***Official Political Discussion Thread***

osh kosh bosh said:
i am against mind reading,
that's why i said i personally can't say for sure why someone would use the term.

but it is not an unreasonable deduction.
if you are a politician you presumably spend a lot of time thinking about messaging
and you choose to use a word that you know a community does not identify with or does not like.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think your reason for using that word is not to appeal to that group.
and you have some other reason. that reason may be noble for all I know.

but I don't think it's wrong for Gallego who maybe has more intimate opinion on intra Hispanic cultural conflicts to come to more negative conclusion.
Click to expand...

Nice to know you don't have some principled stance against mind-reading. I am sure you will be tolerable of people making a reasonable deduction from your post from now on

Also, you are leaving out an important detail. Gallego is taking a shot at Latino politicians. Latino politics are mainly elected in Latino heavy districts

Gallego is not strictly talking about the preferences in regard to the word. He also accuses people of not knowing what Latino districts need.


osh kosh bosh said:
I don't know what this means, I think the word is evidence of a progressive attitude I think is bad.
if that means im ****ting on progressives, fine I am.
i **** on them when they do bad things maybe im weird.
Click to expand...


You wrote this...

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


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, :lol:
Click to expand...

I am saying this is not about capitulating to the views of white people, or even educated white people. You will have no issue if your mans Ruben kisses the *** to white centrist, which he will have to do to beat Sinema. So you have no principled stance against catapulting to white people. It is because he included a shot at white progressives you feel so eager to defend dude's position.

If a Latino ran in Gallgeo's district, they could use Latinx in mass communications and still moonwalk into office. Mans is not talking about his district. He is throwing stones at other Latinos but from the comfort of a 50+ partisan lean.

Seemingly you have no interest in what was said outside of ****ty on progressives.

osh kosh bosh said:



1638905692472.png


:lol:

but seriosuly i do think democrats have gotten the message finally and have mostly stopped doing this. :lol:
but the few times i see it, i chuckle.
Click to expand...


Osh, that Warren video is from two years ago.

Your evidence from this year is two tweets, one of which they use Latinx a long side Hispanic and Latino. One with a video of Latino's saying Latino, and a banner for an event with HIsnapic and Latinos on it.

Crazy indictment
 
Last edited:
osh kosh bosh said:
the argument is it won't win or lose election so who cares that some small minority of people take offense to it?
or there are bigger fish to fry so who cares that some minority of Latinos are offended?

I don't think those track traditionally progressive opinions on offensive speech.

and I don't think that if this was a term mostly used by lower class people would habve that same attitude.
but that just my opinion, i have no way of knowing for sure.
Click to expand...
Your imagination is running wild again

Your boy Gallego is the one that made the point about elections. I saying I am not advocating for the use of the word. I just took issue with the way Gallego was mind-reading to needlessly throw shots beyond making a simple point of just stopping using it.

I really don't care. Whatever a Latino, Hispanic, or Latinx, person wants me to call them I will do that and I already said multiple times politicians should probably not use it.

So what is even your point here?

Furthermore, politically. Even if someone is firmly against using it, or doesn't care about the discussion because it doesn't mean much for elections, that doesn't in any way contradict someone saying that when it comes to getting Latino votes, the Dems have bigger issues to deal with.

Dems polling with Latinos was dipping before this Latinx /usage debate jumped off. The word going away will have little effect on their prospects (even Gallego admits this). They pretty much stopped using it, and they are still bad.

So much energy is spent on this to somehow point out something rotten on the progressive left, but the article that motivated all this was talking about the Dems prospects with Latinos because of this word. And in reality, it means little in the grand scheme of things politically.

But a disproportionate amount of energy is spent on it, because even in the face of massive challenges punching left just feels like the right and most important thing to do.
 
Last edited:
osh kosh bosh said:
Ezra said to him that decriminalizing boarder crossing was a central part of his campaign.
if this assertion was incorrect you would think he'd push back in the interview.

seems like Julien Castro himself conceded it.
Click to expand...
So discount everything Castro ever said except the things you cherry-pick

And put a spin on decriminalization different that what the policy would mean

Gotcha

Still sounds stupid to me. But like I said, you do you.
 
Last edited:
osh kosh bosh said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fox News?

osh kosh bosh said:
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.
Click to expand...
Propagandist messaging doesn't work well without some nugget of truth in it.

One of the symbols of rugged American individualism is the story of Western expansion. Popular culture has overwhelmingly portrayed the main characters - cowboys - as straight white men and the original dwellers - native people - as trespassers, when the reality is that close to one third of cowboys were Black, another sizable proportion of them were Latinos, and alliances with Native Americans helped white Americans expand their control of the West. You wouldn't know about the actual reality of the old west from watching old John Wayne movies and reading popular frontier literature.

Meanwhile, you'd have to take a graduate course in History or sociology to find out about labor movements in the US because this stuff isn't exactly taught in K-12, nor is it part of the national conversation. The propaganda against leftist ideas in the public sphere is so entrenched that we celebrate Labor Day on a day different from May 1st.

The media doesn't create things out of thin air, but it (the people who control it and other means to shape culture) elevates or obscures ideas and events depending on how those ideas serve their biases and preferences. That's how to do propaganda effectively.
 


Mitch McConnell is now begging the GOP not to filibuster raising the debt ceiling bill, so Dems can pass it on a party-line vote

If this happens

This will:

a) Points out how ridiculous the GOP is. 10 of them could just vote cloture. Or a majority of them could vote for it
b) How ridiculous the filibuster is. 60 votes is not needed to pass legislation into law. 60 is needed for a stupid procedural vote.
c) how dumb Manchin and Sinema are about the filibuster. It has to say because "Uhhhh bipartisanship" but they are willing to do this
 
I blame the democrats for nominating someone born in the Soviet Union
They should have anticipated the conservative messaging on this and acquiesced
It was stupid and they must enjoy being losers. Who cares if she was qualified and it was the right thing to do?
Gotta appeal to those swing voters who only watch Fox News and vote Republican every election
 
Smmmmmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

dwalk31 dwalk31 going talk about messaging while people he supported for years were openly sexiest, xenophobic and outright racist
 
rexanglorum said:


But the libbies didn’t show total deference to famous transphobes so it evens out.
Click to expand...

I love the goofball defenses to such behavior

It is always like "sure the conservatives are worse, but they are always been loony. So instead of them getting bad at them getting even crazier and racist, let me focus all my energy into parroting right-wing talking points to take issue with the margins being shifted a little bit on the progressive left". You see it some all the usual suspects in the media.

Walking around sounding like a Conor Friedersdorf article come to life
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
mp23
mp23
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
MakeNTGreatAgain
MakeNTGreatAgain

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom