Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

[Simon_Jester]

I ..... we are done here. At least, you and I are done. I had to read this a few times to get a grasp on just what you stated. If you seriously think this then you are too cynical to believe anything I am going to tell you.

It's fine if you think this is done. Just don't expect there to be any major positive change based on current tactics.

As someone who's been observing this conversation for a bit-

You are very much failing to notice the difference between a setback and "the movement is doomed and is achieving nothing." Trumpolini's victory was one of the most profoundly narrow, circumstantial ones in the history of democracy. It doesn't represent a broad-based refutation of "the left" because it doesn't represent a broad-based anything, for the good and simple reason that it doesn't have a broad base. Voters did not turn out in droves to support Trump because of years of Internet rage of the "BAN THE ESS-JAY-DOUBLE-YOUS, THEIR CRITICISM OF ME MAKES ME FEEL UNSAFE!" He had about the same percentage support among the voting age public as Romney did, actually a percentage point lower, just distributed a little differently.

At the same time, you're ignoring the voters of Obama that did vote for Trump. You know, the people who showed they are perfectly willing to accept Trump for what he is to "bring their jobs back". You're also ignoring the large group of women who also DID vote for Trump. These are facts we cannot ignore.

What percentage of people voted for Obama, then Trump? How many were there? I want numbers. If the answer is something like "1% of the American population," and I bet it is... then that proves not a goddamn thing. There were people who voted for Romney, then Clinton, too. There were people who voted for Obama, then nobody, for nobody, then Clinton, for nobody, then Trump, for Romney, then nobody. There were all kinds of people.

The DNC is not the same as those social movements, but Donald Trump is anti-nearly all of those movements. Trump elected with the support of a number of women is sending out a message to other men that it's perfectly okay to be misogynistic towards women, and hot women will land on their lap if they are rich and powerful enough. How on earth are you going to reach out to all those men who saw how much they can get away with things?

There are far too many males that treat women in the manner which supposedly brings the most number of them to bed. Even some so-called "male feminist" is "joining" the movement for purely selfish reasons.

It takes time.

I'm imagining this as being like someone arguing in 1912 that the election of Woodrow Wilson (a profoundly racist man) means that black equality will never happen and that it's pointless to advocate for an end to segregation. Or that the only way to get enough allies to succeed was for blacks to refuse to allow themselves any form of recognition, anything, without first thanking the whites who so generously gave it to them.

Predictions along those lines turned out not to be true.

[Joun_Lord]

Donald Trump winning shows all the BLM, feminist and other social movement have failed. Thinking that things will magically change with time is a very bad approach.

Apologies for butting my head in an existing conversation but I wanted to tackle this.

Trump winning shows three things. First it shows that groups like BLM, feminists, and other social movements have not failed but haven't won yet. It shows that there is still ugliness and bigotry in America despite some thinking it had disappeared but instead it just went underground. Trump did not win solely because of the racists or sexists (and I'd believe that they weren't even a majority of his supporters, more on that later) but he still won despite pandering to those fuckers. The fact the bigoted assholes like Dick Spencer are now back in the light I think makes the job of social movements easier. While I don't advocated smacking the fuckers around physically I do think they deserve a non-physical smackdown and its all that much easier when you aren't fighting against shadowy opponents hidden behind computer screens and in secret meetings.

Second it shows that some people care more about their own lives, jobs, and families then they do social issues. Kinda understandable in some ways even if you might not agree with it, things like bathroom rights and being allowed to sexually identify as an attack helicopter seems less important when you have no job, when you are on the public dole, when your infrastructure is crumbling, and your communities are rife with drugs and crime and drug crime. Trump unfortunately pandered to blue collar workers better then Hillary did despite being objectively worse for them because of him being a rich cunt who had never known hardship and opposition to public benefits and health care reform. Hillary just seemed to do everything in her power to fuck herself over when it came to appealing to the blue collar types which leads into the final point.

Hillary was a shite candidate that combined with the email bullshit and having about as much appeal as a dirty diaper to some people(outside of communities that get off on that shit....literally) she practically handed the election to Donnie. He appealed to some disenfranchised people better, he definitely appealed to desperate people better, he played the existing system better, any scandals rolled off him like water on a duck, and I'm fairly certain made a deal with the devil because if there is one thing to make me believe in the existence of hell its this fucker somehow winning. Progressives did their job, they went out and voted, they tried their damnedest to sell a progressive candidate despite Hillary herself stonewalling him, some supported her perhaps grudgingly after Bernie got burned, and attempted to protect their rights. Hillary didn't do her job, didn't sell herself as enough of a progressive candidate, didn't appeal to disenfranchised voters, shot herself in the foot when it came to desperate voters, just really seemed to just pile on the bullshit on top of her already under siege campaign.

The fact she lost doesn't mean progressives lost, it means the tired as fuck DNC lost, something they have become exceedingly efficient at. Social movements are still in the fight, energized and ready to fight even harder now. I'd argue Trump winning this election could be the first step towards progressives getting back on their feet and actually cold cocking regressive cunts back into the stone age they want to wallow in. Trump is such a massive tool he's going to fire up his opponents, going to get people normally not friendly to stop talking just because of a mutual hatred, get people scared and angry enough that they get up and do something beyond posting inane bullshit to their twitter feed. They saw they couldn't rely on people like Hillary to limp along drip feeding them treats to keep them in line but actually need to fight themselves, actually need to stand up themselves. If that momentum can carry along then Trump could well be the final nail in the coffin of mainstream bigotry.

Who dares win that fight I cannot say, my powers of premonition do not extend to that particular realm, but I can truthfully say right now those social groups and progressives have not failed.

[The Romulan Republic]

And I think Sophie Trudeau message is a form of push-back. Is it a form of concession? Yes! But it is also a form of push-back that could work. If your problem with sexism is that Trump is still seen as attractive to women, then you absolutely need to demonstrate this to be false. If you can't do it, then you will lose the fight.

Perhaps. It may be that we have gotten somewhat off the original point, and into a larger, though still valid, argument.

The judicial branch alone is not enough to enact any large sweeping change. They can interpret existing laws, but they cannot make any new ones.

Some of the most sweeping changes in American history have been enacted, shot down, or upheld by the courts, perhaps particularly when it comes to equality and civil liberties. Do not underestimate the power of the Judicial Branch. It is the guarantor of our Constitution, perhaps more than anything else.

This is about who's in power. The people that voted for Republican has shown they're the more powerful side in US politics.

But its also about where the sympathies of the public lie. Trying to oppose the Republicans by making concessions to bigotry is not only unethical, but likely to fail, if the majority does not support such views. Especially since we'll never out-bigot the Republicans enough to win over the far Right base, even if we tried.

I'm sick of people telling me that a better job should be done without giving anyone a clear idea how to do so. The majority of White women did vote for Trump. So telling them that Trump is sexist is clearly not enough to change their minds.

I thought I already mentioned how the loss to Trump was due, at least in part, to a backlash against perceived corruption and economic injustice, not just social justice issues. And how their was a problem with the individual candidates we ran?

Why not focus on those issues, the changes that address the Democratic Party's actual weaknesses without requiring us to throw women and minorities under the bus?

Trump "win" represents which group holds the real keys to power. Having strong blue states along the coastal region is not enough to win US elections. How are the social movements going to convince the blue-collared workers in rust-belt states to support them?

A lot of those states voted for Obama. Twice. Clearly they didn't have a problem with Democrats, or black Democrats for that matter, being in the White House.

Why do you insist on treating this election as some sort of national repudiation of women and minorities, while refusing to adequately address the reasons why this is not the case?

[ray245]

You're conflating the power of those who voted for Trump with the power of those who chose to say no to either of them, who in abstaining thus enabled Trump to win. One can tap into the "power" of those who sat out without bending over backwards for those who voted for Trump.

By reducing it into two sides, you're overlooking other crucial factors.

Those with the power to say no and make a change belongs to the swing states that did vote for Trump last year. My question is, how are you going to convince them to think otherwise and not make any form of concession?

1.) MLK never denounced the riots and has stated that he knew the riots and the potential of violence were necessary in order for the establishment to be willing to concede or compromise to the non-violent MLK. So it's much more complex than MLK or the Civil Rights movement just one-sidedly bending over backwards to those in power. They made the other side concede too.

And that's my point. They made the other side concede. MLK never denounced the riots, neither he did he actively support the riots.

2.) Funnily enough that period of time, WW1, also saw less-compromising movements succeed in overturning the establishment.

That are usually won by an actual military conflict.

Does it always have to be that way?

Have there been any other way? Have those in power ever concede ground without gaining some form of concession back?

I think you're mis-gauging the parameters here. I think a more radical approach would be workable than the compromising approach. The DNC's neutering of progressives, its incremental approach and its compromise with the neoliberal order of things is what allowed the populists to rise. They didn't lose because they were Too Radical. We saw the effects of a change-centered approach in 2008 and 2012.

And is there any supporting evidence that a more radical approach would work, espeically in the case of feminisim?

I said "That's because the democrat establishment didn't substantiate what they said or show what their candidate had... and because the democratic establishment's history of compromise, rather than its radical actions, were what made it look unpalatable to a considerable number of people who previously voted for Obama and who were galvanized by Bernie. That's not exclusive from calling out Trump and others for being fucks."

You said "And Hillary also lost the states that did vote for Obama, showing they hate Hilary far more than they hate what Trump will bring to the Presidency."

Which means Hillary was "unpalatable to a considerable number of people who previously voted for Obama and who were galvanized by Bernie" etc.

Anyway. You're conflating movements like feminism and BLM with Hillary and the DNC's failures.

I know the movements aren't the same. There are many liberal movements that did not support HIliary because of that. However, my point is that there are a large number of people that are simply not offended by Trump. To them sexist remarks are fine as long as he can promise them jobs and seeing less foreigners.

And those are separate from the omg meanie black lives matter omg meanie feminists. The DNC's failures include multiple dimensions.

It is seperate, but not entirely unconnected. See above.

What about the normcore "Bernie or bust" people? What about the people who just sat it out instead of supporting Trump? Since he got less votes than her in the first place!

Those normcore Bernie people still let Trump win and be President for 4 years. Yeah for their efforts while he implements policies that aren't helpful to many people. Put it this way, sexism from Trump was not enough to galvanize them into voting for Hillary. They accepted a possiblity of Hiliary failing because they were not offended enough by Trump.

This is what I mean when I pointed out that some see Hillary and other DNC efforts to "reach across the aisle" (even in non-race non-gender matters) are futile, there will always be that GOP core that will always vote for the GOP. On the other hand, these efforts end up making Hillary and her "centrist" cohorts look like GOPlites and John McCain-y and end up just alienating or disillusioning other more progressive demographs who could've clinched the deal for the DNC.

Anyway, the DNC has been trying to appeal to the GOP base for forever!

What I am trying to say is that trying to solve gender and racial inequality have not been the primary concern for many people. There are not enough people being offended by the GOP to take actions against them.

My point is that the "GOP base" isn't only the demograph that can be tapped into. You've got a false dichotomy. I'm focusing on the potential anti-Trump anti-GOP voters whose numbers were turned off from voting for either one precisely because the DNC and Hillary are acting like GOPlites in trying to futilely bend-over and appeal to the GOP base...

See above.

Urgh. What I mean to say is, if it weren't for shitty US electoral college systems, the "oh we gotta swing these states, we gotta prioritize these delegate-rich states that have zero people with messaging that'll disillusion the more-populous progressive coastal areas" wouldn't be as big of an issue.

Thank you for repeating what I'm trying to say?

"What might be necessary for elections in the US, due to the way US elections are arranged, might not apply to the bigger conversation that also happens in places that, guess what, might kind of sort of possibly be not only in the USA."

Yes, US prominence in the global sociocultural conversation cannot be understated. But nonetheless. Some of the issues bothering the US are things that other parts of the world have gotten over and dealt with already.

And while US progress is important, that doesn't mean that people in other parts of the world can only make progress by adopting the strategies US progressives had to use to sway the voters in Assfuck, Arkansas in the name of affecting the electoral college.

Who said anything about everyone having to adopt the same strategies as the Americans. I'm saying having positive change occur within America would have far more ramification for the world as a whole than a less powerful nation. The entire western world could have achieved gender equality but it still won't be enough for the whole world as long as the US is behind them.

As someone who's been observing this conversation for a bit-

You are very much failing to notice the difference between a setback and "the movement is doomed and is achieving nothing." Trumpolini's victory was one of the most profoundly narrow, circumstantial ones in the history of democracy. It doesn't represent a broad-based refutation of "the left" because it doesn't represent a broad-based anything, for the good and simple reason that it doesn't have a broad base. Voters did not turn out in droves to support Trump because of years of Internet rage of the "BAN THE ESS-JAY-DOUBLE-YOUS, THEIR CRITICISM OF ME MAKES ME FEEL UNSAFE!" He had about the same percentage support among the voting age public as Romney did, actually a percentage point lower, just distributed a little differently.

See above at what I said to Shroom.

At the same time, you're ignoring the voters of Obama that did vote for Trump. You know, the people who showed they are perfectly willing to accept Trump for what he is to "bring their jobs back". You're also ignoring the large group of women who also DID vote for Trump. These are facts we cannot ignore.What percentage of people voted for Obama, then Trump? How many were there? I want numbers. If the answer is something like "1% of the American population," and I bet it is... then that proves not a goddamn thing. There were people who voted for Romney, then Clinton, too. There were people who voted for Obama, then nobody, for nobody, then Clinton, for nobody, then Trump, for Romney, then nobody. There were all kinds of people.

We know from exit polls that 52% of white women did vote for Trump. 52% of white women who aren't affected by what Trump said.

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

It takes time.

How long has it been since American women got the right to have abortion? Yet this is still something in danger of being taken away in 2017.

I'm imagining this as being like someone arguing in 1912 that the election of Woodrow Wilson (a profoundly racist man) means that black equality will never happen and that it's pointless to advocate for an end to segregation. Or that the only way to get enough allies to succeed was for blacks to refuse to allow themselves any form of recognition, anything, without first thanking the whites who so generously gave it to them.

Predictions along those lines turned out not to be true.

Look, I never said change isn't possible. I never said time cannot affect things. However, what I have been constantly saying is that changes with time are often a result of concessions being made. New generations are taught different things because society as a whole is willing to make change and concession.

We are always making concessions of some form in the push for a different world from the past, unless there is actually a war of some form.

Apologies for butting my head in an existing conversation but I wanted to tackle this.

Trump winning shows three things. First it shows that groups like BLM, feminists, and other social movements have not failed but haven't won yet. It shows that there is still ugliness and bigotry in America despite some thinking it had disappeared but instead it just went underground. Trump did not win solely because of the racists or sexists (and I'd believe that they weren't even a majority of his supporters, more on that later) but he still won despite pandering to those fuckers. The fact the bigoted assholes like Dick Spencer are now back in the light I think makes the job of social movements easier. While I don't advocated smacking the fuckers around physically I do think they deserve a non-physical smackdown and its all that much easier when you aren't fighting against shadowy opponents hidden behind computer screens and in secret meetings.

Second it shows that some people care more about their own lives, jobs, and families then they do social issues. Kinda understandable in some ways even if you might not agree with it, things like bathroom rights and being allowed to sexually identify as an attack helicopter seems less important when you have no job, when you are on the public dole, when your infrastructure is crumbling, and your communities are rife with drugs and crime and drug crime. Trump unfortunately pandered to blue collar workers better then Hillary did despite being objectively worse for them because of him being a rich cunt who had never known hardship and opposition to public benefits and health care reform. Hillary just seemed to do everything in her power to fuck herself over when it came to appealing to the blue collar types which leads into the final point.

Hillary was a shite candidate that combined with the email bullshit and having about as much appeal as a dirty diaper to some people(outside of communities that get off on that shit....literally) she practically handed the election to Donnie. He appealed to some disenfranchised people better, he definitely appealed to desperate people better, he played the existing system better, any scandals rolled off him like water on a duck, and I'm fairly certain made a deal with the devil because if there is one thing to make me believe in the existence of hell its this fucker somehow winning. Progressives did their job, they went out and voted, they tried their damnedest to sell a progressive candidate despite Hillary herself stonewalling him, some supported her perhaps grudgingly after Bernie got burned, and attempted to protect their rights. Hillary didn't do her job, didn't sell herself as enough of a progressive candidate, didn't appeal to disenfranchised voters, shot herself in the foot when it came to desperate voters, just really seemed to just pile on the bullshit on top of her already under siege campaign.

The fact she lost doesn't mean progressives lost, it means the tired as fuck DNC lost, something they have become exceedingly efficient at. Social movements are still in the fight, energized and ready to fight even harder now. I'd argue Trump winning this election could be the first step towards progressives getting back on their feet and actually cold cocking regressive cunts back into the stone age they want to wallow in. Trump is such a massive tool he's going to fire up his opponents, going to get people normally not friendly to stop talking just because of a mutual hatred, get people scared and angry enough that they get up and do something beyond posting inane bullshit to their twitter feed. They saw they couldn't rely on people like Hillary to limp along drip feeding them treats to keep them in line but actually need to fight themselves, actually need to stand up themselves. If that momentum can carry along then Trump could well be the final nail in the coffin of mainstream bigotry.

Who dares win that fight I cannot say, my powers of premonition do not extend to that particular realm, but I can truthfully say right now those social groups and progressives have not failed.

That's what I am saying for a freaking long time. I'm saying there are way too many people who view social issues as a secondary concern. There are also those people that are well off that also thinks that social issue isn't going to bother them in their voting decisions. People did vote for Trump even when the economy is largely good for most Americans.

Perhaps. It may be that we have gotten somewhat off the original point, and into a larger, though still valid, argument.

All my points are related to Sophie Trudeau's initial comments.

Some of the most sweeping changes in American history have been enacted, shot down, or upheld by the courts, perhaps particularly when it comes to equality and civil liberties. Do not underestimate the power of the Judicial Branch. It is the guarantor of our Constitution, perhaps more than anything else.

But the supreme court also acts in conjunction with how other branches of government in order to enact changes. It's no point making abortion legal when people cannot get access to abortion clinics.

But its also about where the sympathies of the public lie. Trying to oppose the Republicans by making concessions to bigotry is not only unethical, but likely to fail, if the majority does not support such views. Especially since we'll never out-bigot the Republicans enough to win over the far Right base, even if we tried.

I think the sympathies towards feminism by a large segment of men lies in how the movement can articulate the role of men. Feminist that somehow wants to do away with all male allies or men are being shaped to be the main leaders of the movement. We have Trump acting as an walking advertisment that you can be an asshole to women and still get attractive women to marry them.

I thought I already mentioned how the loss to Trump was due, at least in part, to a backlash against perceived corruption and economic injustice, not just social justice issues. And how their was a problem with the individual candidates we ran?

Why not focus on those issues, the changes that address the Democratic Party's actual weaknesses without requiring us to throw women and minorities under the bus?

So you're calling social justice issues to be less of a concern? How is that actually going to help bring about social changes when politicans can win votes without bringing up social reforms?

A lot of those states voted for Obama. Twice. Clearly they didn't have a problem with Democrats, or black Democrats for that matter, being in the White House.

Why do you insist on treating this election as some sort of national repudiation of women and minorities, while refusing to adequately address the reasons why this is not the case?

Because they clearly have no problem with a misogynistic president? Put it this way, voting for a president candidate that is a feminist or Black does not mean they care about those social movements. They don't care if social justice is being achieved or not as long as they have the nice jobs on the table ( or in the case of the rich that voted for Trump, fewer immigrants to see every day).

They don't care if the President is Black. But neither do they care if Police targets more blacks than other ethnicities in the US. So if another Black President won the election while doing nothing to solve those social problems, he will still be reelected. Either that or people will switch to voting for another Trump if that person promise them to have enough jobs again.

[The Romulan Republic]

But the supreme court also acts in conjunction with how other branches of government in order to enact changes. It's no point making abortion legal when people cannot get access to abortion clinics.

All the branches of the government work in relation to one another, but the Judiciary has a more important role in that than I think you were giving it credit for.

I think the sympathies towards feminism by a large segment of men lies in how the movement can articulate the role of men. Feminist that somehow wants to do away with all male allies or men are being shaped to be the main leaders of the movement.

I don't know if such views are as prominent in feminism as you portray them. That sounds more like the Right wing depiction of straw feminism to me. But to the extent that such views are present, I don't think they're helpful, no. A political position which refuses to engage with half the population off the bat is a non-starter in a democracy.

We have Trump acting as an walking advertisment that you can be an asshole to women and still get attractive women to marry them.

People who are going to be swayed by that, who's only concern with regards to womens' issues is "how can I get them to marry me", are probably not terribly open to persuasion.

Its more the people who aren't already unmitigated douchebags that you want to try to reach.

So you're calling social justice issues to be less of a concern? How is that actually going to help bring about social changes when politicans can win votes without bringing up social reforms?

Um, no?

I'm saying that we don't need to concede on issues of civil rights and equality that are absolutely essential to democracy, that we would do better to shift our positions on economic issues (towards greater progressivism) and pick better candidates (i.e. more charisma, less baggage).

Because they clearly have no problem with a misogynistic president? Put it this way, voting for a president candidate that is a feminist or Black does not mean they care about those social movements. They don't care if social justice is being achieved or not as long as they have the nice jobs on the table ( or in the case of the rich that voted for Trump, fewer immigrants to see every day).

Or, in the case of a lot of voters who went for Obama but did not go for Clinton, they care but felt (erroneously) that that was outweighed by "Corrupt establishment Clinton".

This is the great propaganda coup of the Republican Party- they had spent literally decades conditioning the electorate to believe that Clinton was the most corrupt, evil person ever, and when you couple that with the antiestablishment crowd who thinks all politicians are corrupt and who just want to break up the status quo, or who think "Trump is corrupt, but at least he's honest about it"-.

Remember, also, that its not just a case of Trump voters we have to reach. Most Trump voters probably are deeply hostile towards women and minorities, and we shouldn't delude ourselves otherwise. But if we got even half of those who stayed home or went third party because they thought Clinton was a corrupt corporatist, this election election would have had a very different outcome. And those people can be won on economic issues and by choosing better candidates, rather than throwing women and minorities under the bus.

They don't care if the President is Black. But neither do they care if Police targets more blacks than other ethnicities in the US. So if another Black President won the election while doing nothing to solve those social problems, he will still be reelected. Either that or people will switch to voting for another Trump if that person promise them to have enough jobs again.

I think we are past the point where the police brutality issue can be safely ignored.

But in any case, their are, unfortunately, probably a lot of voters who probably aren't deeply hostile to women and minorities but who put economics and "anti-establishment"/anti-corruption first. I disagree with their priorities, but the good news is that we don't have to surrender on social justice to reach out to these people. In fact, it might be actively harmful.

[ray245]

All the branches of the government work in relation to one another, but the Judiciary has a more important role in that than I think you were giving it credit for.

It is important and has help to protect minorities and women, but without legistative and excutive branches as support, any changes will be limited.

I don't know if such views are as prominent in feminism as you portray them. That sounds more like the Right wing depiction of straw feminism to me. But to the extent that such views are present, I don't think they're helpful, no. A political position which refuses to engage with half the population off the bat is a non-starter in a democracy.

I know those people are being deliberately represented as the "norm" of feminist. It's akin to the image of an Islam is more often than not associated with fundamentalists. It's our societies' failure to shake off Islamophobia for decades that make me feel cyncial about social movements.

But it's hard to counter the image being conjured up. There is a desperate need for an alternative image of feminist.

People who are going to be swayed by that, who's only concern with regards to womens' issues is "how can I get them to marry me", are probably not terribly open to persuasion.

Its more the people who aren't already unmitigated douchebags that you want to try to reach.

It's the being who are going to be shown those images and stories that will be affected. It's young male teenagers trying to understand their own gender identity that will be affected. It's people learning how to deal with rejection from girls that are going to be affected.

Um, no?

I'm saying that we don't need to concede on issues of civil rights and equality that are absolutely essential to democracy, that we would do better to shift our positions on economic issues (towards greater progressivism) and pick better candidates (i.e. more charisma, less baggage).

The impact is still the same. People will still end up voting base on economic issues alone. This doesn't prevent people from switching votes back to the GOP.

Or, in the case of a lot of voters who went for Obama but did not go for Clinton, they care but felt (erroneously) that that was outweighed by "Corrupt establishment Clinton".

This is the great propaganda coup of the Republican Party- they had spent literally decades conditioning the electorate to believe that Clinton was the most corrupt, evil person ever, and when you couple that with the antiestablishment crowd who thinks all politicians are corrupt and who just want to break up the status quo, or who think "Trump is corrupt, but at least he's honest about it"-.

Remember, also, that its not just a case of Trump voters we have to reach. Most Trump voters probably are deeply hostile towards women and minorities, and we shouldn't delude ourselves otherwise. But if we got even half of those who stayed home or went third party because they thought Clinton was a corrupt corporatist, this election election would have had a very different outcome. And those people can be won on economic issues and by choosing better candidates, rather than throwing women and minorities under the bus.

And they still fear a corrupt establishment Clinton far more than they fear a sexist Donald Trump. And no matter what, the election result still gave everyone an executive branch in the US that did throw people under the bus.

I think we are past the point where the police brutality issue can be safely ignored.

But in any case, their are, unfortunately, probably a lot of voters who probably aren't deeply hostile to women and minorities but who put economics and "anti-establishment"/anti-corruption first. I disagree with their priorities, but the good news is that we don't have to surrender on social justice to reach out to these people. In fact, it might be actively harmful.

And you still have to do that by relegating social issues to secondary concerns for politicians. Politicians will always spend a considerable amount of political capita on fixing the economy long before they can use it for solving social problems.

Look at how much of Obama's political capital was wasted away in simply trying to fix the economy.

[Shroom Man 777]

Those with the power to say no and make a change belongs to the swing states that did vote for Trump last year. My question is, how are you going to convince them to think otherwise and not make any form of concession?

Concession =/= a campaign that includes things beyond the scope of BLM or feminism. Convincing people to vote against a GOP shitlicker by showing how horrible his idea to gut the EPA and thus ruin their prized watersheds and fill their favorite game animals with poison and their waters with lead might fall outside the scope of feminism or BLM. Including it in the campaign won't necessarily mean the feminists or BLM have to compromise in what they are saying. I think this is one of those basic logic questions like if all As are Bs and some Bs are Cs does that mean all As are Cs?

Other issues existing beyond race/gender =/= concession.

Unless you're saying that concession = not being single-issue voters, in that case... IDK, you've made some kind of strawman or at least you're seeing something that I'm not seeing.

Since that would be like if we were in a discussion about military hardware and you would want me to "concede" some aspects of my ground-based anti-ICBM SAM system by pointing out that submarines also launch SLBMs so my SAM system needs... anti-submarine torpedos or depth charge launchers or sonar buoys.

And that's my point. They made the other side concede. MLK never denounced the riots, neither he did he actively support the riots.

Yet the existence of the less-palatable option was what made MLK's opponents decide to eventually deal with him.

That are usually won by an actual military conflict.

Unfortunately yes. I believe there are options that are still radical but are in parts of the spectrum that do not yet include military conflict or even direct action.

We had strikers, we had people who while non-violent were nonetheless willing to be exposed to violence, there are other means of disruption, etc.

Have there been any other way? Have those in power ever concede ground without gaining some form of concession back?

Do those concessions automatically have to include bending over backwards for them?

And is there any supporting evidence that a more radical approach would work, espeically in the case of feminisim?

I could cite how the non-violent Civil Rights movement could not succeed as it did without the existence of alternatives that scared the establishment. Even the concession you want is dependent on the existence of more radical elements. And I think there are those with radical approaches and radical beliefs who realize this and use it as a rationale.

I know the movements aren't the same. There are many liberal movements that did not support HIliary because of that. However, my point is that there are a large number of people that are simply not offended by Trump. To them sexist remarks are fine as long as he can promise them jobs and seeing less foreigners.

It is seperate, but not entirely unconnected. See above.

If the key topic is in holding the banks accountable or say bringing manufacturing back into the country, then... I don't think that is necessarily in the purview of say feminists or BLM. There ARE gender and race issues activists who also include economic issues, I'm very favorable to leftists who have a multi-aspect view of it. But like, shit, if an advocate is focused on trans-rights or abortion, I think this is where people have to recognize "oh, that's not my field, I'll have to Phone A Friend" or that's where allies or co-belligerents come in.

Those normcore Bernie people still let Trump win and be President for 4 years. Yeah for their efforts while he implements policies that aren't helpful to many people. Put it this way, sexism from Trump was not enough to galvanize them into voting for Hillary. They accepted a possiblity of Hiliary failing because they were not offended enough by Trump.

See above.

I think it kind of sucks that you're putting everything on the feminists and BLM-types. Are they the only ones out there against Trump and co.? You're making them bear the whole burden of that and I find that very unfair. What about the anti-Big Guvmint abuse types, the anti-bailout people, the anti-militarists, or even the pro-defense people, the environmentalists, Constitutionalists, etc.?

You're framing this as if the feminists and BLM-types are the only ones in the scene and that it's all their fault this happened. That is unfair. And even then, I would not say that expanding their scope = conceding their stances.

What I am trying to say is that trying to solve gender and racial inequality have not been the primary concern for many people. There are not enough people being offended by the GOP to take actions against them.

See above. If you want BLM or the feminists to be also at the forefront of climate science, of holding the banks accountable, of fucking Net Neutrality, fighting Big Pharma, or TPP, or mass-infrastructure construction... then I don't know.

My point is that the "GOP base" isn't only the demograph that can be tapped into. You've got a false dichotomy. I'm focusing on the potential anti-Trump anti-GOP voters whose numbers were turned off from voting for either one precisely because the DNC and Hillary are acting like GOPlites in trying to futilely bend-over and appeal to the GOP base...

See above.

Thank you for repeating what I'm trying to say?

Is this discussion entirely just about US issues then?

Who said anything about everyone having to adopt the same strategies as the Americans. I'm saying having positive change occur within America would have far more ramification for the world as a whole than a less powerful nation. The entire western world could have achieved gender equality but it still won't be enough for the whole world as long as the US is behind them.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean that advocates in those other places have to adopt approaches based on what you've observed about Trump supporters (observations that are debatable).

[Shroom Man 777]

FIXED

Those with the power to say no and make a change belongs to the swing states that did vote for Trump last year. My question is, how are you going to convince them to think otherwise and not make any form of concession?

Concession =/= a campaign that includes things beyond the scope of BLM or feminism. Convincing people to vote against a GOP shitlicker by showing how horrible his idea to gut the EPA and thus ruin their prized watersheds and fill their favorite game animals with poison and their waters with lead might fall outside the scope of feminism or BLM. Including it in the campaign won't necessarily mean the feminists or BLM have to compromise in what they are saying. I think this is one of those basic logic questions like if all As are Bs and some Bs are Cs does that mean all As are Cs?

Other issues existing beyond race/gender =/= concession.

Unless you're saying that concession = not being single-issue voters, in that case... IDK, you've made some kind of strawman or at least you're seeing something that I'm not seeing.

Since that would be like if we were in a discussion about military hardware and you would want me to "concede" some aspects of my ground-based anti-ICBM SAM system by pointing out that submarines also launch SLBMs so my SAM system needs... anti-submarine torpedos or depth charge launchers or sonar buoys.

And that's my point. They made the other side concede. MLK never denounced the riots, neither he did he actively support the riots.

Yet the existence of the less-palatable option was what made MLK's opponents decide to eventually deal with him.

That are usually won by an actual military conflict.

Unfortunately yes. I believe there are options that are still radical but are in parts of the spectrum that do not yet include military conflict or even direct action.

We had strikers, we had people who while non-violent were nonetheless willing to be exposed to violence, there are other means of disruption, etc.

Have there been any other way? Have those in power ever concede ground without gaining some form of concession back?

Do those concessions automatically have to include bending over backwards for them?

And is there any supporting evidence that a more radical approach would work, espeically in the case of feminisim?

I could cite how the non-violent Civil Rights movement could not succeed as it did without the existence of alternatives that scared the establishment. Even the concession you want is dependent on the existence of more radical elements. And I think there are those with radical approaches and radical beliefs who realize this and use it as a rationale.

I know the movements aren't the same. There are many liberal movements that did not support HIliary because of that. However, my point is that there are a large number of people that are simply not offended by Trump. To them sexist remarks are fine as long as he can promise them jobs and seeing less foreigners.

It is seperate, but not entirely unconnected. See above.

If the key topic is in holding the banks accountable or say bringing manufacturing back into the country, then... I don't think that is necessarily in the purview of say feminists or BLM. There ARE gender and race issues activists who also include economic issues, I'm very favorable to leftists who have a multi-aspect view of it. But like, shit, if an advocate is focused on trans-rights or abortion, I think this is where people have to recognize "oh, that's not my field, I'll have to Phone A Friend" or that's where allies or co-belligerents come in.

Those normcore Bernie people still let Trump win and be President for 4 years. Yeah for their efforts while he implements policies that aren't helpful to many people. Put it this way, sexism from Trump was not enough to galvanize them into voting for Hillary. They accepted a possiblity of Hiliary failing because they were not offended enough by Trump.

See above.

I think it kind of sucks that you're putting everything on the feminists and BLM-types. Are they the only ones out there against Trump and co.? You're making them bear the whole burden of that and I find that very unfair. What about the anti-Big Guvmint abuse types, the anti-bailout people, the anti-militarists, or even the pro-defense people, the environmentalists, Constitutionalists, etc.?

You're framing this as if the feminists and BLM-types are the only ones in the scene and that it's all their fault this happened. That is unfair. And even then, I would not say that expanding their scope = conceding their stances.

What I am trying to say is that trying to solve gender and racial inequality have not been the primary concern for many people. There are not enough people being offended by the GOP to take actions against them.

See above. If you want BLM or the feminists to be also at the forefront of climate science, of holding the banks accountable, of fucking Net Neutrality, fighting Big Pharma, or TPP, or mass-infrastructure construction... then I don't know.

My point is that the "GOP base" isn't only the demograph that can be tapped into. You've got a false dichotomy. I'm focusing on the potential anti-Trump anti-GOP voters whose numbers were turned off from voting for either one precisely because the DNC and Hillary are acting like GOPlites in trying to futilely bend-over and appeal to the GOP base...

See above.

Thank you for repeating what I'm trying to say?

Is this discussion entirely just about US issues then?

Who said anything about everyone having to adopt the same strategies as the Americans. I'm saying having positive change occur within America would have far more ramification for the world as a whole than a less powerful nation. The entire western world could have achieved gender equality but it still won't be enough for the whole world as long as the US is behind them.

[/quote]

Maybe. But that doesn't mean that advocates in those other places have to adopt approaches based on what you've observed about Trump supporters (observations that are debatable).

[ray245]

Concession =/= a campaign that includes things beyond the scope of BLM or feminism. Convincing people to vote against a GOP shitlicker by showing how horrible his idea to gut the EPA and thus ruin their prized watersheds and fill their favorite game animals with poison and their waters with lead might fall outside the scope of feminism or BLM. Including it in the campaign won't necessarily mean the feminists or BLM have to compromise in what they are saying. I think this is one of those basic logic questions like if all As are Bs and some Bs are Cs does that mean all As are Cs?

Other issues existing beyond race/gender =/= concession.

Unless you're saying that concession = not being single-issue voters, in that case... IDK, you've made some kind of strawman or at least you're seeing something that I'm not seeing.

Since that would be like if we were in a discussion about military hardware and you would want me to "concede" some aspects of my ground-based anti-ICBM SAM system by pointing out that submarines also launch SLBMs so my SAM system needs... anti-submarine torpedos or depth charge launchers or sonar buoys.

My point is if you cannot make social issues a "make or break" deal for many voters, then you will always been conceding ground. It means GOPers can still win elections by doing things that harm these social issues.

Yet the existence of the less-palatable option was what made MLK's opponents decide to eventually deal with him.

And the "face" of the softer sides to these social movements today is still being demonised in the worse possible form. Look at Emma Watson. She's the one that advocated for more male allies and she's still seen as a "femnazi".

Unfortunately yes. I believe there are options that are still radical but are in parts of the spectrum that do not yet include military conflict or even direct action.

We had strikers, we had people who while non-violent were nonetheless willing to be exposed to violence, there are other means of disruption, etc.

Do you really think such strikes are even effective today?

Do those concessions automatically have to include bending over backwards for them?

It depends on whether concession that doesn't include bending over backward is effective. I would think how your country achieved its independence is an example of how much you have to bend over.

I could cite how the non-violent Civil Rights movement could not succeed as it did without the existence of alternatives that scared the establishment. Even the concession you want is dependent on the existence of more radical elements. And I think there are those with radical approaches and radical beliefs who realize this and use it as a rationale.

True, but the non-radicals must also be the face of those movements in order to have any chance of gaining concessions. So how are you going to make the non-radicals seen as the face of current movements?

How do you teach young male teenagers that feminism isn't dominated by women who wants to kill all men and etc?

If the key topic is in holding the banks accountable or say bringing manufacturing back into the country, then... I don't think that is necessarily in the purview of say feminists or BLM. There ARE gender and race issues activists who also include economic issues, I'm very favorable to leftists who have a multi-aspect view of it. But like, shit, if an advocate is focused on trans-rights or abortion, I think this is where people have to recognize "oh, that's not my field, I'll have to Phone A Friend" or that's where allies or co-belligerents come in.

See above.

See my inital reply to you in this post. I'm talking about making certain issues deal breaker for many people. We know that Trump being sexist is not a dealbreaker for the majority of white women. They didn't choose to sit out for this election.

I think it kind of sucks that you're putting everything on the feminists and BLM-types. Are they the only ones out there against Trump and co.? You're making them bear the whole burden of that and I find that very unfair. What about the anti-Big Guvmint abuse types, the anti-bailout people, the anti-militarists, or even the pro-defense people, the environmentalists, Constitutionalists, etc.?

You're framing this as if the feminists and BLM-types are the only ones in the scene and that it's all their fault this happened. That is unfair. And even then, I would not say that expanding their scope = conceding their stances.

I am not blaming them for being entirely responsible for Trump being elected. I am blaming them for failing to make Trump's actions a dealbreaker for many of the supposed groups that will sit out elections.

We are told that women will vote against Trump or simply sit out this election if they're from the GOP base. Turns out to be false, 52% of white women still voted for Trump. In this regard, I think the feminism is a spectular failure when they failed to destroy the appeal of Trump to many other women.

They failed to stop Trump from sending out a message that women will tolerate sexism as long as men can bring enough money back home for the house to use.

See above. If you want BLM or the feminists to be also at the forefront of climate science, of holding the banks accountable, of fucking Net Neutrality, fighting Big Pharma, or TPP, or mass-infrastructure construction... then I don't know.

No, I want the social movements to send out a clear message as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. It's hard for feminsim message to be effective when women are still being seen as gold diggers.

Is this discussion entirely just about US issues then?

No, but it's about where the biggest arena for social issues is being televised to the entire world.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean that advocates in those other places have to adopt approaches based on what you've observed about Trump supporters (observations that are debatable).

Of course not. But that's not the point I was making. It's harder for feminist around the world to have an easy time when the mere existance of Trump as President is constantly undermining their efforts. Third world countries for instance still looked at US as the leader in social changes as opposed to looking at Europe. A third world nation leader can simply point to the people in his country and say "look, this is how things are in the US as well" and stonewall any real change.

[Shroom Man 777]

My point is if you cannot make social issues a "make or break" deal for many voters, then you will always been conceding ground. It means GOPers can still win elections by doing things that harm these social issues.

My point would be then those non-gender, non-race related issues should then be the purview of those who specialize in that. Advocates can be over-stretched. Like, Jesus, an anti-racism advocate who is focused on abusive law enforcement in Chicago has enough on their plate already... while it'd be nice for them to also dabble in climate change or the turning of parklands into freaking strip malls, those issues should be primarily pushed by those specialized in them.

And intersectionality probably addresses some of your concerns.

And the "face" of the softer sides to these social movements today is still being demonised in the worse possible form. Look at Emma Watson. She's the one that advocated for more male allies and she's still seen as a "femnazi".

Who are doing the demonizing of Emma Watson? What percentage are they compared to the rest of the demographic. How does that compare to those Hermione's actually reached and moved? I think she's doing enough. There really will be some who can't be reached despite reasonable efforts at giving cookies. Are you going to get all twisted up in a bunch if the feminists can't convert the last polygamist Mormon or hardcore Orthodox Jewish rabbis or whatever?

Do you really think such strikes are even effective today?

They can be. It worked in Poland recently. People power has still deposed governments around the world to this day, though the post-gov't restructuring leaves a lot to be desired and shows that they ought to get more organized. Today's decentralized movements need to countenance egalitarian decentralization with necessary organization, hopefully while avoiding power plays or utter disorganization.

It depends on whether concession that doesn't include bending over backward is effective. I would think how your country achieved its independence is an example of how much you have to bend over.

Yet that is not the only way. Better ways can be done.

True, but the non-radicals must also be the face of those movements in order to have any chance of gaining concessions. So how are you going to make the non-radicals seen as the face of current movements?

How do you teach young male teenagers that feminism isn't dominated by women who wants to kill all men and etc?

My god. The non-radicals are already doing that. I don't think Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Elizabeth Warren or Gabrielle Giffords are "raving tumblrinas" shitposting over the net. Unless all the fiery hip-shooting young teen and young adult advocates and slacktivists and tumblr/myspace/livejournal posters should be organized under the People's Digital Vanguard of Proletarian Postings so you won't have to worry about Brietbart morons cherry-picking specific shitposts while ignoring more conventional constructive approaches.

I think you're making mountains out of molehills and exaggerating certain aspects.

See my inital reply to you in this post. I'm talking about making certain issues deal breaker for many people. We know that Trump being sexist is not a dealbreaker for the majority of white women. They didn't choose to sit out for this election.

That is a fault of Hillary's campaign approach.

Anyway. If Hermione's reasonable approach is something you think still isn't sufficient because she is seen as a "feminazi" by some, then it's either time to write off lost causes or that is where other advocates (environmentalists? labor movements? whatever) to step up to the plate.

I am not blaming them for being entirely responsible for Trump being elected. I am blaming them for failing to make Trump's actions a dealbreaker for many of the supposed groups that will sit out elections.

We are told that women will vote against Trump or simply sit out this election if they're from the GOP base. Turns out to be false, 52% of white women still voted for Trump. In this regard, I think the feminism is a spectular failure when they failed to destroy the appeal of Trump to many other women.

They failed to stop Trump from sending out a message that women will tolerate sexism as long as men can bring enough money back home for the house to use.

Maybe Hillary's personality points were such a negative that it overshadowed the feminist critique of Trump's sexism and the feminist offerings of a better way of life for people.

And I can get that. Hillary's image as part of the cold callous establishment undermines some feministic approaches.

How is "don't use candidates who are vulnerable to negative personality politics (through their own fault and through decades of right-wing propaganda)" as a tactical adaptation?

No, I want the social movements to send out a clear message as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. It's hard for feminsim message to be effective when women are still being seen as gold diggers.

Uhhh... I have no idea how to respond to this generality you're bringing up. In the case of your example of bone-headed misogyny, at some point if their heads are so far up their asses, then I guess they can't be pulled out of it then.

In that case, we're gonna have to fall back to the whole "people change their ways not because they are convinced otherwise but because all the old farts of the previous generations have died and have been replaced."

No, but it's about where the biggest arena for social issues is being televised to the entire world.

Of course not. But that's not the point I was making. It's harder for feminist around the world to have an easy time when the mere existance of Trump as President is constantly undermining their efforts. Third world countries for instance still looked at US as the leader in social changes as opposed to looking at Europe. A third world nation leader can simply point to the people in his country and say "look, this is how things are in the US as well" and stonewall any real change.

OK. I won't understate the importance of the "US theatre" of this campaign. So we are talking about the US theatre. Alright.

[Bernkastel]

Since I think it might be useful, I'd like to put this forward. I know another chart has been used to compare the votes of 2012 and 2016 here, but I'm not sure where to find it. So, I'm going for this one.



Ray, it's worth remembering that Trump lost the popular vote. According to that chart, he performed worse than Romney in terms of getting votes. I would not look at that result and assume that the problem we face is that of people who chose to vote for Trump or were drawn to his ideals.

[Shroom Man 777]

I would not look at that result and assume that the problem we face is that of people who chose to vote for Trump or were drawn to his ideals.

Thank you.

There's this assymetric false-equivalence going on. Political parties and campaigns encompass multiple issues. It's utterly unfair for the advocates of a single issue to bear the goddamn burden of taking on the opposing multi-platform party/campaign that's a smorgasbord-hydra of multiple issues. That shouldn't be on just them alone! So they push against stupid bathroom bills, they push to protect Roe vs. Wade, they push to hold Chicago PD accountable for those fucking black sites, but that's still a facet of the larger theatre of the broad-spectrum progressive campaign that deals with other facets, like economic, labor, scientific, educational, health, climatological, national security, etc. issues.

My god. That's like saying it's up to the NRA to beef up its gun rights advocacy to switch Obama's voters... who are galvanized by a shitload of issues. Just like how GOP voters are on about not just gender or race issues, but are also passionate about crucial issues like gun rights, their freaking evangelical creationistic bullshit, bending over to the companies, their deregulation, turning forests into fucking toxic waste dump sites, kicking out immigrants, assuaging crybabies fears of terrorizers, increasing the amount of asbestos in their paint, putting more lead in the water to counter fluoride, turning the planet into Waterworld, reenacting Mad Max, etc.

Like I said before, this "would be like if we were in a discussion about military hardware and you would want me to "concede" some aspects of my ground-based anti-ICBM SAM system by pointing out that submarines also launch SLBMs so my SAM system needs... anti-submarine torpedos or depth charge launchers or sonar buoys." When killing submarines is the job of dedicated but separate ASW platforms working on the same side as my SAM systems!

Jesus Christ. What do we want? Swiss Army Feminists? Joint Strike Black Lives Matter? JSBLM? Some Objective Interim JDAMRAAMLRSLBM92F-117/11 bullshit?

OK! I have a cunning plan! My solution is that we bolt on a whole bunch of Picatinny rails on feminists and Black Lives Matter advocates. There. So Ray can attach a hundred billion EOTech reflex sights, foregrips, collapsible stocks, bayonets, strobes, lasers, etc. on Anita Sarkeesian or Hermione Granger or Shaun King or whatever.

It'll be the FN SCAR of activism!

[Bernkastel]

OK! I have a cunning plan! My solution is that we bolt on a whole bunch of Picatinny rails on feminists and Black Lives Matter advocates. There. So Ray can attach a hundred billion EOTech reflex sights, foregrips, collapsible stocks, bayonets, strobes, lasers, etc. on Anita Sarkeesian or Hermione Granger or Shaun King or whatever.

It'll be the FN SCAR of activism!

*gasps dramatically*

Amazing! Can such a cunningly cunning plan exist? But might I make a suggestion? Perhaps we can use Picatinny's fitted with Cluster Objective Interim JDAMRAAMLRSLBM92F-117/11's, with each cluster munition of "No, Black Lives Matter does not mean white lives don't" addendums, fitted with more Picatinnys loaded with Cluster Objective Interim JDAMRAAMLRSLBM92F-117/11's, so that we might dispense even more cluster munitions of stupid addendums that anyone negotiating in good faith wouldn't need, but apparently are needed anyway so that the poor sensitive egos are not smashed into a quadrillion billion bits by the Lovecraftian Giger-esque horror of a statement like "Here are the accomplishments of women" that has not been combined with a statement about how we are totally not forgetting men.

[Shroom Man 777]

The design will be based on my previous proposed project...



...the JDAMBAMA.

[ray245]

My point would be then those non-gender, non-race related issues should then be the purview of those who specialize in that. Advocates can be over-stretched. Like, Jesus, an anti-racism advocate who is focused on abusive law enforcement in Chicago has enough on their plate already... while it'd be nice for them to also dabble in climate change or the turning of parklands into freaking strip malls, those issues should be primarily pushed by those specialized in them.

And intersectionality probably addresses some of your concerns.

Is specialization really the solution when there's a breakdown in communication within the progressive movement?

Who are doing the demonizing of Emma Watson? What percentage are they compared to the rest of the demographic. How does that compare to those Hermione's actually reached and moved? I think she's doing enough. There really will be some who can't be reached despite reasonable efforts at giving cookies. Are you going to get all twisted up in a bunch if the feminists can't convert the last polygamist Mormon or hardcore Orthodox Jewish rabbis or whatever?

That's what she was saying about the comments she's been hearing from a lot of people. If this is what the biggest advocate of including men in the conversation, what makes you think the message is going well?

They can be. It worked in Poland recently. People power has still deposed governments around the world to this day, though the post-gov't restructuring leaves a lot to be desired and shows that they ought to get more organized. Today's decentralized movements need to countenance egalitarian decentralization with necessary organization, hopefully while avoiding power plays or utter disorganization.

Only if there are mass strikes across gender and race. This is what I meant by building better communication and finding ways to actually ensure other people are involved in the social change. Women striking by themselves is not going to change things. It will only make it easier for sexist to justify taking more jobs away from women.

Yet that is not the only way. Better ways can be done.

Without making any major concessions, I don't think it will be enough to change the minds of people who the greater influence.

True, but the non-radicals must also be the face of those movements in order to have any chance of gaining concessions. So how are you going to make the non-radicals seen as the face of current movements?

How do you teach young male teenagers that feminism isn't dominated by women who wants to kill all men and etc?

My god. The non-radicals are already doing that. I don't think Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Elizabeth Warren or Gabrielle Giffords are "raving tumblrinas" shitposting over the net. Unless all the fiery hip-shooting young teen and young adult advocates and slacktivists and tumblr/myspace/livejournal posters should be organized under the People's Digital Vanguard of Proletarian Postings so you won't have to worry about Brietbart morons cherry-picking specific shitposts while ignoring more conventional constructive approaches.

I think you're making mountains out of molehills and exaggerating certain aspects.

My entire point was that the non-radical aren't getting their message across as well as they ought to be. How do you stop young teens from falling into the bubble which allows Breitbart to form their worldview?

That is a fault of Hillary's campaign approach.

Anyway. If Hermione's reasonable approach is something you think still isn't sufficient because she is seen as a "feminazi" by some, then it's either time to write off lost causes or that is where other advocates (environmentalists? labor movements? whatever) to step up to the plate.

And those group can't unless you are able to demonstrate alternative male role models. How are you going to get labor movement to be actively engaged in helping feminism? Why should they care when some of their members are prefectly willing to accept the status quo because they see this as a better protection of their own jobs?

Maybe Hillary's personality points were such a negative that it overshadowed the feminist critique of Trump's sexism and the feminist offerings of a better way of life for people.

And I can get that. Hillary's image as part of the cold callous establishment undermines some feministic approaches.

How is "don't use candidates who are vulnerable to negative personality politics (through their own fault and through decades of right-wing propaganda)" as a tactical adaptation?

Because there is no certainty that another candidate with less negative personality politics would be enough to make feminism and other social issues more relevant in people's lives. Put it this way, we have 8 years of Obama presidency, but that is not enough to stop the regression of certain movements. You can win a temporary victory, but you aren't exactly winning the strategic war.

Uhhh... I have no idea how to respond to this generality you're bringing up. In the case of your example of bone-headed misogyny, at some point if their heads are so far up their asses, then I guess they can't be pulled out of it then.

In that case, we're gonna have to fall back to the whole "people change their ways not because they are convinced otherwise but because all the old farts of the previous generations have died and have been replaced."

And this is why some countries only grant women the right to vote far later than the UK. It is also about how are you going to influence the next generation of young guys growing up.

OK. I won't understate the importance of the "US theatre" of this campaign. So we are talking about the US theatre. Alright.

I'm happy to discuss other countries, which is why I brought up the Canadian PM and his wife in this topic. However, it ended up with US as the main focus because this is the place that has far more impact on how the world views certain issues.

[Shroom Man 777]

Is specialization really the solution when there's a breakdown in communication within the progressive movement?

Specialization is not mutually exclusive with communications, specialization can come from delegation can come from communicating and networking, being aware of other trends and thus applying intersectionality can enhance one's specialized pursuits.

If it's basketball, the center, Shaq, can't be the one making the fast breaks or shooting the 3 pointers (barring occasional opportunities) if he's busy with the thing he's tasked with and good with. That's what being part of a greater organized unit is for.

That's what she was saying about the comments she's been hearing from a lot of people. If this is what the biggest advocate of including men in the conversation, what makes you think the message is going well?

My entire point was that the non-radical aren't getting their message across as well as they ought to be. How do you stop young teens from falling into the bubble which allows Breitbart to form their worldview?

As others have pointed out in this thread, you may be mistaking a setback with "they're not getting their messages across as well as they ought to be." You're misconstruing Hillary's failures with what the non-radicals or radicals or whoever are doing or aren't doing. You're jumbling up variables that are already hard enough to quantify without your generalizing, reductionist view.

And also - it is a two way street though, at some point if they (the assholes who gobble up Infowars bullshit) just don't want to, then no matter how well Hermione approaches it, they'll always shit on her. If the other side is acting on bad faith and pumped full of disinformation, and they just don't WANT to change, then what else is there left to say or do? Should Emma Watson wear an apron, scoop up a spoonfull of babyfood and spoon-feed these shit-nozzles? The onus isn't entirely on the activists, the assholes are their own independent sapient beings with their own choices and if they choose their way at the expense of everyone else, there's only so much that can be done to counteract this.

Like, you could level the same argument regarding environmentalism or climate change. What more can Bill Nye or Neil DeGrasse Tyson do to convey to entrenched tools that climate change is real and is a severe problem and thus it's important NOT to vote for EPA-gutting, NASA-censoring, climate science-defunding morons? Or even secularism, the Pakistani equivalents of Bill Nye or whatever can only go so far when dealing with their demographics before running into a wall.

This is where I bring in my aforementioned notion that sometimes change doesn't happen by convincing others, sometimes it happens when those with antiquated beliefs just pass away and the next generation takes the reigns and happen to be more amenable to non-shit ideas.

Only if there are mass strikes across gender and race. This is what I meant by building better communication and finding ways to actually ensure other people are involved in the social change. Women striking by themselves is not going to change things. It will only make it easier for sexist to justify taking more jobs away from women.

You're over-simplifying it with your reductionist approach. Of course they'll communicate, with Emma Watsons, with MLKs, with Mandelas, maybe with Malcolm X and other angrier types if things go bad.

Without making any major concessions, I don't think it will be enough to change the minds of people who the greater influence.

Allying with co-belligerents and making a broader front doesn't necessarily mean making concessions. Feminists, BLM, and environmentalists can work together against anti-women, racist, climate change rejecting anti-science morons without necessarily de-fanging their stances.

And shit, feminism and African-American activism is pretty broad anyway. Activism and promotion of an ideology or a view doesn't necessarily mean they are organized, unified and in agreement with each other. There are TERFs. There are anti-Semitic loons in the African-American activist movements. There are BLM folks who'll undermine LGBT parades that let cops join in. I am sure there are white feminists who just throw African-American feminists under a bus, just like there are African-American male activists who'll throw their female and non-cis-male co-belligerents under a bus. There are probably some feminists who are not only trans-exclusive but probably buy into the notion of immigrants being hordes of rapists - WTF. I KNOW there are pro-abortion women who think feminists suck and who hate immigrants. Jesus Christ.

Yes, as you say, it would be nice to have them drop all that disagreement and conflict and unify them under one anti-Trump playbook... but you're casting a broad generalizing net. And unless some Commanderalissimo orders the Proletarian Democratic Vanguardians of the People's Worker's Party's Comrades Commisariat to get all these people with all their differing ideas to march in lockstep... unless that's happening, you're misreading things and casting an unfair burden on parties whose characteristics and natures and volitions you're misinterpreting and misconstruing.

And those group can't unless you are able to demonstrate alternative male role models. How are you going to get labor movement to be actively engaged in helping feminism? Why should they care when some of their members are prefectly willing to accept the status quo because they see this as a better protection of their own jobs?

Alternative role models exist in abundance (!) but if idiots don't want to get it they can have all sorts of excuses to cry out. "Cuck." "White knight." "Hollywood mainstream media librul blah blah blah." Whatever.

As for the labor movement... I guess it has to be revived, in itself it is anemic. But by your logic, it's also entirely up to Emma Watson or Anita Sarkeesian ( ) or Ursula Le Guin to rally the blue-collar workers.

In your logic, the feminists have to be the Commanderalissimos of the whole shebang. Which is preposterous. Shit, that responsibility lies with the other factions too. If they can't un-anemic themselves, if they can't get their own ball rolling, then with or without feminists they'll be in deep shit.

Because there is no certainty that another candidate with less negative personality politics would be enough to make feminism and other social issues more relevant in people's lives. Put it this way, we have 8 years of Obama presidency, but that is not enough to stop the regression of certain movements. You can win a temporary victory, but you aren't exactly winning the strategic war.

Uh. Elizabeth Bathory would be another candidate with less negative personality politics than Hillary...

My god, you are so misconstrued. At this point you don't even acknowledge that Hillary has been on the receiving end of an abnormally potent and prolonged smear campaign, has herself probably done a lot of unsavory politicking that makes her partially deserving of this reputation, and that this is unlike what other normal candidates receive (despite what you think).

And who is to say that on the contrary to what you say, this isn't a "temporary loss, but not exactly losing the strategic war," huh?

And this is why some countries only grant women the right to vote far later than the UK. It is also about how are you going to influence the next generation of young guys growing up.

I'm happy to discuss other countries, which is why I brought up the Canadian PM and his wife in this topic. However, it ended up with US as the main focus because this is the place that has far more impact on how the world views certain issues.

Who knows, this outpouring of futile chauvinism by diminishing demographics in the US might actually turn people off the rampant shit-headedness and end up leading to the beginning of their end?

Wishful thinking on my part, yes. But that's no more unlikely than what you propose. After all, it's not only the meanie feminists or meanie minorities omg who can incur backlash.

[Bernkastel]

Ray, did you even look at the chart I posted? While Hilary lost a lot of votes in comparison to Obama, these votes did not switch to Trump. In fact, going full on super-reactionary god level 4 yielded less votes for Trump than Romney. We are not looking at some growth of radical alt-rightism or people being sucked into the black hole of Breitbart and being converted into super rightists. Yes, the alt-right have given themselves a shinny new title and are a lot louder, but the election result does not look like evidence that they are actually drawing people in.

Plus, when I think of Hilary and her campaign, I hardly think of radicalism. If anything, she was a establishment centrist who was wiling to move left in some areas where there is popular support for such a move and when there was pressure to do so.

Also, something as simple as statements like "Women have these accomplishments, so let's recognize them" or "Black Lives Matter" are things that people should have the right to say without having to pander to those who are willing to make enormous leaps of logic to justify hostility to them. That people do react that way is not something we should legitimize via pandering. These leaps are incredibly stupid and should be treated as such. After all, the idea that people making stupid insane reactions to nonthreatening stuff like "Black Lives Matter" have the right to expect others to treat their paranoia seriously is not right. We need to be fighting against that, not supporting it.

[ray245]

Ray, did you even look at the chart I posted? While Hilary lost a lot of votes in comparison to Obama, these votes did not switch to Trump. In fact, going full on super-reactionary god level 4 yielded less votes for Trump than Romney. We are not looking at some growth of radical alt-rightism or people being sucked into the black hole of Breitbart and being converted into super rightists. Yes, the alt-right have given themselves a shinny new title and are a lot louder, but the election result does not look like evidence that they are actually drawing people in.

Plus, when I think of Hilary and her campaign, I hardly think of radicalism. If anything, she was a establishment centrist who was wiling to move left in some areas where there is popular support for such a move and when there was pressure to do so.

Also, something as simple as statements like "Women have these accomplishments, so let's recognize them" or "Black Lives Matter" are things that people should have the right to say without having to pander to those who are willing to make enormous leaps of logic to justify hostility to them. That people do react that way is not something we should legitimize via pandering. These leaps are incredibly stupid and should be treated as such. After all, the idea that people making stupid insane reactions to nonthreatening stuff like "Black Lives Matter" have the right to expect others to treat their paranoia seriously is not right. We need to be fighting against that, not supporting it.

I'll reply to Shroom later, but I would have to say this isn't my position at all. I never said this is about voters switching vote to Trump. What I meant was there was a solid block of GOP voters that will vote for someone that will openly say stuff that are sexist and not be offended. This also include a large segment of GOP women.

People have been saying things like "women have accomplishments", but those aren't enough to convince enough people that there is improvement to be made in the Status quo. In other words, you aren't breaking their bubble based on current tactics.

[Bernkastel]

Yes. The GOP has their core of voters that'll support them, no matter what. And? Who cares. Clinton didn't lose the election because of a failure to appeal to that GOP core. Romney had those voters and he lost solidly to Obama. The solid core of GOP supporters didn't help him and the amount of voters that turned out for Trump was less than that. Just remember that. Trump did worse than Romney.

This was an election that was Clinton's to win or lose, depending on how successful she was on convincing the Obama hope and dream horde to go out and vote for her. She failed at that. But she didn't lose via a failure to appeal to the core of her opponent's party, a core that was never going to vote for her. It was a failure in drawing out the non-GOP crowd who came out for Obama and hope&dreams(tm) and crushed the last candidate backed by the GOP core.

[ray245]

Yes. The GOP has their core of voters that'll support them, no matter what. And? Who cares. Clinton didn't lose the election because of a failure to appeal to that GOP core. Romney had those voters and he lost solidly to Obama. The solid core of GOP supporters didn't help him and the amount of voters that turned out for Trump was less than that. Just remember that. Trump did worse than Romney.

This was an election that was Clinton's to win or lose, depending on how successful she was on convincing the Obama hope and dream horde to go out and vote for her. She failed at that. But she didn't lose via a failure to appeal to the core of her opponent's party, a core that was never going to vote for her. It was a failure in drawing out the non-GOP crowd who came out for Obama and hope&dreams(tm) and crushed the last candidate backed by the GOP core.

My point was that the democrat supporters are far less reliable than the GOP block. Until that changes, all the social movement will always have a danger of seeing any progress being unraveled. And that's ignoring the Congress which does lean GOP a lot more often than Democrats.

Furthermore, there are many in the Democrats that aren't exactly the biggest supporter of the social movement either.

[Bernkastel]

And the reason we therefore need to be wary of radical feminism or scaring off voters with slogans is? Why are you assuming that's the issue? Perhaps we should instead consider the differences between Obama and Hilary and why those who had solidly backed Obama did not do the same for Hilary.

Here's an idea you should consider. Perhaps a reason Hilary did worse than Obama was not because of fear of slogans like BLM scaring away Trump voters who were never going to vote for her, but because Obama was much better at promoting the image of himself as someone who stood for progressive things than Hilary? Perhaps Hilary lost not because she was too unwilling to indulge the paranoia of fringe regressives who's tender hearts can't handle scary slogans and easy, but because she couldn't sell what Obama did, his shiny progressive hope&dreams(tm) vision?

[Bernkastel]

Ray, I'd like you to answer a few questions, if you don't mind.

First, how are you interpreting the result of the 2016 election to be some sort of backlash or rejection of progressivism and stuff like BLM?

Second, why do you think appealing to the regressive base of the GOP is necessary when it was the absence of Obama voters that decided it and the turnout for Hillary was still better than that for Trump?

Third, how exactly do you intend to appeal to people who are offended by something that is not offensive and which we want everyone to accept, like Black Lives Matter, without having to deal with stupid quibbles over semantics before they can give that much? You have to be reaching in a way only Mr Fantastic and his stretchy arms could do to get at conclusions like "white lives don't matter" from something like Black Lives Matter and that does not say "we're people who are willing to listen and be brought over to your way of thinking" to me.

[ray245]

Ray, I'd like you to answer a few questions, if you don't mind.

First, how are you interpreting the result of the 2016 election to be some sort of backlash or rejection of progressivism and stuff like BLM?

I don't see it as a backlash against progressivism and BLM. I don't think that factors in why people didn't vote for Hiliary. What I am saying is the growth of progressive politics is still limited in its ability to mobilise its base. The Republican primaries were divisive, but in the end it was still enough to mobilise the core base. The Republicans that hate Trump? Turns out enough of them fear Hillary more than they hate Trump.

On the other hand, progressive didn't fear Trump more than they hate Hillary.

Second, why do you think appealing to the regressive base of the GOP is necessary when it was the absence of Obama voters that decided it and the turnout for Hillary was still better than that for Trump?

See above.

Third, how exactly do you intend to appeal to people who are offended by something that is not offensive and which we want everyone to accept, like Black Lives Matter, without having to deal with stupid quibbles over semantics before they can give that much? You have to be reaching in a way only Mr Fantastic and his stretchy arms could do to get at conclusions like "white lives don't matter" from something like Black Lives Matter and that does not say "we're people who are willing to listen and be brought over to your way of thinking" to me.

It's about trying to talk about problems in society not without strongly defining it in purely identity politics. Take BLM movement. If the movement was able to define the impact police attitudes have on a wide variety of ethnic group, it becomes harder for opponents to demonize them. It's the same with Sophie Trudeau's actions. It becomes harder for opponents to demonize the feminist movement when feminist actively highlights the involvement of male supporters.



To sum it up, it's about winning the PR fight AND trying to build progressive into a solid coherent movement. Trump presented how easy it is to tear the so called "progressive" movement apart. The progressive aren't a solid voting block like the GOP.

[Shroom Man 777]

The reason why they aren't a solid voting block is because conservative elements in the DNC take them for granted, forget about them and make vain efforts to reach out to GOP elements that as you yourself have pointed out are so far up their asses. The effort it takes to reach out to them nets minimal, negligible results and has significant cost in undermining the progressive base. That progressive base, on the other hand, could be consolidated better if the DNC invested in its progressive ideology the same enthusiasm (but minus the bad faith) the GOP does with its own (assbackwards) ideological components and rhetoric. This is why I've been repeatedly saying that Hillary and the establishment have become GOPLite, corporatists and John McCain duplicates and that undermines their efforts and alienates their base!

[So ironically your gripes and concerns are actually, in my opinion, reflections of the mistaken course the DNC took that ended up undermining its efforts.]

Galvanizing progressive sentiment and thus harnessing block was what Obama did! Hillary didn't do that. "Trump is bad" has elements of ideology, in showing his sexism or racism. But she didn't go further in showing or conveying why she had something that could be better for the marginalized. "Opponent is bad" =/= "I bring change for the better."

Obama did "I bring change for the better" without having to drag his opponents through the mud, but conversely despite not doing that, by showing himself as the one who embodied progress for the better, he unspokenly thus implies his opponents were deficient or regressive in terms of race/gender/whatever aspects/issues.


Anyway, I think my assertion has at least the same credibility as your belief that what's happen is the fault of feminist/BLM failures.

[TheFeniX]

To sum it up, it's about winning the PR fight AND trying to build progressive into a solid coherent movement. Trump presented how easy it is to tear the so called "progressive" movement apart. The progressive aren't a solid voting block like the GOP.

Trump didn't tear up the progressive movement, for all the talk Trump basically pulled Romney 2016 both in numbers and where he got his votes. His high-point was winning back the middle and working class voters that Republicans lost and Obama picked up. Also, beating up on illegals, when immigration was one of Obama's least popular stances. Americans hate illegals, that's just the facts.

Democrats have done more to hemorrhage progressive votes than anyone. Trump was treated as a joke, a vile joke, but a joke and the media continued to give him coverage even after they started to realise Trump wasn't going to sink himself. Clinton treated him like a joke. Democrats ignored major issues with a candidate who lost outright to Obama in her own party and was given way more trouble than she should have been by an outsider talking about Socialism the next time around.

Hell, Republicans in the primary treated Trump like a joke.

Low voter-turn out, Democrats being almost as hated as Republicans, Democrats also expecting people to support HRC like they did Obama, and giving up enough votes in supposedly "safe" states because Democrats thought it was in the bag was all it took to have a president who lost the popular vote by 3 million.

The big difference between the bases in this country is that Republicans actually fight for their base: they give them what they want like no Abortions, God and Guns, the ability to die due to lack of healthcare because dieing is more important than having the gubmint tell you what to do, unless said gubmint is making sure gays can't marry. THEN we need big gubmint.

A majority of Democratic politicians are not progressive, so they lose out on some votes there. But on the other end, they rely on the minority vote who, in general, are pretty socially conservative though economically liberal, sometimes even leaning heavily toward socialism if you ask the questions the right way. This is why I constantly beat the idea that if Democrats made the economy their major issue, such as fighting against outsourcing, wall street, etc: they COULD unify their base that is spread out socially.