SenorBeef And The Streisand Effect

The BBQ Pit
1

Well, that isn’t quite the right term. The Streissand Effect. However, as always I wanted a title I could link to in other forums.

I saw this thead Kamala should run for president again in 2028 . I didn’t read it. I am involved in enough threads right now. I was intrigued by this thread Is it possible to block a mod?

This lead me to wonder, why block a moderator? Which moderator did SenorBeef want to block? What had they done?

It turns out, that in the Kamala 2028 thread ( Starting here Kamala should run for president again in 2028 - #92 by SenorBeef ), SenorBeef had argued a position that was racist and misogynist. He had many claims without providing cites to back them. Miller’s offense? He had called out the racism and misogyny. Countered the claims and out debated SenorBeef.

IMHO, the sensible thing to do at that point would have been to walk away. That, of course, is not what happened.

SenorBeef responded by saying that Miller was straw manning and not debating in good faith.

He then started the ATMB thread. So, you’re position is bigotted, your arguments are weak and without cites- what do you do? You call more attention to these things by starting an ATMB thread.

After continuing to double down and not admit his mistakes, SenorBeef suggested I start a Pit thread. Finally! A good idea! So, here it is.

2

Thanks for starting it. I was looking to bump an existing Pit thread before the ATMB thread got any replies but there isn’t anything recent. I’ve had the misguided jackass on ignore for the past four years so any Pit thread started by me would have been seriously lacking.

3

What a weird and dumb reason to pit me. If you pitted me over the supposed misogyny and racism and whatever other ism you want to throw at me, that would at least be understandable. But you’re putting me over some nonsensical gotcha that you’ve completely invented in your head. You’re pitting me over the fact that I asked a technical question about the board that brought attention to my posts in another thread, posts which I am fine with members of this board reading given that I posted them publicly on this message board.

You suggest that I have some terrible secret – that I want to make sure my posts in that thread get buried and no one ever sees them, which is the weirdest assumption given that you brought your hypothesis to that thread and I addressed them and kept addressing arguments against me in that thread. Clearly I am not trying to bury my participation in that thread or slink away or anything like that. I stand by what I said and I’m fine if people read it, otherwise I wouldn’t have posted it just yesterday on a public message board.

Both you and Miller are only engaging in ad hominem attacks rather than addressing my actual point. I’m saying something you’re uncomfortable with, and you’re dealing with that discomfort by throwing accusations of racism and misogyny at me. There are a lot of people that do that a lot and it’s not productive. You demand claims for citations to pretend like you’re upholding some high standard of debate, but you’re not asking for citations from anyone else, and I’m obviously giving my own interpretation of historical events and cultural values without claims that are obviously citable. This sort of debate takes place all the time on the board, and shouting “no citations (even though I too have no citations)! I win!” is a cop out.

I will post an analogy that I posted in that thread but that which people may not address because they’re not sure it runs afoul of moderator instructions or because people prefer to ignore arguments that show their position to be faulty.

I am an atheist. I would like to advance the cause of atheism. Having an openly atheist president would be a great sign of the social progress of this country. I am not putting the oppression of atheists on the same scale as that by sex or race, but if you do polls of what people are least willing to vote for in a president, atheist is one of the top ones. Cite. Now, I do think even though I am citing that source, it is imperfect, because people often answer polls in line with social expectation. They think they’re supposed to say they’d vote for a black person or a woman, so they say it, but in practice more people would hold those traits against them. There’s very little social pressure to be more tolerant of atheists, however, and so the percentage is likely more honest.

It’s obvious that running for president as an open atheist is a huge disadvantage with at least 40% of the voting population saying they wouldn’t vote for you. It would be suicide for an open atheist to run for president. If the democrats ran an open atheist against Trump in 2016, a Christian in 2020, and an atheist in 2024 and lost to Trump both times, I would not be saying “wouldn’t it be nice if we could get an atheist in the white house? Let’s try it again in 2028!”

I’d be acknowledging the threat that Trump represents. I’d be determined stop it. I would beg the democrats to stop trying to force atheist candidates. Because I’d know that electing Trump damages the cause of atheism and secularism and separation of church and state much more than the possibility of electing an open atheist, let alone other issues like governmental competence, global warming, democracy, and a thousand other issues Trump is an existential threat to.

Your logic says that I’m bigoted against atheism, even though that’s a core part of my identity and I wish we could have an openly atheist president. That doesn’t sound quite as bad as sexism and misogyny, so the severity of the insult doesn’t quite hit right, but it’s the same logic.

I am also a feminist and advocate for the advancement of people of color. Probably more than the vast majority of people on this board. The fact that you’re doubting that right now is your own mental weakness, your unwillingness to examine uncomfortable nuance. I’m willing to acknowledge an uncomfortable fact – that the American people are shitty and use shitty decision making criteria in their voting decisions – and that being outside the traditional power structure is a weakness of a candidate, an obstacle to be overcome, and generally fatally so.

Obama was such a political force that he made it work anyway, and I was happy he did. Kamala Harris is not such a political force – she got something like 1-2% in primaries in 2020 and no one seemed all that excited for her compared to Obama. I think it’s probably true – I have no citation, though maybe one might exist, just my own life experience – that it’s easier for a black man than any woman to be elected to office. I also think even though Obama faced an amazing amount of racism and xenophobia in 2008, it’s also possible that the current zeitgeist is actually worse in that regard. I was sure that the social progress we’ve made on inclusiveness and tolerance was one way and was only getting better, an unstoppable snowball, but it seems like there has been a significant backlash against it and a societal regression. Go open any youtube video and you’ll see all sorts of comments about “woke” and “DEI” – it’s all bullshit, it’s all evil, it’s the work of hateful and ignorant people and the propaganda and misinformation that drives them – but it’s real. It has to be accounted for when we decide the factors that go into the electability of a political candidate.

If, hypothetically, 99% of Americans weren’t willing to vote for a woman, it would be incredibly shitty of them. But you saying “but they shouldn’t feel that way, and a woman should be able to win, and we should keep running women and shaming them until it works!” would lead to victories by the opposition that would ultimately roll back the rights of women. And anyone acknowledge that would get shouted down as misogynist.

This is an uncomfortable fact. I get that. I don’t like being surrounded by these pieces of human garbage any more than you do. The difference is, you’re willing to try to force them to take their medicine in a way that’s going to invite more backlash. They shouldn’t think that way, they’re racist and they’re sexist and we’re going to make them do the right thing. You’re on the side of good and progress. It feels righteous. You’re morally right and you deserve to win. They deserve to be scorned and hated and shown how wrong they are. And you’re not wrong in your asssessment of them. But because of that, at least in part, we get Trump, twice. Is feeling righteous more of a guiding force than the actual real world impact your attitude brings? For people like you, generally so.

And Trump and the movement he rode and intensified has done far more damage to the progress of tolerance and inclusiveness than any benefit that would’ve come from the representation of having a woman of color as president. Even if you only look at the issue of human rights, and the lives of people of color and women and LGBTQ people, and ignore all the other massive issues that Trump is fucking up, a democratic president that actually wins does FAR more to advance the cause than the lower chance of electing a POC/woman/LGBTQ president.

You’re uncomfortable with this fact. You’re uncomfortable with all the people who are angry at the progress we’ve made and want to reverse it. Me too. And it feels good to be righteous and right and give the people that are wrong their medicine and win and force them to accept a better world. I get that too. And so when I come on here saying that you’re wrong, that your approach is wrong, that your approach is actually harming the cause of advancing the rights of disadvantaged people, it presents you with a difficult moral complexity that feels a lot worse than the righteous, simple view you had before. So you transfer that anger you have for them onto me. You accuse me of being sexist and racist and every other ist you can think of, just like them, because it allows you to dismiss me and ignore the uncomfortable truth that your approach may have backfired and actually harmed rather than helped your cause.

4

So just to make sure I understand your argument in a nutshell: run the “right” candidate, not the “good”candidate, so to speak?

5

It is part of the “Winning is everything, and no price is too high” philosophy, I guess.

6

Again, I NEVER said that. I said that is what you should have done. I never said it was what you are actually doing. In fact, I stressed that rather working to ensure your posts were forgotten you were continuing to post in that thread AND drawing attention to it.

Where is thae ad hominem? You position is racist and misogynist.

I see. You have the power of telepathy and know what my emotions and motivations are,

I didn’t see anybody else making false claims.

So, rather than providing any cites- you’re claiming my call for cites is proof that I am the one who cannot debate?

Wow! There’s that telepathy again!

Telepathy one more time!

More telepathy! Shouldn’t you be at a school training mutants to fight evil?

I never accused you of anything. I did say, repeatedly, that your position was racist and misogynist. You say I called you “every other ist you can think of”. What other -ists did I call you? Quote me,

Finally, more telepathy.

Do you do all this talking about my thoughts and motivations because you cannot provide cites for your position, or counter any of the things I actually wrote? I don’t know. I wish I was a telepath like you.

7

I’ve got an extremely easy way to do this. Extremely easy. You can do it today if you want.

Whoever wins the election, swear allegiance to them. The Republicans won the presidency and (narrowly) have majorities in both houses of Congress, so become a Republican! For now, at least. That way you can guarantee that you’re on the winning side.

If the situation reverses, reverse your position. You’re now a Democrat.

It’s so easy and it’s guaranteed to work!

Now, if you don’t want to do that because you actually care about what the Democrats are trying to do and what they stand for, and/or you detest the Republicans, then you probably shouldn’t be making arguments that the Democrats should do what the Republicans do in order to win.

8

Moral victories for everyone!! If you never want to lose, simply declare a moral victory! “My candidate didn’t win, but they were the best candidate who best exemplified my cause - therefore I declare a moral victory!” The needle may never move in our favor ever again, but we’re no longer measuring success by any measurable outcome - simply that we have rallied around a non-leader who will champion causes that will never see the light of day. Reality be damned - come see the glorious victory here deep in the sand. If you can’t see it, your head isn’t far enough in it!

9

That would also be stupid. And it explains people who always support third party candidates.

10

So if I’m a wealthy person, do I back the candidate I like or the one who would be successful, depending on history, the data and polling, regardless of gender or ethnicity?

11

I agree with most of what you’ve written here as well in the related thread. I posted something similar myself in that thread.

In fact, I thought for a moment that the OP of that thread was being disingenuous and possibly even trolling, but then finally concluded they did actually appear to be earnest and sincere in their belief that Kamala Harris should run again in 2028.

Nevertheless, my read on them is that they believe that the idea of a woman getting elected president is of such vital importance that it eclipses all other considerations, even if it means continuing to lose elections. I don’t agree with that. I would love for a woman to get elected president, but it takes a distinct back seat to defeating the GOP.

And it goes without saying that I would not support any GOP candidate, even a woman, now that the party has gone full fascist.

12

No people are rebutting the flip side of the conclusion: that Democrats should adopt sexist or racist policies to win elections. Declaring that women and POC are unwelcome or unfit solely because of their identity to pursue office in the Democratic party is by definition racist and sexist.

13

I don’t know exactly what you mean by right or good, but no, I don’t think that’s what I’m saying.

The reality is that anyone who falls outside the traditional expectations of the presidency (straight white Christian male) is at a disadvantage. The American voting public shitty. The republicans are shittier, of course, but plenty of independents and traditional democrats lose enthusiasm for women as candidates. It would be naive for us to think that because they shouldn’t feel that way, that they don’t. And we shouldn’t try to force them to take their medicine - to shove the win of someone they’re biased against down their throats - if it significantly increases the chance of someone like Trump winning.

We should have a realistic holistic view of a candidate. Perhaps they have strengths that are greater than their disadvantages – Obama was a unique political force that was an example of this. There’s no reason to believe that this describes Harris, given that her popularity and support was never all that high.

There’s a significant push in media currently to represent traditionally underrepresented groups. It’s a huge social movement, and it has a lot of positive impacts. There are a significant amount of people that are very invested in bringing that movement to the presidency, and so they’re advocating that running a candidate from an underrepresented group is an important end goal in and of itself. Rather than acknowledging it as an obstacle, they’ve convinced themselves it is a strength.

But let me pose to you a hypothetical: Let’s say that we run a generic white guy straight Christian within the norms democrat and he beats Trump 90% of the time. And we run a woman of color and because of the shittiness of the American public, she beats Trump 40% of the time. The upside of her win is that we get someone from a disadvantaged group that has never been president anymore. Representation. Great. The downside is that there’s a 50 percentage point increase that Trump wins the election and enacts all sorts of policies that roll back the social and legal progress that oppressed groups have made in recent decades. Is this a worthwhile gamble? I’m not saying that these are the actual numbers. Hypotheticals are used to demonstrate a point in principle.

And representation is also only one subset of the greater issue of fighting for the rights of disadvantaged people. And this is easy to demonstrate. Imagine a republican ran a woman as their candidate. Imagine she had mainstream republican views, so anti-women, anti-POC, anti-LGBT. Obviously electing her would set back the struggles of those people. And yet if she won, she’d be the first woman president. Representation. Do you vote for her?

No. Because representation is not the only, or even the dominant factor, on the real world impact on disadvantaged populations in terms of politics. The actual outcomes of how it affects people’s lives is more important.

Not at all. I can’t even see how you’d come to that conclusion. My position is nuanced, not rigid and dogmatic. I’m interested in the realpolitik of the situation, not arguing from on high. My opponents are the ones with the rigid and dogmatic position, it’s just that your win condition is feeling righteous rather than actually advancing the interests of disadvantaged minorities in the US.

What was the “cost” of running Biden in 2020 instead of Hillary again? Did we sell our souls if we don’t run a woman candidate for president over and over indefinitely now? Conversely, what was the cost of two Trump presidencies? Because I could go on for days about that.

What’s funny to me is that when progressives say that maybe we shouldn’t chase the republicans to the right and constantly run the most conservative democrats, people are quick to say shut up children, preventing a Trump presidency is the absolutely highest priority no matter what, fall in line. But if I say that beating Trump is too important to risk losing just to have representation, suddenly beating Trump is no longer the highest priority and you’re a misogynist and racist for thinking so.

14

You cannot actually think that’s what I’m suggesting, given that in the very first post in the other thread I said:

My entire fucking point is about “what the democrats are trying to do”. How much positive difference did Hillary get to make for women or POC or LGBTQ between 2016 and 2020? How much positive impact will Harris have between 2024 and 2028?

My point is not difficult to understand at all, but you all are getting a righteous thrill out of deliberately not understanding it.

15

Hmm, still haven’t responded to my second post in this thread.

Does that telepathy have any downsides?

16

I was actually responding to something Czarcasm said. You can even see what quote I was replying to in my post.

And I know that Czarcasm wasn’t advocating that either. But so many fucking times posters on this board have blatantly said that the Democrats need to lie and cheat and do underhanded shit to win because it works for Republicans, and my stance has always been that if they do decide to do that, there is no point in supporting them anymore.

I also maintain that Harris is the best candidate the Democrats could have run in the last election. It doesn’t matter. They were going to lose no matter what. I’ve said why as well. It’s a worldwide phenomenon; almost every incumbent lost everywhere because of an irrational reaction to inflation. Harris was not the problem. Your suggestion that picking her was a mistake is wrong because you don’t understand why she lost.

I think she’d be great in 2028 but that’s 4 years away, let’s see what happens in the midterm first.

17

I see one problem (at least) with this idea. Actual minorities and women may not be as smart as you, and may insist on running for President despite your sage advice. What do you do then? Do you openly declare that you won’t support those candidates in the primary because of their race and/or gender? Or do you lie about why you’re not supporting them, and trust the voters to be too stupid to realize you’re a liar?

18

The problem is you’re pulling those numbers directly out of your ass. We don’t know that a “generic white Christian man” beats Trump 90% of the time. It certainly didn’t play out that way in the Republican primaries in '16. Clinton, whom you described as a “uniquely vulnerable” candidate, lost by a razor thin margin. Harris, who had a severely truncated campaign, and was running as the incumbent in a year where incumbent parties were losing globally, also lost by a razor thin margin. This is not data from which it is reasonable to conclude, “Women can’t win.” And its not like, when we ran a white guy against Trump, his support collapsed. Trump got more votes than any candidate in history when he ran against Biden, bar one: thankfully, that one happened to be Biden, but it revealed that there wasn’t a vast reservoir of voters out there who were just waiting for a dick they could vote for. People didn’t vote for Trump because they were running from Harris or Clinton. They voted for Trump because they wanted Trump.

But that analysis doesn’t give us a convenient scapegoat to blame, the way, “Women just can’t win,” does.

Which brings up another thing - Trump made major gains in pretty much every minority group in the last election. Is a policy of “Democrats only run white men from now on,” going to help reverse that?

Seems unlikely.

19

It didn’t help that she had a short campaign, Trump had a lot of money and messaging in his corner, and he’d been prepping for this for awhile.

20

Which disadvantaged group do you feel she’s representing?