Haley blaming Lincoln for the Civil War should end any debate about her fitness for office. This is pretty close to saying, basically, slavery should be legal.
Either a) she knows what really happened, but is lying because she considers the bases approval more important than reality or b) she's a fucking moron.
Raising the question: Is Haley ignorant or is she a liar?
Yes.
She can be an ignorant liar.
Yeah, I mean blaming Lincoln for the civil war and then claiming to be the party of Lincoln. Seems like that would be a little cognitive dissonance right there wouldn't it?
The base does not care about logical consistency. Indeed, it appears that many of them are altogether unaware of the concept logical consistency, and are entirely uninterested in learning or understanding it.
They actually enjoy being illogical, because it frustrates their "enemies"... sane people trying to make educated, thoughtful, rational arguments. Their arguments are equal to someone just making fart noises. Idiocracy is here.
Insert Sartre quote here
More like Fartré amirite
She's essentially saying the same "states' rights" bullshit. Which was the right to slavery.
Ugh
The constitution of the Confederacy forbade states from banning slavery. The confederates were fighting against state's rights to abolish slavery.
The Union was not just the anti-slavery side, but the states' rights side as well.
Through that same link. Another video played and she said "Of course the civil war was about slavery, we all know it was about slavery... but it was about more than that. It was about the freedoms of EVERY individual."
She is white supremacist trash. Props to whoever asked her that question. She isn't bothering to hide it.
And frankly the moderator should have walked up onto the stage and open hand slapped her for that level of a bullshit non answer. These fuckin debates are such a colossal joke. We don't even hold potential candidates responsible for absurd shit they say, why would anyone expect us to hold a president accountable?
Haley's response:
“I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are,” Haley replied. “And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom. We need to have capitalism. We need to have economic freedom. We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way.”
All Haley had to do was just add in that the Confederacy was about taking away liberties of groups of people and their ability to seek out economic freedom, and that slaves had no freedom of everything.
The bar was on the fucking ground and Haley still failed to meet it.
It's too bad we didn't really crush the Confederates after the war. Meaning, really rub their noses in their loss, but give them a path back to redemption that doesn't involve letting them off easy.
Don't allow them to erect statues for "heritage" and so on. Don't allow them to teach about the "Northern war of aggression" and all that.
Marching to the sea burning everything down is my heritage.
FREEDOM!!!*
*except for what you do in bed or with your uterus, what you may want to read, unfettered access to empirical reality and other things which we’ll maybe let you know about once we figure them out.
Also the GOP came out to say her candidacy was “toast” and I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Their top guy right now literally used the words state rights and said that it wasn’t about slavery. Why is Haley toast?
Am I the only one who noticed that level of hypocrisy?
Because everyone else is held to some kind of standard, and he's not.
Well, yeah. Because that would mean giving personhood to the group that was enslaved, and Republicans love to ask, "Well, can we really say that Group "x" are people?"
Party of Lincoln, huh?
Not for decades
More like a century now.
I dunno, I'd put the flip at the time of the Southern Strategy and Nixon. Not quite a century yet.
Lincoln freed the slaves… and was swiftly assassinated for it.
When the questioner said it was “astonishing” to hear her respond “without mentioning the word slavery,” Haley replied: “What do you want me to say about slavery?” She then asked for the next question
I understand that it was a rhetorical question....but it's kind of not. It's pretty clear that her position on slavery is going to be--much like every other opinion--entirely controlled by what her voters want her to say.
Use her full name.
Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley
I don't see how dead naming is cool simply because it will hurt her polling with racists.
Edit: Ok, explain the joke. Why is the birtherism of saying "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama" funny on our side? Why should we respect Caitlin Jenner's chosen name but not Nikki's? If it's not a joke, that is, you think it's a genuinely good idea for news outlets to refer to her this way, why?
So from personal experience, I learned Obama's middle name from the mouths' of racists, I learned Biden's middle name from the mouths' toxic masculine chauvinists, and I only hear Jenner's deadname from bigots. I don't like playing the "true name" game.
Edit 2: Ok downvoters, you've convinced me that it is ok to stress politicians' birth names in order to show disagreement. Can you now please provide a list of white politicians whose birth names we should use in order to show we do not support them? I guess we can just put their names in parentheses or something if that is easier.
Are you seriously in favor of the bills? Why are you trying to enforce them? I vote against racist proposals whenever I can. I certainly don't try to enforce ones that are not even effect.
It's calling out hypocrisy, not support. It's also bringing attention to how short sighted the GOPs plans are. If they support bills that hurt themselves in unintentional ways, how can we trust them to pass bills that work in their intended manner?
Does pointing out that Trump has no idea about Christianity bothered these people? At least when you do that, it’s not some attack via a racism Trojan horse.
Hypocrisy does not matter to the right. It does matter to my reflection. Using her “real name” is using racism as a weapon. I don’t care if it is indirect or that it only hurts racist.
(This post is self-plagiarized from elsewhere in this thread.)
It's not a dead name, she's using her middle name to narrow her proximity to being white.
Are you saying that the paper should seriously call her by that name or that it is a joke about her name?
She's cosplaying a white woman for acceptance.
I know who she is. I want to know if I am responding to a serious proposal or a joke. Because the thing is, the "joke" is hard to distinguish from a call to action. And therein lies the problem.
I neither proposed anything or suggested acall to action, I was pointing out that she's a hypocritical cunt
I am discussing the comment:
Use her full name.
Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley
I took your comment as a defense of that comment. Are you defending it as a joke or as a call to action?
Dude she is literally cosplaying a white woman.
All politicians at this level are products of marketing consultants. Biden is cosplaying as a younger person with his lifts and fillers. Trump is cosplaying as a rich guy. Obama cosplayed a progressive etc. Clinton failed cosplaying as a likable normal human person.
Is a trans woman a man cosplaying a woman? If you doubt her sincerity that's a fair argument towards her being generally untrustworthy, but I don't think that's what most people mean when they say stuff like this. It's just bigotry of another kind. She always struck me as generally perceiving herself as a white american woman. Who gets to decide who is brown but the person themselves? Am I brown because I'm Greek? I have naturally darker skin than some who identify as black or brown but I've never felt anything other than white.
I dont think transgender should be part of this conversation, people can do whatever they want its their body their right.
I would put "ted" cruz into this same boat if you are in politics and are running for office where your constituency cant handle a person of color if they knew???
Maybe cosplay is not the right word, what would you call it?
people can do whatever they want its their body their right
This whole conversation started over Nikki vs Nimarata. Why can that logic not be extended to someone's name, whether it's this, someone experiencing gender dysphoria, or someone who doesn't like to be called Matt because their name is Matthew?
So you're gatekeeping who can act white? Please tell me how you're not here, because I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but controlling how she should act due to her race and that's not ok. What she said (or didn't say) is bad on its own, but bringing her race into it just unnecessarily muddies the waters
Edit: everyone is happy to downvote, but nobody wants to say why she can't act like a white American woman (including using a name that better matches that profile) because she's born to Indian parents 🤷♂️
I would agree with you actually, its her racist constituency that would not vote for her unless she portrayed herself as a white woman that is the issue.
I also agree that skin color / race is subjective and does muddy the water.
Yeah, yewb. Let's not let people forget who she really is, an Indian! I'm sorry lady, did you want to get ahead in conservative politics? Well, you should have thought of that before you became an Indian.
Do you not hear yourselves?
If she feels that immigrants should take pains to assimilate, I will disagree with her points, but not her identity.
I get it but whataboutism says: what if it was a white woman pretending to be African American to sway brown voters?
Pretending of any kind should be shamed, but just because a person grew up as a minority in their own community shouldn't preclude them from identifying with the plights and cultures of said community.
Basically what I'm saying is skin color shouldn't matter, experience and honesty should.
Then, I would use their name. Is this a gotcha?
Still has Barrack Hussein Obama vibes. What point are we making here?
Like yeah, she's a race traitor cosplaying a white woman, but surely we have better points to make than hoping her base is racist enough to hate her based on a vaguely foreign name, which is not really at all a secret. meh.
Edit: Plenty of people change their names to more Americanized versions. This is probably the least egregious thing she has ever done... This is a trivial point at best and hypocritical at worst
But Barrack was an African American democrat with an extremely progressive base?
The point being made here was quite clearly missed by you.
My point is that we're calling out her scary foreign name for brownie points with racists and xenophobes. I understand how very different the situations are otherwise. Idk why everyone on lemmy is so aggressive lately jeezus
It’s the same reason I refer to Lady Graham as such: because they’re a powerful politician who have a core personal trait that’s inimical to their base that they try REALLY hard to hide, and that the conservative news sphere tends to help hide (for now).
It’s an open secret that Graham is a HUGE closet case, and he has backed every single heinously anti-gay law, resolution, and regulation that crosses his desk, amongst many other awful things.
Similarly, Nimarata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa) is campaigning on staunchly immigrant-hostile policies (again: amongst many other awful things), but is herself a (white-passing) immigrant.
We are simply hoisting them on the petard of their own hypocrisy. If these inconsistencies are repeatedly, consistently, and unavoidably pointed out, it’ll start to filter through to their base, and the racist elements of the GOP (but I repeat myself) will start to notice, and her viability as a candidate will diminish. It’s an unfortunate tactic that we feel forced to take, but we do feel forced to take it, as this is very much an existential political struggle.
Edit: I do want to say that /u/naught absolutely has their head in the right place, and that I further deeply wish I didn’t feel like shitty tactics like that are genuinely and truly necessary at this point in time. The fact that I may be willing to stoop to rhetorical levels that /u/naught isn’t does not make me more “right” than they are. I just have a different calculus about what I’m willing to do in a political context that I view as pretty dire.
Lady Graham is pretty offensive IMO. You can't just take a bigoted joke and throw it at bad people. You're still participating in homophobia. If a black republican ran for president I wouldn't be asking to see his birth certificate, let alone be throwing racial epithets
Two wrongs and all that.
I get where you’re coming from - I really do. In any other context I wouldn’t use such a targeted epithet.
But the pack of political shitgoblins that is the GOP have turned overtly fascist. They’re looking at Handmaid’s Tale as an aspirational goal instead of a harrowing cautionary tale about how fascism and authoritarianism rises and then entrenches itself. I will apologize to anyone who wants, and will accept any level of ridicule or ostracism that people feel I deserve due to how I target hypocritical, caustic, (small-d) anti-democratic politicians who are actively trying to destroy the advances our society has made after we build a bulwark against that bullshit. I myself am not enthusiastic about targeting people that way, but I genuinely do think that the situation warrants it.
The GOP is not following any rulebook at this point. Hamstringing effective psychological attacks against their base because it generates splash damage to some populations is something I see as a necessary evil because the GOP fully intends to do far, FAR worse to those populations if they gain and solidify their hold on American government for the foreseeable future.
So… yeah. It’s a shitty tactic. But the “critical failure” end-state of all this bullshit is “it’s illegal to be gay again” (amongst many other things), and from where I’m standing, that’s orders of magnitudes worse than having to repair any reputation and relationships I have with gay people - or even simply living with the fact that I’ve permanently offended people because used a dirty rhetorical tactic when it seemed like one of the best and most effective non-violent choices in a set of bad options.
I feel you 100%. For my own sanity, I feel like I have to draw a line in the sand and hold myself to a higher standard than the fascists. It would feel good to stoop to their level for sure, but then how do I tell myself that Im better than that? How could I claim to be? I just wish everyone had the capacity for empathy and kindness. It's insanity that so much of our suffering is man-made through ignorance and small mindedness.
I'm sure the gays will forgive you, but please consider how a gay person would feel hearing "Lady Graham" when there are so many things otherwise wrong with him you could comment on. You're putting an inherent negative spin on being gay - which of course is the point since Graham would happily do the same - but still.
I think hypocrisy is the key ingredient that changes people’s behavior here. By default, we should treat other humans with compassion and respect. A politician being gay/trans/minority normally shouldn’t even be a part of the conversation. However, if that politician happens to be gay, and they consistently work to harm gay people, people have the urge to call that out even if they are an ally.
Yeah, that’s more or less exactly my logic. If they actively harm a group of people that they belong to, and then expect that group and it’s allies to stand up and defend them… well, that’s gonna be a nope from me, dawg.
Hypocritical politicians like that deserve a live and very personal preview of the bigotry that they’re actively pushing for.
If a black republican ran for president I wouldn't be asking to see his birth certificate.
Racism-prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Treating someone differently because of the color of their skin is racist. This is prejudice, which is racism regardless of your intention. Full stop.
... what? I think you misread. I said I "wouldn't"
Right, the conditional for not asking was the..wait for it.....
Color of skin & political affiliation. That's prejudicial shit. Intent doesn't matter.
The point is that nobody asks the white candidates for one. Equitable treatment is not assuming the american politician running for office was born somewhere else based on the color of their skin. Remember birtherism
No, not for brownie points with racists and xenophobes.
So the racist xenophobes can recognize that this batshit insane lady is actually quite plainly someone they hate for no reason.
No problem reminding them to take the garbage out.
Does pointing out that Trump has no idea about Christianity bothered these people? At least when you do that, it's not some attack via a racism Trojan horse.
Hypocrisy does not matter to the right. It does matter to my reflection. Using her "real name" is using racism as a weapon. I don't care if it is indirect or that it only hurts racists.
I don't understand what you're saying, the racist xenophobes are her supporters.
If they don't want to support her because of her "very scary" legal name they can either stop supporting her or reverse their support for the law forcing legal names being used..
I understand that they are shitty and racist -- why do we have to feed into that? I get the irony! I really do. It just feels hypocritical to me. I would rather us tackle the issues rather than gleefully playing the identity politics game
Nobody is feeding into anything, we are using their logic against them. Pretty basic tactic for getting someone to realize they're being shitty.
I mean, you're "fighting fire with fire" except the fire in this case is racism basically ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
TIL using a politician's LEGAL name is racist.
Seriously, seek help.
Don't blame me I voted for Rachel Dolezal
HAHAHAHA!
I've never understood it either. At this point I don't care which side we swing to, we should just be consistent. People either should or should not be able to dictate their own identities. We can't play the "you're only allowed to dictate your own identity if you vote blue" game if we want anyone to take our arguments seriously.
People who deny rights to others don't deserve to have that right for themselves. Everyone else deserves the right to define their own identity, but those assholes have waived that right.
Yeah this name calling stuff is cringe and shows how Americans have the maturity of 12 year olds. "His name is Donald Drumpf! He has a dumb name guys! HUSSEIN Obama he's a Muslim!! NIKKI IS INDIAN SHES AN INDIAN HER NAME IS ACTUALLY INDIAN!"
Gotta court far right hicks that'll vote for potato brained Trump no matter what anyway. The only thing Haley has going for her is that her failure isnt quite as hard as Desantis.
An entire party of rot brains following Lord rot into hell.
Federal minimum wage are slave wages
Chattal slavery ended but wage slavery and prison slavery is still going strong. Your 401K manager is heavily invested in continuing it too
Remember people, minimum wage=minimum effort. No favors, no "we're family at this company" bullshit. Do the absolute bare minimum and go home, turn off your phone.
I'm soooooo shocked :0 /s
It was domestic economic policy. They built a train through half the States. The ones that didn't have the slaves. Nothing to do with the slaves though /s
It kind of wasn't.
Southern states wanted the federal government to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south.
The federal government sided with "state rights" and said the South had no control over the northern states, and the federal government couldn't force them either.
So the south started a civil war against state rights, and a couple years into it the Feds went ahead and outlawed slavery as an economic sanction against the South.
The cause wasn't as simple as "slavery" and it was pretty much the opposite of what modern day confederates pretend it was about
Not as simple as "slavery", but the war was caused by slavery. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no war. That's "cause", in my book.
but the war was caused by slavery
The war was caused by the federal government refusing to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south...
The southern states started a war over that
If it was just over if slavery was legal, then why was the Emancipation Proclamation smack in the middle of the civil war?
If the south wouldn't have started the civil war, it would have been years if not decades before the Feds outlawed slavery.
The south wanted a strong federal government, and got it. Just not the way they wanted it.
Haley blaming Lincoln for the Civil War should end any debate about her fitness for office. This is pretty close to saying, basically, slavery should be legal.
Either a) she knows what really happened, but is lying because she considers the bases approval more important than reality or b) she's a fucking moron.
Raising the question: Is Haley ignorant or is she a liar?
Yes.
She can be an ignorant liar.
Yeah, I mean blaming Lincoln for the civil war and then claiming to be the party of Lincoln. Seems like that would be a little cognitive dissonance right there wouldn't it?
The base does not care about logical consistency. Indeed, it appears that many of them are altogether unaware of the concept logical consistency, and are entirely uninterested in learning or understanding it.
They actually enjoy being illogical, because it frustrates their "enemies"... sane people trying to make educated, thoughtful, rational arguments. Their arguments are equal to someone just making fart noises. Idiocracy is here.
Insert Sartre quote here
More like Fartré amirite
She's essentially saying the same "states' rights" bullshit. Which was the right to slavery.
Ugh
The constitution of the Confederacy forbade states from banning slavery. The confederates were fighting against state's rights to abolish slavery.
The Union was not just the anti-slavery side, but the states' rights side as well.
Through that same link. Another video played and she said "Of course the civil war was about slavery, we all know it was about slavery... but it was about more than that. It was about the freedoms of EVERY individual."
Well I guess except for the slaves.
statesrightstodowhat?
She is white supremacist trash. Props to whoever asked her that question. She isn't bothering to hide it.
And frankly the moderator should have walked up onto the stage and open hand slapped her for that level of a bullshit non answer. These fuckin debates are such a colossal joke. We don't even hold potential candidates responsible for absurd shit they say, why would anyone expect us to hold a president accountable?
Haley's response:
All Haley had to do was just add in that the Confederacy was about taking away liberties of groups of people and their ability to seek out economic freedom, and that slaves had no freedom of everything.
The bar was on the fucking ground and Haley still failed to meet it.
It's too bad we didn't really crush the Confederates after the war. Meaning, really rub their noses in their loss, but give them a path back to redemption that doesn't involve letting them off easy.
Don't allow them to erect statues for "heritage" and so on. Don't allow them to teach about the "Northern war of aggression" and all that.
Marching to the sea burning everything down is my heritage.
FREEDOM!!!*
*except for what you do in bed or with your uterus, what you may want to read, unfettered access to empirical reality and other things which we’ll maybe let you know about once we figure them out.
Also the GOP came out to say her candidacy was “toast” and I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Their top guy right now literally used the words state rights and said that it wasn’t about slavery. Why is Haley toast?
Am I the only one who noticed that level of hypocrisy?
Because everyone else is held to some kind of standard, and he's not.
Well, yeah. Because that would mean giving personhood to the group that was enslaved, and Republicans love to ask, "Well, can we really say that Group "x" are people?"
Party of Lincoln, huh?
Not for decades
More like a century now.
I dunno, I'd put the flip at the time of the Southern Strategy and Nixon. Not quite a century yet.
Lincoln freed the slaves… and was swiftly assassinated for it.
I understand that it was a rhetorical question....but it's kind of not. It's pretty clear that her position on slavery is going to be--much like every other opinion--entirely controlled by what her voters want her to say.
Use her full name.
Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley
I don't see how dead naming is cool simply because it will hurt her polling with racists.
Edit: Ok, explain the joke. Why is the birtherism of saying "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama" funny on our side? Why should we respect Caitlin Jenner's chosen name but not Nikki's? If it's not a joke, that is, you think it's a genuinely good idea for news outlets to refer to her this way, why?
So from personal experience, I learned Obama's middle name from the mouths' of racists, I learned Biden's middle name from the mouths' toxic masculine chauvinists, and I only hear Jenner's deadname from bigots. I don't like playing the "true name" game.
Edit 2: Ok downvoters, you've convinced me that it is ok to stress politicians' birth names in order to show disagreement. Can you now please provide a list of white politicians whose birth names we should use in order to show we do not support them? I guess we can just put their names in parentheses or something if that is easier.
It's a call out to all the bills republicans are passing to require use of birth names so people like Rafael Cruze and Nimarata Hailey can benefit as well.
Are you seriously in favor of the bills? Why are you trying to enforce them? I vote against racist proposals whenever I can. I certainly don't try to enforce ones that are not even effect.
It's calling out hypocrisy, not support. It's also bringing attention to how short sighted the GOPs plans are. If they support bills that hurt themselves in unintentional ways, how can we trust them to pass bills that work in their intended manner?
Does pointing out that Trump has no idea about Christianity bothered these people? At least when you do that, it’s not some attack via a racism Trojan horse.
Hypocrisy does not matter to the right. It does matter to my reflection. Using her “real name” is using racism as a weapon. I don’t care if it is indirect or that it only hurts racist.
(This post is self-plagiarized from elsewhere in this thread.)
It's not a dead name, she's using her middle name to narrow her proximity to being white.
Are you saying that the paper should seriously call her by that name or that it is a joke about her name?
She's cosplaying a white woman for acceptance.
I know who she is. I want to know if I am responding to a serious proposal or a joke. Because the thing is, the "joke" is hard to distinguish from a call to action. And therein lies the problem.
I neither proposed anything or suggested acall to action, I was pointing out that she's a hypocritical cunt
I am discussing the comment:
I took your comment as a defense of that comment. Are you defending it as a joke or as a call to action?
Dude she is literally cosplaying a white woman.
All politicians at this level are products of marketing consultants. Biden is cosplaying as a younger person with his lifts and fillers. Trump is cosplaying as a rich guy. Obama cosplayed a progressive etc. Clinton failed cosplaying as a likable normal human person.
Is a trans woman a man cosplaying a woman? If you doubt her sincerity that's a fair argument towards her being generally untrustworthy, but I don't think that's what most people mean when they say stuff like this. It's just bigotry of another kind. She always struck me as generally perceiving herself as a white american woman. Who gets to decide who is brown but the person themselves? Am I brown because I'm Greek? I have naturally darker skin than some who identify as black or brown but I've never felt anything other than white.
I dont think transgender should be part of this conversation, people can do whatever they want its their body their right.
I would put "ted" cruz into this same boat if you are in politics and are running for office where your constituency cant handle a person of color if they knew???
Maybe cosplay is not the right word, what would you call it?
This whole conversation started over Nikki vs Nimarata. Why can that logic not be extended to someone's name, whether it's this, someone experiencing gender dysphoria, or someone who doesn't like to be called Matt because their name is Matthew?
So you're gatekeeping who can act white? Please tell me how you're not here, because I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but controlling how she should act due to her race and that's not ok. What she said (or didn't say) is bad on its own, but bringing her race into it just unnecessarily muddies the waters
Edit: everyone is happy to downvote, but nobody wants to say why she can't act like a white American woman (including using a name that better matches that profile) because she's born to Indian parents 🤷♂️
I would agree with you actually, its her racist constituency that would not vote for her unless she portrayed herself as a white woman that is the issue.
I also agree that skin color / race is subjective and does muddy the water.
Yeah, yewb. Let's not let people forget who she really is, an Indian! I'm sorry lady, did you want to get ahead in conservative politics? Well, you should have thought of that before you became an Indian.
Do you not hear yourselves?
If she feels that immigrants should take pains to assimilate, I will disagree with her points, but not her identity.
I get it but whataboutism says: what if it was a white woman pretending to be African American to sway brown voters?
Pretending of any kind should be shamed, but just because a person grew up as a minority in their own community shouldn't preclude them from identifying with the plights and cultures of said community.
Basically what I'm saying is skin color shouldn't matter, experience and honesty should.
Then, I would use their name. Is this a gotcha?
Still has Barrack Hussein Obama vibes. What point are we making here?
Like yeah, she's a race traitor cosplaying a white woman, but surely we have better points to make than hoping her base is racist enough to hate her based on a vaguely foreign name, which is not really at all a secret. meh.
Edit: Plenty of people change their names to more Americanized versions. This is probably the least egregious thing she has ever done... This is a trivial point at best and hypocritical at worst
But Barrack was an African American democrat with an extremely progressive base?
The point being made here was quite clearly missed by you.
My point is that we're calling out her scary foreign name for brownie points with racists and xenophobes. I understand how very different the situations are otherwise. Idk why everyone on lemmy is so aggressive lately jeezus
It’s the same reason I refer to Lady Graham as such: because they’re a powerful politician who have a core personal trait that’s inimical to their base that they try REALLY hard to hide, and that the conservative news sphere tends to help hide (for now).
It’s an open secret that Graham is a HUGE closet case, and he has backed every single heinously anti-gay law, resolution, and regulation that crosses his desk, amongst many other awful things.
Similarly, Nimarata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa) is campaigning on staunchly immigrant-hostile policies (again: amongst many other awful things), but is herself a (white-passing) immigrant.
We are simply hoisting them on the petard of their own hypocrisy. If these inconsistencies are repeatedly, consistently, and unavoidably pointed out, it’ll start to filter through to their base, and the racist elements of the GOP (but I repeat myself) will start to notice, and her viability as a candidate will diminish. It’s an unfortunate tactic that we feel forced to take, but we do feel forced to take it, as this is very much an existential political struggle.
Edit: I do want to say that /u/naught absolutely has their head in the right place, and that I further deeply wish I didn’t feel like shitty tactics like that are genuinely and truly necessary at this point in time. The fact that I may be willing to stoop to rhetorical levels that /u/naught isn’t does not make me more “right” than they are. I just have a different calculus about what I’m willing to do in a political context that I view as pretty dire.
Lady Graham is pretty offensive IMO. You can't just take a bigoted joke and throw it at bad people. You're still participating in homophobia. If a black republican ran for president I wouldn't be asking to see his birth certificate, let alone be throwing racial epithets
Two wrongs and all that.
I get where you’re coming from - I really do. In any other context I wouldn’t use such a targeted epithet.
But the pack of political shitgoblins that is the GOP have turned overtly fascist. They’re looking at Handmaid’s Tale as an aspirational goal instead of a harrowing cautionary tale about how fascism and authoritarianism rises and then entrenches itself. I will apologize to anyone who wants, and will accept any level of ridicule or ostracism that people feel I deserve due to how I target hypocritical, caustic, (small-d) anti-democratic politicians who are actively trying to destroy the advances our society has made after we build a bulwark against that bullshit. I myself am not enthusiastic about targeting people that way, but I genuinely do think that the situation warrants it.
The GOP is not following any rulebook at this point. Hamstringing effective psychological attacks against their base because it generates splash damage to some populations is something I see as a necessary evil because the GOP fully intends to do far, FAR worse to those populations if they gain and solidify their hold on American government for the foreseeable future.
So… yeah. It’s a shitty tactic. But the “critical failure” end-state of all this bullshit is “it’s illegal to be gay again” (amongst many other things), and from where I’m standing, that’s orders of magnitudes worse than having to repair any reputation and relationships I have with gay people - or even simply living with the fact that I’ve permanently offended people because used a dirty rhetorical tactic when it seemed like one of the best and most effective non-violent choices in a set of bad options.
I feel you 100%. For my own sanity, I feel like I have to draw a line in the sand and hold myself to a higher standard than the fascists. It would feel good to stoop to their level for sure, but then how do I tell myself that Im better than that? How could I claim to be? I just wish everyone had the capacity for empathy and kindness. It's insanity that so much of our suffering is man-made through ignorance and small mindedness.
I'm sure the gays will forgive you, but please consider how a gay person would feel hearing "Lady Graham" when there are so many things otherwise wrong with him you could comment on. You're putting an inherent negative spin on being gay - which of course is the point since Graham would happily do the same - but still.
I think hypocrisy is the key ingredient that changes people’s behavior here. By default, we should treat other humans with compassion and respect. A politician being gay/trans/minority normally shouldn’t even be a part of the conversation. However, if that politician happens to be gay, and they consistently work to harm gay people, people have the urge to call that out even if they are an ally.
Yeah, that’s more or less exactly my logic. If they actively harm a group of people that they belong to, and then expect that group and it’s allies to stand up and defend them… well, that’s gonna be a nope from me, dawg.
Hypocritical politicians like that deserve a live and very personal preview of the bigotry that they’re actively pushing for.
Racism-prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Treating someone differently because of the color of their skin is racist. This is prejudice, which is racism regardless of your intention. Full stop.
... what? I think you misread. I said I "wouldn't"
Right, the conditional for not asking was the..wait for it..... Color of skin & political affiliation. That's prejudicial shit. Intent doesn't matter.
The point is that nobody asks the white candidates for one. Equitable treatment is not assuming the american politician running for office was born somewhere else based on the color of their skin. Remember birtherism
No, not for brownie points with racists and xenophobes.
So the racist xenophobes can recognize that this batshit insane lady is actually quite plainly someone they hate for no reason.
No problem reminding them to take the garbage out.
Does pointing out that Trump has no idea about Christianity bothered these people? At least when you do that, it's not some attack via a racism Trojan horse.
Hypocrisy does not matter to the right. It does matter to my reflection. Using her "real name" is using racism as a weapon. I don't care if it is indirect or that it only hurts racists.
I don't understand what you're saying, the racist xenophobes are her supporters.
If they don't want to support her because of her "very scary" legal name they can either stop supporting her or reverse their support for the law forcing legal names being used..
I understand that they are shitty and racist -- why do we have to feed into that? I get the irony! I really do. It just feels hypocritical to me. I would rather us tackle the issues rather than gleefully playing the identity politics game
Nobody is feeding into anything, we are using their logic against them. Pretty basic tactic for getting someone to realize they're being shitty.
I mean, you're "fighting fire with fire" except the fire in this case is racism basically ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
TIL using a politician's LEGAL name is racist.
Seriously, seek help.
Don't blame me I voted for Rachel Dolezal
HAHAHAHA!
I've never understood it either. At this point I don't care which side we swing to, we should just be consistent. People either should or should not be able to dictate their own identities. We can't play the "you're only allowed to dictate your own identity if you vote blue" game if we want anyone to take our arguments seriously.
People who deny rights to others don't deserve to have that right for themselves. Everyone else deserves the right to define their own identity, but those assholes have waived that right.
Yeah this name calling stuff is cringe and shows how Americans have the maturity of 12 year olds. "His name is Donald Drumpf! He has a dumb name guys! HUSSEIN Obama he's a Muslim!! NIKKI IS INDIAN SHES AN INDIAN HER NAME IS ACTUALLY INDIAN!"
Gotta court far right hicks that'll vote for potato brained Trump no matter what anyway. The only thing Haley has going for her is that her failure isnt quite as hard as Desantis.
An entire party of rot brains following Lord rot into hell.
Federal minimum wage are slave wages
Chattal slavery ended but wage slavery and prison slavery is still going strong. Your 401K manager is heavily invested in continuing it too
Remember people, minimum wage=minimum effort. No favors, no "we're family at this company" bullshit. Do the absolute bare minimum and go home, turn off your phone.
I'm soooooo shocked :0 /s
It was domestic economic policy. They built a train through half the States. The ones that didn't have the slaves. Nothing to do with the slaves though /s
It kind of wasn't.
Southern states wanted the federal government to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south.
The federal government sided with "state rights" and said the South had no control over the northern states, and the federal government couldn't force them either.
So the south started a civil war against state rights, and a couple years into it the Feds went ahead and outlawed slavery as an economic sanction against the South.
The cause wasn't as simple as "slavery" and it was pretty much the opposite of what modern day confederates pretend it was about
Not as simple as "slavery", but the war was caused by slavery. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no war. That's "cause", in my book.
The war was caused by the federal government refusing to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south...
The southern states started a war over that
If it was just over if slavery was legal, then why was the Emancipation Proclamation smack in the middle of the civil war?
If the south wouldn't have started the civil war, it would have been years if not decades before the Feds outlawed slavery.
The south wanted a strong federal government, and got it. Just not the way they wanted it.