US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 81

On November 11 2018 07:34 Danglars wrote:

I’d like to mimic your language to show my perspective. Many people think common phrases like “monkey it up” have nothing to do with racist undertones, and think their continuance is just conversation as usual. So what to do when a group suggests and asserts you meant it as a dog-whistle, it’s more likely than not you’re signalling to racists, and the whole affair emboldens racism and white supremacy? You dismiss those complaints made by the low partisans making them. They have hay to make and readily resort to accusations of racism on a slow news day or when a candidate isn’t doing so well.

The worst thing you can do is show their poor attempts to flag phrases in common use is readily accepted and their point gained. It just emboldens their next conquest: white allyship, “where are you from?,” mansplaining, MS-13 animals.

Now, you’ve tried the whole “politics aside for a moment,” so I’ll try to make the only nuanced point that is devoid from politics. “People” don’t think it “implies an ugly sentiment,” but some “people” think it’s code words for a very nasty intent to punish minorities. That’s not a sentiment, that’s an accusation of malintent. That goes far beyond the part of politeness that is primarily given to individuals and sometimes to groups. Certain coarse and demeaning language falls under that label. Not the secretive racist implication towards furthering white supremacy with a wink and a nod. If the matter was only causing offense and being impolite, that would be quite another thing indeed.

I really think the language here is abused by a minority, certainly showing by DeSantis’s numbers and the reaction, so, as a matter of fact, the language is used plainly to convey the information to the listener and does so quite well. It’s only the part of society that wishes they had the secret decoder rings and people like DeSantis didn’t know they posted them that try (with you, perhaps succeed) to convince others it’s dog whistle racism.

On November 11 2018 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yeah, but he's wholly and completely militarily incompetent. His generals have to explain even the most rudimentary logistics to him and he's demonstrated he's unwilling or incapable of absorbing that kind of information. So next time he wants to use the military for his own political agenda (tactics and strategy be damned) they will have to more aggressively explain to him why they (in this case FP adviser) aren't going to do it, like they did (reportedly) when he didn't understand why we had all these nukes if we aren't going to use them.

Refusing a direct order isn't really an option but forcefully explaining to Trump why what he wants is completely idiotic is something they can do and will have to if they want to avoid a more direct conflict between the presidency and the military.

The morale of those troops he exploited for political gain falls on their leaders shoulders and they can only do so much before it becomes a nasty feedback loop until someone snaps.

On November 11 2018 08:58 Danglars wrote:

They can think what they like of his state of emergency and orders. That still doesn't change my opinion on civilian-elected control of military generals. I don't trust them any more than I trust Trump in using judgement to second guess orders (of the kind below the biggest "nuke san fracisco/shoot up seattle" style order). You don't think the deployment does anything? Go vote him out in 2020: that's your act of resistance.

Every time I run through what you could possibly mean by "the generals will have to resist harder," I can't think of anything that wouldn't make things far far far worse.

On November 11 2018 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not sure who you mean by they, but the military isn't a machine. They are people with emotions, desires, expectations, and the rest. Now we do systematically restructure those within our troops (to varying degrees of effectiveness), but we can't remove them altogether.

So you can suggest that instead of the military forcefully explaining to the president that he's acting like a wasteful idiot and devastating the morale of his troops they should just follow orders and vote in 2020, but at this rate the conflict will come to a head before that.

On November 11 2018 09:36 Danglars wrote:

I have no bone to pick with the "forcefully explaining to the president that he's acting like a wasteful idiot and devastating the morale of his troops." I expect no less, should they believe so. It's just that #resist has taken on something of a different character than just explaining something forcefully through the proper channels. Every one also has the vote, so feel free to express it that way as well. It's a form of resistance. I just take issue with the thought that more than a verbal caution of stern difference of opinion is warranted.

On November 11 2018 08:56 ChristianS wrote:

My biggest issue with this is that you're basically taking as a given the accusations are made in bad faith. Do you think P6 et al. secretly knew DeSantis had no racist intent and hates the idea of racists voting for him, but they're just engaging in an influence campaign to swing the votes of TLers? Or do you think that, maybe, the reason they say "that's racist" is because they actually think it's racist?

This is a great example of the communication thing. You've chosen these shorthands for all the "low partisans'" next "conquests" that leave me very confused what you actually think on those subjects. Are you opposed to "white allyship"? Do you think men aren't prone to condescending tones in discussing certain subjects with women? If I say the question "where are you from" can be impolite in certain contexts because it can focus attention on someone's ethnicity, do you think I'm a "low partisan" guilty of needing a subject on a slow news day? Those questions are rhetorical, only because each of those subjects is a whole topic of its own and we'll never have time to discuss them all simultaneously. But do you see how someone might read that and think you are opposed to the idea of whites allying with minorities?

That's true, they think you're implying it purposefully, not just incidentally. But if you really wanted to combat the idea that you're secretly allying with horrible people, the easiest way would be to express your opposition to those people in no uncertain terms. Make clear not just that you don't ally with racists, but why you don't ally with racists.

Part of the problem here is that people (white people, especially) have started to think of racism as a set of traffic laws you're just supposed to follow, or at least not get caught breaking. If you follow the rules, you're not racist; if you slip up and say or do something you shouldn't, you pay the penalty. But even if you successfully avoid saying or doing anything racist, all you've managed to be is "not racist." But isn't racism supposed to be something we all despise? Why would we only aspire to neutrality on the subject?

DeSantis' numbers rising certainly doesn't prove that a large majority of people think his language was innocuous. There's any number of hypotheses that could account for his number rising - maybe all the people who disagreed with that language were already opposed to him. Or maybe the "dog whistle" worked. Personally I think it's perfectly obvious why saying Florida electing a black man would be "monkeying it up" might be questionable language for someone not trying to imply something they don't mean, but I don't think that proves intent. I don't doubt he uses the phrase regularly, and it wouldn't surprise me if the racial subtext didn't occur to him when he said it. A simple "I didn't mean anything racist by it, I think racism is bad" would be plenty for me. But these days, Republicans need that "bad boy" edgelord image to fire up the base, and an unfortunate consequence is a refusal to clarify questionable phrasings or, often, a refusal express any meaningful opposition to racism at all.

On November 14 2018 22:50 Nebuchad wrote:
As much as I like Ojeda and Yang (Yang a little less tbh), I'm concerned about splitting the progressive vote if that's the start we get. Hopefully the corporate side is also crowded, a lot of people will want their shot

On November 15 2018 04:52 Nebuchad wrote:
If we're talking just strategy I think the case for a progressive is pretty clear cut. The battleground is in the Rust Belt, and the appeal of a progressive there has been pretty clear last time around if we look at both the primaries and the election; unless we get some dramatic new information, it looks like that's what they are expecting. There are no states that vote democrat that would flip because a progressive is too leftwing for them, apart from maaaaybe Virginia and even that's not really a thing anymore at this point. You're likely to lose Florida I guess, but as we've seen the last few times, Florida's never been a guarantee no matter who you pick.

On November 15 2018 02:32 Danglars wrote:
She’d be a good trial to see if Democrats are very beholden to their progressive wing. If she can survive the prinary, just think about how many states she would swing from Trump just showing moderate temperament. Personally, I don’t think she’d be a good choice for the country, but she might win if it’s her and Trump ... and top-5 in my head for Dems chances at this juncture.

On November 15 2018 06:52 Mercy13 wrote:


The issue is Democrats don't just need to win progressive states, they also need to regain some ground in the Midwest. They might think, with some justification, that a mainstream Democrat will have more success there. Also it seems like progressives struggled a bit during the midterms. What's your take on this? For the record I don't know what their best strategy is, I'm genuinely curious.