Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

The 90/10 split towards Clinton is because the Republicans are the ones driving African Americans towards the Democrats due to the Republicans own actions, which, unfortunately, leads to the African American vote being taken for granted because they'll reliably go mostly Democrat every time.

That's what happens when you do the divisive stuff and voter suppression that the Republicans do. So, if anybody is to blame for the faliure, it's the Republicans.

[Max™]

Bernie Sanders is endorsing Keith Ellison for DNC chair.

Keith Ellison. Seems like an allright guy, though may be a bit controversial.

Eh, kinda bland compared to a hypothetical-but-for-some-reason-not-totally-implausible Gabbard/The Rock ticket, but what the heck.

Max: The lesson I was referring to learning was that perhaps they should focus on a candidate's policies, experience and character rather than trotting out the same tired 'Look! It's a woman/black/hispanic! Super progressive!' talking points. Identity politics are cancerous, and if the first thing to be said about your new prospective candidate is about her gender and race then it already feels like nothing that matters will really change.

So by snipping out the bits where I pointed out how she has been either serving as a legislator, on a city council, in the House, or over in Iraq during the war... it's my fault?

If anything my point is "hey look, not another pasty old corpse that hasn't stopped moving yet" not "ooh, so fresh and progressive, awesome" because I think not having to scroll waaay over to find them on an actuarial table is a good quality for someone expected to take part in a 4 or 8 year long stint at a high stress high power job.

Yes, identity politics is a mole which is always at risk of becoming cancerous, but it's here, I just watched Trump win an election, I'm far too cynical at this point to think pushing the "hey look, I can't remember the 50's and know how to use a fucking smartphone" button is a bad thing.

As MSH said, she can work the "and" angle, which is what I was thinking of, I don't know why the "or" angle would even be discussed outside of "ok folks, what do you prefer: her OR a decrepit old zombie" maybe?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's nothing wrong with identity politics in general

I strongly

You know, you could in fact address some part of my post's argument, as opposed to the first half of the thesis sentence.

Identity politics exist for both pragmatic and idealistic good reasons. Pragmatically because you have to address the various groups of the nation, and idealistically because people aren't likely to care short of national anarchy otherwise. Before identity politics black people and their supporters had to practically burn down America before Congress would address the civil rights issues. The risk of division is far superior to that, and besides, it's not going to end anyway. Work with the world you've got.

Wall Street is certainly a universal problem, but it is not the only problem. Consistent ethic. I don't believe we can solve Wall Street without caring about identity issues, and I don't believe solving Wall Street would meaningfully solve most identity issues even if we could.

[Max™]

COVENANT, WHY ARE YOU MAKING MSH AND I AGREE, DO YOU NOT CARE THAT IT BURNSES US?

[sluissa]

"hey look, I can't remember the 50's and know how to use a fucking smartphone"

Just a humorous note:

Clinton not remembering stuff and her use of her smartphone wasn't exactly helpful to her campaign.

[Max™]

Tis indeed humorous, go stand in the corner with Covenant.

[ChairmanPoo]

Here's my official prediction for the election:

Here's mine: I work until 11:00 PM  taking shit from every self-entitled nutter in the Upper East Side, briefly go home to check who won (surprise, Hillary), take a train ride to my dorm, and pass out on my bed.

I'ma go now. Gotta get dinner while I can.

[Rolepgeek]

Well.

Not really, actually.

You can't apply the aggregate to the individual. For the same reason that you can't say 'X populations are less skilled at Z on average, therefore Y individual who is a member of X population will be less skilled at Z' accurately (someone with a disease that has a 40% rate of survival is not 60% dead), you can't show that any one person is replacing anyone, particularly not in any malicious way.

Demographic replacement is a very odd issue, morally speaking. Opposition to it is both strange and nonsensical as well as eminently practical. Though I suspect once the Republican party stops being the party of white people (in about 16-20 years), mostly because they can't afford to be anymore, that the practicality of it will be much reduced. As it is now, if you're Republican, demographic shift also means that people are more likely to be voted in who would have things that would oppose your values, since most minorities vote Democrat. Doesn't even matter whether you're racist or not, from a practical standpoint, the Democrats are trying to accelerate a change in demographics that would empower them and make you less likely to get things you want. You can be a minority and still think this way. Hell, from what I can tell a rather large proportion of minority populations are socially conservative. Asians, Hispanics, Muslims, African-Americans...religious upbringing tends to (not always, just tendencies) make one conservative.

Sidenote: Covenant, as much as the social justice movement exacerbates the problem ('cultural appropriation'. Either it means stereotyping, which we already have a word for, or it means 'what does this minority culture group tend to do? okay, dominant culture group, you're not allowed to do that', which is just segregation/anti-assimilation by another name I mean fucking hell), identity politics is not preferred by the left. It's become a large part of it's strategy, yes, by necessity, because from what I can tell, identity politics was started by the right, with WASPs, and moved to broader groups that don't all line up quite perfectly from there. Minority groups use that sort of thing as a defense mechanism, not an assault tactic.


No idea who's up next on the Dem ticket tho

And I will say I did not think Trump would win, or really could win, because polls and temperament. But hopefully we're seeing that when he's not campaigning he has a somewhat less caustic approach. Fucking hell, it's still so weird that he'll go down in history books now for the rest of United States' existence.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's nothing wrong with identity politics in general

I strongly

You know, you could in fact address some part of my post's argument, as opposed to the first half of the thesis sentence.

Frankly, I'm not here to win an argument. I was still posting because I thought people genuinely wanted insight into how they had misread the situation so badly. I've tried to offer the perspective of someone on the other side, but it doesn't feel as if we're making any headway toward understanding one another.

Max kek, you are not dispensing the sacred wisdom of how the GOP won the election. I know perfectly well how they won this election. This outcome was entirely within prediction, if some of the worst predictions short of Trump actually having a secret white nationalist horde or kicking off a domestic insurgency. I'll remind you that this victory was brought to us by the DNC and Electoral College managing to fuck over everything. Again.

Sounds to me like your definition of not understanding is "why won't you accept everything I say is true"?

[i2amroy]

And I will say I did not think Trump would win, or really could win, because polls and temperament. But hopefully we're seeing that when he's not campaigning he has a somewhat less caustic approach. Fucking hell, it's still so weird that he'll go down in history books now for the rest of United States' existence.

Yeah, in his acceptance speech at least he seemed much saner and more willing to rein himself in than he has previously. I think a lot of this is going to come down to just how much of the stuff he said was because he was wanting to drive his voters into a frenzy of voting and how much was things that he actually believes in.

[Dorsidwarf]

Here's my official prediction for the election:

Here's mine: I work until 11:00 PM  taking shit from every self-entitled nutter in the Upper East Side, briefly go home to check who won (surprise, Hillary), take a train ride to my dorm, and pass out on my bed.

I'ma go now. Gotta get dinner while I can.

Is.. is that a young Jezza Corbin cosplaying?

[Blaze]

"When in doubt, !!SCIENCE!!".

[TempAcc]

In other news:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Lel

[sluissa]

The 90/10 split towards Clinton is because the Republicans are the ones driving African Americans towards the Democrats due to the Republicans own actions, which, unfortunately, leads to the African American vote being taken for granted because they'll reliably go mostly Democrat every time.

That's what happens when you do the divisive stuff and voter suppression that the Republicans do. So, if anybody is to blame for the faliure, it's the Republicans.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse on one factor here. Voter suppression by the republicans isn't done because they're black. It's done because people who tend to vote against them can be targeted in these ways.

EDIT: I should note I"m not trying to defend voter supression. But it's not the 60s anymore. I don't think there's a hidden agenda to take away the vote from as many black people as possible. They're just trying to win, and this is a path, as distasteful, unethical, and illegal, as it is.

While I'm not fond of trying to defend republicans, and there are a few notable leftovers that aren't following this trend, but they've done a LOT to try to make themselves more palatable to minorities since the early 2000s. They're not perfect, but you're also not talking about a party full of KKK members either. On the other hand, Trump was a huge departure from this trend as well, but that can hardly be blamed on the republican party. They actively fought his nomination right up to the convention and even looked for any viable alternative beyond that.

[Baffler]

It's worth remembering that Trump did pretty well among minority voters, at least by Republican standards.