Personal (perhaps trivial) Observation
This is something of a test entry and introduction. I have just "shelled" my Daily Kos account and plan to post here for a time.
While reading various postings on DK I have noticed how consistently "whitesplaining" gets attacked there. This makes perfect sense to me, it is a profound insult and a gross expression of white privilege for someone like me to presume to speak for the people of BLM. Speaking for others is not at all the same as speaking in support of others. Everyone at DK seems to understand this.
In 1969, in keeping with my upbringing (freethinking progressive), I registered as a Democrat. For very election thereafter I have gone to the polls ever hopeful and cast my ballot for the best candidate possible in every section. For me that meant (for the most part) I voted Democratic. For far too many elections that devolved to voting for the least of the poor choices. It has become more so over the years.
Some time ago I said, "Enough is enough" and I started registering "non-partisan". I switched back to "Democrate" a few weeks ago, for the obvious reasons. If Sanders is not nominated at the Democratic Convention I plan to write-in his name in November. I have no problem discussing this decision with anyone. I have a real problem discussing this decision with the intransigence crowd at Daily Kos. They are totally tone deaf. They do not seem to understand how anyone could possibly not like their "Chosen One". They insist that they know what is best for progressives, and they ram it down your throat if you let them. But, I won't let them, so I am here.
There seem to be know way to explained to that crowd how offensive they are because the are the possessors of the High Holy Truth and the rest be damned.
Comments
I think they overdo the "whitesplaining"
and a lot of the other Injustice Collection that's been going on there over the last few years. It gets to where any disagreement can be blasted with a "-splaining" or an "-ist" label, or both plus other harsh and insulting terms.
Let's try to keep it cool and civil here, people, okay?
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
My read is that Hillary has weaponized the isms
to the detriment of the real issues things like racism and sexism were meant to address. I just stopped making or asking any question outside of my own demographic because it was too much of a hassle to deal with the manufactured outrage.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
"Whitesplaining", "mansplaining", they overdo all of it
to the point of surreal absurdity. The use of generally accepted colloquialisms has become calls to arms in the eyes of the self-appointed vice squad over there, who engage in a verbal "police brutality" to rain down the thunder upon the head of the offending miscreant. For post upon post, yea, unto the seventh generation of any thread.
We don't do that here -- because we don't have to. We know the limits, and if something comew up, we can gently and politely point out the problem, and, since we're all highly committed to a better world where those now marginalized are not only accepted but celebrated, it works. Quite well.
And there's another reason we don't have to, perhaps the most important: Nobody here is trying to score points. It ain't no game. It's discussion on how to bring about that aforementioned better world.
So we don't bother with the threadjacking.
"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon
They overdo and over use a lot...
Accusations of 'splaining', sexism, misogyny, racism, prejudice, and hatred in general are typical.
And all of these (and more) ad hominem attacks are used and meant to shut down conversation.
-----
If you don't agree with the most anti-gun people then you're a problem as well. You get labeled a gun nut, etc. What is funny to me is how they will defend immigrants left and right all day long, yet at the same time, I am supposed to question the right of law abiding gun owners to own a weapon.
Somehow with the corruption and all of the problems in government, we're supposed to completely trust the government, law enforcement and the military when it comes to many of the anti second amendment types - yet we know the excesses and severe problems of law enforcement and we know governmental corruption has only increased, but people are supposed to believe that giving up gun rights will make us safer and when it comes to guns we're just supposed to have complete trust in government. -
Um... No.
-----
And then there are the defenders of how great the economy is supposed to be. If you do not agree with them that things are wonderful, they say you are stupid, uninformed, etc. This so-called economic recovery has been a pretty lack luster recovery for many, and we're headed into another recession sooner rather than later. They're trying to defend an economic legacy that is an illusion.
----
And the illusion of the economic legacy is why many Democrats do not want to talk about jobs, inequality, the economy, etc. Republicans are already bought and paid for. Democrats are as well but they want to sell how great things are and in trying to sell that lie to everyone, they lose everyone who isn;t doing well - of which those numbers are huge. If Democrats actually had any intention of tackling this problem, there would be no question who would win the election.
The problem being, Democrats can't even bring it up because it hurts the impression of Obama's watered down legacy and highlights another failure of his, and of Hillary is going to maintain the status quo, she needs everyone in agreement that things are fine as they are so that any small improvements make her look good.
Democrats have no intention of changing the jobs situation or of doing much which impacts how things are being handled as of right now.
It's like the Democrats are holding a gun to our heads. They have the Republicans on a chain and are telling us, we might shoot you, but these guys are going to do a lot worse to you. Who you gonna vote for huh?
The red and blue squads are on the field and they are Team Politics. And too many sports minded Americans are rooting for this squad or that one, and most of the players and the team owners laugh, because average American's don't even have a team fielded that works for and protects them, and many of those average Americans are so deluded, they think the people on one squad or the other are 'their team'.
I'm about as anti-gun as you will find.
And I freely admit it. However, I didn't get really militant until I got over to KOS, because of the militancy of the other side on the issue. Here, I feel I can soften my stance a bit because I find it highly unlikely I"ll get NRA talking points and demands that I conceded the argument before it can even be spoken.
Plus, no sides to pick. We all are on the side of making things better here, not point scoring, as has been mentioned before.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Don't want any bang-bangs, but
if other people do (for collecting, for hunting, for any logical reason, not just gun-hoarding), then I think they should 1) know how to use and care for them properly and 2) be licensed to own them.
We don't let just anybody drive cars, and they're pretty dangerous too. (Yeah I know they didn't have cars back in 1787, blah blah blah - next argument please?)
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Guns
I understand. At the other place things would quickly get out of hand. I mean, I have guns, too. Over 60 years old, haven't been fired in over 50 years, and are stored over 200 miles away. They're legacy weapons from a different time.
I relate most of the contention there to a forest fire. When you see half the forest ablaze, seems you have to burn the other half for a break.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
Their argument boils down to one thing.
Not the republicans. It's a game they play, a game this system almost forces us to play. Their candidate, Hillary Clinton, is a de facto war criminal, a hideous sociopath that doesn't belong anywhere but in an orange jumpsuit. But that doesn't matter to people like Kos and his band of merry imperialists. It's all about their delusional fears and their faith in their party.
We all have to remember it's a thin line to cross.
The problem with PC in all its various manifestations
....... is the same one as we've been discussing here. The "Injustice Collectors" jump at the slightest perceivable offenses. Do they do this because they really want to help those supposedly offended? Hell, no! They do this because it enables them to control all conversations. Were any real progress to be made against the actual injustices, the "PC Thought Police" would lose all their powers, as these derive from a never-ending ability to play the victim.
Never mind the fact that these are, oftener than not, the victimizers, as Lisa Scott's excellent article points out.
So let's agree to keep that whole barrel of fermented used kitty litter the fuck out of this place, OK?
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
As I say above, to them it's about scoring points, a game
of who can do the biggest threadjack.
Which avoids the whole point and keeps them from having to address the real hard questions they don't want to answer about war and peace, about income inequality, about class, about race, about LGBT rights, women's rights, climate change, etc. It's easier to be outraged than it is to put in the hard work about thinking about the issues that need a real remedy, discussing them, and coming up with and agreeing on a program for action.
"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon
Identity politics will be the death of us
unless we can honestly discuss and get (it) together to make things better for us all. One of these days, after the convention (b/c I want to devote my free time to Bernie now) I'll read and write (I hope) about intersectionality and Identity politics. It's a big topic but I think the democratic party has become a set of demographics which various politician do/don't appeal to. Which is why imho Bernie was thought to be 'tone deaf' about BLM, etc. B/c inherent in his philosophy and politics was that everyone was included, so he didn't / doesn't pander to shift his approach based on his audience. If someone was suffering, no matter why, it was his (our) problem. That is not to say that the solution is one dimensional, it's not. And we have to address it all.
It matters how we prioritize things and what is perceived as important. And e.g. unless we can thread that needle and address the concerns of blue collar whites in rural anywhere simultaneously with the concerns of urban POC we are in a heap of doo doo.
Don't believe everything you think.
Some of it comes from an inabilty to do any critical analysis,
which has to do with the manipulation of the educational system by the 1% that has led to 'teaching to the test', and the popularity of home schooling, where students parrot back the established POV, for which the are rewarded with passing grades and acceptance into the system. They are carefully taught to fall in line, so when these ideas that have been instilled in them from an early age are questioned they become seriously defensive. Its really hard for some folks to accept the idea that American is not so 'exceptional', in fact, more and more often we are the bad guys. Remember the questions after 9/11 about why they hate us? It seemed pretty clear to some of us that it had a lot to do with our interventionist policies whose goals have nothing to do with peace on earth but everything to do with trying to suck up all the natural resources on this earth for the enjoyment of the most powerful among us, but hey, we're the bestest most humanitarian folks on the planet.
We don't just need free public colleges and universities we need a serious shake-up of an education system that has been shaped to dumb down the population and to date has been quite successful at it.