***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[gry60]

I didn't say Americans are opposed to the us social safety net.
I said they are opposed to tax increases required to fund larger more robust Nordic style social safety nets

I get the distinction.

It is true that Democrats avoid to say that taxes will go up, but I think it has less to do with Americans not wanting to pay for those social policies and more to do with the belief that the government can't do right by the average American (which would mean increasing taxes AND capping healthcare and education costs at a very affordable level), which is a sentiment that has been cultivated for the last 40 years (Reagan's famous nine words come to mind).

i have no idea if it's "un-american"
but i think there's plenty of evidence that there is a strain of individualism in American culture
that is unique to western democracies.

Social benefits and the expectation of government intervention funded by taxes in the life of Americans were a tangible thing in this country during the first half of the 20th century. I believe Heather McGee mentions this in her book, but I can only find the graph below to illustrate how Americans trust in their government has evolved since the 50s.

The move away from those expectations is a product of anti-communist propaganda campaigns in the 60s, which were also used to discredit the civil rights movement. And if you want to know the extent of that campaign of propaganda, you should know that those who apply to become citizens of the US are still asked today whether they were members of the (any) communist party. Also note that "under God" in the pledge was an anti-communist dog whistle.

The idea of American individualism has been manufactured and sold to the people as something they ought to believe in, but all major outcomes throughout American history were the result of collective endeavors, from the independence war to WWII. The US has always poached the smartest to advance its economic and technological sectors, and these minds have always worked in a collaborative environment.

Public opinion is malleable, and a lot of ideas that appear intrinsic to the American experience may not stand the test of time if you look far enough in the past.

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

please primary Sinema.

Those tweets are kinda dumb.

Given the origin of the word.

 

[Zo gif]

Im hispanix

 

[had pants]

 

[had pants]

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

Im hispanix

In the 50’s, if they liked you, they would have said you were SpanishX.

I recently found out that my wife’s crazy, Trump-loving aunt was very curious about my son’s looks when he was born. Talking about, “Are his eyes dark brown or are they light brown,” and, “Does he look… Spaaanish?”

It had been literal decades since I last heard someone trying to use that euphemistically.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Those tweets are kinda dumb.

Given the origin of the word.

i remember when I started saying latinx years ago
probably because i read somewhere that that's what you are supposed to say.

then i starting dating a Spanish speaker and I said it to her
she's vaguely was aware of the term but her crew of Chilean friends had never heard of it.

and then they told me Latinx was unpronounceable in Spanish.

so it's hard for me to understand how creating a word that is difficult to pronounce in Spanish
is a bid for inclusivity. it seems totally contradictory.

and that's not even getting into the problematic idea of English speakers degenderizing
another cultures language.

Gallago's district is 64% Hispanic, Id imagine his take is informed by interacting with Spanish speaking people.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I get the distinction.

It is true that Democrats avoid to say that taxes will go up, but I think it has less to do with Americans not wanting to pay for those social policies and more to do with the belief that the government can't do right by the average American (which would mean increasing taxes AND capping healthcare and education costs at a very affordable level), which is a sentiment that has been cultivated for the last 40 years (Reagan's famous nine words come to mind).

Social benefits and the expectation of government intervention funded by taxes in the life of Americans were a tangible thing in this country during the first half of the 20th century. I believe Heather McGee mentions this in her book, but I can only find the graph below to illustrate how Americans trust in their government has evolved since the 50s.

The move away from those expectations is a product of anti-communist propaganda campaigns in the 60s, which were also used to discredit the civil rights movement. And if you want to know the extent of that campaign of propaganda, you should know that those who apply to become citizens of the US are still asked today whether they were members of the (any) communist party. Also note that "under God" in the pledge was an anti-communist dog whistle.

That graph just looks like a proxy for the econonmy.
public trust being high in the post war boom and then declining through the 70's and rising again in the 80's and peaking in the early 2000's to me doesn't say anything about American individualism being fake.

The idea of American individualism has been manufactured and sold to the people as something they ought to believe in, but all major outcomes throughout American history were the result of collective endeavors, from the independence war to WWII. The US has always poached the smartest to advance its economic and technological sectors, and these minds have always worked in a collaborative environment.

Public opinion is malleable, and a lot of ideas that appear intrinsic to the American experience may not stand the test of time if you look far enough in the past.

This just sounds like a cope.

It sound like you want to believe there is some evil wizard of Oz pulling the strings behind the curtain
making Americans believe counter productive things.

and if only we dispatched them, Americans would support your policy preferences.

of course attitudes and cultural preferences can be triggered/manipulated by media,
but I think it's pretty implausible that American individualism is totally fake,
media doesn't create stuff out of thin air, they play on existing attitudes and values.

I think some combination or genetic self selection, the history of the nation, and racism
that make Americans more individualistic than other western countries.

if wanna call that fake, i guess fine,
but it doesn't really change my larger point, the voters are standing in the way.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

That vaccination result is about as linear a scatter as you’ll find for a social phenomenon. Crazy how strong of a predictor ideology is.

 

[RustyShackleford]

i remember when I started saying latinx years ago
probably because i read somewhere that that's what you are supposed to say.

then i starting dating a Spanish speaker and I said it to her
she's vaguely was aware of the term but her crew of Chilean friends had never heard of it.

and then they told me Latinx was unpronounceable in Spanish.

so it's hard for me to understand how creating a word that is difficult to pronounce in Spanish
is a bid for inclusivity. it seems totally contradictory.

and that's not even getting into the problematic idea of English speakers degenderizing
another cultures language.

Gallago's district is 64% Hispanic, Id imagine his take is informed by interacting with Spanish speaking people.

From my understanding, the term was popularized by Hispanics in academia as a gender-neutral way to refer to nonbinary Latinos. And it was a word taken from signs Latina feminists used to hold up during protest decades ago. It seems like it was mainly used in academic circles until it gain popularity on Twitter.

The word was meant to be used as inclusive of a group of people because Spanish is a gendered language

Secondly, I don't know what being an English speaking Latino, somehow makes someone not a part of Hispanic or Latino culture. That is new.

Is this person also being problematic for trying to "elle" so they can feel more comfortable in a Spanish-speaking community also...

The pronoun 'elle' offers an alternative for Spanish speakers outside the gender binary

"Elle," says a nonbinary young Latinx, "is a tool to me—a way to test the waters and see if I can be me."

www.nbcnews.com

Could you, your Spanish-speaking girlfriend, and Gallego huddle and let them know?

I called it dumb because of his assertion that a Latino politician must be trying to appease white progressives if they use to the word. Clearly taking a swipe at the Castros. Never seemed like he considered might be an alternate reason someone might do it.

I don't care that he tells his staff not you use it. I have no attachment to the word and politicians should use language they feel connects them with their audience the most.

It is the sorry *** "trying to appease" white people **** he needlessly threw in there

But like flies to ****, I knew the Politico would attract the usual suspects with that article.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

From my understanding, the term was popularized by Hispanics in academia as a gender-neutral way to refer to nonbinary Latinos. And it was a word taken from signs Latina feminists used to hold up during protest decades ago. It seems like it was mainly used in academic circles until it gain popularity on Twitter.

The word was meant to be used as inclusive of a group of people because Spanish is a gendered language

Secondly, I don't know what being an English speaking Latino, somehow makes someone not a part of Hispanic or Latino culture. That is new.

Academics have all sorts of weird ideas about a lot of things.

but the Latinx thing to me speaks to an instinct for educated progressives
to substitute the opinions of academic people of colours for the actual broad opinions of the group.

to me it's a like subtle racism / classism
nobody thinks like Charles Krauthammer or like George will is really representative of the opinions like the average white conservative.

but often time white people end up fooling themselves into thinking.
XYZ Hispanic academic is representative of broader Hispanic opinions.

Is this person also being problematic for trying to "elle" so they can feel more comfortable in a Spanish-speaking community also...

The pronoun 'elle' offers an alternative for Spanish speakers outside the gender binary

"Elle," says a nonbinary young Latinx, "is a tool to me—a way to test the waters and see if I can be me."

www.nbcnews.com

Could you, your Spanish-speaking girlfriend, and Gallego huddle and let them know?

lol people can do whatever they want. ill call people whatever they want.
my point it is the majority of hispanic people don't seem to want to be called Latinx

personally I think the "non binary" stuff is contradictory and kinda goofy.
but to each their own. i don't know what it has to do with political messaging.

I called it dumb because of his assertion that a Latino politician must be trying to appease white progressives if they use to the word. Clearly taking a swipe at the Castros. Never seemed like he considered might be an alternate reason someone might do it.

I don't care that he tells his staff not you use it. I have no attachment to the word and politicians should use language they feel connects them with their audience the most.

It is the sorry *** "trying to appease" white people **** he needlessly threw in there

But like flies to ****, I knew the Politico would attract the usual suspects with that article.

i def wouldn't call it dumb, seems like their might be some intra communal cultural stuff
that might make Gallego see it as a capitulation to white people.

I do think a latino candidate using a term that he must know most latinos either don't understand, can't pronounce, or find offensive,

I don't think it's dumb conclusion that the intended audience for that phrase is educated white people.

if it is a shot at Castro and his brain dead presidential campaign i support it,

 

[RustyShackleford]

Academics have all sorts of weird ideas about a lot of things.

but the Latinx thing to me speaks to an instinct for educated progressives
to substitute the opinions of academic people of colours for the actual broad opinions of the group.

to me it's a like subtle racism / classism
nobody thinks like Charles Krauthammer or like George will is really representative of the opinions like the average white conservative.

but often time white people end up fooling themselves into thinking.
XYZ Hispanic academic is representative of broader Hispanic opinions.

So even if the academic is Latino, and they classist and racist?

I can never make sense of your views on academics.

One second they are allowed to write their books and argue their points, but if they do something not popular with a community they it is an issue.

So by logic are progressive black academics that do something out the norms of the black community classist and racist as well?

My entire point is that Gallego took aim at Latinos using the term Latinos popularized. But somehow, because white people do something, then the Latino academic or politician needs to catch heat for it too.

To me, that is ****ing dumb. Just seems like it dismisses any other reason why someone might use the word, and somehow puts an uncharitable justification for it. And your defense of that is some mind-reading (which I see is cool now).

Gallego even said it made no difference in elections.

lol people can do whatever they want. ill call people whatever they want.
my point it is the majority of hispanic people don't seem to want to be called Latinx

personally I think the "non binary" stuff is contradictory and kinda goofy.
but to each their own. i don't know what it has to do with political messaging.

No one disputed that majority of Latino people. No one is missing that point

But issue was with Gallego's comment about the political impact of using Latinx

Of course, an attempt of a nonbinary person not wanting to feel more comfortable is goofy to you. Not surprising to me.

i def wouldn't call it dumb, seems like their might be some intra communal cultural stuff
that might make Gallego see it as a capitulation to white people.

I do think a latino candidate using a term that he must know most latinos either don't understand, can't pronounce, or find offensive,

I don't think it's dumb conclusion that the intended audience for that phrase is educated white people.

if it is a shot at Castro and his brain dead presidential campaign i support it,

I think it is dumb. He could have made his point without the shot at other Latino candidates especially when there are reasons outside of that why a Latino might use the word.

If he is your hope to beat Sinema, a dude in the bluest district in AZ. Mans gonna be capitulating to the views of white people a ton. But I forget, capitulating those white people is cool.

That is why I find this argument unprincipled. You and Gallego really don't have some principled stance against kissing the *** of white people. If is strictly about politics, and if you are making a point about politics, then that shot at other Latino politicians was not needed and comes off as somewhat ignorant.

-You still have an issue with Castro because of that imagery reason you made up in your head. Good grief.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Look at this ....


But yeah, let's focus on progressivism getting outta hand in schools

 

[Nike Jordan]

I think the term "Latinx" is corny, but not some deal-breaker for me.

If a candidate using "Latinx" is the last straw for a Latin/Hispanic person, then they were never going to support them in the first place.

 

[Mark Antony]

It does sound academic and makes less sense for normal users, but I don't really care.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

So even if the academic is Latino, and they classist and racist?

I can never make sense of your views on academics.

One second they are allowed to write their books and argue their points, but if they do something not popular with a community they are racist and classist.

So by logic are progressive black academics that do something out the norms of the black community classist and racist as well?

I think I've been pretty clear.

I said white educated progressives substituting the opinion of black or Latino academics
for the opinions of the broader group is racist / classist.

and Black or Latino academics should write whatever they want
i don't see how this is in conflict.

My entire point is that Gallego took aim at Latinos using the term Latinos popularized. But somehow, because white people do something, then the Latino academic or politician needs to catch heat for it too

To me that is ****ing dumb.

well no I would say white people popularized it,
if the majority of Hispanic people don't know, don't like or are actively offended by a term.
but it reaches the main stream anyways

that only happens if white people start using it.

Of course, an attempt of a nonbinary person not wanting to feel more comfortable is goofy to you. Not surprising to me.

no i didn't say that. I said I find the concept of "non binary" to be contradictory and kinda goofy.
people wanting to feel more comfortable I fully support, hence why i said ill call people whatever they want.

I think it is dumb. He could have made his point without the shot at other Latino candidates especially when there are reasons outside of that why a Latino might use the word.

If he is your hope to beat Sinema, a dude in the bluest district in AZ. Mans gonna be capitulating to the views of white people a ton. But I forget, those white people are cool.

district is 64% Hispanic but yes, if he's in favour of ending the filibuster he should do/say whatever it takes to win.

That is why I find this argument unprincipled. You and Gallego really don't have some principled stance against kissing the *** of white people. If is strictly about politics, and if you are making a point about politics, then that shot at other Latino politicians was not needed.

if calling Latino people Latinx helped you win elections, you should do it.

it just so happens calling people latinx doesn't seem to help you win anything
and many of them find it insulting.

so naturally it's pretty darkly funny that democrats keep doing it.

-You still have an issue with Castro because of that imagery reason you made up in your head. Good grief.

naaaaaaah still as dumb as i remembered it.

 

[aepps20]

The term liberal also needs to go if we are honest.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I think the term "Latinx" is corny, but not some deal-breaker for me.

If a candidate using "Latinx" is the last straw for a Latin/Hispanic person, then they were never going to support them in the first place.

It does sound academic and makes less sense for normal users, but I don't really care.

My issue is that is a term that was mainly used in academia.

In the academic setting, it makes sense to use because it clarifying. To regular people, it isn't, so you probably shouldn't use it

But if someone admits it doesn't make a difference in the results of elections. Then what is really the major issue?

Gallegao made some weird reaches that if a Latino uses the word they are just being performative for progressive white people, and don't really know what is Latino communities need.

He never provides evidence of this. Seemingly the thing Latino communities need is assumed to be "not being called Latinx"

But using Latinx says nothing about their policy stances

 

[RustyShackleford]

naaaaaaah still as dumb as i remembered it.

You think Castro saying we need to repeal the specific part of a law that Trump is using to justify child separations because there are other laws on the books the US government can use to deport people especially those in illegal activity, which he mentions on stage, is stupid.

Imagine if you looked into his full policy stance, instead of depending on a snippet from a debate

That would be something, won't it

Funny, if you just start the video from the beginning, and not where you put it, everyone could see they are talking about child separations.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You think Castro saying we need to repeal the specific part of a law that Trump is using to justify child separations because there are other laws on the books the US government can use to deport people especially those in illegal activity, which he mentions on stage, is stupid.

Imagine if you looked into his full policy stance, instead of depending on a snippet from a debate

That would be something, won't it

Funny, if you just start the video from the beginning, and not where you put it, everyone could see they are talking about child separations.

yes i think dumb to say in a debate for presidency of the united states of America,

a country with a pretty a sordid with race,



that you should decriminalize boarder crossings, and then force all the other candidates to take a position on your politically toxic sophies choice

yes, call me crazy, I think that is extremely dumb.

 

[aepps20]

We also need to ban the term "karen" which I've repeatedly stated is a slur worse than the n word. I say this as a Black man.

 

[whywesteppin]

We also need to ban the term "karen" which I've repeatedly stated is a slur worse than the n word. I say this as a Black man.

I don't know why NT doesn't censor K**** like it should. I guess hypocrisy is ok now.