Politics is not always “hard facts” and sometimes it’s just “perception and feelings”. When I saw this meme I had a reaction based on what I have seen over the last 5-10 years. I am one person on the internet. Feel free to ignore me, but also feel free to recognize that I may be representing an opinion shared by many other people that are not commenting on this thread.
I see posts on here all the time and comments on here all the time that collect to give me a perception of the “community”. Along with talking with friends and family. And not only reading headlines about things a politician said, but listening to their actual words. It is not worth it to me to google sources for you for every opinion or perception I have.
You mentioned El Sayed as an example. I saw a headline yesterday praising him for not turning his back on trans people in his 60 minutes interview. I listened to that interview and didn’t hear anything particularly pro trans. He basically said the government doesn’t need to get involved. Which is a great opinion to have.
Do I feel like having it out with you about how “woke” he is as a candidate? Not really. Especially not when it doesn’t matter.
So what you are saying then is that everybody had beenwoke.
The time we’re discussing when the Democrats were supposedly “too woke.” They had the same positions then that you call reasonable now.
You just don’t know it because you don’t care about the facts. The Democratic Party was never “particularly pro-trans” beyond the government staying out of people’s business.
I didn’t want to have to google, but you made me. This article seems to be saying many things I am saying. Democrats went to far being “woke” and have chilled out some.
Christ, finally. The amount I have to twist people’s arms on this website to do the most basic homework to support their positions. It’s completely ridiculous.
That article is very scant on details and specifics. It mentions “defund the police,” which was mostly a slogan used by activists rather than the party, and which, as the article mentions (and as I mentioned previously) never actually went anywhere and was walked back, with Biden calling specifically to “fund the police” and with many places raising police budgets instead. In spite of this, there was a perception that Democrats actually did defund the police. Not the reality.
It doesn’t really talk about democrat’s positions on trans rights at all. It mentions #MeToo, and one random state assemblywoman who talked about cancelling Thanksgiving.
My whole point is not that there was no perception of the Democrats being woke, but that it was just a perception. Nothing in that article actually challenges that. It just quotes other people who had that perception. You can say, “politics is about feelings and perceptions” but all that makes me think of is how Republicans “felt like” Obama turned the country into a socialist republic.
Here is a Ballotpedia page for Hillary Clinton’s stances on LGBT rights in 2016. I would love to know which parts of it are “particularly pro-trans” rather than just keeping the government out of trans people’s business and ensuring equal protection under the law.
Christ, finally. The amount I have to twist people’s arms on this website to do the most basic homework to support their positions. It’s completely ridiculous.
I got better things to do with my life than to dig up sources to defend my opinion to a random person on the internet. As I said, I read plenty of things, news articles, lemmy articles and comments. There’s podcasts that I listen to. I am hyper aware if what I’m seeing is facts or opinions. I love polling podcasts as they are pure numbers and facts.
I do all this so when I need to have an opinion on something, I don’t need to spend hours “doing homework”. If I felt like I didn’t understand something and needed to research it, I would.
I didn’t know what “woke 1” meant, I googled it and found an article that seemed to validate exactly what I’m saying. “Woke 1” is not used as a good phase of the democratic party. Period. The end. That still not good enough for you? Fine.
Honestly, I feel like you and I are 75% on the same side here.
I got better things to do with my life than to dig up sources to defend my opinion to a random person on the internet
If you have better things to do than source your claims, you probably have better things to do than to make them in the first place.
I love polling podcasts as they are pure numbers and facts.
Well, facts about people’s perceptions of things.
I do all this so when I need to have an opinion on something, I don’t need to spend hours “doing homework”. If I felt like I didn’t understand something and needed to research it, I would.
Then I would think that providing a source would be trivially easy. You’re saying that you’ve already done your homework, you just didn’t want to show it to me because… I don’t really know why. Like, when I ask for a source, I’m asking where your information is coming from. If your information is coming from a podcast, then cite the podcast. It’s not a question of whether you’ve researched it. Do you think of sources as proving to some teacher that you put effort in? They’re about showing the reader where the information comes from, so they can evaluate follow along and evaluate it themselves.
I didn’t know what “woke 1” meant, I googled it and found an article that seemed to validate exactly what I’m saying. “Woke 1” is not used as a good phase of the democratic party. Period. The end. That still not good enough for you? Fine.
The perception of “woke 1” being bad is something I never once disagreed with. What I disagreed with was whether that perception reflected the actual reality of what the Democrats said or did.
If you have better things to do than source your claims, you probably have better things to do than to make them in the first place.
Nope, I enjoy having conversations IRL and online. When I have a different opinion I try not to say “cite your sources or your wrong”. A lot of times 2 people just have different opinions.
Fact is, I could very easily find 5-10 sources, but you would likely just find some nuance that proves your point while ignoring all the nuance that proves my point. It’s pointless.
We are just 2 regular ass people that disagree with each other. It’s a miracle we found each other!
The perception of “woke 1” being bad is something I never once disagreed with. What I disagreed with was whether that perception reflected the actual reality of what the Democrats said or did.
I’m not really sure the point you’re making. Are you saying that democrats, either as individual politicians or colllective groups that represented the party, were not the ones peddling ideas associated with “woke 1”. Are you saying the ideas of “woke 1” in its entirety weren’t actually bad, but it was perceived as bad unfairly? Or are you saying something else entirely?
Politics is not always “hard facts” and sometimes it’s just “perception and feelings”. When I saw this meme I had a reaction based on what I have seen over the last 5-10 years. I am one person on the internet. Feel free to ignore me, but also feel free to recognize that I may be representing an opinion shared by many other people that are not commenting on this thread.
I see posts on here all the time and comments on here all the time that collect to give me a perception of the “community”. Along with talking with friends and family. And not only reading headlines about things a politician said, but listening to their actual words. It is not worth it to me to google sources for you for every opinion or perception I have.
You mentioned El Sayed as an example. I saw a headline yesterday praising him for not turning his back on trans people in his 60 minutes interview. I listened to that interview and didn’t hear anything particularly pro trans. He basically said the government doesn’t need to get involved. Which is a great opinion to have.
Do I feel like having it out with you about how “woke” he is as a candidate? Not really. Especially not when it doesn’t matter.
No, that’s not what I’m saying.
That’s literally what the Democrats were saying in “Woke 1.”
I don’t know what “woke 1” is
The time we’re discussing when the Democrats were supposedly “too woke.” They had the same positions then that you call reasonable now.
You just don’t know it because you don’t care about the facts. The Democratic Party was never “particularly pro-trans” beyond the government staying out of people’s business.
I didn’t want to have to google, but you made me. This article seems to be saying many things I am saying. Democrats went to far being “woke” and have chilled out some.
https://archive.ph/FLtUR
Christ, finally. The amount I have to twist people’s arms on this website to do the most basic homework to support their positions. It’s completely ridiculous.
That article is very scant on details and specifics. It mentions “defund the police,” which was mostly a slogan used by activists rather than the party, and which, as the article mentions (and as I mentioned previously) never actually went anywhere and was walked back, with Biden calling specifically to “fund the police” and with many places raising police budgets instead. In spite of this, there was a perception that Democrats actually did defund the police. Not the reality.
It doesn’t really talk about democrat’s positions on trans rights at all. It mentions #MeToo, and one random state assemblywoman who talked about cancelling Thanksgiving.
My whole point is not that there was no perception of the Democrats being woke, but that it was just a perception. Nothing in that article actually challenges that. It just quotes other people who had that perception. You can say, “politics is about feelings and perceptions” but all that makes me think of is how Republicans “felt like” Obama turned the country into a socialist republic.
Here is a Ballotpedia page for Hillary Clinton’s stances on LGBT rights in 2016. I would love to know which parts of it are “particularly pro-trans” rather than just keeping the government out of trans people’s business and ensuring equal protection under the law.
I got better things to do with my life than to dig up sources to defend my opinion to a random person on the internet. As I said, I read plenty of things, news articles, lemmy articles and comments. There’s podcasts that I listen to. I am hyper aware if what I’m seeing is facts or opinions. I love polling podcasts as they are pure numbers and facts.
I do all this so when I need to have an opinion on something, I don’t need to spend hours “doing homework”. If I felt like I didn’t understand something and needed to research it, I would.
I didn’t know what “woke 1” meant, I googled it and found an article that seemed to validate exactly what I’m saying. “Woke 1” is not used as a good phase of the democratic party. Period. The end. That still not good enough for you? Fine.
Honestly, I feel like you and I are 75% on the same side here.
If you have better things to do than source your claims, you probably have better things to do than to make them in the first place.
Well, facts about people’s perceptions of things.
Then I would think that providing a source would be trivially easy. You’re saying that you’ve already done your homework, you just didn’t want to show it to me because… I don’t really know why. Like, when I ask for a source, I’m asking where your information is coming from. If your information is coming from a podcast, then cite the podcast. It’s not a question of whether you’ve researched it. Do you think of sources as proving to some teacher that you put effort in? They’re about showing the reader where the information comes from, so they can evaluate follow along and evaluate it themselves.
The perception of “woke 1” being bad is something I never once disagreed with. What I disagreed with was whether that perception reflected the actual reality of what the Democrats said or did.
Nope, I enjoy having conversations IRL and online. When I have a different opinion I try not to say “cite your sources or your wrong”. A lot of times 2 people just have different opinions.
Fact is, I could very easily find 5-10 sources, but you would likely just find some nuance that proves your point while ignoring all the nuance that proves my point. It’s pointless.
We are just 2 regular ass people that disagree with each other. It’s a miracle we found each other!
I’m not really sure the point you’re making. Are you saying that democrats, either as individual politicians or colllective groups that represented the party, were not the ones peddling ideas associated with “woke 1”. Are you saying the ideas of “woke 1” in its entirety weren’t actually bad, but it was perceived as bad unfairly? Or are you saying something else entirely?