Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

holy hell, default embed sizes are ridiculous lol. It took multiple "scrolls" to get past this longcat video on desktop

by default embed makes the video as wide as your browser window. it's dumb.

 

 

also now i know you're fullscreening like a noob.

Edited by elfenix
  • Haha 2
Posted

It's fascinating how there's such a dichotomy between one party where words mean nothing and the nonsense gives them power, and another where words mean everything and articulate definition drains their strength.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

 

relevant to yesterday's posts on homeless vs. unhoused.

Was coming here to post this. I think that the key here is that this needs to be taken as messaging guidance for politicians.  I do have to say that I don’t hear many of these (I do hear some) from national level reps. I do hear most from local officials and the NGO sectors. But by far this is vocabulary most used by online people who aren’t anything except online. 

List below. The categories are theirs and  not mine. 

Therapy speak:

Quote

Privilege

Violence (as in “environmental violence”)

Dialoguing

Othering

Triggering

Microaggression/assault/invalidation

Progressive stack

Centering

Safe space

Holding space

Body shaming

Seminar Language:

Quote

Subverting norms

Systems of oppression

Critical theory

Cultural appropriation

Postmodernism

Overton Window

Heuristic

Existential threat to [climate, the planet, democracy, the economy]

Organizer Jargon:

Quote

Radical transparency

Small ‘d’ democracy

Barriers to participation

Stakeholders

The unhoused

Food insecurity

Housing insecurity

Person who immigrated

Gender/Orientation Correctness:

Quote

Birthing person/inseminated person

Pregnant people

Chest feeding

Cisgender

Deadnaming

Heteronormative

Patriarchy

LGBTQIA+

Shifting language on race:

Quote

Latinx

BIPOC

Allyship

Intersectionality

Minoritized communities

Explaining away crime:

Quote

Justice-involved

Carceration

Incarcerated people

Involuntary confinement

 

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's fascinating how there's such a dichotomy between one party where words mean nothing and the nonsense gives them power, and another where words mean everything and articulate definition drains their strength.

It's amazing how quickly this movie is coming true: 

1471305999030.gif.aa9862588133e367748200e6be2fbdde.gif

Posted
16 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

 

relevant to yesterday's posts on homeless vs. unhoused.

I come to Surly from a strange and foreign land, "woke"/"far left"/"socialist" as may be (one of the reasons I read CR and DT is to get opinions from places different from mine, even when from the same team). I am not a fan of Third Way, but that article makes a lot of sense. Even here in the People's Republic of Cascadia I'd not ever even heard of some of those phrases, and the ones I have heard or seen used invariably sound stilted, condescending, nerdy, and out of touch. Nobody in meat space uses these terms; you'd get laughed out of my local bar - a very liberal place -for even trying to use most of them. I can't even imagine chatting with anyone talking like that while visiting friends in more maga areas of the state; I'd at best get chased out of the bar and at worst get a probably deserved ass-kicking.

(oh, and Dems - maybe point out some states that have already given their constituents things that poll high across the board with the message "See? This is possible!" rather than throwing up your hands and giving up on it because "it's too hard.")

Posted
26 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's fascinating how there's such a dichotomy between one party where words mean nothing and the nonsense gives them power, and another where words mean everything and articulate definition drains their strength.

Yep, the game is rigged. 

I think the Democratic Party is an absolute joke right now, but the reality is nothing they say matters because, in general, the American people have lost their minds. I think we are living in probably the biggest mental health crisis in our country's history, the triumvirate of social media/post-pandemic/Trump has broken us. 

Pray for Trump/GOP to lose power and Dems enacting legitimate policies that undeniably benefit people. That's our only way out. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Most of those nobody actually affiliated with Democratic politics even use. This is just third way ratfucking.

See, e.g., jeansgate

Posted
40 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm starting to think Democratic political consultants are on the payroll of the Republican Party.

Third Way's entire reason for existing is to help Republicans win elections. 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 8/20/2025 at 5:43 AM, BurntOrange&White said:

Steve in Nebraska doesn’t give two shits about Israel/Gaza. 

Why would anyone give a shit about Steve in Nebraska, unless he is in District 2.  There are plenty of Steves in LD2 who give a shit about Israel/Gaza.  (I was Tuco Nebraska CD2 until four years ago. There are plenty of people who care about Gaza.)

 

On 8/20/2025 at 8:34 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

The nature of the Republican voting coalition is completely different. 

Yes of course. There was even a Texas Young Democrats LatinX Caucus focused on getting the vote out in the RGV plus big cities. 

 

On 8/20/2025 at 2:08 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

It’s not the same as gender, clearly, but the problem with “LatinX” is that it disrespected many Hispanics who didn’t and don’t see themselves as LatinX. At best, it presented progressives and Democrats as hopelessly out of touch, but for some it is offensive. 

Let's talk some more about the reasoning and mechanics here and you can present a solution.  A few things I understand about "LatinX"

1. It's not a Latino/Latina/Hispanic/Chicano movement.  It's a feminist movement, or a byproduct of the feminist movement.  Feminists are pushing for more gender neutral language.  There are feminists who are in the "Latino" community who don't want to be defined by a masculine adjective. And there are feminists outside of the Latino community who will support them. 

2. Anytime you push for cultural changes, you will inevitably get pushback.  When we started using "work-hours" instead of "manhours" in proposals, there were some people who scoffed at it.  But, at work, you get paid. So, yeah, it will offend some Latinos.  That's not a shock to anyone.  

3. I'm willing to bet the "Texas Young Democrats Latinx Caucus" was started by people at the local level who are invested in both Latino and feminist causes.  This was not something handed down from the national party or lobbyists in Washington.  

So, what do you do if you are Party leadership?  Do you tell feminists to store their shit, that their cause needs to be backburnered for the next twenty years or that you simply don't believe in their cause?  Do you tell that people who are actually showing the fuck up, volunteering their time, and working to get voter registered that they are in the wrong Party?  

My recommendation: 

A. Show the fuck up.  Go to your local Party meetings and work to both understand the different factions and influence the overall group direction with your more centrist views (and votes).  Nobody is going to change the dynamics at the local level by complaining about Schumer or whoever you consider the "leadership" of the Democratic Party is. 

B. Work to convince voters that they should vote for their interests rather than against their annoyances.  There is no reason to believe the Latino community will be particularly feminist.  We need to get them to vote for the Latino interests.  There is no reason to believe the black community will be particularly pro-gay.  We need to get them to vote for Black interests.  There is no reason to believe gay people will be pro-progressive tax policies.  We need to get them to vote for gay interests.  

Unfortunately I think that has become more challenging in the outrage-culture of social media.  There is always something to be pissed about, and that is were Republican messaging it targeting.  I also think it more difficult to explain the reasoning behind different issues, which might be annoying people, when you have to do it a one second scroll-by ad.  I

 

 

 

Posted
27 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

More "hey, does your life suck?  these people in charge are why" and less "here's my deep thoughts on a highly divisive issue."

"Pedophile Republicans and their billionaire friends are stealing from you and shutting your schools down so they can force you and your kid to work as slave labor in their mines" should be an easy message to sell.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think we are living in probably the biggest mental health crisis in our country's history, the triumvirate of social media/post-pandemic/Trump has broken us. 

Just wanted to highlight this part because I 100% agree.  
 

I also think it points to a long term problem because Trump won’t live forever and we’ll put the pandemic malaise further into memory.  Unregulated social media, however, is a rot that seems immune from regulation.  

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Why would anyone give a shit about Steve in Nebraska, unless he is in District 2.  There are plenty of Steves in LD2 who give a shit about Israel/Gaza.  (I was Tuco Nebraska CD2 until four years ago. There are plenty of people who care about Gaza.)

 

 

Let's talk some more about the reasoning and mechanics here and you can present a solution.  A few things I understand about "LatinX"

1. It's not a Latino/Latina/Hispanic/Chicano movement.  It's a feminist movement, or a byproduct of the feminist movement.  Feminists are pushing for more gender neutral language.  There are feminists who are in the "Latino" community who don't want to be defined by a masculine adjective. And there are feminists outside of the Latino community who will support them. 

2. Anytime you push for cultural changes, you will inevitably get pushback.  When we started using "work-hours" instead of "manhours" in proposals, there were some people who scoffed at it.  But, at work, you get paid. So, yeah, it will offend some Latinos.  That's not a shock to anyone.  

3. I'm willing to bet the "Texas Young Democrats Latinx Caucus" was started by people at the local level who are invested in both Latino and feminist causes.  This was not something handed down from the national party or lobbyists in Washington.  

So, what do you do if you are Party leadership?  Do you tell feminists to store their shit, that their cause needs to be backburnered for the next twenty years or that you simply don't believe in their cause?  Do you tell that people who are actually showing the fuck up, volunteering their time, and working to get voter registered that they are in the wrong Party?  

My recommendation: 

A. Show the fuck up.  Go to your local Party meetings and work to both understand the different factions and influence the overall group direction with your more centrist views (and votes).  Nobody is going to change the dynamics at the local level by complaining about Schumer or whoever you consider the "leadership" of the Democratic Party is. 

B. Work to convince voters that they should vote for their interests rather than against their annoyances.  There is no reason to believe the Latino community will be particularly feminist.  We need to get them to vote for the Latino interests.  There is no reason to believe the black community will be particularly pro-gay.  We need to get them to vote for Black interests.  There is no reason to believe gay people will be pro-progressive tax policies.  We need to get them to vote for gay interests.  

Unfortunately I think that has become more challenging in the outrage-culture of social media.  There is always something to be pissed about, and that is were Republican messaging it targeting.  I also think it more difficult to explain the reasoning behind different issues, which might be annoying people, when you have to do it a one second scroll-by ad.  I

 

 

 

Because Steve in Nebraska is the same average guy as Joe in Georgia, Pete in Pennsylvania, Mike in Minnesota, Mark, in Michigan, etc.  the average guy is average no matter where they live but I guess democrats super polls can’t figure that out and they’re too high and mighty to realize it. 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Because Steve in Nebraska is the same average guy as Joe in Georgia, Pete in Pennsylvania, Mike in Minnesota, Mark, in Michigan, etc.  the average guy is average no matter where they live but I guess democrats super polls can’t figure that out and they’re too high and mighty to realize it. 

If the "average guy" in a purple state was the same as the "average guy" in a solidly red state, those purple states would be solidly red. Do you not understand how this works?

But your clarification makes it easier to understand what you are going for.  But I think you are using it to back into a position you have already have.  There are dozens of different issues that affect 10s of thousands of swing and cross-over voters (and non-voters) in different swing states.   

 

 

Edited by Tuco
Posted

Minnesota Democrats vacate endorsement of Omar Fateh for Minneapolis mayor

Exhibit #696969 that the Democrats have endless smoke for their own left flank as opposed to next to none for the GOP. The incumbent here could barely scrape up 30% of the vote, and yet the Party is actively torpedoing the candidacy of someone that is possibly looking like a 2nd Mamdani, which is far more terrifying to them. Can't have too many Muslim socialists around!



×
×
  • Create New...