No, she can fuck off.
The oligarchy is killing us, and spinning language won’t change that. Meanwhile, ‘woke’ just means ‘social empathy’, which is ironically the solution to many of the problems the oligarchy is causing (and they’re not shy about this – Musk recently said empathy is bad).
We need more ‘woke’, not less. And being butthurt that the fascists are using ‘woke’ as a slur against us is childish and easy to ignore if you’re not too simple to get it.
Fuck this. I’m woke and proud of it. We all should be.
Fine. Then come up with a plan to educate conservatives. Because this thing where the state legislates new norms (e.g. bio men in bio women’s sports) is NOT making sense to them. They are freaking out because they don’t understand it. And we can’t just make laws to make them accept it.
From their perspective they are losing their country. We can laugh and call them backwards, but that won’t help. There HAS to be a plan that is better than, f-you wake up.
That’s a big problem that switching from ‘oligarch’ to ‘king’ won’t solve. Using different words is a very simplistic answer, when what we’re fighting here is not a language barrier but a wide cultural one.
The real issue is complex and multifaceted: conservatives have been highly propagandised through increasingly insulated media bubbles to the point that now there’s very little that can penetrate them, and switching up a few words will not get them to listen. They’ve been taught to be distrustful of facts and reality, and to believe that compassion is weakness.
I don’t know how to fix this, but watering down our language will not help. That’s been tried many times, and it always backfires.
And from personal experience, even if you find common ground and get them to recognize something is bad, they’ll sit back down in front of Fox News and revert to the norm before any of it matters. I had a “law and order, national security” type conservative acquaintance who right after the Trump classified documents story broke said Trump should go to prison for it (he also had to add that Hillary Clinton should go too). I’m certain he voted for Trump this time around. And he’s had nary a peep about the multiple war plans chats. They aren’t gettable if you just find the right issue or use the right words. If they’re going to change it’s going to happen on their own and over a long time.
There has to be a relentless flow of propaganda to keep them spun up. We need to shut that down.
We don’t need fucking conservatives to win anything in this country. I’m sick of cowards acting like they just won by 10%. They barely won this election, barely won control of the house, and the main issue in the election for independents wasn’t trans people or minorities, it was the economy.
The economy sucks for ordinary people because the ultra rich have been raiding it since COVID. And everyone, even conservatives, know that’s true. Americans hate these big corporations. Slotkin and her allies know that, and that’s why they’re trying to distract from it.
It’s disgusting how ready some of you are to throw your own neighbors under the bus so you can try to win over a couple fascist votes… Who will never vote for you. You will never win them over. They aren’t going to believe that you suddenly hate gay people and minorities. You will just look like a dishonest weakling to them, and they’ll be right.
We will win the next election by targeting independents with an economic message. If you want to lose then go ahead and make it about “woke” like a complete coward.
“The hell is a dang oligarch?”
“Means hillary can tell you what to do”
Why the fuck is everyone pretending they’re too stupid to know what an oligarch is? Just a couple years ago they said it all the time in reference to Russia
They’ll pretend they’re stupid so they can continue on with believing they’re not horrible people, but they know
Fuck conservatives. They don’t need to be educated, they need to be beaten. There are more people left of center than right, we just need to prove we’re actually going to fight for them. All of them. Not 80% and then we’ll start to strategize on how many “urban” voters we can lose to pick up white suburbanite conservatives.
They don’t need to be educated, they need to be beaten.
You cannot educate someone who refuses to learn, especially those who reject reason and knowledge. They support fascists because they worship force. They will continue laying waste to everything around them until their murderous shitshow is comprehensively defeated. Throwing sweet reason at them won’t achieve that.
That’s why I get impatient with those who suggest that the way forward is to tinker with the voting system, or to amend the Constitution some more, or to educate the populace. The fascists are at war with us right now. We need to pick our collective ass up off the ground and resist by any means necessary and stop pretending that the system is going to save us, or (like the DNC) that Trump will eventually piss off enough people that the Democrats can win another election, despite all the rigging and voter suppression.
This is an existential situation, the building’s on fire, now’s not the time to be talking about redecorating.
Just to drive this point home for the quiet listeners at the back of the house, I’ve had very long conversations with conservatives (I’m in a red area) who actually get more distrustful the more you relate to them. I’ve been told to my face that nobody cared that much about other people, and I was clearly only pretending to in order to make them listen to me. That it was obvious, because nobody cares that much. That empathy can only be manipulative, and is never real.
It took me years to understand this isn’t a contradiction, but that since they can’t imagine caring that much, I must be fake.
My whole outlook changed once I realised that. It’s insane, but many people literally can’t envision caring, and they think you’re fake and just want recognition for doing so.
Several of these surveys take on a different meaning once you realise there are fundamentally different perspectives like this.
e: and this is one of the biggest divides with conservatives. Simple word choice will not bridge this gap.
…well they are backwards, they’re only about one-third of the electorate, and they will never ever vote fascist-light; meanwhile there’s another unrepresented third of the electorate just waiting for anyone to offer them something worth voting FOR…
I’m not sure about this. People with money spent a lot to tell everyone that these things are problems. If we spent the same amount of money to say the opposite, opinions would differ.
Woke means understanding we live in an oligarchy in my mind. MAGA calls people sheep while complaining about them being woke in the same breath. They don’t even understand the language they use.
They don’t even understand the language they use.
They don’t have ideas. They just use words as pretexts for bullying and oppression. They worship force.
Woke is not weakness!
It’s funny, because the “Wake up, Sheeple!” line used to be what conservatives screamed at liberals for failing to understand their latest Ayn Rand inspired diatribe.
Then liberals adopted the “Wake up!” phrasing to describe structural racism, the enormous socio-economic cost of the Military Industrial Complex, and the inherent class warfare of privatization schemes. That caused “Woke” to fall out of fashion with the right.
Now it’s totally lost any context. “Woke” just means being visually queer coded or insufficiently religious. Its barely more than a slur.
specifically it was used by AA people in the start, now it has been co-opted by the right wingers and perverted, much like they did with “punisher”
We don’t need more “pro-israel centrists”
The reason Dem turnout in generals is depressed, is our choices are CIA war criminals like Slotking or a republican.
She is the problem, not the 99.9% who don’t want an oligarchy
I completely agree, but it’s also likely a reasonable representation of her Michigan constituents. It’s not a terribly diverse state.
No CIA member is a good representative of their state.
I mean Michigan was the epicenter and main stronghold of the Uncommitted Movement; there’s obviously a good amount of support for progressive Palestine policy there.
Michigan has the second highest population of people from the mideast in absolute numbers, and the highest proportionally.
While racial background doesn’t determine support for a cause, it’s not surprising that people would turn out in higher numbers to advocate for the lives of people more closely related to them.
You’re pointing to a Mossad coordinated disinformation campaign as evidence that Michigan is a good spot to look for popular national support? The campaign designed to create a wedge issue in the 2024 election by simultaneously driving disinformation down politicians’ throats while stoking anti-Israel sentiment among progressive communities?
I’m not saying it’s a bad take because obviously I can’t prove to you that Mossad played a part, but think about the result of the “Uncommitted Movement” and who in Israel benefits by having Trump in office.
Disclaimer for the incoming troll replies: I’m not pro-genocide, I’m simply in favor of choosing the best of possible outcomes, of which Harris was clearly a better outcome for Palestine. Can you even imagine her announcing the Riviera of the Middle East?
Good to know there are still Americans who haven’t learned a goddamn thing from November. This situation is directly the result of Democrat-voting Americans crying about the lesser evil while shutting down all attempts to make it not evil.
You’re pointing to a Mossad coordinated disinformation campaign as evidence that Michigan is a good spot to look for popular national support?
God not everything you don’t like is a foreign disinformation campaign.
I’m not saying it’s a bad take because obviously I can’t prove to you that Mossad played a part, but think about the result of the “Uncommitted Movement” and who in Israel benefits by having Trump in office.
Uncommitted wasn’t about giving Trump the White House, but about getting Harris and the DNC to stop supporting the genocide and then win in November. That obviously didn’t work out because rather than support them or even stay silent people like you kept shutting them down and dismissing their concerns about both the election and their loved ones being brutally murdered by goddamn modern Nazis.
Can you even imagine her announcing the Riviera of the Middle East?
No, but I also couldn’t imagine her winning, which is exactly the problem here.
But demanding opposition to genocide and neoliberal policies is purity testing!
Why can’t the left just accept liberal capitalism instead of purity testing human rights?
Surely the problem is with leftist individuals who hate liberalism so much they must secretly support Trump.
It couldn’t be any systemic or material issues that have compounded over decades, leading to populist sentiment and opposition to the status quo, as people demand solutions to the cost of living crisis that they’ve seen only ever get worse. It was surely not a mistake to not run of overwhelmingly popular democratic socialist policies that would’ve directly addressed those issues, or run on no weapons embargo despite it’s overwhelming support. The DNC did nothing wrong, it’s all the voters fault, especially those anti-genocide ones. Who cares if they had loved ones killed by Israel, they should have known better, it’s a simple trolley problem.
/s (this kind of sentiment is so annoying)
Stalin, I hate engaging with commies, but I can’t resist a good pun.
The left doesn’t have a cohesive platform, nor any political power. Your indignation is not righteous, and your sentiment does not inspire. US politicians are generally idiots, yes, but I disagree that calling for a more moderate path in the face of a populist criminal was a bad take. We are seeing it play out in real time, and we’re all in the same boat so I hope you’re enjoying the ride.
That ‘more moderate path’ has been an abject failure, as evident by the election.
Neoliberalism ideology is what has paved the way to rampant fascism in American politics. Neoliberalism, and even liberalism for that matter, will never be a successful opposition to fascism. Being beholden to corporate interests, at the expense of the voters interest nonetheless, will and has only ever normalized if not accelerated fascist policies.
The only way to have a genuine opposition to right-wing populism is by running on a platform of left-wing populism. Ignoring the material harms people are experiencing and aware of is a losing strategy.
Left-wing populist positions are overwhelmingly popular, they are even popular with independent and Republican voters. Those positions directly benefit everyone in the working class. The only issue for the neoliberal administration in charge of the DNC is that those policies come at the expense of billionaires and massive corporations, the people who fund their convention and races to secure their interests over the general population.
Human rights is nonnegotiable. If anyone is willing to throw a group of people under the bus for any reason, they are no ally.
If the DNC prioritized running on those popular policies and actually attempted to earn as many votes as they possibly could by offering concessions to as much people as they could, they would have won. Trump would not be president. We wouldn’t be funding one genocide while ramping up concentration camps for ‘enemies within’. But the DNC has proven themselves to priorities their corporate backers over the people. Only a small few like Bernie, AOC, and The Squad are genuinely interested in opposing the fascism of the Republican party. If they gain control of the DNC, we may have a chance out of this through legislation and reform. If the DNC continues to prop up corporate interests over progressives, then the way out will become much much bloodier.
Fascism does not compromise. Appeasement is the problem. Opposition is necessary.
Edit: after seeing your other comment, I’ll provide polls that support my point, on the large support of both on the weapons embargo and on left-wing populist policies.
Progressive policies that a majority of Americans support
Here Are 34 Polls That Show A Ceasefire & Weapons Embargo Help Kamala Win
Kamala Would Have Won With A Weapons Embargo
Democrats’ Working-Class Failures, Analysis Finds, Are ‘Why Trump Beat Harris’
2024 Post-Election Report: A retrospective and longitudinal data analysis on why Trump beat Harris
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz’s Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
I’m not God, I’m just a regular person.
I provided instructions for trolls in my post, but you seem to have missed that part in the bits you quoted. Despite my policy on feeding trolls, I’ll repeat that I’m not endorsing the actions of the Netanyahu government.
If you want to put your head in the sand and pretend that foreign intelligence isn’t influencing nearly every flavor of social media on the internet, that’s on you.
I believe your understanding of how voting works is flawed. A vote only matters if it is cast. Withholding votes does not motivate politicians in any democratic system in the world. The math simply doesn’t work.
As you’ve clearly come to understand, the uncommitted movement was an abject failure. That you continue to cling to the idea that it failed due to rational progressives makes me wonder if you are a troll yourself.
Uncommitted is not how political shifts happen in the United States. Increasingly it is single issue voters like you, who don’t like how a candidate positions on a single issue and chooses to abstain or vote for the other side. To be clear, that’s your choice and I wouldn’t fault you for standing on your principles if you weren’t simultaneously complaining about the outcome of standing on those principles.
As it is, you promoted a failed political strategy that, not wholly but certainly in part, led to the reelection of Trump and the MAGAs. I voted for the candidate who would most plausibly bring about a less horrific end to the Gaza conflict. This was NEVER about dismissing concerns about a group of people on the other side of the planet, it was ALWAYS about making the best choice for THIS country.
I think some part of you knows that, but I totally understand being irrationally angry with the world, random internet commenters, whatever. Shit is getting crazy out here, and tbh we all need each other more than ever. Please take my deepest apologies if the truth of what I’m saying is upsetting. Progressivism has never been about getting everything you want in a perfect candidate, it has always been about compromising in order to achieve incremental improvements. You don’t have to align with that view, but your passion certainly would be welcomed.
I provided instructions for trolls in my post, but you seem to have missed that part in the bits you quoted. Despite my policy on feeding trolls, I’ll repeat that I’m not endorsing the actions of the Netanyahu government.
I know, but also don’t care.
f you want to put your head in the sand and pretend that foreign intelligence isn’t influencing nearly every flavor of social media on the internet, that’s on you.
Of course it is, but that’s neither here nor there. The implication that outrage at Biden’s support for Israel is mostly a result of that influence is, however, fucking ridiculous. Why do you believe that people can’t exercise their right to hold their elected politicians accountable without it being a Russian or Israeli plot?
Withholding votes does not motivate politicians in any democratic system in the world. The math simply doesn’t work.
Threatening to withhold votes certainly does, because those politicians are at least ostensibly trying to get elected. That’s why Democratic politicians throw breadcrumbs for their constituents and have a milquetoast-but-better-than-nothing stance on civil rights, and it’s what Uncommitted tried to do.
As you’ve clearly come to understand, the uncommitted movement was an abject failure. That you continue to cling to the idea that it failed due to rational progressives makes me wonder if you are a troll yourself.
I’m trying really hard not to break rule 3 right now. What kind of pressure campaign would have satisfied your rational sensibilities?
Uncommitted is not how political shifts happen in the United States.
Then how do they?
Increasingly it is single issue voters like you, who don’t like how a candidate positions on a single issue and chooses to abstain or vote for the other side. To be clear, that’s your choice and I wouldn’t fault you for standing on your principles if you weren’t simultaneously complaining about the outcome of standing on those principles.
This isn’t the outcome of anti-genocide principles; it’s the result of decades of lesser evil politics, which America is clearly done with. This downfall of American democracy did not start in 2024. Ever heard of the gambler’s ruin? Well welcome to the centrist’s ruin, where you keep betting your democracy until the far right eats it all.
As it is, you promoted a failed political strategy that, not wholly but certainly in part, led to the reelection of Trump and the MAGAs.
Again, what better strategy would you have promoted that would have led to change?
I voted for the candidate who would most plausibly bring about a less horrific end to the Gaza conflict. This was NEVER about dismissing concerns about a group of people on the other side of the planet, it was ALWAYS about making the best choice for THIS country.
What less horrific end? Genocide with rainbows? And in the first place do you seriously think a government that ran on dismissing genocide would be anything but an appetizer to fascism? If they don’t care about brown people on the other side of the world, they don’t care about you.
Please take my deepest apologies if the truth of what I’m saying is upsetting. Progressivism has never been about getting everything you want in a perfect candidate, it has always been about compromising in order to achieve incremental improvements.
Has anyone ever told you you’re patronizing? And in the first place what improvements? Your program of compromise and incremental change has led to, or at least failed to prevent, capital F Fascism in the United States. Maybe try something else next time, if there is a next time.
PS: Now is probably a good time to mention that I’m not American.
I’m bored with you so best of luck in our shared future hellscape. I definitely LOL’d when I saw you weren’t American.
I was more referring to her point about distancing themselves from advocating for diversity. It’s probably not their biggest priority when 73% of the state is white and 61% are Christians. That’s more disproportionate than Tennessee.
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/michigan
https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/state/michigan/
It’s a 50/50 state and the Republican party is overwhelmingly white. 73% white likely means Democratic voters are 50%+ minority. We have to stop pretending we need to appeal to anti-woke Republicans. Even in less diverse states, it’s still a diverse party.
I was only saying it’s possible that’s the message she’s getting from her constituents, which is any resident of Michigan. It was educated speculation, not fact, nor is it my personal opinion of these issues. I’d like to see Democrats become an opposition party, as far from the Republicans as possible, just the same as you.
Maybe they should encourage some more aggressive left wing people to compete against them to broaden horizons of the dabates, like bringing a ‘communist’ along with ‘socailist’ to debate a republican
Elissa Slotkin IS the oligarchy. She is the Hot Dog Princess. Her grandpa owned BallPark Franks—subsidiary of the Tyson Foods megacorp. Every time someone eats a hot dog, Elissa gets more passive income than most folks earn from a year’s labor.
Among the shittiest hot dogs on the market. It’s Nathan’s or Hebrew National, everything else is garbage.
There are places in the USA where you can find smaller, more local hot dog makers.
The best I’ve had are Hippey’s Franks from Denver, Pennsylvania.
Ream’s in Elburn IL. Superb
Better than Hebrew Nat?
ETA subsidiary of ConAgra
So much better than Hebrew National, Ballpark, Nathan’s or any national brand. Bigger, more and better flavor.
Well I just need to road trip a couple thousand miles and get a good dog. It’s been YEARS.
I don’t think it’s just a US east coast thing. See if there are any local butchers near you and check out what they sell. Or, look for local, independent meat companies.
We don’t have indie butchers or meat companies near, anymore, but I’m going out of town in a couple of weeks so I’ll see if where I’m going does. They probably do.
Nathan’s make me extremely sick because they are sweetened with sorbitol.
Huh, thanks for this. I have family that swears by them, but they also make me sick. I didn’t realize they had sorbitol. I had wondered why their brand was so disagreeable to me.
Hebrew national > Aren’t sausages mostly pork?
Hot Dogs can be pork, chicken or beef, or even a combination. Hebrew National is all beef. I prefer all beef wieners myself.
She sucks, I voted for Harper in the primaries but the Dems are full of neo-libs like her. It’s hard to see that party go more liberal even with Sander’s and AOC’s help
They actively work against Sanders and AOC. Both are the enemy to the average corporate-whore Dem.
I didn’t realize hot dogs got so expensive!
Except at Costco.
RIP the Costco Polish dog.
She also is only in office because she kept district hopping to avoid getting primaried until she was up for a senate seat, whereupon the Democratic Party pushed out or made concessions to all the other better candidates so they would drop. She’s widely reviled.
Calling it now. newsom’s VP pick.
“Not resonating with voters”
Bernie and AOC’s “Fighting Oligarchy” campaign is pulling in more people to their rallies than attended Obama’s in 08.
Don’t peddle that horseshit you Liberal traitor.
No CIA member is ever liberal.
Neoliberal
OK but that’s not what they said, is it?
She’s so full of shit. The number 1 issue in every 2024 poll of swing voters was the economy and inflation. That’s why Trump won. When people think the economy sucks, the incumbent party almost always loses.
All this bullshit about “woke” is just another attempt by the ultra wealthy to distract from economic issues, because they know the solutions for them hurt their bottom line. She and her GOP allies will do anything to stop us from improving labor rights and economic conditions for ordinary people.
She’s a lying weakling backstabber.
If you think your salvation is in the neoliberals that enabled their opposition into getting us here for 50 years, you’re almost as deluded as Trump’s legion of useful idiots.
The DNC would rather lose to the Fascists than move to the left. The former keeps their shared bribe gravy train running which is the point, fighting their bribers would not.
The DNC either needs to be stolen by a populist leftist as Trump did with the RNC, or get comfortable because if the choice is fascist or neoliberal as it has been for half a century, we will continue to find new depths to descend to until total system collapse.
Fascism is the union of business and state to accelerate metastasis at any cost, let’s say we even have another free election, and best case scenario we elect another neoliberal, I can’t respect your opinion or consider it informed if you truly believe the Neoliberals will once back in power do a thing to meaningfully reign in the capitalist’s governmental capture or redistribute their Ill gotten wealth.
If the Neoliberals somehow get back into power in 4 years, they’ll leave the table set for the fascists to march again in another 4. Affirmation ribbons are leaps and bounds better than scapegoats, but you can’t eat affirmation ribbons, nor can you live in them. Our mass homeless population, our murder for profit confidence scheme we call American Healthcare, our education system at every level in utter ruin, these are not partisan issues because they would cost big corpo exploited profits to fix, and so both parties protect the status quo from us, the people that suffer and die under them. Fascists point and laugh at you, but neoliberals just shrug and go “market forces, amirite 🤷?”
Oligarchy is why we have Trump. There probably isn’t hope, but if you refuse understand big corpo is the enemy of the people and the cause of all this stemming from the Reagan Revolution, then not only will you burn in the fires of fascism, you’ll burn ignorant as to why and how to boot.
Grrr that hard left who wants to feed the hungry and house the homeless, and pay for it by taking money from people who won’t even feel it, wow so radical.
Willfully or blindly ignorant, but the result is the same.
I feel like the headline conveys a different message than even what the article does:
“She said Democrats should stop using the term ‘oligarchy,’ a phrase she said doesn’t resonate beyond coastal institutions, and just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'”
argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy”
She’s literally saying the word oligarchy sounds pretentious and an opposition to kings resonates better, and that people think the party is weak and they need to present themselves more aggressively.
Click bait is click bait.
“She said Democrats should stop using the term ‘oligarchy,’ a phrase she said doesn’t resonate beyond coastal institutions, and just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'”
Doesn’t resonate beyond the coastal institutions such as… Iowa? and Montana? Where Bernie and AOC did giant rallies?
This milquetoast Republican-lite act doesn’t really resonate anywhere including coastal institutions. Look at the results of the last election cycle. The difference is that on the coasts there are enough people with money that’ll vote to keep the status quo going. Life is good enough here that the people here can still – and just barely – imagine a future.
In the middle of the country where everyone’s broke and things are thoroughly hopeless, they see little difference between keeping the status quo going and burning it all to the ground.
That’s exactly where and why Trump’s “take the country back” rhetoric works. The country is screwed up and pretty obviously not going to be made dramatically better by silly little neoliberal plans such as a tax break for opening a new small business or whatever.
So, I’m honestly asking: how is this republican lite? The headline conveys that she’s saying to tone down attacks on the oligarchy, but then her words in the article make it clear she’s advocating for a change of wording, not message.
Agree or disagree on the wording change, I don’t see how “we need to stop trump and the oligarchs” is progressive, and “we need to stop trump and the wannabe kings” is milquetoast republican-lite.As for the other parts, would your definition of the middle of the country striken with economic issues happen to include Michigan? The state that just elected her? Maybe when she’s talking about things people in focus groups shared she might be talking about people from the state she represents?
So, I’m honestly asking: how is this republican lite?
Sure:
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
So, we need to wave flags, stop being “weak and woke”, and be alphas.
This shit is something you’d hear at a fucking Trump rally.
Edit: BTW, notice how we’re not talking about any actual issue here, just optics and messaging. That’s because the policy agenda is still the same weak sauce, tried and failed neoliberal policy playbook that has taken the country far enough off of the rails to make the people easily lured in by right-wing populism, demagoguery, and fascism.
You literally criticized her for saying the democratic party needs to work on being seen as weak, and then a paragraph later criticized them for being weak.
Do you disagree that the perception of the Democrats as weak hurts them? Do you think it’s wrong to frame opposition to trump as supporting the country?I don’t think you’re saying that only Republicans can say they care about the country, have an assertive plan, or be proactive and energetic.
I think letting the Republicans own national pride and define what a “real American” is has been a major loss, and finding a way to say to voters that you have a patriotic duty to resist fascists is correct.
That your response to someone saying we need to use “caring about the country” to try to get people to stop fascists from tearing it apart is “This shit is something you’d hear at a fucking Trump rally” is exactly the problem.This is seriously just looking for a reason to be mad at the Democrats. You’re clearly upset at them for their failures, but you’re also seemingly upset at those amongst them saying they should work on their failings that helped create those failures?
Even if meaningful policy changes could be enacted anytime in the next decade, do you think it has a chance of happening if the people in front of it are seen as meek, deferential, and not caring about the country?
And yeah, it’s a set of remarks pertaining to part of a speech, one of the topics of which is a change in messaging strategy. I don’t think every set of remarks made by a politician needs to be entirely focused on policy. It’s a speech that was given to party volunteers about the need to change strategy because what they’ve been doing hasn’t been working.
I’m not sure I can remember a single time a progressive politician put out a navel-gazing messaging statement into the media. It’s almost exclusively done by the centrists who want to pretend they’re just helping out while using it to try to derail progressive campaigns that are gaining attention. And it’s the last thing you should do publicly if one of the aesthetics you’re chasing is “being alpha”.
You literally criticized her for saying the democratic party needs to work on being seen as weak, and then a paragraph later criticized them for being weak.
That’s because she’s more worried about messaging and optics than doing the actual work required to stand up to Trump. It’s not about perception. It’s not about messaging. They look weak and are perceived as weak because they are weak, and act weakly in opposition. She thinks (as you seem to) that it’s primarily (or entirely) a perception problem. It isn’t.
Clearly you think it’s a perception problem, since all you’re doing is talking about perception. Why haven’t you been talking about policy this entire time?
Isn’t that a silly statement?
Making a statement about messaging isn’t the same as saying the only thing that matters is messaging.
I think that there is a perception problem, but that doesn’t mean I think that there’s nothing else. And weirdly, I can talk about the one without denying the other exists.Clearly you think it’s a perception problem, since all you’re doing is talking about perception. Why haven’t you been talking about policy this entire time?
Um because that’s what the lady in the article talked about the whole time.
Making a statement about messaging isn’t the same as saying the only thing that matters is messaging.
Again:
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
It’s not just a statement… it’s the “plan”. A messaging adjustment is the plan.
They’re perceived as all talk because that’s all most of them do. Their plans are to talk some more. I’d rather them get caught trying to do something…basically anything at all at this point.
That’s why I’m pro AOC, pro Corey Booker, pro David Hogg primarying safe district Blue dogs, and pro Van Hollen. Talking head centrist Democrats can get fucked as far as I’m concerned.
There’s some statement or another from one of them every time a Democrat attempts anything. With friends like these you don’t even need enemies.
One of the main talking heads of the DNC was saying that Democrats should roll over and play dead, and on the CR they did exactly that.
An Oligarch & a King are not the same fucking thing.
Sorry if people use big, scary words that mean things.
EDIT: What’s actually pretentious is talking down to people b/c you believe they are too stoopid to understand what an Oligarch is or learn if they don’t. She’s talking down to the Democratic Party for not talking down to their constituents. Pretty fucking pretentious if you ask me.
… Saying a word resonates better isn’t the same as saying someone is too stupid to understand it.
She wasn’t talking about who to push back against, but about messaging. “Stand up to oligarchs” doesn’t have the same impact as “stand up to would-be kings”. We sort of have a national history of opposition to kings, so it touches on some more foundational themes that mesh well with a push for constitutional order.
It’s not an academic paper. Your speech doesn’t get points deducted for using the wrong word for a domineering political ruler.
Have you just decided to be angry, and if you have to pivot from anger that “she’s pro-oligarchy” to anger that “she’s falsely implying that the oligarchy believes they rule by divine right”, so be it?
LMAO I’m well aware far-left lemmy will downvote me for saying this, but the fact that you’re copping an attitude with that person is funny because lefties are absolutely TERRIBLE at messaging. Democrats and lefties suck so badly at communicating with voters that a guy who rambled incoherently about immigrants eating pets was able to beat them.
Sadly, no, most Americans don’t know what the hell an ‘oligarch’ is because that’s what happens when you have decades of Republicans de-funding education. Pointing this out isn’t ‘pretentious’, because it’s sadly true.
b/c you believe they are too stoopid to understand what an Oligarch is
They’re not? Have you looked around?
Look at this guy go past the headlines & read the article: that’s heresy around here.
woke is what republicans use to attack whatever they dont like, if a democrat uses woke, they arnt really a DEMocrat, alot of them have a veneer of being dem or progressive but they often use buzzwords of right wingers to justify thier positions.
Her name is: Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)
Just so you don’t accidentally vote for her.
Ulg shes the one voting with repubs
More woke, less selling out your citizens to the wealthy. Thats what I want.
Fighting Oligarchy resonates greatly. But yes, the dems have focused too much on the culture war in favour of participating in the class war against the working class.
That is definitely something they should put waaaay more focus on. Trump is the cry for help of much of the working class, if people would believe you actually fought FOR the working people in your country, the dems would be unstoppable.
Put her near the top of the list to be primaried.
I am sure this slide to the right will surely work.
Read the fucking article before you comment. It’s obvious most did not.
The article title is incredibly misleading. Even the first sentence of the article makes clear what she was actually saying:
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the “oligarchy” on Thursday, arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans and should be replaced with “kings.”
She’s advocating for using a more relatable term, not for a change in party values. The “woke” comment irks me, but again is focused on terminology and not ideology.
When you need the dumb fucks’ votes, you gotta speak their language. Or at least water it down to be palatable to someone who was “educated” in our broken-ass system.
I read the article and I completely disagree with her. ‘Oligarch’ means something different than ‘king’, and many Americans don’t have the same negative reaction to the word ‘king’, which is often romanticised in media, whereas ‘oligarch’ calls up images of nefarious machinations in authoritarian regimes – exactly what’s actually going on.
Also, being whiny that the bullies are calling us ‘woke’ is reactionary and misses the whole point. This is where we should be doubling down, not diluting our language.
e: also also, having spent decades in UxD and usability (which entailed a lot of surveying and analysis), I’d be hesitant to rely on surveys that show a population’s preference for one word over another, because word feels are affected by far more than knowledge of their definitions, and the reasons aren’t easily captured in a survey. The reasons are what matter, not necessarily the word, and I’m sure she didn’t explore this enough to understand the sociology here.
What’s more “alpha” than backing down from a bully and adhering to their chosen framing of an issue?
You know what would actually be “alpha” (ugh)? Not trying to figure out the ideal terminology for whatever state she thinks the populace is inclined to right now and actually driving the conversation to bring people to our viewpoint. Like having a national tour highlighting wealth inequality and corruption by literal mustache twirling villains. Because if you say it enough and talk about the problem that’s right there fucking everything up right now and LEAD, they’ll adopt whatever goddamned term you feel like.
Yes they mean something different. If you go ask 5 random people what an oligarch is, at least one is likely not to know what it means.
The “woke” reputation stuff is also a little weird, but there again, the people using it as an insult probably don’t have a good working definition.
It’s easy to say “words have meaning” but lots of people, even left leaning ones, don’t always know what those meanings are.
I’m not saying ‘words have meaning.’
I’m saying we create meaning and we should not just give in to the fascists’ definitions.
They do not define us.
Our country was also founded on saying fuck off to a king. It’s part of the foundational mythology of the country. To a lot of people the word oligarchy means precisely nothing.
Rule by powerful elites isn’t unamarican. It’s actually kinda the opposite, given the caveats on our democratic system and it’s history.
A king however is actually one of the few unambiguously unamerican things out there.This is not to disagree with your point, but more to say that it’s not without room for debate.
As for the “weak and woke” bit, I’m gonna disagree. That one read to me as a need to address public perception, not criticism from the right. Backing down from a bully is different from trying to change public perception. I didn’t see it as a statement of needing to be less woke, but of needing to be perceived as being effective and concerned about things other than the most pejorative senses of the term woke.
That political parties need to be viewed in a positive light by the public to be effective is inescapable.Most of your peers don’t have that reaction. They should~ but they don’t. Ask them to name a king not from a Disney movie and report back. *edit: ask them to name the king independence was fought over. I’ll bet many can’t, and I’ll bet none can give you the actual reasons (other than vague concepts like ‘freedon’ or ‘taxation’).
I’m with you. Let’s stop fighting each other and figure this out.
I can definitively tell you that anyone I know who I could ask that question of would be able to say Richard, George or Luis with a random number afterwards, at least knows king George due to musical theater, and would be able to give a more detailed breakdown of the factors behind the revolution than the vaguely conceptual, although I’m not sure what level of granularity you need for it to be the “real” reasons. (You’d get taxation without representation, quartering troops, Boston massacre, and probably some that i can’t recall and a “the rich white ruling class resented being governed and seized an opportunity for justifiable rebellion and the cause was just pretext”)
My brother in law would be the most uncertain. He almost certainly doesn’t know what an oligarch is, but he has enough 'murika to him to be resentful of royalty. From the kids most royalty he could name would be animated I think. Probably hand wave the essentials of the revolution without getting names right, and I have a sneaking suspicion he’d call the Boston tea party a cause.
There’s a lot of variety in what you find in people.
Yea but opposing ‘kings’ isn’t even close to the problem of ‘oligarchs’
One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.
If it was really not ideologically tilted she’d suggest ‘billionaire’ instead of oligarch, but the dems are afraid of losing the support of the 'good billionaires
I don’t see anything wrong with talking about the oligarchs as “kings” as well. I think that language could work just as well with Zuck, Bezos, etc. as it would with Trump.
I think it would have been better if she had used a “yes, and”, recognising that the Sanders/AOC rallies are bringing a lot of people out and getting them more engaged, then suggesting using the “kings” language on top of it.
while your point is benign enough-- so no shade on you, I do think context matters, focused language matters, and watering down language-- like Slotkin is trying to do-- is a cheap rhetorical trick to control the narrative. Her proposition is at best pointless and at worst manipulative to sabotage progressive messaging with nonsense. Its a classic zionist move too.
I don’t see anything wrong with talking about the oligarchs as “kings” as well. I think that language could work just as well with Zuck, Bezos, etc. as it would with Trump.
I disagree, I don’t think people would resonate with that language as applied to other, ‘good’/quiet billionaires like Gates, Buffet, or Page - in fact I think that’s exactly the point of swapping terms because it sounds more specific to how those billionaires utilize their wealth and influence instead of the fact that they have it to begin with.
One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.
I’m sure the average, middle-of-the-road voter with mundane concerns thinks that. So relatable.
“King” isn’t even related to capitalism.
People really like first not admitting they didn’t read, then doubling down on absolute nonsense around here.
“People shouldn’t be able to have that much money when everyone else is struggling”
You’re right, that is completely unrelatable, who would ever think like that
People really like first not admitting they didn’t read, then doubling down on absolute nonsense around here.
You speaking for yourself there?
I think we’re both talking past each other: oligarchy doesn’t imply capitalism, either.
The order you wrote the 2 sentences—kings…oligarchs then one…the other—isn’t parallel. Oligarchs have lesser, shared authority than a king, and neither implies capitalism, so semantic cues weren’t clear enough to reject suggested parallelism.
Someone who knows the cognitive meaning of oligarch would be confused the way you wrote that.
Anyhow, anti-capitalist sentiment isn’t really that relatable to many Americans: too many Americans dream about gaining obscene wealth, socialism is still a dirty word among too many, they think those business elites somehow “earned it more” than others. There is some reason to think criticizing power (elites stacking the deck in their favor like unelected rulers) is more likely to broadly appeal to those folk. Meeting them where they at with a more familiar word isn’t irrational, either.
While I’m fine with explicit language to oppose business oligarchs, I also see an argument for a different tact & same results in rustier, less urban states.
The… cognitive meaning? Wtf is a ‘cognitive’ meaning?
There is some reason to think criticizing power (elites stacking the deck in their favor like unelected rulers) is more likely to broadly appeal to those folk
And how do you think those elites are stacking the deck?? I think you’re intentionally dismissing something that most americans understand extremely well - that the ‘elite’ are able to stack the deck in their favor because they have obscene wealth. Elon bought his way into trump’s circle and fucked with Wisconsin’s election using his immense fortune and influence. That isn’t a mystery, not even to diehard conservatives.
The other issue with ‘kings’ is that in a MONarchy, there is only one monarch, one King. Even the people you’re claiming to speak for know that the problem extends well beyond Trump, and thinking of Elon and Bezos and Zuck and Gates all as Kings of their own kingdom unnecessarily complicates what is otherwise a clear quid-pro-quo relationship between them and a government they are supposed to be subservient to. Oligarchs may be ‘officially’ less than the governing structure they’re a part of, but they are the defining feature of a government by the name of oligarchy.
I also see an argument for a different tact & same results in rustier, less urban states.
I have family in those states, and even though we have differing voting habits, they have always shared my resentment against those with ill-begotten obscene wealth and influence. It is often one of the few things we have in common politically, and I think democrats just don’t want it to be true.
Wtf is a ‘cognitive’ meaning?
Cognitive meaning is when words are used to convey information and emotive meaning is when words are used to convey your own beliefs (your emotions).
And how do you think those elites are stacking the deck??
It’s not about me. It’s about how others think, and they don’t necessarily think wealth is a problem. They may think more about power & corruption.
I think you’re intentionally dismissing something that most americans understand extremely well
I think you overestimate Americans & don’t know how many think unlike you.
they have always shared my resentment against those with ill-begotten obscene wealth and influence
That’s cool for your family.
It’s a mixed bag: plenty of people in those states also vote the way they do because they think they someday could be rich. There’s an anti-intellectual strain that dislikes people who say words like oligarch.
Merely complaining that someone is rich is oblique & takes some steps & assumptions to arrive to the part that bothers people. Complaining that they exercise undue power over you & cheat you out of a fair shot makes the point directly.
Many had little problem with the wealthy itself until they saw the Musks, Bezos, & Zuckerbergs line up with the president for favors, ie, corruption.
Yea but opposing ‘kings’ isn’t even close to the problem of ‘oligarchs’
I don’t disagree, but for the sake of elections, they’re effectively equivalent. I agree the billionaires are most of the problem, but their names aren’t on the ballot. It’s the guy who is trying to play king.
It’s the guy who is trying to play king
yea… except he’s just the end result of a far broader problem
This is exactly the concern with hand-wringing over semantics- the democrats aren’t losing because they aren’t being vocal enough about their opposition to Trump, they’re losing because they’re actively avoiding the root problem.
Pick another word for oligarchs if you want, so long as the attention is being drawn to the root problem of wealth inequality and the billionare class. Don’t just abandon the issue because you’re afraid it looks like you might be critiquing our economic model when that’s absolutely what we’re doing
but their names aren’t on the ballot.
Theres a lot more to fighting the oligarchy than voting.
Sure, but I would say it’s a good thing to focus on for a minority political party.
Exactly.
I disagree. How exactly is that obvious?
You’re just sore that we all think she’s DNC trash.
Do you know what the word “most” means? Do you also see that the article misrepresents her position which is basically “use an easier word than ologarch”?
Take a breath; if you did read the article, you apparently didn’t read my comment. It doesn’t say “if you disagree it’s obvious you didn’t read it”.
take your upvote for reading the source and making me do the same.
Or you know, we could focus on the problem, which is oligarchy…
