The Biden Presidency

[Venom]

I think "Black Lives Matter" is far more self-explanatory than "Defund the Police".

I would have gone with "Reform the Police", not that we can go back on it anymore.

[Delvo]

The fact that there's even this kind of debate to be had about it makes it an objectively bad slogan. A good slogan needs to be perfectly clear. If it's not clear, it's not good. It's a knife with no edge, an oven with no heat, a shower with no water...

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Delvo

The fact that there's even this kind of debate to be had about it makes it an objectively bad slogan. A good slogan needs to be perfectly clear. If it's not clear, it's not good. It's a knife with no edge, an oven with no heat, a shower with no water...

I was rolling my eyes the first time I heard the "defund the police" idea and I'm very sympathetic. That was a disaster.

[dudalb]

"It's not what you say, but who you say it, that oftens makes or breaks a case".
The older I get, the more I find this to be true.
Porlbme is too many ideologues fall in love with their own rhetoric,regardless of whather it hurts or harms theri cause.
I think "reform the police"iw a perfectly good slogan, and describes what needs to be done.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Delvo

The fact that there's even this kind of debate to be had about it makes it an objectively bad slogan. A good slogan needs to be perfectly clear. If it's not clear, it's not good. It's a knife with no edge, an oven with no heat, a shower with no water...

I think Reform the Police would better raise the "why?" and "how?" in the public's mind. It's not perfectly clear, but it's a conversation starter, and we're not scaring as many people who otherwise would be firmly on the side of the activists.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by dudalb

"It's not what you say, but who you say it, that oftens makes or breaks a case".
The older I get, the more I find this to be true.
Porlbme is too many ideologues fall in love with their own rhetoric,regardless of whather it hurts or harms theri cause.
I think "reform the police"iw a perfectly good slogan, and describes what needs to be done.

Except that people have made that argument, over and over again. And here we are. The school officer was moved to the school system from the PD - and he's still beating kids and hauling them off to jail based on some rumor. The police had a good strong community outreach program, midnight basketball, and so on...and it gets cut again after a year. Quite a few major PDs have great civilian review boards - that they're allowed to completely ignore without penalty. As far as I've heard, Ferguson MO's police still function to rob black residents and transfer the money to white residents, and their own new police station. Baltimore's PD doesn't have the manpower to even bother doing detective work for most murders - but they sure had the manpower to round up every high school kid that went through Mondawmin's transit hub, stop them from going home, and then shoot them with rubber bullets because they wouldn't go home - a move that sparked major riots

The simple truth is, mere "reforming" has failed in many towns and cities, for specific local reasons. Some places need their PDs cleared out and rebuilt from the ground up, and many more are spending far too much with nothing to show for it. But it's common in both cases for police to suck up massive amounts of funding that are better spent elsewhere, and with city budgets strapped every year...that means that they're the ones that need to see their budgets cut. The main problem with "Defund the Police" is that it's vague as far as protest chants go - but that doesn't mean that it's a bad solution to an ongoing problem in many cities and towns. And of course, it won't win over everyone - no slogan will, which is why I pointed to Cheeto Benito as an obvious example of the sort of person it wouldn't persuade.

Personally, I'm of the belief that overt white supremacists like him are not a majority in the US at the moment, and are not really threatening to become a majority in the near future. But protestors aren't trying to persuade his ilk, they're trying to persuade the people who watch one video after the next of police walking up and slugging some random person, or showing up to some march like they're ready for war, and saying "You know, that seems like a waste of time and money."

[Venom]

But it's not just the overt racists and Blue Line No Matter What types who recoil from the slogan.

It's also regular people, maybe a little rougher around the edges, the first to interject "not all cops" in the uproar following every major incident, but aware enough of police brutality and lack of accountability to agree with at least some change.

I think when they hear "Defund the Police" they tune out.
"We still need police; imagine if there was no police. Who are you going to call?"

[The Great Zaganza]

Everyone who has a problem with 'Defund the Police' never got peppersprayed by them.
Everyone who wonders how they are going to call the police when they need them never actually called the police when they needed them.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Venom

But it's not just the overt racists and Blue Line No Matter What types who recoil from the slogan.

It's also regular people, maybe a little rougher around the edges, the first to interject "not all cops" in the uproar following every major incident, but aware enough of police brutality and lack of accountability to agree with at least some change.

I think when they hear "Defund the Police" they tune out.
"We still need police; imagine if there was no police. Who are you going to call?"

And those are the people who the protestors are going to talk to going forward. The question is whether or not the actual activists will be heard, or the people who turn everything into "no more police ever" - whether wealthy pseudo-anarchists or white supremacists.

The claim that the slogan should speak for itself with no followup (and many people who favor the slogan make this mistake, to be clear) is wrong in that slogans, fundamentally, will *always* be short and punchy phrases that symbolize a deeper argument. "Change we need" always meant "expand reasonable health care access, slow climate change, etc." "Build the Wall" always meant "restrict immigration from black and brown-majority countries and ensure that the US is a white majority country, as we currently define 'white'" "Build Back Better" has always meant "repair the cultural and political damage that Dolt 45 and his sycophants have wreaked on our country by shoring up and expanding on what Obama did", and so forth.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Aridas

<snipped toothless posturing>

Either way, sure, let's take a peek at said social media campaigns. On a quick look, Tara Reade pops up as having made some relevant claims to that - during the primaries. That it happened during the primaries rather suggests that it should be treated as a primary thing, rather than a general election thing, especially since it seems to have virtually vanished during the general, as far as I saw. To poke at Tara Reade, in general, personally, I was rather unhappy with her pretty much throughout, if I recall correctly, and I think that I'm not even close to the only one. The right-wing ran with that, like they did with other Tara Reade things, of course.

No. Tara Reade showed up after Biden had won the primaries. No other candidate was still running. Dishonestly pretending that "oh, this was just primary stuff" is revisionist history.

Originally Posted by Aridas

And using "the American political spectrum," rather than looking at it more objectively, is little more than deceptive slight of hand, primarily employed by those distinctly on the right to justify themselves and discredit those who disagree with them. It's one of the most useful tools that the right-wing has had to move the Overton window so that now, extremist right-wingers are being treated as ever increasingly mainstream.

No, again. When discussing American politicians, using the American definitions of their politics is accurate and proper. Using other country's definitions is...dishonest at best in this context.

Originally Posted by Aridas

There's multiple things to say here, but... first and foremost - Dates. Was this during primary season? Since you keep insisting that your issues are about the general election, rather than the primaries, that's an important detail. Second, I certainly disagree with any claims made by Delvo that Trump would be better to vote for than Biden. Suburban Turkey likely repeating Tara Reade is problematic, as well. Neither of them, nor both of them, are especially representative of the actions of progressives as a whole. On a similar note, like acbytesla and many others who state themselves to be somewhat lefties, I strongly disapproved of Bernie Bros' attitude of "Bernie or Bust," even while also recognizing that the focus on them, and thus the animosity given human bias, was blown very far out of proportion. You seem to be doing much the same here. You're blowing what actual problematic behavior there is far out of proportion.

Yes, given that Tara Reade didn't pop up until Biden had won the primaries, it was most definitely not during the primaries. And using the actions of the majority of progressives to represent progressives as a group is accurate, whether or not you and one other guy happened to not take those actions yourself.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Everyone who has a problem with 'Defund the Police' never got peppersprayed by them.
Everyone who wonders how they are going to call the police when they need them never actually called the police when they needed them.

I mainly saw it as a reference to things like local Sheriff's departments that have nothing better to spend their money on than military surplus APCs and grenade launchers, creating a police force that looks more like an occupying army than a group meant to protect and serve.

[alfaniner]

Originally Posted by dudalb

"It's not what you say, but who you say it, that oftens makes or breaks a case".
The older I get, the more I find this to be true.
Porlbme is too many ideologues fall in love with their own rhetoric,regardless of whather it hurts or harms theri cause.
I think "reform the police"iw a perfectly good slogan, and describes what needs to be done.

Or "who" you type it.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Everyone who has a problem with 'Defund the Police' never got peppersprayed by them.
Everyone who wonders how they are going to call the police when they need them never actually called the police when they needed them.

Living in Georgia, I'm bombarded with political ads right now about how the 2 Democratic Senator candidates are "anti-police," so my problem with "Defund the Police" is how easy it was for the right wing to demonize that slogan. I think something like "Demilitarize the Police" would have been better.

As far as actually lowering the police budget/reallocating it to areas that would work better, I'm always amazed that people never bat an eye at our Fire Departments having to use raffles and bake sales to raise money, yet are always ready to show up. If they can have expensive equipment and be ready to show up to protect the public on a shoe string budget, why can't the police?

[The Great Zaganza]

Police Unions

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

As a counter - a good number of candidates mistook the activists for their campaign staff, and tried to pressure them accordingly. They can't really point to evidence that the slogan helped or hurt overall, but it doesn't really matter when it comes to a group that is simply not concerned with their particular campaign to begin with. The activists are *always* the fierce critics of politicians, not their staffers. They almost all are either people from safe dem districts but are sick of being beaten by cops for no reason, or obnoxious pseudo-anarchists that show up to smash and steal.

Well said, better than what I was stumbling towards.

These politicians coming out to complain about the exact phrasing is an exercise in futility. Street activists aren't political operatives that respond to top down orders from the party. Centrists complaining about these slogans may as well be howling at the moon to stop rising or for the wind to stop blowing.

I'm not saying that these politicians should adopt the language of these street protests verbatim, but they should probably have a response beyond outright disavowal. The "law and order" crowd will never care no matter how much they pander or distance themselves.

Consider that the right will smear any democrat as an extremist anyway. It's strange seeing these comments from Obama as if messaging actually matters that much. We all remember the ACA, a moderate and compromise reform of our failing health system, was smeared as full communism and death panels. Trying to sit on the fence seems like a fool's errand. Even if your proposal is actually moderate, the right will whip up its base to make sure the issue is fully polarized. Failing to likewise mobilize an enthusiastic base is a mistake.

If the language of the street protests is too extreme, that's fine. It's a politicians job to create messaging. I just don't really see how whining and doing nothing to wield this popular energy, even in a modified form, is good policy. If "reform the police" is a better message, then they should advocate it rather than just crying about BLM chants.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Everyone who has a problem with 'Defund the Police' never got peppersprayed by them.
Everyone who wonders how they are going to call the police when they need them never actually called the police when they needed them.

And yet - we live in a Democracy. Can't implement the changes needed without those people who never got pepper sprayed or called the police when they needed them.

An slogan works better if it appeals to everybody, not just the activists.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

I mainly saw it as a reference to things like local Sheriff's departments that have nothing better to spend their money on than military surplus APCs and grenade launchers, creating a police force that looks more like an occupying army than a group meant to protect and serve.

Like the Keene NH police who made defending the pumpkin festival the reason they needed an APC but when the students from the UNH started to riot there did they break out the riot control gear? Of course not those are good white kids rioting you can't use the same techniques you use against those criminal blacks on them.

As for defund the police as a slogan, I see the issues, but I also don't see what is better. Reform has been tried and the police can simply ignore it like they can ignore laws against choke holds. Maybe Rebuild the Police? Make the Police Accountable?

Not sure what actually send the message of changing from toothless review boards as a reform to actually doing something that will hold the police accountable when they beat up someone for fun.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by crescent

And yet - we live in a Democracy. Can't implement the changes needed without those people who never got pepper sprayed or called the police when they needed them.

An slogan works better if it appeals to everybody, not just the activists.

Is that the job of activists or politicians? I mean the idea that black people actually matter was deeply offensive to many americans how so you mitigate that so something less offensive. Black lives exist?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by crescent

And yet - we live in a Democracy. Can't implement the changes needed without those people who never got pepper sprayed or called the police when they needed them.

An slogan works better if it appeals to everybody, not just the activists.

You will never find that slogan.

If "the police are brutalizing innocent people" isn't actually upsetting a person, the slogan isn't the problem.

If our democracy has so many of such people in it, nothing will get done to change police brutalizing innocent people, finger-wagging anyone still talking about it for failing to be appealing enough is just a brazen display of cruel indifference.

[dudalb]

I see we have a left wing echo chamber going on here.
Point is Defund the Police is a stupid slogan that scares all but the already coverted off. So find a better slogan to use.
Of course I detect contempt for anybody who is not far to the left as the members of the Echo CHamber.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Everyone who has a problem with 'Defund the Police' never got peppersprayed by them.
Everyone who wonders how they are going to call the police when they need them never actually called the police when they needed them.

You just hate cops. Got it. Vast majority of the people, though they are willing to criticise the police, don't share your hate.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by dudalb

You just hate cops. Got it. Vast majority of the people, though they are willing to criticise the police, don't share your hate.

Exactly they know the simple joys of being a cop, like setting dogs on people, harmless fun that. Nothing to hate in a bit of harmless fun like that.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Political messaging matters. I have no problem with the BLM slogan. But it does open up the door for a feeling of victimization felt by poor whites. "What? Don't I matter thinks the hicks from the sticks?" This is the problem with it.

No, the problem is those hicks from the sticks don't want to hear it. there's no reason to continue pretending "All Lives Matter" was a genuine response.

Quote:

I know full well what is going on their minds because I am one of them. I remember getting angry when I was younger when I wasn't accepted at the University of Washington despite doing very well on the SATs thinking my spot was taken by a minority candidate who didn't do as well.

No I know after having eventually being accepted at the UW and working in high tech where there were almost no one of color at the companies I worked for and the clients that I sold to that as hard as it was for me to break down that door, it was harder for people of color. The discrimination wasn't overt, but it had to be there at least subconsciously.

sounds to me like you were either conditioned or simply not in a place to accept that reality. No slogan, no marketing ploy, no reasonable argument was going to work. I was in the same place. My preconceived notions had to be shattered by experience. I had to come around on my own.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I see we have a left wing echo chamber going on here.
Point is Defund the Police is a stupid slogan that scares all but the already coverted off. So find a better slogan to use.
Of course I detect contempt for anybody who is not far to the left as the members of the Echo CHamber.

Do you really believe finding some magical combination of words will make the racist scales fall from their eyes?

Do you tell a battered spouse "well if you just talk to them more politely/meekly/"properly" maybe things will change?

No, that's obviously horrible and deepens the victimization.

Also rape victims should dress modestly.

ETA: this is why impotent, spineless centrist/moderates will simply be a prelude to the next Trump.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

ETA: this is why impotent, spineless centrist/moderates will simply be a prelude to the next Trump.

Spineless centrists like this guy?

Obama: You lose people with 'snappy' slogans like 'defund the police'

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by wareyin

No. Tara Reade showed up after Biden had won the primaries. No other candidate was still running. Dishonestly pretending that "oh, this was just primary stuff" is revisionist history.

*takes a deep breath, looks up Tara Reade again and checks dates* Ahh. Tara Reade was that lady. Yeah, I was conflating her actions with one of Bernie's surrogates that acted badly. My apologies for that. Still, my comments were not far off the mark at all, though, when it comes to the sexual crimes accusation.

To be clear, Bernie's official concession happened *after* Tara Reade showed up. April 3 versus April 8, though I'll agree that much of the Tara Reade saga happened after Bernie had officially conceded - as is pretty much is to be expected when it comes to material like that, which once presented, progressives will push to get as fair a hearing as possible. Going further about the actual progressive response to Tara Reade, since clearly, you weren't in much of a position to judge such - broadly speaking, it was a bit guarded. Certainly, some jumped on the claims hard, especially among the more... vocal of Bernie advocates at the very beginning, and they were far more vocal than the people who were simply waiting for more information, of course. I'll agree that progressives didn't have so many people that automatically fought for Biden, though, before having solid ground to work from. More broadly, though, there was certainly willingness to be open-minded and give the claims a fair hearing, albeit distinctly guarded because of the high likelihood that it was little more than yet another Republican rat******* political ploy and tempered with the knowledge that Trump was pretty definitively worse, even if true. The whole "Believe Women" slogan from the #MeToo movement was invoked, of course, though usually by those who were trying to create the appearance of hypocrisy, given the disparity between the direct meaning of the slogan and the larger concepts that it was being used as an oversimplification of to invoke. As distinct problems with Tara Reade's story arose, they were jumped on, of course, and *most* progressives were fine with having decent cause to not worry so much about the choice that they already knew that they'd be making for Biden already, given the alternative, as the Tara Reade story played out.

There, that's a much more in depth look at the Tara Reade topic than it really deserves by this point. As for those other accusations? Biden being senile and demented? Those claims are overwhelmingly from the right, in general. There was some expressed concern about senility in the primaries, but very little in the general, as far as I saw. A more general and nebulous mental decline, on the other hand? Biden very likely is experiencing some, in keeping with his age, much as I (and probably most other progressives, though that topic is not one that I saw actually raised much) still rate his likely currently a bit diminished self from his prime as still being far, far above Trump at Trump's prime, even before getting to Trump's mental decline.


On a separate note, it's probably worth pointing out that when you complain about social media campaigns, it's pretty much guaranteed that the right-wing and their bots will be amplifying anything negative about anyone they consider a political threat and working to create more if they think they can, and that, for example, Facebook's algorithm was altered a fair while ago to strongly favor right-wing propaganda.

Originally Posted by wareyin

No, again. When discussing American politicians, using the American definitions of their politics is accurate and proper. Using other country's definitions is...dishonest at best in this context.

Other countries? I'm talking about using a somewhat objective scale, as I said. Using the fundamentally nebulous and constantly shifting state of any one country's current politics will inevitably be quite inaccurate and manipulable. While it is proper for some specific uses, its usual use in reality has been distinctly improper and misleading.

Originally Posted by wareyin

And using the actions of the majority of progressives to represent progressives as a group is accurate, whether or not you and one other guy happened to not take those actions yourself.

To be clear, I can easily imagine scenarios about how you might have come to such a perception, especially given your behavior so far, but it's simply not very accurate.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by crescent

Spineless centrists like this guy?

Obama: You lose people with 'snappy' slogans like 'defund the police'

The typical progressive tactic is to claim Obama is a centrist when you are unhappy with him, and claim him as a progressive when you are happy with him.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by crescent

Spineless centrists like this guy?



Obama: You lose people with 'snappy' slogans like 'defund the police'

Do you think Obama saying that made any of the racists who hate him like him better?

Are they ready to have a dialog with him about sensible improvements, etc?

Obama is actually a great example supporting my position. Doesnt matter how far he "compromised" (or outright surrendered), he still only to got the same abusive vitriol.

But sure, "this time will be different." The bigoted backwards bumblefucks will see reason. Just as soon as we recite the magic incantation.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by wareyin

The typical progressive tactic is to claim Obama is a centrist when you are unhappy with him, and claim him as a progressive when you are happy with him.

Meanwhile, snide dismissive insults to your own allies are fine.

If those allies express dismay at your phrasing and attitude, suddenly words will be less important than "get on board with moderate proposals or you are harming us all."

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Meanwhile, snide dismissive insults to your own allies are fine.

If those allies express dismay at your phrasing and attitude, suddenly words will be less important than "get on board with moderate proposals or you are harming us all."

Are you attempting to imply that progressives do not actually claim Obama as a progressive occasionally and as a centrist at other times? I've certainly seen it right here more than once.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Everyone who has a problem with 'Defund the Police' never got peppersprayed by them.
Everyone who wonders how they are going to call the police when they need them never actually called the police when they needed them.

Everyone who makes those claims is wrong.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by wareyin

The typical progressive tactic is to claim Obama is a centrist when you are unhappy with him, and claim him as a progressive when you are happy with him.

Yea way to hard to recognize someone can hold both progressive and centrist views on things.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Are you attempting to imply that progressives do not actually claim Obama as a progressive occasionally and as a centrist at other times? I've certainly seen it right here more than once.

I'm not implying anything?

How about you not hurl insults and then bait me into talking about the validity of the insult.

In other words, stop acting like a God damn conservative.

ETA: Let's discuss the topic. Which was *glances at notes* ah yes, phrasing things so others will be more receptive (LOL!)

Yeah. Work on that.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Aridas

*takes a deep breath, looks up Tara Reade again and checks dates* Ahh. Tara Reade was that lady. Yeah, I was conflating her actions with one of Bernie's surrogates that acted badly. My apologies for that. Still, my comments were not far off the mark at all, though, when it comes to the sexual crimes accusation.

To be clear, Bernie's official concession happened *after* Tara Reade showed up. April 3 versus April 8, though I'll agree that much of the Tara Reade saga happened after Bernie had officially conceded - as is pretty much is to be expected when it comes to material like that, which once presented, progressives will push to get as fair a hearing as possible. Going further about the actual progressive response to Tara Reade, since clearly, you weren't in much of a position to judge such - broadly speaking, it was a bit guarded. Certainly, some jumped on the claims hard, especially among the more... vocal of Bernie advocates at the very beginning, and they were far more vocal than the people who were simply waiting for more information, of course. I'll agree that progressives didn't have so many people that automatically fought for Biden, though, before having solid ground to work from. More broadly, though, there was certainly willingness to be open-minded and give the claims a fair hearing, albeit distinctly guarded because of the high likelihood that it was little more than yet another Republican rat******* political ploy and tempered with the knowledge that Trump was pretty definitively worse, even if true. The whole "Believe Women" slogan from the #MeToo movement was invoked, of course, though usually by those who were trying to create the appearance of hypocrisy, given the disparity between the direct meaning of the slogan and the larger concepts that it was being used as an oversimplification of to invoke. As distinct problems with Tara Reade's story arose, they were jumped on, of course, and *most* progressives were fine with having decent cause to not worry so much about the choice that they already knew that they'd be making for Biden already, given the alternative, as the Tara Reade story played out.

There, that's a much more in depth look at the Tara Reade topic than it really deserves by this point. As for those other accusations? Biden being senile and demented? Those claims are overwhelmingly from the right, in general. There was some expressed concern about senility in the primaries, but very little in the general, as far as I saw. A more general and nebulous mental decline, on the other hand? Biden very likely is experiencing some, in keeping with his age, much as I (and probably most other progressives, though that topic is not one that I saw actually raised much) still rate his likely currently a bit diminished self from his prime as still being far, far above Trump at Trump's prime, even before getting to Trump's mental decline.

I appreciate the concession that your people and timelines were a bit jumbled. Bernie certainly dropped out earlier this time than in 2016, but he had no hope of winning well before he conceded in early April.

Originally Posted by Aridas

On a separate note, it's probably worth pointing out that when you complain about social media campaigns, it's pretty much guaranteed that the right-wing and their bots will be amplifying anything negative about anyone they consider a political threat and working to create more if they think they can, and that, for example, Facebook's algorithm was altered a fair while ago to strongly favor right-wing propaganda.

While it is true that right wing propaganda is more easily spread, the progressives that I know, both here, on FB and in real life, all pushed that stuff at least as hard as the right did.

Originally Posted by Aridas

Other countries? I'm talking about using a somewhat objective scale, as I said. Using the fundamentally nebulous and constantly shifting state of any one country's current politics will inevitably be quite inaccurate and manipulable. While it is proper for some specific uses, its usual use in reality has been distinctly improper and misleading.

I don't see how using current American political descriptions to describe American politics and the people who push them is inacurate. I do see that claiming American progressives in the scope of the current American political landscape should not be described as the far left is inaccurate. We will have to disagree.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

I'm not implying anything?

How about you not hurl insults and then bait me into talking about the validity of the insult.

In other words, stop acting like a God damn conservative.

Let's discuss the topic.

Accurately describing actions taken by progressives is not hurling insults at you. If you choose to be insulted by such actions, take it up with those who do them, not me for pointing them out.

If your beef is with those actually hurling insults, take it up with Delvo, Suburban Turkey, Bernie Sanders, et al. When the progressives can deign to start working with the majority of the Dems without insulting them, then you'll have room to whine about insults returned.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Accurately describing actions taken by progressives is not hurling insults at you. If you choose to be insulted by such actions, take it up with those who do them, not me for pointing them out.



If your beef is with those actually hurling insults, take it up with Delvo, Suburban Turkey, Bernie Sanders, et al. When the progressives can deign to start working with the majority of the Dems without insulting them, then you'll have room to whine about insults returned.

Thank you for letting me know you never had any intention of having a good faith conversation to begin with.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

I'm not implying anything?

How about you not hurl insults and then bait me into talking about the validity of the insult.

In other words, stop acting like a God damn conservative.

ETA: Let's discuss the topic. Which was *glances at notes* ah yes, phrasing things so others will be more receptive (LOL!)

Yeah. Work on that.

Well, your ETA is quite amusing, given the rest if your post. If you wish to discuss phrasing of slogans, I refer you to post 453 where I did just that.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Well, your ETA is quite amusing, given the rest if your post. If you wish to discuss phrasing of slogans, I refer you to post 453 where I did just that.

You sensibly addressing the topic earlier doesn't make your later hostility more excusable.

Why would you imagine it would?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

You sensibly addressing the topic earlier doesn't make your later hostility more excusable.

Why would you imagine it would?

Meh, keep complaining about hostility while refusing to discuss the topic all you want. I can't stop you.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Meh, keep complaining about hostility while refusing to discuss the topic all you want. I can't stop you.

...

Messaging for increased receptivity, yeah.

I was pointing out that hurling insults in a conversation about that is missing the mark.

In addition to the already existing absurdity of requiring victims to find better messaging strategies to get justice.