EPTAs for Florida elections, Crist barely lost in '14 to Rick Scott (who I think looks like an alien lol), and the notion that either of them ran crossover campaigns that looked to appeal to broad demographics doesn't square with the results nor with the turnout (5,951,561 out of a state population of around 20 Mil). There are plenty of votes up for grabs and it's not clear that broad appeal is the way to get them.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 661
| 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 | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
As for Florida elections, Crist barely lost in '14 to Rick Scott (who I think looks like an alien lol), and the notion that either of them ran crossover campaigns that looked to appeal to broad demographics doesn't square with the results nor with the turnout (5,951,561 out of a state population of around 20 Mil). There are plenty of votes up for grabs and it's not clear that broad appeal is the way to get them. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
Granted, there's also the benefit of it being obvious that it's a bigger problem than some people thought, but I'm not sure the damage at the top is worth the ground work. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On August 31 2018 20:57 Silvanel wrote: It certainly isnt new but the degree to which it is used now is staggering. This word twisting, dissolving the meaning to fuel Your own political agenda isnt something revolutionary. But the scale at which it is happening its what scares me. It essentially means that people are speaking different languages. I've long held that the far left uses different meanings for ordinary words than the vast majority of people do. Its the perfect way of winning the argument, right? If no-one knows what you really mean you can twist it to mean anything you want. People don't realise how alienating it is for everyone else when they are literally unable to join in the conversation. The right do it in their own way, using words as trojan horses to allow them to inject whatever racist shit they want to into normal conversation and protest their innocence. Neither is particularly helpful. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
It's also important to note that these linguistic vestiges of our racist past tend to appear more prominent as once tolerated, more overt acts of racism become less acceptable in the public space. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On August 31 2018 21:09 farvacola wrote: The idea that telling people that use of the word "monkey" with reference to a black person is a bad thing to do somehow prevents them from being able to join in on some hypothetical conversation is almost as ridiculous as the notion that only the "far left" cares about dog whistle racism. Neither notion stands up to basic scrutiny that isn't looking for the extremes instead of the normal. I think you misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't referring to this instance, just the general language games that go on in political groups. Everyone already knows not to use the word monkey in reference to black people, and if they do it anyway its racist. We all know that (even trying to explain that to someone probably counts as troll feeding tbh). I also never said only the far left cares about dog whistle racism. Sorry if you were arguing against someone else post (you didn't put a quote in there). | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On August 31 2018 21:34 farvacola wrote: Mostly speaking parallel to your post, though I'll note that once we acknowledge that some kinds of language fit a bright line rule of "that's racist, don't do that," it makes intuitive sense to move on and look into borderline cases, many of which make up the current public conflict over what is racist and what isn't. While some overzealous folk might have a different take on those close calls, I think it's progress to at least recognize that some of the things we say can unintentionally hurt others in ways that cut back across decades of minority mistreatment. What would be some examples of these borderline cases? In my eyes, the monkey example isn't even borderline, its just racist. There's a possibility for it to be unintentional, in which case it could be classed as ignorance. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On August 31 2018 21:14 Jockmcplop wrote: Everyone already knows not to use the word monkey in reference to black people, and if they do it anyway its racist. We all know that (even trying to explain that to someone probably counts as troll feeding tbh). That's strange, because DeSantis claims it is not so, and Danglars also claims he does not know not to do so and it is not rascist. How would you square either of their claims to your assertation? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On August 31 2018 21:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That's strange, because DeSantis claims it is not so, and Danglars also claims he does not know not to do so and it is not rascist. How would you square either of their claims to your assertation? There are sometimes cases where a completely shocking level of stupidity and ignorance is evident and just happens to line up with and support a certain political viewpoint. In these cases I would always assume dishonesty. See below, they didn't really claim that, they claimed it wasn't in reference to black people. On August 31 2018 22:14 Liquid`Drone wrote: people aren't claiming that it's okay to use monkey to describe black people, they claim that monkey wasn't used because the guy in question was black. Fair point, I didn't read carefully enough on the last page. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28909 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Of the top of my head there is GH, who frequently decides his own definitions for words, which no one actually uses, but as one person he is hardly the "far-left", and the claims for twisting words can easily be held for the right, and for Trump and his administration. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 31 2018 22:14 Liquid`Drone wrote: people aren't claiming that it's okay to use monkey to describe black people, they claim that monkey wasn't used because the guy in question was black. And the whole point of dog whistle racism is this sort of plausible deniability. So those claims don't carry much water. If he truly didn’t mean it, then he could just apologize and say he understood how using “monkey it up” in that context could be seen as racist. He has instead decided to double down and refused to even admit that it could be seen as racist. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On August 31 2018 22:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: The above was the context we are talking about, so with that clarified, what is the context you are refering to when you write that you've long held that the far left uses different meanings for ordinary words than the vast majority of people do. If no-one knows what you really mean you can twist it to mean anything you want? What is this far left you are refering to that holds different meanings for ordinary words? Of the top of my head there is GH, who frequently decides his own definitions for words, which no one actually uses, but as one person he is hardly the "far-left", and the claims for twisting words can easily be held for the right, and for Trump and his administration. I often see this in discussion of racism. It is assumed regularly by many people on the hard left that racism is more about power than discrimination, for example. In this sense, racism becomes that thing that white people do to other races by existing in a society that favours white people, instead of being just racism. There's been countless misunderstandings caused by this gap in definitions in the various iterations of this thread. It means that so called 'reverse racism' is no longer viable as a concept, as well as meaning that people innocent of racism are deemed racist because they are white. See that Youtube video 'All white people are racist' that caused a storm (I can't remember who made this). It uses a definition of racism that is tailored to the argument that all white people are racist, so you can't argue against it. Be aware that I am talking about the hard left here, not your average leftist. Its a small group that are overrepresented in online discussion. Its also something that's been done to death in this thread, so I'm not that bothered about going over it again and again. I stick by my opinion on it though, its just bad for discussion, counter productive, and alienating for your average person. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On August 31 2018 22:23 Jockmcplop wrote: I often see this in discussion of racism. It is assumed regularly by many people on the hard left that racism is more about power than discrimination, for example. In this sense, racism becomes that thing that white people do to other races by existing in a society that favours white people, instead of being just racism. There's been countless misunderstandings caused by this gap in definitions in the various iterations of this thread. It means that so called 'reverse racism' is no longer viable as a concept, as well as meaning that people innocent of racism are deemed racist because they are white. See that Youtube video 'All white people are racist' that caused a storm (I can't remember who made this). It uses a definition of racism that is tailored to the argument that all white people are racist, so you can't argue against it. Be aware that I am talking about the hard left here, not your average leftist. Its a small group that are overrepresented in online discussion. Its also something that's been done to death in this thread, so I'm not that bothered about going over it again and again. I stick by my opinion on it though, its just bad for discussion, counter productive, and alienating for your average person. That would be a misunderstanding of terms. There is the "concept of sytematic racism" and there is racism as the word is commonly used and understood. For some reason certain peoples do use the word "racism" to mean "concept of sytematic racism", which I think is absolutele balderdash, and in this case it would be the fault of those users trying to change the meaning of the word (unsuccessfully). I don't know about this youtube video, I automatically assume any information that isn't in an efficiently transmitted format as trash. Perhaps we just get our politics and areas of discussion from different sources Jockmcplop. | ||
| ||
