Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[garbon]

The progressives are doing SOMETHING wrong. Their message is failing to get to a lot of people. I think there is a very real problem that the left crafts their messages for the left, and doesn't bother trying to reach anyone else. The right does this as well, of course, but they don't seem interested in reaching anyone else and hence don't care that their message is just obvious bullshit.

I don't know what the answer is overall. I do know that I can see that the progressive left absolutely sucks at messaging though. They have all the things that ought to mean they should be crusing the right in the court of public debate, and by and large they are winning. But by margins that are distressingly narrow considering the import of the discussion.

I don't think it is entirely the progressive's fault, and they definitely don't have all the advantages.  We are at a point where large parts of the population are seeing their financial and social positions deteriorating, with a not at all certain future.  They are in a position that is ripe for demagoguery, and the right has the propaganda channels and simple language that taps into the base fear these people are experiencing.

We have a political party that is encouraged to drive more people into those desperate situations as it increases their audience.  They've convinced people that "socialism" or any other attempt to actually help them other than giving rich people/corporations more money will destroy the country.  How do you get through that?

With some left wing populism of our own. Start crafting a message to appeal to those people, rather than a message that appeals to intellectuals who are already convinced.

I don't think it is entirely the lefts fault either - I don't even think it is mostly the lefts fault. Fighting against authoritarian neo-fascism dressed up as individualistic "patriotism" is not easy, as many have learned throughout history.

But when something is hard to do, that means we should work harder to do it, and do so with more care and thought, not less.

There is plenty that the left does that just totally own-goals ourselves though. There is rampant hyposcrisy, plenty of mob rule stupidity, and this kind of petulant embrace of symbols and labels that seem, to me, to be mostly about signalling how woke we all are, rather then actually wanting to accomplish anything, much less simply win political fights. The GOP controls a majority of the governors positions, a majority of state legislatures, and keeps somehow managing to convince nearly half the voters that their message is palatable. We are doing something wrong.

Again, I said this before - this debate is such a perfect example of the "Liberals want to win debates, and conservatives want to win elections" stereotype. Nobody defending the use of the term white privilege has done so on the basis that they actually think it will help win a single election - only on the basis that it is a valid term. Which it is, and which it won't.

Hold up, I think you've flipped the script. If goal is to win elections, they probably shouldn't say all that much about race or just enough so Dem supporters feel comfortable. Any truthful rhetoric will just be a turn off to those who don't want to be challenged about their complancency.

[Berkut]

The progressives are doing SOMETHING wrong. Their message is failing to get to a lot of people. I think there is a very real problem that the left crafts their messages for the left, and doesn't bother trying to reach anyone else. The right does this as well, of course, but they don't seem interested in reaching anyone else and hence don't care that their message is just obvious bullshit.

I don't know what the answer is overall. I do know that I can see that the progressive left absolutely sucks at messaging though. They have all the things that ought to mean they should be crusing the right in the court of public debate, and by and large they are winning. But by margins that are distressingly narrow considering the import of the discussion.

I don't think it is entirely the progressive's fault, and they definitely don't have all the advantages.  We are at a point where large parts of the population are seeing their financial and social positions deteriorating, with a not at all certain future.  They are in a position that is ripe for demagoguery, and the right has the propaganda channels and simple language that taps into the base fear these people are experiencing.

We have a political party that is encouraged to drive more people into those desperate situations as it increases their audience.  They've convinced people that "socialism" or any other attempt to actually help them other than giving rich people/corporations more money will destroy the country.  How do you get through that?

With some left wing populism of our own. Start crafting a message to appeal to those people, rather than a message that appeals to intellectuals who are already convinced.

I don't think it is entirely the lefts fault either - I don't even think it is mostly the lefts fault. Fighting against authoritarian neo-fascism dressed up as individualistic "patriotism" is not easy, as many have learned throughout history.

But when something is hard to do, that means we should work harder to do it, and do so with more care and thought, not less.

There is plenty that the left does that just totally own-goals ourselves though. There is rampant hyposcrisy, plenty of mob rule stupidity, and this kind of petulant embrace of symbols and labels that seem, to me, to be mostly about signalling how woke we all are, rather then actually wanting to accomplish anything, much less simply win political fights. The GOP controls a majority of the governors positions, a majority of state legislatures, and keeps somehow managing to convince nearly half the voters that their message is palatable. We are doing something wrong.

Again, I said this before - this debate is such a perfect example of the "Liberals want to win debates, and conservatives want to win elections" stereotype. Nobody defending the use of the term white privilege has done so on the basis that they actually think it will help win a single election - only on the basis that it is a valid term. Which it is, and which it won't.

Hold up, I think you've flipped the script. If goal is to win elections, they probably shouldn't say all that much about race or just enough so Dem supporters feel comfortable. Any truthful rhetoric will just be a turn off to those who don't want to be challenged about their complancency.

The goal is not to simply win elections, the goal is to win races so that the people who want to actually change things can do so.

And I think you sound like you are trying to craft a false dilemma - that the only way elections can be won is abandoning "truthful rhetoric". I suppose that might be true, but I don't believe that it is. And if it is, I suppose we are likely doomed to make this better barring a violent revolution that simply ignores concerns about convincing anyone of anything. Just force your views on those too stupid to be convinced by the "truthful rhetoric"?

You are also committing the fallacy of assuming your conclusion. The debate is about a label. You assume in your argument that to use some label other than "white privilege" is to NOT use truthful rhetoric. As if the only possible truthful label is the one you favor. But that mis-understands the very meaning of the term label. Labels are not truth, they are just labels for some idea. They can be more or less descriptive, more or less useful, but they are not "truth" themselves.

Just a little bit ago you claimed that we cannot use "systemic racism" because the conservatives have denied it exists, not because it wasn't "truthful rhetoric". When I pointed out that that was really a non-sensical objection, you seem to have just pretended that conversation didn't happen, and now object because anything other than "white privilege" ought to be assumed to be not truthful?

[garbon]

No, I think systemic racism is a term that can be and is used. However, I think it falls into the same traps as white privilege. Already been rejected by the right so I don't see it winning elections.

And I think it is less truthful to use any term that doesn't make white people face the fact that they are ultimately responsible for maintain our racist society.

[DGuller]

Hold up, I think you've flipped the script. If goal is to win elections, they probably shouldn't say all that much about race or just enough so Dem supporters feel comfortable. Any truthful rhetoric will just be a turn off to those who don't want to be challenged about their complancency.

No, the goal is the enact meaningful change.  That means you have to actually want to change things, but this being a democracy, you also have to win elections to enact those changes.  You need both together, one without the other is useless. 

Berkut is focusing on the election part probably because no one else is.  Smug self-satisfaction at one's exceptional perception of racial issues does not enact change; if anything, it makes it less likely that meaningful change would be enacted.  All it would accomplish is free you from having to find other issues to feel superior about, because this one will be an active one until the day you die.

[crazy canuck]

Berkut's view becomes more understandable.  At a very superficial level this discussion is about a label.  At that superficial level one might worry about who might be offended.  If you define the "good guys" as the people you need to bring into the tent to win elections, without offending them, then you can avoid entirely the objective fact that white skinned people are privileged.  It is an interesting rhetorical endeavor to try to find a non offensive term.  So inoffensive in fact that you don't have to worry about losing part of your big tent who would deny the existence of white privilege, systemic racism or any other phrase that describes the advantages white people have.

[Jacob]

Berkut's view becomes more understandable.  At a very superficial level this discussion is about a label.  At that superficial level one might worry about who might be offended.  If you define the "good guys" as the people you need to bring into the tent to win elections, without offending them, then you can avoid entirely the objective fact that white skinned people are privileged.  It is an interesting rhetorical endeavor to try to find a non offensive term.  So inoffensive in fact that you don't have to worry about losing part of your big tent who would deny the existence of white privilege, systemic racism or any other phrase that describes the advantages white people have.

Though you have to keep an eye on the other side of your big tent as there is a risk that you'll lose people on the other side if you downplay racism so much that the people who care about it think you're not taking it seriously.

But that's politics, of course.

[crazy canuck]

Berkut's view becomes more understandable.  At a very superficial level this discussion is about a label.  At that superficial level one might worry about who might be offended.  If you define the "good guys" as the people you need to bring into the tent to win elections, without offending them, then you can avoid entirely the objective fact that white skinned people are privileged.  It is an interesting rhetorical endeavor to try to find a non offensive term.  So inoffensive in fact that you don't have to worry about losing part of your big tent who would deny the existence of white privilege, systemic racism or any other phrase that describes the advantages white people have.

Though you have to keep an eye on the other side of your big tent as there is a risk that you'll lose people on the other side if you downplay racism so much that the people who care about it think you're not taking it seriously.

But that's politics, of course.

I meant my comment to be rebuke of his position, not in any way condoning or agreeing with it.

[Berkut]

Berkut's view becomes more understandable.  At a very superficial level this discussion is about a label.  At that superficial level one might worry about who might be offended.  If you define the "good guys" as the people you need to bring into the tent to win elections, without offending them, then you can avoid entirely the objective fact that white skinned people are privileged.

Go fuck yourself.

You are now accusing me of having as my agenda NOT to actually enact change, but to AVOID enacting change - that my position is an attempt to avoid "objective fact". You are accusing me, in fact, of being a racist intent on promoting racism.

That is so exactly opposite my entire point, and indeed my entire perspective through over ten years of discourse on Languish, there is no possible way you could arrive at such a fucking obtuse position in anything approaching good faith or honesty.

[viper37]

And I think it is less truthful to use any term that doesn't make white people face the fact that they are ultimately responsible for maintain our racist society.

[DGuller]

This here would be a good spot for people on CC's side to show they care about intellectually honesty, and call him out for being way out of line.

[crazy canuck]

Berkut's view becomes more understandable.  At a very superficial level this discussion is about a label.  At that superficial level one might worry about who might be offended.  If you define the "good guys" as the people you need to bring into the tent to win elections, without offending them, then you can avoid entirely the objective fact that white skinned people are privileged.

Go fuck yourself.

You are now accusing me of having as my agenda NOT to actually enact change, but to AVOID enacting change - that my position is an attempt to avoid "objective fact". You are accusing me, in fact, of being a racist intent on promoting racism.

That is so exactly opposite my entire point, and indeed my entire perspective through over ten years of discourse on Languish, there is no possible way you could arrive at such a fucking obtuse position in anything approaching good faith or honesty.

I am not accusing you of anything.  I am commenting on the effect of your position. I could not care less what your motivations might be.

But it is clear you really really don't like people pointing out that your positions are not as virtuous or correct as you imagine them to be.

[grumbler]

This here would be a good spot for people on CC's side to show they care about intellectually honesty, and call him out for being way out of line.

I'm not sure anyone is actually on CC's side.  Some may agree with some elements of his position, but I think that even those people recognize that having his "help" is like being handed an anvil when you are drowning.

[Valmy]

And I think it is less truthful to use any term that doesn't make white people face the fact that they are ultimately responsible for maintain our racist society.

If they are responsible then how do you fix it without their help? If you are correct then one would think trying to get them to see that ultimately that system harms them as well would be a good idea? Yes?

And again I am talking about how communicate the message. How to get people on board.

You talk about Fox News and Right wingers and yeah it is not about them, it is about convincing the normies not the alt right crowd.

[Berkut]

Berkut's view becomes more understandable.  At a very superficial level this discussion is about a label.  At that superficial level one might worry about who might be offended.  If you define the "good guys" as the people you need to bring into the tent to win elections, without offending them, then you can avoid entirely the objective fact that white skinned people are privileged.

Go fuck yourself.

You are now accusing me of having as my agenda NOT to actually enact change, but to AVOID enacting change - that my position is an attempt to avoid "objective fact". You are accusing me, in fact, of being a racist intent on promoting racism.

That is so exactly opposite my entire point, and indeed my entire perspective through over ten years of discourse on Languish, there is no possible way you could arrive at such a fucking obtuse position in anything approaching good faith or honesty.

I am not accusing you of anything.  I am commenting on the effect of your position. I could not care less what your motivations might be.

But it is clear you really really don't like people pointing out that your positions are not as virtuous or correct as you imagine them to be.

A coward and a liar. Seriously, fuck off. You are a lying little piece of shit.

[grumbler]

What do the people who favor "White Privilege" argue about the far higher "Asian privilege?"  Asian-Americans are way disproportionately more likely to get accepted to college, they have a higher average income, etc.  Is this also the fault of "white people?"

The point is that focusing on making people feel guilty, and implying that they should surrender their "privilege" misses the point.  Imagine that there are two boats.  The blue boat is floating just fine.  The green boat is leaking and sinking.  Should the focus be on the fact that the blue boat has the "privilege" of having less water, or on the fact that the green boat is sinking?