US Politics: Presidential Harris-ment!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It still boggles my mind that Sanders supporters don't understand THAT THEY FUCKING WON. JFC!!! So what if Sanders isn't ever going to be president, he shifted the party in significant ways. It's also a perfect example of why third parties are silly. Infiltrate the party that best matches your views and then fight to shift them further towards what you want. Bernie did that perfectly.

I'm not sure if it's Sanders' supporters specifically, or the left more broadly, but the sense that I get is (keeping in mind I don't pay attention to Chapo and Rogan (who isn't exactly left)) from the people I talk to is basically "Talk is cheap". People are moving left now because it's politically expedient to do so; we've been there before, and it hasn't worked out very well.

Having "one of our own" in power acts as a tangible promise, of sorts, that the goals and ideals of the left won't be jettisoned out of hand when things swing back the other way. Plus, nothing has actually been implemented; it's all talk.

That's why I keep harping on about the rhetoric towards "Bernie Bros" can be so potentially harmful. No one probably realizes it, but the way "Bernie Bro" gets used, at least from how I've experienced it, is there isn't really much distinction made between "vocal male Sanders supporter" and "Bernie Bro".

I know everyone here just calls it "good poltics" (and I'm not saying that it's not good politics), but I don’t think people understand how the events surrounding Biden's capturing the nomination was perceived by Sanders' supporters. I talked to numerous people that I'd been calling for GOTV stuff, and the thing I kept hearing over and over was the hostility directed at Sanders personally, and at what he represents, by the media and, to a lesser extent, the Democratic party when it looked like he might run away with the election.

Everyone dropping out and endorsing Biden prior to Super Tuesday was good politics; but you have to remember that, even after Biden's SC win, he was still one of the weakest candidates on paper, and his win didn't change anything but the narrative. To a lot of people, it looked like candidates lining up to jump on the same grenade to make sure to tank Sanders' candidacy, even if it cost us the election in the general.

Luckily, the pandemic happened, and Trump fucked it up, and we can push that conversation off to another time. But it's not going to stay on the back burner forever. Basically, the left is only ascendant when it comes to rhetoric and candidates in safe House districts. Policy, and then candidacy, have yet to be determined. But everyone on the left knows that Democrats are hanging their hopes on turning out the suburbs this year, so we also expect some moderation back to the right; just how much, no one knows.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

And if the person labeled "centrist" is actually more liberal than the so called "liberal?"

It's called fucking pragmatism. Centrist has become a slur on the left, and liberals use it against one another when they disagree with a position or find one insufficiently liberal. How is it all that different than conservatives call other conservatives cuckservatives?

I see this a lot up here, and it's a tough position to be in. I'm definitely left of Liberals [who in the main seem to be currently occupying the space the Progressive Conservatives used to] but I'm not so far left that I see a lot of easily attainable goals that our more leftward parties [the NDP and Greens] are advocating. 

The pejorative usually tossed at me when others feel I'm standing [argumentatively] athwart their path is neoliberal. 

It doesn't really bother me though [this is not me saying I'm better, btw. I shouldn't have to qualify that, but we've come to heads a time or two and just want to make it clear]

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And if the person labeled "centrist" is actually more liberal than the so called "liberal?"

It's called fucking pragmatism. Centrist has become a slur on the left, and liberals use it against one another when they disagree with a position or find one insufficiently liberal. How is it all that different than conservatives call other conservatives cuckservatives?

It's usually used to describe people advocating centrist positions, IME.  For example compromising for the sake of compromising, or accepting a bargain without negotiating.  It's the concept of automatically accepting the first thing the opposition offers that chaffes, not the idea of taking what you can get.  If you're constantly arguing to just make the smallest possible changes, that's not the same as taking what you can get and living to fight another day.

eta:  and usually the people making these centrist arguments have less skin in the game than the people they're telling to shut up and wait and be patient.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Sorry I wasn't clear, I specifically said "aesthetic benefits" to imply she didn't actually get hired or anything for it.  My point was that she's going around claiming something she isn't, when the thing she's claiming comes with a lot of baggage she never had to carry.

Fair enough.  And I do agree that her response when this came out - since Brown attacked her with in 2012 - has been not only incredibly clumsy politically but oftentimes horribly offensive and insensitive.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And if the person labeled "centrist" is actually more liberal than the so called "liberal?"

It's called fucking pragmatism. Centrist has become a slur on the left, and liberals use it against one another when they disagree with a position or find one insufficiently liberal. How is it all that different than conservatives call other conservatives cuckservatives?

It's different because it's a respectful term that's commonly used in mainstream media in attempt to describe political realities. You won't find won't anyone described as  a "cuckservative" in the New York Times. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Hate and unconscious racism are not the same thing. And sadly, unconscious and casual racism are a way bigger problem and stumbling block to actual progress than active hate is. If the average person who has no exposure to native people or issues sees someone like Elizabeth Warren or their white friends who say “I’m part native” and that’s what most of their exposure to it is- that an indigenous person is just a white person with high cheekbones experiencing nothing different than they are- it gives an incredibly damaging and false impression on the issue. Indigenous people are the least likely to have access to clean drinking water, the most likely to be homeless, the most likely to be murdered in police interaction, the most likely to be raped, the most likely to go missing and never found, the most likely to be a victim of child molestation and of sex trafficking. The idea that indigenous people have just gotten blended into mainstream society is insidious because it hides all of that, keeping anything from being done. And it makes actual indigenous people trying to amplify these issues to something where they are seen look like angry outliers when we MUST be loud to be audible over the din of redfacing whiteness.
 

White nationalists aren’t who keep indigenous people in these conditions. It’s the left who don’t want to look or listen because they can’t be racist against indigenous people when they can just say “well I’m part native”

So to start, I agree with everything in the middle, but your opening and closing statements have problems. You keep calling these acts racism. Racism has a clear definition, and the examples you've used simply don't fit it. And like @TrackerNeil, it's becoming a problem on the left to just call everything racist. It makes the term worthless and actually allows the right to play the same game, except their side isn't policing it. And to your last thought, you really do seem to be finding the worst in people. I don't think it's an issue the left doesn't want to look at, it's just that for many it's not a high priority, the amount in time they invest on issues is low to begin with and frankly not a lot of them even know where to look. You told someone earlier to go read a book. I'd suggest next time citing a few good reads for them. That way then the responsibility to learn and grow is now squarely on them, and if they don't then you have a better picture of who they are. People have linked a lot of things for me to read here when debating, and if they're a good faith actor, I'll read them. It may not always change my mind, but when it does I have no problem coming back and saying, "So you raised a few points I hand't considered." But if they had just said "go read the article, it's in the Times," I'd probably just go about my life without giving a damn.

[DMC]

I think - like @Tywin et al. is saying - there's an important distinction between centrist and pragmatist.  If Dem leadership is being feckless on negotiations or even realistic ways to push a leftist agenda, by all means call them out!  But "centrist" has been weaponized to the point that anyone that points out the fact that, say, MFA or "defund the police" would be bad messaging as a campaign strategy is immediately tagged and dismissed by certain people on the left.  It's quite annoying to get attacked by your own side.  Think we should all just ease on the circular firing squad that the Dems are so infamous for, and seems to be intensifying recently.

[TrueMetis]

I'd like to be surprised that someone's actually trying to claim racism must be intentional to be so, but if the last couple years have proven anything (hell the last couple of months) it's the that world hasn't progressed nearly as much as we like to think it has. Take people out of their morally superior comfort zone and it's amazing how quickly people will adopt conservative talking points. "So fragile are your truths that you apparently can't stand the sight of mine." This reads like Ben Shapiro going on about snowflakes and how "facts don't care about your feelings".

No self reflection, no actual attempt to counter the point. Let's just accuse the other side of being too emotional and not rational enough.

Christ I'm so glad I grew out of my shitty rational atheist teenager phase.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

I'd like to be surprised that someone's actually trying to claim racism must be intentional to be so, but if the last couple years have proven anything (hell the last couple of months) it's the that world hasn't progressed nearly as much as we like to think it has. Take people out of their morally superior comfort zone and it's amazing how quickly people will adopt conservative talking points. "So fragile are your truths that you apparently can't stand the sight of mine." This reads like Ben Shapiro going on about snowflakes and how "facts don't care about your feelings".

No self reflection, no actual attempt to counter the point. Let's just accuse the other side of being too emotional and not rational enough.

Christ I'm so glad I grew out of my shitty rational atheist teenager phase.

Totally. Too often discussions about harm devolve into 'Fuck, now you made me *feel bad' [which is another harm, unintentional or not] or, as was once directed at me after a back and forth by a woman I'm acquainted with in RL, 'Well, I'm glad I'm not an Indian!' [relief, indifference] but nothing compares to borderline malicious not giving a fuck, the kind of, 'Be glad we've given you space to occupy now be quiet' because we were comfortable kind of shit.

 

edit: *a key word i missed there

[DanteGabriel]

 

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So to start, I agree with everything in the middle, but your opening and closing statements have problems. You keep calling these acts racism. Racism has a clear definition, and the examples you've used simply don't fit it. And like @TrackerNeil, it's becoming a problem on the left to just call everything racist. It makes the term worthless and actually allows the right to play the same game, except their side isn't policing it. 

If the term used were "racial insensitivity" or "lack of racial awareness" instead of racism, would you still object? This is a weird quibble to plant a flag on. What Kay is talking about is definitely a part of a racist system that screws over native people in ways both epic and quotidian. Who cares if it fits a dictionary definition?

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I'd like to be surprised that someone's actually trying to claim racism must be intentional to be so, but if the last couple years have proven anything (hell the last couple of months) it's the that world hasn't progressed nearly as much as we like to think it has. Take people out of their morally superior comfort zone and it's amazing how quickly people will adopt conservative talking points. "So fragile are your truths that you apparently can't stand the sight of mine." This reads like Ben Shapiro going on about snowflakes and how "facts don't care about your feelings".

No self reflection, no actual attempt to counter the point. Let's just accuse the other side of being too emotional and not rational enough.

Christ I'm so glad I grew out of my shitty rational atheist teenager phase.

Yeah.  I'm embarrassed that so many times in the past I'd listen to some douchebag saying super racist shit at work and not say anything, partly because I didn't want to get fired, but also because it didn't seem to affect me much one way or the other.  There's a difference between being not actively racist and being anti-racist.  I think if we actually want to have an honest conversation about race white people like myself need to actually do a little self-reflection and ask if just not saying the N-word is going to fix things.  

[Fury Resurrected]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So to start, I agree with everything in the middle, but your opening and closing statements have problems. You keep calling these acts racism. Racism has a clear definition, and the examples you've used simply don't fit it. And like @TrackerNeil, it's becoming a problem on the left to just call everything racist. It makes the term worthless and actually allows the right to play the same game, except their side isn't policing it. And to your last thought, you really do seem to be finding the worst in people. I don't think it's an issue the left doesn't want to look at, it's just that for many it's not a high priority, the amount in time they invest on issues is low to begin with and frankly not a lot of them even know where to look. You told someone earlier to go read a book. I'd suggest next time citing a few good reads for them. That way then the responsibility to learn and grow is now squarely on them, and if they don't then you have a better picture of who they are. People have linked a lot of things for me to read here when debating, and if they're a good faith actor, I'll read them. It may not always change my mind, but when it does I have no problem coming back and saying, "So you raised a few points I hand't considered." But if they had just said "go read the article, it's in the Times," I'd probably just go about my life without giving a damn.

It was a particular book that provided pertinent historical context. Narrowing it down to just one book (that I am 100% sure nobody reading this thread will read anyway) is better than listing several that will not get read either that are more broad.

As to your racism/not racism thing, this is the kind of criticism that gets leveled at BLM as well. I guess I can only say that that attitude that rebrands things like internalized racism, subconscious racialism, and unintentional racism with some nicer word just centers white feelings over actual outcomes for BIPOC. I believe that just perpetuates these problems and ensures they continue by making them seem benign.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Having "one of our own" in power acts as a tangible promise, of sorts, that the goals and ideals of the left won't be jettisoned out of hand when things swing back the other way. Plus, nothing has actually been implemented; it's all talk.

But on the flip side for example, is AOC  running around demanding MFA and saying how we had to support and pass it all to admit that it wasn't going to happen and some watered down version the so called "centrists" wanted is probably what had to be accepted. You can argue that at the start of negotiations you should demand a lot, but don't ask for something you know can't ever happen. It's bad faith, and the other side will sense it quickly. 

Quote

That's why I keep harping on about the rhetoric towards "Bernie Bros" can be so potentially harmful. No one probably realizes it, but the way "Bernie Bro" gets used, at least from how I've experienced it, is there isn't really much distinction made between "vocal male Sanders supporter" and "Bernie Bro".

I said back in 2016 that Sanders failure to drop out in March could tear the party apart for the election. I didn't think that would carry over to 2020. Sanders supporters overall do get unfairly attacked at times, but when I read some truly dumb shit about politics coming from the left, it does tend to be someone who is ride or die for Bernie or a Green Party support who likes to tell people not to vote.

27 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

It's usually used to describe people advocating centrist positions, IME.  For example compromising for the sake of compromising, or accepting a bargain without negotiating.  It's the concept of automatically accepting the first thing the opposition offers that chaffes, not the idea of taking what you can get.  If you're constantly arguing to just make the smallest possible changes, that's not the same as taking what you can get and living to fight another day.

eta:  and usually the people making these centrist arguments have less skin in the game than the people they're telling to shut up and wait and be patient.

That's not my experience at all. Pretty much to a tee, if you disagree with someone on the left and they're to the left of you and they want to be hostile, they'll call you a centrist or fake liberal and say you don't really care. The funny thing is I can flip that and say you don't care because you want to be holier than thou without actually accomplishing anything. Good luck with that.

And yes, sometimes you have to compromise, even for the sake of compromising, WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO DO OTHERWISE! Democrats have not had complete control of the government for a decade, and even then they only had a two month window to make magic happen. Your complaints would be valid if we had the WH, both cambers of Congress and a super majority in the Senate. But we don't, and haven't in a long time, so take the small victories where you can and hope they lead to bigger ones down the road.

32 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

It's different because it's a respectful term that's commonly used in mainstream media in attempt to describe political realities. You won't find won't anyone described as  a "cuckservative" in the New York Times. 

Not everywhere is the Times man.

[Kalbear]

On the Warren/taking ancestry of protected classes, I have a different take - thanks to finding out a lot more about my father and doing genetic studies, I found out I am half-Jewish. And I say this to people now too. I didn't grow up religiously Jewish, I wasn't discriminated against for being Jewish (though being told I had a jew fro now makes a LOT more sense), and I've never been targeted by hate crimes.

But I still tell people that I am, because, well, I am. And I don't feel like I should hide that genetic heritage because I didn't live that as authentically as someone who grew up more Jewish. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

But on the flip side for example, is AOC  running around demanding MFA and saying how we had to support and pass it all to admit that it wasn't going to happen and some watered down version the so called "centrists" wanted is probably what had to be accepted. You can argue that at the start of negotiations you should demand a lot, but don't ask for something you know can't ever happen. It's bad faith, and the other side will sense it quickly. 

I said back in 2016 that Sanders failure to drop out in March could tear the party apart for the election. I didn't think that would carry over to 2020. Sanders supporters overall do get unfairly attacked at times, but when I read some truly dumb shit about politics coming from the left, it does tend to be someone who is ride or die for Bernie or a Green Party support who likes to tell people not to vote.

That's not my experience at all. Pretty much to a tee, if you disagree with someone on the left and they're to the left of you and they want to be hostile, they'll call you a centrist or fake liberal and say you don't really care. The funny thing is I can flip that and say you don't care because you want to be holier than thou without actually accomplishing anything. Good luck with that.

And yes, sometimes you have to compromise, even for the sake of compromising, WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO DO OTHERWISE! Democrats have not had complete control of the government for a decade, and even then they only had a two month window to make magic happen. Your complaints would be valid if we had the WH, both cambers of Congress and a super majority in the Senate. But we don't, and haven't in a long time, so take the small victories where you can and hope they lead to bigger ones down the road.

Not everywhere is the Times man.

Oh, so personal experience is worth something?  You were arguing a couple weeks ago that the Dems shouldn't push for anything in the new relief bill, and instead wait until January.  If you can't see how that confuses people as to your actual goals, or makes some people who are suffering now think that centrists don't care about them, i dont' know what to tell you.  Especially because it looks like we can get more concessions and aid before then, which makes an actual, material difference to real people.  

Go back and read some posts during the last fiscal cliff/ shutdown threads.  It's amazing how willing some people are to throw in the towel.  And remember that during all this incremental change that you worship, all the while, actual people are actually suffering.  The part you put in caps is ironically not the case right now.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

46 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

I see this a lot up here, and it's a tough position to be in. I'm definitely left of Liberals [who in the main seem to be currently occupying the space the Progressive Conservatives used to] but I'm not so far left that I see a lot of easily attainable goals that our more leftward parties [the NDP and Greens] are advocating. 

The pejorative usually tossed at me when others feel I'm standing [argumentatively] athwart their path is neoliberal. 

It doesn't really bother me though [this is not me saying I'm better, btw. I shouldn't have to qualify that, but we've come to heads a time or two and just want to make it clear]

I feel like neoliberal is intended to describe those progressive conservatives, no? The neo-liberal is about free markets, and they tend to at least pay lip service to progressive causes, but they are definitely opposed to state run commodities such as national healthcare. I do agree that the term probably gets tossed around without fully understanding it. Hell, I've been labeled neo-liberal before because I'm only for eliminating excessive wealth (hundreds of millions and up). It's an easy pejorative that tends to be misused.

But I think you can rest easy if you're not a super pro free market kind of person. It's literally the ol' small government, big business argument.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

 

If the term used were "racial insensitivity" or "lack of racial awareness" instead of racism, would you still object? This is a weird quibble to plant a flag on. What Kay is talking about is definitely a part of a racist system that screws over native people in ways both epic and quotidian. Who cares if it fits a dictionary definition?

Actually I would. We can't just keep calling everything racist, especially when it doesn't meet the definition. Kay has made some very valid arguments. I just think she takes it a step too far at times, and part of the point I've been trying to make is you want to create an environment which fosters a desire to learn and grow, not one that makes people want to retreat, and calling an honest mistake that wasn't even racist racist defeats that goal. Like I said before, what she did was some form of cultural appropriation. She claimed to be part of a culture she had little to no connection with and sometimes referenced her connection to it. That's a far cry from racism, a term that should used when it accurate (btw, I make the same argument when people claim that actions which are clearly xenophobic are racist. Both are bad, but they mean different things, and words should retain their meaning). 

14 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

It was a particular book that provided pertinent historical context. Narrowing it down to just one book (that I am 100% sure nobody reading this thread will read anyway) is better than listing several that will not get read either that are more broad.

As to your racism/not racism thing, this is the kind of criticism that gets leveled at BLM as well. I guess I can only say that that attitude that rebrands things like internalized racism, subconscious racialism, and unintentional racism with some nicer word just centers white feelings over actual outcomes for BIPOC. I believe that just perpetuates these problems and ensures they continue by making them seem benign.

Perhaps just have a few good articles bookmarked that you can link then so it's not as much work? 

To your second point, idk. I'd love to read some recent lit on the subject regarding what affects change more. And as much as you may not like it, you may have to make arguments that make white people not feel as bad as they probably otherwise should. You want to open them up, not close them off, and the latter will never help you achieve your overall goal.

(also, none of those terms fit the scenario at hand, because again they assume Warren had some form of negative view, when she was actually taking pride in her perceived ancestry. Fetishization actually fits it a lot better, and there is a lot of truth in that, not necessarily with her but with a lot of people, especially in our neck of the woods)

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

though being told I had a jew fro now makes a LOT more sense

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Lollygag]

During the Iowa primaries, I was watching a news show with a host and round table of folks I respect. They put up a poll of Iowans' stances on a range of progressive issues and compared it to the placement of the candidates at the time. While Iowans generally showed strong support for a lot of progressive issues, they were supporting Biden at the time.

The host and the round table were extremely confused and never did figure it out. It was extremely frustrating for me, as what they were seeing was so obvious that the issue is all over this board right now.

The so-called lanes or the centrist/liberal binary isn't accurate and hasn't been for some time, if it ever was. What's going on fits better with this structure. People plot on a range of issues and they plot on a range of methodology and the result is landing in one of four quadrants, not binary lanes. Someone more specialized than me may work this out better and in more detail, but this is essentially what it looks like right now.

Back to Obama and those Iowa polls. Obama's success was that he pushed progressive (for the time) but screamed centrist, even conservative methodology. He would do nothing without dotting the i's, crossing the t's, and double checking it several times before acting and that gained him a measure of trust from certain voters he wouldn't have had otherwise. They would take the leap with someone if they trusted that person wouldn't take them on a reckless one. That's the result of those Iowa polls. They believed in progressive causes. They didn't trust their methodology, or really lack thereof. And for some voters, methodology may be as important or even more important than the actual issues, especially if they see the lack of methodology as resulting in nothing or even making things worse.

 

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Kalibear said:

On the Warren/taking ancestry of protected classes, I have a different take - thanks to finding out a lot more about my father and doing genetic studies, I found out I am half-Jewish. And I say this to people now too. I didn't grow up religiously Jewish, I wasn't discriminated against for being Jewish (though being told I had a jew fro now makes a LOT more sense), and I've never been targeted by hate crimes.

But I still tell people that I am, because, well, I am. And I don't feel like I should hide that genetic heritage because I didn't live that as authentically as someone who grew up more Jewish. 

It would depend o the culture you're identifying with, I'd think

[were you adopted, or just didn't know your father growing up-- sorry if that's too personal, if so just ignore]

Like, my surname is Greek. And I like that I have Greek ancestry. If I went to Greece and claimed to be one of them, would I be welcomed? I don't know. My father's parents weren't both Greek though. My grandmother his side was Welsh and Irish. My grandparents mother's side are France French [immigrants to CA] pretty much straight up [there's other stuff in there, but not much-- more on this below] If I went to France and claimed [in English, I don't speak French] to be one of them, would they open their arms? Maybe.

My mother's side is a huge French Catholic family. At a family reunion decades ago there were a few teepees [tipi] My family dentist growing up commented on both my mother and my jaw structures and teeth, and said in his experience there was definitely Indigenous ancestry [he said native, more precisely] If I announced to dozens of Indigenous communities that I was part one of them, would any of them claim me? 

Yeah... no.

It's almost a shame North America is so young we'd [predominantly white people] rather claim our European [or other] ancestry instead of saying we're simply American, or Canadian.