I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Do you think racial and religious minorities have full, equal rights today?

Look, just so there is no doubt, I'm going to attack you personally for being the jackass who voted for Johnson in a swing state for a long time to come. You own that.

However, I'm not suggesting you have any personal racial animus, are a closet Klan member, or anything else like that. I do think you have de-prioritized a fight that is very real for many people every single day, and your statement confirms it. Being able to buy insurance across state lines has become a more important issue to you than whether or not the average African American casting a ballot in North Carolina have to wait longer and travel farther than the average white.

The statement you made above frightens me. Race is still an issue in voting, hiring, housing, and many, many other aspects of our life.

Not getting shot by police seems like one of the aspects that is probably important to some.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I rest my case.

Yep it's all about race. Jackass.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

The Democrats picked the wrong issues. The people in flyover country really don't give a damn about transgender rights. They don't care about most civil rights at all. They care about the unpaid bills. To be clear: I am not advocating a retreat on civil rights. But to win the middle of the country one must campaign on things the middle of the country cares about. Trump built fantasy factories powered by American coal miners who whistle while they work, and he sold it.

It is just overwhelmingly stupid that you characterize these issues as "Democrats picking the wrong issues." If what you mean by "picking these issues" is Democrats fighting Republicans who are constantly crafting actual laws shitting on people, then yeah. I suppose you're right. But what you said above is ridiculous. I suppose we should give Republicans credit for creating an atmosphere in which those who fight the active removal of rights for the vulnerable among us are considered to be "choosing the wrong issues," but among those of us who know better, we can surely do a little better.

If you had said, "Hillary did a terrible job expressing her plan to create opportunities for those in jobs that will soon be obsolete while Trump built fantasy factories, etc." I'd be with you. But this idea that you're perpetuating that Hillary and the Democrats fought Trump's fantasies by raising issues of transgender rights, makes you as programmed as any Trump numbskull.

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Trumps serial lies are the only way to defeat him. Instead of Low Energy Jeb, the Democrats need to be talking about The Lying So-Called President. They need to be taking out billboards NOW with a Trump quote and the word LIAR in letters the size of his name on the hotels he owns. I can picture one in Bowling Green. I can picture one in Kentucky Coal Country when no mines open. I can picture one in every town, when Obamacare is repealed and millions of people loose their insurance. I can picture one everywhere when unemployment goes up, as I believe (see paragraph three above) is inevitable.

This I agree with.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I do not believe you. People do not "assert everything is about race or sex." No one I have ever met does anything like this. Sometimes people talk about race or sex and the impact they have on all sorts of shit. Sometimes people accuse others of being influenced by it. But no one ever fucking says everything is about race or sex. That's just what your delicate little ears hear.

One cannot bring either issue up without people (read: white people) throwing their hands up and turning their brains completely off after hearing it. You're the perfect example.* When I brought up the history of how race was a major factor in how our justice system has been molded to fuck black people, you fought and fought and fought and tried to focus on all the other things that could have contributed. When it comes to racism and sexism, all of a sudden normal people can't take a step back and think rationally. Classism? "Sure. Let's think about it as a factor in what happened." Geopolitics? "Yes. It contributed in the following ways." Race? "Come on! Not everything is all about race!"

Of course our justice system isn't entirely about race. But once one has drawn the conclusion that a significant reason of why it's set up the way it is is related to race, can that be part of the overall conversation without white people shutting the fuck down?

Apply that to Trump's rise. If you were able to actually listen to the people you are accusing of "asserting everything is about race or sex," you would understand that both of those things played a role in this (and, frankly, every) election without accusations of those issues swallowing every other issue. You won't, of course. You will switch your mind off and continue being Sebby.

TM

*Yes, I already regret using you as an example because you're automatically going to hear "You're a racist."**

**Which makes this an even better example, doesn't it?

Race is part of almost every political issue.

The "shut down" you see, which is very real, occurs when race moves to the forefront of causes. People see a complex issue, like Trump's win, and think of myriad reasons for it, all of similar gravity. I don't think any sane white person would debate racism and sexism were part of his success. Its when people forget race and sex are part of a broader whole in terms of that explanation that things go sideways.

Perhaps it's the media's fault. After Trump's win, the media created a quick and dirty sound bite explanation: Bihots and sexists awarded him the office. Naturally, we all cited articles here, from that media, many of which highlighted that gross oversimplification.

In turn, I cited opposing sources highlighting joblessness as s significant part of Trump's appeal. Being a board full of lawyers, people fought that, and I fought back. In the end, the truth was, as you note, and I've acknowledged, Trump was elected for a variety of reasons, which include racism and joblessness.

Re my ability to discuss race, I've told a number of dumb white fucks running their mouth off about the need to be "tough on crime" (I see lots of flyover types) that they don't know wtf they're talking about. Currently, I direct them to "13th," and remind them I did criminal defense, and our system is racist. Full stop. This does not make me popular with "conservatives." Which pleases me considerably. (I'm much more direct in person when I think someone's wrong.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Not getting shot by police seems like one of the aspects that is probably important to some.

GGG ducked that one because I cited justice reform as a significant demand for a candidate.

I forgot "demilitarization of police." Add that to my list.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Race is part of almost every political issue.

The "shut down" you see, which is very real, occurs when race moves to the forefront of causes. People see a complex issue, like Trump's win, and think of myriad reasons for it, all of similar gravity. I don't think any sane white person would debate racism and sexism were part of his success. Its when people forget race and sex are part of a broader whole in terms of that explanation that things go sideways.

Perhaps it's the media's fault. After Trump's win, the media created a quick and dirty sound bite explanation: Bihots and sexists awarded him the office. Naturally, we all cited articles here, from that media, many of which highlighted that gross oversimplification.

No. I disagree. The media did not flood the airwaves with stories suggesting that race was why Trump won. What you saw was the reaction (and related stories) of disbelief over how a racist, sexist asshole could win. The fact that people lamented the fact that Trump garnered so much support partly because of his racism and sexism and partly in spite of it is a huge story. I suppose one could combine all of that with actual racist voter ID laws and actual racist voter suppression in the form of limiting access to voting booths in black neighborhoods and shutting down early voting options to conclude that race sure as hell played a huge role in this very close election.

But the discussion of Comey's interference and Russia's involvement have been way bigger stories than what I listed above. And whenever we talk about why Trump won, you seem laser-focused on Trump's pretend jobs program. So who exactly are all these people you keep running into who "assert everything is about race or sex?"

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In turn, I cited opposing sources highlighting joblessness as s significant part of Trump's appeal. Being a board full of lawyers, people fought that, and I fought back. In the end, the truth was, as you note, and I've acknowledged, Trump was elected for a variety of reasons, which include racism and joblessness.

And given the amount of attention given to all of these things, I'm struggling to find examples of people who asserted it was all about race or sex." Like I said, after 8 years of Obama, it was shocking to many people that so many white people would overwhelmingly choose such a blatant racist, sexist asshole. But that's hardly the same as an assertion that his election was all about racism and sexism.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Re my ability to discuss race, I've told a number of dumb white fucks running their mouth off about the need to be "tough on crime" (I see lots of flyover types) that they don't know wtf they're talking about. Currently, I direct them to "13th," and remind them I did criminal defense, and our system is racist. Full stop. This does not make me popular with "conservatives." Which pleases me considerably. (I'm much more direct in person when I think someone's wrong.)

Great!

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Much of this debate about political correctness is complete and total bullshit. What people like you have done is conflate a demand for respect with college campus discussions about safe spaces and trigger warnings. It's just a way to trivialize actual issues raised by people who do not hold power and who are trying to get some. You say, "these people are way too sensitive," because you take the most ridiculous examples and hold them up as what political correctness means when the overwhelming share of what is at issue actually revolves around a demand for the same level of respect white men show one another and expect from everyone else. The term has become a catch-all for protecting feelings over speaking truth. And it's garbage. It's now a weapon that Republicans and Trump get to use to foment support or backlash on any topic at all.

Political correctness is the demand by those who are not white men to be treated the way white men expect to be treated. That's it. If that's too fucking difficult for anyone to handle, then they can fuck off.

TM

The thing that especially galls me about the current vogue for throwing out "political correctness" is that its never accompanied by an actual willingness to do so.

I mean, we're all old enough to remember when this debate was about whether white people can use the n word (or men the c word, or various ethnic slurs). If you're so anti-PC, why aren't you using those words freely?

Right, because you've figured out that those things are offensive, inappropriate, or get you a punch to the face and you can deal with that, but god forbid anyone ask you think go any farther.

[ferrets_bueller]

[QUOTE=ThurgreedMarshall;505665]It is just overwhelmingly stupid that you characterize these issues as "Democrats picking the wrong issues." If what you mean by "picking these issues" is Democrats fighting Republicans who are constantly crafting actual laws shitting on people, then yeah. I suppose you're right. But what you said above is ridiculous. I suppose we should give Republicans credit for creating an atmosphere in which those who fight the active removal of rights for the vulnerable among us are considered to be "choosing the wrong issues," but among those of us who know better, we can surely do a little better.

If you had said, "Hillary did a terrible job expressing her plan to create opportunities for those in jobs that will soon be obsolete while Trump built fantasy factories, etc." I'd be with you. But this idea that you're perpetuating that Hillary and the Democrats fought Trump's fantasies by raising issues of transgender rights, makes you as programmed as any Trump numbskull.


Let me put it another way. There is a difference between governing and campaigning. Certainly the Democrats should oppose regressive policies, voter suppression being a perfect example. But the Democrats didn't campaign...didn't "pivot"..., if you will, to something like "The Warner Franken Manchin Massive Infrastructure Employment Bill." They never said to the blue collar base that they had a plan for them. They didn't campaign on building the Biden Memorial Bullet Train, or similar high end updated WPA projects across the country. Schumer should be talking about "The Bridge and Tunnel Act of 2017" force the Republicans to do what they said...build infrastructure. He should be talking about massive Space Exploration projects, and point out that we are relying on Putin's rockets to get into space.

Kill the retrogressive social policies in Committee. Run on clean water for Detroit. Run on big projects. Run on big ideas with tangible results. Say what you will about the pipelines, and their merit, but flyover country bought them, lock stock and barrel.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Let me put it another way. There is a difference between governing and campaigning. Certainly the Democrats should oppose regressive policies, voter suppression being a perfect example. But the Democrats didn't campaign...didn't "pivot"..., if you will, to something like "The Warner Franken Manchin Massive Infrastructure Employment Bill." They never said to the blue collar base that they had a plan for them.

I disagree. I just think they did a terrible job of it and let themselves get defined by Republicans and Trump. But I guess that doesn't really matter.

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Kill the retrogressive social policies in Committee. Run on clean water for Detroit. Run on big projects. Run on big ideas with tangible results.

No arguments here.

TM

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I disagree. I just think they did a terrible job of it and let themselves get defined by Republicans and Trump. But I guess that doesn't really matter.

No arguments here.

TM

Progressive policies are fine if they are framed correctly. I'd frame it as two words:

Fair
Equal

No one can be against those two concepts.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

GGG ducked that one because I cited justice reform as a significant demand for a candidate.

I forgot "demilitarization of police." Add that to my list.

Why do you think justice reform is all about race?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Progressive policies are fine if they are framed correctly. I'd frame it as two words:

Fair
Equal

No one can be against those two concepts.

One thing Hill missed completely was the need for a campaign focused on shallow unachievable principles rather than detailed ways of improving peoples lives. Because she had like 20 speeches and 30 position papers about how to achieve as much of the above as possible.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

One thing Hill missed completely was the need for a campaign focused on shallow unachievable principles rather than detailed ways of improving peoples lives. Because she had like 20 speeches and 30 position papers about how to achieve as much of the above as possible.

Right. I am advocating shouting those two words over and over again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Progressive policies are fine if they are framed correctly. I'd frame it as two words:

Fair
Equal

No one can be against those two concepts.

There are a lot of people who are against those two concepts, including a great many people who are more comfortable with traditional social hierarchies and are happy that it feels like Trump is restoring them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Why do you think justice reform is all about race?

If that's what I had said, this would be a question worth answering.