US Politics: A Midnight Express for Claudia Conway

[Lollygag]

32 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This seems like an odd take.  Are there specific instances of people calling something racism where you think it isn't?  If these Republicans are so bothered by racism then why are they so bothered when it's pointed out and called what it is?  

I mean, even left and center-left publications and media outlets have been afraid to label racism as racism, often saying "racial comments" instead of "racist slurs" or "racially motivated" instead of "racist." Do we really need to use linguistic kid gloves here?

This stupid forum ate my post and I'm not redoing it.

Short version. My whole point was about getting into and expanding on cracks in the Trump base. Classic divide and conquer with hopefully the side benefit of expanding understanding.

Bold: they don't understand it beyond the worst forms of it. That's the point and the Republicans want to keep it that way to the extent they see it as absolutely vital because so many are still disturbed by being affiliated with the abstract concept.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Just in news-

The media has a video of Trump's prerecorded speech for tonight.

He's going to address the pandemic.

 

[Lollygag]

1 hour ago, Fury Resurrected said:

The problem with this is the white hoods kind of racism isn’t the kind that really impacts your everyday BIPOC. It’s the kind you’re complaining about being called out. The Klan are not imprisoning children of color on the border- that would be ICE, with the overwhelming support of the right and some support on the left. While I don’t particularly enjoy being called a wagon burner by some racist white dude at a gas station, it doesn’t harm me or my family members like a voter ID law that excludes tribal ID would. And if we don’t name these things as racism the republican base you refer to who are very bothered by racism get to keep telling themselves they are bothered by racism while they continue to perpetrate it and vote it into law. Handing out medals for doing the absolute fucking minimum of not liking the KKK is not going to help.

I agree with this but I didn't say these things aren't racism and shouldn't be called out as such. I specified that there are more nuanced versions which need to identified - specifically conditional racism/sexism*. But when the word means anything from 50's white hoods and lynchings to well-intentioned people not thinking and putting their foot in their mouth - Republicans exploit this with their base. And they win with it.

If Dems keep using things that aren't in their language or within the limits of what they understand given their own life experiences, they'll keep pointing to Haley, Scott, etc and saying, "See, Trump's not racist."

Republicans also get extra mileage out of this overly broad usage. When your views of racism are limited to the 50s, the label of racism with no further classifications is akin to murder and number of other really awful things. It sounds absurd to the Republican base and it ensures it will be dismissed as insulting, "talking down to", delusional, hysterical, whatnot without any attempt to listen or understand. The more Dems try to hammer the point in a way they don't get, the more off they come across. And this gives the intentional racists/white nationalists a shield they wouldn't otherwise have.

*Conditional racism/sexism has its own unique element making it worse in that it's blatant exploitation.

[Larry of the Lawn]

36 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

This stupid forum ate my post and I'm not redoing it.

Short version. My whole point was about getting into and expanding on cracks in the Trump base. Classic divide and conquer with hopefully the side benefit of expanding understanding.

Bold: they don't understand it beyond the worst forms of it. That's the point and the Republicans want to keep it that way to the extent they see it as absolutely vital because so many are still disturbed by being affiliated with the abstract concept.

 

I still don't understand this point at all.  Do you have any examples of people pointing out racism but in a way that isn't digestible for these Republicans?  And then what's wrong with the phrasing / language and how would you change it?  

There are plenty of explanations of structural racism out there that are easy to understand.  Without hearing any actual examples of what you're talking about this seems like a right-wing bogeyman bordering in racist apologism.  

Ps what is conditional racism?

ETA: How are we supposed to better explain these subtle forms without calling them racism? 

We also really need examples.  Otherwise it's sort of tough understand what type of bad explanations / messaging you're referring to.

[Fury Resurrected]

14 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I agree with this but I didn't say these things aren't racism and shouldn't be called out as such. I specified that there are more nuanced versions which need to identified - specifically conditional racism/sexism. But when the word means anything from 50's white hoods and lynchings to well-intentioned people not thinking and putting their foot in their mouth - Republicans exploit this with their base. And they win with it.

If Dems keep using things that aren't in their language or within the limits of what they understand given their own life experiences, they'll keep pointing to Haley, Scott, etc and saying, "See, Trump's not racist."

Republicans also get extra mileage out of this overly broad usage. When your views of racism are limited to the 50s, the label of racism with no further classifications is akin to murder and number of other really awful things. It sounds absurd to the Republican base and it ensures it will be dismissed as insulting, "talking down to", delusional, hysterical, whatnot without any attempt to listen or understand. The more Dems try to hammer the point in a way they don't get, the more off they come across. And this gives the intentional racists/white nationalists a shield they wouldn't otherwise have.

 

Do you truly and honestly think that there is any getting through to people who do not think trump is racist on the topic of racism? I think that is entirely futile. These people *like* what ICE is doing. These people *want* a wall between the US and Mexico. These people applauded a ban on travel from Muslim majority countries. These people do not think Trump is a racist because they are themselves racists who don’t want to be called that. You cannot divide them out of his support, and if you could it would only be by adopting policies that actively harm BIPOC.

Meanwhile, calling out these less obvious forms of racism is causing a lot of white people (I’ve seen it on this board even) to self reflect and be better. It’s causing policy shifts at more local levels. It is improving lives for BIPOC. The white nationalists you are complaining having a shield are irrelevant. They are not the problem. The problem is the casual racists with power. Like yeah the Proud Boys suck but they aren’t the ones making the laws. They need to be dealt with on a person to person level (IMO on a fist to face level). Asking that we stop calling it out for what it is continues to ask that BIPOC suffer to make white racists feel more included by democrats. 

[sologdin]

kuhn thinks that paradigms for the most part shift when adherents of an old one die off, rather than through rational persuasion. but ideological transformation does occur. i recall my own fondly--though it is not a pleasant experience at the time, a matter of liberal/nationalist aesthetics coming into confrontation with cosmopolitan ethics and left epistemology, and because of same being cast aside, seemingly involuntarily.  it is an off thing to observe oneself react viscerally to a logical interior process--a disagreement with the self, a contradiction to be resolved.

 

IMO on a fist to face level

trauma is transformative, long recognized for its pedagogical value:

Quote

A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes.

proverbs 18:6. ergo: 

Quote

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

proverbs 13:24. 

who is signing up for parental responsibility here?

[Lollygag]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I still don't understand this point at all.  Do you have any examples of people pointing out racism but in a way that isn't digestible for these Republicans?  And then what's wrong with the phrasing / language and how would you change it?  

There are plenty of explanations of structural racism out there that are easy to understand.  Without hearing any actual examples of what you're talking about this seems like a right-wing bogeyman bordering in racist apologism.  

Ps what is conditional racism?

My field isn't in psychology or sociology so I'm in the category of pointing out the problem but not able to offer much in terms of solutions. I'm throwing it out there because it needs discussed and the opportunity for so much is right there.

The left's recent recognition of white privilege is on the scale of racism that wasn't registered. The whole Black Lives Matter movement is about seeing something one couldn't before despite it having been out there for a long time. Not recognizing racism isn't a Republican thing, it's a human thing. Republicans are just way down the scale, often because of limited life experience, culture which fears the unfamiliar and brainwashing. I specified in a reply to another poster that their definition of racism is locked into the 50s, so by their definition, what the Democrats claim can't be racism. So the definition is the problem.

Bold 2: This is a view which hurts Democrats in their messaging. Because outrage isn't registering at an 11 or whatever, it necessarily means you're advocating for different policies. I'm not. I'm saying that if you want someone to listen to you, don't use accusations of being a murderer (definition of racism still stuck in the 50s) as your opener. The problem isn't the product, it's the packaging and marketing which is something Democrats are so damn bloody awful at.

Conditional racism - no idea if this is the right term or not. I made it up and someone may come up something better.

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

What the Republicans often use in practice and out in the open for all to see is a conditional sexism/racism. If the woman or POC goes along with their agenda as we saw last night, they're fine and paraded around for all to see. But as soon as they're not compliant, their color or gender is attacked, very often before or in place of criticism of their actions or words. Implied in this is being anything other than a white male is a deficiency, a defect which needs to be compensated for, and it's open season as soon as you're no longer convenient.

Basically, if you're convenient or someone they can exploit, they'll excuse or overlook your defect or gender or race. For the Republican base with white hood understanding of racism, this registers as evidence for not being racist because they're willing to use the same water fountain.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

22 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

My field isn't in psychology or sociology so I'm in the category of pointing out the problem but not able to offer much in terms of solutions. I'm throwing it out there because it needs discussed and the opportunity for so much is right there.

The left's recent recognition of white privilege is on the scale of racism that wasn't registered. The whole Black Lives Matter movement is about seeing something one couldn't before despite it having been out there for a long time. Not recognizing racism isn't a Republican thing, it's a human thing. Republicans are just way down the scale, often because of limited life experience, culture which fears the unfamiliar and brainwashing. I specified in a reply to another poster that their definition of racism is locked into the 50s, so by their definition, what the Democrats claim can't be racism. So the definition is the problem.

Bold 2: This is a view which hurts Democrats in their messaging. Because outrage isn't registering at an 11 or whatever, it necessarily means you're advocating for different policies. I'm not. I'm saying that if you want someone to listen to you, don't use accusations of being a murderer (definition of racism still stuck in the 50s) as your opener. The problem isn't the product, it's the packaging and marketing which is something Democrats are so damn bloody awful at.

Conditional racism - no idea if this is the right term or not. I made it up and someone may come up something better.

Basically, if you're convenient or someone they can exploit, they'll excuse or overlook your defect or gender or race. For the Republican base with white hood understanding of racism, this registers as evidence for not being racist because they're willing to use the same water fountain.

 

So you admittedly have no examples of what you're complaining about? 

edit:  sorry, that was a little confrontational.  What you've labeled as your response to 'first bolded' doesn't address the part you bolded.  You've a made claim about racism that people don't understand as racism, and you're attributing this lack of comprehension, as far as I can tell, to the left.

  It's not clear a) what these examples of racism are, we kind of need some examples if there is going to be any discussion here, and b) why some people are able to recognize these more subtle forms of racism and others can't.  It seems you've decided that the onus is on us to explain to people why something is racist.  But it's sort of hard to figure out how to do this if you won't identify the bad messaging in the first place.   I also am not a psychologist or a sociologist, and I'm not sure why that's relevant.

tldr:  please give us some examples of subtle forms of racism that aren't being understood as racism.  and just saying "the whole black lives matter" or "white privilege" I don't see as being sufficient examples, especially with zero explanation.

[Lollygag]

 21 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Do you truly and honestly think that there is any getting through to people who do not think trump is racist on the topic of racism? I think that is entirely futile. These people *like* what ICE is doing. These people *want* a wall between the US and Mexico. These people applauded a ban on travel from Muslim majority countries. These people do not think Trump is a racist because they are themselves racists who don’t want to be called that. You cannot divide them out of his support, and if you could it would only be by adopting policies that actively harm BIPOC.

Meanwhile, calling out these less obvious forms of racism is causing a lot of white people (I’ve seen it on this board even) to self reflect and be better. It’s causing policy shifts at more local levels. It is improving lives for BIPOC. The white nationalists you are complaining having a shield are irrelevant. They are not the problem. The problem is the casual racists with power. Like yeah the Proud Boys suck but they aren’t the ones making the laws. They need to be dealt with on a person to person level (IMO on a fist to face level). Asking that we stop calling it out for what it is continues to ask that BIPOC suffer to make white racists feel more included by democrats. 

Please read what I actually wrote. Again, I did not ever say lesser forms of racism shouldn't be called out. I said the opposite. I used the term conditional racism. As in racism. I literally used the word.

The Republicans clearly think so and being from Trump country, I've seen it personally. A lot. Racism is what gets under their skin in a way nothing else does. They're not reaching beyond their base yet they're desperate to not have the racism issue get pushed. Hence last night. The math is right there.

 

35 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

The white nationalists you are complaining having a shield are irrelevant. They are not the problem.

 

They have brainwashed 40-45% of the population for decades and decades into going along with their agenda (Lost Cause to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc) and are actively spreading throughout the world. QAnon is linked to white nationalism. Yes, casual racists are also a big problem. This making something mutually exclusive that's not.

[Fury Resurrected]

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Please read what I actually wrote. Again, I did not ever say lesser forms of racism shouldn't be called out. I said the opposite. I used the term conditional racism. As in racism. I literally used the word.

The Republicans clearly think so and being from Trump country, I've seen it personally. A lot. Racism is what gets under their skin in a way nothing else does. They're not reaching beyond their base yet they're desperate to not have the racism issue get pushed. Hence last night. The math is right there.

 

 

They have brainwashed 40-45% of the population for decades and decades into going along with their agenda (Lost Cause to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc) and are actively spreading throughout the world. QAnon is linked to white nationalism. Yes, casual racists are also a big problem. This making something mutually exclusive that's not.

If you look at the responses to your comments, you might notice what you meant was not as clear as you think it is. Clarification on what you are proposing would be helpful

[lysmonger]

23 hours ago, Ran said:

I thought I read that in fact the RNC announced there was no formal platform this year, that their "platform" was whatever Trump's agenda was, which was followed by his 50 bullet points that looked very much like last-minute scrambling and throwing everything at the wall.

No, this is something Trump changed. For one, Trump and most of his supporters hates many of the GOP's traditional agenda. 

The big thing why trump has eschewed the traditional bullet point platform is that it doesn't work persuasion wise. Mitt Romney published a 500 point something policy discussion no one read but plenty of Democrats picked apart and used against him.

Trump's idea is to broadcast ideas that ware winning and will be extremely tough for the democrats to oppose. The wall and immigration cut down being the big two of the 2016 campaign.

[Lollygag]

34 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

If you look at the responses to your comments, you might notice what you meant was not as clear as you think it is. Clarification on what you are proposing would be helpful

I literally called it racism. I don't know how it gets more clear than that.

 

33 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

So you admittedly have no examples of what you're complaining about? 

edit:  sorry, that was a little confrontational.  What you've labeled as your response to 'first bolded' doesn't address the part you bolded.  You've a made claim about racism that people don't understand as racism, and you're attributing this lack of comprehension, as far as I can tell, to the left.

  It's not clear a) what these examples of racism are, we kind of need some examples if there is going to be any discussion here, and b) why some people are able to recognize these more subtle forms of racism and others can't.  It seems you've decided that the onus is on us to explain to people why something is racist.  But it's sort of hard to figure out how to do this if you won't identify the bad messaging in the first place.   I also am not a psychologist or a sociologist, and I'm not sure why that's relevant.

tldr:  please give us some examples of subtle forms of racism that aren't being understood as racism.  and just saying "the whole black lives matter" or "white privilege" I don't see as being sufficient examples, especially with zero explanation.

I provided examples so I really don't get what you're asking. Their definition of racism is decades behind so this is a massive umbrella of things they don't register. I'll repeat myself one last time before I have to get back to real life. If you let Republicans stay stuck in this idea that racism is just white hoods and don't expand on that with more specific terms (AGAIN, NOT SAYING DON'T CALL IT OUT), then nothing but white hoods is racism and they'll keep subsidizing the agenda of white nationalists.

Bold: if you're trying to sell something, the marketing is on you. If you don't market to the intended buyer, don't be surprised when they don't buy. If folks aren't buying and the product isn't the problem, good chance is the delivery of the message isn't right.

[Guy Kilmore]

Here is the thing.  I am a white dude who grew up among mainly white people.  I never had to confront thoughts of prejudice and racism, because I never had the opportunity too.  Once I was in situations where I had too, it was extremely uncomfortable to realize the insidious paradigm I grew up with.  The only way that I can work through it and be active in creating a more equal world is to lean into being uncomfortable to learn and grow as a person.  Shying away from calling behavior racist that is racist doesn't bring about that realization, doesn't bring about the self reflection that people need to do if we want to affect change.  And some of this is the "small" things because they all add up.  It is about the words we use, the thoughts we have the nonverbals we display.  I imagine a ton of white people don't mean harm when they do engage in some of these "small" racist behaviors.  That is because we have the privilege of never really having to confront it.  And if that privilege is never really broken through, then these "well meaning" white people will never have the opportunity to grow.

I guess at the end of the day, Politically/Everyday life, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, you gotta call it a duck.  Even if it makes other people uncomfortable.  Things won't change otherwise.

[Larry of the Lawn]

24 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I literally called it racism. I don't know how it gets more clear than that.

 

I provided examples so I really don't get what you're asking. Their definition of racism is decades behind so this is a massive umbrella of things they don't register. I'll repeat myself one last time before I have to get back to real life. If you let Republicans stay stuck in this idea that racism is just white hoods and don't expand on that with more specific terms (AGAIN, NOT SAYING DON'T CALL IT OUT), then nothing but white hoods is racism and they'll keep subsidizing the agenda of white nationalists.

Bold: if you're trying to sell something, the marketing is on you. If you don't market to the intended buyer, don't be surprised when they don't buy. If folks aren't buying and the product isn't the problem, good chance is the delivery of the message isn't right.

No, you have not provided any examples.  Am I missing something?  

Edit: Have you ever heard of any of the following terms?

Racial discrimination, racial profiling, structural racism, red-lining

These are all terms that describe racism beyond the KKK.  They have been around for a very long time. The fact that you keep insisting that the only type of racism Republicans recognize is lynchings and burning crosses isn't helping your argument.  At this point there is so much information out there that's someone thinking that would have to be willfully ignoring piles of evidence of other forms of racism.  Maybe people who can't see how George Floyd's murder was a racist act just don't WANT to recognize racism?  Maybe the problem isn't that someone didn't explain it correctly to them.

Your argument, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is essentially that a lot of Republicans are bothered by racism, but only the KKK type or racism, and the reason for this is that no one has taken the time to point out other types of racism and explain them in a way that they can understand. 

 

[Tywin Manderly]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/25/melania-trump-taped-ivanka-donald-stephanie-winston-wolkoff-book-report

It is reported that Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former friend and adviser of Melania Trump, and plans to share the remarks in her book "Melania & Me".

[The Map Guy]

Hi guys, I hope you don't mind me participating in your discussion.
I was born and raised in Queens, New York. I have always voted Democrat. I didn't vote in 2016 as I shifted center. And this year I shifted center-right.

I live in a highly densely populated area and highly diversely area. My neighborhood has quite a lot of BLM graffiti and I am trying to understand the "racism" that BLM is complaining about to the point where businesses and cities are destroyed.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Maybe people who can't see how George Floyd's murder was a racist act just don't WANT to recognize racism?  Maybe the problem isn't that someone didn't explain it correctly to them.

Has anyone seen the 52 minute body-cam video of George Floyd's death? I won't link it since it may get this post banned. You guys can look it up on Youtube "*FULL* George Floyd Body Camera (2) Released" by "Video Leak Police." Its hard to find, Youtube didn't want to make it publicly available ... but it is there.
If anyone had time to watch all 52 minutes (its gets graphic when one of the police officer tried to revive him in the ambulance), can someone point out the timestamp where this "racism" occurred? I'm kind of confused about all this BLM stuff. Don't get me wrong, I believe the Officer Chauvin murdered Floyd with police brutality ... all I am asking is when this confrontation became a "racial" incident. Can someone provide me with a timestamp so I can understand? Thanks.

[Week]

4 minutes ago, The Map Guy said:

Can someone provide me with a timestamp so I can understand? Thanks.

Timestamp to witness racism in America starts at 1619 and continues to present-day. Does that help? If you have more questions then I suggest you use Google.

[Mindwalker]

I'm not watching a video of someone getting killed, but do you expect the police officer will a one point say: "Sorry, dude, I wouldn't have done this if you were white, because then there'd be far more severe consequences"? And you happened to missed that moment and want us to point it out to you?

[SkynJay]

Oh please don't feed the sea lion.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

It's like @larrytheimp's posts on the nuances of racism were completely overlooked.....