Calling it "Politically Motivated"

[Jersey Girl]

“When the rich rob the poor, it's called business. When the poor fight back, it's called violence" -Mark Twain

Stunning!

[Kishkumen]

Here is where I disagree with you. I don't agree that the "inclusion" part is a rhetorical mistake. It is as important, in my opinion, as the rest of it. The irritation and revulsion over the very idea of inclusion is, in my opinion, essentially the very definition of bigotry; one of the things we need to combat!

Love you, Gunnar, but do you see what you did there? You insist on inclusion because 1) it is just right, and 2) those who disagree because they have a problem with it are bigots.

I submit to you that the job of politics is not moral reformation but to do good for as many people as possible. That will include the morally offensive folks. And here’s the thing: it takes votes to win. You can win and do good, or you can insist on moral purity and lose.

The Democrats have insisted on moral purity, and this has been a very expensive kind of stubbornness.

I say Democrats give a little on their righteousness and do good. They can still achieve a lot of what they believe is good and right without being insufferable scolds, insisting on shoving their clever, morally superior messaging down everyone’s throats.

[Gadianton]

I do think Democrats need to be inclusive without talking about inclusion. That may be a temporary tactic, but an important one. Considering those being included drifted towards Trump, I think we can stop telling them anything like that. Nobody thinks it's cool to talk about inclusion except for HR. The Democrats are seen as one big lame HR department while Trump is seen as the CEO making the hard calls that make the company money. (That's the face of it, not the reality of it)

I think if Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are dropping culture war language (I have no idea) and just focusing on core problems of inequality, then good for them.

It's worth pointing out that though unhinged right-wingers bloody their knuckles against progressivism and DEI and "inclusion", the number one gripe, and it may be the only gripe fought for by right-wingers on this forum, is that the "progressives" -- usually folks who aren't actually progressives -- earn their titles by not being inclusive enough. By not including unhinged right-wingers like them in our supposed little club. The biggest sin of non-Trump voters on this forum is that we don't coddle Trump voters, according to Trump voters. This is even true of Hound, who literally has nothing else to say other than to accuse us of being progressives for either a) not voting for Trump b) not being inclusive of Trump voters or c) not embracing far-right propaganda. (this holds for every right-winger on this forum ever except for Markk and msnobody). Hound's primary concern is that Democrats go back to becoming the "big tent" party -- the party of inclusion -- and thereby abandoning inclusion as their ideology.

So rest assured, DEI and inclusion are alive and well in the hearts of most of those who wage the culture war against it, and terminology celebrating diversity and inclusion may one day again be possible, but it isn't likely possible for now.

[Gunnar]

Here is where I disagree with you. I don't agree that the "inclusion" part is a rhetorical mistake. It is as important, in my opinion, as the rest of it. The irritation and revulsion over the very idea of inclusion is, in my opinion, essentially the very definition of bigotry; one of the things we need to combat!

Love you, Gunnar, but do you see what you did there? You insist on inclusion because 1) it is just right, and 2) those who disagree because they have a problem with it are bigots.

I submit to you that the job of politics is not moral reformation but to do good for as many people as possible. That will include the morally offensive folks. And here’s the thing: it takes votes to win. You can win and do good, or you can insist on moral purity and lose.

The Democrats have insisted on moral purity, and this has been a very expensive kind of stubbornness.

I say Democrats give a little on their righteousness and do good. They can still achieve a lot of what they believe is good and right without being insufferable scolds, insisting on shoving their clever, morally superior messaging down everyone’s throats.

I don't think you fully understand what I am getting at. I acknowledge that it can be useful and even necessary to work with and even befriend others with whom one shares some goals and ideals, despite them still harboring some bigoted ideas. But isn't this also "inclusion?" I think it is possible to avoid becoming an "insufferable scold" without having to pretend to approve of someone else's bigotry. I think becoming an "insufferable scold" is actually antithetical to inclusion, especially if it prevents being able to cooperate for some shared, worthwhile goal.

And I still advocate inclusion because "1) it is just right, and 2) those who disagree because they have a problem with it are bigots (or, at least, have some tendency towards bigotry, whether they realize it or not).

[huckelberry]

Here is where I disagree with you. I don't agree that the "inclusion" part is a rhetorical mistake. It is as important, in my opinion, as the rest of it. The irritation and revulsion over the very idea of inclusion is, in my opinion, essentially the very definition of bigotry; one of the things we need to combat!

Love you, Gunnar, but do you see what you did there? You insist on inclusion because 1) it is just right, and 2) those who disagree because they have a problem with it are bigots.

I submit to you that the job of politics is not moral reformation but to do good for as many people as possible. That will include the morally offensive folks. And here’s the thing: it takes votes to win. You can win and do good, or you can insist on moral purity and lose.

The Democrats have insisted on moral purity, and this has been a very expensive kind of stubbornness.

I say Democrats give a little on their righteousness and do good. They can still achieve a lot of what they believe is good and right without being insufferable scolds, insisting on shoving their clever, morally superior messaging down everyone’s throats.

I think Kiskumen's point is important. It is very easy to say fight bigotry. It is much less easy to do so with any success
It appears that calling folks bigots has little success even when said loudly

Perhaps patience and example fights
Gunnar, I see your observations as valuable, my little observation here does not change that .

[Gunnar]

I think Kiskumen's point is important. It is very easy to say fight bigotry. It is much less easy to do so with any success
It appears that calling folks bigots has little success even when said loudly

Perhaps patience and example fights
Gunnar, I see your observations as valuable, my little observation here does not change that .

Yes, I see wisdom in what you said. What makes bigotry so difficult to get rid of is that bigots are generally the last people to recognize and acknowledge their own bigotry. But we can acknowledge the evils of bigotry without aggressively and loudly accusing individuals of being bigots. A patient and friendly approach is more likely to help than angry accusations. I can acknowledge that. But I have no patience for outright hateful and cruel bigotry.

[Kishkumen]

I don't think you fully understand what I am getting at. I acknowledge that it can be useful and even necessary to work with and even befriend others with whom one shares some goals and ideals, despite them still harboring some bigoted ideas. But isn't this also "inclusion?" I think it is possible to avoid becoming an "insufferable scold" without having to pretend to approve of someone else's bigotry. I think becoming an "insufferable scold" is actually antithetical to inclusion, especially if it prevents being able to cooperate for some shared, worthwhile goal.

And I still advocate inclusion because "1) it is just right, and 2) those who disagree because they have a problem with it are bigots (or, at least, have some tendency towards bigotry, whether they realize it or not).

I am not going to argue about whether you should personally live your values. I will argue that Progressive ideology and buzzwords are a PR disaster and should be avoided like the plague when trying to build a coalition to overthrow MAGA authoritarianism. The principal aim needs to be defeating authoritarianism, which will take a very broad coalition.

[Kishkumen]

I do think Democrats need to be inclusive without talking about inclusion. That may be a temporary tactic, but an important one. Considering those being included drifted towards Trump, I think we can stop telling them anything like that. Nobody thinks it's cool to talk about inclusion except for HR. The Democrats are seen as one big lame HR department while Trump is seen as the CEO making the hard calls that make the company money. (That's the face of it, not the reality of it)

I think if Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are dropping culture war language (I have no idea) and just focusing on core problems of inequality, then good for them.

It's worth pointing out that though unhinged right-wingers bloody their knuckles against progressivism and DEI and "inclusion", the number one gripe, and it may be the only gripe fought for by right-wingers on this forum, is that the "progressives" -- usually folks who aren't actually progressives -- earn their titles by not being inclusive enough. By not including unhinged right-wingers like them in our supposed little club. The biggest sin of non-Trump voters on this forum is that we don't coddle Trump voters, according to Trump voters. This is even true of Hound, who literally has nothing else to say other than to accuse us of being progressives for either a) not voting for Trump b) not being inclusive of Trump voters or c) not embracing far-right propaganda. (this holds for every right-winger on this forum ever except for Markk and msnobody). Hound's primary concern is that Democrats go back to becoming the "big tent" party -- the party of inclusion -- and thereby abandoning inclusion as their ideology.

So rest assured, DEI and inclusion are alive and well in the hearts of most of those who wage the culture war against it, and terminology celebrating diversity and inclusion may one day again be possible, but it isn't likely possible for now.

Yes, being tolerant of intolerance leads to disaster. I shed no tears for our resident Trumpers’ tender feewings being hurt because we don’t have much room for their authoritarianism, bigotry, ignorance. But the SJWs are intolerant in their own way. They are ready to jump on people who don’t follow the latest fads in cutting-edge sensitive language, which sometimes amounts to jargon almost no one has ever heard of until MSNBC starts to sprinkle it in.

I used to try to keep up with it all, but it got absurd. But, here’s the thing, nine times out of ten I don’t need to know the last precious jargon, or statement, or pronoun. in real life, I just treat people with dignity and respect, regardless of who they are. I use names instead of pronouns. Problem solved.

We really don’t need to involve ourselves in the private lives of others. Keep a polite distance, don’t over share, and let people be who they present themselves as. I don’t want to know your politics, religion, personal sex life, etc. You can have a mustache and ask me to call you Mary, and I’ll happily comply. I don’t need to know why.

Life is not reality TV. Let’s return to the decorum and protocol that allowed us to get through the day with less drama. I am not saying the past was better because it wasn’t. But a polite distance would be a good thing. You don’t meddle in my life, and I don’t meddle in yours. I don’t need to tell you how to live your life. What you should believe or not. What you do in your private life.

Let’s stop advertising for this or that every time we step out of the house and drive to the store. No one needs to know. Certainly not strangers. Save your effs for people who matter.

I just blocked some anti-vaxxers on Facebook. How soothing it was not to have to look at the deadly stupidity of our times. Get vaxxed, and don’t waste your personal energy and precious time on mind-effed people.

[Gunnar]

I am not going to argue about whether you should personally live your values. I will argue that Progressive ideology and buzzwords are a PR disaster and should be avoided like the plague when trying to build a coalition to overthrow MAGA authoritarianism. The principal aim needs to be defeating authoritarianism, which will take a very broad coalition.

What are these progressive, so called "buzzwords" that you think are a PR disaster?

Isn't defeating authoritarianism itself a progressive ideal? Do you disagree with that, or just disagree with calling it that to avoid irrationally negative PR connotations?

As I see it, establishing the needed broad coalition to defeat authoritarianism is itself a progressive action. And to be a truly broad coalition necessarily implies diversity, equity and even (dare I say it?) inclusion, which only makes Trump all the more terrified of it.

As the highly qualified classics professor and historian I have come to love and respect, I'm sure you highly approve of continuing education and funding of basic scientific research, which is one of the biggest reasons our country has become one of, if not the most, scientifically and technologically advanced nations on earth. What can be more progressive than that?

Making it easier for all eligible voters to vote while also repealing legislation designed to suppress voting by minorities or anyone else not likely to vote Republican is yet another progressive idea, in my opinion. Do you disagree with that or disapprove of it?

Guaranteeing the right of freedom of speech, including the right to fact check and expose outright lies is another progressive idea, in my opinion. I know you approve of that.

Preserving and funding the social security system, including Medicare and Medicaid, and along with it, ACA is also a progressive benefit. Isn't it?

Yet another progressive idea that has widespread approval is universal healthcare, which is enjoyed by every advanced country, at as much as half the cost per person than what we pay. What is wrong with that idea?

Authorizing the government to negotiate drug prices, so we no longer have to pay as much as 10 times the cost of life saving medicines as other nations do, is yet another good, progressive idea. Do you object to that?

Of how about granting women the freedom to make decisions over their own reproductive healthcare, including abortion?

Not granting the wealthiest of the wealthy trillion-dollar tax breaks they neither need nor deserve at the expense of least economically advantaged of us is yet another worthwhile progressive idea.

Then there is the progressive idea of finding ways to reduce the poverty rates and homelessness rates.

Which of the above do you not agree are progressive, or disapprove of?

Or how about the progressive idea of amending the constitution to end the archaic Electoral College system of electing Presidents?

I don't think any of the progressive ideas listed above are inherently evil or irrational.

And I'm pretty sure that a majority of voters would approve of most, if not all, of them.

[Jersey Girl]

I noticed Gad mention Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I did a thread below "Where are our leading lights?" ~ Jersey Girl, that has a link to their Denver rally. Take a look. They're employing the same messaging at every rally. I don't see it as promoting a culture war at all but I may misunderstand the term.

Bye now.