What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[garbon]

That you'd be a lot happier comparing what is to what was rather than what could be.

Is asking for equality thst big of an ask? I mean I'm better off than had I been born in Indonesia but not sure how focusing on that does anything but try to make me content with discrimination.

[Eddie Teach]

Of course not.

I was really speaking more to the dejection some are expressing. You're winning the war.

[Sheilbh]

I don't really see that the other side never budges the conversation has been going in your direction for awhile. I mean we have public support for police reform, we have more and more people wanting marijuana legalized, we have gay marriage, we have more and more support for trans rights, we have more and more support for more medical access. I don't see how we the enlightened centrists have NEVER compromised and NEVER made any motion your way.

I don't think those are compromises or making a motion to the left (I hope not).

Isn't that more that public opinion has changed (and on gay rights changed massively and quickly)?

Gay marriage is a tough one as I recall living in one our 'loony left' states where the populace voted to get rid of gay marriage. Only got reinstated when the judges got involved and only became law of the land when our Supreme Court weighed in. Compare and contrast that to the UK which voted in gay marriage.

Although the other side of that is it's acknowledged as a constitutional right in the US while in the UK it was a political issue voted on by parliament.

[Berkut]

Whenever I hear a white person from the US telling us he/she knows better, or disparages wokeism, I always come back to this video, which I encourage anyone to watch and re-watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llci8MVh8J4

I've seen that before.

How does that relate to prominent democrats alienating non-left wing voters by calling for abolishing the police?

And what does that have to do with "white people" having an opinion about whether or not a particular political message is useful to achieving actual political goals?

Would my objection been acceptable if the words had come from Bernie Sanders mouth instead of hers?

I'm not as eloquent as Oex, garbon, or Kimberly Jones (the lady in the video). All I can talk to is my opinion/experience as a white guy that's on the left of the political spectrum.

It's exhausting having to cater (as a leftist) to non-left-wing voters. Oh let's be careful folks, we don't want to alienate the centrists (read suburban white folks).

It's exhausting always having to be the ones making concessions, while the other side NEVER budges.

It's exhausting having to explain for the millionth time what slogans mean, and focusing on that instead of the incredible issues present in police departments and mentality. There's at least as much ink and electrons used to discuss "defund the police" and how "radical" leftists are so naive and stupid about the issue than about police mentality, behaviour, shootings, procedures, ass-covering and straight-up criminal activities like planting evidence.

It's exhausting seeing the dripping condescension when you guys post stuff like wokeism and associated buzzwords.

It's exhausting and I'm a white male. So when someone who doesn't have your lifelong privilege tells you "hey man can just stop using those terms? It kind of hurtful and annoying", how about you just be a decent dude and do it?

You're not being a maverick, refusing to bow to outrage culture, you're just being an asshole.

I don't think I am being a maverick, and again, that isn't my motivation. And you aren't being a defender of the downtrodden with all your passionate signalling, you are just being an asshole. See, two can play at that game.

If you find politics exhausting - here is a helpful tip. Win more. Winning is much less exhausting.

If you think defending stupid slogans like "Abolish the police and prisons!" is exhausting, then perhaps get behind encouraging the left to stop fucking coming up with slogans designed to appeal to only the farthest of the left. I mean really - I agree with you! It is fucking tiresome to have to explain over and over and over again that "Defund the police" doesn't actually mean what it pretty much exactly sounds like it means.

If you think compromise is exhausting, I don't know what to say. But your claim that the "other side" NEVER has to budge....well, that is simply not true. Incredible progress has been made on a variety of social issues in the last, say, 30 years. And THEY would say THEY have done all of the movement.

Politics is exhausting. Convincing people that don't agree with you to change their mind is a tiresome business, especially when there are others out there arguing in bad faith in order to keep them from changing their minds, and you are by necessity up against them.

Make it LESS exhausting by having the moral courage to stand up against bullshit, EVEN WHEN IT IS YOUR SIDES BULLSHIT. The truth really does matter.

[Berkut]

I am continually fascinated by ideologues insistence that their biggest enemy is their allies. This is historically very consistent among extremists. Almost a marker.

[Berkut]

I will note this however - the strategy works really, really well.

If you want to just refuse to address specific issues, shifting the entire argument away from those issues to focus on how anyone bringing up any issue at all is BY DEFINITION an asshole for daring to question the left orthodoxy works every single time.

It is an incredibly effective way of simply owning the discourse and not having to defend your position on its merits at all.

[Jacob]

I am continually fascinated by ideologues insistence that their biggest enemy is their allies. This is historically very consistent among extremists. Almost a marker.

You've mentioned a bunch how it's up to the left and ideologues to reach out, to build bridges, to not alienate their allies, and now to not proclaim their allies their biggest enemies. Which is fair enough.

I wonder, to what degree should people a little further towards the centre try to build bridges, try to reach out, try not to alienate their allies? Is this only supposed to be a one way street?

Because if it's a two way street I submit to you that going all out with "you're calling me racist", continually claiming that those you disagree with are arguing in bad faith or just "virtue signalling", and leaning into hyperbole like "oh so you're saying that white people should not be involved in discussing any topic" is pretty counter productive to any such bridge building.

[grumbler]

I am continually fascinated by ideologues insistence that their biggest enemy is their allies. This is historically very consistent among extremists. Almost a marker.

You've mentioned a bunch how it's up to the left and ideologues to reach out, to build bridges, to not alienate their allies, and now to not proclaim their allies their biggest enemies. Which is fair enough.

I wonder, to what degree should people a little further towards the centre try to build bridges, try to reach out, try not to alienate their allies? Is this only supposed to be a one way street?

Because if it's a two way street I submit to you that going all out with "you're calling me racist", continually claiming that those you disagree with are arguing in bad faith or just "virtue signalling", and leaning into hyperbole like "oh so you're saying that white people should not be involved in discussing any topic" is pretty counter productive to any such bridge building.

This is what is known as an ad hominem argument.  What Berkut says about the content of specific posts isn't relevant to the larger issue of the extent to which various groups on the left should be willing to compromise some of their goals in the interest of winning elections.   The argument ad hominem is considered a logical fallacy, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone reading your post.

And, to answer the generalized question that preceded your ad hom argument, of course it is a two-way street.  The problem, however, isn't that the center-left is unwilling to entertain the ideas of the far left, but that they don't accept them unconditionally, and the far left then breaks off negotiations because they feel that they get "exhausted" when they have to defend their positions to people outside their tribe.

[garbon]

Is this really a position of extremists if we are looking at BLM and a goal of having fewer black people killed/have their lives ruined by police. Why is that a partisan issue? I can get how the center can take issue with 'defund the police' but it isn't as though the center hasn't had decades (centuries?) to tackle the issue themselves. We aren't talking about a novel problem.

Also, I'd cut around it in the first article I posted but this notion that recognizing that the center can be an opposition to progress isn't all that extreme. While doubtless the following was judged extreme at the time it was penned, that doesn't really hold true today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/01/15/martin-luther-king-jr-s-scathing-critique-of-white-moderates-from-the-birmingham-jail/

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

And it is exhausting to then have this echoed in the 21st century:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/opinion/civil-rights-protest-resistance.html

Our complaint here is not about the right-wing media outlets that we know will continue to delegitimize anti-racist protest in any form — whether it's peacefully sitting during the national anthem, marching in the streets, staging boycotts or simply making the apparently radical claim that "black lives matter." Rather, our concern at this moment is with our moderate brothers and sisters who voice support for the cause of racial justice but simultaneously cling to paralyzingly unrealistic standards when it comes to what protest should look like.

[Admiral Yi]

Is this really a position of extremists if we are looking at BLM and a goal of having fewer black people killed/have their lives ruined by police. Why is that a partisan issue? I can get how the center can take issue with 'defund the police' but it isn't as though the center hasn't had decades (centuries?) to tackle the issue themselves. We aren't talking about a novel problem.

The simple fact is no one knows what to do.  If there were a simple solution we would have done it already.

I can think of two simple solutions that have been proposed: defund the police, and abolish the police.  I and others think these are not very good solutions, for obvious reasons.

[Jacob]

I will note this however - the strategy works really, really well.

If you want to just refuse to address specific issues, shifting the entire argument away from those issues to focus on how anyone bringing up any issue at all is BY DEFINITION an asshole for daring to question the left orthodoxy works every single time.

It is an incredibly effective way of simply owning the discourse and not having to defend your position on its merits at all.

Alright, let's address the issue. We're talking about the slogan "defund the police".

I agree with you that the slogan is pretty off-putting to a bunch of people in the centre (and left for that matter), and is potentially motivating and a useful recruitment tool for people on the far right. I also agree with you that the extreme versions (no police at all) are a complete no go, and that less extreme versions (lower funding for police and pulling them out of a whole set of responsibilities, with attendant increase in funding for other services to deal with those issues and potentially prevent them in the first place) is one that needs to be handled with delicacy and thought if they are to work; even in its lesser form (and even with a different slogan than "defund the police") it is definitely not a panacea.

So let's take defunding the police off the table. We still have a large number of Black folks killed by the police in the US. There's a non-trivial number of non-Black folks killed as well for that matter. There's a wide perception that the police can abuse their power with impunity unless something becomes a media storm. There's the issue of sympathizers in police forces aiding and abetting right wing terrorism. So what do we do? What's the action or plan proposed by or acceptable to the reasonable centre?

I put out a bunch of suggestions upthread that weren't "defund the police" - in fact I agreed with increasing funding to the police if necessary. Some of the ideas were rejected as bad (no taking away people's pensions), which is fine. I have a few more ideas (which may or may not be practical) - maybe make it a federal offence to abuse police power? But I'm not the centre in this discussion. What are the proposals you support to address the issues that "defund the police" is reacting to?

[Jacob]

The simple fact is no one knows what to do.  If there were a simple solution we would have done it already.

For sure. So we need non-simple solutions. Where should we go?

I can think of two simple solutions that have been proposed: defund the police, and abolish the police.  I and others think these are not very good solutions, for obvious reasons.

So those are not very good solutions, fair enough. Depending on where we draw the lines when it comes to "defund the police" I may even agree.

Because if the answer to "defund the police" is "that's a terrible idea, we can't" then the question becomes "what do we do instead?" And if the answer to that is "I don't know... nothing I guess" then "defund the police" may continue strong for quite a while, with all the attendant issues.

[Admiral Yi]

For sure. So we need non-simple solutions. Where should we go?

There is no place to go.  We're it.

I've made some proposals upstream, you've made some proposals, DGuller proposed not hiring e-GIs.  Hopefully people with more voice and more clout also make proposals.  Then we stew on them, pick them apart, mull over them, in an attempt to reach some kind of consensus.  I think this is a situation ripe for demonstration projects: the more woke cities like Portland and Seattle try out something radical and unproven, but plausible, then the rest of us look at their results.

In other words BLM outrage is just going to be a fact of life for a long time to come.

[Berkut]

I will note this however - the strategy works really, really well.

If you want to just refuse to address specific issues, shifting the entire argument away from those issues to focus on how anyone bringing up any issue at all is BY DEFINITION an asshole for daring to question the left orthodoxy works every single time.

It is an incredibly effective way of simply owning the discourse and not having to defend your position on its merits at all.

Alright, let's address the issue. We're talking about the slogan "defund the police".

But that is NOT what this argument is about at all. It is about the comments made by Tlaib to abolish the police altogether, along with incarceration, and whether comments like that are useful in the context of modern US politics.

This is NOT about "defund the police". I have issues with that as well, but when THAT is seen by some to be too tame, then we have real problems.

How anyone can argue that a call to actually abolish the police made by a prominent and respect democratic is so sacrosanct that it cannot be remarked on....is still beyond me.

[Berkut]

I also agree with you that the extreme versions (no police at all) are a complete no go,

Jesus Fucking Christ Jake.

This is MY position, and the exact issue that started this entire debate and got zoupa calling me an asshole and garbon implying that I must be some kind of racist uninterested in fixing anything (and yes, I am still going to go there - only a racist would be uninterested in fixing these problems, so if you accuse me of wanting to maintain the status quo that I agree is systemically and often specifically racist....then that would in fact make me a racist, or so close that the distinction is irrelevant).

This entire thing was started in response to Tlaib saying "It wasn't an accident, policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist." She ended the tweet with "No more policing, incarceration, it can't be reformed."

No, apparently even SHE thinks that is too far as well, since she walked it back once the inevitable backlash started.

Part of the backlash was the observation that many people have made that this kind of rhetoric is not just wrong - it is actively helpful to the very people who do in fact want to dismiss the *ideas* behind BLM and even re-allocating funding away from aggressive policing and towards more pro-active services - WHICH I SUPPORT COMPLETELY - despite what garbon claims about "my" groups responsibility, apparently, for not fixing racism already.

Christ, you've spent the last 48 hours vehemently arguing about something that garbon, if he was honest about how he approaches this, should be telling you right now that your "white people" perspective is hurtful and the real problem.
[/b]