***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[IATT]

This is nonsensical. Cracker is a derogatory term. Brave is not.

native Americans were massacred and stolen from

then they were portrayed as the bad guys for entertainment purposes across multiple mediums

then they were used as names and imagery for your lil sports teams

imagine if a German soccer team decided it wanted to be named “the Jews“

and I never heard of a “black cracker” until the Atlanta baseball team

 

[dwalk31]

native Americans were massacred and stolen from

then they were portrayed as the bad guys for entertainment purposes across multiple mediums

then they were used as names and imagery for your lil sports teams

imagine if a German soccer team decided it wanted to be named “the Jews“

and I never heard of a “black cracker” until the Atlanta baseball team

None of this has anything to do with the term Brave.

There has certainly been racist Native American imagery in sports. The Braves had some in the past as well and it was removed.

As is often the case, it seems you don’t really understand the debate.

 

[IATT]

None of this has anything to do with the term Brave.

There has certainly been racist Native American imagery in sports. The Braves had some in the past as well and it was removed.

As is often the case, it seems you don’t really understand the debate.

how long would this name and logo last?

 

[IATT]

Cracker is a derogatory term.

 

[dwalk31]

You don’t have any idea what you’re debating. As usual.

 

[IATT]

You don’t have any idea what you’re debating. As usual.

European colonizers killed so many indigenous Americans that the planet cooled down, a group of researchers concluded

The diseases brought to North America by Columbus and other colonizers killed 90% of indigenous populations, sparking a global cooling.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[1995]

This is nonsensical. Cracker is a derogatory term. Brave is not.

Learning Respect

OFFENSIVE WORDS Words that should never be used Sometimes words have more than one meaning. A word itself, out of the context in which it is used, may or may not be offensive. For example the word...

www.nativecircle.com

"This is a word that has been used to refer to First Nations men. Used in thousands of books, and as a name for many sports teams, people are often surprised to find that it is a derogatory term. Here's why: It plays on the 'noble courageous savage' stereotype that was pinned on Indigenous men long ago by early Europeans. Unfortunately, those stereotypes still exist today. It also dehumanizes and equates the Native American male to something less than a man. Comparative example: calling an African American man 'boy'."

 

[dwalk31]

Learning Respect

OFFENSIVE WORDS Words that should never be used Sometimes words have more than one meaning. A word itself, out of the context in which it is used, may or may not be offensive. For example the word...

www.nativecircle.com

"This is a word that has been used to refer to First Nations men. Used in thousands of books, and as a name for many sports teams, people are often surprised to find that it is a derogatory term. Here's why: It plays on the 'noble courageous savage' stereotype that was pinned on Indigenous men long ago by early Europeans. Unfortunately, those stereotypes still exist today. It also dehumanizes and equates the Native American male to something less than a man. Comparative example: calling an African American man 'boy'."

Thank you for the link. It has provided a useful perspective.

 

[IATT]

Thank you for the link. It has provided a useful perspective.

I am comfortable saying #ChopOn

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

Joe Manchin is such a clown

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

Admit you are a bad parent to chide the libs.

 

[-Red-]

The Democratic Party's third-way gang deserves criticism for how their politics have hurt workers and help accelerate the party losing the support of certain workers.

But

We need to stop making excuses for people that vote GOP for cultural reasons then by just placing blame on the Democratic party for not being pro-worker enough.

It is not that hard to tell that there is a massive difference in the party position regarding unions. It should not be hard to tell the GOP doesn't support them.

Over the last half century, the Democratic Party undermined its own capacity to win elections by increasingly promoting the interests of capital at the expense of workers and allowing unions to crumble—and, often enough, helping to undermine them directly and indirectly. This goes back in some ways all the way to Taft-Hartley in 1947, the turn to tax cuts as an economic stimulus under Kennedy, and the refusal to promote public works under LBJ. More directly, Carter's abandonment of labor reforms and his appointment of Paul Volcker as chair of the Federal Reserve in 1979, the litany of labor-hostile policies under Clinton, Obama's betrayal on national card check, the ACA's "Cadillac tax," promotion of TPP, etc. have played a more recent role in the dynamics of labor and electoral politics.

So union membership has plummeted, unions have weakened dramatically, Democrats have been largely negligent and even antagonistic, and workers on the bottom half of the economic distribution have seen their standard of living deteriorate for a half century. How can one look at this history and conclude that it's just racism, cultural issues, etc.? Doesn't all of this seem like an important context in which those issues emerge as alternatives to class-based politics that the Democratic Party increasingly abandoned?

I don't interpret this as making excuses for anyone, but trying to understand how these dynamics have emerged and play out. Same thing for whatever else. Most of my work has been in unpacking the dynamics that shape urban gun violence. That doesn't excuse folks out here killing one another, but it is an attempt to understand it and to use that deeper understanding as a basis for a different kind of politics and intervention. "These folks are just committed to racism, there's nothing we can do" and "these folks are just committed to criminality and violence, there's nothing we can do" are both reductionist and problematic.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Over the last half century, the Democratic Party undermined its own capacity to win elections by increasingly promoting the interests of capital at the expense of workers and allowing unions to crumble—and, often enough, helping to undermine them directly and indirectly. This goes back in some ways all the way to Taft-Hartley in 1947, the turn to tax cuts as an economic stimulus under Kennedy, and the refusal to promote public works under LBJ. More directly, Carter's abandonment of labor reforms and his appointment of Paul Volcker as chair of the Federal Reserve in 1979, the litany of labor-hostile policies under Clinton, Obama's betrayal on national card check, the ACA's "Cadillac tax," promotion of TPP, etc. have played a more recent role in the dynamics of labor and electoral politics.

So union membership has plummeted, unions have weakened dramatically, Democrats have been largely negligent and even antagonistic, and workers on the bottom half of the economic distribution have seen their standard of living deteriorate for a half century. How can one look at this history and conclude that it's just racism, cultural issues, etc.? Doesn't all of this seem like an important context in which those issues emerge as alternatives to class-based politics that the Democratic Party increasingly abandoned?

I don't interpret this as making excuses for anyone, but trying to understand how these dynamics have emerged and play out. Same thing for whatever else. Most of my work has been in unpacking the dynamics that shape urban gun violence. That doesn't excuse folks out here killing one another, but it is an attempt to understand it and to use that deeper understanding as a basis for a different kind of politics and intervention. "These folks are just committed to racism, there's nothing we can do" and "these folks are just committed to criminality and violence, there's nothing we can do" are both reductionist and problematic.

Sorry I simply don't agree with your take on things. I think it is a convenient leftist story of politics that lets white people off the hook for choosing to indulge in racism

Talking strictly on political strategy, I think Dems undermining unions was stupid and screwed themselves because it took away was how they could appeal to white people with racist views. Which was a large chunk of their party. The Democratic Party in a way underestimated how racist a faction of their coalition was. From a political standpoint, they should have not done certain things, and they are paying the price for that because the electoral system is rigged against them.

So now we have people with a massive amount of unearned political power, and there is no easy fix on how to flip them.

This whole time we track the Dems being hostile to labor, the GOP was even worse. Labor unions were still friendlier to the Democratic Party over the GOP too. Yet we saw white people actively turning toward the GOP's white nationalist politics.

Black people didn't do this,. I have sympathy for these people for the economic harm they have experienced, but excuse me if I lack sympathy over how they have chosen to respond to it.

 

[gry60]

Democrats have been largely negligent and even antagonistic, and workers on the bottom half of the economic distribution have seen their standard of living deteriorate for a half century.

It all starts with the Democratic party leadership providing a refuge to exiled fiscal conservatives for whom the racial politics of the GOP are too caustic. To thank the Democratic base for giving their political career a second wind, the GOP exiles are all to happy to help the GOP's economic agenda from across the aisle.

That's why I am adamant about the Democratic party closing the door on the Manchins and Sinemas if the party platform truly is about protecting workers. Fiscal conservatives have no incentive to change the GOP if they know they can run to the big tent, and Democrats cannot represent labor and capital at the same time.

The sooner they realize it, the sooner the GOP will be forced to change to absorb the centrists. It is likely to cost Democrats elections in the short term, but it's a better alternative than winning elections and suffer obstruction within your ranks every time you get to control the legislative/executive agenda.

 

[RustyShackleford]

It all starts with the Democratic party leadership providing a refuge to exiled fiscal conservatives for whom the racial politics of the GOP are too caustic. To thank the Democratic base for giving their political career a second wind, the GOP exiles are all to happy to help the GOP's economic agenda from across the aisle.

That's why I am adamant about the Democratic party closing the door on the Manchins and Sinemas if the party platform truly is about protecting workers. Fiscal conservatives have no incentive to change the GOP if they know they can run to the big tent, and Democrats cannot represent labor and capital at the same time.

The sooner they realize it, the sooner the GOP will be forced to change to absorb the centrists. It is likely to cost Democrats elections in the short term, but it's a better alternative than winning elections and suffer obstruction within your ranks every time you get to control the legislative/executive agenda.

I think this is a terrible plan

 

[-Red-]

Sorry I simply don't agree with your take on things. I think it is a convenient leftist story of politics that lets white people off the hook for choosing to indulge in racism

Talking strictly on political strategy, I think Dems undermining unions was stupid and screwed themselves because it took away was how they could appeal to white people with racist views. Which was a large chunk of their party. The Democratic Party in a way underestimated how racist a faction of their coalition was. From a political standpoint, they should have not done certain things, and they are paying the price for that because the electoral system is rigged against them.

So now we have people with a massive amount of unearned political power, and there is no easy fix on how to flip them.

This whole time we track the Dems being hostile to labor, the GOP was even worse. Labor unions were still friendlier to the Democratic Party over the GOP too. Yet we saw white people actively turning toward the GOP's white nationalist politics.

Black people didn't do this, so excuse me if I lack sympathy.

The implied assumption here is that people's racial views, their understanding of their economic and political interests, and whatever else are static and unaffected by changes in the world around them and in their actual lives. I completely disagree with that.

How do you think one combats racist views? Labor organizing is probably the single best strategy for doing so. Democrats allowing unions to flounder was not only suicidal electorally, it was anathema to promoting racial egalitarianism—ideologically, economically, and politically.

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

 

[-Red-]

It all starts with the Democratic party leadership providing a refuge to exiled fiscal conservatives for whom the racial politics of the GOP are too caustic. To thank the Democratic base for giving their political career a second wind, the GOP exiles are all to happy to help the GOP's economic agenda from across the aisle.

That's why I am adamant about the Democratic party closing the door on the Manchins and Sinemas if the party platform truly is about protecting workers. Fiscal conservatives have no incentive to change the GOP if they know they can run to the big tent, and Democrats cannot represent labor and capital at the same time.

The sooner they realize it, the sooner the GOP will be forced to change to absorb the centrists. It is likely to cost Democrats elections in the short term, but it's a better alternative than winning elections and suffer obstruction within your ranks every time you get to control the legislative/executive agenda.

The Democratic Party is going to have to decide if it's going to be a party for working people, and not for capital; a party for social democracy, and not for neoliberalism.

 

[RustyShackleford]

The implied assumption here is that people's racial views, their understanding of their economic and political interests, and whatever else are static and unaffected by changes in the world around them and in their actual lives. I completely disagree with that.

How do you think one combats racist views? Labor organizing is probably the single best strategy for doing so. Democrats allowing unions to flounder was not only suicidal electorally, it was anathema to promoting racial egalitarianism—ideologically, economically, and politically.

I don't think I came close to saying that, but whatever.

I think people can change, many white people over that time have changed and abandoned conservative politics, or their children have.

So I am not gonna make excuses for the ones that went the opposite way.

Also, I get these people are targets of a multi-billion dollar propaganda campaign. Stretching from their churches to their televisions. So yeah, it is not static, some people have gotten relatively worse.

Yes, more union would help, but that just exposes the fact that there are a massive number of white people with regressive views that will readily indulge in said racism unless they can be talked off the ledge. Unions help save a portion of them but many more would probably still indulge in their cultural politics first.

Also let us not forget, through the decade's many white people voted against their own economic interest to indulge in racist politics.

The Democratic Party didn't lose coal mining in Appalachia and Montana because they undermine unions. Their jobs didn't get shipped overseas, the market just ravaged their industries. The Dems did the right thing in embracing climate politics. The little these people have is protected by liberals. Yet only Dems they are willing to elect is an ******* like Joe Manchin.

The Democrats right now have the numbers that would lock them into power for the next few decades if our electoral system was representative.

I'm not gonna act like I have all the answers to solve this problem. The only thing I can think of, centrists in Congress are unwilling to do. Which is to strip these people of some of their unearned political power. They are blocking what I think is the second key is passing most of the party platform without ****ty compromises.

However, I am not gonna fool myself into thinking unions are the panacea to the Dems problem with certain groups of white people.

The reality of the situation IMO is the Dems have built a coalition that would lead to massive electoral success under a different system or time period. But, not this one. Politically, the Dems have been more competent than leftist pundits give them credit for IMO.

Education polarization among White Americans are the most important political trend that has been happening for nearly three decades. Dems losing non-college-educated white but gaining with college-educated. The issue is that their losses are happening too quickly for their gains to pay off politically. Having higher union membership would probably slow their losses with non-college-educated. So they are paying the price for any move they made not to have membership not be the highest it can be (I don't agree with some of the mistakes you listed though).

 

[RustyShackleford]

The Democratic Party is going to have to decide if it's going to be a party for working people, and not for capital; a party for social democracy, and not for neoliberalism.

They already made this choice

The problem is that they don't have the numbers to enact their social democracy platform.

If Biden have FDR's numbers in Congress or LBJ's, maybe they could.

But the margins Biden has can't get it done given the political conditions we are in

 

[IATT]

 

[-Red-]

I don't think I came close to saying that, but whatever.

I think people can change, many white people over that time have changed and abandoned conservative politics.

So I am not gonna make excuses for the ones that went the opposite way.

Also, these people are targets of a multi-billion dollar propaganda campaign. Stretching from their churches to their televisions.

Yes, more union would help, but that just exposes the fact that there are a massive number of white people with regressive views that will readily indulge in said racism unless they can be talked off the ledge. Yes, unions help save a portion of them but many more would probably still indulge in their cultural politics first.

Also let us not forget, through the decade's many white people voted against their own economic interest to indulge in racist politics.

The Democratic Party didn't lose coal mining in Appalachia and Montana because they undermine unions. Their jobs didn't get shipped overseas, the market just ravaged their industries. The Dems did the right thing in embracing climate politics. The little these people have is protected by liberals. Yet only Dems they are willing to elect is an ******* like Joe Manchin.

The Democrats right now have the numbers that would lock them into power for the next few decades if our electoral system was representative.

I'm not gonna act like I have the answers to solve this problem. The only thing I can think of, centrists in Congress are unwilling to do. However, I am not gonna fool myself into thinking unions are the panacea to the Dems problem with certain groups of white people.

The reality of the situation IMO is the Dems have built a coalition that would lead to massive electoral success under a different system or time period. But, not this one. Politically, the Dems have been more competent than leftist pundits give them credit for IMO.

Education polarization among White Americans are the most important political trend that has been happening for nearly three deacdes. Dems losing non-college-educated white but gaining with college-educated. The issue is that their losses are happening too quickly for their gains to pay off politically. Having higher union membership would probably slow their losses with non-college-educated. So they are paying the price for any move they made not to have membership not be the highest it can be (I don't agree with some of the mistakes you listed though).

Your message that history and context don't matter and that all these white folks are just committed to racism regardless of anything else seems to be saying exactly that. Am I off-base?

"Many black people have adapted to evolving social and economic realities and have achieved great success, so I'm not gonna make excuses for the ones that went the opposite way." This is clearly reactionary garbage. But so is the idea that white people are ontologically committed to racism. The way that conservatives talk about poor black folks is mirrored today in the way that liberals talk about poor whites—in both cases, these groups are painted as ignorant, pathological, and the cause of their own ruin. And in both cases, this assessment would be wrong. These are two sides of the same race reductionist coin.

A huge part of the Democratic Party losing Appalachia and Montana has been due to the decline in unions and the Democrats abiding, where not facilitating, this. I would absolutely say that's the number one reason.

 

[mplsdunk]

Don’t forget Jimmy carter deregulating the trucking industry causing a race to the bottom overnight. Union shops closed up in an industry that used to be 50% union.

wages dropped for 40k in the 80s and 90s to 23k average.

obviously hauling stuff for the cheapest price possible is going to screw over the workers.