https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/2020-election-biden-vp-pick/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/2020-election-biden-vp-pick/index.html)
Her biggest strength might be "law & order". Don't know if she will be able to use it.
I don't think the intention is for her to use that experience. Its more as a preventative measure for Biden. If the cities break down more than they are, the backlash against the Democratic candidates can be significant even if nobody in those cities actually changes their votes. So, if he picks a "law and order" VP he can be seen as caring about those issues as well as picking a VP candidate who "looks like America."
I'm very pleased-- she was my top choice in the primary but dropped out before I got to vote. I think she just got a bit lost in a crowded field this year, but definitely has the chops to be a great VP and then P. The way she demolished Bloomberg in his first debate I think demonstrated that she can play the needed attack dog role of a VP candidate, and she also is very good at taking complicated policy and relating it back to people's lives.
I'm people on both the left and right will find things to snipe about, but I think she's a very solid choice.
Well, she shows a lot of spirit while debating. If they get to, that is.
Funny watching FOX news yesterday. I sometimes forget that they do keep a facade of wanting the best for everyone. One of the talking heads asked another 'who should he pick?' They named positive personal qualities without, of course, giving a name. They should have said 'he should pick the most unappealing person he can find, so we can cream him!'
It seemed very likely he would choose someone centrist rather than someone on the left, since he is centrist himself and the Republicans seem to be running on the "Democrats are anarchist communists" ticket. It hard to make that stick with Harris there. Most people expect that the VP will be president before 2024.
I live in a state that will vote Democrat for President. I don't think the VP choice will make any difference in more local races. Choosing Harris doesn't make me any more likely to vote for Joe.
A pick that should satisfy BIPOC voters, moderate voters and have little appeal to Bernie/Warren voters. It will be a moderate ticket across the board - thank the gods.
Quote from: downer on August 11, 2020, 02:28:35 PM
since he is centrist himself
I keep hearing this (mostly from the Bernie crowd) and it just isn't true, unless you mean "at the center of the Democratic party" or some global context. Bloomberg is a centrist in the sense of center of the US political spectrum (more or less) and we saw how well that went down. Biden has always been pretty much positioned at the center of the *party*, and has shifted left as that has shifted left. If you look at his actual policy statements, he's arguably to the left of both Obama and Clinton.
I guess it's fine with me if this myth continues though, since it gives R leaning voters permission to vote for him, and I think (hope) that all but the most extreme Bernie crowd will not make the perfect the enemy of the good this time around.
Quote from: Puget on August 11, 2020, 02:20:32 PM
I'm very pleased-- she was my top choice in the primary but dropped out before I got to vote. I think she just got a bit lost in a crowded field this year, but definitely has the chops to be a great VP and then P. The way she demolished Bloomberg in his first debate I think demonstrated that she can play the needed attack dog role of a VP candidate, and she also is very good at taking complicated policy and relating it back to people's lives.
I'm people on both the left and right will find things to snipe about, but I think she's a very solid choice.
I think you're either conflating Harris with Warren, or Bloomberg with Biden. Harris had dropped (Dec. 3, 2019) by the time Bloomberg was in (Feb. 19, 2020). She did hit Biden hard in the first debate, although she muddied the waters of her critique (on bussing) the very next day when she flopped the flip.
I hope she's figured out how to talk about her (not stellar) record as a prosecutor. Or, at least, that she'll have it figured out for 2024. No more of this transparently BS "but I was progressive!" crap. I'd like to see her acknowledge her record, own her mistakes, point to the difficulty of being a black female DA and AG in the 2000s, and embrace real reform. I imagine she'll be fine, since she's presumably already figured out which lane she's in and won't be ping-ponging from the progressive to the centrist lane any more.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 11, 2020, 03:14:34 PM
I hope she's figured out how to talk about her (not stellar) record as a prosecutor. Or, at least, that she'll have it figured out for 2024. No more of this transparently BS "but I was progressive!" crap. I'd like to see her acknowledge her record, own her mistakes, point to the difficulty of being a black female DA and AG in the 2000s, and embrace real reform. I imagine she'll be fine, since she's presumably already figured out which lane she's in and won't be ping-ponging from the progressive to the centrist lane any more.
So which lane is her natural one?
Quote from: Puget on August 11, 2020, 02:50:00 PM
Bloomberg is a centrist in the sense of center of the US political spectrum (more or less) and we saw how well that went down.
Did you see Bloomberg in the debates? Wasn't he in two debates? As I recall, two of the worst debate performances ever. Especially the first one he did. I wouldn't judge the viability of a centrist candidate based on Bloomberg's debate performances. Bloomberg has been a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Next up, Green Party?
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 11, 2020, 04:32:47 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 11, 2020, 03:14:34 PM
I hope she's figured out how to talk about her (not stellar) record as a prosecutor. Or, at least, that she'll have it figured out for 2024. No more of this transparently BS "but I was progressive!" crap. I'd like to see her acknowledge her record, own her mistakes, point to the difficulty of being a black female DA and AG in the 2000s, and embrace real reform. I imagine she'll be fine, since she's presumably already figured out which lane she's in and won't be ping-ponging from the progressive to the centrist lane any more.
So which lane is her natural one?
Dunno. We'll see when she tells us and sticks to it.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 11, 2020, 05:01:57 PM
Dunno. We'll see when she tells us and sticks to it.
Depends on what the polls tell her? Many candidates "stick to it" only if polling suggests it's a good idea to stick to it. Then again, who trusts polls these days?
I strongly dislike the "lane" metaphor, which I find overly reductionistic and not terribly useful without looking at the details of the candidate's record over time. That having been said, if we're going to talk in those terms, I would say that Harris' default spot on the political spectrum is "mainstream establishment liberal" -- to the left of party centrists, but not as far left as the Warren/AOC/Sanders wing. Some of the journalistic postmortems written last December claimed that the main problem in Harris' presidential run was that she initially veered to the left because she thought she had to do so to compete with Warren and Sanders, only to find herself defending political positions that weren't comfortable to her and struggling to pivot back. (It's an interesting contrast with Pete Buttigieg, who initially started primary season a progressive candidate, but found success in Iowa by pivoting to more centrist positions).
Overall, I think Harris is an excellent VP pick for Biden. Her background has already been vetted by the national media and doesn't leave much room for Trump to exploit, and though her primary campaign may not have fantastic in terms of messaging, she's not one to get easily tripped up or flustered under pressure. All of the other frequently-mentioned VP finalists (Rice, Bass, Demings, Whitmer, Warren) either hadn't been though that level of media scrutiny or had political records that (fair or not) the GOP would have harped about nonstop. Harris passes the "first do no harm" test in a way that others didn't.
I wonder: what happens now, Biden campaign-wise? Do they keep up the thing where they let him lurk in the shadows, but they push Harris out front to be the face of the campaign? Do they both keep to the shadows? Do they both try to come out and campaign together?
The first of those options sounds like the best to me, though it probably does mean the VP overshadowing the President, not unlike McCain-Palin. That also seems desirable to me, but what do I know?
The latter two options don't sounds so hot to me, however. I mean, ideally, yes, I'd want to see Biden out there, and he really should be. I just dread what I'm going to see if he does it.
Biden narrowed his selection pool by gender. Fine, but if I'm supposed to be excited by a candidate because they're a "strong independent woman" pant suit and all, that person probably shouldn't have gotten their start in the political arena by boinking one of the most corrupt politicians on the planet in exchange for a "low show" patronage job paying 70k a year to meet twice a month in 1990s money.
Willie Brown is 32 years older than Kamala, but this didn't stop her from pursuing the then married San Fran political figure when 29 years old in order to secure the cash, connections and prizes. All feminists should be proud of this ingenious shortcut. Also, she said "I believe them" regarding Biden's accusers. Huh? That's even stranger to me than accepting the debate "I don't think you're a racist" swipe. How are you on a ticket with someone you say you believe to be guilty of sexual misconduct?
Like most feminists, Kamala has no values at all and is purely about the transaction, leveraging fake ideology when convenient and tossing it when in the way of the deal. Couple this with a horrible record of "for thee, not me" attitude as a prosecutor and all you can really say is that the choice wasn't quite as bad as Susan Rice, who I thought Biden's handlers would select. All anyone needs to do is edit Tulsi's beat down from the debates to fit a 30 second ad spot and run with it.
Quote from: financeguy on August 11, 2020, 09:22:33 PM
Like most feminists, Kamala has no values at all and is purely about the transaction, leveraging fake ideology when convenient and tossing it when in the way of the deal.
I suspect that my values are less transactional than yours, even though I'm a feminist and you're not.
But we digress.
Quote from: financeguy on August 11, 2020, 09:22:33 PM
Biden narrowed his selection pool by gender. Fine, but if I'm supposed to be excited by a candidate because they're a "strong independent woman" pant suit and all, that person probably shouldn't have gotten their start in the political arena by boinking one of the most corrupt politicians on the planet in exchange for a "low show" patronage job paying 70k a year to meet twice a month in 1990s money.
Willie Brown is 32 years older than Kamala, but this didn't stop her from pursuing the then married San Fran political figure when 29 years old in order to secure the cash, connections and prizes. All feminists should be proud of this ingenious shortcut. Also, she said "I believe them" regarding Biden's accusers. Huh? That's even stranger to me than accepting the debate "I don't think you're a racist" swipe. How are you on a ticket with someone you say you believe to be guilty of sexual misconduct?
Like most feminists, Kamala has no values at all and is purely about the transaction, leveraging fake ideology when convenient and tossing it when in the way of the deal. Couple this with a horrible record of "for thee, not me" attitude as a prosecutor and all you can really say is that the choice wasn't quite as bad as Susan Rice, who I thought Biden's handlers would select. All anyone needs to do is edit Tulsi's beat down from the debates to fit a 30 second ad spot and run with it.
I myself am really not thrilled that Biden's sexual misconduct has been forgotten so easily---but at worst that puts him even with Trump, so their relative demerits cancel each other out and I can just judge them by all the other points of comparison where Biden comes out ahead.
I don't know this thing about Harris sleeping with people for political advantage; could be true, but as long as the arrangement was consensual it's better than both Trump and Biden's behavior. I don't see anything to be gained by comparing her to a feminist ideal. I see a lot to be gained by comparing her to the alternatives.
I really enjoy the metaphor about voting as public transit: there may not be a perfect route to get you where you want to go, so you do the best you can. Get on the bus that's going closest to your direction.
It seems clear that no one really cares about candidates' sexual history or even their sexual misconduct, post Clinton and Trump. Some will try to use it against a candidate in a campaign, but it rarely works. It's almost as if the whole #metoo phenomenon got wiped out.
Similarly, no one really cares about candidates' religious beliefs -- not even the evangelicals. They just care about advancing their own agendas.
Quote from: downer on August 12, 2020, 03:45:46 AM
It seems clear that no one really cares about candidates' sexual history or even their sexual misconduct, post Clinton and Trump. Some will try to use it against a candidate in a campaign, but it rarely works. It's almost as if the whole #metoo phenomenon got wiped out.
Similarly, no one really cares about candidates' religious beliefs -- not even the evangelicals. They just care about advancing their own agendas.
Well, Roy Moore's sexual history knocked him out of the running. There's still something there. But I agree with you about religious beliefs. I don't care what various candidates think about the supernatural order of the universe---except inasmuch as those beliefs affect their policy decisions. They can worship the spaghetti monster as far as I'm concerned, as long as they leave their noodly appendages out of my uterus and fund social programs and science appropriately.
Quote from: downer on August 12, 2020, 03:45:46 AM
It seems clear that no one really cares about candidates' sexual history or even their sexual misconduct, post Clinton and Trump. Some will try to use it against a candidate in a campaign, but it rarely works. It's almost as if the whole #metoo phenomenon got wiped out.
I think it's more that most people, (i.e. NOT the people marching and carrying placards), know that a lot of sexual relationships which people may regret at a later date were actually consensual (even if terribly ill-advised) at the time. One may argue, for instance, that Monica Lewinsky was exploited, but she was an adult, and suggesting she needed to be "protected" from her own choices sounds a lot like Saudi Arabla where women need chaperones.
The "metoo" movement, which had some merit early on, became increasingly irrelevant as it refused to make distinctions between sexual harassment or assault, which are
undesired at the time, and other kinds of relationships with a bad outcome but which were
voluntarily chosen at the time.
"boinking"...... If you want to go there, why not just say she fu*ked her way to the top. BTW: I'm a nasty pussy for Kamala!!
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 11, 2020, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: financeguy on August 11, 2020, 09:22:33 PM
Like most feminists, Kamala has no values at all and is purely about the transaction, leveraging fake ideology when convenient and tossing it when in the way of the deal.
I suspect that my values are less transactional than yours, even though I'm a feminist and you're not.
But we digress.
That made me laugh out loud. Thank you.
She's a good choice for the VP slot because a brown-skinned female child of immigrants who was once a district attorney is Trump's worst nightmare in terms of campaign strategy. Doubling down on the misogynistic and xenophobic messaging that he's engaged in since the 2016 campaign could alienate white suburban females even more than it already has while increasing turnout of non-white voters. Plus she does well on camera, unlike Mr. Pence, who refers to his wife as Mother.
For all of those who worry that Kamala is too "law and order" for the liberals, just remember that she took over the SF DA's office from Terence Hallinan.
If you don't know who he is, please read his wiki page, it's a RIDE through the crazy SF liberal politics of the later 20th century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Hallinan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Hallinan)
So yes, she was running as the conservative (by SF standards) against essentially a communist.
As for dating Willie Brown, if you know about Willie it doesn't really mean much.
I grew up in the SF area, and now live in the DEEP South. So I fully understand that one areas conservative is another's flaming liberal.
How are we to parse this line from the
Times, particularly the phrase in bold?
Quote
Mr. Carlson said that there were "time-share salesmen you could trust more" than Ms. Harris and "payday lenders who are more sincere," alluding to an institution long accused of exploiting poor communities of color.
What is the point of that last phrase, unless it's to somehow suggest that Carlson's reference to payday lenders was racist. How was it? I'm seriously asking. On its face, the line neutrally invokes a group popularly thought not to be trustworthy and states that Harris is even less trustworthy. "Used-car salesman" would have done just as well. But how is comparing Harris to a payday lender racist? I could understand if Carlson had compared her to a drug-dealer. In such a case, he would have been using her race against her by invoking a kind of criminality that is popularly (if unfairly) associated with black people. But payday lenders aren't
themselves black! (Are they?) It seems clear to me that the
Times didn't bother, in this case, to think through its own accusation.
Here's the piece.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/08/12/us/biden-vs-trump?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
And before somebody says "It's a dog whistle," how is it, exactly?
Can you name a ticket that won because feminism was on their platform in any amount other than as an asterisk? I expect if either Biden or Harris talks about 'equal rights for women' for more than a few words they'll finish themselves off.
Quote from: mahagonny on August 12, 2020, 12:49:52 PM
Can you name a ticket that won because feminism was on their platform in any amount other than as an asterisk? I expect if either Biden or Harris talks about 'equal rights for women' for more than a few words they'll finish themselves off.
Because 51% of the population is against equal rights for women? Or because Trump will lie about what they actually said so skillfully that it will tilt the election?
It's because everyone knows what racial and gender politics are actually about: Shaking down people who do not wish to be called racist or sexist. The BLM and MeToo movements have a list of things they want and if you disagree with them or out the behavior of their members, you're going to get called one of the naughty words ending in "ist" that gets you fired from your corporate job, regardless of how legitimate the claim is.
A major corporation simply does not want to be in the business of protecting people against unjustified attacks. They just want the problem to go away and will happily pay a shakedown fee of getting rid of employee #33728, posting a twitter "we're disappointed in..." response and then getting back to making widgets before this person has even had the chance to carry his box of belongings from cubicle to lower lobby and have the ceremonial door to the backside.
But if you're on their "side" in the shakedown, you get a pass on what they supposedly care about. Time's Up movement? We'll support accusers, unless they accuse Biden or someone else we agree with.
And BTW, one thing I think white people should legitimately demand is to cease use of the rhetorical "I don't think you're a racist but..." that Kamala used against Slow Joe in the debate. If you legitimately think someone (white or otherwise) is a racist or has engaged in racially inappropriate actions, by all means call it out. Don't try to have it both ways. I just want to leave the word "racist" ringing like a bell before whatever else I'm going to say to immunize myself from any push back and to further employ a shakedown tactic. Anyone who makes a statement like that toward a white person knows that the R word is the only thing anyone listening is going to hear.
It's not like when I was a kid and they were getting the pill. What would feminists even want this time? Other than a chance to say 'respect us, man! We're the feminists.' You can't get votes that way and you shouldn't. Even when we all thought Hillary was gonna win four years ago, the quietest moment on the campaign trail was when she talked about 'finally, we will get women an even break' or some such. Nobody cheered. Everybody knows it's the democrats' cause that tanked.
There was a thread on the old forum about how to deal with 'mansplaining.' It turned out to be a real barnburner. Yet when I talk to friends they don't even know what it means. I can actually tell them, without mansplaining. All of this should tell us something.
I don't have my finger on the pulse of black urban women and what they look for in a candidate, but what would help them would be more fathers in the household. Not better ways to keep them from visiting the kids, not better ways to get money in a divorce. The old regular family.
Quote from: financeguy on August 12, 2020, 02:15:07 PM
And BTW, one thing I think white people should legitimately demand is to cease use of the rhetorical "I don't think you're a racist but..." that Kamala used against Slow Joe in the debate. If you legitimately think someone (white or otherwise) is a racist or has engaged in racially inappropriate actions, by all means call it out. Don't try to have it both ways. I just want to leave the word "racist" ringing like a bell before whatever else I'm going to say to immunize myself from any push back and to further employ a shakedown tactic. Anyone who makes a statement like that toward a white person knows that the R word is the only thing anyone listening is going to hear.
Imagine replacing "racist" with "pedophile" to get the idea of how it works.
I am appalled that there are still people who think anti-feminist (i.e. misogynist) and anti-racist movements are no longer necessary — or maybe never were — and that they're just performances by people acting in bad faith. I shouldn't be surprised, since I've seen a lot of it on this forum, as well as in our culture. For me it's just more evidence that my concerns will not be taken seriously — my concerns and those of women and minorities who've experienced bigotry and racism repeatedly — and I've certainly had decades of evidence to that effect. It's so hard not to despair.
Your concerns will be taken seriously if real concerns. Unfortunately for you (or anyone who has a concern of any kind) the degree to which they are considered "real" concerns is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think there's a likelihood anywhere in the entire country that someone can engage in behavior such as joining a group based on racial superiority, using a racial slur, refusing to hire, promote or serve specific groups in a business, physically attack or otherwise openly wrong a member of a minority group without significant reputational and/or legal cost.
If you expect the following from whites, you probably will never be happy:
-To "be quiet" on certain issues, waiting for accepted groups to give the twitter approved position.
-To accept that they are "all racist" based on institutional bias.
-To accept that they are not allowed to defend themselves against an accusation.
-To pay shakedown artists who have ulterior motives.
-To never critique a member of another group, especially when related to their own bigoted behavior.
-To accept affirmative action is not a racist policy.
-To in general accept someone using race as a weapon against them who does not have a good faith grievance.
Whites are just tired of hearing BS complaints. Not every issue is a 10. Realtors aren't supposed to say "master bedroom" anymore? Sorry, for you; this is not a real problem. The L.A. times today has an article about how to get more black people into camping to increase diversity in the activity. Huh? Who cares? This is a hobby that NO ONE gets paid for. It's not even a business advantage for networking like golf. Pardon me if I could not possibly care less how many black people want to sleep in a tent. The libs need to learn how to pick a battle and then triage. Whining and whining and whining about every small thing just destroys credibility for real issues. The average left winger can't distinguish between a woman's head being lobbed off in the middle east or needing her adult son's permission to perform certain daily tasks with a limit on their paid maternity leave. Get a grip on reality; you look like lunatics to everyone.
I think that a lot of the demands from the left fall into some sort of bell curve. There are moderates who aren't too bothered but identify as Democrat; there are the reasonable lefties who think that social problems like mass incarceration, wealth inequality, etc. need addressing; and there are the radical lefties who think that the term 'master' is offensive in the real estate context.
It's a pity that the super radical people are taken to represent all of us, because that gives an easy way out for right-wing a-holes to reject all of the more reasonable claims. 'Why should I pay attention to structural inequalities that permanently disadvantage black people? You want to rename 'master bedrooms', so of course you're ridiculous and don't need to be listened to.'
It's a lot to do with media portrayals. Someone makes a suggestion about changing language and the media, knowing people love to be outraged, picks it up and runs with it. The EU won't allow "veggie burgers" to be called burgers, they have to be called "veggie discs." I was outraged about that.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that when it comes to politics, we can distinguish between those rather trivial issues and dealing with fundamental unfairness in society. It is sheer disingenuity to suppose that anyone is confused about that.
(There are issues in universities about the policing of language and free speech, but they tend to be restricted to academic life and don't spread much to the outside world. )
On the other hand, looking at the right, it's far less clear to me in the US that it is possible to distinguish the old conservatives from the fascists and those who want religious law implemented. That doesn't seem to be something we can just say is down to media hype.
Quote from: ergative on August 13, 2020, 02:56:07 AM
I think that a lot of the demands from the left fall into some sort of bell curve. There are moderates who aren't too bothered but identify as Democrat; there are the reasonable lefties who think that social problems like mass incarceration, wealth inequality, etc. need addressing; and there are the radical lefties who think that the term 'master' is offensive in the real estate context.
It's a pity that the super radical people are taken to represent all of us, because that gives an easy way out for right-wing a-holes to reject all of the more reasonable claims. 'Why should I pay attention to structural inequalities that permanently disadvantage black people? You want to rename 'master bedrooms', so of course you're ridiculous and don't need to be listened to.'
But that happens the other way as well; anyone who doesn't fall into line with all of the progressive talking points gets labelled a "white supremacist" as though they represent a significant portion of the population. They don't. (Although it could be argued that there are some on the left, such as those who expect all black people to vote alike, who think "merit" and "hard work" are white ideas, and so on.)
Quote from: Hegemony on August 12, 2020, 11:49:44 PM
I am appalled that there are still people who think anti-feminist (i.e. misogynist) and anti-racist movements are no longer necessary — or maybe never were — and that they're just performances by people acting in bad faith. I shouldn't be surprised, since I've seen a lot of it on this forum, as well as in our culture. For me it's just more evidence that my concerns will not be taken seriously — my concerns and those of women and minorities who've experienced bigotry and racism repeatedly — and I've certainly had decades of evidence to that effect. It's so hard not to despair.
There is a post above that turns my stomach and reinforces what you are saying. I chose not to dignify it by name.
Quote from: financeguy on August 13, 2020, 01:46:49 AM
I don't think there's a likelihood anywhere in the entire country that someone can engage in behavior such as joining a group based on racial superiority . . . without significant reputational and/or legal cost.
Well, if the group based on racial superiority is the modern Democratic Party, they're probably all right.
Quote from: nebo113 on August 13, 2020, 05:47:47 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on August 12, 2020, 11:49:44 PM
I am appalled that there are still people who think anti-feminist (i.e. misogynist) and anti-racist movements are no longer necessary — or maybe never were — and that they're just performances by people acting in bad faith. I shouldn't be surprised, since I've seen a lot of it on this forum, as well as in our culture. For me it's just more evidence that my concerns will not be taken seriously — my concerns and those of women and minorities who've experienced bigotry and racism repeatedly — and I've certainly had decades of evidence to that effect. It's so hard not to despair.
There is a post above that turns my stomach and reinforces what you are saying. I chose not to dignify it by name.
So, what "
anti-terrorist" actions should a person take
today?
What "
anti-child-pornography" actions should a person take
today?
What "
anti-human-trafficking" actions should a person take
today?
This is the problem with virtue-signalling; it implies that one has to (and more importantly,
can)
immediately do something to make a difference. The reality is that opportunities to
actually do good things will come about on their own (and for some things, very rarely) and will largely go unnoticed . So the alternative is to engage in all kinds of showmanship that doesn't neccesarily accomplish anything concrete.
It's no surprise to hear of self-described "male feminists" who are found to harass female subordinates or cheat on their wives. Why? Because they only declare themselves as "feminists" because of the cultural pressure. Meanwhile, many men who don't self-describe as such (becuase talk is cheap) but who treat the women they encounter with respect will be criticized for apparently not being "anti-misogynist".
As long as shouting slogans, waving placards, and things of that nature are the measures of apparently good character, there will be lots of hypocrisy as well as little obvious engagement of people who
uphold the principles in practice but refuse to jump through hoops for the social approval.
Quote from: Hegemony on August 12, 2020, 11:49:44 PM
I am appalled that there are still people who think anti-feminist (i.e. misogynist) and anti-racist movements are no longer necessary — or maybe never were — and that they're just performances by people acting in bad faith. I shouldn't be surprised, since I've seen a lot of it on this forum, as well as in our culture. For me it's just more evidence that my concerns will not be taken seriously — my concerns and those of women and minorities who've experienced bigotry and racism repeatedly — and I've certainly had decades of evidence to that effect. It's so hard not to despair.
I think you meant to post 'feminist' not 'anti-feminist.'
Nothing I say can influence a trend. We not only have feminist movements, they have a stronghold in academia. I just hope the democrats don't start talking about feminism while debating, because it won't help them defeat Donald Trump. Who, BTW, objectifies women, pays them off to keep quiet about his extramarital affairs, calls them pigs, makes jokes about Stacey Abrams being overweight, etc. He is your worst problem. You could team up with women who aren't feminists to call him out, if you could stand to. But I'm not aware of feminists colloborating with anyone who doesn't at least pretend to endorse their world-view wholesale.
Quote from: Hegemony on August 12, 2020, 11:49:44 PM
I am appalled that there are still people who think anti-feminist (i.e. misogynist) and anti-racist movements are no longer necessary — or maybe never were — and that they're just performances by people acting in bad faith. I shouldn't be surprised, since I've seen a lot of it on this forum, as well as in our culture. For me it's just more evidence that my concerns will not be taken seriously — my concerns and those of women and minorities who've experienced bigotry and racism repeatedly — and I've certainly had decades of evidence to that effect. It's so hard not to despair.
I don't understand the despair. There has been substantial, significant progress for most segments of U.S. society since the 1960s. It seems many people think conditions today are the same as decades ago -- or want to promote the idea that there has been no progress.
Things aren't perfect and there is always room for improvement, but many good things have happened in the last 60 years.
Quote from: financeguy on August 12, 2020, 02:15:07 PM
It's because everyone knows what racial and gender politics are actually about: Shaking down people who do not wish to be called racist or sexist. The BLM and MeToo movements have a list of things they want and if you disagree with them or out the behavior of their members, you're going to get called one of the naughty words ending in "ist" that gets you fired from your corporate job, regardless of how legitimate the claim is.
There are ways of disagreeing with someone that aren't going to lead them to think you're a bad person, or think of you as/call you an 'ist' word. And for the record, I think that the ways of disagreeing that you've expressed on this thread and elsewhere on this forum currently do you no favours. If you start from a position of respect and care and are well-informed, people will notice and respond in like manner (sure, a few Twitter enthusiasts are bound to take umbrage, but that's going to be true for any and all propositions you might care to make). If you start from a position of ridicule, dismissal, outright hostility, and are poorly informed, people will notice and respond accordingly.
There's an awful lot of reasonable disagreement (both internal and external) out there about all the things that get your goat. If you don't care for the responses you're getting to your discourse in your own life, then I suggest modelling reasonable, rather than inflammatory, discourse instead. To do that, you should take the time to get informed and understand your dialectical opponent's premises. Then take issue with those premises, not the conclusion of the argument; that's how you convince people and engage in rational disagreement.
QuoteAnd BTW, one thing I think white people should legitimately demand is to cease use of the rhetorical "I don't think you're a racist but..." that Kamala used against Slow Joe in the debate. If you legitimately think someone (white or otherwise) is a racist or has engaged in racially inappropriate actions, by all means call it out.
So: Kamala should have said "That's racist Joe!" And then he would have replied "I'm not racist, I have lots of Black friends!"
But that wasn't her point, or the discussion she wanted to have. She wanted to talk about what he did, and what he supported. She explicitly said that she doesn't think the fact that they're on opposite sides of an issue means he's racist.
This is exactly what you were demanding earlier in your post. This is what reasonable disagreement without "ist words" looks like, especially when the person you're taking to task is likely to misinterpret the nature of your disagreement.
I, for one, could be a lot nastier in my replies to you and others here. But how helpful would that be? How do you think you'd all react?
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 12, 2020, 03:39:38 PM
Imagine replacing "racist" with "pedophile" to get the idea of how it works.
I don't think you're a pedophile, but you shouldn't be touch kids without asking for their permission.
"I don't think you're
p" is a way of
lowering the stakes and making what you're about to say more palatable. If I just say "Don't touch kids without asking for their permission," you're much more likely to take umbrage and respond with "I'm not a pedophile, fuck you" than you are to respond by not touching children who don't wish to be touched.
Quote from: financeguy on August 13, 2020, 01:46:49 AM
If you expect the following from whites, you probably will never be happy:
[...]
Whites are just tired of hearing BS complaints.
Who are you to speak on behalf of white people? I'm a white person, and you don't speak for me. Nor do I think I speak on behalf of all white people, either. Or even a significant subset of them.
In fact: why are you speaking for "white people" in general rather than yourself and those who think like you? It seems to me that you should own what you're saying and not hide behind the shield of "white people" in general.
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 13, 2020, 06:19:32 AM
This is the problem with virtue-signalling; it implies that one has to (and more importantly, can)immediately do something to make a difference. The reality is that opportunities to actually do good things will come about on their own (and for some things, very rarely) and will largely go unnoticed . So the alternative is to engage in all kinds of showmanship that doesn't neccesarily accomplish anything concrete.
I would think that the alternative is to work to ensure that opportunities to do good things
do not go unnoticed. That's the whole point of virtue ethics, for example: you don't just cultivate virtues because having virtues is a good thing; you cultivate them because what you want is to be the kind of person who's habituated
to act well. (Well, that's the individualist Greek model; other models are available, such as the more communitarian Aztec model)
This all leads me to wonder about the kind of behaviour I see on display here and elsewhere. Is it perhaps best-characterized as
vice-signalling?
QuoteMeanwhile, many men who don't self-describe as such (becuase talk is cheap) but who treat the women they encounter with respect will be criticized for apparently not being "anti-misogynist".
Talk is indeed cheap. But so is "treating the women [you] encounter with respect". That's nice and all, but it's just a basic pre-condition for interacting with people. I, for one, would like to see people (men, in particular) going beyond
the bare minimum.
Quote from: Cheerful on August 13, 2020, 07:56:53 AM
I don't understand the despair. There has been substantial, significant progress for most segments of U.S. society since the 1960s.
I can't speak for Hegemony, but I imagine it's got to do with (1) always having to fight the same old fight, over and over again, time without end, and (2) top-level political gains not necessarily being reflected at lower levels of society (like the fora). Material conditions have certainly improved for most people, but slowly, and not enough, and those material gains aren't echoed by a similar shift in public attitudes and behaviour. To be fair, I think a lot of the public
has so-shifted; but there's an intractable minority, and it's very, very loud. And that, in turn, means that we're still stuck fighting the same old fights, over and over again, time without end.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 13, 2020, 08:21:22 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 12, 2020, 03:39:38 PM
Imagine replacing "racist" with "pedophile" to get the idea of how it works.
I don't think you're a pedophile, but you shouldn't be touch kids without asking for their permission.
"I don't think you're p" is a way of lowering the stakes and making what you're about to say more palatable. If I just say "Don't touch kids without asking for their permission," you're much more likely to take umbrage and respond with "I'm not a pedophile, fuck you" than you are to respond by not touching children who don't wish to be touched.
Actually, asking "Do we agree that generally it is inappropriate to touch kids without their permission?" is vastly more useful. It doesn't presume to lecture (
"Don't") the other person, and it allows the caveats to be raised about caregivers, medical professionals, first responders, etc.; i.e. all kinds of situations where adults
will need to touch kids without their express permission. (And for a kid trying to run into the street,
against their wishes.)
Quote
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 13, 2020, 06:19:32 AM
This is the problem with virtue-signalling; it implies that one has to (and more importantly, can)immediately do something to make a difference. The reality is that opportunities to actually do good things will come about on their own (and for some things, very rarely) and will largely go unnoticed . So the alternative is to engage in all kinds of showmanship that doesn't neccesarily accomplish anything concrete.
I would think that the alternative is to work to ensure that opportunities to do good things do not go unnoticed.
You don't get a merit badge for shoveling your neighbour's driveway! You don't need a freaking gold star for being a decent human being!!!!!
All of the virtue-signalling activities are contrived, and
only exist for the purpose of getting noticed.Quote
This all leads me to wonder about the kind of behaviour I see on display here and elsewhere. Is it perhaps best-characterized as vice-signalling?
Can you point to examples of people on here actually saying racist or misogynist things, rather than simply refusing to say "anti-racist" or "anti-misogynist" things?
Quote
QuoteMeanwhile, many men who don't self-describe as such (becuase talk is cheap) but who treat the women they encounter with respect will be criticized for apparently not being "anti-misogynist".
Talk is indeed cheap. But so is "treating the women [you] encounter with respect". That's nice and all, but it's just a basic pre-condition for interacting with people. I, for one, would like to see people (men, in particular) going beyond the bare minimum.
Bare minimum? Since when is trying to treat everyone with respect and dignity a "bare minimum"? If everyone did that, the world would be a VASTLY better place.
Quote
Quote from: Cheerful on August 13, 2020, 07:56:53 AM
I don't understand the despair. There has been substantial, significant progress for most segments of U.S. society since the 1960s.
I can't speak for Hegemony, but I imagine it's got to do with (1) always having to fight the same old fight, over and over again, time without end,
But that's just it; it's not the "same old fight"; it's a fight using the same language for smaller and smaller stakes. Race-segregated washrooms, drinking fountains, and seats on public transit are pretty hard to find these days.
That doesn't mean everything is perfect, but it's disingenuous to pretend that the situation is remotely as bad as it was decades ago.
Quote
and (2) top-level political gains not necessarily being reflected at lower levels of society (like the fora). Material conditions have certainly improved for most people, but slowly, and not enough, and those material gains aren't echoed by a similar shift in public attitudes and behaviour. To be fair, I think a lot of the public has so-shifted; but there's an intractable minority, and it's very, very loud. And that, in turn, means that we're still stuck fighting the same old fights, over and over again, time without end.
So do you count the people here who disagree with you as part of that "intractable minority", who are nostalgic about the good old days when white men ruled? No-one has said anything that suggests that to me.
Quote from: financeguy on August 12, 2020, 02:15:07 PM
And BTW, one thing I think white people should legitimately demand is to cease use of the rhetorical "I don't think you're a racist but..." that Kamala used against Slow Joe in the debate. If you legitimately think someone (white or otherwise) is a racist or has engaged in racially inappropriate actions, by all means call it out. Don't try to have it both ways. I just want to leave the word "racist" ringing like a bell before whatever else I'm going to say to immunize myself from any push back and to further employ a shakedown tactic. Anyone who makes a statement like that toward a white person knows that the R word is the only thing anyone listening is going to hear.
Thing is, most of the time it is white people making the insinuation, so it would be an argument between whites. Which, honestly, a part of me would welcome. Maybe I've hung out in the faculty lounge with my mouth shut for too long.
Why am I speaking for whites? I'm no more doing this than someone who observes that if you start throwing grenades into a crowd they will disperse is "talking on behalf of the crowd." I'm pointing out the expected response that certain activities and statements are likely to receive, backed up by the recent resistance among whites to tolerate some of the more nonsensical claims against them.
One recent example is the BLM organizer who compared looting to reparations. You can make statements like that, but don't be surprised if you begin to be viewed as a terrorist organization rather than a group of civil rights protestors. Someone going about their day to day life in cubicle land trying to make their rent payment is simply not going to listen to some lunatic excuse away their criminal behavior, regardless of how woke they may be.
Quote from: financeguy on August 13, 2020, 10:38:36 AM
Why am I speaking for whites? I'm no more doing this than someone who observes that if you start throwing grenades into a crowd they will disperse is "talking on behalf of the crowd." I'm pointing out the expected response that certain activities and statements are likely to receive, backed up by the recent resistance among whites to tolerate some of the more nonsensical claims against them.
One recent example is the BLM organizer who compared looting to reparations. You can make statements like that, but don't be surprised if you begin to be viewed as a terrorist organization rather than a group of civil rights protestors. Someone going about their day to day life in cubicle land trying to make their rent payment is simply not going to listen to some lunatic excuse away their criminal behavior, regardless of how woke they may be.
General rule that has been true my entire adult life: whatever one is hearing from academics about the plight of non-whites and women in the USA, that sounds like it came from an academic, is a view held my a minority of Americans.
It occurred to me that since Kamala's husband is white, it should keep the White House from jumping on the anti-white bandwagon to try and curry favour with far-left extremists.
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 14, 2020, 05:12:03 AM
It occurred to me that since Kamala's husband is white, it should keep the White House from jumping on the anti-white bandwagon to try and curry favour with far-left extremists.
I respectfully disagree. White people are the biggest anti-white extremists. Mr. Kamala will be the one delivering the anti-white message.
Quote from: writingprof on August 14, 2020, 05:23:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 14, 2020, 05:12:03 AM
It occurred to me that since Kamala's husband is white, it should keep the White House from jumping on the anti-white bandwagon to try and curry favour with far-left extremists.
I respectfully disagree. White people are the biggest anti-white extremists. Mr. Kamala will be the one delivering the anti-white message.
Agree with WP. Blaming white people for everything is instant status-buying in the new 'woke' culture. As is taking the bullying and manipulation with good humor and gratitude. Did anyone say 'cult' or 'religion?' Cults give you a sense of belonging. But you have to first understand that without belonging to the cult you are living wrong. White privilege = original sin. Must be faced and fought with fervor. Serious work to be done!
Quote from: mahagonny on August 14, 2020, 06:01:14 AM
Quote from: writingprof on August 14, 2020, 05:23:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 14, 2020, 05:12:03 AM
It occurred to me that since Kamala's husband is white, it should keep the White House from jumping on the anti-white bandwagon to try and curry favour with far-left extremists.
I respectfully disagree. White people are the biggest anti-white extremists. Mr. Kamala will be the one delivering the anti-white message.
Agree with WP. Blaming white people for everything is instant status-buying in the new 'woke' culture. As is taking the bullying and manipulation with good humor and gratitude. Did anyone say 'cult' or 'religion?' Cults give you a sense of belonging. But you have to first understand that without belonging to the cult you are living wrong. White privilege = original sin. Must be faced and fought with fervor. Serious work to be done!
I don't disagree that
he can say it. But if
she says it, (particularly without him beside her nodding his head), I think it won't go so well with
mainstream voters, since it will seem like a disloyal cheap shot (which it is).
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 14, 2020, 06:44:28 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 14, 2020, 06:01:14 AM
Quote from: writingprof on August 14, 2020, 05:23:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 14, 2020, 05:12:03 AM
It occurred to me that since Kamala's husband is white, it should keep the White House from jumping on the anti-white bandwagon to try and curry favour with far-left extremists.
I respectfully disagree. White people are the biggest anti-white extremists. Mr. Kamala will be the one delivering the anti-white message.
Agree with WP. Blaming white people for everything is instant status-buying in the new 'woke' culture. As is taking the bullying and manipulation with good humor and gratitude. Did anyone say 'cult' or 'religion?' Cults give you a sense of belonging. But you have to first understand that without belonging to the cult you are living wrong. White privilege = original sin. Must be faced and fought with fervor. Serious work to be done!
I don't disagree that he can say it. But if she says it, (particularly without him beside her nodding his head), I think it won't go so well with mainstream voters, since it will seem like a disloyal cheap shot (which it is).
I don't remember Obama's grandmother standing beside him when he denounced her as a "typical white person."
eh... remember that own group preference I spoke about earlier? The spouse issue is a big deal, although apparently less problematic when a black female marries a white male. The reverse is apparently unforgivable. Remember the guy who agreed to pay tuition for the Morehouse College graduating class? His name was Robert F Smith, a private equity guy. If you think the reaction was about what a generous gesture this was, think again. See, Bob married a white woman and that simply won't do. Same with actor Michael B. Jordan who has been threatened with a boycot for the pigment of his dating partners and asked repeatedly to "respond" to the controversy. There's an interesting article from the Phily Trib about Smith, titled a "good deed goes through Black Enough filter" which is linked:
https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/johnmitchell/mitchell-a-good-deed-goes-through-black-enough-blender/article_aca84e1e-326c-51c1-9d15-3600c5f0c5ca.html
I suspect Kamala's husband will not be prominently displayed in certain settings since it's already been the source of the same type of "controversy," the one area of her record for which criticism is unfounded. When the Washington Examiner has an article titled "Why I Married a White Man" in which she "defends" this decision (I've actually seen her asked to do this many times in other venues) it just shows the toxic racial attitudes from all sides.
My ears perk up a bit to this. I'm with someone who isn't white but whose group doesn't hate us or have a problem with dating within their group. (At least these views are not wide enough to be publicly stated in a major news outlet that asks the subject to "defend" themselves.) A few years ago when I was with a black woman the comments were much less subtle, and not from whites. People had no problem openly stating their unsolicited opinion. Things got a bit more complicated when her accent demonstrated she was from Africa, not the U.S. I think this confused people. They didn't know if they disapproved of this quite as much. I recommend Douglas Emhoff adopt a very strong yet undetectable accent to throw some of these lunatics who have a problem with his race off the track of what it exactly is.
I've done scant reading on Senator Harris. She is described as being a "Moderate". I do not see that; however, I've also done scant reading on the general Democratic Party philosophies either. She has a really nice smile but that puts her in direct competition on that point with Joe Biden.
QuoteWhites are just tired of hearing BS complaints. Not every issue is a 10. Realtors aren't supposed to say "master bedroom" anymore? Sorry, for you; this is not a real problem. The L.A. times today has an article about how to get more black people into camping to increase diversity in the activity. Huh? Who cares? This is a hobby that NO ONE gets paid for. It's not even a business advantage for networking like golf. Pardon me if I could not possibly care less how many black people want to sleep in a tent.
Joke I used to hear as a kid:
Son: Hey Dad. I just came the Boy Scout meeting. Boy, did we have fun today!
Dad: Great son. And you know you're supposed to do a good deed once every day.
Son: Oh yeah, I did that already.
Dad: I'm proud of you! What was the good deed?
Son: Me and two other scouts helped a nice old lady cross the street.
Dad: You and...why did it take three of you?
Son: She didn't want to go!
Here's the article. But I think one would find out the same thing I know. Camping is about bugs, sweat, carrying things, and not getting a good night's sleep. https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/2020-08-10/want-more-people-of-color-in-the-outdoors-give-them-gear