McWhorter wrote this book for you @EaglesRocker97

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

It always amuses me when you say things like that, because those people don't like me. They think I'm a idealistic, weak-willed centrist.

And munson had friends that said he was too much of a moderate as well. If you're trying to convince me that your friends are freak communists, job well done. 

4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Nothing says "courting white votes" like framing everything as White Supremacy.

 

The ones doing that are mostly party elements are at the fringe, though, not so much the rank-and-file. The fringe gets the most airtime, though. But there certainly is a lot of white supremacy and latent racism in our midst (Trump showed us as much). However, it is a highly-charged term that evokes particularly violent imagery that shouldn't be thrown around so carelessly. I think we need to find ways to talk about structural inequality without acting like the KKK is running the country.

1 minute ago, Kz! said:

And munson had friends that said he was too much of a moderate as well. If you're trying to convince me that your friends are freak communists, job well done.

 

Meh, maybe a couple, but most are moderate or sway liberal but are generally not interested in politics. One guy I played music with in college is a self-professed "anarcho-communist," but he has a good-paying job working as software developer in Boston. He's a silly goose.

8 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

McWhorter wrote this book for you @EaglesRocker97

I haven't read it, but I saw an interview with McWhorter on Bill Maher recently that I really enjoyed. I think I would like to read this book, thanks for reminding me about it.

Racism, mini-stroke, all of the above?

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

The ones doing that are mostly party elements are at the fringe, though, not so much the rank-and-file. The fringe gets the most airtime, though. But there certainly is a lot of white supremacy and latent racism in our midst (Trump showed us as much). However, it is a highly-charged term that evokes particularly violent imagery that shouldn't be thrown around so carelessly. I think we need to find ways to talk about structural inequality without acting like the KKK is running the country.

But that article was from the WaPo, not the Daily Kos.  It's irresponsible and it plays 100% into the hands of the right.  Are there white supremacists mixed into the Trump base?  Of course.  Should they be referred to that way?  Never.  What's the end game of referring to them that way?  To end racism?  That's a child's pursuit.  If the goal is to complain, feel morally superior, and lose elections, then have it but if the goal is to win elections and make incremental change in the areas that they proclaim to want change, then that's the exact opposite road they should go down.

7 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Racism, mini-stroke, all of the above?

Yikes 

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

But that article was from the WaPo, not the Daily Kos.  It's irresponsible and it plays 100% into the hands of the right.  Are there white supremacists mixed into the Trump base?  Of course.  Should they be referred to that way?  Never.  What's the end game of referring to them that way?  To end racism?  That's a child's pursuit.  If the goal is to complain, feel morally superior, and lose elections, then have it but if the goal is to win elections and make incremental change in the areas that they proclaim to want change, then that's the exact opposite road they should go down.

 

The only time the article uses the term "white supremacy" is in reference to David Duke.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

The only time the article uses the term "white supremacy" is in reference to David Duke.

It's the same thing though. It's framing everything in terms of race.  It's exclusionary (surprisingly, all white people don't like to be called racist) and stupid, counter-productive politics.  

15 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Racism, mini-stroke, all of the above?

A great **** at the time.  Jesus.   
 

edit:   The filters won’t even let me post the word Biden spoke.  (When being woke goes wrong lmao)

16 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Meh, maybe a couple, but most are moderate or sway liberal but are generally not interested in politics. One guy I played music with in college is a self-professed "anarcho-communist," but he has a good-paying job working as software developer in Boston. He's a silly goose.

Remember, you're talking to a guy who goes to a party, quotes Jesse Kelly and tries to get a Let's Go Brandon chant going while everyone slowly backs away.

15 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

It's the same thing though. It's framing everything in terms of race.  It's exclusionary (surprisingly, all white people don't like to be called racist) and stupid, counter-productive politics.  

I don't think it's framing everything in terms of race. It's breaking down the political strategy of the Democratic Party over the last 40-50 years which, to a great extent, has been tied to racial considerations. The question is whether it's gone too far in one direction.

  

Some cliff notes:
 

 

Quote

So, party leaders for decades have informally adopted a strategy of White appeasement — by which I mean they have frequently taken actions, often subtle, to demonstrate to White Americans that they aren’t too tied to civil rights causes and people of color. Sometimes this means Democrats taking a stance on a racial issue to align with views of moderate and conservative White people; other times it is Democrats avoiding a stance on a racial issue for the same reason. The Democrats’ White appeasement is their countermove to the Republicans’ White grievance.

 

I can't find anything inaccurate about this take. People seem to get their panties twisted over the word "appeasement," but whatever you want to call it, it's clear that the Democrats' political playbook has for awhile evinced an effort to distance itself from the causes and policies that are most important to minority communities.

 

The article repeatedly recognizes that white votes are important:

Quote

Certainly, there is a real case that Democrats need to prioritize wooing White voters — and by whatever means necessary. The Republican Party is growing increasingly radical, raising the stakes for the country in the 2022 and 2024 elections. Even as the United States becomes more racially diverse, White Americans remain about 70 percent of voters overall and make up an even larger bloc in key swing states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Democrats can’t win presidential elections or control of the Senate if they lose too many White voters to the GOP.

 

Quote

Looking beyond Virginia, some Democratic White appeasement is probably still necessary in a country where a person like Trump won the presidency once, nearly did so a second time and remains a viable candidate.

 

Quote

To do well in 2022 and 2024, the Democrats need to win a lot of White voters, including some who have less-than-progressive views on racial issues. The temptation will be strong to go over the top, perhaps even unconsciously, in terms of White appeasement, essentially running a 2020s version of Bill Clinton’s campaigns. After all, given Republican anti-democratic radicalism, the stakes are extremely high. And Biden, his inner circle and other top officials in the Democratic Party generally are White, older people who embraced the Democrats’ White appeasement in previous eras.

 

It mostly comes down to describing this phenomenon:

 

Quote

The story of the post-1960s Democratic Party is in some ways the story of a party trying to precisely calibrate the levels of White appeasement necessary to win and hold power.

I can't really disagree with this stance. Democratic politics over the course of the last 40 years or so has been largely tied to straddling the line between appearing racially progressive but not too progressive so as to not alienate white voters while still capturing the minority vote.

But the problem is that it doesn't seem to work and might not be necessary:
 

Quote

At the same time, the limits and dangers of Democratic White appeasement are serious and substantial. Past policies adopted by party leaders to appeal to White voters have hurt people of color in deep and lasting ways. And many of those moves didn’t actually attract many White voters, either. Centering White voters now could push the Democrats away from a recent positive trajectory that includes increasingly embracing candidates of color and aggressive efforts to address racial inequality. Further, such a shift might not even be necessary. In 2020, Democrats won the House, Senate and presidency with their coalition of people of color and White Americans with more progressive views on racial issues.

The question that this author seeks to engage people on is, whether you call it 'white appeasement' or whatever, white voters are such a significant portion of the vote that a significant effort is needed toward assuaging their fears and redressing their grievance. The question is how much and in what manner?

I think the article is pretty balanced in discussing the need for appealing to white moderates without seeming too averse to those of black voters and the progressive left. There's no clear answer, but questioning whether the approach has been effective is worthwhile discussion.
 

6 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I don't think it's framing everything in terms of race. It's breaking down the political strategy of the Democratic Party over the last 40-50 years which, to a great extent, has been tied to racial considerations. The question is whether it's gone too far in one direction.

  

Some cliff notes:
 

 

 

I can't find anything inaccurate about this take. People seem to get their panties twisted over the word "appeasement," but whatever you want to call it, it's clear that the Democrats' political playbook has for awhile evinced an effort to distance itself from the causes and policies that are most important to minority communities.

 

The article repeatedly recognizes that white votes are important:

 

 

 

It mostly comes down to describing this phenomenon:

 

I can't really disagree with this stance. Democratic politics over the course of the last 40 years or so has been largely tied to straddling the line between appearing racially progressive but not too progressive so as to not alienate white voters while still capturing the minority vote.

But the problem is that it doesn't seem to work and might not be necessary:
 

The question that this author seeks to engage people on is, whether you call it 'white appeasement' or whatever, white voters are such a significant portion of the vote that a significant effort is needed toward assuaging their fears and redressing their grievance. The question is how much and in what manner?

I think the article is pretty balanced in discussing the need for appealing to white moderates without seeming too averse to those of black voters and the progressive left. There's no clear answer, but questioning whether the approach has been effective is worthwhile discussion.
 

Everything you quote here is framed in terms of race.

And for what end?  What is accomplished from the article?  The same exact conversation that takes place every single day on TV and the internet on a constant 24 hour loop?  It's all theoretical ****ion and the only thing it does practically is alienate the very voters he even admits that the Dems need to win elections.

7 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Everything you quote here is framed in terms of race.

And for what end?  What is accomplished from the article?  The same exact conversation that takes place every single day on TV and the internet on a constant 24 hour loop?  It's all theoretical ****ion and the only thing it does practically is alienate the very voters he even admits that the Dems need to win elections.

Well, yeah, these things are framed around race because the subject of the article pertains to race and whether the Democratic Party's approach to race is effective. I think that this is a much, much more nuanced and historically literate take on Democratic politics than anything you get from cable news pundits. I don't hear these matters talked about with this degree of clarity on TV. Democrats need to figure out their brand ahead of the midterms, and I think this article poses some good questions for consideration. Yes, he admits the Democrats need them to win elections but asks whether the way they're going about it is counterproductive.

33 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Remember, you're talking to a guy who goes to a party, quotes Jesse Kelly and tries to get a Let's Go Brandon chant going while everyone slowly backs away.

You mean you were there that night and didn't even say hi? Bro...  

10 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Well, yeah, these things are framed around race because the subject of the article pertains to race and whether the Democratic Party's approach to race is effective. I think that this is a much, much more nuanced and historically literate take on Democratic politics than anything you get from cable news pundits. I don't hear these matters talked about with this degree of clarity on TV. Democrats need to figure out their brand ahead of the midterms, and I think this article poses some good questions for consideration. Yes, he admits the Democrats need them to win elections but asks whether the way they're going about it is counterproductive.

He's wrong.  And his article is far more counterproductive than anything any Dem politician is doing.  Dems problem has very little to do with politicians and much more to do with broader, woke messaging that frames everything as related to race.  It's kind of meta actually, because this guy is trying to give an assessment of what Dems are doing wrong without realizing that he's the one doing it with his assessment.

7 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

He's wrong.  And his article is far more counterproductive than anything any Dem politician is doing.  Dems problem has very little to do with politicians and much more to do with broader, woke messaging that frames everything as related to race.  It's kind of meta actually, because this guy is trying to give an assessment of what Dems are doing wrong without realizing that he's the one doing it with his assessment.

 

For the most part, though, the Democrats are not very woke. Politicians like "The Squad" are a slim minority in the party. And he's not wrong. He does a pretty good job of tying Democratic campaigns  and policies to a distinct concern for capturing white votes by appealing to racial anxieties.

9 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

For the most part, though, the Democrats are not very woke. Politicians like "The Squad" are a slim minority in the party. And he's not wrong. He does a pretty good job of tying Democratic campaigns  and policies to a distinct concern for capturing white votes by appealing to racial anxieties.

You're right, they are.  But guys like the author of that article make it seem like far more of the Dem base believe in these far left, everything-is-racist views.  Meanwhile, for every liberal intellectual that nods their head and appreciates this author for making the same point that's been made over and over again, there are 100 regular people who are turned off from the Dems based on this crap, whether they agree with Dem policy positions or not.

1 hour ago, Kz! said:

Racism, mini-stroke, all of the above?

Somehow, the Democrats here have missed this so far.

44 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Somehow, the Democrats here have missed this so far.

Someone alert the United **** College Fund!

5 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Someone alert the United **** College Fund!

Guarantee he just dropped a hard "r" on this one. 

7 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 

never gets old

Don't see why this is so hard to comprehend.  I think they both sucked/suck as leaders.  Just think one midget is taller than the other.  Not every opinion needs to be binary in nature.  Feel free to jump off my jock anytime.

2 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

It's the same thing though. It's framing everything in terms of race.  It's exclusionary (surprisingly, all white people don't like to be called racist) and stupid, counter-productive politics.  

There definitely is a segment of the population who literally call everything and every white person racist. It is reductive and counterproductive. It's condescending and in many cases just flat-out stupid, so I agree that it makes for bad politics. However, we should be able to have the discussion that institutions and systems are racist without white people viscerally reacting as if they are personally being called racist. We certainly have vestiges of structural racism impeding our ability to be a more free society, and it's a shame that we can't have a productive debate about how best to overcome it. The one side just wants to ignore that it exists, while the other side is too extreme and conducts itself with hostility.

Biden calling black people negros, Commiela mocking French accents, clearly you've gotta speak with a slight Indian accent when you're shopping at a 7-11.  I'm not joking.