Advice for my fellow liberals and progressives.

[T. A. Gardner]

Racists don’t need to be embraced
They need to be shunned by decent society
They need to climb into the sewer where they belong
Before we stomp them into the curb and kick them down into the sewer

Just bend over and look down, we'll take care of the rest...

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

He’s a fucking idiot


Our entire intel system says you are a traitorous liar

lol. deep state liar fuckos like dutch....

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

You NEVER knew how to deal with me


You are a mental and emotional cripple


You don’t honor facts


So you suck at this stuff

you're a deranged lying hoebag.

 

[Mina]

I'm starting to think you're retarded.

That's because you're an imbecile. However, if you have a smart friend or loved one that you trust, have them walk you through this, and get back to me once you understand. Good luck.

 

[Matt Dillon]

"Ways for Dems to couch their racism differently" seems to be the subject of this thread.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I've noticed a tendency for liberals and progressives to talk about racial inequities as if talking about them will win people over to their cause, but I think it tends to do the opposite. It may not be fair, but when an issue is framed as being particularly important for racial minorities, it will tend to trigger reflexive opposition from white people.

For example, picture I'm trying to sell an idea for subsidized childcare. I'd be wise to focus on it being a way to boost labor participation, by making work outside the home more economically viable for poorer people. With that sales pitch, I may get some cross-over support from conservatives and independents. But if I try to sell the exact same idea and focus on how currently the high price of childcare disproportionately affects people of color, and argue that therefore these subsidies would boost racial equity, I may as well be digging a grave for my idea.

Liberals and progressives tend to think that "and it'll be good for people of color" is a strong selling point, but it's a death knell for the kinds of people you need to win over. When at all possible, pitch your policies in racially neutral ways -- with no reference at all to race, if you can. Resist the urge to even throw it in as an "added benefit." As soon as your idea is seen as a way of helping "those people," you're screwed.

That even shows up when dealing with something like efforts to defeat COVID. If you sell an idea as a way to shut down the virus and get us all back to our regular lives faster, you may win converts. If, instead, you focus on the racial disparities of COVID, which has been killing people of color in higher numbers, you wind up alienating the people you need to convince. As soon as they see effort as being focused on helping racial minorities, they'll want no part of it:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362200257X

I think this is a huge part of why the US is such an outlier among wealthy nations. Most rich countries have a lot more social spending relative to GDP, because those things are perceived simply as a way to pool resources to improve quality of life across the whole population. But in the US, we have a tendency to discuss similar ideas in terms of dealing with systemic racism. When most white people see a program as doing more for non-white people, they become hostile to it, even if they, themselves, would also benefit.

I don't agree with the "most white ppl" part in the least. But you are right; there is a far too large segment of the American population that has a knee jerk reaction to anything perceived as helping out minorities and/or women. These are either-or people. If a policy is beneficial to minorities, they automatically think that that's at the expense of others (i.e. white ppl).

Good post, thanks.

 

[Mina]

I don't agree with the "most white ppl" part in the least.

That may be an overreach on my part. I don't have data showing that most white people think that. But there is data saying it's common enough that it can substantially shift attitudes about a lot of things. And I think that's absolutely something we on the left need to wrap our heads around, because we're inadvertently stigmatizing our own policy ideas. We come at it from our own ideological bubble, where we think it helps our sales pitch to point out that the idea will also reduce racial inequities. Yet, in reality, with some major audiences, we'd do better to just leave that part unspoken. The moment they think of it as being something that will do more for Black folks, they will start reacting badly to it, even if they'd otherwise have liked the idea.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Mina,

I've noticed a tendency for liberals and progressives to talk about racial inequities as if talking about them will win people over to their cause, but I think it tends to do the opposite. It may not be fair, but when an issue is framed as being particularly important for racial minorities, it will tend to trigger reflexive opposition from white people.

For example, picture I'm trying to sell an idea for subsidized childcare. I'd be wise to focus on it being a way to boost labor participation, by making work outside the home more economically viable for poorer people. With that sales pitch, I may get some cross-over support from conservatives and independents. But if I try to sell the exact same idea and focus on how currently the high price of childcare disproportionately affects people of color, and argue that therefore these subsidies would boost racial equity, I may as well be digging a grave for my idea.

Liberals and progressives tend to think that "and it'll be good for people of color" is a strong selling point, but it's a death knell for the kinds of people you need to win over. When at all possible, pitch your policies in racially neutral ways -- with no reference at all to race, if you can. Resist the urge to even throw it in as an "added benefit." As soon as your idea is seen as a way of helping "those people," you're screwed.

That even shows up when dealing with something like efforts to defeat COVID. If you sell an idea as a way to shut down the virus and get us all back to our regular lives faster, you may win converts. If, instead, you focus on the racial disparities of COVID, which has been killing people of color in higher numbers, you wind up alienating the people you need to convince. As soon as they see effort as being focused on helping racial minorities, they'll want no part of it:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362200257X

I think this is a huge part of why the US is such an outlier among wealthy nations. Most rich countries have a lot more social spending relative to GDP, because those things are perceived simply as a way to pool resources to improve quality of life across the whole population. But in the US, we have a tendency to discuss similar ideas in terms of dealing with systemic racism. When most white people see a program as doing more for non-white people, they become hostile to it, even if they, themselves, would also benefit.

An interesting idea.

I think you have a point.

But if we stay away from the racial issue when does that get addressed?

We tip toe all around the elephant because the elephant is racist then racism never gets solved.

And if we don't argue it in one thread, but then we do in another, that's not enough separation to make the distinction.

Would we be abandoning the racial issue to get other gains?

I have tried up one side and down the other to paint the immigration issue as one of potential economic benefit from increased immigration, but the right can't get past their xenophobia. When the right is obsessed with an issue, it is because of their propaganda, rumors and peer pressure. We are not going to topple that wall. They don't even pay attention to real news. They think the news is fake. They get all their information from friends and peers who are simply regurgitating talk host blather.

And even if we stay away from the race trap, what do we do when the right refuses to do so?

The racial hatred is pretty strong. Just because we don't bring it up doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

That may be an overreach on my part. I don't have data showing that most white people think that. But there is data saying it's common enough that it can substantially shift attitudes about a lot of things. And I think that's absolutely something we on the left need to wrap our heads around, because we're inadvertently stigmatizing our own policy ideas. We come at it from our own ideological bubble, where we think it helps our sales pitch to point out that the idea will also reduce racial inequities. Yet, in reality, with some major audiences, we'd do better to just leave that part unspoken. The moment they think of it as being something that will do more for Black folks, they will start reacting badly to it, even if they'd otherwise have liked the idea.

Good points. Just look at how many of them here think that (D)s are "racist" -- because *they* are.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Hello Mina,



An interesting idea.

I think you have a point.

But if we stay away from the racial issue when does that get addressed?

We tip toe all around the elephant because the elephant is racist then racism never gets solved.

And if we don't argue it in one thread, but then we do in another, that's not enough separation to make the distinction.

Would we be abandoning the racial issue to get other gains?

I have tried up one side and down the other to paint the immigration issue as one of potential economic benefit from increased immigration, but the right can't get past their xenophobia. When the right is obsessed with an issue, it is because of their propaganda, rumors and peer pressure. We are not going to topple that wall. They don't even pay attention to real news. They think the news is fake. They get all their information from friends and peers who are simply regurgitating talk host blather.

And even if we stay away from the race trap, what do we do when the right refuses to do so?

The racial hatred is pretty strong. Just because we don't bring it up doesn't mean it isn't there.

Part of the Reichwing's problem is that they have been conditioned to see non-whites (and to a lesser extent females) as "takers." They are deathly afraid that someone else is going to get something that they didn't get -- whether it's education, a job, a place to live, food, medical care, etc. "A rising tide lifts all boats" does not compute with them.

 

[Mina]

Hello Mina,



An interesting idea.

I think you have a point.

But if we stay away from the racial issue when does that get addressed?

I have two answers for that:

(1) Some racial issues will disappear or at least be minimized if we minimize wealth inequalities and maximize economic opportunities within the US. It's a bit like ignoring diabetes and focusing on fighting obesity.... if you succeed in greatly diminishing obesity, you won't get rid of all diabetes, but you will reduce it to a vastly smaller problem that you can focus on later.

(2) Other racial issues will need to be tackled directly. The point isn't to create a taboo against addressing those by name. It's just saying that if you have a sales pitch to get something good done without bringing up race, you're more likely to get it done if you keep race out of the mix, with the same end result.

And even if we stay away from the race trap, what do we do when the right refuses to do so?

That's a problem. Right-wingers are tireless race-baiters.... but we don't have to take the bait. Like if you're arguing for subsidized childcare, and some wingnut says you're just making him pay for some ghetto baby momma who doesn't know how to use birth control, just go right back to pointing out how it will benefit the American people, without regard to race. What we tend to do, instead, is proactively make it a racial issue right out of the gate, by pointing out how Blacks are disproportionately hurt by the high cost of childcare... and we think that pointing that out makes our sales pitch stronger (which it may among those who are already our allies), even as it actually undermines it with the very people whose votes we'll need to win over to get it done.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello ThatOwlWoman,

Part of the Reichwing's problem is that they have been conditioned to see non-whites (and to a lesser extent females) as "takers." They are deathly afraid that someone else is going to get something that they didn't get -- whether it's education, a job, a place to live, food, medical care, etc. "A rising tide lifts all boats" does not compute with them.

Still I suspect Mina has a valid point.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Still I suspect Mina has a valid point.

Yes, she absolutely does.

So here's a question. Let's say I'm in favor of canceling student debt in most cases. How would you couch that proposal to make it palatable to the RWers? If you say "young people" they don't like that because young ppl should "suffer like we had to."

 

[Matt Dillon]

Hello ThatOwlWoman,



Still I suspect Mina has a valid point.

Yes, she absolutely does.

So here's a question. Let's say I'm in favor of canceling student debt in most cases. How would you couch that proposal to make it palatable to the RWers? If you say "young people" they don't like that because young ppl should "suffer like we had to."

Yeah: "Couch your racism differently, use more deception."

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Mina,

I have two answers for that:

(1) Some racial issues will disappear or at least be minimized if we minimize wealth inequalities and maximize economic opportunities within the US. It's a bit like ignoring diabetes and focusing on fighting obesity.... if you succeed in greatly diminishing obesity, you won't get rid of all diabetes, but you will reduce it to a vastly smaller problem that you can focus on later.

(2) Other racial issues will need to be tackled directly. The point isn't to create a taboo against addressing those by name. It's just saying that if you have a sales pitch to get something good done without bringing up race, you're more likely to get it done if you keep race out of the mix, with the same end result.



That's a problem. Right-wingers are tireless race-baiters.... but we don't have to take the bait. Like if you're arguing for subsidized childcare, and some wingnut says you're just making him pay for some ghetto baby momma who doesn't know how to use birth control, just go right back to pointing out how it will benefit the American people, without regard to race. What we tend to do, instead, is proactively make it a racial issue right out of the gate, by pointing out how Blacks are disproportionately hurt by the high cost of childcare... and we think that pointing that out makes our sales pitch stronger (which it may among those who are already our allies), even as it actually undermines it with the very people whose votes we'll need to win over to get it done.

OK, it all sounds fine and well. I will try to incorporate the strategy but I still have a hard time envisioning greedy rich white men wanting to see the government spend money to help people they want to believe simply 'made poor choices in life.'

Apparently a child in poverty who is told by unsuccessful parents that the world is stacked against them and grows up believing success is an illusion, who has no ambition or self confidence that success is achievable for those who strive, simply 'made a poor choice' of which family to get born into.

Greedy rich people have exploited every possible avenue for acquiring wealth. Fighting taxation is all part of it. They believe their taxes can be lower if the poor are not helped. They totally blame the poor for their own condition, and we often hear the argument that the poor have ample chances to work and be successful, that they simply pass these by because they are lazy and they want to get paid for doing nothing.

The concept of cross-generational poverty is lost upon them. As far as the greedy are concerned, the only thing passed down in impoverished family lines is simple laziness.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello ThatOwlWoman,

Yes, she absolutely does.

So here's a question. Let's say I'm in favor of canceling student debt in most cases. How would you couch that proposal to make it palatable to the RWers? If you say "young people" they don't like that because young ppl should "suffer like we had to."

There must be some kind of creative solution to that. It's really a matter of perception. People who borrow money and then pay it off are rewarded with a sense of satisfaction at having accomplished a long term goal. They resent the idea that someone else got everything they got, but didn't have to pay it off as they overlook the fact that they got something other other individual did not get - that sense of accomplishment.

It's really a matter of selling the idea.

The person who was unable to complete their education, or did complete it and was unable to realize the vision of work that paid for the education is in an impossible situation. Leaving them shackled in debt for life consigns them to a life of regret and inability to succeed, whereas, if they are given a second chance they might still be able to have a good life in some other endeavor.

It is imperative that no one is allowed to get the education paid for by the government, and then go on to make big money. That's the one thing that is most bothersome to the individual who paid back the loans. A system must be created that if someone makes the big money, they pay off the student loans.

 

[PoliTalker]

There certainly is a recurring theme where the moment race is mentioned, people on the right call it 'throwing the race card.'

It is treated as if racism is a thing of the past, no longer exists, is only imaginary and made up by the left.

This strategy is suggesting we play into that myth.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Hello ThatOwlWoman,



There must be some kind of creative solution to that. It's really a matter of perception. People who borrow money and then pay it off are rewarded with a sense of satisfaction at having accomplished a long term goal. They resent the idea that someone else got everything they got, but didn't have to pay it off as they overlook the fact that they got something other other individual did not get - that sense of accomplishment.

It's really a matter of selling the idea.

The person who was unable to complete their education, or did complete it and was unable to realize the vision of work that paid for the education is in an impossible situation. Leaving them shackled in debt for life consigns them to a life of regret and inability to succeed, whereas, if they are given a second chance they might still be able to have a good life in some other endeavor.

It is imperative that no one is allowed to get the education paid for by the government, and then go on to make big money. That's the one thing that is most bothersome to the individual who paid back the loans. A system must be created that if someone makes the big money, they pay off the student loans.

I agree with that last bit. Maybe assistance with loan repayment could be done on the basis of whether the degree was in a profession that's got a shortage. But then you get into another issue -- would you favor paying off the student loans for a medical student, assuming there's a shortage of physicians, knowing that someday he/she might make a very good living much above the median income level?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I agree with that last bit. Maybe assistance with loan repayment could be done on the basis of whether the degree was in a profession that's got a shortage. But then you get into another issue -- would you favor paying off the student loans for a medical student, assuming there's a shortage of physicians, knowing that someday he/she might make a very good living much above the median income level?

right.

exactly.

we don't fucking know.

doing everything on a loan basis makes us try to guess the future.

eliminate the insurance and loan industry and free humanity for the totalitarianism of "future grabbing" by cartels.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

is everyone ready for a spiritual battle through space and time?