Democrats Want Amen AND Awoman!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-05-2021, 01:02 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Sorry, I should have clarified. When I think of virtue signalling, I think of "wokeness" rather than faux patriotism. I call the Republican's faux patriotism "nationalism." I take that a whole lot more seriously than the left's woke virtue signalling because it's a lot more insidious in its nature. American exceptionalism is a myth that has justified a LOT of genocide and terrorism around the world, so I segment it off from the left's virtue signalling which, to be honest, is more annoying than anything else.

I wish I could agree with you that virtue signaling is only annoying.  But seeing how it is encouraging and condoning lawlessness, excoriating the nation as irredeemably racist/evil and promoting violence against their political opponents then I'd have to say that it's far more than that.

EDIT: I will add that they are not alone in condoning violence, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for it as well.

[Millhouse]

I honestly dont get the Awoman thing lol. I thought it was a joke or something when I first heard it but I guess not.

Also the Dem House wants to get rid of using words used in the House like mom, dad, brother, sister etc and replace with more politically correct words like parents, siblings. Its an smh moment for them yet again, because with everything going on right now this is important.

Also, absolvng the stupid stuff the Dems do just because we have the worst President ever and his Trumplicans should not be a thing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-05-2021, 02:09 AM)Millhouse Wrote: I honestly dont get the Awoman thing lol. I thought it was a joke or something when I first heard it but I guess not.

Also the Dem House wants to get rid of using words used in the House like mom, dad, brother, sister etc and replace with more politically correct words like parents, siblings. Its an smh moment for them yet again, because with everything going on right now this is important.

Also, absolvng the stupid stuff the Dems do just because we have the worst President ever and his Trumplicans should not be a thing.

The next four years are going to be interesting with no built in deflection.

[fredtoast]

Link to any other Dems promoting the use of "awoman" to end a prayer?

Let me, as a Democrat, say that it is a stupid idea.

[fredtoast]

(01-05-2021, 02:09 AM)Millhouse Wrote: Also the Dem House wants to get rid of using words used in the House like mom, dad, brother, sister etc and replace with more politically correct words like parents, siblings. Its an smh moment for them yet again, because with everything going on right now this is important.

I am not claiming it is one of the most important issues facing the country, but the language in any law using the terms "mother" and/or "father" are now inappropriate and need to be changed.

[CJD]

(01-05-2021, 01:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wish I could agree with you that virtue signaling is only annoying.  But seeing how it is encouraging and condoning lawlessness, excoriating the nation as irredeemably racist/evil and promoting violence against their political opponents then I'd have to say that it's far more than that.

EDIT:  I will add that they are not alone in condoning violence, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for it as well.

I have not read through the thread you made that was disparaging the statistic that 93% of the BLM protests were peaceful (and among the 7% that were not it is indeterminate how many were made violent by the police violating the protesters' rights rather than the protesters looting/rioting etc to begin with), but suffice it to say we disagree on both the volume of lawlessness that has occurred under the banner of America's left and their protesting AND the extent to which supporting those protests is tantamount to condoning said lawlessness. Condoning rioting/looting is not the same as saying "Rioting is wrong, but we must address the root of this unrest [police violence], rather than sweeping everything under the rug."

Martin Luther King Jr was quoted saying essentially the same thing back in the civil rights movement era.

Quote:Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.

But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.

But you're a generally well informed person, so I know you know about that quote already.

Beyond all that, I still think we're disagreeing on what "virtue signaling" is. It is a connotative difference only at this point but I don't think supporting the protests is virtue signaling. 

When I think virtue signaling, I think of meaningless bullshit like wearing kente cloths and kneeling, or saying "awoman" or any other meaningless gesture that has no power or intention behind it other than "I'm one of you guys." Especially coming from corporatists that don't really have the people's best interests at heart (this is 99% of politicians, not just Democrats or Republicans). I don't think supporting protests that are aiming to result in meaningful and lasting change/improvement to the way we police this country is without power or intention, so I don't classify those as virtue signaling.

From a denotative stance, basically every word out of anyone's mouth is virtue signaling (i.e. it is virtue signaling to reveal your virtues, like I am to you right now and how you did to me in the above post), so I would disregard that literal definition of the term in this context.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-05-2021, 10:04 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I have not read through the thread you made that was disparaging the statistic that 93% of the BLM protests were peaceful (and among the 7% that were not it is indeterminate how many were made violent by the police violating the protesters' rights rather than the protesters looting/rioting etc to begin with), but suffice it to say we disagree on both the volume of lawlessness that has occurred under the banner of America's left and their protesting AND the extent to which supporting those protests is tantamount to condoning said lawlessness. Condoning rioting/looting is not the same as saying "Rioting is wrong, but we must address the root of this unrest [police violence], rather than sweeping everything under the rug."

Martin Luther King Jr was quoted saying essentially the same thing back in the civil rights movement era.




But you're a generally well informed person, so I know you know about that quote already.

This, of course, assumes that those rioting are doing so because of that cause and not because they have been given virtual carte blanche to do so by ineffective or sympathetic governors/mayors/DA's.  You're making the basic mistake of assuming everyone marching or engaging in the violent activities have the same agenda.  This is not true.  What is true is that an atmosphere of tolerance, or at the very least benevolent understanding, has been fostered around these activities by both the media and the government of many areas.  Essentially, when you excuse violent rioting, looting and arson because of police brutality you're going to get a lot of people who will shelter under that umbrella in order to commit those acts that don't give two shits about that cause.  It's an excuse, and the type of people willing to engage in this type of behavior will leap at any such excuse and exploit it.

Beyond all that, I still think we're disagreeing on what "virtue signaling" is. It is a connotative difference only at this point but I don't think supporting the protests is virtue signaling. 

Quote:When I think virtue signaling, I think of meaningless bullshit like wearing kente cloths and kneeling, or saying "awoman" or any other meaningless gesture that has no power or intention behind it other than "I'm one of you guys." Especially coming from corporatists that don't really have the people's best interests at heart (this is 99% of politicians, not just Democrats or Republicans). I don't think supporting protests that are aiming to result in meaningful and lasting change/improvement to the way we police this country is without power or intention, so I don't classify those as virtue signaling.

From a denotative stance, basically every word out of anyone's mouth is virtue signaling (i.e. it is virtue signaling to reveal your virtues, like I am to you right now and how you did to me in the above post), so I would disregard that literal definition of the term in this context.

This is where the cognitive dissonance really kicks in for the more left leaning people who use this argument.  You can't logically spend four plus years correctly pointing out that Trump creates a "safe space" or an aura of permission for right wing agitators with his words and deeds, both overt and tacit, and then ignore the exact same thing from the Dems.  While Trump is more bombastic and obvious the effect achieved is the same.  It's telling these people, we're with you, we agree and we've got your back.  You need look no further than the results to see this.  Portland continues to have nightly violence and the mayor and finally admitted his appeasement strategy isn't working and never will.

If we really want to cool things down and "heal" then we've got to start treating all unacceptable behavior as unacceptable, in every way possible.  Until that is done, and done seriously, by both sides.  Also, I don't care about what side you, or anyone else perceives as the "main offender", the problem exists on both sides and it needs to be addressed by both sides if it's ever going to get better (please note this is not an attack on you personally but a general statement).

[CJD]

(01-05-2021, 12:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This, of course, assumes that those rioting are doing so because of that cause and not because they have been given virtual carte blanche to do so by ineffective or sympathetic governors/mayors/DA's.  You're making the basic mistake of assuming everyone marching or engaging in the violent activities have the same agenda.  This is not true.  What is true is that an atmosphere of tolerance, or at the very least benevolent understanding, has been fostered around these activities by both the media and the government of many areas.  Essentially, when you excuse violent rioting, looting and arson because of police brutality you're going to get a lot of people who will shelter under that umbrella in order to commit those acts that don't give two shits about that cause.  It's an excuse, and the type of people willing to engage in this type of behavior will leap at any such excuse and exploit it.

Beyond all that, I still think we're disagreeing on what "virtue signaling" is. It is a connotative difference only at this point but I don't think supporting the protests is virtue signaling. 


This is where the cognitive dissonance really kicks in for the more left leaning people who use this argument.  You can't logically spend four plus years correctly pointing out that Trump creates a "safe space" or an aura of permission for right wing agitators with his words and deeds, both overt and tacit, and then ignore the exact same thing from the Dems.  While Trump is more bombastic and obvious the effect achieved is the same.  It's telling these people, we're with you, we agree and we've got your back.  You need look no further than the results to see this.  Portland continues to have nightly violence and the mayor and finally admitted his appeasement strategy isn't working and never will.

If we really want to cool things down and "heal" then we've got to start treating all unacceptable behavior as unacceptable, in every way possible.  Until that is done, and done seriously, by both sides.  Also, I don't care about what side you, or anyone else perceives as the "main offender", the problem exists on both sides and it needs to be addressed by both sides if it's ever going to get better (please note this is not an attack on you personally but a general statement).

I don't assume that the rioting is done as part of the protest movement. I also don't think that MLK thought that the rioters were part of his movement.

They are a combination of frustrated and ill-intentioned people who are poisoning the well and are making the protests, which have a largely noble and worthwhile cause, easily dismissed by people such as yourself (but many more who are doing it disingenuously). 

But I also do not believe that, since riots are occurring, the entire movement is therefore defunct or bad. It is just a thing that comes with civil unrest and will not stop until the problems are addressed.

I've been to BLM protests. They are not violent. They are well intentioned and have goals worth pursuing. They are filled with good people who want to see positive change. The rioters and looters are not a part of that movement, but a byproduct of the same cause that created the protests.

Now, there are some BLM organization leaders (whatever that means, as the vast majority of protesters have no association with the official organization of BLM and could not name the leaders of that organization if asked) may be more sympathetic to the rioters or looters than me or people who hold my same stance, but I'd hardly call that the stance of the governors/mayors/DAs or the media at large. I don't watch CNN or any of those programs, but I'd be surprised if any of them endorsed the rioting as a good thing or even a necessary evil. All I've heard from the mainstream media and politicians like Biden is that the rioting must stop, but that they don't invalidate the protests.

As far as the cognitive dissonance argument, I will concede that fact if you can find a clip of any democrat politician saying "yes, go out and riot more please." That is the equivalent of what Trump has been saying to his agitators. The right wing agitators feel actively energized by Trump's speeches and sound clips. You can't say the same for Antifa and Biden.

I'm open to the idea that there is a problem on both sides, but I don't think it's arguable that the problem is VASTLY larger on the right and trying to equivocate them is, in essence, trying to cover up the problems on the right. 

I have no problem calling out Democrats or the left in general if they do something wrong. I don't consider myself a Democrat at all, honestly. The things they do disappoint and frustrate me on a nearly daily basis. But I can't see a viable argument that makes them as bad as Republicans or their agitators.

As far as healing goes with the Republican politicians, I don't think there is healing to be done. The Republicans just need to be voted out and the Democratic party needs to split into the centrist party of Biden and the left wing party of Bernie. Republicans are anti-democracy and are, right now, actively trying to destroy our democracy. 12 Senators and 140 members of the house are going to spend hours tomorrow trying to subvert our democracy. I don't think they'll succeed, but this will set a precedent that may work in the future. I have no idea how you "heal" with people like that.

Now the voters of the Republican party...that's a whole other story and it will take a long time for them to be shaken out of their delusions that have been perpetuated and, to an extent, created by "news" sources like Fox, OANN and Newsmax and further emboldened and strengthened by the election of Trump and the last 4 years of idiocy that has been the Trump presidency.

In essence, the healing must be done internally by the right. We can't sustain our democracy with 74 million people thinking Biden is a socialist (***** laughable) and Trump was the best option available to lead our country. Once they come back to reality, we can discuss healing.