Why not call it by its real name?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bells, Nov 9, 2018.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    One reason is they get beat by the dissemblers - look at how the Clinton establishment took over the Dems in the first place.
    And you support them. At least, when they are named Clinton.
    Maybe. At least, sometimes. So?
    It is normalized, already, in the US. It is the norm. It has been the norm for two hundred and fifty years. That's the core of the problem.

    You can't "make it stop". There is no magic erase button connected to the human brain.

    My little crowd has been trying to get the Dems - especially the Clinton establishment of the Democratic Party - to call things by their names for some time now. Sanders represents a step of progress in that direction, actually.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Okay then..
    You do realise that you just kind of made my point, right? If those words had been uttered by a Republican or *gasp* Clinton, you'd have screamed racism. But it's Bernie. So it cannot be racist, despite his history of racism

    Why is it different for Bernie Sanders to excuse, justify and at times even be racist, pjdude?

    The normalisation of racism is deadly. The more it is excused, the more it is justified, the more it is coddled and not called out, the deadlier it becomes.

    So, please explain why it is different coming from him? Because if it is allowed from him, if it is different coming from him, that dog whistle to his vocal and racist supporters becomes something horrific. You do know this, yes?

    While thankfully, I have someone who works for me and wades through much of my mail and social media so I can spend as much time as possible writing (and maintaining my sanity and sense of humor), for more than a week Sanders supporters flooded my accounts with nonstop accusations—one more over the top than the next. I am “a disgrace,” “a liar,” a secret paid Hillary Clinton “mole” or “shill.” Apparently it is beyond the realm of possibility that I, as a free-thinking individual with access to polling data and a fairly vigorous intellect of my own may not consider their chosen candidate a strong one. Simply not possible. After all, as one white Sanders supporter informed me: “You need to be better informed on the needs of black people.” Thanks for the tip!

    But there were a couple of messages that made their way to me that were particularly troubling. One Sanders supporter pleaded on Facebook for others to stop attacking me and try to “inform me.” (Again this denotes I couldn’t possibly be educated because I don’t agree with them, but at least he sounded civil.) To which another replied, “She chooses to ignore the issues and work for her own personal interest. If that is the case then to me everything is allowed as long as it’s not physical violence.”

    Consider that statement for a moment.

    He’s certainly right from a legal perspective, but what about from a moral and ethical one? By his rationale, if David Duke encouraged other white nationalists to send endless messages—filled with insults and taunts (but not facts)—but none of them physically threatened me, should I feel safe?

    So when news broke that a prominent white, male liberal blogger known for his appreciation of Sanders and disdain for Hillary Clinton had called Neera Tanden, one of the most prominent women of color in progressive politics, a “scumbag” I was not surprised.

    And when I learned Sanders supporters had sent death threats to a female Democratic Party official because they were outraged at what occurred at the Nevada state convention, I was not surprised. And when Bernie Sanders declined to denounce such behavior vigorously, I was also not surprised.

    Just as Donald Trump’s supporters would not demonstrate thuggish behavior, such as assaulting protesters, without getting signals from their leader that it’s acceptable, the same is true of Sanders’s supporters

    And reading through your response, pjdude, I would recommend you learn from the article quoted and linked above....

    For example:
    When you go out of your way to whine:
    At the very thought that race and racism in society also be considered by candidates, then ya, you come across like a white supremacist.

    As for dismissing your views on sexual assault. I have never actually done that, thank you very much. I watched you abuse me for being a victim, you accused of somehow being privileged for being a victim (what the hell is actually wrong with you?) and then you went on this rant, which you then forgot you typed and kept attributing it to me repeatedly and I let you rant, because you clearly have issues and no wonder. But don't try and pin your hang up's on me again.
    And you are literally showing how your reading and comprehension skills are on par with your written abilities.

    At no time did I say or even suggest that his policies of the same applying to all was racist. I said that his inability to also deal with and address the issues of race (and sexism) as it applies to minorities in his economic policy is why his numbers are so low with minorities and women for that matter, was problematic.

    His support from the black community, as with others, will be contingent on three areas of the campaign: hiring, campaign language, and, most important, policy proposals. So far, he has little to show in any of these areas.

    The #blacklivesmatter movement from coast to coast has sounded the alarm regarding police misconduct. But this concern does not fit into Sanders’ political agenda.

    This movement has also brought to light broader economic, political and social injustices that exist, as well. But activists point out that African-Americans most often confront economic insecurity in ways very different from their white counterparts. From subprime loans to predatory lending schemes to racial wage gaps to lack of retirement funds, economic practices and official policies have a disproportionate racial impact on blacks.

    Persistent racial disparities remain. The unemployment rate for blacks has been twice as large as for whites over the last five decades. Nearly 40 percent of black workers are low-wage earners, as compared with 25 percent of whites, according to a recent report by the Discount Foundation and Neighborhood Funders Group.

    Sanders issued a 12-point economic program last year that does not mention these glaring racial gaps. This will not go unnoticed.

    Understand now?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Wow.. Reading.. Comprehension. Hard for you, isn't it?

    Do you ever pause in your Bernie Bro rage to actually read what has been written?
    Dismissing these issues, ignoring them, declaring they are not important, normalising it in the process, is racist.

    He's a progressive. These things should also matter. If he truly wants equality for all, then he needs to address why all are not equal. And he isn't doing that. He is dismissing a large portion of the population because he does not think their inequality is important enough to care or even talk about. He's a politician. He has to cater his message and policy for the population. Not the other way around.
    He hasn't done it at all. My God, what part of that don't you get yet?

    He does not care about how racial inequality affects minorities. He thinks he can cure it all with economic equality. But that won't work for minorities if they cannot be hired due to racist practices to begin with. Increasing the minimum wage? Great. But if an employer is racist and refuses to hire minorities, then what?

    He should be focusing on all of these issues. Not just one.
    Appeasing to racists, refusing to acknowledge issues of racism, is racist, pjdude, because it makes him complicit.
    Here is what you said:

    And at no time have I actually said or even insinuated that my issue was with his not addressing it first and foremost. I said "also".. In that these issues should also be addressed in line with his economic policies so that it is fair for all..

    Can you please link, directly, where I said or commented that this was my complaint here?
    Yep. That's why he refuses to call out racists.
    You view calling out racism as "creating ideological purity tests" that will apparently divide you? Wow..
    What do you think is going to happen if those in power continue to refuse to call out racists and racism, pjdude? What do you think is going to happen if people continue to appease the racists in society for votes? What do you think is going to happen when those in power continue to address racism and issues surrounding racism in society? Those voters in the South that he said felt "uncomfortable" voting for a black person? They are the ones voting for DA's and sheriff's who run departments that see police officers killing unarmed black men and women and are not being prosecuted. As I said, his kind of appeasement and racist dog whistling has deadly consequences for minorities. But apparently that's okay, because it's different when it's from him..
    You keep attributing these things to me..

    Link, exactly, where I said "rural white voters do not matter".

    I never said they could have real issues. I said Sander's refusal to ALSO address issues surrounding race and inequality would damage his chances.
    It would help if you actually made sense.
    And how do you figure that?

    Because I said he should call out racism? Do you feel threatened by that, pjdude?

    Is that why you are throwing a temper tantrum:
    My goodness!

    Where am I "literally claiming that white shouldn't expect candidates to address their issues"? Link it. Or I will report you.

    Your continued abuse and offensive behaviour and attributing things to people that they actually have not said and then swearing at them, abusing them and yes, harassing them, is not excused by your personal issues. Either support what you have claimed or retract, because you are now literally lying. And it shows a level of desperation on your part that is pathetic.
    Either fix your reading and comprehension issues or stop participating in threads where common words like ALSO become difficult for you to understand.

    At no time have I or anyone else suggested that he puts the rights or interests of minorities ahead of your needs as a white male. Not once. You are the one who has been carrying on like a frigging lunatic because I dared suggest that Bernie Sanders has again failed to call out racists for racists behaviour and wondered about his continued refusal to call out racists in society and I have documented and provided links to support every single one of my arguments.. Links from various ethnic reporters and commentators about how problematic his policies become because he fails to address these issues. You have taken that and turned it into "you are fucking racist and you hate white people!!!1!".. You not only deliberately and pathologically lied, you then used those lies to attack and abuse me for.

    And for the love of all that is holy, look up the word "literally".
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Possible clues:

    Notice: Clinton supporters score about the same as allegedly "moderate" Republicans, and significantly higher than Sanders supporters. Sanders supporters are on average less racist, in these survey measures, than the average Democratic voter.

    One explanation for that is Sanders's promotion of economic innovations such as single payer health insurance and government paid college - racist US whites tend to view such things as handouts to lazy and undeserving black people. (If you look back at the history of health care politics in the US, it's fairly obvious that the main reason the US rejected the common sense approach of the rest of the First World is that it would have included black people. This battle goes back to the Jim Crow era, when Medicaid For All would have meant building two equivalent hospital and clinic systems side by side in much of the Confederacy).
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    The colonization of the Americas was built on a simple structure composed of dead/broken Natives; enslaved/politically disabled Africans; impotent European refugees/prisoners/social discards; English (Spanish, Portuguese, French) lords of all they subdued.
    Warring hasn't repaired that inbuilt racism; revolutions, protest, political reform hasn't repaired it; confrontation and prevarication haven't repaired it.
    As long as people are anxious and insecure in their personal safety, their economic welfare, their political efficacy and their future, they'll be hostile and suspicious of one another; every man will keep seeing his neighbour as a competitor, a potential enemy; a threat. (All those guns aren't helping much, either.)
    The only situation that's ever diminished the lasting effects of the original sins of America has been parity of education, opportunity and standard of living.
    Nothing else and nothing less will ever work.
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    To the OPs question: there a difference between winning elections and having ignorant moronic racists win instead, one of which is not pissing off the ignorant moronic racist by calling them such, triggering them to vote in mass against you regardless of what a shitgibbon their own candidate is. These people flipped their shit when Hillary called them "deplorable", calling them racist would have to be the quickies way to get them to the ballot box to vote for moar racism.

    Rather it much better to keep them calm, claim we are all united for economic justice, like Obama did.

    Rather the divide here generally comes between those of us that have to live under Trumps rule and those of us that can speak of such issues as purely academic for them, sure if you don't worry about winning elections you can be as virtues as possible: be as mean and bullish and feces throwing as they are and call them names, they are evil, you are good, congrats.

    Meanwhile to get anything actually done requires actually implementing new policy: naming racism racism does nothing, other then make tweets. Instead giving minorities (and everyone) universal health coverage, increased minimum wages, an immigration policy and opportunity for citizenship, etc, etc, should be primary focus, as it puts reublicans on the defensive to actually talk about policy, they would much rather talk about antifa and SJW, and dogwhistle and rally their base around hate and fear, and calling them racist is playing right into their hands.
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2018
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's irrelevant. The Trump voters were and are beyond the reach of any such tactical forbearance - they were and are getting their view of things from the rightwing-authoritarian-atavastic-corporate-militarized-racial-myth-based (and otherwise never to be named) propaganda operations of the Republican Party and complicit media (all the major news feeds). They are not getting it from anything - anything at all - anybody else says.

    The only consequence of not naming things accurately and openly is the loss of respect from the plurality of nonvoters, who despise the weakness and manipulative intentions and apparent incompetence of weasel vocabulary and dissembling. Making oneself apparently weak and unreliable and uselessly compromising is a mistake.
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Yeah so you don't think for a moment that if Bernie did call them racist they would not be playing the clip over and over again on FOX, on their talk radio and on their youtube channals? Also I think that once again you are confusing making them "see the light" with reducing their voter turnout slightly, yes you are right the former is impossible, but the later is tactically nessassary.

    Yeah so did Obama call them racist? He managed to get voted in twice while being weak and unreliable and "uselessly" compromising. You see that plurality of nonvoters, there are alot of racist amongst them, and it does not take much to trigger them into voting, all that is needed is to piss off 1%-2% of them and the republicans win, if you disagree the factual reality of our present president is proof you are wrong.
  12. Bells Staff Member

    And so what if they did?

    The framing of the piece illustrates how the American discourse concerning racism remains largely about hurt feelings, rather than discriminatory policy: Some people said Obama acknowledging racism was racist, and also some people don’t like that Trump is called racist. This ostensibly neutral framing is centered around a white audience more concerned with being called racist than facing racial discrimination, and one that experiences racism as naughty words rather than as policies that affect whether and how people live their lives. This is why the cancellation of a sitcom about a Trump supporting white working-class family draws more press coverage than the fact that the aftermath of Hurricane Maria may have caused almost twice as many American casualties as the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a national trauma so harrowing it continues to shape American politics almost two decades later.

    There is no mention in the piece of the Trump administration’s handling of Maria at all, nor the the hundreds of thousands of Americans displaced by it. There’s no discussion of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the United States, largely from nonwhite countries, whose legal statuses have been revoked even though they have no criminal records and pose no public-safety threat. The recent controversy over a newly instituted policy of separating parents and children at the border makes no appearance. The president’s travel ban, instituted after a campaign in which he expressed the desire to ban Muslims from the country, goes unmentioned. The decision of Trump’s attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to forgo all oversight of discriminatory policing by local law enforcement is undiscussed. Instead Trump’s successful attempt to force the NFL to suppress criticism of racist policing by black athletes is described as Trump having “ignored or rejected the racial tensions at the core of some high-profile, combustible public issues.” Describing a situation in which the president deliberately seized (according to the Times’ own reporting) on a controversy over unequal treatment of black Americans for political advantage as having “ignored” or “rejected” racial tensions is bizarre—but it’s also false.

    One might think that in a piece contrasting two presidents’ approaches to racism, their actual policies might come into play. But they don’t—instead the piece only contrasts their rhetorical approaches, as if they could be separated, and as if the way Americans discuss racism is more important than how it affects people. This is a common editorial decision that, in aiming to grant equal moral and factual weight to two sides of an argument, takes a side without realizing it has done so.

    An era in which Americans are supposedly exhausted with political correctness is thus defined by the acute political sensitivities and persecution complexes of white voters who object if things they do and say are described as racist, even as the bodies pile up in the background.

    It's time to call it what it is. Racism.

    Because the continued refusal to do so, the continued shuffle around the word because of an unwillingness to hurt the feelings of racist for political reasons, is resulting in more harm to a large portion of the country.. Actual harm and even death.

    Those racist voters who switched to Trump? They aren't coming back.

    Democrats can field white candidates in rural areas who are pro-gun and anti-abortion. Or they can stick with the party’s principles and resign themselves to not winning much of anything outside of St. Louis, Kansas City, and Columbia, home to the University of Missouri. Or they can hold fast to principle, try to slowly chip away at GOP support, and get the economic policies they want by simply putting them on the ballot.

    Progressive activist Patricia Scott lives and works in fire engine-red Poplar Bluff, in the state’s southeast corner, and thinks pandering to rural pro-Trumpers might be a waste of time. “It’s about abortion and guns. Nothing else seems to matter,” she said. “One of their main complaints is that people in the city just don’t understand us here in the country. They want to take all the money and not give us any for infrastructure or schools. They feel folks in the city talk down and disparage them.”

    McCaskill did her best to meet with them, holding dozens of town halls in rural Missouri. She still lost. A pro-McCaskill activist in Springfield largely agrees. He doesn’t want his name used because, in pro-Trump southwest Missouri, speaking out can get you fired, assaulted, or harassed.

    “Abortion is all many rural ‘Christians’ need to vote against Democrats,” he said. “And don’t discount misogyny as a factor against Claire, either. The big national issues kill us in rural areas: abortion, LGBTQ rights, ‘Antifa radicals.’ Republicans have successfully messaged us-against-them and stoked class and racial distrust.”

    In Poplar Bluff, Scott agreed that racism is a huge factor. “Many of the people I’ve canvassed hated Obama and made it clear to me it was because he was black,” she said. “Trump didn’t visit the graves of Americans killed in World War I because of a little rain. Nary a word from my Republican friends. But I heard for weeks how disrespectful Obama was when he casually saluted a Marine with a cup of coffee after disembarking from his helicopter.”

    A St. Louis-area elected Democrat told me most of the blame for the midterm wipeout belongs to McCaskill’s right-of-center politics and trying too hard to play to the rural vote, saying, “Democrats, including people of color, are pretty angry with her, going back to her Kavanaugh and abortion comments. They may have skipped voting on her race.”


    Local Democrats running in those areas may be doomed by the culture war demographics of bigotry. But statewide Democrats need to give non-racist pro-choice gun control voters a reason to turn out in huge numbers. Pandering to Republicans isn’t it.

  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Obama said plenty of stuff that got played over and over again on Fox and friends.
    His face on camera, even his name alone, was enough to trigger many racists and famously did so - apparently triggering racists is not fatal.

    Appearing weaselly and incompetent is.
    There aren't very many. The racist voters didn't "switch" when Trump came along - they switched when Reagan came along, W ran, etc, if they hadn't already switched for Nixon.

    The Republican Party was set up, voting base and corporate backing and media operations and all, decades before Trump came down the escalator. He just slapped his name on it.
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Hey no one stopping you, go right ahead... but your not running for president of the USA.

    Donald Trump is present, plenty of people were calling him racist, ignorant, moronic pig before he was elected, and yet he was elected, resulting in more harm to the whole fucking country. Fact of the matter is that calling them names, regardless of how accurate they are, and dead ferret wearing shitgibbon is pretty fucking accurate, does not energizer our side to come out and vote as much as it energizes their side to come out and vote against us. To put it this way: calling them racist empowers them.

    Yes actual harm and death is caused by the election of Trump and the alt-right, thanks to people like you that divide us, that demanded we run LOSER Hillary Clinton or else we be sexist, that even attack Bernie bros, costing us precious votes.

    I never said they were, that is your strawman. Once again this is about mobilizing our side more then mobilizing their side: pissing them off gets them to the polls. Telling them they are racist ensure they come out and vote against us.
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    The more they can rally up there side, the more of them will come out and vote.

    Obama did not call them racist, Obama remain always prime and proper, emasculate, every word well chosen, if he had say Trump mouth, do you honestly think he would have won?

    This is important: do we go low like them or keep the high road? I would argue that we do a little of both, use the super pac structure to our advantage to keep the scum attack ad production way from our candidate, as well as target adds, sing economic justice to the white rural and suburban voters, while telling the urban voters where the majority money is going to go. That is how Doug Jones beat Roy Moore. The super pacs pointed out what a rapy pederast Roy Moore was, while Doug took the high ground and talked economic justice with whites and social justice with blacks.

    So here is the compromise: Bell, Tiassa, who ever, donate money to superpacs that will trash republican candidates with all the name calling you want, but let our democrat candidates take the high road.
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    It was in the year 2020 that the USA made it mandatory for all schools to include in their curriculum from primary to end of high school, the subject ( say 3 hours per week with a honors pass necessary to pass highschool) and teaching of Respect, Self Esteem and self leadership ( regardless of race, color, creed) and in less than 12 years the racist status quo was shifted to a considerably more egalitarian one. In 20 years the students become business and political leaders. So by around 2040 nearly all forms of negative racial discrimination are almost removed from mainstream thinking. Domestic violence is minimized, gender equality is a given, and tolerance of "others" the standard. Gun violence becomes a thing of the past and criminal activity greatly reduced. It would take at least 2 generations to consolidate the improvements.
    The point is if the Democrats really want to tackle this racial bogey man they need to think long term strategy and start with the education of children. ( and perhaps adult re-education as well)
    Until then the situation will only go round in circles going no where.....IMO
  17. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    A few keep trying. But the Democrats can't control all the state legislatures, nor shut down the hate-spewing broadcast media. They can't get the power to do what needs to be done until after it's been done.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Not on the major media. Not from the podiums at the debates. Who were these "plenty of people"? Lots of regular folks, who were searching for representation and reliable leadership. And instead finding weasel wording and PC dissembling.
    No, it doesn't. It doesn't make any difference. Their sources of direction will tell them whatever motivates them, regardless of what anybody else says.
    Speaking honestly and competently, meanwhile, may impress some of the nonvoters - people who know very well the Trumpers are racist, and regard dissemblers as weak and unreliable.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Maybe you have forgotten what high school was like. If I had been forced to sit through three hours a week of what some social studies teacher thought was Respect, Self Esteem, and Leadership for twelve years I'd have burned the building out of mercy for my fellow students.
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    If started at the pre-school level by the time they got to high school they may actually be looking forward to every lesson.
    Possible subjects:
    • The power of a handshake
    • The history of human rights and why?
    • How is freedom of thought achieved and maintained?
    • Why is article 18 UDHR 1948 so important to future world harmony?
    • Japanese culture built on respect - a model to learn from.
    • Humanitarianism and why it makes economic sense.
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    What do you count as major media??? Can you use google?

    Yeah they were talking about the size of his tiny cork-skew penis instead, from podiums ever possible insults was thrown at him, by republicans no less, do you honestly think calling him names will do anything?

    Incorrect, half of Americans don't even vote, get a few percent of that half out makes a world of difference in an election. And things will and do motivate a percentage of them both on the right and the left. Actions we can do can make a difference, otherwise then fate is assured, nothing we can do might as well just curl up and wait for the sweet release of death.

    Not as many of the non-voters that don't like being called out for being racist bigots they are. Let me put it to you this way, those that are against racism are already voting against trump, and those that are for racism are already voting for trump, the people in the middle, the people that are not really for or against, they don't like being called names.
  22. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Won't mean a damn thing as long as children come to school hungry and scared and know their parents are always angry and scared.
    For a start, the stress of poverty and insecurity knocks 15 points off their IQ.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Did not happen.
    We weren't talking about namecalling.
    We were talking about accurately and meaningfully labeling aspects of politically significant worldviews, and not just Trump's.
    Such as demonstrating competence and the courage of one's convictions, and not being weaselly and mealy mouthed in important matters.
    So how would they come to think anybody was calling them names?

Share This Page