BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

uziq wrote:

the new yorker did a piece on the future of the republican party that touches upon this stuff.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021 … epublicans

political parties adapt or die. the republicans are almost uniquely backwards looking at the moment. a party of dilberts.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

the old white male elite

Regardless of historical validity, in terms of the current political situation I think it can sometimes be counterproductive to paint a target on "old white males" and chase them into an even more sullen, reactionary mindset. They're not going to see the "elite," they're just going to see a very specific attack on three adjectives that apply to them. I'm not saying to pander or exclusively kid gloves, just that avoiding divisive language might be a good idea, and help prevent white supremacists from picking up even more support.

It was recently easy enough for pundits to even twist Hillary's less specific "basket of deplorables" into an attack on white men. It might have been better for her to, rather than uttering that, address legitimate economic grievances and try to get some more Democratic votes. My inbox exploded after that one, and clarifying context had little mollifying effect.

Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida and a close ally of former President Donald J. Trump, is being investigated by the Justice Department over whether he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old and paid for her to travel with him, according to three people briefed on the matter.

Investigators are examining whether Mr. Gaetz violated federal sex trafficking laws, the people said. A variety of federal statutes make it illegal to induce someone under 18 to travel over state lines to engage in sex in exchange for money or something of value. The Justice Department regularly prosecutes such cases, and offenders often receive severe sentences.

It was not clear how Mr. Gaetz met the girl, believed to be 17 at the time of encounters about two years ago that investigators are scrutinizing, according to two of the people.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

the old white male elite

Regardless of historical validity, in terms of the current political situation I think it can sometimes be counterproductive to paint a target on "old white males" and chase them into an even more sullen, reactionary mindset. They're not going to see the "elite," they're just going to see a very specific attack on three adjectives that apply to them. I'm not saying to pander or exclusively kid gloves, just that avoiding divisive language might be a good idea, and help prevent white supremacists from picking up even more support.

It was recently easy enough for pundits to even twist Hillary's less specific "basket of deplorables" into an attack on white men. It might have been better for her to, rather than uttering that, address legitimate economic grievances and try to get some more Democratic votes. My inbox exploded after that one, and clarifying context had little mollifying effect.

I strongly disagree. Tiptoeing around the reality of historic white male privilege is key to fixing the problem of systemic inequality. Recognizing that rich white males created rules of governance that strictly benefitted them to the detriment of virtually every other group is a good foundation to discussing why it is important to have diverse and equitable power structures. I think it's better to focus on the exclusivity of that group, instead of kowtowing to snowflakes who like to pretend an unjust system does not benefit them. At the same time, highlighting which groups were excluded is just as important, because the overwhelming majority of people were. That's why we have to remind people that less than 100 years ago, Italians weren't considered white.175 years ago, Irish people weren't considered white. 250 years ago, poor white people weren't given rights. And all along, black people have been shitted on. This is the reality of American history, and failing to properly account for the racism in the grain of sand around the American pearl serves no purpose.

The truth hurts sometimes. Too bad.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Regardless of historical validity, in terms of the current political situation I think it can sometimes be counterproductive to paint a target on "old white males" and chase them into an even more sullen, reactionary mindset. They're not going to see the "elite," they're just going to see a very specific attack on three adjectives that apply to them. I'm not saying to pander or exclusively kid gloves, just that avoiding divisive language might be a good idea, and help prevent white supremacists from picking up even more support.

It was recently easy enough for pundits to even twist Hillary's less specific "basket of deplorables" into an attack on white men. It might have been better for her to, rather than uttering that, address legitimate economic grievances and try to get some more Democratic votes. My inbox exploded after that one, and clarifying context had little mollifying effect.

I strongly disagree. Tiptoeing around the reality of historic white male privilege is key to fixing the problem of systemic inequality. Recognizing that rich white males created rules of governance that strictly benefitted them to the detriment of virtually every other group is a good foundation to discussing why it is important to have diverse and equitable power structures. I think it's better to focus on the exclusivity of that group, instead of kowtowing to snowflakes who like to pretend an unjust system does not benefit them. At the same time, highlighting which groups were excluded is just as important, because the overwhelming majority of people were. That's why we have to remind people that less than 100 years ago, Italians weren't considered white.175 years ago, Irish people weren't considered white. 250 years ago, poor white people weren't given rights. And all along, black people have been shitted on. This is the reality of American history, and failing to properly account for the racism in the grain of sand around the American pearl serves no purpose.

The truth hurts sometimes. Too bad.

I don't think it is very productive trying to convince these people about historic male privilege since they will never be convinced. I do find it contemptible that the "telling it like it is" crowd are also the ones deeply upset about Satanic shoes, kneeling at sports games, Lady Gaga and a host of other things. Of course liberals get made over silly shit too but they don't make "telling like it is" part of their identity.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I don't think the focus should be on convincing them. I think the focus should be on making our government and social institutions more equitable through highlighting the overwhelming benefits of an inclusive society.

Dilbert_X wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Humor me with a few

Tax revenue being plowed into unproductive wasteful uses.

Tolerance of intolerance giving rise to more intolerance not less.

The productive people getting tired of carrying everyone else and being insulted at the same time, pulling John Galts and going elsewhere.

uziq wrote:

you mean, like, treating someone differently and regarding them as a different species because of their skin colour? confusing people for dog breeds?