Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes



You understand how this doesn't refute the statement above, right?

No. I do not.

1/3 of something is 33%. If we've Moe, Larry, and Curly, that's say, Moe, missing. Emerson, Lake, and Palmer without one of them. (No, that's not Asia.)

"Very few" is not 1/3. "Very few" is perhaps, 1/10th.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Thank you for responding. But what are you trying to say? Previously you complained that those who are agitating around race and civil rights are not focused and sometimes say stupid things that turn other people off. Undeniably, this has been true of the gay rights movement. On some level, you understand that, so now you have shifted to using the narrow legal victories won by the gay rights crowd as some sort of model for civil rights. But here's the thing: The victory you tout for gay rights was getting the Supreme Court to treat gay rights like race -- in other words, a victory already won, decades ago, by the folks you are dumping on. If there is a lesson in gay rights about how to get social change around race, you have not found it. Instead, you have inadvertently pointed out that your complaints about the civil rights efforts are silly.

What you refer to as justice reform isn't a narrow legal or legislative issue. It goes to the way that the police and the justice system comprehensively, systematic preserve an unequal social order, a social order that benefits (I could say privileges but I didn't give you a trigger warning) some people and disadvantages other people. You know this because you've seen it. Not surprisingly, a lot of people who get relative benefits don't want it changed. You're cynical enough to get this, too. A unified, organized movement? Sure, that would be nice. If only it were that easy.

I'm not arguing that it's easy. But you aren't getting justice reform done without a unified movement and legislative reforms... like the gay marriage movement.

You haven't credibly denied this. You've just told me it's really hard, and I think you're suggesting a more decentralized hearts and minds movement is part of it. Sure it is. But you aren't getting anywhere until the movement is organized and strategic. Right now, it's not enough of either.

My points are only silly if you ignore the distaste voters have for aggressive identity politics. The Republican Right isn't salivating at the idea of the Democrats running primarily on identity politics for no good reason. They want that debate. But they don't want it with an organized movement focusing on a legislative agenda. They want it with disparate groups raising myriad grievances having nothing to do with justice reform -- exactly the types they can lump together and call "Berkeley lunatics" or "Antifa."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Now you're just trolling.

I changed your weasel words for you. Kinda clarifies things, imo.

Look up "tool."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Your last sentence swallows your whole paragraph. And it was weird that you spent the time crafting that paragraph as a way to set up a strawman that consists of identity politics as an across-the-board strategy just so you could knock it down. So weird. Absolutely no one thinks that the broad range of what qualifies as "identity politics" (which is really just shorthand for "things white people don't care about that are important to non-white people") should be the main focus of any campaign.

TM

Absolutely Adder.

He's pretty much been making that argument for weeks now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Pretty much all of it? How do you think they got legislation passed and the court to decide in their favor? Certainly you don't think the court was ahead of political sentiment?

If you want to argue that they were also powered by conservative overreach - that was definitely what happened in Minnesota where voters rejected a ban which led directly to legislation - I'd agree. But Mr. Olson was not a primary driver of this change.

You mean Senator Sessions killed it dead.

SCOTUS was ahead of political sentiment in many states.

Conservative overreach was a big part of it. That came off as mean-spirited and an overreach into people's personal lives.

It isn't dead. All it needs is a strategy and some principled Senators to get behind it, and piece of legislation that can act as a flashpoint... a Prop 8 moment.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not arguing that it's easy. But you aren't getting justice reform done without a unified movement and legislative reforms... like the gay marriage movement.

You haven't credibly denied this.

You have this maddening way of changing what you're saying with every post. We weren't talking about "gay marriage" specifically, but now you are. Even so, there was no "unified movement" and the "legislative reforms" were a tiny part of it. And you are no longer pretending to have found the key to explaining why marriage equality prevailed in the Supreme Court, only to have found a few table stakes. You haven't argued that it's easy but you haven't found any real lesson in it either. We started down this path because you were complaining about how people who want racial justice sometimes say stupid things that antagonize people who aren't particularly sympathetic to or interested in racial justice. Since people who wanted equality for gays (lesbians, etc.) also often said and did things that antagonized homophobic straights, there's not much of a lesson here.

You've just told me it's really hard, and I think you're suggesting a more decentralized hearts and minds movement is part of it. Sure it is. But you aren't getting anywhere until the movement is organized and strategic. Right now, it's not enough of either.

I haven't really suggested anything at this point, except to criticize what you've said. I'm not even sure about what you mean by organized and strategic, since by that you seem to have in mind not saying things that make other people uncomfortable.

My observation would be that racism persists in this country in large part because there are a lot of people who don't want change, and trying to change things upsets them. Changing things is always hard anyway.

My points are only silly if you ignore the distaste voters have for aggressive identity politics. The Republican Right isn't salivating at the idea of the Democrats running primarily on identity politics for no good reason. They want that debate. But they don't want it with an organized movement focusing on a legislative agenda. They want it with disparate groups yelling about a myriad forms of discrimination having nothing to do with justice reform -- exactly the types they can lump together and call "Berkeley lunatics" or "Antifa."

Even if all that is true, your points are silly. The Republican Right will oppose Democrats regardless, because that more than anything else is its raison d'être. They make things about identity politics even if Democrats don't, see Willie Horton. Also, all politics is identity politics, but when you use the term you are talking about people of color identifying as people of color. These things tend to work for Republicans because a majority of the country is white and a majority of those people like the preferences they enjoy. The challenge for Democrats is to reframe things not as white vs. black, because the votes aren't there, but drawing upon other identities to build a majority. Obama did this. It can be done and it will be done again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Absolutely Adder.

He's pretty much been making that argument for weeks now.

I don't think Adder has been saying that it's politically effective. He's been saying that it's true. To which you say that it's not politically effective, which he hears as you lacking sympathy for the essential truth of what he's saying. In his defense, he's shooting the shit on a lawyer board, not running a campaign. In your defense, it's true that a lot of the country is not interested in treating a lot of the rest of the country like human beings with equal rights and of equal value, although I'm not sure why you think that's such a revelation. The two of you would have a more interesting conversation if you stopped condescending to each other and addressed the harder questions you each are raising, but this is after all a chat board for lawyers.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Absolutely Adder.

He's pretty much been making that argument for weeks now.

You're a fucking fool. Back to The Land of Fu you go.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here's one fight where I'm rooting for Trump.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Here's one fight where I'm rooting for Trump.

I completely whiffed on your early point about there being loads of people identifying as moderates, but very few actual moderates.

You also defined what I'd call an actual moderate (a tax voter) as a right winger.

Given that, two thoughts:

1. That's your opinion (with which few would agree); and,
2. It's led you to an incorrect assumption (most moderates are actually moderate).

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I bet Melania told him Obama was afraid to look straight at the sun.

I also loved this one:

This was my fave. Melania is trying to go blind.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I completely whiffed on your early point about there being loads of people identifying as moderates, but very few actual moderates.

You also defined what I'd call an actual moderate (a tax voter) as a right winger.

Given that, two thoughts:

1. That's your opinion (with which few would agree); and,
2. It's led you to an incorrect assumption (most moderates are actually moderate).

I think you have Adder in mind.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. I do not.

1/3 of something is 33%. If we've Moe, Larry, and Curly, that's say, Moe, missing. Emerson, Lake, and Palmer without one of them. (No, that's not Asia.)

"Very few" is not 1/3. "Very few" is perhaps, 1/10th.

When you clearly are not this stupid and yet respond this way, I too wish to do violence with lumber.

I didn't say very few identify as moderate. I said very few actually are moderate, for example because a person who always votes for lower taxes is in fact a conservative ideologue even if they call themselves moderate.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not arguing that it's easy. But you aren't getting justice reform done without a unified movement and legislative reforms... like the gay marriage movement.

The gay rights movement was actually torn over whether to pursue marriage as a goal or rather to first focus on less controversial things like employment and housing discrimination. It was a handful of activists breaking from groups like HRC, which thought going for marriage was too aggressive, that brought litigation that started to get marriage recognized in Massachusetts in 2004, Iowa in 2009, with legislative successes only much later.

I will agree that by the time of the legislative successes, the LGBTQ community was united behind marriage as a goal, but that was a lot later.

Right now, it's not enough of either.

To be honest, I don't know what BLM are doing to be strategic and focused, as I'm only on the very periphery. I do know it's not nothing.

But I do think there's a ton of hearts and minds that need to be changed too, and it's uniquely hard to get people past reactions like blaming Philando Castille because he'd smoked pot.

Anyway, a lot of people thought we were getting close to consensus on criminal justice reform until the one guy who wasn't on board was made AG.

The Republican Right isn't salivating at the idea of the Democrats running primarily on identity politics for no good reason.

This isn't a thing. Hillary didn't run "primarily on identity politics." Black people didn't trust Bernie, so Bernie lost, leading lots of lefties to start saying that the Dems needed to get past "identity politics" as a code for saying the party needs to focus more on white men again. In a development that shocked no one, the right really liked that line of argument and here we are.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Look up "tool."

I asked you before but you didn't answer. Which people seeking equality do you think need to wait so as to avoid excessive focus on "identity politics?"