TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Mario1995 The Dishonorable from Atlanta Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
The Dishonorable
#253501: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:01:02 AM

It appears White House Counsel Don McGhan will be leaving after Kavanaugh is (inevitably) confirmed.

[up]The way I see it, outright bans may be the only option here. We can go further by shutting down the gun manufacturers and charging their executives with conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.

Edited by Mario1995 on Aug 29th 2018 at 11:01:46 AM

"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#253502: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:02:07 AM

Keep in mind he’s the same guy that allegedly got Trump to back off from firing Mueller

New Survey coming this weekend!
speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#253503: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:02:34 AM

Mediaite is not an ideal site to be giving clicks to, just FYI.
Why?

Mario1995 The Dishonorable from Atlanta Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
The Dishonorable
#253504: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:03:55 AM

[up][up]Got a feeling Trump fired him for cooperating with Mueller and potentially putting him in legal danger. Makes a Mueller firing before January more likely.

Edited by Mario1995 on Aug 29th 2018 at 11:03:38 AM

"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher
Friendperson Since: May, 2018
#253505: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:20:17 AM

[up] A Mueller firing would have Trump gone for obstruction of justice faster than you can say "President Pence."

Mario1995 The Dishonorable from Atlanta Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
The Dishonorable
#253506: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:23:54 AM

That assumes Republicans in the Senate turn on him. Everything we've seen in the last year suggests that's not happening.

"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#253507: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:30:02 AM

@Mario 1995: That'd be a bad idea for a few reasons:

-There's already legal precedent that gun manufacturers are not guilty of crimes committed with guns. I mean, just because people get stabbed with knives does not make knife manufacturers liable.

-They didn't "conspire" to commit crimes. They made guns legally, and some people used those guns for illegal purposes. Not their fault.

-A person can't be retroactively charged with a crime if the action was legal when they did it. For example, if a person sells some form of recreational drug and that drug becomes illegal after the fact, they're free of any charges even though they did something that'd be illegal after the change in legislation.

-The US government, like all governments, depends upon gun manufacturers. Those gun companies also supply the police and military.

-And of course, there's enough guns in America, and demand for them, that there'd be a black market forming very rapidly.

Leviticus 19:34
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#253508: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:32:13 AM

outright bans may be the only option here

Outright bans are in no way a viable option in the US.

They should have sent a poet.
Mario1995 The Dishonorable from Atlanta Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
The Dishonorable
#253509: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:34:08 AM

[up][up]If the EU can hold social media companies and tech giants accountable for the spread of extremist and terrorist content, why can't we do the same for American gun manufacturers and their sellers? Food for thought.

[up]Australia forced citizens to hand over their long guns and semi-automatic weapons after the Port Arthur massacre and there hasn't been a massacre on that scale since then.

Edited by Mario1995 on Aug 29th 2018 at 11:35:11 AM

"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#253510: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:35:58 AM

[up]I think the difference is that the social media companies have more direct control over what does or doesn't get posted on their sites.

Also Australia, to my knowledge, doesn't have gun ownership enshrined in their Constitution, nor the kind of gun culture we do. So, no, bans are not viable as they run against a basic tenet of our law, like it or not.

Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 29th 2018 at 9:53:30 AM

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#253511: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:36:40 AM

I'd prefer we don't adopt the EU'S censorship policies.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/29/stephen-miller-immigration-policy-white-house-trump-799199
Of all of Trump's people, Miller may be THE most loathsome. And don't tell me he's only 33. I'll be 35 in a few months, and no way that asshole's younger than I am.

Edited by ACW on Aug 29th 2018 at 11:36:12 AM

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#253512: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:39:44 AM

@Mario 1995: There's a big difference. A social media company is providing a service, not a good, one that they actively have control over. Guns, however, can't really be controlled by a gun manufacturer.

There's only so much you can blame Budweiser for drunk driving, for example.

Leviticus 19:34
Kaiseror Since: Jul, 2016
#253513: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:45:11 AM

So Mc Ghan leaving is a bad thing I take it?

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#253514: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:48:19 AM

Mario 1995: As already pointed out, the US and Australia are very different countries. What works there may not work here, and a total ban will not work here.

It would probably do more harm than good in the end. Increased restriction or permitting is really the only viable option in the US. At this point, people advocating for stuff like a total gun ban or semi-auto ban are pretty much harming the cause of gun control.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 29th 2018 at 9:04:26 AM

They should have sent a poet.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#253515: Aug 29th 2018 at 8:51:32 AM

So this happened a few days ago, but just in case it wasn’t mentioned...

THREAD: What does the grant of immunity to Trump Organization CFO Alan Weisselberg tell us?

1/ Today @WSJ reported that Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg received immunity from the federal prosecutors who investigated Michael Cohen.

2/ Off the bat, this tells us that Weisselberg had criminal liability. People who don’t have criminal exposure don’t need immunity. According to @WSJ, Weisselberg received immunity and testified before the Manhattan grand jury earlier this year.

3/ The decision about when to give a witness immunity (versus forcing them to plead guilty and get a deal to “flip”) is a complicated one. If prosecutors didn’t have enough evidence to charge Weisselberg and couldn’t make their case without him, immunity was their only option.

4/ There can be no question that Weisselberg provided valuable testimony to prosecutors. Prosecutors don’t give immunity “blindly”—they would have required Weisselberg’s attorney to tell them what Weisselberg would say if he testified *before* they gave him immunity.

5/ Prosecutors wouldn’t have given him immunity if the information provided by Weisselberg was not valuable. So what did Weisselberg provide? It appears that he was asked about the transactions involving payments to women that were the basis for charges against Michael Cohen.

6/ For example, according to Weisselberg, he did not know that the “retainer agreement” with Cohen was meant to repay Cohen for money Cohen personally paid to Stormy Daniels. This suggests that the payment was falsely described in Trump Organization financial records.

7/ In addition to any campaign finance violations Weisselberg may have been involved in, the creation of false financial records could open him up to other liability. For instance if any false records were knowingly set to a bank in order to obtain a loan, that’s bank fraud.

8/ In addition, the New York Attorney General is investigating whether there were false entries in the Trump Organization financial records. Weisselberg’s testimony could be helpful in that investigation. In my view, his value to prosecutors is that he knows how the company runs

9/ For example, Weisselberg claims that Trump personally reviewes every payment made by the Trump Organization and was so focused on the details of payments that he would ask specific questions about individual payments.

10/ That would be invaluable testimony to show that Trump was aware of the payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen Mc Dougal. If Trump paid so much attention to each payment made by the Trump Organization, how could he have missed these large cash payments?

11/ And that brings us to perhaps the key question that is on everyone’s mind—who is Weisselberg cooperating against? To be clear, Weisselberg likely has agreed to provide full cooperation to any DOJ component (including Mueller) in exchange for immunity.

12/ But at the time Weisselberg received immunity, prosecutors believed that his testimony would be “valuable“ because it would help them charge one or more people. So who did they think he would help them charge? Given the timing, it could have just been Cohen.

13/ Clearly Weisselberg’s testimony helped the case against Cohen, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t or won’t implicate others, and he has to cooperate with prosecutors going forward. Time will tell whether Weisselberg provides testimony against Trump and others. /end

I love George Conway’s response grin note 

It means that Individual-1 needs a real lawyer.

Edited by megaeliz on Aug 29th 2018 at 12:08:46 PM

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#253516: Aug 29th 2018 at 9:09:01 AM

Also why is Chuck Grassly tweeting Directly at the president while using texting shortcuts?

@realDonaldTrump I hope it’s not true Mc Gahn is leaving White House Counsel. U can’t let that happen

It took me a minute to get the joke here

remember the eighth amendment, senator

The eighth amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Edited by megaeliz on Aug 29th 2018 at 12:09:19 PM

fruitpork Since: Oct, 2010
#253517: Aug 29th 2018 at 9:51:29 AM

I see the calls from the republicans that they would protect Mueller the way I see anything Mc Cain did: hollow unless they act on it, and they usually don't. There's also the possibility Mueller could find dirt on them, too.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#253518: Aug 29th 2018 at 10:18:10 AM

They might move to stall Trump until after the election, out of fear of losing their majorities and down ticket impacts.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#253519: Aug 29th 2018 at 10:23:19 AM

A really long but worthy read over how the internet culture and the alt-right shaped populist politics and brought young men into their fold.

     The Economist: How the grotesque online culture wars fuel populism 

The Economist: How the grotesque online culture wars fuel populism

A book excerpt and interview with Angela Nagle, author of “Kill All Normies”

Revolutionaries won’t be able to change the world until they change popular culture, argued Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist philosopher of the 1920s. Strikingly, modern-day socialists embrace this idea, as does the alt-right. In “Kill All Normies,” Angela Nagle explores the deepest and darkest sub-cultures of the internet to find out how the far-right reignited the culture wars and help Trump triumph in the 2016 presidential election.

Why did so many internet users turn against liberal democracy? Did political correctness push them away from civilised political discussion? And how did irony become one of the most dangerous weapons in online propaganda? The Economist’s Open Future initiative asked her to reply to five questions in around 100 words each. An excerpt from the book appears thereafter.

The Economist: Who are “normies” and why do some people want to kill them?

Angela Nagle: Basically it means normal people with average tastes, opinions, political views, news sources and so on. When people get so far down the rabbit hole of obscure online political subcultures and forums it becomes impossible to relate to or explain things to a normie who is also seen as being partially to blame for the problems of the world because of their ignorant unenlightened state. Other times the term is used to describe the socially well adjusted rarely-online person being observed by the very online shut-in.

It’s not meant as a genuine call to kill the majority of course, it’s more like a radical political slogan style you might associate with Primal Scream’s “Kill All Hippies” or Philip K Dick’s “Kill All Others” or “Kill the Cop in Your Head.”

The Economist: Liberalism inherently tolerates its detractors. Yet online culture is so virulent, does this undermine the viability of liberalism?

Ms Nagle: Spend some time on Twitter or looking at You Tube comments and you'll find it hard to maintain a belief in liberal enlightenment ideals for long. The reality of what we are like when we are given the freedom to say what we like is actually extremely ugly. Public discourse has never been as idiotic, cruel, irrational and utterly pointless in my lifetime as it is now.

The point the culture wars have taken us to is really a war between two irreconcilable sides and each side wants a world that the other would rather die than accept. When you reach that point I'm not sure if a liberal public sphere is possible anymore. Those arguing for it tend to really be motivated by faith that their ideas will triumph under those conditions. But liberalism is extremely weak right now and I think much stronger ideologies are likely to trample it in the coming years.

The Economist: Does the restrictive nature of political correctness inadvertently push people away from progressive politics?

Ms Nagle: No serious person can really deny that it does at this point, if they're being honest. Many people are attracted to progressive politics because they see that the world is unequal and unfair and they want better wages or education or healthcare. But they quickly find out that this isn't enough. In order to not be purged they have to learn an ever more elaborate and bizarre set of correct positions they must hold on a range of issues and they must continue to carefully and fearfully walk on eggshells to avoid the call-out.

No humour or intellectual exploration is any longer possible in that environment. Think of any progressive intellectual of any significance from the last century and try to imagine them surviving today. They’d just be purged. They’d have to dissent on some issue and it wouldn’t be tolerated.

The Economist: How has the far-right used irony to spread transgressive ideas? Does the far-left do something similar and if so, how? (And if it doesn't, why not?)

Ms Nagle: Irony and transgressiveness have been aesthetic tools mostly used by the political left for a long time, certainly they've been ever-present since 1968. I write in the book about how the right has for a long time been dominated by a genteel kind of conservatism and that the pro-Trump rightist youth politics marked a break from that. It took the liberal cultural mainstream and the left by surprise.

Suddenly when Trump got elected, liberal or left leaning journalists were trying to catch up and work out what was ironic and what was real. So for example, punks used to use the swastika ironically in the 70s, and many of those bands have become part of the progressive canon, but when the alt right and the various pro-Trump online subcultures emerged with a similar style, it was hard to know which flirtations with fascism were ironic.

The Economist: It often seems like the culture wars are driven by young men with diminished economic prospects and an inability to find a sexual partner. Is that a problem that can be solved by policies or do liberals simply need to discover a new tone?

Ms Nagle: One of the darker products of the sexual revolution is that you have a generation of young men raised on very grim pornography and being able to be like the Marquis de Sade in the virtual or imaginary world but in the real world they have less agency, less human contact, fewer prospects and less stake in their community and society than ever before. You have unprecedented levels of celibacy and childlessness too among millennials, including women.

Unfortunately it's near impossible to have a sane or good faith conversation about this because of how heated the culture wars have become online, but the longer term social implications, which apply to men and women, are surely going to be very significant as millennials get older. I think there are economic solutions to some of it but it also requires a major shift in the culture at this point. Young people need to be able to have families and a home and some kind of job stability. We also need to restore the dignity of ordinary people.

Ruthless competitive individualism is being applied to the romantic and private realm and it's deeply anti-social. Ultimately though, the emergence of all of this is really about demographics and race. Though I've been guilty of it myself in the past, I would now caution that these issues should be considered before diving straight into the psycho-sexual interpretations.

Excerpt from “Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-right” by Angela Nagle (Zero Books, 2018)

In the lead-up to the election of Barack Obama in 2008 his message of hope was publicly, and with great earnestness, shared by vast numbers of liberals online, eager to show their love for the first black president, ecstatic to be part of what felt like a positive mass-cultural moment. After George W. Bush, who had waged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and embarrassed educated people with his Southern style, his regular gaffs and ‘Bushisms’, the feeling of shame among US liberals was captured by books like Michael Moore’s Stupid White Men.

In stark contrast Obama was articulate, sophisticated, erudite and cosmopolitan. In the media spectacle of his election Oprah cried, Beyoncé sang and crowds of young, adoring fans rejoiced. Even some of the icy hearts of those significantly to the left of the Democratic Party were temporarily melted in what felt like a mass outpouring of positivity and hope, an egalitarian dream realized.

Hillary Clinton tried to repeat this formula in 2016 by dancing on The Ellen De Generes Show, drafting in Beyoncé once again, assuring listeners of her penchant for hot sauce and attracting feminist celebrities like Lena Dunham with the ‘I’m With Her’ slogan. However, instead, she became a source of comedy and ridicule among large online audiences from right across the political spectrum. When she solemnly condemned a new Internet age right-wing movement as part of Trump’s ‘basket of deplorables’, the massed online ranks of the target of her comments collectively erupted in memes, mockery and celebration.

How did we get from those earnest hopeful days broadcast across the media mainstream to where we are now? This book covers this period from the perspective of Internet culture and subcultures, tracing the online culture wars that have raged on below the line and below the radar of mainstream media throughout the period over feminism, sexuality, gender identity, racism, free speech and political correctness. This was unlike the culture wars of the 60s or the 90s, in which a typically older age cohort of moral and cultural conservatives fought against a tide of cultural secularization and liberalism among the young. This online backlash was able to mobilize a strange vanguard of teenage gamers, pseudonymous swastika-posting anime lovers, ironic South Park conservatives, anti-feminist pranksters, nerdish harassers and meme-making trolls whose dark humour and love of transgression for its own sake made it hard to know what political views were genuinely held and what were merely, as they used to say, for the lulz. What seemed to hold them all together in their obscurity was a love of mocking the earnestness and moral self-flattery of what felt like a tired liberal intellectual conformity running right through from establishment liberal politics to the more militant enforcers of new sensitivities from the wackiest corners of Tumblr to campus politics.

Through this period we can also see the death of what remained of a mass culture sensibility, in which there was still a mainstream media arena and a mainstream sense of culture and the public. The triumph of the Trumpians was also a win in the war against this mainstream media, which is now held in contempt by many average voters and the weird irony laden Internet subcultures from right and left, who equally set themselves apart from this hated mainstream. It is a career disaster now to signal your left-behind cluelessness as a basic bitch, a normie or a member of the corrupt media mainstream in any way. Instead, we see online the emergence of a new kind of anti-establishment sensibility expressing itself in the kind of DIY culture of memes and user-generated content that cyberutopian true believers have evangelized about for many years but had not imagined taking on this particular political form.

Compare the first election won by Obama, in which social media devotees reproduced the iconic but official blue-and-red stylized stencil portrait of the new president with HOPE printed across the bottom, a portrait created by artist Shepard Fairey and approved by the official Obama campaign, to the bursting forth of irreverent mainstream-baffling meme culture during the last race, in which the Bernie’s Dank Meme Stash Facebook page and The Donald subreddit defined the tone of the race for a young and newly politicized generation, with the mainstream media desperately trying to catch up with a subcultural in-joke style to suit two emergent anti-establishment waves of the right and left.

Writers like Manuel Castells and numerous commentators in the Wired magazine milieu told us of the coming of a networked society, in which old hierarchical models of business and culture would be replaced by the wisdom of crowds, the swarm, the hive mind, citizen journalism and user-generated content. They got their wish, but it’s not quite the utopian vision they were hoping for.

As old media dies, gatekeepers of cultural sensibilities and etiquette have been overthrown, notions of popular taste maintained by a small creative class are now perpetually outpaced by viral online content from obscure sources, and culture industry consumers have been replaced by constantly online, instant content producers. The year 2016 may be remembered as the year the media mainstream’s hold over formal politics died. A thousand Trump Pepe memes bloomed and a strongman larger-than-life Twitter troll who showed open hostility to the mainstream media and to both party establishments took the White House without them.

The once obscure call-out culture of the left emanating from Tumblr-style campus-based identity politics reached its peak during this period, in which everything from eating noodles to reading Shakespeare was declared ‘problematic’, and even the most mundane acts ‘misogynist’ and ‘white supremacist’. While taboo and anti-moral ideologies festered in the dark corners of the anonymous Internet, the de-anonymized social media platforms, where most young people now develop their political ideas for the first time, became a panopticon, in which people lived in fear of observation from the eagle eye of an offended organizer of public mass shaming. At the height of its power, the dreaded call-out, no matter how minor the transgression or how well intentioned the transgressor, could ruin your reputation, your job or your life. The particular incarnations of the online left and right that exist today are undoubtedly a product of this strange period of ultra puritanism. These obscure online political beginnings became formative for a whole generation, and impacted mainstream sensibilities and even language.

The hysterical liberal call-out produced a breeding ground for an online backlash of irreverent mockery and anti-PC, typified by charismatic figures like Milo [Yiannopoulos]. But after crying wolf throughout these years, calling everyone from saccharine pop stars to Justin Trudeau a ‘white supremacist’ and everyone who wasn’t With Her a sexist, the real wolf eventually arrived, in the form of the openly white nationalist alt-right who hid among an online army of ironic in-jokey trolls. When this happened, nobody knew who to take literally anymore, including many of those in the middle of this new online right themselves. The alt-light figures that became celebrities during this period made their careers exposing the absurdities of online identity politics and the culture of lightly thrown claims of misogyny, racism, ableism, fatphobia, transphobia and so on. However, offline, only one side saw their guy take the office of US president and only one side has in their midst faux-ironic Sieg Heil saluting, open white segregationists and genuinely hate-filled, occasionally murderous, misogynists and racists.

Before the overtly racist alt-right were widely known, the more mainstream alt-light largely flattered it, gave it glowing write-ups in Breitbart and elsewhere, had its spokespeople on their You Tube shows and promoted them on social media. Nevertheless, when Milo’s sudden career implosion happened later they didn’t return the favor, which I think may be setting a precedent for a future in which the playfully transgressive alt-light unwittingly play the useful idiots for those with much more serious political aims. If this dark, anti-Semitic, race segregationist ideology grows in the coming years, with their vision of the future that would necessitate violence, those who made the right attractive will have to take responsibility for having played their role.

Inter arma enim silent leges
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#253520: Aug 29th 2018 at 10:49:24 AM

I have a huge, HUGE problem with this dogwhistle.

The Economist: Does the restrictive nature of political correctness inadvertently push people away from progressive politics?

Ms Nagle: No serious person can really deny that it does at this point, if they're being honest. Many people are attracted to progressive politics because they see that the world is unequal and unfair and they want better wages or education or healthcare. But they quickly find out that this isn't enough. In order to not be purged they have to learn an ever more elaborate and bizarre set of correct positions they must hold on a range of issues and they must continue to carefully and fearfully walk on eggshells to avoid the call-out.

Let me translate: (white and/or male and/or straight and/or cis) people are mad to find out that supporting labor rights and healthcare doesn’t get you a pass to be racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic, and they are traumatized by disenfranchised people demanding basic human decency.

Edited by wisewillow on Aug 29th 2018 at 1:57:35 PM

danime91 Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#253521: Aug 29th 2018 at 10:53:18 AM

Yeah, even the title of the article sounds like it's trying to shift blame and whistle dogs.

PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#253522: Aug 29th 2018 at 10:59:03 AM

It's not like it's particularly hard to just not be bigoted. Just don't be bigoted. Hell, the article makes it seems like getting "called out" is equivalent to getting ostracized forever, but as long as you're not being a complete monster, a "call-out" is usually a warning that you need to change, not a punishment in and of itself.

You won't get kicked out of most civil public discourse if you're emotionally open about the prejudices you have and are open to listen to why you might be wrong. On the contrary, as long as you're genuinely open to learn, most people are going to be happy to teach you at least the basics of what you got wrong.

This is only a problem if you're stubborn and unmoving in your bigotry, which is a problem with you as a human being, not society.

Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on Aug 29th 2018 at 10:59:34 AM

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#253523: Aug 29th 2018 at 11:02:15 AM

Case in point, a friend of mine does disability rights advocacy. Every now and then she’ll go “hey, X you just said was ableist.” I think about it, ask follow up questions if I’m confused, and then generally rephrase what I was saying or reconsider my point of view. Like. It’s really not that hard.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#253524: Aug 29th 2018 at 11:02:23 AM

Eh... I don't exactly like how that was phrased, but I think I get the point.

Like, people say "just don't be a bigot" as if it's easy, and part of it is. Everyone should be aware of what overt bigotry looks like and have the decency to avoid.

But there are more things going on than just calling people {insert slurs}, more subtle things that might be more complicated to address.

So while just because it won't necessarily be easy to address doesn't mean the issues shouldn't be addressed, I do think going "just don't be a bigot" does (sometimes) ignore what's actually going on.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#253525: Aug 29th 2018 at 11:03:19 AM

The article is essentially trying to justify white fragility.

Disgusted, but not surprised

Total posts: 417,856
Top