Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jay-ell]

This is the Politics thread, not Personal Abuse, people. Please don't make me lock it just when I was enjoying how much of it is being spent on Ralph Nader when he isn't even running.

I'm 100% behind Womb@.  Also, I have the power to not only lock threads, but also to delete posts & entire threads, and to reduce any offending parties' can and post counts to zero, if the mood strikes. 

Don't tempt me.  There have been multiple transgressions here and I think (hope!) those responsible know who they are. 

I fear some of us have fallen into the trap of assuming malicious intent when none is present.  Let's stick to the words on the page, please, and not the ones between the lines.  In a setting devoid of body language and vocal intonation, we have to be particularly careful about how we communicate. 

The next warning I give will be in the form of PMs to anyone making personal attacks.  Please route any further conflict through me (use the Report Post button) and please avoid trying to hash things out in public.  This is why we have moderators, people.  I enjoy the company of everyone here and I'd hate to see any member get pushed out because some of us can't keep a level head. 

I'd like to see some apologies roll through this thread but I will settle for an increase in civility. 

Or Else. 

[littlefallsmets]

I'll give you two metaphors, okay?

If you are on a train going seventy miles an hour, heading west, and you say that... well, I'm just standing still here in this train... you are not being intellectually honest. Just because you are personally standing still does not mean that the situation isn't moving you at seventy miles an hour.

You can't be neutral about the topic of movement if you're sitting in a speeding train.

There is a child and there is a hungry tiger and they are in a small pen. You argue that you are "not taking sides" by not intervening... but by not aiding the child, you are functionally taking the tiger's side and letting the child die unopposed because... without outside assistance, that child doesn't have a prayer.

By declaring yourself "being-blind" about the child being a child and the tiger being a tiger, you are taking the side of the tiger.

Racism, in most contexts and certainly in the context of a political contest, is not anything as simple as that empty textbook definition that you are trying to troll with, by throwing out the softball of a ridiculously oversimplified definition of the word "racism" and seeing if anyone swings.

Racism, in this context, is not merely about the colour of skin or a colour of skin but about all kinds of complex power dynamics attached to those cultural differences.

To throw your hands up and say "by noticing race or gender at all, YOU'RE being the -ists!" is to be standing on a speeding train and to say that you're not moving.

You're way too smart a dude than to claim something like that and so, yeah, you're being intentionally provocative and hiding behind a "word" without proper context as your justification for it.

Racism is not Racism. A is not A. Context is everything.

EDIT: If the consensus is that I should stop discussing this, I definitely will but... I honestly believe that there's intellectual dishonesty at least partially just to start an argument.

[Golfhaus]

Gotta agree with a-cap too. "I'm voting for Barack Obama because he's black." "I'm voting for John McCain because he's white." One of these is progressive, the other is racist. But they both say the same thing. "I support one candidate over the other because of his race."

[Arachno-capitalist]

I am coming out pro child and pro tiger. Both are equally delicious.

[KeithHernandez]

Stop the metaphors please, say what you want to say and you can argue if you want (well, this is just my opinion, I don't know what is acceptable).  You are not saying anything until the last three sentences, and even then you could be much clearer.  This is good when talking about sports or achewood or music, not so much politics.  Please.  Please.

Focusing on race/gender is bad whether it is racist/sexist or not.  That is my opinion.

Edit:  Who voted today/ in a previous primary?  If you did, and you feel comfortable, who did you vote for?  I chickened out and voted for Obama, though I really, really wanted to vote for Kucinich.  I spend at least ten minutes in the booth thinking, pragmatism won in the end.  Possibly another thread so we could do this anonymous and see who the touamb choice for president is?

[theinevitable]

I am coming out pro child and pro tiger. Both are equally delicious.

A-CAP WANTS TO EAT BLACK PEOPLE AND... RACISTS!

(is that what the tigers were? racists? but... they weren't on the train?)

[KeithHernandez]

(is that what the tigers were? racists? but... they weren't on the train?)

heheheheeh

[Doc]

A-CAP WANTS TO EAT BLACK PEOPLE AND... RACISTS!

(is that what the tigers were? racists? but... they weren't on the train?)

To be fair you should have heard what that kid was saying about the tiger, he was practically asking for it.

[lprkn]

All: "I will run so fast when you chase me that you will turn into butter"...Wait, wrong racist thing about tigers and children.

LFM, I don't agree with about 65% of what you say about politics, but keep goin' with the metaphors if you like. They're what make your internet alter-ego interesting.

[CortJstr]

This is exactly what I am saying.

Right now I'm just imagining "My name is Barack Obama, and I'm withdrawing from the race. In fact, statisticians have told me that I should have spent more time trying to encourage college students who come from states with extremely late primaries, like North Carolina, to vote in states where they go to college, which have early primaries. IF ONLY I'D KNOWN."

This was A Thing at my SO's old work. Part of their campus program was encouraging college kids to vote where they go to school. Since you're living there the majority of the year for 4+ years it only makes sense. And since younger people tend to be more liberal it can sway a vote if the colleges are in areas that are otherwise more conservative. So local conservative groups would run their own programs telling kids that it's illegal for them to vote at college*.

Of  course most students were completely unaware of either side of the argument. I know I was.




*if you ALSO vote at home.

[Carlos del Vaca]

Who, exactly, has said they're voting for Obama because he's black, or for Clinton because she's a woman?  Do you have interviews with these people?  Polls?  I don't doubt that a few such people exist, but I think this supposed block of single-issue voters (that issue being the gender or race of the candidate) is a lot smaller than you make it out to be. 

Also, what Wombat said about criticism of Hillary as too *****ic one day, too emotional the next.  There's very much a double standard there.

[KeithHernandez]

Sorry LFM, most of my arguments online involve arguing about arguments and such.  Mainly I was just saying if you write like you do there will be an argument with A-CAP, then I argued with you.

We should talk about politics again though.  This democratic race is pretty awesome right now.

[pmcd9]

Hey, what do you know, it's April and we still don't have a candidate on the Democratic side.

[jaydub]

Or, conversely, the Republicans fielded such a weak slate that their presumptive nominee is already alone.  I'd rather they were in the same boat with the dems so we could get some debate about immigration.

[lprkn]

I recently found out that McCain is the only candidate who has said that he will not issue signing statements. People, this is huge if you like your government to follow the Constitution. Of course, candidates often say things that they do not follow when they are in office, but still.