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?
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.
Then talking is just as pointless! You’re assuming that I’d dismiss your sources without even giving me the chance to look at them in good faith. That itself is bad faith.
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?
Yes, both of those things. The ideas that the democrats espoused during that time were not as radical as they were perceived. More radical ideas were espoused by random individuals who were nowhere near to the levers of power. Now, obviously, I can’t vouch for every idea on every 15 year-old’s Tumblr blog, but whether ideas that random people had were good or bad is beside the point.
“Woke” is a flexible word that can mean basically anything. If you want to define it such that it’s in line with the Democrat’s former policies, then fine, my position is that “woke” ideas were not that extreme or bad. If you want to define it as including more extreme positions, then my position is that the Democrats were not as woke as people think. But just alluding to these vague concepts makes it impossible to actually evaluate anything and ground it in facts. Which is why I’ve been trying to shift the focus onto specific policy positions.
Which brings me back to my question of whether there’s anything in Clinton’s 2016 platform regarding trans rights that goes beyond equal protections and privacy rights, the same sorts of things that El-Sayed supports. If you stop talking about these “perceptions” of vaguely defined terms, and look at specific policy positions, then we can have an actual, grounded conversation, that isn’t just your memory of a perception against my memory of a perception, which obviously goes nowhere.
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?
Then talking is just as pointless! You’re assuming that I’d dismiss your sources without even giving me the chance to look at them in good faith. That itself is bad faith.
Yes, both of those things. The ideas that the democrats espoused during that time were not as radical as they were perceived. More radical ideas were espoused by random individuals who were nowhere near to the levers of power. Now, obviously, I can’t vouch for every idea on every 15 year-old’s Tumblr blog, but whether ideas that random people had were good or bad is beside the point.
“Woke” is a flexible word that can mean basically anything. If you want to define it such that it’s in line with the Democrat’s former policies, then fine, my position is that “woke” ideas were not that extreme or bad. If you want to define it as including more extreme positions, then my position is that the Democrats were not as woke as people think. But just alluding to these vague concepts makes it impossible to actually evaluate anything and ground it in facts. Which is why I’ve been trying to shift the focus onto specific policy positions.
Which brings me back to my question of whether there’s anything in Clinton’s 2016 platform regarding trans rights that goes beyond equal protections and privacy rights, the same sorts of things that El-Sayed supports. If you stop talking about these “perceptions” of vaguely defined terms, and look at specific policy positions, then we can have an actual, grounded conversation, that isn’t just your memory of a perception against my memory of a perception, which obviously goes nowhere.
We’re random people talking shit on the internet. Of course it’s pointless.