Jump to content

Carville: Democrats have a wokeness problem


Buzzrock

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, lmao said:

Don't know who this is, but their entire feed is dedicated to culture war issues and clapbacks. With so many serious problems in this country why must we burn so many calories on superficial social media spats & political gossip? The overton window is so far to the right in this country we have Bill Maher trying to say Nafta, welfare reform, the 94' crime bill, Bush bankruptcy law, and bank deregulation is the center. Like wtf.

Carvelle even managed to work up outrage over the term “communities of color” during his rant on wokeness.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lmao said:

He was popular when he wrote What's The Matter with Kansas (basicslly pointing out how Pubs got poor ppl to vote against their own self-interests) but then he wrote Listen, Liberal which pointed out how the Dems went from representing unions & workers to the creative & upper middle class. He's literally just writing about objective reality. Nafta, the crime bill, welfare reform, bank deregulation, etc., were not 'centrist policies', they were a Republican's wet dream & they signed it into law.

The People, No (Since his first book, the titles have been weak) is his effort to show how the true elites have taken the term "populism" from what it was originally intended to be -- the "people" vs the banks and big money -- into nothing more than another word for racism and bigotry in politics. 

 

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Carvelle even managed to work up outrage over the term “communities of color” during his rant on wokeness.

His point is, you rarely hear people in the hood or the barrio say "I live in a community of color." Or even people who live in a Black or Mexican-American neighborhood. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The People, No (Since his first book, the titles have been weak) is his effort to show how the true elites have taken the term "populism" from what it was originally intended to be -- the "people" vs the banks and big money -- into nothing more than another word for racism and bigotry in politics. 

 

His point is, you rarely hear people in the hood or the barrio say "I live in a community of color." Or even people who live in a Black or Mexican-American neighborhood. 

It's like people don't want to be labeled. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

A guy I work with said he went to a gun range in Cambodia where they would let you shoot a water buffalo with an RPG.

Confirmed. The budget option is to shoot a chicken with an AK-47. 

Edited by We’reTexas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The People, No (Since his first book, the titles have been weak) is his effort to show how the true elites have taken the term "populism" from what it was originally intended to be -- the "people" vs the banks and big money -- into nothing more than another word for racism and bigotry in politics. 

 

His point is, you rarely hear people in the hood or the barrio say "I live in a community of color." Or even people who live in a Black or Mexican-American neighborhood. 

How does Carvelle think people of color who live in these communities refer to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Pancho said:

If true, I'd like to know why.  Not because I want to argue it but rather my qualitative brain is just genuinely curious. 

 

Being labeled by outsiders as something other than what one identifies as can be pretty fucking insulting. Then when it's explained as a criticism of the gender based language and machismo is used as an example of the gender bias it’s not only insulting to our language it’s insulting to our culture.

I have no issues with this discussion occurring within the community but when outside institutions jump on the wagon and pick a side it feels like we are being told what we are and how we should be by whitey.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2021 at 4:47 AM, hayden_horn said:

what's bizarre is that you are reading my posts as any sort of "defense" of hitler. everything is so fucking binary for you. it's absurd.

if we had a "small dick" award on the site BT would be number one (in mm). winning pointless battles they created. in greek = malakas 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

The fundamental problem here is nobody is satisfied with just understanding what the fuck someone means when they say something. You've got to load history, politics, and personal psychology into just saying a fucking sentence.

That’s the prescription to being an anti-racist, as far as I’ve read and understand.

So the argument is not being a racist (not doing what you bolded and doing only the first part or your paragraph which is unbolded) isn’t good enough; if you want to be an anti-racist you have to do the bolded.

Edited by DonkeyCigars
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being labeled by outsiders as something other than what one identifies as can be pretty fucking insulting. Then when it's explained as a criticism of the gender based language and machismo is used as an example of the gender bias it’s not only insulting to our language it’s insulting to our culture.
I have no issues with this discussion occurring within the community but when outside institutions jump on the wagon and pick a side it feels like we are being told what we are and how we should be by whitey.

Did you just complain about being labeled and then label others?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Nivek said:


Did you just complain about being labeled and then label others?

 

47 minutes ago, F250 said:

My apologies for the continued oppression of white people.

 

23 minutes ago, Nivek said:

OK Latinx Jackie Chan.

 

11 minutes ago, F250 said:

Ok Lou Dobbs.

 

image.gif.0f9622e70d7e4ce3c536a171f7c4095a.gif

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

That’s the prescription to being an anti-racist, as far as I’ve read and understand.

So the argument is not being a racist (not doing what you bolded and doing only the first part or your paragraph which is unbolded) isn’t good enough; if you want to be an anti-racist you have to do the bolded.

I'd assign a little more subtlety to my blunt assessment:  I don't care if someone wants to use different pronouns, or drop the gendered modifiers on romance language words; they just need to not insist others do the same. Language has meaning precisely and only because we agree on the meaning of a given utterance; it is perfectly possible to be offensive or the converse using any combination of words, depending on a) the meaning you are intending to purvey, and b) one's preknowledge of the likelihood of being understood.

Speaking to a gender studies major about a term paper? "Latinx" makes perfect sense. Speaking to a shop clerk at your local convenience store? It just sounds dumb. The same is true for the words being replaced, too. Say them in one context, and anyone who accuses you of insensitivity is just being a prick. Say them in another context, then they have a point.

We all are capable of context like that -- if someone wants to be a racist asshole who hides behind "polite" language, the tools have always been there. Changing the vocabulary won't change that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, F250 said:

In all seriousness. You are a white supremacist but you just don't say the quiet part out loud.

 

 

 I can be whatever fantasy you have, but you have to pay me first.  You are used to that.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Still not as bad as Stalin or Mao, imo.

A doc claims?  This kind of claim is much more convincing when placed in a dossier.  The french lends a certain kind of gravitas.

Edited by WBT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The People, No (Since his first book, the titles have been weak) is his effort to show how the true elites have taken the term "populism" from what it was originally intended to be -- the "people" vs the banks and big money -- into nothing more than another word for racism and bigotry in politics. 

 

His point is, you rarely hear people in the hood or the barrio say "I live in a community of color." Or even people who live in a Black or Mexican-American neighborhood. 

What community?  There's a community?  All these years I'm living in a community; I had no idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, F250 said:

Being labeled by outsiders as something other than what one identifies as can be pretty fucking insulting. Then when it's explained as a criticism of the gender based language and machismo is used as an example of the gender bias it’s not only insulting to our language it’s insulting to our culture.

I have no issues with this discussion occurring within the community but when outside institutions jump on the wagon and pick a side it feels like we are being told what we are and how we should be by whitey.

I guess I don't understand the outsiders part since Latinx was invented by a Latino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Pancho said:

I guess I don't understand the outsiders part since Latinx was invented by a Latino.

See the last part about the institutions outside of the community running with the term when it hasn't been accepted by the actual community.

Do you appreciate Fox News citing Tim Scott and Candace Owens as means of declaring racism doesn't exist in America? No because a small subset of black Republicans doesn't represent that sentiment for the entire community. Yet a media institution runs with it.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, F250 said:

Racists don't like being called racists.

 

This is true. Typically, they will insinuate that calling someone a racist is a worse offense than actually being a racist. I have encountered that phenomenon to some degree everywhere I've ever been, but it is especially pronounced in College Station, Texas, for some reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

This is true. Typically, they will insinuate that calling someone a racist is a worse offense than actually being a racist. I have encountered that phenomenon to some degree everywhere I've ever been, but it is especially pronounced in College Station, Texas, for some reason.

I've actually experienced a lot of racism in Austin. As a Mexican whitey I've been a fly on the wall with white people my entire life. I am very familiar with the people that look around before making the racist joke. Often I've seen it done with the person not realizing a Mexican was sitting in front of them. When confronted they don't appreciate it. "I thought you were white, I voted for Obama, I'm a Democrat, etc.."

It's not blatant racism but it's racism nonetheless. A good example of this would be all of the Alamo Bowl threads. There are a shit ton of jokes about Mexican families in the cheap seats in just about every fucking Alamo Bowl thread. I've heard the same shit in Austin a million times. Often it will be justified as a joke about San Antonio when in reality it's a joke about Hispanic culture.

Nivek's snide remark about "I'm being repressed" is just more of the same shit. It's an attempt to belittle a legitimate complaint from minorities. I'm sure he justifies it with "But I voted for Biden."

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...