The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Possible contender for post of the year:

At this point I'm more disappointed in the left. It has allowed a large section to be taken over by this notion that there is but this one savior who can deliver us from evil. A notion that has been constantly reinforced by his aggressive us vs them intra-party campaign to separate and isolate his supporters from the rest of the Democratic party.

This separation has not only limited his ability to get beyond a core subset of the party in terms of support (people tend to not vote for you if they think you've been calling them 'the evil establishment' for yeas on end) but has isolated the left in terms of necessary critique. Mass movements can very easily be hijacked by bad actors who seek to exploit the movement for their own ends. To abuse the trust they gain from taking leadership roles in such movements for personal gain and enforcing of loyalty above the ideas, message, and people of the movement.

Suddenly its time to hug it out with racists and sexists because they're suddenly on board with Sanders. Stories of abuse, online yes, but also in person, in real world spaces, never happened because if it did happen it makes the movement look bad. And when such denials can not be made, it was some bad apples. And so what if there seems to be a lot of bad apples, this isn't a systematic problem that needs to be addressed. Because if we try to fight back against the abusers, the corporate dems win!

And even non-behavior critiques of the Sanders campaign, focused on the candidate, campaign, and platform specifically are brushed aside as well. Excuses are made to insure that he is always right, and everyone else is always wrong. The responses to even mild critique of his class only style leftism  are kind of predictable and rely on us having very short memories.  Similarly, his wanting to be handed the nomination if he doesn't win a majority, just a plurality, relies on us not remembering his position last election when he wanted to be handed the nomination despite having lost the vote and delegate race. Question the specifics of his strategy to get things done? Oh, you're trying to prevent the only real chance we got despite his strategy either being wishful thinking or relying on institutionalist senators just ignoring the rules to push his agenda. Aka, wishful thinking of a different sort.

So there is a lot to be critical of, but the left has overwhelmingly decided that any critique, even the most reasonable critique that might, you know, help Sanders get elected or actually get things done, are ignored. And if you press, suddenly you're a traitor to The Movement.

But guess what, if folks be going all in like this, maybe it isn't us who see issues and want to talk about them who have been betrayed here. The growing left has been hijacked. And for what? To get some guy elected? Is that all? That he'll magically pull off all the wishes the good leftist girls and boys have wanted for years?

Politics doesn't work like that. Politics, especially Democratic and leftist politics, relies on building coalitions. Bringing people together. Just saying you're bringing people together is not the same thing as actually doing it. Especially if your entire campaign relies on cutting a bit line right down the middle of the party. With everyone on this side is a good person who totally can do no wrong, and everyone over there is a traitor and no better than a Republican. Including those people who have been fighting the right for decades, because they just didn't want to sign up with the Sanders team for some reason.

I could go on, but I've grown tired of screaming into the wind pointlessly. The left will not survive Sanders at this rate. When he's no longer a candidate, what there is now will fall apart. Those who've been in the fight from before his rise will still be around, but all the folks he supposedly brought to the movement will fade away. Because he made this fight about electing him exclusively, not about doing the right thing. And if there's not that focus, well... there's no movement. Whoops.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No "consensus" can be reached with nazis, we fought a whole war over it. In the end of the day, racism is against the terms of service. You're free to disagree, but the mod team is acting in accordance to them. That doesn't make you smarter or your scope wider, btw. It's shocking, but many of us don't believe that listening to takes like "some races have a higher IQ" or "not being transphobic is insane" would help anyone intellectually or warrants deabte in a decent community.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

Grow up

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

In response to "Why do conservatives usually seem to jeopardize the safety of the public?"

Because individuals rights (which inherently imply "risk") predating and enshrined in the Constitution are more important than the fearful feelings of others, especially when those feelings are motivated by on-paper hypothetical safety gains.

I mean, we literally require criminals to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt ... you really think that doesn't result in a ton of criminals going free? Warrants PRIOR to searching suspected terrorists. Assembly for ANY peaceful reason. Presumption of bail. Hell, we make prosecutors GIVE their arguments to defendants in advance.

99.9% of privately owned guns (300 MILLION+) aren't used in crimes, the idea that something with such a teeny tiny low percentage of criminal abuse is "jeopardizing the public safety" is an absolute joke unless you literally believe the dumb argument of "muh even 1 life lost is too much". If you applied that argument to literally everything we couldn't do anything. Pools, cars, sugar, salt, fat, red meat, booze, cigarettes, peanuts, eggs, airplanes, XRays, coffee, aspirin, tylenol, football, sex, hell even flippin vaccines entail a risk of death.

We dont live in a risk free society and the only way to get there is for everyone to just die. The notion that we arent allowed to assess and discount hypothetical risks in a free society is absurd, dangerous, and leads to authoritarian regimes which (surprise surprise) also present a risk of death.

So the real answer to your question is that "conservatives" usually seem to "jeopardize the safety of the public" because your personal definition of "jeopardizing the safety of the public" is so expansive as to include a ton of innocuous activities that statistically dont lead to bad outcomes the vast vast vast majority of the time.

These so-called protestors are a bunch of selfish putzheads who are no better than the anti-vaxers.  You don't get to get other people killed just b/c you want to act like an idiot.

Stay inside then?

Grow up

You're the one pissing the bed here, not me.

Much edge!  Very chad!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Credit where credit is due

I voted Likely Pressley, but I think she is being definitely overestimated by most posters. It's correct to note that Pressley was elected against an incumbent, but the difference between her and say AOC is that while AOC was elected on a broad ideological message which, as much as I may hate, has at least some sort of appeal to extremely liberal Democrats of all stripes, Pressley won off of blatant race baiting. That may work great in the only majority minority district in the state, but it certainly won't be nearly as effective statewide (I doubt AOC could win statewide either, but conflating the two is a mistake.)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Credit where credit is due

I voted Likely Pressley, but I think she is being definitely overestimated by most posters. It's correct to note that Pressley was elected against an incumbent, but the difference between her and say AOC is that while AOC was elected on a broad ideological message which, as much as I may hate, has at least some sort of appeal to extremely liberal Democrats of all stripes, Pressley won off of blatant race baiting. That may work great in the only majority minority district in the state, but it certainly won't be nearly as effective statewide (I doubt AOC could win statewide either, but conflating the two is a mistake.)

The rest of the thread literally makes clear how that particular reply lacked any quality (let alone of a 'high' variety).

People are right for the wrong reasons all the time and the post itself was spot on, the subsequent ones not so much (to put it mildly).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Credit where credit is due

I voted Likely Pressley, but I think she is being definitely overestimated by most posters. It's correct to note that Pressley was elected against an incumbent, but the difference between her and say AOC is that while AOC was elected on a broad ideological message which, as much as I may hate, has at least some sort of appeal to extremely liberal Democrats of all stripes, Pressley won off of blatant race baiting. That may work great in the only majority minority district in the state, but it certainly won't be nearly as effective statewide (I doubt AOC could win statewide either, but conflating the two is a mistake.)

The rest of the thread literally makes clear how that particular reply lacked any quality (let alone of a 'high' variety).

People are right for the wrong reasons all the time and the post itself was spot on, the subsequent ones not so much (to put it mildly).

OP claims "Pressley won off of blatant race baiting." Subsequent replies show how neither Pressley nor her campaign engaged in anything that could even remotely constitute 'race-baiting,' thereby making clear that OP's post was neither high-quality nor something "spot on" that was "right for the wrong reasons."

You yourself are just wrong (to put it mildly).

Err...Pressley did win the primary using blatant race-baiting.  Her whole campaign could be summed up as “vote for me b/c Capuano is white and white people are teh Evulz”

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Context:

Because most spam/troll posts are insanely annoying to read. Even if it's easy to scroll through, it's even easier to put someone on your ignore list once and never deal with them again. I probably agree with like 30% of my ignore list but just figured they contribute absolutely nothing positive to my forum experience.

As always, the enlightened "muh debate" attitude is amazingly condescending and takes a very narrow view of what people are trying to get out of this forum.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Israel.  Most Americans support Israel but don't have any reason to be vocal about it since Israel is currently powerful, socially/technologically advanced, and relatively safe.  Meanwhile the small Palestinian contingent on the far-left is very loud.

Unfortunately, there's no equally loud voice to explain why they're wrong, so every college kid goes through a phase of "yeah, like, Israel is kinda bad" before they eventually learn more about the situation.

If Israel was ever actually threatened again, there would be a huge outpouring of support and the overwhelming majority of Israel supporters would make their voices heard.  For instance, maybe every other middle-eastern country could band together in one giant army to "exterminate the Jews", as happened 3 times in the last 75 years.  Fortunately, they don't seem as motivated these days.

It's just Palestine and Lebanon that are actively fighting to exterminate the Jews these days, down to the last child.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Now that was a great post!  Well done, Calthrina

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This comparison is highly offensive and downplays the actual atrocious views that Steve King has (at least with AOC). This is not a good post by any means of the imagination.

Steve King and Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar is a pretty fair comparison.  King and AOC isn’t even if AOC is still an awful grifter

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Doesn't seem to be a popular take in this thread but I'm still tilting personally a tad towards Omar in this race. It is not my district, and whatever the will of MN-05 is will probably be for the best. I'm not even gonna touch Omar's love life in this post since quite frankly I think it's mudslinging.

Do I believe Ilhan Omar personally is an anti-Semite? No. Do I believe Ilhan Omar has propagated anti-Semitic tropes which basically anyone in public office should know better than? Yes. I don't wanna do the "SHE ENDORSED A JEW FOR PREZ HOW COULD SHE BE AN ANTI-SEMITE??" meme but I'll try to explain my position. I don't give a damn if you're trying to refer to AIPAC's campaign contributions if your take on a pro-Israel lobby is "It's all about the Benjamins baby" you have a problem. That's not even mentioning the duel loyalty trope allusion which is also deeply concerning. However, I think this is mainly an issue of rhetoric than of genuine vitriol for the Jewish people.

Left-wing anti-Semitism is a real thing and it must be identified and squashed from especially the progressive movement. There is a line that has to be treaded carefully between legitimate criticism of the State of Israel and genuine anti-Semitism. Betty McCollum who has been mentioned in this thread several times does a great job of doing this, and that's by being clear and specific. If you say "Israel is and has been throughout its history committing human rights abused on their border with Palestine" you are being clear and specific. If you say "AIPAC advocates for militaristic policy in the Middle East which I do not support" you are being clear in specific. If you say "The Zionists are controlling U.S. foreign policy using AIPAC and have all our politicians on their payroll" your qualm seems to be more with Jewish people than the governmental policy of the State of Israel. The word "Zionist" specifically has become a neo-Nazi dogwhistle for all Jews and should be avoided.

In conclusion, I'd like to note I'm big on in-district small contributions (only in-state on OpenSecrets sadly) being the most important part of a campaign. AMM has that edge, and it isn't even close. If he wins, I have no doubt he will be a good legislator. If Omar wins, I hope she changes her ways.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don’t know what’s sadder to watch, OSR go all “notice me senpai” for Sanchez or Fuzzy white knighting for Reaganfan

Blue avatars on this site have a mentality that they’re all being targeted and therefore when one goes down for being a racist or whatever, they all take it as an attack. A lot of the blue avatars here are good posters, not racist, not like the outliers mentioned in this thread. But much like IRL Republicans, they stick together and only walk as fast as their slowest member. If Reaganfan is banned for violating the ToS because he could not stop being racist, the others must flock to his defense because they’re worried that they’ll be next. Never mind the fact that, you know, as long as you don’t say racist sh*t you won’t get banned no matter what your ideology is.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It’s amazing. It truly is.

Ed Markey:

— Voted for NAFTA
— Voted for the 1994 crime bill
— Voted for the Iraq War
— Didn’t support busing back in the day
— Is an old career politician in office for about 50 years

Alex Morse:

— Has been accused of inappropriate sexual behavior

Joe Biden did all these things or similar, and was crucified by self-styled “progressives” for them. Yet they give a free pass for the same things or worse to these two and twist their brains into knots trying to pretend it isn’t the blatant hypocrisy and double standard that it is. We all know damn well that if these two were considered the “establishment” pick, progressives would be screaming bloody murder about these horrible, evil, corrupt, corporate Democrats. Instead they are actively rooting for them. Celebrating the victory of Markey and lamenting the loss of Morse.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The “progressive” label is fake. The word has had its original definition stripped and been rebranded to mean “whoever Bernie and/or AOC and/or TYT endorses, or whoever isn’t who I think is ‘the establishment’ candidate.” It is all style, no substance. No ideological consistency. No integrity. It is literally just about sticking it to “the man” and absolutely nothing else. At least nothing else with any consistency or conviction whatsoever.

So with that in mind, the so-called “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party would be more accurately called the “contrarian” tribe. Because that is exactly what it is. It’s a bunch of people who never grew out of their high school phase of being non-conformists who hate authority, or are still in it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Hey guys, can we not start the 2024 primary yet? How about we acknowledge that there are definite disagreements within the Democratic Party (and we should discuss them without eating each other alive), but that moderates and progressives need to have each other’s backs to have any chance of winning elections?

I agree that we all need to get better at messaging, and it’s fine to criticize AOC’s messaging. Calling one another “enemies” doesn’t help anyone.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

One of the most obvious takeaways is that Trumpism's broader goal of arresting societal trends away from conservative and traditional orthodoxies is a massive flop. While conservative rage at cultural progressivism has paid off in terms of bolstering structural political advantages and solidifying loyal footsoldiers opposed to the "liberal elite," it has once again failed to contain the leftward swings that have continued unabated for the past two decades. Donald Trump was the most direct confrontation to the liberal hegemony and its institutions yet, raging against the media, academia, urbanites, experts, the professional managerial class, and promising to turn back the clock for the forgotten patriots of "Real America" who've been shunted to the cultural margins by the reigning social order.

This earned him two popular vote losses and an underperformance of the generic Republican ticket both times, a liberal order that doubled down on resisting his assaults, a break towards the Democrats in formerly conservative educated suburbs that used to constitute Republican strongholds, and an acceleration away from conservative impulses on social policy and cultural views. Society swung against him on just about every major paradigm he wished to instill and lurched further into progressive causes. Views on immigration shifted left, views on race relations shifted left, views on gender inequality and sexual harassment shifted left, views on criminal justice reform and the police shifted left, views on drugs shifted left, views on Confederate monuments and other controversial historical figures shifted left; can anybody name a single sociocultural issue where more people moved towards the views Trump was promoting perhaps other than an increasing appetite for populism in general? I suppose views on abortion are holding steady, but the pro-life movement has been facing the uphill on that for decades.

Additionally, everything that was a success for conservatives that he implemented could have been pushed by literally any Republican president, while everything that he tried to implement that was directly tied to his ideological project (to the degree that a coherent one existed) will be undone by the next administration and is unlikely to be pursued as vigorously by future conservative ones. The religiously unaffiliated are still growing and Christianity is on the decline, social progressivism and secularism are rising instead of reversing, "socialism" is about as popular as it's ever been since the end of the Cold War despite the incessant fearmongering, and Millenials are retaining their Democratic preference even as they age into their family bearing years while Gen Z looks set to be even more left-leaning in their policy and cultural preferences. There is not a single element I can think of within society that Donald Trump promised his constituents he would act as their righteous champion for where he actually managed to restore the status quo ante. Broader Republican advantages of overrepresentation within the political system remain, but that's done little so far to notch any consistent reversals of increasing liberalism and the former rallying cry of big government rollback that used to animate the conservative movement is largely dead and mostly utilized now as a more cynical tool to exploit specific grievances of spoils distribution than a bona fide schema for reform.

And now Trump will be remembered as a one-term failed president, the first one-termer in my lifetime. Democrats may not have had the big win they hoped for, and are clearly going to continue to face structural headwinds going forward, but that pales in comparison to the headwinds Republicans are still facing on the cultural front. Trump promised to stick it to the system and upend the prevailing social order in favor of "traditional" America. Instead, hegemonic liberalism solidified its position as the dominant trendsetter and conservatism continues its long retreat.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Marjorie Taylor-Greene got elected in GA-14, a district Trump won by 53 points.  Marjorie only beat her opponent by 49 points.  I don't have CD-level results in front of me for Georgia, but I would assume she substantially underperformed Trump given 2020 trends in districts like hers.  This despite that fact that her opponent dropped out of the race in September due to MTG supporters making threats to him and his family.

Marjorie Taylor-Greene is an extreme candidate who is so fringe within her party that other candidates are embarrassed to be associated with her.  Republicans cringe whenever she makes a public statement.  Democrats would like her to be on TV as often as possible and become the face of the Republican Party.  They will try to tie other candidates to her in the 2022 cycle.

She won her election, and she did it by compromising as little as possible -- that is, by running as a QAnon nut who's openly racist, worships authoritarians, and obsesses over bizarre conspiracies.  I suppose she would rather win by 47% by being her true self, rather than winning by 55% by pretending to be sane and decent.  She's probably happy to get 73% and keep the fight alive for, well, whatever it is she's fighting for.

So what does all that say about her?  What's your point?  Is Marjorie Taylor-Greene happy?  I'm sure she is.  But does her getting elected prove anything?  No.

I think you're just responding to an argument that nobody's making.  Nobody's saying that Ilhan Omar only getting 64% is some kind of electoral emergency and she needs to change her message, or even that she should be disappointed.  The point is that Ilhan Omar and her friends keep telling us that they have some super-special winning message, that they're the future of the party, and that if we'd only listen to them and adopt all their policies and talking points, we would win far more elections.

This is in contrast to everyone else, who keeps saying "your policies are terrible, your rhetoric is awful, you're an embarrassment to the rest of the party, you drag everybody else down with you, and adopting your techniques nationwide would be absolutely suicidal.  Please stop trying to shove them down our throats."

And their underperformance is just more proof of that.  If they really had some special sauce, they would be adding voters to the pool.  They'd be overperforming the top of the ticket and overperforming relative to other candidates.  Instead, they drastically underperformed.  Good for them that they can say crazy stuff and still get re-elected?  Good for them for refusing to hide their insanity even though it's electoral poison?  Fine.  But don't come telling us that candidates in R+3 districts, or even D+10 districts, should adopt this electoral poison.  Ilhan Omar would get absolutely stomped to pieces in a swing district, and would even probably lose in a Likely D district.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It was impossible to defend. Impossible.

oh, but a certain type of person will try anyway.  I've heard it a few times.  He was on drugs you see.  Perhaps that would have been a good defense if the jerk cop hadn't leaned on the back of his neck for 8 minutes.

I still feel the Breonna Taylor murder was worse and would have made a much better "example" as she wasn't doing anything illegal at all and the cover up around it was 500% worse.

That's the exact line used. Just got back last weekend from visiting my parents in Florida. Dad golfed with a guy who is retired police, his friends told him that Floyd had drugs so they did nothing wrong. Also said that every other issue, Taylor, etc is the liberal media demonizing them and every shooting is justified, etc. Cop culture is the issue.

it's just a ridiculous thing to say "every shooting is justified", it proves the person has zero objectivity and shouldn't be listened to.  How could it possibly be that "every shooting is justified" unless they think every cop is 100% correct 100% of the time and that's an insane thing to think, especially for a cop.

Maybe Floyd would have died if the jerk cop hadn't leaned on his neck for 8 minutes, but we'll never know and it's certainly not a thing you can assume.  Certainly the public has been wrong on judging cops too harshly too quickly after a shooting, there are still dummies that just know Michael Brown was murdered by Darren Wilson and that's not the case.  On the other hand, for every case like that, there are a dozen times where the cops straight up murdered someone and got away with it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Reading through this thread and all the reporting and post-mortems, it's hard not to be heavily critical of RWDSU for going full-out here. Inexperienced organisers deciding to pick an uneven fight on tough terrain, who had laid no groundwork and made multiple unforced tactical errors. Amazon will cheat, we know that: so what is your plan when the stacked NLRB hearing sides with Amazon to increase the bargaining unit from 1500 workers (which might have been winnable) to 5800 including temps? If you don't have a plan then you're sending your organisers to charge into the machineguns - call off the election. And why are you flying in Bernie Sanders but not even talking to local community groups?

The generous interpretation is that they thought a big nationalised fight and media circus would boost the profile of labour organising generally and inspire drives elsewhere, even if they lost (this might be happening). The ungenerous is that organisers were caught up in a Twitter bubble and thought a vague anti-Amazon feeling in their activist circle could power the union to win through sheer force of will.  

Couple of strong articles I would encourage everyone to read:

https://twitter.com/thenation/status/1380558681767612420?s=20

https://twitter.com/eisingerj/status/1380696373717258240?s=20

tl;dr: you can't unionise workers through social media.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The theory that people who don't like Pete Buttigieg are motivated by anti-white racism is actually absurd and stupid, not "high-quality."

You misunderstand.  I’m not saying people who dislike Buttigieg are motivated primarily by anti-white racism.  I’m saying the “Mayo Pete” line itself is racist and many of the folks who use it simply don’t care/have no qualms about making racist attacks as long as they’re bashing someone they don’t like.  I’ll leave it to you to decide whether that makes it better or worse.  

In any case, the Mayo Pete line doesn’t even make any sense unless the implication is that voters should hold the fact that Buttigieg is white against him in the voting booth.  If not that, then what is it referring to?  I guess you could argue people mean he’s bland and boring, but contextually speaking, it’s pretty clear that’s not what folks mean when they use the term (or at least, it takes a backseat to implicitly attacking him for being “too white”).  

Again, it’d be like if Hillary’s AA supporters had made a meme in 2008 out of regularly calling Barack Obama “Oreobama.”  

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Calling a black man white is actually not the same thing as calling a white man white.

Fair enough, admittedly I could've probably used a better example (although tbf I never said it was the same thing, I drew a comparison between two racist forms of attacking a political candidate).  Doesn't change the fact that "Mayo Pete" is a racist term used to implicitly attack Buttigieg for his skin color and suggest it should be held against him in the voting booth.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If President Biden (whose lead moderate senators like Joe Manchin generally follow) still refuses to support either the elimination of the filibuster or at least a carve-out for voting rights, then all that is really happening is political kabuki theater.  Biden is merely giving speeches full of empty words in support of voting rights, while congressional Democrats are holding empty, symbolic votes (if that) on voting legislation that everyone knows will never see the President's desk.  The only likely lesson that will be imparted to black voters is that they've been taken for a ride, that they are not important enough to President Biden despite the fact that they are the main reason he won the presidential nomination in the first place. I suspect that Biden is too busy trying to ingratiate himself with white working class voters in the Rust Belt to be concerned with the very real likelihood that minority voters in key Sun Belt states will not be able to exercise their right to vote as a result of Republican voter suppression laws that Biden evidently doesn't care enough about to eliminate or alter the filibuster.      

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yes, obviously.  An even more common condition will be the thorough demoralization of law enforcement to the point that departments are constantly understaffed because they cannot find qualified candidates willing to accept open positions.

"Blue flu" will remain endemic, in part a cynical power play but also as a manifestation of a rational strategy for self-preservation: Do as little as possible. Never go out of your way to protect someone. It can only come back to haunt you. The result for many American neighborhoods will be, as it has been, like staring into the chaos of Gomorrah.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

AOC says she (and other NYC elected officials) were invited.

Anyway, obviously the post was deleted in this thread but it's pretty obvious what she was doing. The irony is the point, and clearly lost on the pearl-clutchers in this thread.

I find it annoying because she wants to have it both ways. She wants to rub elbows with the rich and famous (she is one of them now, after all) but also judge them as though she's still a struggling bartender. Socialists in this country are extremely, extremely judgmental of everyone that offends their sensibilities of what is and isn't fair in this economy, but they seem to universally have no problem living it up to the fullest themselves. I don't care if rich people enjoy an expensive night out to the gala, but I'd rather they not pretend to be men and women of the people while they do it.

And please, no one give me that god-awful "you participate in society" comic thing. It's so out of touch. Anyone who thinks that going to a $30,000 night of entertainment is merely "participating in society" is about as deluded about what the average American experience is like as Donald Trump is.