| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
Police brutality is so awful, theres no reason we can't find an instance to piss almost anyone off. Like that old man the cop shoved to the ground who hit his head. They just let him bleed all over the concrete. I'd like to see this relatively localized though, police brutality is more effective if, as you say, you engage people with how they're a threat to them, and the more local the more threatening. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On December 05 2020 15:35 Wegandi wrote: People would do well to actually engage white folks with how the police are also a threat to them. Making it solely a black agenda item is absolutely the wrong tack. You talk about James Boyd, Thomas Kelly, and Daniel Shaver and that's going to get you somewhere rather than passive-aggressive jabs at whites being racist. Talk about asset forfeiture abuse, etc. The people you need to win over to get your policy prescription aren't BLM activists or libertarians like me who don't like the police it's your average joe schmoe who doesn't know anything about those things because the national media only covers one group of police abuse so they think it doesn't affect them. You might not like it, but that's just reality and communication. Folks need to read Dale Carnegie, or maybe don't because I'd rather you guys (progressives) not win political office in the grand scheme of things. To the contrary, actually engaging with white people on policing in majority white communities confuses most minorities that grew up in majority-minority jurisdictions. Often they almost literally think white high schoolers smoke weed with cops and teachers. When they hear about basement parties being broken up by police they are incredulous. Nothing like that happens in minority communities. When they hear about kids getting kicked out of the street for playing stickball or street hockey they are incredulous, because that also never happens. This makes sense because real crime is just much much higher in their own neighborhoods. The police don't police indoor weed smoking because there is outdoor heroine dealing to be dealt with, there are homicides, burglaries, and car theft. If your community is terrorizing underage drinkers, you actually have more police than you need. | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On December 05 2020 06:11 Starlightsun wrote: Let's not forget what the slogan was a reaction to... A cop slowly murdering a man in broad daylight, on film, with other cops stopping people from helping. Kind of hard to make a "positive slogan" out of that. Intellectually all this talk of tempering slogans makes sense but I think we are forgetting the visceral brutality we all witnessed just a few months ago (and the violent police response to protesting in addition to the murders). "Black Lives Matter" is a positive slogan. (I know that has had problems too, and maybe "All Lives Matter" would have been a better slogan before it acquired its baggage.) The focus on George Floyd rather than the cops who killed him was a positive choice - George should be alive vs these officers should be in jail. "Defund the Police" can come across as being more interested in revenge; the police have done wrong and so should be punished. As I said, focus on who would be helped. It comes down to what is more important. Suppose it was possible to cut police funding but without changing police brutality or police responsibilities; alternatively it was possible to leave police funding unchanged but have less police brutality and hand some responsibilities over to (new) social programs. The focus on defunding the police makes it sound like the former option is preferable. I think that is why the slogan is toxic. It would be like campaigning for universal healthcare by talking about tax rises. The messaging should be about the ultimate goal. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
It saw tons of pushback and its fragmented into a hundred weird spinoffs including, ironically, Blue Lives Matter. Slogans will always be interpreted in the worst way by political opponents, just as Black Lives Matter was criticized as saying the only police brutality that mattered was against black people. Its a disingenuous pile o' shite, but that didn't stop it from being a huge thing. Defund the Police might become Fund Social Care, but then you'll have to deal with pushback in the vein of "How ya gonna pay for it?!" a la the argument against universal healthcare and some specific stuff like "You're erasing black people from the conversation!" "You're ignoring the atrocities commited by the police!" by easing up on the police focus. There will always be some angle to attack a slogan on (so long as it isnt completely hollow like "Yes we can" or "Make America Great Again" anyways) Its why I don't like to focus on the slogan and would rather focus on shifting perception around the slogan so that its not this Republican narrative of "THEY WANT POLICELESS ANARCHY!" and the narrative around the movement can be about providing social care and demilitarizing police budgets (to start with, I hope we go so much further as we go.) | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8150 Posts
Vitale says that every time society has a problem that it doesn't want to invest in, it gives it to the police. And that the police is not equipped to deal with many of those and that the results are disastrous. Homelessness, drug users and so on come to mind. His idea is that society needs to take responsibility, and focus its budgets on helping those people rather than just pouring money into the police and look the other way. Altogether, the police's mission should be narrowed down and a lot more money reinvested into non violent solutions every time it's possible. He also makes interesting points about how surprisingly rarely the police - as the agent of the state having the monopoly of violence - really is needed, compared to how present it is. It's all perfectly reasonable. The problem is that some people have understood from the discussion that police was totally useless, that they were virtually never needed, and that it should just be totally abolished (if that reminds you of something...) I think that's what has caught up in the mind of many voters, rather than Vitale's quite nuanced opinion. Of course, that kind of extremist misrepresentation is a blessing for conservatives who see a cheap and easy angle of attack. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
I don't think there's much point in a bunch of nerds theorycrafting strategy for headless grassroots movements we have no control over, but I do think progressivism needs to work on its messaging. Even Donald Trump, whose movement would happily fall in behind something as nuanced as "screw the libs", managed a catchphrase that pretended to be both positive and universal. The left has kicked nothing but own goals in comparison. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
Long and short of it is that Dems need to reincorporate an old party tack best summarized by Justice Thurgood Marshall's famous quote, "Do the right thing and the law will follow." | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
There is more than enough parameter space available to find a positive and universal line that is also technically correct. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On December 05 2020 20:33 Belisarius wrote: The idea that all slogans will be criticised so we should just ignore potential criticism is absurd. You're like a sailor saying all ships will encounter rough seas so we should just not bother with seaworthiness. A slogan's ability to trigger positive discussion in the face of criticism is literally its most important property. I don't think there's much point in a bunch of nerds theorycrafting strategy for headless grassroots movements we have no control over, but I do think progressivism needs to work on its messaging. Even Donald Trump, whose movement would happily fall in behind something as nuanced as "screw the libs", managed a catchphrase that pretended to be both positive and universal. The left has kicked nothing but own goals in comparison. If Republicans weren't so effective at mudslinging I might agree, but look at what happens when you try and preempt their bullshit, you get "SOCIALIST JOE BIDEN" which is obviously utterly asinine on any and every level, but for a certain facet of society thats going to stick to some extent. If their SOCIALIST JOE BIDEN shtick will stick then I find it hard to want to focus on preempting and trying to avoid the mudslinging when we could instead try and either turn it on them or let it slide off. Democrat strategy is bad in this respect, in my opinion. They let Republicans dictate the narrative, they let Republicans go, "JOE BIDENS A SOCIALIST!" and then Democrats spend their time going "HEY IM NOT A SOCIALIST I BEAT THE SOCIALIST!" and it detracts from any decent positive message they could run. They're so focused on the defense that they basically cede the option for offense. Let the Republican attacks roll imo, Americans will respond to being appealed to, being talked to, listened to, feeling understood, and feeling that there might be hope for the future. Let the Republicans sling their crappy insults, focus on helping people understand what you're for via grassroots efforts, phone banking, door-to-door ground work (when that eventually becomes safe) and I'd argue Democrats REALLY need to evaluate the importance of a strong digital presence too. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22487 Posts
On December 05 2020 23:12 Zambrah wrote:Let the Republican attacks roll imo, Americans will respond to being appealed to, being talked to, listened to, feeling understood, and feeling that there might be hope for the future. Let the Republicans sling their crappy insults, focus on helping people understand what you're for via grassroots efforts, phone banking, door-to-door ground work (when that eventually becomes safe) and I'd argue Democrats REALLY need to evaluate the importance of a strong digital presence too. Isn't that more or less what Hillary tried only to get buried because of years and years of Republican attacks?She came with actual solutions for fixing the issues of working class Americans only for them to turn to the guy promising to bring their fathers coal jobs back. I'm not saying your premise is wrong. Republicans will always attack and if they can find no good avenue they will invent one out of thin air but we have first hand proof that trying to appeal to actually fixing the issues doesn't beat a bucket of bullshit. Sadly I don't think America lives in a world were an honest campaign focused on fixing the issues would work anymore. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote: Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote. She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote: I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. It's absolutely backwards, and working class people were being talked down to in this issue as for a host of other issues. You see your tax burden go down, say for the increase of the standard deduction as an example, are happy for the extra money that you didn't end up sending away to Washington DC, and somebody in journalistic or politician circles are telling you that you're supposed to be mad. It's a fucking tough sell to the sort of crowd that sees the problems with their policies to be the way it's sold. Aka it's not anger at the policies, but the people are too dumb to understand that it actually helps them. Oh, and by the way, working class people, the only reason you're supporting Republicans is that they're validating anger and you're so dumb that you're deceived into believing they're going to do better for you? They're supposed to be happy when they're told they're willingly deceived, voting out their anger, didn't get money back from a tax cut? I think Democrats need to start flipping roles and saying this stuff to themselves to start to realize how patronizing and stupid it all sounds. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote: ...Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. Were the Republicans like that before Trump came along? I really haven't followed politics most of my life... | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 06 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote: The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 06 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote: Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11941 Posts
On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote: I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. The main problem with your argument is that it is based on the idea that any money going to the government is wasted. But really, you get stuff for that money. Like roads. And schools. And all sorts of other stuff. If it weren't like that, you could just remove all taxes and all government and stuff would be better for everyone. If the poor save 10$ on taxes and get 1000 $ less in stuff because the rich pay 990$ less in taxes, your argument would still say that this is an improvement for the poor. But it isn't. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote: I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. I didn't address the other parts because it wasn't the core of what we disagree on. I don't think people making less than 50k/year should pay federal taxes. I say cut the living shit out of taxes for those people. But we can still generate even more tax revenue than they contributed by taxing the wealthy in a reasonable way. More money for the poor = good. More money for the wealthy = bad. I've never said poor people should pay more taxes. Fortunately, we can change taxes for different groups differently. It doesn't need to be all or nothing. Are you saying you also think billionaires shouldn't pay more taxes? | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10529 Posts
Democrats: raise taxes because rich people bad, but also screw poor people because our government system is so inefficient that extra money raised from taxes goes into the black hole of bureaucracy. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Online Event
WardiTV Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
Cure vs herO
ByuN vs Rogue
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Patches Events
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
