except MTGreene
This drives me crazy. It was a political answer to a gotcha question. Given the strong support for Biden among party operatives, what other answer could she have given, without losing crucial support among the very people who propel the campaign?
It’s a terrible question that served exactly the weaponized purpose it was meant to serve, without revealing anything substantive about policy.
It was a gotcha question, but she could have answered it more deftly. Nobody likes question-dodging, but I understand that there are at least some situations where politicians have to do it, and this was one. This was a golden time for a “What I would say is <answer question nobody asked>”.
That said, it was a pretty minor stumble compared to almost anything Trump says, let alone the rambling, dancing, overtly fascist Trump of the final weeks of the campaign. Anyone that used that line of Harris’ as an excuse to vote Trump is frankly just trying to rationalize their shameful choice.
Agree…but I feel she should have avoided that answer. Sounded terrible hearing it from an election pov.
Sad that such a question came up in “The View” which normally is very sympathetic to the liberal perspective of politics in usa.
It was an interestingly human moment. Most politicians put their game face on and can give seamingly detailed answers, but which really are just regurgiting the talking points they wanted to pivot to.
As much as people criticized Kamala’s answer to a question on the economy by talking about where she grew up, it was still a normal political answer – just delivered in the wrong order (by starting with the personal story, it enabled right-wing media to just clip that part and imply she never got to the details in her answer).
But answering “I can’t think of a thing…appoint a republican?” (paraphrasing), is the kind of thing I would say if suddenly there was a spotlight on me (then hours later realize something smart and accurate I could have said).
Fully agree.Thinking in the moment and giving a “smart” answer is not easy.
On a lighter note…I’m consoling myself…maybe not seen a woman of color(Black/Indian) as president this time but atleast we got another woman of color (Indian) as the second lady. JD Vance wife Usha is of indian origin.
The trouble with the word ‘woke’ is that it seems to mean different things to different people, and almost always ignites controversy.
I’d prefer to avoid use of the word altogether, but I guess it’s embedded in the language by now…
Yeah, I am wondering if it would be better to close this thread and to start a new thread with an unambiguous definition in the OP.
And you cant call them “stupid” for not understanding how inflation works.
Dont worry- I am happy to call the hardcore MAGAs all sorts of names!
Propaganda tool.
Technically her party did. But since most knew she was the leader of the party, kinda yeah then.
I will try for a sorta kinda definition- simplistic, certainly- “All Human beings have rights, no matter their age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, and everything else.” Yes, Minors have some few less rights, but only due to their age.
Or wait, maybe this- *We hold these truths to be self evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
It’s very easy to avoid using the word. I think even those that came up with it have stopped using it. It’s exclusively a word used by right wingers these days. Since I’m not one, I just don’t have to say “woke” in my day to day life.
Yeah; I had no idea for the longest time that it ever was anything but a right wing snarl word, since I exclusively heard it from them.
The problem is that a lot of people are using that word as a weapon that cannot be effectively be fought against specifically because of its vagueness, and they are not about to give up such an effective weapon.
It does seem to be a double-edged sword.
I hope it goes the way of some other neoligisms and fades away…
It doesn’t just go away-it is merely replaced, like its predecessor “Politically Correct”.
This isn’t what ‘refusing to get with the program’ means. Your friends know you share their beliefs and goals. They like and trust you, so if you forget someone’s pronouns they know you aren’t intending to be insulting. What we have lost is the option to have a principled objection to progressive ideas. Where it is understood that someone is not making a mistake, and will not apologise and promise to do better in future; rather they have somewhat different values, or have come to a different conclusion about what is right and wrong, or fair and unfair, based on the evidence. This principled disagreement from well-meaning people is now conflated with trolling, or just being evil in general, or with being misinformed (and when more information fails to change their minds, we go back to the ‘evil’ explanation).
The history of discrimination and bigotry in America is rife with examples of ‘perfectly valid reasons’ on which to base that discrimination.
And we’re – as usual – not talking about what people do. We’re overwhelmingly talking about who they are.
In fact …
Telling another human you know their gender better than they do is “somewhat different values”. Got it.
And why, in the kind of cases being talked about here should we consider the opposition principled or well meaning? Or even care, when their goal is to hurt people? Does it matter if the Inquisition was “well intentioned” when it tortured and killed people?
Given that it’s a century old I’m doubting it.
One side says LGBTQ+ should have equal rights, and the other side says they have no rights.
The happy “non-woke” solution is…?