Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 177: Still In Our Mom's Basement

(+) Yeah! (+)

I always mix up Rosseane and Rosie O'Donnel which leads to very confusing political news stories.
---

Lopen posted...

Roseanne would've nosedived hard once the novelty of the throwback wore off I figure so I doubt it's a big loss for ABC to can it despite what it was turning now.

You really think it would have fallen to the level of the average sitcom?
---

LapisLazuli posted...

I always mix up Rosseane and Rosie O'Donnel which leads to very confusing political news stories.

Glad I'm not the only one.
---

Corrik posted...

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Part of me feels as if anti-liberal sentiment being at an all-time high the past few years was the only possible way for Trump to get elected.

Well, look at how many things have been attacked in name of social justice. Do you think any of that helps liberal sentiment?

Definitely not, but I and many others were largely locked out of the loop when it came to these. The only reason I started looking up stuff on SJWs in the first place was when James Rolfe got caught in the crossfire of the Ghostbusters 2016 controversy. And when I think about it, in order to fully understand where Rolfe was coming from, you'd have to know two things: that he often watches anticipated movies and gives his thoughts, and second about the whole sequel/remake fatigue that many have been feeling the past few years. In hindsight, it makes sense that many journalists simply had no idea and just saw some Internet celebrity mounting a personal attack on the film, then conveniently scapegoated him as one of the "leaders" of the anti-Fembusters crusade.

Many members of the "online gaming community" have no idea whatsoever about Gamergate. They know next to nothing about Anita Sarkeesian. My point is: this stuff all seemed avoidable enough...though maybe for many it wasn't? Most gaming circles I frequent in any capacity have never mentioned Gamergate, Anita, or whatever else, so I was completely unaware that social justice gone mad is a thing until 2016.

There's one particular point I would mention but I feel like I'd be labelled an SJW if I did.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

I always mix up Rosseane and Rosie O'Donnel which leads to very confusing political news stories.

Glad I'm not the only one.

My brother was asking me regarding Rosanne like "isn't she the lesbian woman that has the huge feud with Trump?"
---

I can tell you are not people who were culturally aware during the early 90s
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Lopen posted...

Roseanne would've nosedived hard once the novelty of the throwback wore off I figure so I doubt it's a big loss for ABC to can it despite what it was turning now.

You really think it would have fallen to the level of the average sitcom?

I really do think so, yeah. It'd already lost nearly half of its audience between the debut and the finale and really when you look at it, though this is subjective, the quality wasn't really anything special

I think there'd be quite a dip after the break between seasons, probably dropping it to normal sitcom range. Guess we'll never know, though.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I can tell you are not people who were culturally aware during the early 90s

Go on
---

Lopen posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Lopen posted...

Roseanne would've nosedived hard once the novelty of the throwback wore off I figure so I doubt it's a big loss for ABC to can it despite what it was turning now.

You really think it would have fallen to the level of the average sitcom?

I really do think so, yeah. It'd already lost nearly half of its audience between the debut and the finale and really when you look at it, though this is subjective, the quality wasn't really anything special

I think there'd be quite a dip after the break between seasons, probably dropping it to normal sitcom range. Guess we'll never know, though.

Truly the XFL of sitcoms
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I can tell you are not people who were culturally aware during the early 90s

Go on

Not you, the people who dont know Roseanne from Rosie
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I can tell you are not people who were culturally aware during the early 90s

Go on

Not you, the people who dont know Roseanne from Rosie

Honestly Rosie was a very bad show also. She was relatively good in A League of Their Own though Madonna totally killed it in that movie. But, Rosie and her Tom Cruise obsession was really just weird, especially for the time slot.
---

to be fair my brother isn't really culturally aware in the 2000s or the 2010s either
---

red sox 777 posted...

TIWYL is about Democrats failing to try to win votes. It's about actions Democrats control that influence voters, not about why Trump voters believe they voted. It operates mostly on a subconscious level and it mostly is not about spite.

Example. You and I are having dinner. We are friends and you assume I must be a liberal since all your friends are liberals. So you start condemning another person who happens to be my friend, who you don't know I am friendly with, calling him bigoted. I don't think that person is bigoted at all. I, very naturally, feel threatened, because what I see is you understanding disagreement with you to be equivalent to bigotry. Months later, this will have a subconscious effect on how I vote.

You are not a good friend or a rational actor in this hypothetical and the fault of that is on you, not liberals.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Okay, I reread your post. I think the confusion stems from a misunderstanding of what This Is Why You Lost means, or how I use it at least.

TIWYL is about Democrats failing to try to win votes. It's about actions Democrats control that influence voters, not about why Trump voters believe they voted. It operates mostly on a subconscious level and it mostly is not about spite.

Example. You and I are having dinner. We are friends and you assume I must be a liberal since all your friends are liberals. So you start condemning another person who happens to be my friend, who you don't know I am friendly with, calling him bigoted. I don't think that person is bigoted at all. I, very naturally, feel threatened, because what I see is you understanding disagreement with you to be equivalent to bigotry. Months later, this will have a subconscious effect on how I vote.

ok, this is fair.

pretty sure that's not at all how sephy used it, though. he would just go "THIS IS WHY YOU LOST" anytime a liberal said or did something he found stupid.
---

Roseanne did have her own Cartoon in 1990... ick. Basically a child version of her with an even more grating voice. Never lasted more than 13 eps thank fuck.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I can tell you are not people who were culturally aware during the early 90s

Well that makes sense, I was born in 1992.
---

Roseanne got fired for racist comments on the looks of a woman who looked like she could be Roseanne's sister.

And just like that, Roseanne's big comeback mirrored Duke Nukem Forever's.
---

'92s represent
---

I used to watch both Roseanne and the Rosie O'Donnell show.
---

as an early 90s kid when I think of Roseanne & Rosie I instead remember The Nanny for some reason
---

Kenri posted...

red sox 777 posted...

TIWYL is about Democrats failing to try to win votes. It's about actions Democrats control that influence voters, not about why Trump voters believe they voted. It operates mostly on a subconscious level and it mostly is not about spite.

Example. You and I are having dinner. We are friends and you assume I must be a liberal since all your friends are liberals. So you start condemning another person who happens to be my friend, who you don't know I am friendly with, calling him bigoted. I don't think that person is bigoted at all. I, very naturally, feel threatened, because what I see is you understanding disagreement with you to be equivalent to bigotry. Months later, this will have a subconscious effect on how I vote.

You are not a good friend or a rational actor in this hypothetical and the fault of that is on you, not liberals.

I disagree, but in any case, fault is irrelevant. This is a description of why liberals lost, not a moral judgment.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I disagree, but in any case, fault is irrelevant. This is a description of why liberals lost, not a moral judgment.

If it's not about fault then what exactly is your point?
---

https://twitter.com/LisPower1/status/1001540793742626817

Shepard Smith continues to amaze

that's one hell of an opener hot damn
---

Kenri posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I disagree, but in any case, fault is irrelevant. This is a description of why liberals lost, not a moral judgment.

If it's not about fault then what exactly is your point?

"This is why you lost." I would think it's extremely clear. Explaining why liberals lost the election.
---

But maybe this isn't something American liberals are going to get anytime soon. After all, accounts are that Bill Clinton, probably the most gifted modern Democratic politician, was actively warning the Hillary campaign, and was also ignored. If they won't listen to Bill I don't know who they will listen to.
---

red sox 777 posted...

"This is why you lost." I would think it's extremely clear. Explaining why liberals lost the election.

Plenty of leftists already know we lost because of easily threatened conservatives who view bigotry as simple disagreement.
---

Kenri posted...

red sox 777 posted...

"This is why you lost." I would think it's extremely clear. Explaining why liberals lost the election.

We already know we lost because of easily threatened conservatives who view bigotry as simple disagreement.

That reason doesn't give you anything you can do to win an election. Mine does.
---

That was yours.
---

Kenri doing a really good job of illustrating what red sox is talking about despite "not being a liberal" (lol)
---

Lopen posted...

Kenri doing a really good job of illustrating what red sox is talking about despite "not being a liberal" (lol)

I'm too far left to be a liberal so I'm sure I'm who he actually is talking about. It just all gets wrapped up into "the libs".
---

red sox 777 posted...

"This is why you lost." I would think it's extremely clear. Explaining why liberals lost the election.

even if i agree with your explanation (to a certain extent), i disagree with the certainty with which you're claiming that if the democrats would have been more inclusive, they would have won. there were far more important reasons why hillary lost that were completely beyond her control (xenophobia, sexism, the "fuck you i got mine" mentality, to name a few).
---

And you still don't get it. It doesn't matter so much if you offend conservatives. They were always going to vote against you. It matters if you offend swing voters, the people who choose our government.
---

red sox 777 posted...

And you still don't get it. It doesn't matter so much if you offend conservatives. They were always going to vote against you. It matters if you offend swing voters, the people who choose our government.

Why would I offend a swing voter who is ostensibly my friend by talking to them about a serious issue in my life (experiencing bigotry from a mutual acquaintance)?
---

Shoutouts to the media for ignoring Hillary's boring, dense policy proposals instead of Trump's idiotic, vapid nonsense and allowing the usual suspects to propogate the utter lie that Hillary/The Democrats have no policy ideas btw

Also, you're all fucking morons for seriously reading and responding to corrik/red sox and their nonsense. Knock it off.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

"This is why you lost." I would think it's extremely clear. Explaining why liberals lost the election.

even if i agree with your explanation (to a certain extent), i disagree with the certainty with which you're claiming that if the democrats would have been more inclusive, they would have won. there were far more important reasons why hillary lost that were completely beyond her control (xenophobia, sexism, the "fuck you i got mine" mentality, to name a few).

All of those things, besides sexism, were present for Obama's 2 wins (by big margins), and I rather doubt sexism hurt more than racism hurt Obama. More importantly, those things are not within the Democrats' control. They don't translate into useful action.
---

*grabs his popcorn ala Michael in the Triller vid*
---

https://twitter.com/jaredlholt/status/1001547933827915776?s=21

Take my Mahar, please
---

Kenri posted...

Why would I offend a swing voter who is ostensibly my friend by talking to them about a serious issue in my life (experiencing bigotry from a mutual acquaintance)?

Because you're leaping a bit too quickly to attacking the swing voter's other friend's character despite presumably not knowing him as well as the swing voter does. It's about attitude. Like it's definitely good to be against bigoted behavior but acting high and mighty about it turns people off. And that's something that turns off people who aren't hardcore liberals from leaning that way. I think I'm a really good example of one of these swing voters, and in fact a good illustration of how deep the swing vote really goes-- like I've voted Democrat all my life and if Bernie would've won the primary I would've went hard for him.

Now I couldn't vote Trump, but instead of Hillary I voted Gary Johnson because despite identifying as liberal more than conservative I agree with Gary on enough that I legit think he was the best choice in that shit show. Yeah it's a wasted vote and less damaging than jumping to Trump, but it's a vote they could've had easily with a different presentation of the party.

who view bigotry as simple disagreement.

That kinda phrasing being the one you instinctively use when approaching the hypothetical is kind of the problem. It's not about whether the guy is factually bigoted or not (you, in the hypothetical, don't really know)-- it's about how quickly the jump was made to call the guy bigoted, why it was brought up in a random conversation, etc etc.
---

yeah honestly that isn't offensive but if it's what finally gets rid of bill maher then godspeed
---

Kenri posted...

yeah honestly that isn't offensive but if it's what finally gets rid of bill maher then godspeed

---

red sox 777 posted...

All of those things, besides sexism, were present for Obama's 2 wins (by big margins),

i'm not sure if they were present in the same amount, though. the world doesn't stand still. the US in 2016 != the US in 2012. plus, romney wasn't that different from obama and he did very little to appeal to the xenophobic crowd (he didn't say "mexicans are criminals and rapists" or "we're gonna build a wall"). he didn't give them much reason at all to vote for him.

and I rather doubt sexism hurt more than racism hurt Obama.

we can debate this but i think this absolutely is the case. especially because sexism is waaay more acceptable than racism nowadays. a guy who has a long history of saying sexist stuff is now president of the united states, mind you.

More importantly, those things are not within the Democrats' control. They don't translate into useful action.

exactly, that's what i said.

but i'm also saying (again) that i'm not at all convinced that the "being more inclusive" thing leads to a win.

you said before that being more inclusive "is the key to winning for the democrats." why are you so certain that this is the case? you're not providing any evidence for your claim. you're just claiming it.
---

Lopen posted...

Now I couldn't vote Trump, but instead of Hillary I voted Gary Johnson because despite identifying as liberal more than conservative I agree with Gary on enough that I legit think he was the best choice in that shit show. Yeah it's a wasted vote and less damaging than jumping to Trump, but it's a vote they could've had easily with a different presentation of the party.

Sure, but any politician/party could convince one swing voter by changing some key issues. How do you know they wouldn't lose 2 votes gaining your 1?

Lopen posted...

That kinda phrasing being the one you instinctively use when approaching the hypothetical is kind of the problem. It's not about whether the guy is factually bigoted or not (you, in the hypothetical, don't really know)-- it's about how quickly the jump was made to call the guy bigoted, why it was brought up in a random conversation, etc etc.

If the hypothetical is just assuming I'm calling someone a bigot with no reasoning behind it, then yeah I'm ridiculous in that strawman of a scenario.

Since that isn't worth replying to, I'm assuming me in the hypothetical at least has good reason to claim it. Is that the issue here?
---

Yeah, Lopen could you please give an example of something that a progressive might claim is bigoted that would turn off a swing voter turn conservative?
---

Though I guess to be fair, Johnson was fairly liberal for a libertarian nominee. SmartMuffins hate him!
---

Any excuse to repost this I will take

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ" data-time="
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Though I guess to be fair, Johnson was fairly liberal for a libertarian nominee. SmartMuffins hate him!

he was, but still too conservative ("economically conservative" if you will) for my tastes.

you know how black-and-white and extreme muffin in his views, so him hating johnson doesn't say that much >_>
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah, Lopen could you please give an example of something that a progressive might claim is bigoted that would turn off a swing voter turn conservative?

A group of liberals on ResetERA said my fiancee is racist if she voted for Trump because of abortion reasoning, and everyone else who voted for Trump is racist by association.

Do you think my girl would want to stand with that crowd in upcoming elections if she knew that?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Any excuse to repost this I will take

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ" data-time="

well, according to lisel anyone can learn how to drive a car in 5 minutes so
---

Libertarians are fucking crazy and the only people that vote for them are uninformed.

Their entire platform is designed to sound good until you realize society as you know it would just collapse(And stupidity in general would rise).
---

Kenri posted...

Since that isn't worth replying to, I'm assuming me in the hypothetical at least has good reason to claim it. Is that the issue here?

The core issues here is that a lot of the liberal boogeymen people claim it

1. More quickly than swing voters necessarily would.
2. In more situations than swing voters necessarily consider it prudent to.
3. With more conviction than swing voters necessarily find warranted given what is known.

And do so while projecting a "well if you disagree you are free to be wrong" aura. So yeah a lot of people find it offputting.

As for what you're saying, Jakyl, the key is calling the action bigoted, rather than the person, and mentioning it when it's relevant to the context of the discussion. There's a big difference between randomly mentioning that a dude did something and how despicable he is out of the blue vs the guy coming up in conversation and you saying "he acted kinda bigoted the other day when he did ___ and that was offputting"

Like I don't think there are many things that even super liberal Kenri would bring up in that context that a swingy person would outright disagree is an action that doesn't give a good look for the person's moral fiber or whatever, but like, I definitely see a lot of things where it's like "why are we talking about this here"

If you want something where it's possible the swing voter outright disagrees -- Police stories in general I think are an excellent example of this. Many many super liberals will basically take the side of the perp by default, even when there isn't a lot of information yet. It's just not a good look, particularly for people who have had better experience with police than random people on the street.
---