"Why do we keep losing elections?"

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If they get rid of the few people using the words, they will be accused of canceling them, i.e., cancel culture. If they sit around and do nothing, they'll be accused of letting chaos go rampant, like letting people poop in the streets. There are always accusations against the Democrats that aren't quite fair and the problem of "losing elections" has more to do with just how empowered the Reich-wing is to be loud and how much more capacity they have to produce and disseminate extremist propaganda.

You are sounding just a little precious here. I am quite sure that there are accusations made against the Republicans that aren't quite fair too. But speaking from Australia they seem less likely to whinge about it. Or that might just be an artefact of the 'journalism' here in Australia.

Wow, my point went over your head. It's about how liberals tend to be self-censoring or arbitrarily closing off options because of fear of repercussions. My point is that the repercussions happen no matter what. Simply do what is right.

 

[Tigers!]

I have heard of them but refuse to get more knowledgeable than that.

MTG is one of the Republican party's largest fundraiser, btw. Dismissing her out of hand is pretty ignorant.

I knew that about her. But I am in Australia (like you) and I have limited ability, care factor to focus too much on US galahs. We have enough of our own to be concerned with.
Since by now the majority of Aussies do not get their news from mainstream media owning 60% is falling stock.

Actually, they do. Pretty much every "alternative news" outlet starts their report with "[*insert mainstream media outlet here*] reports that...".

Aussies like most people are still dependent on tradition media, and like most people are completely unaware of that fact.

I will ask my daughter about that. Sadly she and her husband is too reliant upon Facebook, Instagram et al. for their information.

 

[Tigers!]

If they get rid of the few people using the words, they will be accused of canceling them, i.e., cancel culture. If they sit around and do nothing, they'll be accused of letting chaos go rampant, like letting people poop in the streets. There are always accusations against the Democrats that aren't quite fair and the problem of "losing elections" has more to do with just how empowered the Reich-wing is to be loud and how much more capacity they have to produce and disseminate extremist propaganda.

You are sounding just a little precious here. I am quite sure that there are accusations made against the Republicans that aren't quite fair too. But speaking from Australia they seem less likely to whinge about it. Or that might just be an artefact of the 'journalism' here in Australia.

Wow, my point went over your head. It's about how liberals tend to be self-censoring or arbitrarily closing off options because of fear of repercussions.

I have never known liberals or progressives to be shrinking violets when it comes to telling others how to live or behave. Must the US versions that are the shrinking violets.

My point is that the repercussions happen no matter what. Simply do what is right.

No disagreement about doing what is right.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If they get rid of the few people using the words, they will be accused of canceling them, i.e., cancel culture. If they sit around and do nothing, they'll be accused of letting chaos go rampant, like letting people poop in the streets. There are always accusations against the Democrats that aren't quite fair and the problem of "losing elections" has more to do with just how empowered the Reich-wing is to be loud and how much more capacity they have to produce and disseminate extremist propaganda.

You are sounding just a little precious here. I am quite sure that there are accusations made against the Republicans that aren't quite fair too. But speaking from Australia they seem less likely to whinge about it. Or that might just be an artefact of the 'journalism' here in Australia.

Wow, my point went over your head. It's about how liberals tend to be self-censoring or arbitrarily closing off options because of fear of repercussions.

I have never known liberals or progressives to be shrinking violets when it comes to telling others how to live or behave. Must the US versions that are the shrinking violets.

You must not have been paying attention to the context of the post, i.e. the thread op's full argument. Let me point out the phrase that the op poster highlighted himself:
"Really though, the important thing here is the mileage conservatives are going to get out of it..."

So he makes some good points all around, but "the important thing" (his words) is the "mileage conservatives" will get.

In other words, be a shrinking violet (your words).

Of course, the op author also discusses free speech and things he believes are right and I think those can be some good arguments, but I don't think this one highlighted is the one to be prioritized. Again, the conservatives have an incredibly loud apparatus for making noise and they will engage in effective propaganda no matter what Democratic politicians do, even when they're not doing anything at all, there will be conspiracies that make news. So the best course of action is to simply do what is right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have heard of them but refuse to get more knowledgeable than that.

MTG is one of the Republican party's largest fundraiser, btw. Dismissing her out of hand is pretty ignorant.

I knew that about her. But I am in Australia (like you) and I have limited ability, care factor to focus too much on US galahs.

You seem to have a very disproportional interest in posting in threads about American politics based on that statement.

 

[scombrid]

maybe if the libtards had embraced anti-vax, chemtrails, ufos and all the other bullshit they could have kept the Gabbardites and RFK people on side.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

So the best course of action is to simply do what is right.

And what exactly does that mean?

"Doing the right thing."

Women have lost abortion rights. Government services are being slashed and people are losing their jobs. Residential real estate is about to hit the skids while interest rates remain high.

But at least the Dems have done "The Right Thing"?

By whom?

How?

For what reasons?

We've watched as their cowardly cuntery has potentially cost this nation its democracy. They're busy shitting their pants in shrieking disagreement over a Gavin Newsom podcast while ignoring the lifesaving surgery needed to have Trump's foot removed from their collective ass. They're busy making news about banning words when procedures are already in place to remove people from my OP.

"The Right Thing."

You're walking into an old timey boxing match and putting up your dukes while conservatives roll up a steel cage with a 'roided out Gorilla. Then when the gorilla tears your arms off and uses your head as an after-fight snack, it'll be okay because you followed the rules, thereby doing The Right Thing.

 

[Toni]

If someone wants to out themselves as a racist cunt by using the word "nigger" in a town meeting, why would we want to restrain them from doing so?

And what benefit accrues from refusal to type the word "nigger", even in the context of a discussion of the word's uses?

Words are not magic spells. They have only the power we give them, and prudishness, euphemism, and self-censorship (and even more so, actual censorship) give them unwarranted power.

The word "nigger", used as an insult, tells us useful information about the speaker, as it advises us to discount or disregard his opinions, and to watch him closely lest he commit hate crimes.

The same applies to the word "cunt", though it clearly has many uses that are not a directly sexist insult.

Either way, context is far more important than the mere use of the words. If someone thinks less of me because I used the word "nigger" (rather than the prudish euphemism "N-word"), in a discussion of how the word might be used, then they have completely missed the point.

There are plenty of contexts in which either word could be used without being offensive - unless we subscribe to a puritanical religion in which words actually are held to be magical.

Sure sure but it does say something when a governmental body or really any type of assembly tolerates such language. It can make it appear that the group approves and shares the sentiments.

 

[Tigers!]

I have heard of them but refuse to get more knowledgeable than that.

MTG is one of the Republican party's largest fundraiser, btw. Dismissing her out of hand is pretty ignorant.

I knew that about her. But I am in Australia (like you) and I have limited ability, care factor to focus too much on US galahs.

You seem to have a very disproportional interest in posting in threads about American politics based on that statement.

Unfortunately too many Aussies are sheeple and have this fascination with what you Yanks do - the good, the bad and the ugly.
I have seen that what you Yanks do, esp. the bad and the ugly, will have some nitwit here thinking we should try it. Usually within 2-5 years.
Forewarned is forearmed.
There was a thread about this a few years ago somewhere.
I wish that I did not have to take as much interest in your far too frequent idiocies as I do, but I would like to keep any contaigns out of Aust. if possible.

(we do the same with the Brit ideas but they are usually far more sensible than yours)

 

[bilby]

Sure sure but it does say something when a governmental body or really any type of assembly tolerates such language.

Well, in the case of a governmental body in the USA, what it says is "We have to abide by the first amendment to the US Constitution".

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I have heard of them but refuse to get more knowledgeable than that.

MTG is one of the Republican party's largest fundraiser, btw. Dismissing her out of hand is pretty ignorant.

I knew that about her. But I am in Australia (like you) and I have limited ability, care factor to focus too much on US galahs.

You seem to have a very disproportional interest in posting in threads about American politics based on that statement.

Unfortunately too many Aussies are sheeple and have this fascination with what you Yanks do - the good, the bad and the ugly.
I have seen that what you Yanks do, esp. the bad and the ugly, will have some nitwit here thinking we should try it. Usually within 2-5 years.
Forewarned is forearmed.
There was a thread about this a few years ago somewhere.
I wish that I did not have to take as much interest in your far too frequent idiocies as I do, but I would like to keep any contaigns out of Aust. if possible.

(we do the same with the Brit ideas but they are usually far more sensible than yours)

RE: bolded bit - this should be clarifed. Broadly there are two groups of people interested in what is happening in America (and elsewhere).
The first with a natural interest, and the second which is the smaller group and is those who want to copy America, for example Sky News "journalists". The latter are the ones that can be labelled sheeple.

 

[Tigers!]

I have heard of them but refuse to get more knowledgeable than that.

MTG is one of the Republican party's largest fundraiser, btw. Dismissing her out of hand is pretty ignorant.

I knew that about her. But I am in Australia (like you) and I have limited ability, care factor to focus too much on US galahs.

You seem to have a very disproportional interest in posting in threads about American politics based on that statement.

Unfortunately too many Aussies are sheeple and have this fascination with what you Yanks do - the good, the bad and the ugly.
I have seen that what you Yanks do, esp. the bad and the ugly, will have some nitwit here thinking we should try it. Usually within 2-5 years.
Forewarned is forearmed.
There was a thread about this a few years ago somewhere.
I wish that I did not have to take as much interest in your far too frequent idiocies as I do, but I would like to keep any contaigns out of Aust. if possible.

(we do the same with the Brit ideas but they are usually far more sensible than yours)

RE: bolded bit - this should be clarifed. Broadly there are two groups of people interested in what is happening in America (and elsewhere).
The first with a natural interest,

I like to know what is going around me around the world.

and the second which is the smaller group and is those who want to copy America, for example Sky News "journalists". The latter are the ones that can be labelled sheeple.

Why do you assume it is just "journalists" (like the scary quotation marks) to which I refer? I am actually thinking of those who have taken to the US version of Halloween with gusto or those who like the foolish Christmas in July. Badly influenced by US sticoms, crime shows, legal shows etc. and think we would be improved if only we did things like teh yanks do.

 

[Bomb#20]

Wow, my point went over your head. It's about how liberals tend to be self-censoring or arbitrarily closing off options because of fear of repercussions.

I have never known liberals or progressives to be shrinking violets when it comes to telling others how to live or behave. Must the US versions that are the shrinking violets.

Your problem is you're judging progressives' shrinking violethood relative to how much the non-progressives self-censor. You should be judging their shrinking violethood relative to how severely the non-progressives are in need of progressives' instruction.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I have heard of them but refuse to get more knowledgeable than that.

MTG is one of the Republican party's largest fundraiser, btw. Dismissing her out of hand is pretty ignorant.

I knew that about her. But I am in Australia (like you) and I have limited ability, care factor to focus too much on US galahs.

You seem to have a very disproportional interest in posting in threads about American politics based on that statement.

Unfortunately too many Aussies are sheeple and have this fascination with what you Yanks do - the good, the bad and the ugly.
I have seen that what you Yanks do, esp. the bad and the ugly, will have some nitwit here thinking we should try it. Usually within 2-5 years.
Forewarned is forearmed.
There was a thread about this a few years ago somewhere.
I wish that I did not have to take as much interest in your far too frequent idiocies as I do, but I would like to keep any contaigns out of Aust. if possible.

(we do the same with the Brit ideas but they are usually far more sensible than yours)

RE: bolded bit - this should be clarifed. Broadly there are two groups of people interested in what is happening in America (and elsewhere).
The first with a natural interest,

I like to know what is going around me around the world.

and the second which is the smaller group and is those who want to copy America, for example Sky News "journalists". The latter are the ones that can be labelled sheeple.

Why do you assume it is just "journalists" (like the scary quotation marks) to which I refer? I am actually thinking of those who have taken to the US version of Halloween with gusto or those who like the foolish Christmas in July. Badly influenced by US sticoms, crime shows, legal shows etc. and think we would be improved if only we did things like teh yanks do.

There is a lot of cultural influence by many nations on other nations. Some of the things adopted are good, others less so, but that is often a matter of personal opinion. Looking at the Wikipedia article, whilst the actual first Xmas in July was in the USA, the idea was suggested the prior century by an Australian. The Americans got Halloween from Ireland.
The common phrase "been there, done that" is an Australian invention. Often one may think something was invented in USA, but invented locally. For instance, surf life-saving originated in Australia.

 

[Toni]

Sure sure but it does say something when a governmental body or really any type of assembly tolerates such language.

Well, in the case of a governmental body in the USA, what it says is "We have to abide by the first amendment to the US Constitution".

Not anymore, it doesn’t.

But under a decent POTUS, free speech has always had limits. And there is a difference between not being allowed an open Mike to hurl obscenities at those gathered for an official government function and being arrested for uttering racist or sexist or obscene words while addressing those so gathered.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure sure but it does say something when a governmental body or really any type of assembly tolerates such language.

Well, in the case of a governmental body in the USA, what it says is "We have to abide by the first amendment to the US Constitution".

Assuming we are dealing with adults, a level of verbal decorum isn't unconstitutional. People can't be imprisoned for naughty language, which the 1st Amendment protects, but wasn't the first thing the Founders were thinking of in instituting the protection.

While allowing slurs and whatnot helps to normalize its use, the big issue is that it impedes on discussion and a fair transition of ideas between government and the people. Particularly when people the slur is targeting are present, at a venue that I may remind is, where work is trying to be done.

Name calling and slurs doesn't impart any useful information at a venue where there is limited time for people to express themselves to the government and others. Bigoted language is much more likely to derail and incite arguments making the entire event a waste of time.

Yes, adults should be able to manage a bigot being a bigot... but we are imperfect human beings, so no, we generally aren't able to.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Sure sure but it does say something when a governmental body or really any type of assembly tolerates such language.

Well, in the case of a governmental body in the USA, what it says is "We have to abide by the first amendment to the US Constitution".

Not anymore, it doesn’t.

But under a decent POTUS, free speech has always had limits. And there is a difference between not being allowed an open Mike to hurl obscenities at those gathered for an official government function and being arrested for uttering racist or sexist or obscene words while addressing those so gathered.

The free speech issue could've been easily avoided by applying already existing rules that provide for removal for egregious conduct.

It's now a free speech issue because the Dems in this instance made it an issue when they didn't have to. Instead though, they got on a high horse and did something stupid.

If people use racial slurs and inappropriate language in the given setting, they can be legally and rightfully removed and prevented from participating without banning certain words. That's it. It's that simple.

But that's the Dems nowadays: the building's on fire but they're holding a committee on whether or not the contractor who installed the fire hydrant is in compliance with rule 10924.023, which provides that fire hydrant must be painted red rather then the yellow it is now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure sure but it does say something when a governmental body or really any type of assembly tolerates such language.

Well, in the case of a governmental body in the USA, what it says is "We have to abide by the first amendment to the US Constitution".

Not anymore, it doesn’t.

But under a decent POTUS, free speech has always had limits. And there is a difference between not being allowed an open Mike to hurl obscenities at those gathered for an official government function and being arrested for uttering racist or sexist or obscene words while addressing those so gathered.

The free speech issue could've been easily avoided by applying already existing rules that provide for removal for egregious conduct.

It's now a free speech issue because the Dems in this instance made it an issue when they didn't have to. Instead though, they got on a high horse and did something stupid.

If people use racial slurs and inappropriate language in the given setting, they can be legally and rightfully removed and prevented from participating without banning certain words. That's it. It's that simple.

Except maybe they couldn't. It wasn't in the rules, so they couldn't enforce decent decorum. Sociopaths fuck things up for everyone else.

But that's the Dems nowadays: the building's on fire but they're holding a committee on whether or not the contractor who installed the fire hydrant is in compliance with rule 10924.023, which provides that fire hydrant must be painted red rather then the yellow it is now.

That's bogus.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Sure sure but it does say something when a governmental body or really any type of assembly tolerates such language.

Well, in the case of a governmental body in the USA, what it says is "We have to abide by the first amendment to the US Constitution".

Not anymore, it doesn’t.

But under a decent POTUS, free speech has always had limits. And there is a difference between not being allowed an open Mike to hurl obscenities at those gathered for an official government function and being arrested for uttering racist or sexist or obscene words while addressing those so gathered.

The free speech issue could've been easily avoided by applying already existing rules that provide for removal for egregious conduct.

It's now a free speech issue because the Dems in this instance made it an issue when they didn't have to. Instead though, they got on a high horse and did something stupid.

If people use racial slurs and inappropriate language in the given setting, they can be legally and rightfully removed and prevented from participating without banning certain words. That's it. It's that simple.

Except maybe they couldn't. It wasn't in the rules, so they couldn't enforce decent decorum. Sociopaths fuck things up for everyone else.

But that's the Dems nowadays: the building's on fire but they're holding a committee on whether or not the contractor who installed the fire hydrant is in compliance with rule 10924.023, which provides that fire hydrant must be painted red rather then the yellow it is now.

That's bogus.

Of course there are decorum rules in place. L.A.'s been a city since the 1850s, but no one ever thought of creating rules of conduct? I'm sorry but I'm calling bullshit on that.

What's bogus? The Dems worry about small shit that the largest demographics aren't interested in and ignore issues like immigration that everyone's interested in. To put the finest of fine points on it, they lost to Trump twice in non-consecutive elections, something that had only happened once in U.S. history and which took place some 140 years ago. That requires serious work, dedication, and studiousness in How To Fuck Things Up. It requires being utterly out of touch with what non-batshit Americans want and counting on the Anyone But Trump strategy.

 

[Toni]

Sure sure but it does say something when a governmental body or really any type of assembly tolerates such language.

Well, in the case of a governmental body in the USA, what it says is "We have to abide by the first amendment to the US Constitution".

Not anymore, it doesn’t.

But under a decent POTUS, free speech has always had limits. And there is a difference between not being allowed an open Mike to hurl obscenities at those gathered for an official government function and being arrested for uttering racist or sexist or obscene words while addressing those so gathered.

The free speech issue could've been easily avoided by applying already existing rules that provide for removal for egregious conduct.

It's now a free speech issue because the Dems in this instance made it an issue when they didn't have to. Instead though, they got on a high horse and did something stupid.

If people use racial slurs and inappropriate language in the given setting, they can be legally and rightfully removed and prevented from participating without banning certain words. That's it. It's that simple.

Except maybe they couldn't. It wasn't in the rules, so they couldn't enforce decent decorum. Sociopaths fuck things up for everyone else.

But that's the Dems nowadays: the building's on fire but they're holding a committee on whether or not the contractor who installed the fire hydrant is in compliance with rule 10924.023, which provides that fire hydrant must be painted red rather then the yellow it is now.

That's bogus.

Of course there are decorum rules in place. L.A.'s been a city since the 1850s, but no one ever thought of creating rules of conduct? I'm sorry but I'm calling bullshit on that.

What's bogus? The Dems worry about small shit that the largest demographics aren't interested in and ignore issues like immigration that everyone's interested in. To put the finest of fine points on it, they lost to Trump twice in non-consecutive elections, something that had only happened once in U.S. history and which took place some 140 years ago. That requires serious work, dedication, and studiousness in How To Fuck Things Up. It requires being utterly out of touch with what non-batshit Americans want and counting on the Anyone But Trump strategy.

Tolerating hate language erodes people's intolerance for hate language and so drags down our society as a whole. It is definitely worth noting that there is an uptick in racially motivated hate crimes with Trump in office.