DNC Chair Candidate: My job is to tell white people when to shut their mouths

[Jeffster]

We have new video today of the recent DNC chair forum, and a new front runner has emerged in the race to become the new chairperson of the Democratic National Committee. Here is the video, pay close attention to the end:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKN6JJYIWWY






My bad here is the real link to the video:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/24/dnc_chair_candidate_my_job_is_to_tell_white_people_when_to_shut_their_mouths.html

So it seems the DNC has decided that doubling down on identity politics and bashing white people is a good strategy to win in 2018 and 2020. I have my doubts with this tactic. I think, and here me out on this one, that the best way to appeal to a larger number of people, and expand the map into enough states to win the electoral college and the Senate, and enough districts to win the House and take over state legislatures, is not to insult the people who make up the majority of the country. I know some of you can't wait for whites to be minorities, but that day is still decades away.

Sure we can keep going on and on about Hillary getting more popular votes than Trump, but what does that really matter when she lost the electoral college, and Democrats failed to win back the Senate and House, or make a dent in State legislatures? They need to craft a policy platform and message to expand the map and get more voters in swing states and swing districts, and not focus on just increasing turnout among groups that are already Democratic party voters, and who already live in blue districts and states.

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huh? I mean maybe they do end up doubling down on identity politics, but this is just from one candidate. What is there to suggest she is the new front-runner? You can't just take every statement from every candidate and act like, yup, that's how the DNC is going to be now. That doesn't make any sense. I didn't watch the GOP primaries and think every single policy or idea stated by any of the candidates was going to become official GOP policy.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The party who's nom was a white lady and vp a white guy bashes white people?

[Jeffster]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huh? I mean maybe they do end up doubling down on identity politics, but this is just from one candidate. What is there to suggest she is the new front-runner? You can't just take every statement from every candidate and act like, yup, that's how the DNC is going to be now. That doesn't make any sense. I didn't watch the GOP primaries and think every single policy or idea stated by any of the candidates was going to become official GOP policy.

The clapping and cheering from the audience, and the head nodding from the other candidates on stage gave a good indication that they agree with her statements. Unless one of the other candidates followed her remarks by immediately denouncing her racist comments during the forum, they allowed her disgusting comments to remain unchallenged.

[DavidB.]

Great idea, I look forward to them doubling down on this incredibly successful strategy in 2020.

[Jeffster]

The party who's nom was a white lady and vp a white guy bashes white people?

Apparently self hate is now a prerequisite for any white Democrat that wants to chair the DNC.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I didn't know Idaho had Democrats

[ApatheticAustrian]

1) who?
2) who?
3) who?

[publicunofficial]

Anyone who watched the DNC debate knows that Brown is going to come in last place.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Anyone who watched the DNC debate knows that Brown is going to come in last place.

And rightfully so. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Can he start with Madonna?  Why in the hell hasn't the Silly Service grilled her?

[JA]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While she worded it awfully, she's not wrong. White people can't fully understand the problems facing minority communities, their experiences, or their perspectives. Sometimes even those with good intentions speak over minorities and their communities, rather than stepping aside and letting them speak for themselves. As DNC Chairperson it'd be best to provide those communities the opportunity to speak for themselves and teach those with privileged backgrounds how to listen. So I do agree with the principle of her remarks, but not the delivery.

[Jeffster]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While she worded it awfully, she's not wrong. White people can't fully understand the problems facing minority communities, their experiences, or their perspectives. Sometimes even those with good intentions speak over minorities and their communities, rather than stepping aside and letting them speak for themselves. As DNC Chairperson it'd be best to provide those communities the opportunity to speak for themselves and teach those with privileged backgrounds how to listen. So I do agree with the principle of her remarks, but not the delivery.

So by that logic they should have their own parties and someone from their own group as their party chairpersons. Why allow some privileged white person to head the DNC or be the next President or VP nominee, thus preventing these minority groups from "speaking for themselves"?

If each minority group simply formed their own political party they could have someone without privilege to head the party who wouldn't need to "shut up and listen."

[Jeffster]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While she worded it awfully, she's not wrong. White people can't fully understand the problems facing minority communities, their experiences, or their perspectives. Sometimes even those with good intentions speak over minorities and their communities, rather than stepping aside and letting them speak for themselves. As DNC Chairperson it'd be best to provide those communities the opportunity to speak for themselves and teach those with privileged backgrounds how to listen. So I do agree with the principle of her remarks, but not the delivery.

So by that logic they should have their own parties and someone from their own group as their party chairpersons. Why allow some privileged white person to head the DNC or be the next President or VP nominee, thus preventing these minority groups from "speaking for themselves"?

If each minority group simply formed their own political party they could have someone without privilege to head the party who wouldn't need to "shut up and listen."

Uh, yeah, cool, but that would be a ****ing disaster in this country. I don't care if it works in the Republic of Podunk, it would lead to literal warfare here due to social media.

It's the natural evolution of this type of politics taken to its extreme end.

[JA]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While she worded it awfully, she's not wrong. White people can't fully understand the problems facing minority communities, their experiences, or their perspectives. Sometimes even those with good intentions speak over minorities and their communities, rather than stepping aside and letting them speak for themselves. As DNC Chairperson it'd be best to provide those communities the opportunity to speak for themselves and teach those with privileged backgrounds how to listen. So I do agree with the principle of her remarks, but not the delivery.

So by that logic they should have their own parties and someone from their own group as their party chairpersons. Why allow some privileged white person to head the DNC or be the next President or VP nominee, thus preventing these minority groups from "speaking for themselves"?

If each minority group simply formed their own political party they could have someone without privilege to head the party who wouldn't need to "shut up and listen."

If you had any sense or understanding of topics such as this, without your knee jerk reaction to anything that doesn't pretend to be color blind, you'd realize how asinine your entire response was. However, since that's obviously not the case, I'll try to spell it out for you.

Giving minority groups the ability to speak with their own voice on issues that affect them in unique ways, which aren't completely understandable to those outside their community, doesn't mean we need total segregation of society or the formation of different parties. We need to work together. Working together means one group that has more privilege, and with that more representation and less understanding of issues affecting disadvantaged communities, shouldn't speak for or over other groups. It means listening, not talking. If I started talking about what happened to you and your life, even if trying to help, you'd want me to shut up so you can speak for yourself because it's about your life, your experiences, and only you can truly understand your life. That also doesn't mean you wouldn't want to work with me, only that I shouldn't speak on your behalf like that.

[Beet]

I think everyone needs to have empathy for others, and take the time to listen to others, but telling certain groups to shut up is not the right way to go. Unfortunately this kind of thing is deeply embedded in SJW culture and many, many people who I dearly love and would support politically in any other capacity, buy into it. Although sometimes I wonder if they really do, or just feel that they have no other choice because if they dispute this reasoning they'll be banished from the movement.

[Maxwell]

who even is this person? They're not even Jaime Harrison irrelevant. This is gonna get played over and over again, but really this is like a seventh tier candidate.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Isn't the whole point of political parties winning elections?  Based off of this she should be the last choice for the DNC.

[Jeffster]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While she worded it awfully, she's not wrong. White people can't fully understand the problems facing minority communities, their experiences, or their perspectives. Sometimes even those with good intentions speak over minorities and their communities, rather than stepping aside and letting them speak for themselves. As DNC Chairperson it'd be best to provide those communities the opportunity to speak for themselves and teach those with privileged backgrounds how to listen. So I do agree with the principle of her remarks, but not the delivery.

So by that logic they should have their own parties and someone from their own group as their party chairpersons. Why allow some privileged white person to head the DNC or be the next President or VP nominee, thus preventing these minority groups from "speaking for themselves"?

If each minority group simply formed their own political party they could have someone without privilege to head the party who wouldn't need to "shut up and listen."

If you had any sense or understanding of topics such as this, without your knee jerk reaction to anything that doesn't pretend to be color blind, you'd realize how asinine your entire response was. However, since that's obviously not the case, I'll try to spell it out for you.

Giving minority groups the ability to speak with their own voice on issues that affect them in unique ways, which aren't completely understandable to those outside their community, doesn't mean we need total segregation of society or the formation of different parties. We need to work together. Working together means one group that has more privilege, and with that more representation and less understanding of issues affecting disadvantaged communities, shouldn't speak for or over other groups. It means listening, not talking. If I started talking about what happened to you and your life, even if trying to help, you'd want me to shut up so you can speak for yourself because it's about your life, your experiences, and only you can truly understand your life. That also doesn't mean you wouldn't want to work with me, only that I shouldn't speak on your behalf like that.

You keep contradicting yourself. You can't both have someone of privilege leading a political party made up of several groups, including the non-privileged, and not have them speak on behalf of someone of non-privilege at the same time. Unless you are saying that a person from a privileged group shouldn't be allowed to lead this party, is that what you're saying?

But then what give the non-privileged person the right to speak on behalf of the privileged group based on your argument?

[DrScholl]

I'm confused why this is even a thread. This person isn't exactly anyone of note.

[JA]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While she worded it awfully, she's not wrong. White people can't fully understand the problems facing minority communities, their experiences, or their perspectives. Sometimes even those with good intentions speak over minorities and their communities, rather than stepping aside and letting them speak for themselves. As DNC Chairperson it'd be best to provide those communities the opportunity to speak for themselves and teach those with privileged backgrounds how to listen. So I do agree with the principle of her remarks, but not the delivery.

So by that logic they should have their own parties and someone from their own group as their party chairpersons. Why allow some privileged white person to head the DNC or be the next President or VP nominee, thus preventing these minority groups from "speaking for themselves"?

If each minority group simply formed their own political party they could have someone without privilege to head the party who wouldn't need to "shut up and listen."

If you had any sense or understanding of topics such as this, without your knee jerk reaction to anything that doesn't pretend to be color blind, you'd realize how asinine your entire response was. However, since that's obviously not the case, I'll try to spell it out for you.

Giving minority groups the ability to speak with their own voice on issues that affect them in unique ways, which aren't completely understandable to those outside their community, doesn't mean we need total segregation of society or the formation of different parties. We need to work together. Working together means one group that has more privilege, and with that more representation and less understanding of issues affecting disadvantaged communities, shouldn't speak for or over other groups. It means listening, not talking. If I started talking about what happened to you and your life, even if trying to help, you'd want me to shut up so you can speak for yourself because it's about your life, your experiences, and only you can truly understand your life. That also doesn't mean you wouldn't want to work with me, only that I shouldn't speak on your behalf like that.

You keep contradicting yourself. You can't both have someone of privilege leading a political party made up of several groups, including the non-privileged, and not have them speak on behalf of someone of non-privilege at the same time. Unless you are saying that a person from a privileged group shouldn't be allowed to lead this party, is that what you're saying?

But then what give the non-privileged person the right to speak on behalf of the privileged group based on your argument?

Because I'm talking about within the party, not the party as a whole. By that I mean, within the Democratic Party they need to listen and not speak over top of each other or try to speak on behalf of another group within the party. A DNC Chairperson must obviously speak on behalf of the party, but within it should play the role of listener - as should all other privileged groups within the party. Then, when approaching the politics and the country as a party, should take the information learned from listening to its different groups and present those ideas as a party - as a coalition of diverse groups cooperating together for their mutual benefit. It also means when drafting a party platform, per se, the issues pertaining to each group should be addressed solely by each respective group when constructing it, thereby weaving them together into a platform representative of the party's diversity. It's essentially bottom-up representation, rather than top-down.

[henster]

She is a nobody.

[Jeffster]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While she worded it awfully, she's not wrong. White people can't fully understand the problems facing minority communities, their experiences, or their perspectives. Sometimes even those with good intentions speak over minorities and their communities, rather than stepping aside and letting them speak for themselves. As DNC Chairperson it'd be best to provide those communities the opportunity to speak for themselves and teach those with privileged backgrounds how to listen. So I do agree with the principle of her remarks, but not the delivery.

So by that logic they should have their own parties and someone from their own group as their party chairpersons. Why allow some privileged white person to head the DNC or be the next President or VP nominee, thus preventing these minority groups from "speaking for themselves"?

If each minority group simply formed their own political party they could have someone without privilege to head the party who wouldn't need to "shut up and listen."

If you had any sense or understanding of topics such as this, without your knee jerk reaction to anything that doesn't pretend to be color blind, you'd realize how asinine your entire response was. However, since that's obviously not the case, I'll try to spell it out for you.

Giving minority groups the ability to speak with their own voice on issues that affect them in unique ways, which aren't completely understandable to those outside their community, doesn't mean we need total segregation of society or the formation of different parties. We need to work together. Working together means one group that has more privilege, and with that more representation and less understanding of issues affecting disadvantaged communities, shouldn't speak for or over other groups. It means listening, not talking. If I started talking about what happened to you and your life, even if trying to help, you'd want me to shut up so you can speak for yourself because it's about your life, your experiences, and only you can truly understand your life. That also doesn't mean you wouldn't want to work with me, only that I shouldn't speak on your behalf like that.

You keep contradicting yourself. You can't both have someone of privilege leading a political party made up of several groups, including the non-privileged, and not have them speak on behalf of someone of non-privilege at the same time. Unless you are saying that a person from a privileged group shouldn't be allowed to lead this party, is that what you're saying?

But then what give the non-privileged person the right to speak on behalf of the privileged group based on your argument?

Because I'm talking about within the party, not the party as a whole. By that I mean, within the Democratic Party they need to listen and not speak over top of each other or try to speak on behalf of another group within the party. A DNC Chairperson must obviously speak on behalf of the party, but within it should play the role of listener - as should all other privileged groups within the party. Then, when approaching the politics and the country as a party, should take the information learned from listening to its different groups and present those ideas as a party - as a coalition of diverse groups cooperating together for their mutual benefit. It also means when drafting a party platform, per se, the issues pertaining to each group should be addressed solely by each respective group when constructing it, thereby weaving them together into a platform representative of the party's diversity. It's essentially bottom-up representation, rather than top-down.

The Democrats have been doing that already, but at some point you can't adopt every loony idea from the various groups. As with all big parties, they can't be all things to all groups at the same time. Some thing will have to be prioritized over others, and some things are too ridiculous or based on faulty information to take seriously.

Your way of thinking also means only the privileged group should be allowed to be criticized by the non-privileged groups, and that the privileged group should never criticize the non-privileged. It is pandering of the worst form, as it treats the non-privileged as less capable or handling criticism.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While she worded it awfully, she's not wrong. White people can't fully understand the problems facing minority communities, their experiences, or their perspectives. Sometimes even those with good intentions speak over minorities and their communities, rather than stepping aside and letting them speak for themselves. As DNC Chairperson it'd be best to provide those communities the opportunity to speak for themselves and teach those with privileged backgrounds how to listen. So I do agree with the principle of her remarks, but not the delivery.

So by that logic they should have their own parties and someone from their own group as their party chairpersons. Why allow some privileged white person to head the DNC or be the next President or VP nominee, thus preventing these minority groups from "speaking for themselves"?

If each minority group simply formed their own political party they could have someone without privilege to head the party who wouldn't need to "shut up and listen."

If you had any sense or understanding of topics such as this, without your knee jerk reaction to anything that doesn't pretend to be color blind, you'd realize how asinine your entire response was. However, since that's obviously not the case, I'll try to spell it out for you.

Giving minority groups the ability to speak with their own voice on issues that affect them in unique ways, which aren't completely understandable to those outside their community, doesn't mean we need total segregation of society or the formation of different parties. We need to work together. Working together means one group that has more privilege, and with that more representation and less understanding of issues affecting disadvantaged communities, shouldn't speak for or over other groups. It means listening, not talking. If I started talking about what happened to you and your life, even if trying to help, you'd want me to shut up so you can speak for yourself because it's about your life, your experiences, and only you can truly understand your life. That also doesn't mean you wouldn't want to work with me, only that I shouldn't speak on your behalf like that.

You keep contradicting yourself. You can't both have someone of privilege leading a political party made up of several groups, including the non-privileged, and not have them speak on behalf of someone of non-privilege at the same time. Unless you are saying that a person from a privileged group shouldn't be allowed to lead this party, is that what you're saying?

But then what give the non-privileged person the right to speak on behalf of the privileged group based on your argument?

Because I'm talking about within the party, not the party as a whole. By that I mean, within the Democratic Party they need to listen and not speak over top of each other or try to speak on behalf of another group within the party. A DNC Chairperson must obviously speak on behalf of the party, but within it should play the role of listener - as should all other privileged groups within the party. Then, when approaching the politics and the country as a party, should take the information learned from listening to its different groups and present those ideas as a party - as a coalition of diverse groups cooperating together for their mutual benefit. It also means when drafting a party platform, per se, the issues pertaining to each group should be addressed solely by each respective group when constructing it, thereby weaving them together into a platform representative of the party's diversity. It's essentially bottom-up representation, rather than top-down.

It's Electoral poison to internalise such notions however, and it barely even helps with minority turnout. Like people don't like the idea they are being prolytised to - it is poor politics to even come off that way.

Also lol this thread.

[Bojack Horseman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While she worded it awfully, she's not wrong. White people can't fully understand the problems facing minority communities, their experiences, or their perspectives. Sometimes even those with good intentions speak over minorities and their communities, rather than stepping aside and letting them speak for themselves. As DNC Chairperson it'd be best to provide those communities the opportunity to speak for themselves and teach those with privileged backgrounds how to listen. So I do agree with the principle of her remarks, but not the delivery.

So by that logic they should have their own parties and someone from their own group as their party chairpersons. Why allow some privileged white person to head the DNC or be the next President or VP nominee, thus preventing these minority groups from "speaking for themselves"?

If each minority group simply formed their own political party they could have someone without privilege to head the party who wouldn't need to "shut up and listen."

Uh, yeah, cool, but that would be a ****ing disaster in this country. I don't care if it works in the Republic of Podunk, it would lead to literal warfare here due to social media.

Unfortunately that's exactly where we're headed. In the next few decades, the Republican Party will be the White Party and the Democratic Party will be the Racial Minority Party. That's exactly the way it is in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and other states in the south, and the way the voting demographics have trended the last 50 years. In Alabama, every Democrat in he legislature and Congress is Black and every Republican is white. (I have no idea how Tim Scott gets elected in SC and why/how he can be a Republican in the first place)

With the election of Donald Trump, the GOP is already becoming like the ANC in South Africa. The party of Nelson Mandela has had no legitimate opposition and its become corrupted by the business lobby and bad governance. This has gotten it to the point where it has to rely on shameless race baiting to keep winning, and it works. The ANC has won every election since 1994 with over 60% of the vote in an 80% Black country.