Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Given that the Report was released, how is Barr's early summary an issue? Makes him look a toady perhaps, but that is his problem, isn't it? How were we harmed?

Attorneys General can be impeached too.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

But I can't believe that you think that people don't think that their race is part of their treatment. What you're saying doesn't make any fucking sense.

I can see why you'd think that's crazy. It is. Which is why I did not and would not say that. What I said was most people don't think about race (or any other similar issue) to the extent we do here. Most people have other shit occupying their minds.

You have it completely backwards and inside out. Trump is pitching to white people exclusively. He does this by pointing to people of color who are asking to be treated fairly and saying, "See? These people are all about identity politics."

I think you have the chicken before the egg there. Trump is starting the whole thing with "MAGA," as Reagan did in 1980 (it's a borrowed Reagan slogan). He says things need to revert to an older mythical reality. That reality was cruel to minorities, so they react to that. Trump doesn't point out groups and accuse them of trafficking in identity politics. He creates them.

Are you serious? You pick a group of people and tell me why they shouldn't be upset about how they're being treated. Transgendered people can't serve in the military? Muslims are fucking banned? When laws and social norms treat you less than what the fuck are you supposed to do? Just because you don't have their problems doesn't mean those problems aren't important to those people. Identity politics are thrust on you. People don't jump into groups who have problems for fucking fun.

Each group has a right to be pissed. But when the transgendered in the military (statistically a near non-existent group) are given airtime commensurate with police murders, people are not properly prioritizing things. You're trying to break down the door where kicking it open and expanding the breach is the best approach.

If you fix what BLM seeks to fix, you'll open a dialogue on prejudice that will eventually get to the issues of the transgendered. If you take something that applies to a tiny number of people and place it alongside something like police abuse and murders, which impact millions of people, you harm the latter by giving people an argument it is of a kind with less significant or even frivolous grievances.

And that's what Trump wants.

Can you not see that I am picking out one group to use as an example? Can you not apply the same analysis to any other group you keep castigating for using identity politics?

I think Black people have a unique set of requests neglected for so long that they get to go to the front of the line. Once those are being addressed, then we can get to the rest. I understand that's discriminatory, but I think that's the necessary approach.

BLM didn't go away. It wasn't hijacked. The press stopped covering it because everything in our country is currently on fucking fire. Wokeness. If you're railing against that term it's because you don't want to deal with what it actually means--and being in tune of the types of unfairness that different groups have to endure is all it means.

If the press isn't covering BLM, it has gone away. Attention is what it needs, and if it isn't getting attention, it's not being addressed. Police shootings and systemic abuses of black citizens didn't suddenly stop. The media just decided it was more fun to focus on #metoo (has a sex angle) and the transgendered (this creates a debate over gender fluidity, which is divisive). Black people being jailed? That's so... 2017.

I know. It's terrible. How will straight, white people ever deal with having to hear about all the issues they've never had to pay attention to before! Oh, the humanity!

"White" doesn't fit when you consider things like transgenderism or #metoo. There, people of all colors and backgrounds are being asked to consider grievances.

Needless to say, this whole paragraph is stupid. There are surely multiple complaints. You and most white people don't want to deal with multiple complaints. Only the really big things should count.

Racism has been a problem forever. So yes, it goes to the front of the line.

The rest is just whining. So you fixate on a shorthand description of people standing in solidarity and understanding of the many issues this country has with those who have been historically marginalized and dismiss it all. The reason why that works is because you want to dismiss the stuff you don't think is important.

These people aren't in solidarity. They're groups de jour for the media to fixate upon for a period of time and then forget. BLM was first, then it was #metoo, then it was the transgendered and other truly small groups of people.

And here's what that "solidarity" - that shotgun approach where all voices, of the tiny groups, and the huge groups, of the people advocating for gender fluidity awareness and the people getting shot by cops - has achieved: A. A modest justice reform bill; B. The firing of a bunch of male execs for harrassment (to be replaced with more male execs); and, C. Arguments about who can use what bathroom in school and whether a boy can wear a dress to prom, or whether those five military personnel in transition can go into the field of battle.

So, you.

I didn't vote for Trump last time and I see no reason to vote for him this time.

Here's what you've done. You have prioritized what should be important. You have dismissed a bunch of other shit.

No. I have prioritized, for strategic advantage.

You have inflated people like AOC to the position of leader of the Democrats.

No. She is only a leader of a faction of the Democrats.

You ignore everything but what annoys you and you have labeled what annoys you and what you have deemed unimportant as "wokeness" and have told everyone that that term has swallowed everything thus rendering it overbroad and useless.

Moderate Democrats do not annoy me. I was completely happy to see Hillary win as I figured she'd be fine for the economy.

I am annoyed with people who make tactical errors. Taking Trump's bait and making this election a grievance festival of myriad groups is a tactical error on which he is banking. I think it's stupid. And I think you need to separate the strategy discussion from the defense of the people making the somewhat "niche" grievances. A person fighting against Trump's discriminatory policies has every right to do so. But as a matter of strategy, it's not the wise choice to give every person with a complaint the same level of bullhorn. It's wiser to deal with the more acute problems targeted by things like BLM first, and avoid Trump's bait and run on health care.

But here's the truth: You do this because you don't give a fuck about almost all of it. And that's the magic of people, like you, who scream and yell about identity politics, and playing Trump's game, and whatever other bullshit gets you out of actually looking at the issues that matter to people who aren't like you.

I'm not screaming or yelling. I'm telling you I see unforced errors being made.

The last sentence is only occurring in your head (and people like you). You are dismissing the actual asks you've listed (some of which are being proposed by actual House leadership) and blaming that dismissal not on the McConnells of the world, but on groups of people who also have asks for fair treatment. It's sickening.

Don't assume for a minute that I do not blame McConnell. I absolutely do. But I'm not writing about McConnell here. McConnell is on the other side. It's his job to make the Democrats lose. What I'm saying is, McConnell is very good at what he does. Why make unforced errors when up against such a formidable opponent?

It's the same analysis as when white people were up in arms over political correctness. Group a bunch of complex issues that are really affecting people into one term, cite an example of what you have deemed the most frivolous one, dismiss it all.

I don't care about political correctness except as it applies to comedians and entertainment. I am concerned that we are gelding artists and political correctness risks making our entertainment suck. But personally, no, I do not care much about political correctness. I'm generally polite, so it's not usually an issue for me. Like all socially aware people, I can gauge a person's sensitivities and modulate the humor to avoid offense.

As to your second sentence, you have described exactly what Trump intends to do. He's going to wrap up all the grievances and call them the invalid complaints of people who hate "traditional" America. And Democrats are walking right into his scheme. The guy's a fool in many regards, but he knows how to bait people. Why let him do it?

TM[/QUOTE]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Attorneys General can be impeached too.

Okay, but what harm did he do? A percentage of Trump supporters closed their minds based upon the summary? I guess maybe.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can see why you'd think that's crazy. It is. Which is why I did not and would not say that. What I said was most people don't think about race (or any other similar issue) to the extent we do here. Most people have other shit occupying their minds.

Disagree. The struggling people that you hypothesized have race on their minds in different ways, but most every day. The only possible exception, might be some white person in a 100% white county somewhere- but honestly I think 100% white counties do not exist so much anymore.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Given that the Report was released, how is Barr's early summary an issue? Makes him look a toady perhaps, but that is his problem, isn't it? How were we harmed?

It's like the Russia 2016 election thing. The complaint is that by giving such a benign report, Barr created a public impression that the Democrats cannot now overcome. Had Barr not so spun things, the Democrats could push for impeachment more easily. Barr is like the Russian trolls who kneecapped Hillary with disinformation in 2015 and 2016.

The conceit at the base of the argument on Russia is that, but for Russian troll spin, the Americans who voted for Trump would have voted for Hillary. A similar conceit - that but for Barr, Americans would be incensed and cry for impeachment - applies to Barr's spinning.

However, the polls since the Barr letter indicate Americans believe Trump engaged in unethical or even illegal conduct, but are exhausted with the investigation, and think impeachment is a bad idea. This is hardly unsurprising. The man cannot speak without lying, and regarding the investigation, the media has beaten this horse to glue.

I suspect a number of Democrats are angry with Barr when they really ought to be angry with a public that doesn't share their excitability about Trump. Inadvertently, Barr may be saving them from another unforced error. Impeaching Trump only to lose in the Senate would probably infuriate the voting public the same way impeaching Clinton did.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The conceit at the base of the argument on Russia is that, but for Russian troll spin, the Americans who voted for Trump would have voted for Hillary.

This is wrong, but I can't tell you the real base of the argument because you feel I have OCD on the topic.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Okay, but what harm did he do? A percentage of Trump supporters closed their minds based upon the summary? I guess maybe.

So you're ok with public officials who misbehave as long as they do it badly?

That will let a lot of Trumpsters off the hook.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And here's what that "solidarity" - that shotgun approach where all voices, of the tiny groups, and the huge groups, of the people advocating for gender fluidity awareness and the people getting shot by cops - has achieved: A. A modest justice reform bill; B. The firing of a bunch of male execs for harrassment (to be replaced with more male execs); and, C. Arguments about who can use what bathroom in school and whether a boy can wear a dress to prom, or whether those five military personnel in transition can go into the field of battle.

I don't know for sure, but my guess is that minorities and other marginalized groups just LOVE it when rich white dudes tell them which of their concerns are worthy and which are just silly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I did. Immediately. That's the point.

I should be able to turn on the TV and see what's happening in a situation as significant as the the overthrow of a dictator in a nation in our hemisphere.

I should be able to walk from my house to a neighborhood coffee shop and a bookstore stocking Pynchon criticism, and then eat lunch next door at a Peruvian ceviche place. But instead I have to walk a mile to Starbucks and a grocery store magazine rack, and I can eat lunch at a crappy Mexican place. Sometimes you get what you want, and sometimes you get what the market gives you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Given that the Report was released, how is Barr's early summary an issue? Makes him look a toady perhaps, but that is his problem, isn't it? How were we harmed?

We know he couldn't have done anything wrong because Sebby said his reputation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Okay, but what harm did he do? A percentage of Trump supporters closed their minds based upon the summary? I guess maybe.

If he didn't do any harm in misrepresenting the report, why do you think he did it?

eta: Josh Marshall puts it well:

We shouldn’t miss what Mueller says in this letter, or at least the passage quoted by the Post. Though couched in cool, precise and formal language, Mueller says that Barr was willfully misleading the public about what the investigation had found. Indeed, by his actions he was sowing precisely the “confusion” and lack of public confidence that the appointment of a Special Counsel was supposed to prevent.

This is a damning development. Barr’s willful public deceptions are so evident that by any ordinary standard his resignation would be inevitable. Of course, we’re playing under Trump rules. So he’s not going anywhere. It is, nonetheless, a damning development.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I don't know for sure, but my guess is that minorities and other marginalized groups just LOVE it when rich white dudes tell them which of their concerns are worthy and which are just silly.

I wouldn't have an opinion on that, as I think they're all worthy. What I do have an opinion on is how they should be prioritized to most effectively address them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We know he couldn't have done anything wrong because Sebby said his reputation.

I'm still not sure he did anything wrong. Mueller's letter is unclear as he has not fleshed out what he means by confusion.

I think Mueller's letter is intentionally neutral. Confused and misled are two very different things. I'd like to see Mueller's summary. That should resolve things.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I don't know for sure, but my guess is that minorities and other marginalized groups just LOVE it when rich white dudes tell them which of their concerns are worthy and which are just silly.

This is why I continually resist telling Sebby his concerns are silly and instead just point out that he's a fucking moron.

Do you think I should say "fucking intellectually challenged" instead?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is why I continually resist telling Sebby his concerns are silly and instead just point out that he's a fucking moron.

Do you think I should say "fucking intellectually challenged" instead?

I over-credited you earlier. 110, tops.