More like the “I tried to smear my political opponents with something my side is currently doing right now, so it really just boomeranged back and hit me in my own face” gambit
So according to you, that is a common tactic of “his side”.
His side, of course, happens to be “the whole group”.
You have exactly one example of this cited. From an individual poster. You are currently using this individual example as representative of “his side”, meaning the whole group. In other words: you have chosen “to treat an individual on the other side as representative of the whole group”. And not even a person with a nominal position of power, like a position at the DNC.
You are literally using the individual example of a pseudonymous internet poster as somehow representative of the entire side he belongs to, while simultaneously, you are acting as if this behavior – the behavior you are currently engaged in – is somehow representative of the other side. You are complaining about behavior simultaneously as you engage in exactly that same behavior yourself. That right there is a rarefied height of hypocrisy that few other people reach. I’ve seen people complain about behavior, and then wait a few minutes before they engage in the very same behavior. But simultaneously? That’s a rare gift of self-contradiction that most other people cannot match.
Of course, your own posting faults are not necessarily representative of any group you belong to. I’d want to collect unbiased data, from a fair sample of the population, before I made any such statement like that, because of course, my own personal observations might be confirmation biased to hell. Just because I might personally think that your behavior is typical of “your side” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s so. My own perceptions might instead be at fault.
Hilariously enough, two different conservative posters started threads on this same example, such that they were combined; and a third conservative poster started a third thread on this incident in Great Debates. This single hitherto-unknown low-level staffer, whose actions were repudiated almost immediately, spawned three different threads of conservative hand-wringing, just on this messageboard.
Not just here. The desperation to find something, ANYTHING that will stick to the Dems to distract or allow false equivalency arguments on the Mueller investigation is palpable.
LOL :rolleyes:
Wasn’t that what your Cincinnati thing was? If not, what was that?
Well you all can say what you want about this but it really does hit a nerve with white people who studies show, already feel discriminated against.
The article above shows that 55% of whites feel discriminated against.
I know, right? I mean, here we have the PRESIDENT OF THE MOTHERFUCKING UNITED STATES whose campaign had people colluding with Russia and who is freaking out as the investigator closes in, meanwhile we have news reports detailing the sophisticated methodology Russian spies used to engage in information warfare against our nation to influence the election, and instead of writing OPs about how insanely terrible this is, you’re dredging up a low-level staffer with a thoughtless and offensive line in an email (a line that, let’s remember, had zero effect on hiring and that was almost instantly repudiated by her supervisors) and starting one of three threads on the subject.
LOL!
Thanks! I will!
When Fox News is dredging up idiotic trivialities like this and bludgeoning you over the head with them as they try to distract you from our slow slide into authoritarianism, “it hits a nerve” is the wrong phrasing. “Fox is terrifying me with misinformation and blatant propaganda” would be a bit more accurate.
Not accurate.
Not completely accurate. 55% feel discrimination against whites exist, but a smaller percentage feel they personally have been victims. (It’s unclear how much, because over possibly overlapping subcategories.)
White grievance politics are powerful. That’s a lesson the DNC should have learned from 2016.
But that doesn’t make the political questions easy. Xenophobia is powerful too, and Democrats have often avoided using that as a tool the way Republicans do. There’s a careful balance of appealing to Americans as they are and to trying to change their beliefs. If the Democrats had not fought (largely losing!) battles in the middle aughts on fear-mongering over terrorism, for example, they would be much worse off now. As it stands, the country is much much more innoculated against anti-Muslim demagoguery than it was a decade ago. Maybe the same would be true for losing battles over white grievance politics.
I disagree with this. Democrats use it far far more than Republicans do.
Of course, it depends on how you view things. From my perspective, getting people riled up that cops or whites in general are racist and out to get minorities is appealing to and encouraging xenophobia (and serves Democratic interests in encouraging the oppressed to vote for their “protectors”). Others think it’s rectifying injustice.
This is what white grievance politics is–people more upset about the identification of racism than about the racism itself.
I would agree that what you describe can reasonably be characterized as xenophobia (or bigotry or similar concepts), I just don’t think that the Democrats, in general, are doing this. Certainly there are fringe figures who do it, or even slip-ups by major figures (like Biden’s “they’re gonna put you back in chains”), but in general, I don’t think the Democratic party does this.
Of course, I’m just as likely to possibly be biased towards the Democrats as you are against them.
I’m curious: Did you see the Latino Victory Fund’s ad in Virginia? Do you think of them as fringe figures?
I don’t know, but what’s wrong with the ad? Is there something wrong with portraying white supremacists as scary and evil?
I’ve never heard of them, so does that count? Love the usual hackneyed, “I’m so repressed!” commentary from the video poster, though…
“Imagine a group called WHITE victory fund!”
The WaPo editorial board called the ad “vile” and “despicable”. Do I really need to explain it further to you?
You didn’t ask me, but IMO, the wrong isn’t the portrayal of an evil white supremacist. The wrong is using that portrayal to get people to vote for Northam. It is wrong to play on people’s fears to get them to vote, when the fear is of something that is largely disconnected from the policies in dispute. Gillespie is obviously white supremacist-friendly, given his confederate monument rhetoric. But I don’t actually think it’s reasonable to suggest that electing him will cause more crazy southrons to chase little brown kids. It has some (but not all) of the problems as Willie Horton ads, or Gillespie’s own rhetoric on MS-13.
The issue is that the ad targets a particular politician (Ed Gillespie, whose bumper sticker can be seen on the scary pickup truck), who doesn’t openly claim to be a white supremacist, so it is possible to argue that the characterization is unfair. Not too familiar with the guy, but per Wikipedia:
So, seems fair to me. If you spend most of your campaign money pandering to racists, you can’t really complain when people label you as a racist. Of course, as this this thread demonstrates, you CAN, but…