US Politics: Presidential Harris-ment!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I hate the whole school thing. "We've got to get parents back to work," "we've got to reopen the economy," blah, blah. Teachers are babysitters, and students' health doesn't count, or a student who misses a year of school is 99 percent gonna not graduate high school. Come the fuck on. A whole generation of kids don't graduate high school? 

My son's school at least has gone online until October, but why they're acting like they'll go back to school then is mind boggling. Teachers have been so villainized in this process. 

Edit: I also read that the girl who took that famous picture last week of every kid in the hallway of her school crammed together without masks was suspended. WTF? I mean, the school district reversed course after that became a news story, but these people are fucking morons.

See, here you and I are 100% in agreement. Sending kids back to school is like the dumbest thing we could do. I know you're a teacher (can't remember grade level) who is also working on a PhD (good luck, btw). I taught part time after school and Saturday school for a year to make ends meet. There's no fucking way you can make those kids social distance, and I was working with groups of 3-5 kids mainly outside of the gym class I led. And then I think of my few years being a camp counselor. Good luck with that shit, working with a group of 20 ten year olds is a nightmare if they're all excited and it's just you.

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because the dynamic of superiority/inferiority is completely absent. That's the crux of racism. Warren said something dumb, which was a bit out of her hands in a sense and then her response to finding out she was wrong was bad. But that doesn't make her a racist nor her act one that was racist. 

Like literally being called a racist because you said you were told you had some type of ancestry when you didn't. 

But here we are, debating the most marginal of differences, while the other side is just being completely racist but we spend more time policing our own than dealing with the fuck faces who need to really be checked.

If the Dems get the presidency in November, are we allowed to discuss racism outside the republican party again?

[Fragile Bird]

And speaking of racism, so Trump is pushing the theory Harris doesn’t qualify to run as VP because she’s not American?

FFS, birther 2.0?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

If the Dems get the presidency in November, are we allowed to discuss racism outside the republican party again?

They can now, just be accurate. But I don't get the need to shoot yourself in the foot to help the least qualified President ever, and that's not an overstatement. 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They can now, just be accurate. But I don't get the need to shoot yourself in the foot to help the least qualified President ever, and that's not an overstatement. 

 

How is any of the discussion we're having right now helping trump?   It's not.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

How is any of the discussion we're having right now helping trump?   It's not.  

Because several people have spent all day debating over some, big picture, minor shit. Liberals fracture like this. Conservatives don't. And everyday fighting one another rather than the real problem is a day lost, especially when I think it's fair to say that most people in this conversation, myself included, didn't gain all that much from it. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because several people have spent all day debating over some, big picture, minor shit. Liberals fracture like this. Conservatives don't. And everyday fighting one another rather than the real problem is a day lost, especially when I think it's fair to say that most people in this conversation, myself included, didn't gain all that much from it. 

I'm sorry, what did you think would be the end result here?  Did I miss something where a bunch of democratic voters announced they'd be voting for Trump now?  A bunch of people already voting against trump missed out on an opportunity to supervote him out?  

Edit:. Hey all you people who decided to vote for Trump because racism was discussed today in a way that made you feel uncomfortable:  Sorry!  You can change your minds back now!  Why do I get the feeling I'm making an appeal to a nonexistent audience?

 

[Castellan]

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

And speaking of racism, so Trump is pushing the theory Harris doesn’t qualify to run as VP because she’s not American?

FFS, birther 2.0?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/us/politics/trump-kamala-harris.html

There is a person who has long argued that the Constitution does not grant citizenship on the basis of birth. He wrote a piece saying Harris fits his argument. 

Clearly a minority view of the Constitution. He seems to base it on the fact that the Constitution is worded something like born in the United States and under its jurisdiction and argues the second part means people born in the US to people on visas can't be citizens. 

 

 

 

 

[Fury Resurrected]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Because everyone is a racist, in that world.

You ran face first into the point and still didn’t notice it. BIPOC have been saying this forever. To say so is not to say that everyone is a monster. It is saying that we have all internalized facets of white supremacy and must actively work to eradicate these parts of ourselves in order to minimize the biases we all have and their impact on others. If people can begin to hear criticisms of racism as not calling someone literally Hitler but still take them seriously enough to do the work, we’d see a lot more racial equity. This is just like the police issue. Do I think cops are sitting in the station twirling their mustaches thinking about how they’re going to shoot a BIPOC today? No. I’m sure these officers “have black friends” but I also know that they have subconscious bias that causes them to feel like their life is in danger because on some level they find BIPOC scarier. The answer to that isn’t to put a nicer name on it. It’s to call it racist and something that needs to be worked on by individuals. The same is true of native appropriation, that it comes from a caricature of indigenous identity that comes from white media and depictions of it. Reducing indigenous people to that is a bias that does cause harm. The intent doesn’t matter as much as the impact. A person is just as dead if a cop kills them because they hate their skin color as if a cop kills them because their skin color causes them to fear for their lives. And as I’ve stated many many times here, the racisms liberals have and do not acknowledge so far more to hold back progress for BIPOC than people like the Proud Boys. This is a thing you hear a lot of BIPOC trying to explain these days and well meaning white people brush it off with “why does everything have to be about race?” when the exact thing we are trying to do is to make race less of a problem for people who aren’t the dominant one.

[The Anti-Targ]

Racism in all of its forms, big and small, needs to be eliminated. I should start with myself first. But outside of that, pick your battles is my main suggestion. Is it the most effective use of one's energy to be debating the question "Elizabeth Warren, racist, dumb or both?" I dunno, if she is a prominent example of a form of racism among progressives that is damaging to the progressive cause of trying to achieve racial harmony and justice, perhaps it is an important debate to be having right now. But it could be the return of birtherism the moment another person of colour gets the hint of a sniff of getting close to the oval office is the more important battle, right now. And of course the ever present systemic racism in the police and justice system as recently highlighted by George Floyd's murder cannot be allowed to be sidelined because other topics of racism come onto the agenda.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 minutes ago, Castellan said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/us/politics/trump-kamala-harris.html

There is a person who has long argued that the Constitution does not grant citizenship on the basis of birth. He wrote a piece saying Harris fits his argument. 

Clearly a minority view of the Constitution. He seems to base it on the fact that the Constitution is worded something like born in the United States and under its jurisdiction and argues the second part means people born in the US to people on visas can't be citizens. 

 

 

 

 

Depends on the visa, but people on the appropriate visas are definitely under the US jurisdiction. Now if my pregnant colleague is visiting the USA under an A2 visa (govt official visiting for govt official purposes) and she happens to go into labour prematurely and give birth while on that visit (and the baby survives) this does not make her child a US-born citizen. But if you are on a Visa that allows you to live, work and pay taxes in the USA, I would think it is reasonable to call that living in the USA and under the jurisdiction of the USA.

I think everyone who isn't racist would still be happy to take the Biden campaign at its word and it had done due diligence. But since it has been raised I think someone other than Harris or the Biden campaign should do the work to show that it is a genuinely bullshit claim.

[Fury Resurrected]

7 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Racism in all of its forms, big and small, needs to be eliminated. I should start with myself first. But outside of that, pick your battles is my main suggestion. Is it the most effective use of one's energy to be debating the question "Elizabeth Warren, racist, dumb or both?" I dunno, if she is a prominent example of a form of racism among progressives that is damaging to the progressive cause of trying to achieve racial harmony and justice, perhaps it is an important debate to be having right now. But it could be the return of birtherism the moment another person of colour gets the hint of a sniff of getting close to the oval office is the more important battle, right now. And of course the ever present systemic racism in the police and justice system as recently highlighted by George Floyd's murder cannot be allowed to be sidelined because other topics of racism come onto the agenda.

I think it’s paternalistic nonsense to imply that BIPOC bringing up any issue of race other than the BLM movement sidelines it. We can and must talk about children of color dying in cages on our border. We can and must talk about Line 3. 
 

This is the exact same dumb argument qAnon is trying to spread that we can’t care about COVID-19 because of child trafficking. A country of this size and diversity is gonna have a LOT of issues that need attention at one time.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

You ran face first into the point and still didn’t notice it. BIPOC have been saying this forever. To say so is not to say that everyone is a monster. It is saying that we have all internalized facets of white supremacy and must actively work to eradicate these parts of ourselves in order to minimize the biases we all have and their impact on others. If people can begin to hear criticisms of racism as not calling someone literally Hitler but still take them seriously enough to do the work, we’d see a lot more racial equity. This is just like the police issue. Do I think cops are sitting in the station twirling their mustaches thinking about how they’re going to shoot a BIPOC today? No. I’m sure these officers “have black friends” but I also know that they have subconscious bias that causes them to feel like their life is in danger because on some level they find BIPOC scarier. The answer to that isn’t to put a nicer name on it. It’s to call it racist and something that needs to be worked on by individuals. The same is true of native appropriation, that it comes from a caricature of indigenous identity that comes from white media and depictions of it. Reducing indigenous people to that is a bias that does cause harm. The intent doesn’t matter as much as the impact. A person is just as dead if a cop kills them because they hate their skin color as if a cop kills them because their skin color causes them to fear for their lives. And as I’ve stated many many times here, the racisms liberals have and do not acknowledge so far more to hold back progress for BIPOC than people like the Proud Boys. This is a thing you hear a lot of BIPOC trying to explain these days and well meaning white people brush it off with “why does everything have to be about race?” when the exact thing we are trying to do is to make race less of a problem for people who aren’t the dominant one.

As a friend, this seems deeply militant Kay.

And as a Jew, we've been facing this for a long time, too. Don't forget where the term "ghetto" comes from. 

ETA: Side note, is your cat alright?

[Fury Resurrected]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

As a friend, this seems deeply militant Kay.

And as a Jew, we've been facing this for a long time, too. Don't forget where the term "ghetto" comes from. 

ETA: Side note, is your cat alright?

How is it militant to say that in a society built upon white supremacy we all have subconscious racism? In our sexist society we also have built in subconscious misogyny too. The work of unlearning this shit is for everyone and the mantra of “I’m not racist” helps nothing for anyone. And it will never ever go away unless we can face it with the courage and humility to be better.

 

and side note, no, he is not.

[The Anti-Targ]

12 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I think it’s paternalistic nonsense to imply that BIPOC bringing up any issue of race other than the BLM movement sidelines it. We can and must talk about children of color dying in cages on our border. We can and must talk about Line 3. 
 

This is the exact same dumb argument qAnon is trying to spread that we can’t care about COVID-19 because of child trafficking. A country of this size and diversity is gonna have a LOT of issues that need attention at one time.

IMO you are weakening your argument if you are trying to equate me with qAnon. Far from putting me in my place it makes me less inclined to take you seriously.

[Fury Resurrected]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

IMO you are weakening your argument if you are trying to equate me with qAnon. Far from putting me in my place it makes me less inclined to take you seriously.

I’m not equating you with them, I am pointing out you are employing the same tactic they are to try and keep people from speaking on a topic you’d prefer they did not.

[fionwe1987]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because the dynamic of superiority/inferiority is completely absent. That's the crux of racism. Warren said something dumb, which was a bit out of her hands in a sense and then her response to finding out she was wrong was bad. But that doesn't make her a racist nor her act one that was racist. 

But there is a dynamic of superiority/inferiority. That's what I was trying to explain. The Duckworth thing is a fantastic counter example. Here's someone whose being American is being questioned because her mother was Thai and she was born in Thailand.

On the other hand, plenty of white people are comfortable claiming they are part Native American with one potential ancestor generations ago.

Do you really not see the imbalance here? How Warren's behavior fits into this larger view white Americans have of themselves as totally free to insert themselves into any cultural or racial mileu without any effort on their behalf, but stingily refuse to afford that to other people, and are suspicious of their own when they don't meet ludicrous tests for purity?

As an American, for instance, you may be blind to how priveleged it is that your passport let's you visit nearly any country, but America gets to place some of the most stringent conditions on others  wishing to visit.

It's that same kind of one way relationship the is embedded in a view of white American exceptionalism.

And before you say it, of course Warren doesn't hold that view of Duckworth, or anyone. She  doesn't hold much of an American exceptionalist view, either. But the entire understanding of systemic racism and unconscious bias rests on the fact that you don't need to twirl your moustache and claim to be superior to benefit from a system that was built on an assumed superiority of people who look like you, or are similar to you in other ways.

Warren claiming to be Native American didn't benefit her materially. But it's damn clear it benefitted her psychologically. She could claim to be of another race and for the longest time, no one challenged her or called her out on it. She could take the story of a Native Ancestor and convert that to "I'm Native American".

On the other hand, you have Obama, Harris and Duckworth, all with clear, legal, moral rights to being American, and their ability to take pride in and identify with their country is constantly undercut. 

It is a matter of privelge that Warren felt comfortable saying she was Native American, at one point in her life. 

The same structures that let her do that also say to Barack Obama, Kamala Harris and Tammy Duckworth: you don't look like us, so I doubt whether you're of this place, and you don't have the right to ask to lead us.

Heck, this distinction is codified in law. To call yourself an American you need to prove it, and have an official document, which you must show to Harvard, say, before it will let you call yourself an American in its magazine.

But you can claim to be Native American and not only will Harvard not ask for documents or proof, they'll even publish it as fact without telling you. 

That is an imbalance. That is one part of the country being given superior rights to lay claim to any kind of identity, and another part being given inferior rights to the same.

That Warren got called out on it in 2012, and eventually, 8 years later, apologized for her claims is progress. Doesn't change that the claim itself was racist. 

And Trump and the GOP, of course, highlight and emphasize and deepen this imbalance even more. Just look at how they chose to criticize Warren. By saying that the only reason she would call herself Native American is to use it to get advantages in her career, they tarnish her actual achievements as a woman, of course, by saying she wasn't good enough to merit those jobs.

But implicit in their criticism is that the only way someone who claims Native American as their ethnicity can reach these heights is because of the liberal elites and their handouts to minorities. That obviously no one who is Native American can be hired on the merits. That therefore, Elizabeth Warren is awful, because look, she had to pretend to be Native American to be a "diversity hire". 

Which is why, given the facts, I think challenging the idea that Warren benefited from labeling herself as Native American should be fought. It's one thing if she did claim this in her interviews and there's documentary record that she was hired to increase diversity. 

But if there isn't, then letting that claim stand only builds the myth of how being a minority is actually a previlage in America. If even white people claim being part of a minority  to get special treatment, they must be living cushy lives of joy, and it must be that the true people getting racially discriminated are the whites.

Quote

Like literally being called a racist because you said you were told you had some type of ancestry when you didn't. 

But here we are, debating the most marginal of differences, while the other side is just being completely racist but we spend more time policing our own than dealing with the fuck faces who need to really be checked.

We're debating this in this thread. That says nothing about the relative importance of both in the wider world. No one out there is still litigating Warren's claim.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

How is it militant to say that in a society built upon white supremacy we all have subconscious racism? In our sexist society we also have built in subconscious misogyny too. The work of unlearning this shit is for everyone and the mantra of “I’m not racist” helps nothing for anyone. And it will never ever go away unless we can face it with the courage and humility to be better.

 

and side note, no, he is not.

First off, sorry to hear that. I don't have much to offer other than an honest 

But back to our discussion, Kay, you're working an avenue that is more likely to push people away, not building a coalition. And yes that coalition will require white people, and you can't treat them as if they're some monolithic group much like every minority group hates being treated the same way. 

[Fury Resurrected]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

First off, sorry to hear that. I don't have much to offer other than an honest 

But back to our discussion, Kay, you're working an avenue that is more likely to push people away, not building a coalition. And yes that coalition will require white people, and you can't treat them as if they're some monolithic group much like every minority group hates being treated the same way. 

I said everyone, not just white people. Everyone is racist to some degree means literally everyone.

[fionwe1987]

41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because several people have spent all day debating over some, big picture, minor shit. Liberals fracture like this. Conservatives don't. And everyday fighting one another rather than the real problem is a day lost, especially when I think it's fair to say that most people in this conversation, myself included, didn't gain all that much from it. 

This is a bizarre view. 

You know, the fact that conservatives don't fracture may seem like a huge benefit in the short term, but that is literally the reason they got Trump. Imagine for a moment that all the pro-life people were part of a political culture that allowed them to say "hey we both agree on this abortion thing, but I don't see how it's feasible to want babies to be born safe, but not be outraged when those kids a few years later can be cavalierly thrown in cages", and it wouldn't get them tossed out as traitors to the cause. 

Which isn't to say liberals cannot be strategic in the short term. They can be, and they in fact are: the left is firmly behind Biden. There's no major fissures in the party. Given the reality of Trump and Covid19, despite all the vociferous debate in this board among people of the liberal persuasion, no one is fracturing to the point of quitting the Democratic party and voting for Trump.

But in the long run, we shouldn't be bemoaning the fractures and the vociferous debates. These impurities in the idealogical well are like mutations in genes. Some can be really fucked up. But in aggregate you want to keep having em so you cannot change and adapt to the changing world.

Or you can have a less fractious party. Fewer challenges. Fewer changes. But no immune system against a totalitarian dictator either. No immune system against QAnon nutsos, or Tea Party crazies.

All this has to be taken with grains of salt. None of this is absolutes. The GOP, for instance, does have pockets of dissent. The pro-life movement does have some liberals. 

And the left can have it's strongmen, and be infected with conspiracy too. But on the balance, more dissent and fracture equals a better party.