Why not call it by its real name?

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

  1. Bells Staff Member

    This thread is about Bernie Sanders and by his profession, politicians who refuse to call out racism within the public realm.. As per the OP.. Sanders advised it was not racist for white voters to not want to vote for a black candidate because that candidate is black.. I mean, it's pretty self explanatory.

    So I have to ask, Quantum Quack, why are you completely and utterly incapable of following this thread's topic and why do you persist in pushing the thread off topic?

    Despite being asked multiple times not to.

    More to the point, what does your going to restaurants have to do with this thread's topic?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And it's kind of day late and dollar short, as a consequence. Sanders is far from the worst offender in that regard, and in the battle for effective rhetoric and plain speaking in the Democratic Party he represents progress.
    - - - -
    Same as yours, only after paying attention to it.
    Clinton did not call "them" deplorable. Or racist. Or anything else bad.
    The Republican media machine lied about that.
    And then the Dems fell all over themselves trying to apologize and backfill and cover up what the Republicans said she said, as if it were some kind of legitimate accusation.
    The Republican media machine will lie about any candidate, to enrage their base. Nothing any candidate says or does, doesn't say or doesn't do, can prevent that.
    Meanwhile, Clinton weasel worded and compromised and dissembled throughout - just as you recommend, just as she had her entire career - and lost lots of the first time Obama voters, just as we (my crowd) predicted. She still won the popular vote, by a lot, but losing Obama's share of the nonvoter pool is one of the factors her electoral college loss hung on (Republican vote rigging and suppression, electoral fraud of various kinds, would be another - but that was also braced on her dissembling and failing to call out the bad stuff by name).
    Speaking from one's own knowledge and experience is not an "appeal to authority", even when you do it (as you did). You claimed the authority of superior knowledge of, and experience with, exactly the people I have superior knowledge of and experience with. That was a mistake you have made before.
    People will not trust or rely on candidates who won't say shit when they have a mouthful. That's a major reason they stay home and don't vote.
    If you insist on repeating the wingnut canard that plain and effective speaking that recognizes common reality is "namecalling", you will end up with this: https://slate.com/news-and-politics...er-democratic-messaging-is-extremely-bad.html
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    if I answer your questions am I posting off topic?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    You know links, citations, that kind of evidence.

    Yeah yeah see that what I mean about being careful about what you say because of how it can be spun, calling anyone racist for example can easily spin into "he wants to exterminate all whites!"

    Well I didn't, I gave zero fucks, I give zero fucks about warren's ancestory but apparently that killing her chances as well.

    Oh so then why not just have canidates deficate on hte street then, won't matter either way right?

    Yeah weaseling about policy is not the same as calling someone racist or not.

    rriiiggggghhhttt, look is Hillary president or not, I don't need to appeal to anyone to validate she is not, I also don't need to appeal to anyone to see that Bernie is the must liked politian in america, regardless of his inability to name call. Your theory she did not name call enough makes no sense when you the right tour into her for saying "deplorables".

    You reconstruct reality to fit your bais. Hillary lost because people did not beleive she would bring meaningful improvement ON POLICY, not enough people give a fuck about calling people names, let alone trump, many people voted for trump fully aware he was a pig but with the hope he would fuck shit up and thus bring about meanful policy change.

    And yes it is name calling, its name calling to someone, someone offended, offending the opposition motivates them to vote.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You provided none.
    It is the same as calling some policy racist or not.
    That's the opposite of what you say - it's an example of how no amount of care can prevent Republicans from lying and spinning. It's a waste of time to try.
    Your theory that it made any difference whether she called someone a name or not is what got blown.
    Because she dissembled and compromised and weasel worded.
    Nothing any Democrat says makes any difference to the offense taken by Trump voters. It's a waste of time to try to avoid offending them - they aren't listening anyway.

    Meanwhile, the nonvoters are looking for some evidence of competence and reliability and courage. And they already know the Republican policies are racist - everybody except the Republican voter knows that.
  9. Bells Staff Member

    How is it name calling?

    What he did instead was to pander to racists.

    And it is not the first time he has done it.

    These people are not his voters. These people will actively vote against their self interest, particularly progressive self interests..

    At first, welfare was based on a specific, if unarticulated, ideology of gender roles and race. Its framers expected that white women’s primary responsibility would be child rearing and unpaid domestic labor, while white men would engage in paid labor as their families’ “breadwinners.” Based on this division of labor with the family, paid work was expected to provide a “breadwinner wage” – a wage that would support the paid worker, his wife, and their children. With the introduction of welfare, the government assumed financial responsibility when no other breadwinner was available. White widows were cast as “deserving damsels in distress.”

    Aid to Families with Dependent Children(AFDC), what we think of as welfare, was introduced as part of the Social Security Act of 1935, which also provided social security and unemployment insurance. At its inception, AFDC didn’t anticipate the participation of women of color, especially Black women. The intent of the program was to keep white women out of the workforce so they could fulfill their role as mothers.

    Whites didn’t consider the value of Black women to their own families, but instead focused on their value to the white-owned businesses and white households that employed them. Black women were expected to work, and in highly exploitative jobs that few whites would ever take. And welfare was designed to avoid interfering with their availability as workers. This is why some welfare offices in the South stopped providing aid to Black families during cotton picking season.

    In subsequent generations, as people of color won access to welfare, the program changed, as did our ideas about welfare recipients. The political debate shifted from how to provide for the needy as a way of serving the common good, to how to control the deviant behaviors of recipients who were cast as lazy, dishonest, promiscuous moochers. The sentiment driving the post-integration discussion of welfare can be summed up the by the title of the act that reformed welfare under Clinton: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. That Act assumes that recipients are alienated from work because of their dependency on welfare, rather than because they are denied all but the most onerous, low-paid and humiliating work. To reconcile them to work, time limits and penalties were imposed on recipients to push them into the workforce. But the workforce isn’t where many former recipients end up. Instead they lose their benefits without finding work.

    So let’s get it straight. The fight over who does and doesn’t deserve welfare is a fight about race and always has been. In fact, it has roots that stretch all the way back to the days of convict leasing which, after all, was not completely abolished until 1948, 13 years after welfare went national. It is also very important to recognize the profound and vicious sexism that informs the paternalistic attitude shaping welfare policy, allowing us to talk about recipients but not with them, as though they have nothing to offer to the debate.

    Bernie Sanders may be well liked in the US. But when it comes to his progressive policies, he will fall flat on his face among the racist white voters.

    And the reason for that is that they view his progressive policies as 'welfare'.. Free healthcare? Welfare. Free education? Welfare.

    Naturally, whites in the swelling "near poor" category resent the notion of whole races supposedly frolicking at their expense. Whites, near poor and middle class, need help too -- as do the many African Americans, Hispanics and "others" who do not qualify for aid but need it nonetheless.

    So we white folks have a choice. We can keep pretending that welfare is a black program and a scheme for transferring our earnings to the pockets of shiftless, dark-skinned people. Or we can clear our throats, blush prettily and admit that we are hurting too -- for cash assistance when we're down and out, for health insurance, for college aid and all the rest

    And they have been conditioned to hate and distrust welfare for generations, not because it is bad, but because it is no longer solely the domain of white people. They view welfare, even the same things they are accessing for themselves, as being the domain of black people.. These voters will actively vote against progressive policies that provide access to free healthcare for all (which all developed countries around the world have, not to mention most 3rd world countries as well for that matter), because that same healthcare will also be made available to minorities.. The people they do not consider as being deserving, because society views minorities as being "lazy, dishonest, promiscuous moochers"..

    So I have to ask, who is Bernie Sanders appealing to when he starts winking at racists and downplaying outright racism?

    Voters who won't vote for him?
  10. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    while i dont follow bernie to take a position on your comments, it does draw to mind some conversations i have had around ideas of appealing to voters.
    there is a sense of idea around seeking to try to avoid pandering to special interest which seems to easily get mixed in with the idea of minority groups.
    it seems logical to me that if the usa people wanted to get a better form of democratic representation, then they would choose a system of politics that would be much more like mixed member proportional representation.

    it does seem odd that there is no obvious public support for such a system that would seem from the outside to better represent actual democracy rather than a devicive nature toward the voter choice.
    freedom of choice at the ballot would seem much better served with a range of types of options.

    personally i support compulsory representation from minority groups inside a mmp frame work.
    this allows the wide variety of different aspects and ideas of democratic concepts to be delivered to those polaticians whos job it is to work out compromises between real values rather than mashing all the different ideas into only 2 camps then setting them against each other.
    i wonder how much this idea around mmp is similar to giving women the vote.
    people might not be able to percieve a working example of women having the vote(mmp) until it is put into action.
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Its name calling to someone. It provides not actionable policy and only makes a small precentage of the populace, who are obessesed with race over say poverty or global warming or healthcare or economics, feel good.

    Who was president from 2008-2016? A white man? There is a precentage of these people that will vote for him, as they did Obama, what you need to prove is that by not calling them racist that will cost more votes then it will gain.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It's only namecalling to those who get all their info from the Rep house of lies. They are lost causes anyway.

    In addition to making some fans of honest rhetoric feel good, it also impresses the bystanders - the nonvoters - who view pandering and coddling and weasel wording as signs of weakness and incompetence at best, manipulative condescension at worst. That's where Obama got his votes, remember - not by attracting persuadable Republicans, but by getting the bystanders to vote for him.

    The semi-mythical Obama/Trump swing voter is peanuts, statistical noise (the percentage involved in the supposed surveys is almost identical with the percentage who claim to have voted when they did not). The Obama/Noshow voter is a larger pool, Noshow/Noshow the biggest pool of all - and it is more left, more libertarian, more liberal, than the average voter.
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2018
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Even in the bastions of bothsides the central lesson seems to be sinking in:
    People keep saying you can't beat somebody with nobody - that's not quite what's involved. You can't beat somethin' with nothin', is a better formulation.
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2018
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Once again strawmannng my arguement. Prove to me we will GAIN votes by calling a majority of voters racist.

    Oh so Obama called people racist, Obama was not pandering, coddling and weasel wording? The man lives to carefully choose every word he says! Look the republicans have managed to make gains and energize their base on dog whistles, so your arguement fails against establisehd reality.

    I'm proposing energizing people by sticking to issues that people can get behind, healthcare reform, progressive taxation, minimuim wage hikes, free education, etc, what is wrong with that?
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The link is to stats showing that candidates who called racists racists got more votes than those who did not, from the same areas and populations.
    He was black. Didn't have to.
    It loses, if you weasel word and dissemble about the obstacles to all those nice things. You look cowardly and unreliable and incompetent.
    The finest claims and promises don't matter, if you look cowardly and unreliable and incompetent.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Question; Is the caste system a racist phenomenon?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    As I understand it, if you are born into a specific caste you should never aspire to greater accomplishments.
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member


Share This Page