Trump publically defending white supremacist, klan members, and nazis has done 0 to help the situation. I'm not going to thank Trump for being a piece of shit openly. It was never a secret that a massive chunk of this country gives no shits about people of color/immigrants from non white european countries.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Root: 'Hillary Is Not Your White Savior'
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
She was the better of two options, the other being Trump. And like others said already, Bernie wouldn't have been able to fix the deeply ingrained societal racism in America either. You could argue who would be more effective of the two candidates had either won the presidency but what I know for sure, either Hillary or Bernie would have been a lot better than Trump.
The only credit I give to Trump is that he has given the American people a clearer picture of the sheer scale of racism & white supermacy or apathy in the face of these ills within the country that allowed someone like Trump to even have a realistic shot at the presidency.
Now we just need to find out how short-term America's collective memory is after this shitty presidency is over. If things just go back to business as usual after Trump, American politics will never get out if it's death spiral.
The only credit I give to Trump is that he has given the American people a clearer picture of the sheer scale of racism & white supermacy or apathy in the face of these ills within the country that allowed someone like Trump to even have a realistic shot at the presidency.
Now we just need to find out how short-term America's collective memory is after this shitty presidency is over. If things just go back to business as usual after Trump, American politics will never get out if it's death spiral.
eBay Huckster
Member
in this particular case, you solve the problem the same way you solve a lot of others: by sawing florida off the continental united states
(on a serious note, i'm not sure how we actually get to a point where abolishing the horrifyingly undemocratic aspects of this system of government are actually within the realm of possibility unless urban birth rate trends in some of these states going red suddenly dramatically reverse themselves. assuming, of course, that the country stays in one piece and that people stay within the system, neither of which is a guarantee!)
But if that happens and we lose Trump in 2020... we still got set back 4 years at the minimum. That's four years of life being worse for minorities, the poor, the environment, etc.
I just don't see where the accelerationism argument makes any sense from the author.
When people argue that Clinton was for the status quo, I guess I have to ask what's so bad about continuing Obama's legacy instead of regressing so hard, so fast.
This is mostly correct. I also think there continues to be a fundamental problem with saying that favoring social justice domestically is meaningless if you don't oppose all wars -- this seems pretty dismissive to the people who actually live in America and are oppressed by the lack of social justice. I feel like American lives should matter to you at least as much as Syrian ones. But I didn't raise that originally because I was thinking about how to phrase it.
I mean, I already know Clinton does not care that much about genocide because she's married to Bill, who is the guy who enabled Rwanda in the first place. People, in general, don't care very much about genocide. That is why it is so important to talk about its importance to our foreign and military policy -- because, as conversations on this very board have demonstrated, it's very easy for a "principled commitment to opposing imperialistic war" to slide into toleration of literal deathcamps because it would be politically unpopular to stop them.
I wasn't particularly comfortable with Clinton's foreign policy. I said so at the time! I was especially dissatisfied with her Israel posiitions, but in general, her embrace of the conventional wisdom did not strike me as ideal. However, with Syria in particular, a war against genocide seemed appropriate, since I, at least, think genocide is bad and should be avoided when possible.
I think an argument that Clinton can't have run a social justice-focused campaign because she was friends with Kissinger is pretty dismissive to the people who did support Hillary because she did speak for issues they believed in and offered voices for marginalized people they knew, in both cases in ways that other politicians simply didn't. But that's just par for the course around here, I guess! It seems an article of faith that nobody could possibly have actually believed in Hillary, and so the passion of the people who did believe was all artificial, virtue-signalling, cynical attempts to pander to people of color. If that's the starting position, there's not much to discuss!
deadscreensky
Member
Fleming said:
So is Trump making us aware of systematic racism or not?
And as others have mentioned, the idea that these racists would have just gone silent or been forgotten if Clinton had won is... something else.
This article is really bad. I don't think the author bothered trying to understand the editorial she's responding to in the first place (starting off things with "This weekend I had the misfortune to read" is a good tip-off), but she's saying all sorts of dumb things even beyond that.
article said:
This is half a shade away from 'on many sides' strawman bullshit. Nobody expected fucking utopia, but to argue that Clinton fighting against white supremacy (and she would have, duh) would have somehow not been tremendously better than what we see now is insane.
What's especially frustrating is both editorials have an extremely similar fundamental message -- speak out and use what power you have against racists -- but because Crystal Marie Fleming apparently really hates Hilary Clinton she needs to muddy everything up with this ivory tower crap.
As I think we've discussed before, this is equally good as an argument that people of color cannot live safely in America and should consider leaving or forming their own country, since the American people are irredeemably racist.
I'm not sure why your read of it is more valid than that one?
Hasnt this been the Democratic Strategy since at least the early 90s?
DontBeThatGuy
Member
I'm not arguing in favor of this article. AT ALL. 'Accelerationism' is some Susan Sarandon shit, and I want no part of that.
eBay Huckster
Member
honestly, even if i wanted to debate this point i'd have to contend with the fact that the DNC's marketing is cartoonishly fucking awful enough that it'd probably stay valid even if the entire rest of the party full-throatedly embraced socialism. because i get those fundraising emails, and not a single fucking one of them has actually induced me to donate!
eh. early 90s to about 2006 was "reagan was right about some of these things, so let's co-opt them", this current bit is... kinda not that
That's not the point in this specific instance though. Why do you think the ACA was so "unpopular" until the GOP tried to take it away and "the populace" started to realize what it was? Trump succeeded with that message as one of his primary platform choices. I'm not sure if people honestly though he'd try to put in something better, or were simply going to remove it from "the others", but based on thr rest of Trump's/the GOP's policies I am leaning towards the latter. I'm additionally finding it hard to give the benefit of the doubt here because these people were oh so concerned about healthcare yet couldn't even be bothered to figure out the very basic of basic basic things like ACA/Obamacare being the same thing.
It might have been in the way those right wing talk show hosts framed it, or the lack of critical thinking in basic school education, or in how they were raised in general, or whatever, but it was that kind of "appeal" that drew their followers to them in the first place. And they haven't stopped listening to them, have they? They do "care" about health care, but we definitely know where their priorities lie. It's why the GOP has been able to dog whistle for as long as they have, and the main reason the GOP has been upset with Trump (not what he's saying, but how he says it, because even the morons can figure it out now, and the "both sides" camp has so much less wiggle room to work with than anyone prior).
As bad as Trump has been, thinking of what a competent GoP leader could have done terrifies me far more (I'm a brown man with a boyfriend right outside Philly, we aren't far from Charlottlesville, and there's plenty of Charlottlesville wannabe's in the Midwest and South). Those few people who might have been treating Hilary like some kind of savior were not where my ire has been going on the Democratic side, let me tell you. Those people willing to treat me and others like me as some kind of casualty for the greater good by voting Jill Stein cause Bernie wasn't on the ballot, however (or other examples)...those are the people that had me fooled before. Those are the people I have to keep an eye out for now.
How is 'savior Hillary' even a discussion worth having? With Trump civil rights on minorities will be gutted for decades to come and every aspect that's shitty in the USA will be magnified, not to mention his climate policies fucking up the whole humankind.
It's like saying 'sorry, the ice cream you wanted wasn't perfect' when you've ingested three bottles of rat poison.
It's like saying 'sorry, the ice cream you wanted wasn't perfect' when you've ingested three bottles of rat poison.
Fenderputty
Banned
It's not.
lightskintwin
Banned
They stand on a 24" Dell Monitor?
Edit: Weird, it linked my use of stand to the same monitor.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think our reads are necessarily contradictory. One doesn't have to be more valid if they're both true. If I was a person of colour with the means to do so in America and no significant familial ties or attachments, I would be leaving!
Accelerationism assumes some kind of legislative upheaval to boot. We're a long way off. Some monuments coming down are cold comfort for dead bodies left in their wake and a half a year of legislation/Exec Orders directed towards minorities that would have never existed otherwise. Eh... one can argue about the long term gains but it's hard to focus on that when your position in the short term is constantly under threat from the administration.
Hashmal_Bringer_of_Order
Member
This reads like One More Reason to Be Ready For Your Next Republican Century.
Get your shit together liberal america.
Get your shit together liberal america.
The ACA is not perfect, and any argument that says it is is either uninformed or disingenuous. But it is better overall than what we'd have without it.
You're essentially asking people to believe that burning the whole thing down as it currently exists will result in an immediate tidal wave of support nationwide for UHC. How will that happen when it's a non-starter for GOP donors?
You're suggesting that the desire for UHC will cause GOP voters to break party lines and vote for the opposing party (whatever it is) just because of the potential gain of UHC. I find it fairly hard to believe that:
1) GOP voters will break party lines for anything, and
2) that they'll do it not only for UHC but also for social justice reform, criminal justice reform, economic reform, voting rights protection, marriage rights protection for the LGBTQ community, pro-choice policy, and progressive immigration policy.
Because the GOP certainly isn't going to be offering any of that, so if they want UHC, then all that other stuff will also be part of the package. Do you actually think that the draw of UHC is enough for your average GOP voter to go along with all that other stuff? I'm not convinced it is.
4 years is optimistic. The funny thing about electing fascists is that when they get into power, they might realize they don't really want to leave the office when their time is due. And whoops, there's some crisis which requires some 'changes' to the state.
Stupid article is stupid. What's better: spilling blood in the streets to refight ideological battles that were decided nearly a century ago, or debating marginal tax rates and how to pay for healthcare? No one is saying that Hillary winning would have meant white supremacy isn't a thing, but it would mean that their cause would have been defeated and we could have moved on to promoting actual progress.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Sure, but the fact remains that Clinton would not have eradicated white supremacist views and social injustice from the face of the Earth. Why that fact was important to point out and presented as if it was insightful, I have no idea.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I voted for Hillary and would still argue that she's better in literally every respect than Trump, or any possible Republican (and a good deal of Democrats) and that it's the responsible moral decision to vote for the Democrat in every presidential election unless they slide into being literally as monstrous as Republicans. But I think whenever you're saying that people who weren't enthusiastic about Clinton are just totally fine with white supremacy you're being kind of ridiculous because you're glossing over the pretty horrific and racist parts of her platform because they're off-shored.
This is all reasonable, and I honestly don't think you (or most Hillary voters) were supporting her were suckers who got tricked by artificial or surface-level appeals or anything. I'm not even sure where to go from here, I'm not sure what discussion there is to be had.
Wtf
Open article, Ctrl+f "Bernie" Ctrl+f "Sanders"
0 results.
First mention of Sanders in this thread was someone lashing out at that trusty "Bernie or buster" strawman. Same wildly flailing shit y'all do any time criticism is levied against the Democratic party.
The Greek Freak
Member
Fixed that for you to accurately reflect the current DNC and why people act like the black community owed Clinton anything (LOL).
It's a barely-veiled rehash of primary squabbles. Stop it.
eBay Huckster
Member
what do you think the DNC actually does and/or is
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
More long term damage will be done by Trump's Supreme Court placements and his stance on climate change. No one should think that the Trump "presidency" Is in any way good in the slightest for any reason.
It's interesting that this is your response to a post that does not, at all, mention Bernie Sanders.
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
Some may, I'm not, and I don't think the piece is either. I think the argument is basically making lemonade from the most racist of lemons.
It's horrible he's in office. It's good that people are being forced to see the undeniable racism in this country. Not the way I wanted that to happen but it did, so at least we can take solace in the more visible nature of bigotry. I see more people standing against it that were passive at best before, and that's great.
Of course, what we do now that it's so out in the open is a totally different issue.
Father_Brain
Banned
generate bad PR for itself
I don't think I've ever suggested that people who weren't enthusiastic about Hillary are white supremacists.
Literally all I said was that Hillary ran an explicitly pro-social justice campaign. That kicked off a lot of argument for some reason!
Nah, it's a blunt recognition that Democrats have done next to nothing to curb this country's swing to the right and maintenance of institutionalized racism over the past few decades.
You go ahead and stop it.
Jesus Christ... Is this an attempt to obfuscate the context of your post because GAF doesn't nest quotes or did you genuinely forget that your post was a direct response to "some people just can't resist this Sanders v Clinton argument"?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You commented that you pretty much explicitly said she ran an 'aggressively' pro-social justice campaign, which I'm more skeptical of. Had she been able to implement them, I'm cautiously optimistic that pretty much everyone would be able to agree it would have been better than the status quo in terms of social justice, at the very least, even if we can't be sure of the margin or ultimate destination.
I think, if we can bounce back from this, the country will be better after president trump.
Suddenly issues that people were willfully ignorant of are exploding into KKK and nazi team-up demonstrations. It's forced people who live in their personal bubbles to, at the very least, take notice that institutionalized racism and just racism in general are real factual issues that need addressing.
Seeing 15,000 protestors show up to shout at 20 dumbasses is really good! I don't think 200 people would have shown up had our wonderful president not blasted these issues into the public consciousness
Now the alt-right is trying to legitimize themselves and enter the political arena. As a whole, young people these days seem way more open minded than they were when I was in grade school. This moron prez took theoretical and statistical truths and elevated them to actual awful things that are impossible to ignore. I'll be shocked and saddened if there isn't generations of pushback from all this garbage.
Suddenly issues that people were willfully ignorant of are exploding into KKK and nazi team-up demonstrations. It's forced people who live in their personal bubbles to, at the very least, take notice that institutionalized racism and just racism in general are real factual issues that need addressing.
Seeing 15,000 protestors show up to shout at 20 dumbasses is really good! I don't think 200 people would have shown up had our wonderful president not blasted these issues into the public consciousness
Now the alt-right is trying to legitimize themselves and enter the political arena. As a whole, young people these days seem way more open minded than they were when I was in grade school. This moron prez took theoretical and statistical truths and elevated them to actual awful things that are impossible to ignore. I'll be shocked and saddened if there isn't generations of pushback from all this garbage.
the primary exposed the deep and fundamental policy divides between the center and left wings of the party. that argument isn't going away until one side wins a decisive victory.
it's going to be the same shit next year and in 2020 so get used to it i guess.
eBay Huckster
Member
well yeah, aside from that
Muppet of a Man
Member
Of course centrist is better than conservative on these matters, but as the author states and progressives have been pushing for for years, no action is not positive action on reversing systemic discimination of every kind, especially racism.
Positive action must be taken to break cycles of poverty and disenfranchisement many minorities face.
Positive action must be taken to break cycles of poverty and disenfranchisement many minorities face.
Yeah, no shit sherlock. We didn't need an article bashing Hillary Clinton to point that out - it was already common knowledge. So why does this article exist again? Especially when the article it was responding to never said anything of the sort?
Are you going to respond to my other post? I'm honestly intrigued to hear your answer. Especially since it involves actual strategy and a response would probably need to be composed of more than calling people centrists.
Sure.
I can't really go further on your skepticism without understanding what shade of meaning you discerned between "aggressive" and "explicit." I don't mean that sarcastically, I just literally don't know what specifically you took objection to with one and not the other.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think when I picture aggressively campaigning on something, I think a) front and centre issue, b) taking a much harder line than other comparable candidates. I don't think either a) or b) are true.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Clinton spoke about justice system reform frequently during the campaign. Now you have Jeff Sessions.
:lol
Simplify it for me then. How do you get bipartisan national votes for UHC when it's also going to come with stuff that is anathema to an average GOP voter?
If you're actually interested in having a conversation about this and not just raging against the centrist boogeyman on the internet, that is.
The Democrats have been paying the electoral price for the civil rights act ever since LBJ pushed it through. https://agenda-blog.com/2017/07/03/...beralism-and-the-white-working-class/#more-42
Look at the circumstances under which the last 3 Dems got elected. Carter was after Nixon. Clinton won a 3-way race after Bush touched a third rail for the GOP and raised taxes AND had the economy go into a recession. Obama was after Bush sent the US into Iraq and after the economy had crashed!
As soon as things get "better" again for the economy, American voters feel secure and comfortable in voting on alternative axes. Racism is a luxury good, and it's one far too many voters believe they can safely indulge in once the economy's out of recession.
Similar threads
- Locked