|
You have to remember that the last 2 years especially have been incredibly filled with the ever dreaded OUTRAGE. And no one will admit it but every liberal leaning article talking about identity politics that gets passed around Facebook with thousands of shares usually sounds something like "gently caress all white people for being lovely trash." It's sensationalism but it's what people see. There are tons of liberals who write and speak about issues in a reasoned manner, but the ones that get attention are not those ones. We sit here now going "all we wanted was to have total equality how is that message too tough to swallow?!!!!" While totally ignoring the condescending and hostile tone that popular social media liberalism has taken. The left has had a consistent tone of "listen when I speak and believe it without question or you are trash." Ignoring that is willfully ignorant and 100% drives away people who would probably come around if they saw liberal talking points presented without the demand for thought compliance.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
Why don't people like identity politics? "Well it's because..." Haha gotcha racist scum!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:You can see it that way. I'm seeing that people are so desperate for a disruption in the status quo that they'll overlook all of the terrible poo poo trump stands for because at least he's something different Anecdotal but I have several friends who don't support Trump but sincerely think that simply because he's unpredictable that it's actually good. Their response to "what if he's actually a disaster" is "oh well at least we tried something different." There are a lot of people who sincerely believe that massive catastrophic system failure is just a natural risk that society takes and acceptable as long as we tried our best.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
People tried to label a candidates name hate speech and demanded campus safe spaces because it was written with chalk where people could see it. A name. That's the kind of poo poo people associate with idpol. You can sit around and go on about how reasonable and right you are and I agree with you for the most part. But the refusal to acknowledge and combat the more ridiculous aspects of liberalism in a visible way is why you'll get people who see stories like above and just dismiss the left as a bunch of scared weak babies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is just circular firing squad mentality at work. How would you feel if someone insisted that fiscal leftists were bad because they don't bother to constantly disavow Stalinists, Maoist Third-Worldists, and LF escapees? Or what if they insisted that it's fiscal leftists' responsibility to engage, ostracize, and utterly silence those and other fringe-left ideologies, and that otherwise-reasonable fiscal left policy is not credible until the extremists have first been snuffed out? It's obviously a ridiculous demand - you're not responsible for the beliefs of others who subscribe to the same general principles but have a far more tenuous connection to reality, and pushing you and those who share your beliefs to constantly disavow the nuts is merely an excuse to delegitimize your views and distract attention from real proposals. Sure, but when Conservatives are accused on being Nazis because white supremacists start spouting support for their candidates, they get on TV, they say "I disavow the neo-nazi guys over there," and then they move on. Visibly denouncing the fringe is important AND we as liberals demand and expect conservatives to do that. Sure we'll turn around and say it wasn't enough, and turn it into part of the political game but whatever. I get that we should not HAVE to do that, again, I understand and agree with what you're saying. But if you're trying to reach someone who only kind of agrees with you and kind of agrees with the other side too, you're playing an entirely different game and political theater matters. bag em and tag em fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The same goes for other policies. When someone calls on the fiscal left to denounce Maoist Third-Worldists, what they're really saying is "look, the fiscal left holds such awful policies that they attract the support of deplorable extremists like those; let's see if they're even willing to pretend otherwise". Same goes for the "social left", too - when someone calls on civil rights advocates to denounce people who post "kill all white people" on Facebook, they're really just implying that anti-racism advocates are secretly laying the foundation for white genocide. No one who insists that a movement denounce some fringe group intends to actually believe the denunciation - either it'll be declared not good enough, or it'll be regarded as a thinly disguised token move that no one believes. Okay but a huge point of idpol is "words matter." We have to watch what we say and be careful not to say things that are offensive and if anyone says something that even possibly maybe slightly a little bit could be offensive it's a week long scandal with public apologies and hand wringing. When fringe leftists then turn around and say stuff like "kill whitey" and suddenly we're all supposed to go "oh well I'm not going to address that because it would distract from the message" that's when people leaning towards the center tune idpol out and start to feel hostile to it because on the surface that feels like a huge hypocrisy and to someone who isn't already in agreement with the Left it's a huge turn off to listening to liberal messaging.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Do I condone the literal mass-murder of white people? Of course not. But sarcastic "kill whitey" Facebook posts are not nearly as bad as leaving a noose in a black kid's desk at school, and anyone who insists on creating a false equivalence between the two is pretty obviously not arguing in good faith. I am not asserting an equivalence AT ALL between those examples, but please please please do not with a straight face try to claim we haven't had dozens and dozens of liberal thinkpieces written about what end up amounting to offhand social media sarcasm thrown onto twitter by a white person. The thing is that very very few people are actually advocating that it's okay to draw swastikas or burn a cross. When those things happen they are typically denounced and derided as hateful acts that have no place in society by both sides. Obviously, there are people doing those things, so obviously racism IS a factor that must be fought. But there are still plenty of examples like my original where liberals complained they felt UNSAFE because a presidential candidate's name was written in chalk on a college campus and there are typically very serious discussions about how we all need to respect those fears and we need some kind of policy to make sure that kids are protected from the name D***** T****.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
stone cold posted:I, too, equivocate hate crimes with one particular private college campus's nonsense. You can say you're not equivocating, but you are. My post does not at any point say that the hate crimes are equivalent to the campus incident. In fact I specifically state that hate crimes are bad and should be stopped while saying that the campus incident and others on that level are minor but usually blown out of proportion to the extent that people tune out idpol. I did the opposite of say they are equal occurences.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 00:51
|
|