General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 207

Barack, Michelle, Warren, Booker, and Sanders all have prime speaking slots. All are very anti-mass incarceration, especially compared to the older guard of the party.

 

Perhaps activists, like Deeray. I don't care for him or his politics, but they all seem so institutional, aside from Sanders.

 

I think to some extent yeah

 

You're not wrong but given that this is the heart of the institution, it's hardly surprising.

 

I agree. I guess I was just trying to articulate the critique Tk was putting forth.

 

I mean, they're gonna have the moms of a lot of police victims, some parents of victims from some mass shootings, etc.

 

This whole thread is great

 

just came here to post an article feat. that thread You’re Not Voting For Hillary To Protect Me

 

Any time I hear Dunham speak about anything that isn't to do with her own creative projects, I cringe. She's terrible. Of all the prominent liberal celebrities who sustain horribly misogynistic bashing from conservatives, she is one that I'm hardly ever inclined to defend.

Also, I'd be hesitant to imply that any of Dunham's concepts of feminism relate any kind of class dialogue. To say it's middle-class feminism would be still too much credit.

I like her takes:

On The Superficial Defense Of Hillary Clinton – roqayah
Rejecting Bourgeois Feminism – roqayah

 

Boston being horrible re: homelessness part ten trillion

 

While I get, and understand, and agree with, the crux of that article ... that's some really flawed poll reading and analysis.

 

Quoted for truth.

 

oh absolutely, but that wasn't really integral to the rest of it anyway.

 

Agreed.

 

Sorry but that's a total false equivalency. There's a stark difference between not supporting unions, and demonizing them as the problem. There's a stark difference between, at the minimum, paying lip service to mass incarceration reform and police reform, and saying the former problem is part of "their culture" and pretending the latter problem doesn't exist. There's a stark difference between wanting to invite 100,000 Syrian refugees into the country, and banning them altogether because they are brown and demonizing them as the enemy waiting to slip into our beds and slit our throats (or take our jobs, depending on which brown people we're talking about). There's a difference between supporting 'accountability' in teaching, and talking about teachers as leaches who get paid too much and don't deserve the benefits they receive.



But, yeah whatever. They're the same and both should be feared equally.

 

No one is drawing an equivalence. They're simply saying, do not use them as the rationale to vote for someone who is complicit in the day to day trauma they experience. Do it for yourself.

 

No, that tweet is most definitely drawing an equivalence. It makes no sense in any other context, it's a "they're just as bad/the same" argument. They most certainly are not.

 

"I'm voting for Hillary to protect marginalized people"

Marginalized person: "actually, don't use my existence as an excuse for your refusal to commit to principals, and also please don't invoke my existence to justify empowering someone who has a history of being bad to me and will continue to be bad to other marginalized groups."

"Stop drawing a false equivalence, marginalized person! Can't you see I know what's in your best interest?!"

 

I don't need to know what is "in someone's best interest" to know their argument of false equivalencies is extremely flawed. We're creeping into RNC territory here where what people "feel" is overriding reality. The reality is Hillary Clinton is not and will not be worse for brown, gay, union-belonging teachers living/teaching in the hood than the GOP in its current incarnation.

That being said, if we're going off op-eds from marginalized peoples on what (white) people should and shouldn't be doing in the cause of helping marginalized peoples this election, there are plenty from those same marginalized peoples condemning the "bernie or bust" crowd as taking the road of privilege that their people don't have the luxury of taking.

But I see we can pick and choose which marginalized peoples we listen to and opinion's we accept. Funny that those seem to match up with our own opinions, more or less.

 

No one has said Hillary and trump are equally bad ya dink, this is an imaginary argument that you made up

 

Umm...

Yeah, I'd say there are people saying it. Unless your position is people can say those things without the passive aggressive insinuation that they're equally as bad. Which makes no sense.

 

If I could think of any main theme this election cycle it's that everyone's an asshole