|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 11 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2017 23:06 Slaughter wrote:
Isn't Shapiro more of an idiot then a conservative. Maybe they won't be offended this time.
Is that counselors are standing by line sarcasm? Shapiro isn't an idiot at all. He is very bright. He falls into line more with traditional conservatism than I'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that he is one of its most intelligent proponents.
He's well educated, very eloquent for a conservative speaker (certainly moreso than most conservative politicians or Fox News hosts), but appeals to one-liners and smug "gotcha" comments way too frequently for my liking. He reminds me of a person who tries way too hard to be the Sam Harris of conservative ideology, but he's not really there yet in terms of wit or substance.
I think he's pretty crafty, I think he's one of the few conservative speakers who should be taken seriously by someone debating him, and I love the fact that he hates Milo and recognizes that Milo is just an idiotic attention whore.
|
On September 11 2017 01:36 LegalLord wrote:
Coates is making a crap argument about how every problem is just racism because white people, and cherry picking in a very deliberate, systematic, and dishonest way to do so. But I don't know him well enough to say why. However, when people (in this thread) jerk off to the idea that "talking racism should make people uncomfortable" as if that is some form of virtue, then yeah, that starts to look like hypocrisy.
it would only be hypocrisy if you take it as an emotional / identity argument. The argument that 'whiteness' is the strongest predictor of right-wing allegiance, and especially among voters int the last election is pretty trivial if you look at the voting margins.
Not income or anything else comes close.
|
On September 11 2017 01:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 01:36 LegalLord wrote:
Coates is making a crap argument about how every problem is just racism because white people, and cherry picking in a very deliberate, systematic, and dishonest way to do so. But I don't know him well enough to say why. However, when people (in this thread) jerk off to the idea that "talking racism should make people uncomfortable" as if that is some form of virtue, then yeah, that starts to look like hypocrisy. it would only be hypocrisy if you take it as an emotional / identity argument. The argument that 'whiteness' is the strongest predictor of right-wing allegiance, and especially among voters int the last election is pretty trivial if you look at the voting margins. Not income or anything else comes close.
The argument that Coates is putting forth is the mythical "identity politics" was employed this election by Trump and his people. And also by Obama 2008 by virtue of him being the first black nominee. I would also argue that Obama's age and being a political new comer brought out younger voters too. "Identity politics" is often used to critique candidates that fail.
|
On September 11 2017 01:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 01:36 LegalLord wrote:
Coates is making a crap argument about how every problem is just racism because white people, and cherry picking in a very deliberate, systematic, and dishonest way to do so. But I don't know him well enough to say why. However, when people (in this thread) jerk off to the idea that "talking racism should make people uncomfortable" as if that is some form of virtue, then yeah, that starts to look like hypocrisy. it would only be hypocrisy if you take it as an emotional / identity argument. The argument that 'whiteness' is the strongest predictor of right-wing allegiance, and especially among voters int the last election is pretty trivial if you look at the voting margins. Not income or anything else comes close.
Thats not true. Gender was a comparable split as was as location, military service, view of the direction of the country, and religion being even more split tword Trump. Heck marriage status was fairly comparable to race in the last election.
The fact that College educated vote was a wash between 2 and 4 year levels shows the real reason why Hillary lost the margins in the midwest states.
I don't remember seeing any polls where race moved right any more then a percent over obama and 2008.
|
marriage status, direction of the country and so forth are policy positions, not demographics or identities. There is no "group of married people". And the claim about women cannot be true. A majority of white women voted for Trump. I just looked up that only 3%(!) of black women and 25% of hispanic women voted for Trump.
If gender and race were equal factors in the election these numbers would not exist. In fact especially the comparison between white and black women shows that gender apparently was (almost) irrelevant. Being a woman clearly did not stop white women from voting based on their skin colour.
|
What confuses me is that I thought people used to criticize identity politics as something politically effective, but damaging. Y'know, it wins elections but it divides the country. Now the narrative is that Hillary lost because she used identity politics. What changed?
|
On September 11 2017 02:19 ChristianS wrote:
What confuses me is that I thought people used to criticize identity politics as something politically effective, but damaging. Y'know, it wins elections but it divides the country. Now the narrative is that Hillary lost because she used identity politics. What changed?
She was a little too bad at it and came on a little too blatant.
|
On September 11 2017 02:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 02:19 ChristianS wrote:
What confuses me is that I thought people used to criticize identity politics as something politically effective, but damaging. Y'know, it wins elections but it divides the country. Now the narrative is that Hillary lost because she used identity politics. What changed? She was a little too bad at it and came on a little too blatant.
So wouldn't the strategic course correction not be to eschew identity politics, as the consensus Coates is criticizing would hold, but to just do it better?
|
On September 11 2017 02:19 ChristianS wrote:
What confuses me is that I thought people used to criticize identity politics as something politically effective, but damaging. Y'know, it wins elections but it divides the country. Now the narrative is that Hillary lost because she used identity politics. What changed?
She's corrupt, she is serving the rich (just like Trump) and let's not forget e-mail drama. Also, her foundation is dodgy. That said, I still prefer her over Trump.
|
On September 11 2017 02:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 02:20 LegalLord wrote:On September 11 2017 02:19 ChristianS wrote:
What confuses me is that I thought people used to criticize identity politics as something politically effective, but damaging. Y'know, it wins elections but it divides the country. Now the narrative is that Hillary lost because she used identity politics. What changed? She was a little too bad at it and came on a little too blatant. So wouldn't the strategic course correction not be to eschew identity politics, as the consensus Coates is criticizing would hold, but to just do it better?
Hey, if it means fewer "deplorable" comments, fewer "women who don't vote for Hillary go to hell" insinuations, fewer "I as a woman running for president cannot be part of the establishment" stupidity, and less subversion of issues of substance in favor of just playing the "my opponent is a racist" card then by all means, do it more subtly.
|
On September 11 2017 02:29 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 02:19 ChristianS wrote:
What confuses me is that I thought people used to criticize identity politics as something politically effective, but damaging. Y'know, it wins elections but it divides the country. Now the narrative is that Hillary lost because she used identity politics. What changed? She's corrupt, she is serving the rich (just like Trump) and let's not forget e-mail drama. Also, her foundation is dodgy. That said, I still prefer her over Trump.
Well sure, that's all fine, but it's nothing to do with identity politics. My point is that it seems like the right went from "identity politics is politically effective but wrong" to "Dems lost because they used identity politics." I can only guess at why they shifted in this way - my suspicion is that Trump and the alt Right's worship of "winning" makes it very difficult for them to draw a distinction between politically effective and right.
At any rate, if the choice of narratives is between "Hillary used identity politics and Trump didn't so Trump won" and "Hillary used identity politics with minorities, Trump used identity politics with whites, so Trump won because there are more whites," both are obviously oversimplifications but I must admit the latter sounds more plausible to me.
|
Maybe I shouldn't open this can of worms but what is supposed to be wrong with the "deplorables" comment again?
|
On September 11 2017 02:37 ChristianS wrote:
At any rate, if the choice of narratives is between "Hillary used identity politics and Trump didn't so Trump won" and "Hillary used identity politics with minorities, Trump used identity politics with whites, so Trump won because there are more whites," both are obviously oversimplifications but I must admit the latter sounds more plausible to me.
Well that isn't the choice of narratives, that's just a false dichotomy. That Coates frames it in such narrow terms is a large part of the problem.
|
On September 11 2017 02:48 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe I shouldn't open this can of worms but what is supposed to be wrong with the "deplorables" comment again?
It was popularly understood to mean "Trump supporters are mostly just racists/sexists/whatever." That she was trying to say the opposite didn't matter in the end.
|
On September 11 2017 02:48 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe I shouldn't open this can of worms but what is supposed to be wrong with the "deplorables" comment again?
"Let's just straight up say it, half the people who didn't vote for me are just fags and fuck them anyways."
Great way to energize people to come out and vote for you instead of the other guy.
|
On September 11 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 02:48 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe I shouldn't open this can of worms but what is supposed to be wrong with the "deplorables" comment again? "Let's just straight up say it, half the people who didn't vote for me are just fags and fuck them anyways." Great way to energize people to come out and vote for you instead of the other guy.
You do understand that it's not remotely what she was saying though right?
And you know me so you know I say this with no love for Hillary
|
On September 11 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 02:48 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe I shouldn't open this can of worms but what is supposed to be wrong with the "deplorables" comment again? "Let's just straight up say it, half the people who didn't vote for me are just fags and fuck them anyways." Great way to energize people to come out and vote for you instead of the other guy.
Trump said the same thing and much worse things, and much more often than once
|
On September 11 2017 02:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:On September 11 2017 02:48 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe I shouldn't open this can of worms but what is supposed to be wrong with the "deplorables" comment again? "Let's just straight up say it, half the people who didn't vote for me are just fags and fuck them anyways." Great way to energize people to come out and vote for you instead of the other guy. You do understand that it's not remotely what she was saying though right? And you know me so you know I say this with no love for Hillary
It's what people heard. That was a ridiculously stupid thing to say and immediately drew parallels to 47 percent. And I know people who thought 47 percent was a brilliant, apt way to describe things.
I don't think you say it with some special love for Hillary but I do think you're wrong. Far be it from me to try to ascribe a motivation for you thinking that way but Hillary's was a really bad comment. And I read it again just to see what it was. She was making a stupid dichotomy between the hopeful Trumpeteers and the irredeemable ones. I wonder what fool let her just go out and say that.
|
On September 11 2017 02:56 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:On September 11 2017 02:48 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe I shouldn't open this can of worms but what is supposed to be wrong with the "deplorables" comment again? "Let's just straight up say it, half the people who didn't vote for me are just fags and fuck them anyways." Great way to energize people to come out and vote for you instead of the other guy. Trump said the same thing and much worse things, and much more often than once
Two stupids don't make a smart. We can easily have both of them be bad.
|
But it says a lot about the two bases when only one is held two the standard of decency while the other base is absolutely unaffected, or even fuelled by debased comments. There was a point in the Coates piece too about this along the lines of "If you dare to put a black man into the white house, as a response anybody no matter how morally corrupt will do".
And let's not forget that Trump actually said this three years ago
Is it still a taboo for Clinton to say it if she's essentially just quoting Trump about his own base?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
