• 5 Posts
  • 263 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 26th, 2023

help-circle










  • I don’t think I’ve been clear enough, I did vote for her. She shouldn’t have lost, and she absolutely should be criticized for pushing so hard for voters who are conservatives. I’d rather we look at the strategic decisions being made at the highest level than try and find a demographic that didn’t vote hard enough to throw under the bus. Kamala, her campaign, and the media all failed us. If you think posters on Lemmy threw the election by not being enthusiastic enough, wait until you hear about the power and platform that Kamala and the media squandered this election.


  • You don’t need to tell me the alternative is horror, but Harris absolutely deserves a lot of blame in botching this campaign. She ran a campaign that had a lot of parrelels to Hillary’s, and brought out both Clintons at the convention. If you lose to Trump running a centrist campaign and taking unpopular positions in important swing States in a virtual repeat of 2016 and even bring the same people that lost in 2016 to be your campaign spokespeople you shouldn’t get to throw up your hands and act like you couldn’t do better.




  • I understand not being from here you aren’t as familiar with these slogans and their context. Black Lives Matter as a movement is a movement against police violence that disproportionately impacts young men who are African Americans. Hispanic men and other minorities are also targeted by police, but to a lesser extent.

    https://usafacts.org/articles/what-the-data-shows-about-police-use-of-force-by-race/

    So the slogan Black Lives Matter is a specific condemnation of this situation. Black lives are disproportionately fucked up by police violence, they matter, ergo we need to do something about police violence.

    All lives matter as a phrase, wasn’t used as a slogan or anything until after Black Lives Matter. It exists almost entirely in the context of Black Lives Matter, and is used almost exclusively to advocate against reforming the police and lowering the use of force against Black Americans. Its sole purpose is to try and discredit the motives of people advocating for less police violence in Black communities, by implying that by singling out Black lives is not ethically correct. The police act as though Black lives don’t matter, so by responding to that by saying All Lives Matter, all you are doing is trying to paper over the problem.

    With those explanations out of the way, I think that Dems should not be saying All Lives Matter. It may work better among young white men, but you do so by ignoring a very real and dangerous aspect of the problem. If the Dems want to reach those young white men, I think the answer isn’t to water down the existing slogans, but to add legs of the platform to address separate issues.

    Show young men how police corruption fucks their lives too. I remember growing up hearing how much worse ticketing and traffic stops are for young men, so that could be a way to push back. Police will do violence to your black friends, and on top of that they issue tickets to men at almost twice the rate they do to women. If that isn’t an in to get young men on board with police reform I don’t know what could be.

    Please don’t take that as me saying women have it easier in traffic stops. Cops are horrible, and when cops are sexual predators they are just as dangerous as other predators but alsoalso have state authority to abuse. There have been stories of cops using police databases to stalk women and more, but that doesn’t mean you can’t bring up men’s issues here too. Black lives matter, women need to be protected from cops abusing authority, and men shouldn’t be unfairly burdened by traffic tickets. Dems need to learn to find those parts of the problems and speak to them because all three problems can be tackled together.



  • It feels like a recurring pattern of getting momentum then giving up before the fight and declaring that the only way forward is to compromise with the GOP. This pervasive self-defeating attitude that people don’t want good things constantly undermines any attempt to sell a democratic vision. If you pre-emptively declare that centrism is the only viable path and attack anything that you think threatens your appeal to the center you will only ever be hurting your own position. To govern effectively you need to sell people on your vision, you have to have an idea of what you want the future to look like and then you have to convince people that is the right way. Going in with the only goal being to win, and adopting whatever mishmash of policies sounds popular to get there will never speak to people, and actively attacking the people with ideas and vision for being too “unelectable” is just self sabotage.