The sad future of the democratic party

[DLJ]

PC means: Be authoritarian.  Be a jerk.  Take away my freedoms.  Be the end of civilisation as we know it.



It's all about perspective.

Right...  I've said this before.  You have every right to behave in any manner that you like.  If your goal is to exercise your freedom of being a complete dirtbag, knock yourself out.   Who is stopping you?

Nobody.  Is someone physically keeping you from being a terrible waste of skin?  If so, we'll [send] the police over right away.

You just don't like being called out.  If being called out is keeping you from doing something, I would grow a pair and try again.

---

...

Who, indeed, is stopping you (stopping one) and how are they going about it?  That is the crux.

Social and economic pressures to discriminate against discrimination are always the most effective incentives.  

The other two governance techniques for organisational or cultural change are 'policy' and what's colloquially known as 'jumping through hoops'.

It's the 'policy' form of cultural change that seems to be glued onto the Dems which is what many voters deemed objectionable i.e. mandated speech.  The recent case in Canadia highlights it best.

If I'm allowed to quote myself from another forum regarding what happened to the Clinton-Dems,

My take is that the strongest Darwinian driver - survival (staying in power) - used another Darwinian driver - reciprocity (donations) - to create a force that co-opted yet another Darwinian driver - kin selection (identity politics) - that developed an immune system to protect itself from attack [by Bernie Sanders].

In other words, the SJW agenda was the rationale used by the supporting players to see no evil... i.e the evil of the plutocratic main players (pay-to-players).

And because this organism evolved slowly starting in the 70s/80s with Reagan's/Thatcher's democratisation of the shareholder system, those inside the cell membrane (the bubble) couldn't see it happening. Which is why no one is taking responsibility for it.

With the result that many voters rejected the whole shebang and rationalised their instinct (fear of being controlled / losing their right to self-determination) with anti-PC rhetoric.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep i agree because otherwise were looking a fundamental change or what ever. The top will never stoop low enough to fix the problems at the bottom
this is why i don't like voting in general i'll vote but i wont be happy about it. I agree we the people who are on the bottom should fix our own problems rather than
hoping and uselessly pray for change to happen. Because hey the rich are minority in the country the average joe on the other hand is the majority.

Those at the top have absolutely no interest in your problems (let alone knowledge or experience thereof)..and as far as politicians are concerned, no impetus to solve them.  Their very existence and livelihood is predicate on the continued existence of your problems.  Let them bullshit each other with each other as an audience. We don't have to dignify that nonsense by even watching it. I;ve seen trumpsters boo trump rhetoric out of a community meeting...this is all that's left that gives me hope. People pull the lever on election day and argue with their friends, sure...and then, when they need to do their actual jobs...they don;t have time for that noise. Nobody I know who voted for trump has gotten rid of their illegals yet...they know better. Illegals pay their mortgages.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

PC culture has to end?

Two questions: why and how?

The majority of reasons I've seen for that devolve into "I can't be a dick anymore, so it has to go."

[TaraJo]

I think the problem for the democrats has been of their own doing. Two problems, really, that are both from the same root.

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a moderate. He adopted many of the more popular Republican positions and was known for pushing through Welfare reform. Short term, this helped the democrats because the Republicans adopted an increasingly extreme position in order to paint themselves as in opposition to Clinton. It worked for Clinton; even though the GOP despised him enough to impeach him over a blowjob, he was able to pass legislation effectively.

However, there was a big cost. Over time, as the GOP was forced to take extreme positions, those extreme positions became the new normal, American politics in general got pushed to the right. Obama tried something similar, and while he wasn't as effective, he again pushed things to the right. Combine that with the VERY hard right the Republicans took in the wake of 9/11, and the country has moved so fucking far to the right that Eisenhower, a Republican, and even Nixon, would have been considered too far left for even mainstream democrats and even Ronald Reagan is routinely quoted by many Democrats. The previous positions of Democrats have largely been abandoned, alive through only a few hold-outs like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

If the democrats really want to stand for something, if they really want to change things, they need to start taking a hard stand on left wing politics. Get the corporate influence out of their party, strengthen labor unions, raise the top tax rate and for god's sake, yeah, find a way to talk about legitimate identity politics issues without being an asshole. Me, I'd be much more thrilled to vote for a Democrat that could do these things.

[dyresand]

I think the problem for the democrats has been of their own doing.  Two problems, really, that are both from the same root.

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a moderate.  He adopted many of the more popular Republican positions and was known for pushing through Welfare reform.  Short term, this helped the democrats because the Republicans adopted an increasingly extreme position in order to paint themselves as in opposition to Clinton.  It worked for Clinton; even though the GOP despised him enough to impeach him over a blowjob, he was able to pass legislation effectively.

However, there was a big cost.  Over time, as the GOP was forced to take extreme positions, those extreme positions became the new normal, American politics in general got pushed to the right.  Obama tried something similar, and while he wasn't as effective, he again pushed things to the right.  Combine that with the VERY hard right the Republicans took in the wake of 9/11, and the country has moved so fucking far to the right that Eisenhower, a Republican, and even Nixon, would have been considered too far left for even mainstream democrats and even Ronald Reagan is routinely quoted by many Democrats.  The previous positions of Democrats have largely been abandoned, alive through only a few hold-outs like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.  

If the democrats really want to stand for something, if they really want to change things, they need to start taking a hard stand on left wing politics.  Get the corporate influence out of their party, strengthen labor unions, raise the top tax rate and for god's sake, yeah, find a way to talk about legitimate identity politics issues without being an asshole.  Me, I'd be much more thrilled to vote for a Democrat that could do these things.

The Clinton's stand for nothing all they only stand for something if their donors give them money. To say the Clinton's are democrats is so far from truth 
they are republicans they don't care about the working class. Bill got NAFTA passed then Glass Stegall god killed which in turn with the Bush administration 
got the ball going for economic disaster. 2007 and 2008 is when the economy collapsed we got obama he fixed everything in those years up till now  no one 
not even a Clinton said or even Obama for that matter said we need Glass Stegall back. Then you have Obama making banks bigger were going to face yet another economic 
collapse hell even a global one so when that economic bubble bursts well that's going to hell for everyone. What made it go faster well... banks can now gamble with your 401k and your retirement now due to deregulation i wish trump stopped and actually had read some of the things he signed because i don't think he would have done that.

[vorlon13]

A sad future is based on a sad past.

Palmieri might be spilling the beans to some, but I can't say I'm surprised:

(from Washington Examiner where you can read the rest)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been the least surprised person in her campaign when President Trump defeated her for the White House, a top aide said.
Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for Clinton's campaign, told CBS News that Clinton was saddened by the defeat but not surprised.


Makes the continuing protests look a tad misplaced. Maybe actions against some DNC assets would get things looking better for 2018 than what they're doing now.

[ReptilianPeon]

It amazes me how people who claim to hate Donald Trump are doing all the right things to have him re-elected in 2020. The working class wants jobs and hope. Instead, the Democratic establishment is hyper focused on acting like babies and not really achieving anything. Hilary and her cooperate Democrat buddies made Theresa May look liberal and she's a member of the Conservative Party.

[Crunchy]

No, not end of discussion. You are free to continue. So your answer at all times is that a person must stay and listen to you if they disagree. I don't agree that staying in your own personal echo chamber is a good thing, but if people don't want to hear your argument, they haven't censored you. They have introduced into your life what unpopular opinions have forever encountered: pushback. You don't get to say that anyone who says they don't want to hear you is censoring you. 

Yes, end of discussion if you've been barred from speaking at a public venue where many people want to hear you. PC is not about manners its about control. It's about using labels and slurs to insist that no one else should get to hear what you have deemed as incorrect thinking. You know, censorship.
Like Dawkins being dropped from a science conference for an "inappropriate" re tweet of a joke. He offended someone so barring him from a science conference is just being polite. It's certainly not censorship.


You can fool yourself all you want that PC is just good manners. It's not. It's censorship and it's an insidious form of censorship when otherwise intelligent people start to make excuses for it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Actually, only the niggers, spics, wops, chinks and squawmen are still doing the PC thing. 

[SteelCurtain]

Yes, end of discussion if you've been barred from speaking at a public venue where many people want to hear you. PC is not about manners its about control. It's about using labels and slurs to insist that no one else should get to hear what you have deemed as incorrect thinking. You know, censorship.
Like Dawkins being dropped from a science conference for an "inappropriate" re tweet of a joke. He offended someone so barring him from a science conference is just being polite. It's certainly not censorship.

You can fool yourself all you want that PC is just good manners. It's not. It's censorship and it's an insidious form of censorship when otherwise intelligent people start to make excuses for it.

No. It's not end of discussion when you are an editor at Breitbart, have hundreds of thousands followers, and have as many platforms as you want to get your ideas out. You seem to think that anyone is entitled any platform, and if an entity revokes a platform that the entity itself gave out freely in the first place, they are censoring. That is ridiculous.

If you put out hateful ideas, people have every right to respond with protests and requests for the event to not occur at their college. You seem to think that Milo and his fans are just harmless ideas? No. They bring with them a storm of unrest, instigated by his behavior in doxxing and threatening trans students who he doesn't think 'pass.' The worst of his followers bring things like this to the equation:

[doxxed-teacher] IS A FAGGOT WHO NEEDS HIS HEAD SPLIT” and “W-would it be gay to rape him? I mean, i-it’s not homosexual if the sex is not consensual right?”

I am not saying things like this are commonplace or even that both sides don't engage in it. But Milo brings it, his alt-right followers live on 4chan and take the anti-PC anti-SJW thing to violent or threatening extremes by design, that is their modus operandi.

Let's not pretend that Milo or Dawkins is bereft of a platform if a speaking engagement is cancelled based on public outrage. No one is preventing either of them from getting their ideas out.