61 replies to this topic

[LFC]

Most of this is behind a paywall (may be available in the next few days) but the title alone makes me think I'll be agreeing with most/all of it.

Quote

A Fuck You to the White Liberals Who Cleared the Runway for Trump’s White Supremacist Suicide Mission

In the midst of all this, I can’t help but recall that just four years ago, those of us who were panicked and petrified about the lethality of the Trump presidency were being dismissed as hysterics. A chorus of white New York Times milquetoast-liberal opinion writers suggested we “stop shaming Trump supporters”; announced that hysteria, not Trump, was the real threat to democracy; and advised us to suspend all rational disbelief and give “President-elect Trump a chance.”

Political writers including Will Marshall, John B. Judis and Mark Lilla, among many others, actually used the moment to chastise progressives with the taunt that identity politics “never wins elections”—as if white male identity hasn’t always been the centerpiece of American politics, and hadn’t won the damn presidency just days before. Everyone from Tom Hanks to Dave Chapelle to outgoing President Barack Obama proposed that we just take it down a thousand, wait and see, everything would be probably fine.

As it turns out, those of us predicting the absolute worst—just based on, you know, observable reality—were right. Donald Trump has been a cruel, crude, unethical conman of a president whose ineptitude, narcissism and incapacity for empathy continually endangers countless lives. His administration has fatally harmed immigrant kids and families, been careless in foreign conflicts, and worsened racist violence. It was always clear that Trump was going to get a lot of people killed. As coronavirus ravages the country and racks up a body count, remembering the gaslighting from naysayers proffering condescension or dumb optimism is all the more enraging. Trumpism is the white supremacist capitalist kamikaze mission we warned you about.

[Bact PhD]

Evidently some quarters want to define "whiteness" with "distinctive characteristics," and the crowd at The Bulwark is having none of it. (bold mine)

Quote

[This infographic] tells us that the distinctive characteristics of “whiteness” and “white culture” include:

• Hard work
  
• “Delayed gratification”

[snip]

And by implication, it’s telling us that black people are not characterized by any of these traits.

When I saw this graphic it gave me an immediate, creepy feeling of déjà vu. Specifically, it brought me back to that period in late 2015 and early 2016 when all of the white nationalists and “alt-right” types migrated out of the comments sections at Stormfront and descended upon Twitter.
Do you remember what those people kept insisting? Exactly what the National Museum of African American History and Culture is telling us: That all of these desirable characteristics are distinctive and unique to the white race.

I know way too many white people for whom "delayed gratification" is a foreign concept (who runs up all that consumer debt??) to call the entire infographic rubbish up front.

[LFC]

 Bact PhD, on 27 July 2020 - 02:49 PM, said:

Evidently some quarters want to define "whiteness" with "distinctive characteristics," ...

I really miss the the lessons about how everybody was the same we were given when I was growing up. Not "these are this and those are that so behave accordingly", just straight up respect for everybody.

[Bact PhD]

 LFC, on 27 July 2020 - 04:10 PM, said:

I really miss the the lessons about how everybody was the same we were given when I was growing up. Not "these are this and those are that so behave accordingly", just straight up respect for everybody.

There was a definite shift between that mantra of a prior era and where we are now.

Recently, we were watching the classic movie “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” the last of the Tracy-Hepburn collaborations. In the scene where John (Sidney Poitier) is arguing with his father over his upcoming marriage, he says to his father, “You see yourself as ‘a colored man’. I see myself as ‘a man.’”

Was John aspirational, or merely naive?

[LFC]

WTF is WRONG with this person? A white woman answered a question in a college level discussion about when they were first called the n-word. She talked about how she was called that because she has big lips, an example of racial stereotyping that sounds incredibly pertinent to the discussion. It reflects bigly on the racist who said it. Instead the questioner, an NYU doctoral student, threw a self-righteous hissy fit or, as I like to call it, a Sharpton. This is how you drive people away from your cause. All that education and he's still dumb as a f***in stump.

Quote

A white Wisconsin candidate is being accused of achieving previously unimagined levels of "Karenhood" by barging into a discussion about being called the N-word.

State superintendent candidate Deborah Kerr deleted her Twitter account and apologized after sharing her own experience in response to a tweet by a New York University doctoral student who had asked followers to recall the first time they had been called the notorious racial slur, reported the Wisconsin State Journal.

"I was 16 in high school and white," Kerr tweeted, "my lips were bigger than most and that was the reference given to me."

Madison Payton, the student and Race Through Education podcaster, said he was "livid" after reading Kerr's response, and the Democratic candidate drew the pejorative term for white female entitlement from other social media users.

"As someone who has been bullied relentlessly and called a monkey and a (N-word) for having big lips — this is just not the level of Karen I wanted to see the day after your primary win," tweeted Nada Elmikashfi, chief of staff to state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison).

Kerr, a former Brown Deer School District superintendent, stepped into the firestorm hours after finishing second in a seven-person primary for the statewide position, advancing to an April 6 election against Pecatonica School District Superintendent Jill Underly.

"I do not shy away from conversations about race," Kerr said in a statement. "In fact, I am very vocal about racism as it exists in its many forms and I intentionally point to it when I see it. I apologize for having posted something that was intended to be a part of the discussion of racism. I will continue to serve as a champion against racism in our schools and in our communities."

Payton is suspicious of Kerr, who says she's a Democrat who voted for Joe Biden but is widely backed by Republican Party chapters across the state, and her apology.

"It's called reading the room," Payton said said. "You can engage your community about race by asking questions and wanting to understand … especially if you know that you are not from that community, you do not go in adding your experience. At the end of the day you will never have the experience and be in the position of a person that has been called directly (the N-word). You need to just ask questions and listen."

Uh, Madison. Read the room. In so many words you just called her "uppity." And if you're going to bring use a color chart to gauge the validity and worthwhileness of answers maybe you should lead with that.

[AnBr]

LFC, on 18 February 2021 - 05:21 PM, said:

This is how you drive people away from your cause.

This in a nut shell is what the radical left is doing to undermine their goals. A certain British game designer of some note who is a big Corbin fan called me a neoliberal because I mentioned a couple of pragmatic solutions to a goal that I believe in, too. This kind of puritopianism is why Corbin nor Sanders will ever be elected to the positions they want.

I try to tell those on the far left that most on the less extreme left have many of the same goals, with the biggest differences being more of approach than ends. They tend to be more pragmatic/realistic on ways to reach those ends. The far left doesn't seem to grasp that their all or nothing demands usually gains them exactly that -- nothing. They disdain compromise, half loaves, two steps forward and one step back as intentional "incrementalism." Their purity tests alienate potential allies. They do not seem to grasp that some of the greatest progressive advances in this country was founded on a huge coalition of the entire left by FDR, from centrists to out-and-out communists and everything between. It is the only possible way to achieve these huge, sweeping agendas they and many of us desire.

[golden_valley]

 LFC, on 18 February 2021 - 05:21 PM, said:

WTF is WRONG with this person? A white woman answered a question in a college level discussion about when they were first called the n-word. She talked about how she was called that because she has big lips, an example of racial stereotyping that sounds incredibly pertinent to the discussion. It reflects bigly on the racist who said it. Instead the questioner, an NYU doctoral student, threw a self-righteous hissy fit or, as I like to call it, a Sharpton. This is how you drive people away from your cause. All that education and he's still dumb as a f***in stump.



Uh, Madison. Read the room. In so many words you just called her "uppity." And if you're going to bring use a color chart to gauge the validity and worthwhileness of answers maybe you should lead with that.

No matter what analogy to a white person's experience a white person draws to show some empathy for the Black experience, it is not welcome because it can never be similar to institutionalized racism. It is merely an attempt to draw attention away from the fundamental problem and to make the white person feel better. That's what Madison is saying I think. I wonder what LFC's wife's reaction to Madison was.

[LFC]

 golden_valley, on 19 February 2021 - 11:50 AM, said:

It is merely an attempt to draw attention away from the fundamental problem and to make the white person feel better.

So white people need not apply. Don't even attempt to engage, just shut up and listen. What a great way to communicate to people outside of your core experience group.

Quote

I wonder what LFC's wife's reaction to Madison was.

The same as mine, except even more disgusted for two reasons. The first is the same as mine on the Sharpton Effect. If Madison wanted to drive off the people his cause needs as allies then he took the perfect path. He could have let it pass. He could have softly said he felt her experience wasn't pertinent. Instead he attacked and publicly. I hope he feels warn and cozy in his self righteousness.

The second is something I have never experienced. Because she is somewhat light skinned, clearly very brown just not particularly dark (think Halle Berry but a bit darker), she was called Oreo in by some black kids in high school. Ethnically she's mixed but she's clearly mostly black. For some that wasn't "black enough." It's the flip side of Ms. Kerr experienced. She's white with a stereotypical black feature and was called n*****. My wife is black but not dark black so she was called an Oreo. Two sides of the same racist coin. The weaponization of physical features in this way is a topic worthy of discussion. If Madison did not wish to explore that topic then fine, but that's a very different choice than attacking a woman over a completely valid experience that shines a light on how racism is used as a weapon.

BTW I think this is currently an especially sensitive topic for her because her 90+ year old mother now often recounts her experiences as a very light skinned black woman (much lighter than my wife) with freckles from her Irish background. As a kid she was tormented mercilessly by other black children. Hearing somebody discount racism being used to demean somebody, even if the application wasn't exactly classic, set my wife off pretty badly. I don't think she would have been quite as angry a decade ago.

[golden_valley]

 LFC, on 19 February 2021 - 01:49 PM, said:

So white people need not apply. Don't even attempt to engage, just shut up and listen. What a great way to communicate to people outside of your core experience group.



The same as mine, except even more disgusted for two reasons. The first is the same as mine on the Sharpton Effect. If Madison wanted to drive off the people his cause needs as allies then he took the perfect path. He could have let it pass. He could have softly said he felt her experience wasn't pertinent. Instead he attacked and publicly. I hope he feels warn and cozy in his self righteousness.

The second is something I have never experienced. Because she is somewhat light skinned, clearly very brown just not particularly dark (think Halle Berry but a bit darker), she was called Oreo in by some black kids in high school. Ethnically she's mixed but she's clearly mostly black. For some that wasn't "black enough." It's the flip side of Ms. Kerr experienced. She's white with a stereotypical black feature and was called n*****. My wife is black but not dark black so she was called an Oreo. Two sides of the same racist coin. The weaponization of physical features in this way is a topic worthy of discussion. If Madison did not wish to explore that topic then fine, but that's a very different choice than attacking a woman over a completely valid experience that shines a light on how racism is used as a weapon.

BTW I think this is currently an especially sensitive topic for her because her 90+ year old mother now often recounts her experiences as a very light skinned black woman (much lighter than my wife) with freckles from her Irish background. As a kid she was tormented mercilessly by other black children. Hearing somebody discount racism being used to demean somebody, even if the application wasn't exactly classic, set my wife off pretty badly. I don't think she would have been quite as angry a decade ago.

Thanks for that. It's difficult to know what to say without pissing somebody off sometimes. The author of White Fragility would just say not to ever suggest whatever a white person has undergone is in any way analogous to suffering that Black people encounter.

[LFC]

 golden_valley, on 19 February 2021 - 02:09 PM, said:

Thanks for that. It's difficult to know what to say without pissing somebody off sometimes. The author of White Fragility would just say not to ever suggest whatever a white person has undergone is in any way analogous to suffering that Black people encounter.

And I'd ask that author why this was a contest. If people are walking in the same direction then the fact that one has had a vastly harder road can be noted but you should never demean another person walking with them just because their road was easier. Strength won't be found in the number of people times how hard their road was. Strength will be found in the number of people ... period.

[LFC]

I felt the need to lighten this up a little.

[golden_valley]

 LFC, on 19 February 2021 - 02:47 PM, said:

And I'd ask that author why this was a contest. If people are walking in the same direction then the fact that one has had a vastly harder road can be noted but you should never demean another person walking with them just because their road was easier. Strength won't be found in the number of people times how hard their road was. Strength will be found in the number of people ... period.

The author has been criticized by a number of people for her attitudes. BTW she's white. But whether or not she's right, there are still the Madisons of the world.

[LFC]

 golden_valley, on 19 February 2021 - 02:54 PM, said:

The author has been criticized by a number of people for her attitudes. BTW she's white. But whether or not she's right, there are still the Madisons of the world.

Cheezes she sounds messed up, like in a broad way. It sounds like she had a conclusion rather than a hypothesis and all evidence was interpreted as a affirmation. No need to actually analyze the data.

Quote

DiAngelo has spent a very long time conducting diversity seminars in which whites, exposed to her catechism, regularly tell her—many while crying, yelling, or storming toward the exit—that she’s insulting them and being reductionist. Yet none of this seems to have led her to look inward. Rather, she sees herself as the bearer of an exalted wisdom that these objectors fail to perceive, blinded by their inner racism. DiAngelo is less a coach than a proselytizer.

When writers who are this sure of their convictions turn out to make a compelling case, it is genuinely exciting. This is sadly not one of those times, even though white guilt and politesse have apparently distracted many readers from the book’s numerous obvious flaws.

 golden_valley, on 19 February 2021 - 02:54 PM, said:

But whether or not she's right, there are still the Madisons of the world.

Agreed. I guess their will always be "keeper's of the truth" who feel that they should make and enforce a strict set of rules. See "purity test."

[LFC]

There's a lot of talk rattling around that Vice President Harris could overrule the parliamentarian on the minimum wage provision of the COVID relief bill and that, if she did, it would take 60 votes to overrule her. Except that may not be true. It's not likely completely true. Josh Marshall points out (paywalled) that it's the "easy peasy!" talk that ends up disillusioning Democratic supporters because they accuse the Dems of being weak rather than acknowledging the reality that the quick easy fix ain't really quick or easy. I'm already seeing it on from some of my FB friends. It's infuriating that the progressive left keeps becoming the creators of their own disillusionment. They just aren't interested in explaining or accepting reality. And Joe Biden will simply be the next Democrat to be measure exclusively by what he DIDN'T do. F***ing children.

Quote

Here’s a brief update on this tussling over what to do about the minimum wage hike and the fact that the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that it shouldn’t be included in a reconciliation bill. Yesterday I wrote that it seemed like advocates were right when they claimed that Vice President Harris could reverse the decision in a way that required 60 senators to, in turn, overrule her. (It’s a bit convoluted; here’s the post from yesterday that walks through it.) Since I wrote that post I’ve found out some more information that suggests the 60 vote thing isn’t even real. Or rather that it would take 60 votes to overrule Harris and if that vote failed then they could vote again and on the second round would only need 51 votes, which would make the whole thing a mirage.

It’s notable that Senator Sanders, the person more out front on the policy question than anyone in the senate or maybe in the entire party isn’t pushing this gambit. I suspect that’s because it’s not real.

I’m still trying to nail down whether that is the case. But this brings me to a more general point which was lurking in the background in yesterday’s posts. There’s a recurring pattern in the permanent and mostly healthy pull and tug between more institutional/coalitional parts of the Democratic party and the left progressive wing of the party. That is that members of the latter group will claim that the solution to this or that problem is in fact easy, a slamdunk and a no brainer when in fact in many cases it won’t work at all or carries high, high risks.

This 60 vote gambit is an example. Assume the claim is accurate in itself. There’s still the fact that at least two Senate Democrats say they will vote against the whole COVID relief bill if Democrats go that route. That’s a problem. Are they bluffing? Who knows. Fuck around and find out, as the phrase goes. As I said, I think the whole thing probably turns out not even to be true. But even if it is the fact that Democrats don’t even have the votes for the bill itself is something you’re going to be thinking about a lot if you’re the one quarterbacking the whole legislative process – which is to say if your Joe Biden or Ron Klain or Chuck Schumer.

Pushing this hard is obviously a way of exerting pressure, which is unremarkable and totally what one would expect. The problem is that when you convince your supporters that something is easy and just sitting there waiting to be done and the folks in charge refuse to do it you send a crippling, demoralizing and fissiparous message. If this whole minimum wage thing is easily solvable and Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer refuse to solve it that must mean that they don’t care that much about it. Or maybe the whole show of an effort to try to hike the minimum is a ruse. Maybe the fix is in somehow. That’s obviously a very damaging message when you’re trying to keep a political coalition together, all the more so if it’s based, more or less, on lying to your supporters.

You might as well just drop a bomb in the middle of your political coalition. It’s not a good way to get any actual policy goal accomplished or to keep coalitions intact. It’s best at making you feel confident and cozy in your own righteousness and reassured that the only reason things aren’t getting done is because everyone else is a hack or a sell out or so feckless as to amount to the same.

Again, that can feel good. But misleading your supporters like this actually doesn’t generate policy successes and it breeds – or rather directly instills – a belief in the cynicism or bad faith of coalition partners that makes future successes far less likely.

[LFC]

Here's an excellent back and forth between a TPM reader and Josh Marshall. There are just too many in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party who honest believe that since the Dems have a 50-50 split in the Senate they can do anything they wish. Maybe they should watch a video of John McCain giving a thumbs down to "skinny repeal" to get an understanding that those 50 votes aren't a monolith. Of course that would take maturity and the ability to accept reality.

Quote

My exchange with TPM Reader ED …

Quote

The most infuriating thing about this situation is that it’s all bullshit. I don’t mean that it doesn’t matter or that there aren’t real differences of opinion among Democrats on the minimum wage, but from the perspective of regular people it’s all typical inside the Beltway bullshit. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is passing simple, clear legislation that improves the lives of average Americans and then reminding everyone who did it.

While Democrats seem to recognize the failures of the early Obama years, when they endlessly compromised with themselves without attracting GOP support for literally anything, made all their legislation needlessly complex, and never took credit for their achievements, they obviously haven’t learned the lessons well enough.

If they had, the parliamentarian would already be gone or the VP wouldn’t hesitate to overrule her. Ask yourself a simple question: Would FDR have allowed the Senate parliamentarian to block his agenda for even ten seconds? Of course not. FDR understood that nobody but Washington insiders gives a shit about parliamentarians or reconciliation or anything else. They know who’s in power and if those people make a real difference in their lives.

Democrats need to get everyone vaccinated and end the COVID disaster. They need to get emergency cash into the hands of as many Americans as possible. They need to prop up state and local governments to prevent mass layoffs and budget cuts. They need to raise the minimum wage. They need to make healthcare cheaper and easier to navigate. And so on.

If they do those things, they might still lose in 2022. That’s just what happens in American politics. But at least they’ll have a fighting chance. Everything else is just bullshit.

Here’s how I replied …

Quote

I agree with you on the stakes and everything except one thing which is perhaps the central thing. This has nothing to do with the parliamentarian. It is only about Joe Manchin, and possibly Kirsten Sinema. Manchin didn’t want to include the wage hike in the relief bill because he doesn’t think it counts as budgetary and because he doesn’t support $15. The fact that the parliamentarian agreed with him on the procedural issue (which she’s likely right about narrowly speaking but who cares) gives him a bit more standing or leverage. But the real leverage is his vote. And he has the cards. You’re right to be super pissed and to see all the dangers. You’re just focusing the anger on the wrong people.

[golden_valley]

LFC, on 01 March 2021 - 09:45 AM, said:

Here's an excellent back and forth between a TPM reader and Josh Marshall. There are just too many in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party who honest believe that since the Dems have a 50-50 split in the Senate they can do anything they wish. Maybe they should watch a video of John McCain giving a thumbs down to "skinny repeal" to get an understanding that those 50 votes aren't a monolith. Of course that would take maturity and the ability to accept reality.

Marshall is right. All the fancy machinations or imagined machinations around the VP overruling the parliamentarian won't matter if the 2 or even 1 senator votes against the bill. Sanders' people would be better off trying to convince those 2 instead of complaining about how Obama gave away the store and got nothing in return. Or more plausibly, strip the minimum wage section out and just put the thing to a vote. There's plenty of other desirable provisions in that bill.

[pnwguy]

From this weekend's Real Time with Bill Maher

[LFC]

pnwguy, on 01 March 2021 - 02:01 PM, said:

From this weekend's Real Time with Bill Maher

If true (and I have to admit that I have a pile of reservations about the messenger) but if true it's truly way over the top and the parents are the ones who need to stomp on it. I wish Maher had brought on a serious person to discuss this issue.

[golden_valley]

pnwguy, on 01 March 2021 - 02:01 PM, said:

From this weekend's Real Time with Bill Maher

"the New York City private school system"???? She is only mentioning NYC to signal that she's in an evil woke place. But isn't it nice she can afford to send her kids to that system and can go on a tv program to make her complaints about it? Too bad most parents can't do either.

I do think sometimes teachers don't recognize that their attempts to "tell the truth" about history and current society are reflections of their own politics. We need a better curriculum in terms of history and civics. Teachers freelance their own versions when they see the myth and pablum that is in current curriculum. If there were a more honest curriculum the temptation to do so would be less.

[LFC]

golden_valley, on 01 March 2021 - 02:25 PM, said:

I do think sometimes teachers don't recognize that their attempts to "tell the truth" about history and current society are reflections of their own politics.

You mean like when children are taught that the American Civil War was fought over states' rights and the Earth is less than 10,000 years old? There's no doubt that there are examples of serious overreach in education on the left. But let's not be blinded to the long-term Onward Christianist Soldier in education from the right such.

Here is information on the number of schools that teach creationism using public dollars. School promoted prayer still comes up over and over again. Right-wing conservative propaganda and proselytizing in publicly funded schools has been around MUCH longer and is a pervasive problem in many areas. And Republicans are still pushing to get more school tax dollars pumped into their Christian madrasas.