|
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 |
|
|
On August 26 2025 20:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 16:46 Jankisa wrote:On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair? As I mentioned in my post before the last, it's like a screed from a scorned lover, he didn't care what the substance of the argument was, he posted it because it was anti-Democrat, Jimmy Dore type shit. Edit: Found it: It's from: "the center-left think tank Third Way is circulating a list of 45 words and phrases they want Democrats to avoid usingFrom wiki: It is described as a centrist think tank for moderate Democrats,[5] while critics see it as neoliberal[6] and “the turning point in which… parties abandoned their traditional tenets and working-class constituencies in favor of… Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.” There we go, GH is aligning himself with guys like Clinton and Tony Blair, critics would even say Regan and Tacher just so he can post something that "owns the Dems". Whew buddy. I'm waiting for the "oops, I got my personalities mixed up" excuse from GH.
While I did consider posting with the preface of either ThirdHorizons or MAGAHorizons, I didn't want that to distract from just how shitty ThirdWay Democrat leadership is and why "LibHorizons" was/is right about ThirdWay Democrats enabling MAGA/Trump
Hillary, Biden, Harris, and Buttigieg (and Mikie Sherrill unfortunately) are all ThirdWay Democrats.
I agree with Light when they said: [Democrats are] basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe [they're] going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. and feel heard in the extreme frustration described by the "n-word" part.
I agree with Jankisa when they say: I personally think that [Democrats] attacking people for trying to shape language to be more inclusive and less cruel is a pretty shitty thing to do, and I think that the major problem with Democratic party is that it's been (for decades) captured by corporate interests, not that it's using wrong words. I feel understood when Jankisa talks about how the major problem with the Democrat party is that it is captured by corporate interests, not this centrist bullshit about being scared of even using words like "patriarchy"
I agree with you DPB regarding what you wrote about Democrats cowardice being confounding on top of everything else: Just to pick a few of the terms on [Democrat's] list... the patriarchy refers to an actual thing, whether or not people like it... LGBTQIA+ is a useful acronym to describe certain target demographics... cisgender is also a descriptor (I am cisgender)... I don't even know what's wrong with using the term incarcerated people...
ThirdWay Democrats need to get out of the way (like stop pushing these sorts of stupid lists) if Democrats are going to have any hope at crafting a meaningful platform and they will need to fall in line if they want any hope at meaningful wins.
|
Can you name any Dems that have come out and endorsed the Third Way list, GH?
Or even better, any Dems that previously used those terms freely but has noticeably stopped doing so after the publication of the Third Way list?
If you can't do either of these things, can you explain the difference between what you're doing and what conservatives do when they share a tweet with 3 likes of a left-leaning person saying something like "cops are an ontological evil" and then crowing about how "see, all Democrats are idiots"?
|
On August 26 2025 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 23:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 20:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 26 2025 16:46 Jankisa wrote:On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair? As I mentioned in my post before the last, it's like a screed from a scorned lover, he didn't care what the substance of the argument was, he posted it because it was anti-Democrat, Jimmy Dore type shit. Edit: Found it: It's from: "the center-left think tank Third Way is circulating a list of 45 words and phrases they want Democrats to avoid usingFrom wiki: It is described as a centrist think tank for moderate Democrats,[5] while critics see it as neoliberal[6] and “the turning point in which… parties abandoned their traditional tenets and working-class constituencies in favor of… Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.” There we go, GH is aligning himself with guys like Clinton and Tony Blair, critics would even say Regan and Tacher just so he can post something that "owns the Dems". Whew buddy. I'm waiting for the "oops, I got my personalities mixed up" excuse from GH. While I did consider posting with the preface of either ThirdHorizons or MAGAHorizons, I didn't want that to distract from just how shitty ThirdWay Democrat leadership is and why "LibHorizons" was/is right about ThirdWay Democrats enabling MAGA/Trump Hillary, Biden, Harris, and Buttigieg (and Mikie Sherrill unfortunately) are all ThirdWay Democrats. I agree with Light when they said: [Democrats are] basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe [they're] going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. and feel heard in the extreme frustration described by the "n-word" part. I agree with Jankisa when they say: I personally think that [Democrats] attacking people for trying to shape language to be more inclusive and less cruel is a pretty shitty thing to do, and I think that the major problem with Democratic party is that it's been (for decades) captured by corporate interests, not that it's using wrong words. I feel understood when Jankisa talks about how the major problem with the Democrat party is that it is captured by corporate interests, not this centrist bullshit about being scared of even using words like "patriarchy" I agree with you DPB regarding what you wrote about Democrats cowardice being confounding on top of everything else: Just to pick a few of the terms on [Democrat's] list... the patriarchy refers to an actual thing, whether or not people like it... LGBTQIA+ is a useful acronym to describe certain target demographics... cisgender is also a descriptor (I am cisgender)... I don't even know what's wrong with using the term incarcerated people... ThirdWay Democrats need to get out of the way (like stop pushing these sorts of stupid lists) if Democrats are going to have any hope at crafting a meaningful platform and they will need to fall in line if they want any hope at meaningful wins. Can you name any Dems that have come out and endorsed the Third Way list, GH? Or even better, any Dems that previously used those terms freely but has noticeably stopped doing so after the publication of the Third Way list? If you can't do either of these things, can you explain the difference between what you're doing and what conservatives do when they share a tweet with 3 likes of a left-leaning person saying something like "cops are an ontological evil" and saying "see, all Democrats are idiots"?
Yes, Third Way Democrats are endorsing it. They aren't some obscure group on the margin, they are the controlling faction of the party.
A specific Democrat? How about the VP of communications for "VoteVets" the(?) largest 'progressive' veteran organization?
|
Really? This organization is the one pulling all the strings, not the DNC or AIPAC or whatever?
Should be very easy to find several elected or running Dems that fit in one of the first two categories of my previous comment then, right?
|
Northern Ireland25523 Posts
On August 26 2025 09:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 08:40 WombaT wrote:On August 26 2025 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair? You didn't propose nicer-sounding synonyms or alternative terminology that is equally accurate, for us to use when talking to people who apparently need to be treated with kid gloves. If we're getting rid of relevant and useful words because they might offend Republicans, all that would remain is whatever words the Republicans use. It does alienate a lot of people as well, to be fair to GH, and not just people who don’t want to consider their own behaviours. Aside from the innately hostile, I think the other people it pisses off generally wouldn’t mind if they felt their problems were also being addressed. There’s something innately ivory tower, and may I say ‘lame’, or ‘cringe’ about some of it. Ok great youse are having meetings to settle on using the ‘correct’ term of unhoused over homeless now, great you spent energy on that. What have you actually done for the unhoused, is the name change leading them to an improvement in material conditions. Now this doesn’t mean I agree with scrubbing all these various terms from our vernacular either, many are simply the best, most commonly understood words with which to describe various phenomena. Just to pick a few of the terms on GH's list... the patriarchy refers to an actual thing, whether or not people like it... LGBTQIA+ is a useful acronym to describe certain target demographics... cisgender is also a descriptor (I am cisgender)... I don't even know what's wrong with using the term incarcerated people... these words aren't "innately hostile", as you put it; there are certainly ways you can integrate these terms into a conversation without angrily pointing a finger at the listener. It's lists like these, without any additional context or examples of how those terms can be used properly or improperly, that makes people dismiss the accusation that Democrats / liberals / progressives / the left are all elitist ("ivory tower"). These are real concepts worth discussing, and it's annoying when they get dismissed because one side refuses to engage with words outside of their vocabulary. Not wanting to be ignorant is not the same thing as being a smug academic, and it's absolutely possible to effectively use words on this list. If the listener gets triggered upset by a certain word (because GH doesn't want us to use triggered anymore, even as Republicans use terms like triggered and snowflakes and other terms that could be considered inflammatory when used in certain contexts), then maybe it's the speaker's fault... or maybe it's the listener's fault. I've had plenty of successful, innocuous conversations using these terms with people who aren't politically aligned with me. If GH wants to stop using the term Overton window, then he should stop using it (yet he's used it in the past, with no issues as far as I can tell). I'm also a bit surprised that GH is the one suggesting that the left backs down from doing what both the left and the right do (potentially use inflammatory or alienating language... or, I guess, big words), given that he's - often accurately - pointed out how the Democrats rarely fight fire with fire, consistently back down, lack a backbone, aren't willing to do what Republicans do, etc. "I think the other people it pisses off generally wouldn’t mind if they felt their problems were also being addressed."
I see that as a non sequitur; I don't think using the terms in GH's list necessarily means we can't also address problems that other people are facing. If I write one sentence about women being body shamed, that doesn't mean I can't write another sentence about men being shamed for showing emotion.
To clarify by ‘innately hostile’ I wasn’t talking about the words, I was talking about people who’d be innately hostile to the ideas expressed within, no matter how you package it. For example, if you’re a sexist, you’ll dismiss the conception of patriarchy regardless (or perhaps think it’s a good thing). If you think the younglings need to toughen up, you’ll not give microaggressions as a concept any rope, etc.
As I said:
Now this doesn’t mean I agree with scrubbing all these various terms from our vernacular either, many are simply the best, most commonly understood words with which to describe various phenomena.
On the bolded, I don’t think it’s a non sequitur, I think it’s pretty relevant within the parameters of this general tangent.
My contention is that for many, addressing these things really isn’t a problem, provided they feel their own material conditions and problems are also being addressed. If the perception builds up that the latter is not, then folks end up feeling the former is being prioritised, to their detriment.
It gets rather tricky given that perception doesn’t always dovetail with reality, and there’s a clear incentive for political opponents to present a certain framing of things in a disproportionate manner.
|
On August 27 2025 00:25 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2025 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 23:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 20:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 26 2025 16:46 Jankisa wrote:On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair? As I mentioned in my post before the last, it's like a screed from a scorned lover, he didn't care what the substance of the argument was, he posted it because it was anti-Democrat, Jimmy Dore type shit. Edit: Found it: It's from: "the center-left think tank Third Way is circulating a list of 45 words and phrases they want Democrats to avoid usingFrom wiki: It is described as a centrist think tank for moderate Democrats,[5] while critics see it as neoliberal[6] and “the turning point in which… parties abandoned their traditional tenets and working-class constituencies in favor of… Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.” There we go, GH is aligning himself with guys like Clinton and Tony Blair, critics would even say Regan and Tacher just so he can post something that "owns the Dems". Whew buddy. I'm waiting for the "oops, I got my personalities mixed up" excuse from GH. While I did consider posting with the preface of either ThirdHorizons or MAGAHorizons, I didn't want that to distract from just how shitty ThirdWay Democrat leadership is and why "LibHorizons" was/is right about ThirdWay Democrats enabling MAGA/Trump Hillary, Biden, Harris, and Buttigieg (and Mikie Sherrill unfortunately) are all ThirdWay Democrats. I agree with Light when they said: [Democrats are] basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe [they're] going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. and feel heard in the extreme frustration described by the "n-word" part. I agree with Jankisa when they say: I personally think that [Democrats] attacking people for trying to shape language to be more inclusive and less cruel is a pretty shitty thing to do, and I think that the major problem with Democratic party is that it's been (for decades) captured by corporate interests, not that it's using wrong words. I feel understood when Jankisa talks about how the major problem with the Democrat party is that it is captured by corporate interests, not this centrist bullshit about being scared of even using words like "patriarchy" I agree with you DPB regarding what you wrote about Democrats cowardice being confounding on top of everything else: Just to pick a few of the terms on [Democrat's] list... the patriarchy refers to an actual thing, whether or not people like it... LGBTQIA+ is a useful acronym to describe certain target demographics... cisgender is also a descriptor (I am cisgender)... I don't even know what's wrong with using the term incarcerated people... ThirdWay Democrats need to get out of the way (like stop pushing these sorts of stupid lists) if Democrats are going to have any hope at crafting a meaningful platform and they will need to fall in line if they want any hope at meaningful wins. Can you name any Dems that have come out and endorsed the Third Way list, GH? Or even better, any Dems that previously used those terms freely but has noticeably stopped doing so after the publication of the Third Way list? If you can't do either of these things, can you explain the difference between what you're doing and what conservatives do when they share a tweet with 3 likes of a left-leaning person saying something like "cops are an ontological evil" and saying "see, all Democrats are idiots"? Yes, Third Way Democrats are endorsing it. They aren't some obscure group on the margin, they are the controlling faction of the party. A specific Democrat? How about the VP of communications for "VoteVets" the(?) largest 'progressive' veteran organization? https://twitter.com/mattcorridoni/status/1958915797381775746 Really? This organization is the one pulling all the strings, not the DNC or AIPAC or whatever? + Show Spoiler +
Should be very easy to find several elected or running Dems that fit in one of the first two categories of my previous comment then, right?
That thinktank/org is just representative of Third Way Democrats generally which are also known as "New Democrats"
It's well known that they are the dominant faction in the party and have been for a while now.
|
|
|
On August 27 2025 00:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2025 00:25 LightSpectra wrote:On August 27 2025 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 23:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 20:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 26 2025 16:46 Jankisa wrote:On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant.
They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...
The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping.
Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it.
+ Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair? As I mentioned in my post before the last, it's like a screed from a scorned lover, he didn't care what the substance of the argument was, he posted it because it was anti-Democrat, Jimmy Dore type shit. Edit: Found it: It's from: "the center-left think tank Third Way is circulating a list of 45 words and phrases they want Democrats to avoid usingFrom wiki: It is described as a centrist think tank for moderate Democrats,[5] while critics see it as neoliberal[6] and “the turning point in which… parties abandoned their traditional tenets and working-class constituencies in favor of… Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.” There we go, GH is aligning himself with guys like Clinton and Tony Blair, critics would even say Regan and Tacher just so he can post something that "owns the Dems". Whew buddy. I'm waiting for the "oops, I got my personalities mixed up" excuse from GH. While I did consider posting with the preface of either ThirdHorizons or MAGAHorizons, I didn't want that to distract from just how shitty ThirdWay Democrat leadership is and why "LibHorizons" was/is right about ThirdWay Democrats enabling MAGA/Trump Hillary, Biden, Harris, and Buttigieg (and Mikie Sherrill unfortunately) are all ThirdWay Democrats. I agree with Light when they said: [Democrats are] basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe [they're] going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. and feel heard in the extreme frustration described by the "n-word" part. I agree with Jankisa when they say: I personally think that [Democrats] attacking people for trying to shape language to be more inclusive and less cruel is a pretty shitty thing to do, and I think that the major problem with Democratic party is that it's been (for decades) captured by corporate interests, not that it's using wrong words. I feel understood when Jankisa talks about how the major problem with the Democrat party is that it is captured by corporate interests, not this centrist bullshit about being scared of even using words like "patriarchy" I agree with you DPB regarding what you wrote about Democrats cowardice being confounding on top of everything else: Just to pick a few of the terms on [Democrat's] list... the patriarchy refers to an actual thing, whether or not people like it... LGBTQIA+ is a useful acronym to describe certain target demographics... cisgender is also a descriptor (I am cisgender)... I don't even know what's wrong with using the term incarcerated people... ThirdWay Democrats need to get out of the way (like stop pushing these sorts of stupid lists) if Democrats are going to have any hope at crafting a meaningful platform and they will need to fall in line if they want any hope at meaningful wins. Can you name any Dems that have come out and endorsed the Third Way list, GH? Or even better, any Dems that previously used those terms freely but has noticeably stopped doing so after the publication of the Third Way list? If you can't do either of these things, can you explain the difference between what you're doing and what conservatives do when they share a tweet with 3 likes of a left-leaning person saying something like "cops are an ontological evil" and saying "see, all Democrats are idiots"? Yes, Third Way Democrats are endorsing it. They aren't some obscure group on the margin, they are the controlling faction of the party. A specific Democrat? How about the VP of communications for "VoteVets" the(?) largest 'progressive' veteran organization? https://twitter.com/mattcorridoni/status/1958915797381775746 Really? This organization is the one pulling all the strings, not the DNC or AIPAC or whatever? + Show Spoiler +
Should be very easy to find several elected or running Dems that fit in one of the first two categories of my previous comment then, right?
That thinktank/org is just representative of Third Way Democrats generally which are also known as " New Democrats" It's well known that they are the dominant faction in the party and have been for a while now.
So the term "Third Way Democrat" that has existed since the 90s implies that a ThinkTank called "Third Way" formed in 2005 with like seventy employees is the one secretly pulling the strings? Am I understanding your position correctly?
|
On August 27 2025 00:56 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2025 00:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2025 00:25 LightSpectra wrote:On August 27 2025 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 23:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 20:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 26 2025 16:46 Jankisa wrote:On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair? As I mentioned in my post before the last, it's like a screed from a scorned lover, he didn't care what the substance of the argument was, he posted it because it was anti-Democrat, Jimmy Dore type shit. Edit: Found it: It's from: "the center-left think tank Third Way is circulating a list of 45 words and phrases they want Democrats to avoid usingFrom wiki: It is described as a centrist think tank for moderate Democrats,[5] while critics see it as neoliberal[6] and “the turning point in which… parties abandoned their traditional tenets and working-class constituencies in favor of… Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.” There we go, GH is aligning himself with guys like Clinton and Tony Blair, critics would even say Regan and Tacher just so he can post something that "owns the Dems". Whew buddy. I'm waiting for the "oops, I got my personalities mixed up" excuse from GH. While I did consider posting with the preface of either ThirdHorizons or MAGAHorizons, I didn't want that to distract from just how shitty ThirdWay Democrat leadership is and why "LibHorizons" was/is right about ThirdWay Democrats enabling MAGA/Trump Hillary, Biden, Harris, and Buttigieg (and Mikie Sherrill unfortunately) are all ThirdWay Democrats. I agree with Light when they said: [Democrats are] basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe [they're] going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. and feel heard in the extreme frustration described by the "n-word" part. I agree with Jankisa when they say: I personally think that [Democrats] attacking people for trying to shape language to be more inclusive and less cruel is a pretty shitty thing to do, and I think that the major problem with Democratic party is that it's been (for decades) captured by corporate interests, not that it's using wrong words. I feel understood when Jankisa talks about how the major problem with the Democrat party is that it is captured by corporate interests, not this centrist bullshit about being scared of even using words like "patriarchy" I agree with you DPB regarding what you wrote about Democrats cowardice being confounding on top of everything else: Just to pick a few of the terms on [Democrat's] list... the patriarchy refers to an actual thing, whether or not people like it... LGBTQIA+ is a useful acronym to describe certain target demographics... cisgender is also a descriptor (I am cisgender)... I don't even know what's wrong with using the term incarcerated people... ThirdWay Democrats need to get out of the way (like stop pushing these sorts of stupid lists) if Democrats are going to have any hope at crafting a meaningful platform and they will need to fall in line if they want any hope at meaningful wins. Can you name any Dems that have come out and endorsed the Third Way list, GH? Or even better, any Dems that previously used those terms freely but has noticeably stopped doing so after the publication of the Third Way list? If you can't do either of these things, can you explain the difference between what you're doing and what conservatives do when they share a tweet with 3 likes of a left-leaning person saying something like "cops are an ontological evil" and saying "see, all Democrats are idiots"? Yes, Third Way Democrats are endorsing it. They aren't some obscure group on the margin, they are the controlling faction of the party. A specific Democrat? How about the VP of communications for "VoteVets" the(?) largest 'progressive' veteran organization? https://twitter.com/mattcorridoni/status/1958915797381775746 Really? This organization is the one pulling all the strings, not the DNC or AIPAC or whatever? + Show Spoiler +
Should be very easy to find several elected or running Dems that fit in one of the first two categories of my previous comment then, right?
That thinktank/org is just representative of Third Way Democrats generally which are also known as " New Democrats" It's well known that they are the dominant faction in the party and have been for a while now. So the term "Third Way Democrat" that has existed since the 90s implies that a ThinkTank called "Third Way" formed in 2005 with like seventy employees is the one secretly pulling the strings? Am I understanding your position correctly?
Obviously not, and it seems intentional.
|
Okay, then why are you implying Dems are beholden to some Internet suggestion to avoid saying "microaggression" just because the name of the organization that published it is "Third Way"?
|
On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it.
So I guess you can just pretend like you never posted this / posted it as a different character without even noting that you are doing this?
I mean, how does that work? Why would you do that? What do you think that achieves actually?
It would take a very minuscule amount of effort to just note "I don't think this but these assholes do" or something in that vein, like a normal person would, are you trying to be as clowny as possible?
|
United States42861 Posts
GH arguing that the Democrats are too aggressive and abrasive in their uncompromising progressive rhetoric feels like he's messing with you.
|
He wanted people to criticize "Dems should stop using progressive vocabulary" as stupid, then dumbfound us by revealing that it was actually a centrist Dem organization that suggested it. Which yeah, it does seem like they're out of touch, so that much is true I guess.
But now he's equivocating the name of the organization with the philosophy it's named after and implying that centrist Dems are going to bomb the next election because they're slavishly obeying this organization that's so unimportant you'd struggle to find any mainstream news even mentioning them in passing.
|
So any opinions on if the Gerrymandering in Texas by the Republican party is actually good for the Republican party or a mistake? Seen some discussions that other regions are getting put into contention by securing the 5 they did. Overall increasing risk a lot and perhaps losing seats if Republicans keep doing unpopular things (with Trump at the helm that is very likely).
|
Norway28677 Posts
No opinion on this one in particular, but in principle, too aggressive gerrymandering has the potential to backfire because you'll be aiming to win districts by the smallest possible (secure) margin to maximize the total amount of districts won, and if your party then ends up losing a few percentage points across the board, you might end up losing more districts than you'd otherwise do.
|
On August 27 2025 04:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:
No opinion on this one in particular, but in principle, too aggressive gerrymandering has the potential to backfire because you'll be aiming to win districts by the smallest possible (secure) margin to maximize the total amount of districts won, and if your party then ends up losing a few percentage points across the board, you might end up losing more districts than you'd otherwise do.
Ah, you mean like instead of winning fewer-but-more-reliable situations, you spread yourself too thin and possibly lose some of the riskier scenarios?
Like if you were originally going to confidently win 3 close districts each by a safe 8-point predicted margin: 54-46, 54-46, 54-46, but then you get "too greedy" and try to double the number of close districts that you win, by redrawing the map and dividing the overall 24-point advantage across 6 districts, attempting to win each with only a 4-point advantage: 52-48, 52-48, 52-48, 52-48, 52-48, 52-48... and now each of those districts is within a closer margin of error, and therefore any/all of them are more likely to flip against you than the original three 54-46s were?
|
On August 27 2025 06:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2025 04:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:
No opinion on this one in particular, but in principle, too aggressive gerrymandering has the potential to backfire because you'll be aiming to win districts by the smallest possible (secure) margin to maximize the total amount of districts won, and if your party then ends up losing a few percentage points across the board, you might end up losing more districts than you'd otherwise do. Ah, you mean like instead of winning fewer-but-more-reliable situations, you spread yourself too thin and possibly lose some of the riskier scenarios? Like if you were originally going to confidently win 3 close districts each by a safe 8-point predicted margin: 54-46, 54-46, 54-46, but then you get "too greedy" and try to double the number of close districts that you win, by redrawing the map and dividing the overall 24-point advantage across 6 districts, attempting to win each with only a 4-point advantage: 52-48, 52-48, 52-48, 52-48, 52-48, 52-48... and now each of those districts is within a closer margin of error, and therefore any/all of them are more likely to flip against you than the original three 54-46s were?
Pretty much. That's how gerrymandering works by its very nature. FPTP means that if you win by more than exactly 1 vote, you "wasted votes". So you redistrict so you win each of those districts by as close to exactly 1 vote as you can/dare, while making sure your opponent wins the districts you are inevitably uncompetitive in, with as much waste as possible. How close you can get to a single vote victory is of course the question. Maybe a 4-point margin right now is pretty safe, and based on current polling and some forecasting you're confident that it'll be safe for the next few elections. But polling is unreliable and forecasting something as unreliable as elections is going to be mostly noise this far out. So there's a decent chance your forecasts are wrong and 4% is nowhere near safe. Let's remember the ideal: 50%+1 vote victories. But those only take 1 person changing their mind or 2 extra people staying in bed for the election to go the other way.
Now I'm no pollster. I don't have a clue what the GOP data says, but the slimmer the margins they're aiming for, the riskier it is.
|
Now I'm no pollster. I don't have a clue what the GOP data says, but the slimmer the margins they're aiming for, the riskier it is.
Given the fairly reliable nature of GOP voters, its probably safer for the Republicans to do it than for the Democrats to.
Democrats would need to put real effort into being more broadly appealing because theyre basically the archetype for people that will Find A Way To Fuck It Up and their voters aren't as blindly loyal or sycophantic as Republican voters.
|
Democrats just flipped an Iowa seat ending the Republican supermajority.
This was not a really contested seat, it's a 20 point swing and the dems won by a solid 10 points.
Maybe there is still hope.
But maybe we better ask GH to ironically tell Democrats what not to do and link another tweet with 5 answers and 25 likes or whatever that stuff was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
