US Politics: Be Careful Out There

[Zorral]

18 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

we don't know whether Juror 77 (the Tim Poole fan) played any particular role in that decision. 

I didn't state otherwise, nor does the article.  You do understand the difference between reporting, speculation and declaration, right?

Edited May 11, 2023 by Zorral

[Phylum of Alexandria]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Not to speak for Week, but yeah, probably.  An inference I'm making (not saying it's what your saying but it's how I'm reading it) is that you think the DNC or Dems are trying to appease an activist left wing of voters by race-forward messaging.  You mentioned the DNC 2020 messaging on police violence as an example of this.  I'm just not seeing that messaging.

Not exactly. My very first comment was about how blue collar perceptions that Democrats don't speak to or care about them has some validity to it, and I brought up this hyper-focus on race among journalists and thought leaders--even in instances when class is obviously the factor of interest--as an example of this type of disconnect.

Sometimes Democratic politicians get influenced by this type of identity grievance rhetoric, as TrackerNeil has pointed out, and sometimes they react against it. To the extent that they use it, they will alienate blue collar voters, sometimes including older black and hispanic communities. 

I brought up the 2020 DNC event as an example of two social justice issue messaging styles: one done right and one done poorly (in my opinion, of course). The one done wrong was the race-only approach; the one done right acknowledged the racial disparity as well as the general threat. I can't say for sure why Biden went for that approach, particularly given that he doesn't always go that way...but if someone told me it was to appease a certain group of particularly loud social justice activists, I wouldn't be surprised. It certainly wasn't the worst possible way to frame the problem...but he already used a better approach when he was talking about COVID: which is why I used this event as an illustrative example, for the direct comparison!

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I'll admit I don't watch TV news so maybe I'm just missing a bunch of stuff the general population is exposed to, and I work with a bunch of rural blue collar types so I'm not privy to Ivory Tower type discussions.  But yes, the disconnect to me is being told that the problem with the Dem voting coalition is that it would be fine, but for the left / socialist part of it.  Usually we're (mostly accurately) accused of being too heavy on class-first consciousness. 

I'm sure there's plenty of intersection between social vs economic progressivism, but generally most of the nuttiness I'm talking about comes from the social side of things. I'm not talking about people excited by Bernie Sanders; I'm talking about the people who think Bernie Sanders is a secret or not-so-secret racist. I'm sure there's some number of wannabe-Leninist assholes out there too, but right now, they don't have the cultural cache to be as vocal as the people regurgitating Foucault or critical theory catchphrases.

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

 

6.  I'm sick and tired of this "oh, he's the front-runner for the republican nomination, we have to cover him" bullshit.  No you don't.  It's not news that he defends Jan 6.  It's not news that he defamed E Jean Carroll.  It's not news that he has supporters in the Republican party.  None of this is news or newsworthy.  Even though half or more of the audience was sitting silent yesterday in his most provocative statements, CNN has given the entire country the misleading impression that (a) he could say anything and enjoy raucous support; (b) those people clapping are representative of New Hampshire or USA.  They are not.  

*

I just have to disagree with this particular point. According to the way you've phrased things, it would never be "news" to report on any problem that's being going on for a while. That just wouldn't be responsible. People should certainly be reminded that Trump is still defending January 6, etc., just as they need to be reminded that there is still police brutality, still climate change, still a war going on in Ukraine, etc.  It would not be responsible journalism to think that "news" was only about things that were literally "brand new."

I didn't watch the CNN event and it seems to be probable from everything I've heard about it that they did it in rhe wrong way and there would be better ways to bring up the message about Trump than letting him into a town hall type venue. But painful as it is, we do need to continually remind Americans of what he continues to do. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Ormond

[Fragile Bird]

@Gaston de Foix I’m not going to quote your lengthy post but what 200,000 Americans who died of Covid were you thinking of? Haven’t over a million Americans died of Covid? Forgive me, I’m just confused.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I sincerely hope Ms. Carroll hits him again… hard…

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

21 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I just have to disagree with this particular point. According to the way you've phrased things, it would never be "news" to report on any problem that's being going on for a while. That just wouldn't be responsible. People should certainly be reminded that Trump is still defending January 6, etc., just as they need to be reminded that there is still police brutality, still climate change, still a war going on in Ukraine, etc.  It would not be responsible journalism to think that "news" was only about things that were literally "brand new."

I didn't watch the CNN event and it seems to be probable from everything I've heard about it that they did it in rhe wrong way and there would be better ways to bring up the message about Trump than letting him into a town hall type venue. But painful as it is, we do need to continually remind Americans of what he continues to do. 

I agree he needs to be covered, but he shouldn't be given a live platform to spew falsehoods with no filter for correction. At very least do a taped interview, make sure there's as much tough questioning and pushback as possible, correct the record on the various falsehoods during and afterward, and don't air the most irresponsibly dangerous stuff.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Not exactly. My very first comment was about how blue collar perceptions that Democrats don't speak to or care about them has some validity to it, and I brought up this hyper-focus on race among journalists and thought leaders--even in instances when class is obviously the factor of interest--as an example of this type of disconnect.

Sometimes Democratic politicians get influenced by this type of identity grievance rhetoric, as TrackerNeil has pointed out, and sometimes they react against it. To the extent that they use it, they will alienate blue collar voters, sometimes including older black and hispanic communities. 

I brought up the 2020 DNC event as an example of two social justice issue messaging styles: one done right and one done poorly (in my opinion, of course). The one done wrong was the race-only approach; the one done right acknowledged the racial disparity as well as the general threat. I can't say for sure why Biden went for that approach, particularly given that he doesn't always go that way...but if someone told me it was to appease a certain group of particularly loud social justice activists, I wouldn't be surprised. It certainly wasn't the worst possible way to frame the problem...but he already used a better approach when he was talking about COVID: which is why I used this event as an illustrative example, for the direct comparison!

I'm sure there's plenty of intersection between social vs economic progressivism, but generally most of the nuttiness I'm talking about comes from the social side of things. I'm not talking about people excited by Bernie Sanders; I'm talking about the people who think Bernie Sanders is a secret or not-so-secret racist. I'm sure there's some number of wannabe-Leninist assholes out there too, but right now, they don't have the cultural cache to be as vocal as the people regurgitating Foucault or critical theory catchphrases.

Thanks for clarifying.  I personally wouldn't categorize the 2020 platform (as I remember, which could very well be wrong!) as race-only.  Acknowledging racism in the justice system isn't the same as a race-first approach, and I think it's clear that whatever the platform was, Dem leadership has done little to move forward and in many respects has moved backwards (bail reform walkbacks, Biden over-ruling DC city council, more money for police and more police without fundamentally addressing problems. )

 

And I do remember Sanders getting criticized for not having enough of a racial focus, but considered it to be just typical lefty-bashing from the center.  

Edited May 11, 2023 by Larry of the Lake

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Just now, Larry of the Lake said:

Thanks for clarifying.  I personally wouldn't categorize the 2020 platform (as I remember, which could very well be wrong!) as race-only.

Again, it was just the comments he made at that one event that I brought up, in part to illustrate the disparate messaging approaches, one good and the other bad. At that one event, it was race-only for the topic of police violence. At other times, it was was broader than that.

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

And I do remember Sanders getting criticized for not having enough of a racial focus, but considered it to be just typical lefty-bashing from the center.  

There was lefty bashing of Sanders from the center, but that stuff came from the loudest of the BLM activists. So, the left eating the left.

[TrackerNeil]

4 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I don't know if you read Jonathan Haidt's "Babel" essay in the Atlantic, but it's so far the best account of what's going in terms of how insular moral bubbles (especially when driven by social media virality) lead to a lot of institutional dysfunction and stupidity, on both left and right. It's more dangerous on the right, but it can get quite stupid and dysfunctional on the left as well.

If you haven't read it, and can't get beyond the paywall, they still let you listen to the audio version:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/

 

Heh, thanks. Since I am a bleeding-heart liberal, I have a subscription to The Atlantic, and I read this way back when. I remember having a good laugh at A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts, linked from that article, which is Newspeak for doctors. I take a dim view of being told what words I can and cannot use, and I can only imagine how health care professionals received that document.

[Kalbear]

Oh, of course. Haidt. Many things make much more sense now. 

I also appreciate how democrats supposedly do not talk to blue collar workers when the actual, factual statement is that democrats do not do so well with blue collar white male workers. Typically for whatever reason blue collar assumes this, but it never is stated. Democratic messaging, performance and voter turnout is absolutely stellar among non-white blue collar workers.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Kalnestk Oblast

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Typically for whatever reason blue collar assumes this, but it never is stated. Democratic messaging, performance and voter turnout is absolutely stellar among non-white blue collar workers.

I stated it, like, three days ago.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

17 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Oh, of course. Haidt. Many things make much more sense now. 

You're the second person to cast aspersions toward Haidt, and also not explain what the critique of him is. If he's done something wrong, make the case. I cite him because he's an expert in the psychology of moral social dynamics. This Atlantic article is not a work of science, of course, but it's a very good essay on the topic of moral bubbles. If there's a weakness to his essay, make the case. No more cheap insinuations.

22 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

I also appreciate how democrats supposedly do not talk to blue collar workers when the actual, factual statement is that democrats do not do so well with blue collar white male workers. Typically for whatever reason blue collar assumes this, but it never is stated. Democratic messaging, performance and voter turnout is absolutely stellar among non-white blue collar workers.

Black working class communities did not like crap like "Defund the Police" any more than white male blue collar communities. Bigotry among blue collar white males is obviously a thing to consider, but it's far from the only thing.

 

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

I stated it, like, three days ago.

Yeah, but he didn't listen to you then either. 

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

You're the second person to cast aspersions toward Haidt, and also not explain what the critique of him is. If he's done something wrong, make the case. I cite him because he's an expert in the psychology of moral social dynamics. This Atlantic article is not a work of science, of course, but it's a very good essay on the topic of moral bubbles. If there's a weakness to his essay, make the case. No more cheap insinuations.

Nah, I'll insinuate however I choose. No more cheap policing of how people have conversations on this board. But because it's fun I'll throw you a cookie - Haidt has a lot of experience with psychology. He has very shitty overall expertise on political viewpoints, and his central thesis that more diverse speech from all spectrums (including neonazism, anti-democratic viewpoints and massive intolerance and bigotry) is somehow better than generally excluding that speech is not supported by evidence and is left as an exercise to the reader.

9 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Black working class communities did not like crap like "Defund the Police" any more than white male blue collar communities. Bigotry among blue collar white males is obviously a thing to consider, but it's far from the only thing.

 

It's not my fault you're not precise, and it's certainly the case that BLM was a pretty big deal to some of those blue collar workers. Defund the police is not remotely the same thing. If you have an issue with that specific messaging in particular say so, but you didn't; you said amorphously that the democrats have a problem messaging with blue collar workers which is not particularly accurate. 

Note also that Republicans have almost precisely the same problems messaging with blue collar workers in terms of niche targeting. Abortion limitation is not a winning strategy for blue collar workers, as an example. Defunding social programs such as welfare or social security is hugely not popular. Don't see you calling that out as a general problem, though.

[Gaston de Foix]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

I didn't state otherwise, nor does the article.  You do understand the difference between reporting, speculation and declaration, right?

Sure - you should speculate away.  I had a similar speculation when the verdict came out because rumors about this juror were rampant on twitter.  My point was only that the dots from Juror 77 to the rape acquittal don't quite connect up. 

I'm passionately interested in the answer myself, and hopefully some jurors will speak out in an anonymized form to a reputable news outlet.  

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Yeah, but he didn't listen to you then either. 

Touche.

[Week]

3 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I mean if you go back to the 2020 primary posts in the politics thread you'll see me and Week pretty much at each other's throats about stuff.

Were we? Possibly. Well, I'd say I've moved Left-ward further since.

Anyhow, my post was mainly to agree with you and Raja -- you both put it better than I would have.

I guess what I'm finding is almost a similar behavior as the Star Wars thread sometimes has:

1) Define what has happened incorrectly (e.g., police violence has *exclusively* been described through a racial justice lens)

2) Rail against an incorrect perception (e.g., omg, people feel left out because they've suffered too. We really need to coddle and elevate white tears.)

3) Advise changes to avoid the misunderstood imbroglio (e.g., well, I no longer care at this point because we're continuing down the path of a rotten root)

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

I just have to disagree with this particular point. According to the way you've phrased things, it would never be "news" to report on any problem that's being going on for a while. That just wouldn't be responsible. People should certainly be reminded that Trump is still defending January 6, etc., just as they need to be reminded that there is still police brutality, still climate change, still a war going on in Ukraine, etc.  It would not be responsible journalism to think that "news" was only about things that were literally "brand new."

I didn't watch the CNN event and it seems to be probable from everything I've heard about it that they did it in rhe wrong way and there would be better ways to bring up the message about Trump than letting him into a town hall type venue. But painful as it is, we do need to continually remind Americans of what he continues to do. 

Yeah, fair point.  I suppose the easy response is that I should rephrase to emphasize that we don't need to hear Trump's lies about Jan 6 from the horse's mouth, live, accompanied by enthusiastic applause even if accompanied by periodic correction.  There are better, more controlled and responsible ways to remind the American public. 

I think the basic problem is when Trump says a thing, and an anchor fact-checks him live, that's not going to change the mind of anyone who is predisposed to believe him or is indifferent to the truth.  Maybe I'm thinking too much like a lawyer, but that's the bare minimum necessary to shield a news channel from a defamation lawsuit.  Painfully exposing his lies and successfully confronting him takes much more time and effort.  

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

@Gaston de Foix I’m not going to quote your lengthy post but what 200,000 Americans who died of Covid were you thinking of? Haven’t over a million Americans died of Covid? Forgive me, I’m just confused.

You are absolutely correct.  When I referred to the 200,000 Americans who died I was traveling back in time to Jul-Sep 2020 when he did a couple of interviews with Jonathan Swan and Chris Wallace who asked tough questions with good follow-ups. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

31 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Nah, I'll insinuate however I choose. No more cheap policing of how people have conversations on this board.

I'm not policing anyone else, just calling you out on your BS. Though I do set standards of who I engage with, and what you're telling me is that you're not worth the time.

31 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Haidt has a lot of experience with psychology. He has very shitty overall expertise on political viewpoints, and his central thesis that more diverse speech from all spectrums (including neonazism, anti-democratic viewpoints and massive intolerance and bigotry) is somehow better than generally excluding that speech is not supported by evidence and is left as an exercise to the reader.

Haidt does argue for viewpoint diversity among academics and institutions in general, but you're misinterpreting what he's saying. He argues for pluralism, but staunchly differentiates that from a free-for-all relativism. Unless you can find me evidence that he actually makes the case you're saying he does, I call BS from someone who didn't really look into his views very thoroughly.

 

31 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

It's not my fault you're not precise, and it's certainly the case that BLM was a pretty big deal to some of those blue collar workers. Defund the police is not remotely the same thing. If you have an issue with that specific messaging in particular say so, but you didn't; you said amorphously that the democrats have a problem messaging with blue collar workers which is not particularly accurate. 

Note also that Republicans have almost precisely the same problems messaging with blue collar workers in terms of niche targeting. Abortion limitation is not a winning strategy for blue collar workers, as an example. Defunding social programs such as welfare or social security is hugely not popular. Don't see you calling that out as a general problem, though.

It's not my fault that what I'm criticizing is not one collective, organization, or movement. I don't criticize BLM as a whole; just the most obnoxious people who use illiberal tactics. I respect Michel Foucault, Theodor Adorno, and later academics like Derrick Bell and Kimberle Crenshaw, and plenty of thoughtful people admire their work..but the most obnoxious people do in fact regurgitate their work and turn it into a pseudo-intellectual language for their orthodoxy. 

I'm gonna quote myself here, because what's the point of repeating myself?

"Sometimes Democratic politicians get influenced by this type of identity grievance rhetoric, as TrackerNeil has pointed out, and sometimes they react against it. To the extent that they use it, they will alienate blue collar voters, sometimes including older black and hispanic communities. "

You're the one trying to flatten the point I'm making into a cartoon. That's your problem, not mine.

 

EDIT: Also note I previously got shit for using the term "Woke" to describe these same obnoxious people. What term should I use? I'll invent one. Inspired by Loretta Ross, who observed that callout culture often resembles the FBI's earlier efforts to subvert progressive organizations from within, the efforts known as COINTELPRO. So I'm not criticizing all progressive activists or social justice advocates...just the "COINTELPRO-gressives" who ruin it for everyone else.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Phylum of Alexandria]

40 minutes ago, Week said:

Were we? Possibly. Well, I'd say I've moved Left-ward further since.

Anyhow, my post was mainly to agree with you and Raja -- you both put it better than I would have.

I guess what I'm finding is almost a similar behavior as the Star Wars thread sometimes has:

 

 

 

Again, you're talking about me, but not to me. It ain't a good look.

1) Define what has happened incorrectly (e.g., police violence has *exclusively* been described through a racial justice lens).

Ironically, you are characterizing what I said incorrectly. Those straw men are very easy to bat away, aren't they?

I said that when police violence is framed, as it was in my example of the 2020 DNC event, as only in terms of racial justice, that's misguided. I did not say that all messaging was exclusively about race, though certainly plenty of it is in the larger internet sphere. I accept your apology.

2) Rail against an incorrect perception (e.g., omg, people feel left out because they've suffered too. We really need to coddle and elevate white tears.)

I mean, talking about one of the worst takes I've read here. I was literally talking about real people who are mourning the murder of their loved ones at the hands of the police not being included or seen when someone employs a race-only framework for police violence...and your take is "we need to coddle and elevate white tears?" Man, that is pretty fucking gross on your part.

3) Advise changes to avoid the misunderstood imbroglio (e.g., well, I no longer care at this point because we're continuing down the path of a rotten root).

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. You know what, I originally preferred you direct your criticisms of me to me, but...nevermind.  That shit ain't worth my time!

Edited May 11, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria