2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Blaming young people ain’t it, brah.  Do better.

Uhhh. There you go again. Nowhere did I blame young people. Do try to raise things up a notch please. 

3 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Blaming young people ain’t it, brah.  Do better.

Plenty of blame to go around, but Gen Z/Millennials need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask the honest question of whether they're more concerned with winning elections or "calling out" and "owning" their detractors.

Just now, Dave Moss said:

Blaming young people ain’t it, brah.  Do better.

I think you're being naive if you don't think more voters are lost than gained by some of the "new left" line of thinking. This includes arguments made by people such as Robin DiAngelo (White Fragility) and Nikole Hannah-Jones (1619 project).

It's not like the arguments advanced by the aforenamed are entirely without merit. But they do advance some thoughts that go beyond just "making white people uncomfortable" and to a place where racism is endemic to everything. 

One end result here is that every interaction between a police officer and a person of color that ends in violence is "racist until proven otherwise". That is not only just another form of prejudice, it's also not a good place to be as a society. 

There is now a presumption of guilt by police that is untenable.

And I support BLM from a basic human rights standpoint. I do NOT get down with their entire agenda however, nor am I going to immediately assume that every time an officer shoots a black person that the officer is racist. 

7 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

This was excellent, and related: https://samharris.org/podcasts/217-new-religion-anti-racism/

Sounds interesting. I'll definitely check this out later.

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Certainly a discussion but to me when you no longer truly stand behind freedom of speech you’ve lost your credibility. There is a reason it is the first amendment. Everything else is built on top. 

I have not seen anyone arrested for their statements yet, racist or otherwise. 

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Sounds interesting. I'll definitely check this out later.

Sam Harris is pretty fantastic, and I hadn't really read much from McWhorter (occasionally I read something of his from The Atlantic but he wasn't someone I sought out) but I am going to start.

This was good: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/

Sam Harris's earlier podcast about stepping back from the brink, which came out after Floyd, was also really thoughtful.

But this latest podcast really deconstructs some of the topics being talked about here in a way that I've rarely seen elsewhere.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I have not seen anyone arrested for their statements yet, racist or otherwise. 

The ACLU has abandoned the principle. Isn’t that plus all the cancel culture enough to take this seriously?

Plus the bar is in part a moral item. This isn’t only a pure legal item. 

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Sam Harris is pretty fantastic, and I hadn't really read much from McWhorter (occasionally I read something of his from The Atlantic but he wasn't someone I sought out) but I am going to start.

This was good: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/

Sam Harris's earlier podcast about stepping back from the brink, which came out after Floyd, was also really thoughtful.

But this latest podcast really deconstructs some of the topics being talked about here in a way that I've rarely seen elsewhere.

Sam is a powerhouse. 

7 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I think you're being naive if you don't think more voters are lost than gained by some of the "new left" line of thinking. This includes arguments made by people such as Robin DiAngelo (White Fragility) and Nikole Hannah-Jones (1619 project).

It's not like the arguments advanced by the aforenamed are entirely without merit. But they do advance some thoughts that go beyond just "making white people uncomfortable" and to a place where racism is endemic to everything. 

One end result here is that every interaction between a police officer and a person of color that ends in violence is "racist until proven otherwise". That is not only just another form of prejudice, it's also not a good place to be as a society. 

There is now a presumption of guilt by police that is untenable.

And I support BLM from a basic human rights standpoint. I do NOT get down with their entire agenda however, nor am I going to immediately assume that every time an officer shoots a black person that the officer is racist. 

There’s been a lot of criticism of White Fragility so I don’t think it’s being accepted as readily as you think.  Nikole Hannah-Jones is busy defending changes to the 1619 Project essays (take a look at her twitter).  She’s not exactly skating by either.

 

 

Just now, DrPhilly said:

The ACLU has abandoned the principle. Isn’t that plus all the cancel culture enough to take this seriously?

Plus the bar is in part a moral item. This isn’t only a pure legal item. 

Sure it is. The constitution is there to protect the people from overreaching government. 

Nobody is stopping anyone from going on Twitter and saying racist things. 

That doesn't mean there aren't consequences. 

If you want to talk about the mob mentality of cancel culture being a problem, I wholeheartedly will agree with you. But it's a social problem, not a legal one.

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

The ACLU has abandoned the principle. Isn’t that plus all the cancel culture enough to take this seriously?

Plus the bar is in part a moral item. This isn’t only a pure legal item. 

 

 

Trump is absolutely right here. The only thing that matters is that you have the votes. That's the only rule and justification you need to do anything.

Everyone needs to lube up. 2021 is going to be fun.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Sure it is. The constitution is there to protect the people from overreaching government. 

Nobody is stopping anyone from going on Twitter and saying racist things. 

That doesn't mean there aren't consequences. 

If you want to talk about the mob mentality of cancel culture being a problem, I wholeheartedly will agree with you. But it's a social problem, not a legal one.

When I say "this” I am including the cultural and political aspects. The very same ones you’ve put in your posts regarding things like White Fragility. This entire situation of division goes well beyond the pure legal framework. 

3 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Trump is absolutely right here. The only thing that matters is that you have the votes. That's the only rule and justification you need to do anything.

Everyone needs to lube up. 2021 is going to be fun.

Once upon a time the Repubs promoted themselves as a party of principle (whether that was true or not). They have totally abandoned all of that now. 

Just now, Dave Moss said:

There’s been a lot of criticism of White Fragility so I don’t think it’s being accepted as readily as you think.  Nikole Hannah-Jones is busy defending changes to the 1619 Project essays (take a look at her twitter).  She’s not exactly skating by either.

True, but look how long it took for there to be a groundswell of pushback on a very problematic set of arguments. She won a goddamn Pulitzer prize for it. 

There was academic criticism of the project after its release, and that resulted not in some kind of free exchange of ideas and debate on the merits but ridicule and doubling-down. 

Hannah-Jones is a hack IMHO.

13 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Plenty of blame to go around, but Gen Z/Millennials need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask the honest question of whether they're more concerned with winning elections or "calling out" and "owning" their detractors.

They’re concerned with both.  And it’s especially problematic because they don’t vote.  But I’m not gonna cast stones and then give racist boomers a free pass.

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

True, but look how long it took for there to be a groundswell of pushback on a very problematic set of arguments. She won a goddamn Pulitzer prize for it. 

There was academic criticism of the project after its release, and that resulted not in some kind of free exchange of ideas and debate on the merits but ridicule and doubling-down. 

Hannah-Jones is a hack IMHO.

Full disclosure:  I follow a lot of academic historians on twitter so I see a lot of the criticisms that others don’t see.  That may warp my views a bit.

4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Full disclosure:  I follow a lot of academic historians on twitter so I see a lot of the criticisms that others don’t see.  That may warp my views a bit.

Yeah, there is also a question of perception vs reality to be sure.

The right is very good at negative branding. The term "liberal" was a pejorative for a long time; Obama helped shift that a bit with his 2004 convention speech. But now with AOC & the squad getting WAY more of a spotlight than their performance and impact should merit, the right has a new word to smear the left with: socialist. 

It doesn't matter if 90% of the Democrats in the House are pro-capitalist moderates who seek a return to a more neo-libertarian platform (perhaps with less of the interventionist focus), or that the party nominated a guy in Biden who cannot be pegged as a socialist (so instead they're going with the "he's controlled by socialists" argument). 

22 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

This was good: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/

Wow, that's a great piece of writing.

2 hours ago, mayanh8 said:

Moderate Democrats like me have never been in favor of changing Constitutional norms and traditions. I've always been in favor of having grown ups in the room maintain some semblance of order and common sense.

Seeing the complete 180 coming from Republicans after they refused to do their jobs voting on an Obama nominee has completely changed what I consider to be acceptable and common sense governance. The only rules for me now are what Democrats can legally get away with. So as of this very moment I am 100% in favor Biden and Democrats winning the Senate and legally changing the rules so that Democrats can get their two Supreme Court Justices back... and even a third for their troubles. I am also in favor of changing any Congressional rule or norm that benefits Democrats solely on the basis that it benefits "their side".

Democrats have been treating Republicans like they are mentally retarded kid in school who doesn't deserve their time. For me and every other Democrat I've spoken to over the past week, that's ending now. There are no more rules. You Republicans want to act like it's a war between parties with no rules? Fine. Let's go. 

Oh, c'mon, the gloves have been off since the day Trump took office.  If Dems are expecting this administration to do them a solid after the national tantrum they have thrown over the last 4 years it's just not going to happen. 

17 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Once upon a time the Repubs promoted themselves as a party of principle (whether that was true or not). They have totally abandoned all of that now. 

I agree with this to an extent, but the party of principal was getting them nowhere.  Politics is a game best played dirty and Democrats aren't afraid to take the gloves off when they need to.  Republican's are finally starting to hit hard and get what their constituents have been demanding for years.  

3 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Oh, c'mon, the gloves have been off since the day Trump took office.  If Dems are expecting this administration to do them a solid after the national tantrum they have thrown over the last 4 years it's just not going to happen. 

It had been getting punchy since 2004.

Republicans took the gloves off with Obama. The fact that Democrats are somewhat fondly remembering that Boehner didn't outwardly show disdain for Obama and had a decent relationship with the guy behind closed doors speaks to how far it's come.

Their base demanded that they go scorched Earth, and they sat on an absurd number of court nominations, daring Reid to do away with the filibuster. NEVER has there been that sort of obstructionist approach to judicial vacancies as there was during this era. So when Reid pulled the nuclear option to unclog the logjam of nominees to fill long-vacant seats, Republicans went further.

It has gotten measurably worse during Republican controlled eras. A simple read through the history of the Senate procedural changes shows that. 

Political capital is a very real thing.  I feel like the GOP will squander a lot of theirs if they push someone through now.  As usual, I could be wrong.

1 minute ago, The Norseman said:

I agree with this to an extent, but the party of principal was getting them nowhere.  Politics is a game best played dirty and Democrats aren't afraid to take the gloves off when they need to.  Republican's are finally starting to hit hard and get what their constituents have been demanding for years.  

BS. In this game of escalation it's been the right that has been turning up the heat. 

1 minute ago, The Norseman said:

 Republican's are finally starting to hit hard and get what their constituents have been demanding for years.  

Agreed. Their constituents have wanted them to cheat and to ignore the law. They spent 8 years trying to de-legitimize the last president and to have him thrown out of office overturning our democratic processes. Trump is giving them what they want.