the amount of energy that is required in helping someone overcome these kinds of psychological humps. Yeah, this. I'm not demanding emotional labor from marginalized groups. That's too much for people who are doing activism because the threat to them is existential. Civilizing people is going to be a culture thing and it's going to take time. A long, long time for many people with cultural and emotional peaks and valleys and plateaus. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:And now ladies and gentlemen I present to you a moment of centrist wisdom: https://twitter.com/CosechaMovement/status/1197684624970919936?s=19 Guess we have to trust the reporter on that one because I sure can't hear him in the video.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
pkay posted:Why aren't you focusing on urban apathetic cynics who haven't been bombarded by right-wing tropes and bullshit ideology? It's much easier to give the guy who believes in nothing something to believe in. This is a really bad counter argument for a bunch of reasons. First off no one is advocating any kind of dedication of resources of any form here, we're talking about people who would show up at their own accord. (And they will- give a rural person a reason to believe that their actions will improve the lives of themselves/their communities and you'll have all the volunteer labor you could have asked for.) Second off....... the reason I am talking about the rural parts of the country and ways to perform social outreach to them is because... well I was kind of raised in an extreme form of that environment and have great empathy for those caught up in such dysfunctional social environments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:because targeting your cohort proved to be a disastrous mistake in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, op. Those are the poors my dude....And this is why black folks in general don't gently caress with leftist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Guess we have to trust the reporter on that one because I sure can't hear him in the video. what's that old line? something about "none so blind as."
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:37
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:This is a really bad counter argument for a bunch of reasons. First off no one is advocating any kind of dedication of resources of any form here, we're talking about people who would show up at their own accord. (And they will- give a rural person a reason to believe that their actions will improve the lives of themselves/their communities and you'll have all the volunteer labor you could have asked for.) Now ask yourself, who is more likely to show up at their own accord to your 'leftist activist' symposium? A rural conservative or an urban apathetic? In fact, which group is easier to court?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:41
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Guess we have to trust the reporter on that one because I sure can't hear him in the video. https://twitter.com/JuliaTerruso/status/1197698865660596226?s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:42
|
|
|
pkay posted:Now ask yourself, who is more likely to show up at their own accord to your 'leftist activist' symposium? A rural conservative or an urban apathetic? In fact, which group is easier to court? What discussion are you even trying to have here? No one is talking about "courting" anyone, and what even is this bizarre distinction being drawn between rural conservatives and "urban apathetics" and how is it even germane? Or how about this one for you; Hillary Clinton invested a bunch of time/effort/campaign resources in recruiting "urban apathetics". How'd that strategy work out for her? Good right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:46
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:What discussion are you even trying to have here? No one is talking about "courting" anyone, and what even is this bizarre distinction being drawn between rural conservatives and "urban apathetics" and how is it even germane? She won the primary atleast  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
pkay posted:She won the primary atleast Okay, are you going to answer any of my counter-arguments or just take the opportunity to be smug?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
pkay posted:Now ask yourself, who is more likely to show up at their own accord to your 'leftist activist' symposium? A rural conservative or an urban apathetic? In fact, which group is easier to court? The answer is to appeal to both. Abandoning rural America is something that not only the democrats are doing, but the republicans are doing too. Mitch McConnel's approval rate is 18%. You don't need a make a stellar case to depose his rear end with those kinds of numbers. You do need to appeal to people by telling them that you'll improve their material conditions though. Americans can and do agree on lots of political questions. It's just that those kinds of questions aren't discussed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcEWbzXF3Es Sanders got cheers as a Fox News town hall. Not all of them, but a lot of them. Enough that he got rousing cheers cheers from the Fox News crowd. Republicans win on razor thin margins and if he can absorb even a tiny sliver of their constituency, he'll eat the republicans alive in the general. It's not about discouragement, which politicians often do try to do with attack ads. That just keeps people from showing up. Conversion with the right message not only denies votes to your political opponent but adds his or her strength to yours. You're double dipping and it's all without needing to run attack ads on your competent. It's so good. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:48
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Conversion with the right message not only denies votes to your political opponent but adds his or her strength to yours. You're double dipping. It's so good. Sun Tzu posted:Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own, and likewise a single PICUL of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one's own store.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
Hillary was a fool to court Republicans! The path to winning is to, uh... Pull rural voters!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Hillary was a fool to court Republicans! I mean, pull more voters. Rural people among them. Otherwise we cede those states to the republicans forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Hillary was a fool to court Republicans! The only thing I can read into this is classism
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Hillary was a fool to court Republicans! Wisconsin
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Hillary was a fool to court Republicans! You're really letting the mask slip on this one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Hillary was a fool to court Republicans!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Hillary was a fool to court Republicans! pop quiz: what was the median income of trump voters. it is tempting to blame those goddamned rurals for Trump. salena zito actually made a career out of telling you you could do so for a hot second! but then some spoilsport looked at the people she'd actually interviewed, and the horrifying truth was revealed. the fey New York real estate scammer talking about how he's so good at deals was never aiming at them. suburbia is trump country. middle management is trump country. every mediocre white guy who is just aware enough to fear redistribution might hurt him instead of help him, that's trump country. campaigning on appealing to them seems to have failed. maybe try something else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Guess we have to trust the reporter on that one because I sure can't hear him in the video. Biden is a piece of poo poo but I listened to that video 3 times and didn't hear what the tweet says that video says. Whatever, gently caress Biden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:08
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:Biden is a piece of poo poo but I listened to that video 3 times and didn't hear what the tweet says that video says. The exchange in question happens right before that video started, the relevant dialogue was quoted a few posts back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:12
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:The exchange in question happens right before that video started, the relevant dialogue was quoted a few posts back. So why bother posting that video that includes none of that exchange in the tweet saying that's what he said? That brings her credibility into question and no-one should ever be confused as to whether Biden is a piece of poo poo or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:19
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:The answer is to appeal to both. Abandoning rural America is something that not only the democrats are doing, but the republicans are doing too. Mitch McConnel's approval rate is 18%. You don't need a make a stellar case to depose his rear end with those kinds of numbers. You do need to appeal to people by telling them that you'll improve their material conditions though. Rural America, especially places like Kentucky, etc are not lost to Democrats. A big reason why Trump was able to win last time is he went to areas that had people struggling, Democrats thought were safe and gave them false hope. If you would get Democrats in those red areas, send candidates into the small towns, listen to the local's problems and then work for them it would work. You have to do a lot of leg work, educate and gain the trust of the districts but it is not only possible but repeatable. The plus is it would cause the GOP to use a lot of resources on defending against such tactics. It's effectively gorilla political warfare. In rural states like many of the Deep Red areas you wouldn't even need huge staffs as the populations aren't high. You can blanket entire districts in a few weeks and keep doing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:19
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:pop quiz: what was the median income of trump voters. You're the one equivocating "rural" and "poor" here. Rural voters went for Trump in large numbers. The poor did not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:20
|
|
|
Here's the relevant clip: https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/1197686251819810816
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:21
|
|
|
love this
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:22
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:You're the one equivocating "rural" and "poor" here. I feel like if you waddle into a thread and lay a fat turd like that you should be made to answer for it or face a probation. It was a bad post even by theflyingorc standards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:24
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:You're the one equivocating "rural" and "poor" here. So since rural areas are primarily poor... that means that courting poor rural voters is a strategy with a lot of potential upside? But then if we accept that idea it kind of flies in the face of that smug dismissive attitude you had about doing any sort of outreach to rural populations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
Brave New World posted:Here's the relevant clip: I think... and I'm going to go out on a limb here... that perhaps Biden might not be a great candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:I think... and I'm going to go out on a limb here... that perhaps Biden might not be a great candidate. How dare you sir?!?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:33
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Why do you equivocate courting Republicans by adopting their values and courting Republicans by changing their values? The most brainwashed Americans in history will change their tune once we tell them the truth, I'm sure of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:34
|
|
|
Trying to win over Republicans is intensely stupid, and Democrats need to stop trying it. However, Trump voters are also largely not poor. The truth is that the right is overrepresented in rural areas because those areas are that much easier to gerrymander. Remember: the American right is not a legitimate political movement. It is an authoritarian movement that does not care about how they get into power, only that they have power. They're playing by different rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:37
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:
Remember that post-election research pegged these people as mostly lifelong Republicans temporarily embarrassed by Bush who got coaxed over by someone who was not simply charismatic, but presented a very mild, centrist, bipartisan campaign. Also remember how many Trump voters turned out to (at least claim to) believe that for all the bad publicity his policies would be more moderate than that scary arch-liberal Clinton's. Even if that was only because he claimed literally every position and you could believe whatever you liked. So yeah, those people aren't hardcore Trumpists unless they've hardened into them since 2016, and they're reachable. But I wouldn't rush to assume exactly what would reach them. As usual, better to appeal to people who stayed home in 2016 than people who voted fore Trump. There's just more of them and they're less conservative by and large.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Because, of the two, the second one sounds less likely to be successful? theflyingorc posted:Hillary was a fool to court Republicans! I don't actually agree with everything Ice Phisherman and PJ are saying here, by which I mean I guess I somehow have a more pessimistic view of human nature than they do at least on this specific thing (which is surprising to me). I mean, my most recent probe is for suggesting we should tackle this problem with more... direct methods. But I'm able to read their loving words and engage those ideas on their merits if I choose to - although in this case as you can see I chose not to because I'm kinda on the fence anyway and don't have a lot to add. Truth be told I'm probably closer to where you are on this than where they are - but you don't see me kramering into the discussion here with blatant trolling and a bad-faith opening argument. Engage these ideas on their actual merits or shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:46
|
|
|
Strange Poon posted:https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471528-poll-biden-and-sanders-tied-nationally-followed-by-warren National polls aren't worth anything in the early primary. Early state polls are where it is at. There is reason to be optimistic about Iowa and New Hampshire, but Biden still enjoys the same 20 point "good luck catching up to this lead" advantage in South Carolina that portends a southern sweep on Super Tuesday that Clinton did in 2016. South Carolina numbers are what you really need to see start moving away from Biden before getting too excited.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:That's a pretty terrible justification for equivocating the two ideas, which is what you actually did: Still not bad faith, guy. I stand by it. Did seeing Hillary's name make your brain short circuit or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Because, of the two, the second one sounds less likely to be successful? You don't lecture them (or anyone really) into improving- you provide them an opportunity to work towards the betterment of their communities in the latch onto it. You provide them with the opportunity to learn better values while they participate in working towards the common goal of a better future for us all. Your attitude here is the embodiment of the smug coastal elitist who thumbs their nose at the ignorant trials who are too dumb to understand what's best for them. You are part of the problem, please stop stepping in the way of the people who are trying to be the solution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:52
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Still not bad faith, guy. I stand by it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 07:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:
I can't speak for IP, but my own pessimism generally revolves around a severe distrust of the preference for negative peace that a comfortable lived experience inculcates in most individuals- people who are lashing out because they are suffering are easier to reach in my experience. You offer a poor or rural person a,handrail to a better life and they will latch the gently caress on with a determination that will leave you speechless. the real trick is convincing them that the handrail can be trusted, and in order to do that you need leaders that speak with authenticity and not managers that speak in buzzwords and platitudes. That's why Bernie does so well amongst rural populations that would otherwise go to Trump, because he speaking to them with authenticity and even if they don't agree with him his authenticity gives them reason to believe that the handrail he is offering is effing lefit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 08:03
|
|