Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

tsogud said:
Mnementh said:

It seems all the more extreme groups try to set themself apart with a special language. if you need a dictionary to talk to one of these people, something is probably wrong. And even if they are well-intentioned… if you fail to communicate with normal persons your ideology will probably not win.

Most sects of feminism are intersectional even if not explicitly stated. And feminists aren't an extreme group. Feminism, usually within communities of color, use intersectionality to describe different ways we're systemically oppressed. A queer latin transwomen will have different struggles than a straight white cis women. It's just common sense.

Learning new words are a part of life and the definitions of intersectionality and cisgender aren't difficult to learn. Saying a group is extreme because in your personal vocabulary you don't know words they do is mind boggling. I'm sure most people didn't know what Trans meant or pansexual but that doesn't mean they were an extreme group. And people eventually adjusted to using those terms.

And I'll just add, every trans person knows what cisgender means because that's part of realizing you're trans. It's like "okay I'm trans but what are people who're born with their gender matching their sex?? Cis. Okay they're cis." Obviously that's not how it goes but it's the best illustration I could come up with rn lol I'm tired.

Don't get me wrong. I educated myself and learned about these terms. But most people will not and I too felt that this was an unnessecary step and a complication. But in the end it is a sign of elitism to use a specialized vocabulary. If people don't understand you without learning a lot of stuff, you will not convince them about your point of view.

Using a special vocabulary works well in a small circle of 'initiated'. We as gamers use special terms specific to gamers. Like RPG, cut-scene, lag, aggro, party and so on. Using these terms in your circle is fine. But it fails the moment you try to communicate outside that circle. If you want that communication, you can't ask the others to learn your vocabulary. In politics you want to communicate outside of your circle. Because otherwise you lose, at least in democracies. You need to communicate to a lot of people and convince them, to get the change you want. That is why the usage of the specialized vocabulary is damning. Funny enough that left and right do it both.

Maybe extreme was the wrong word. I meant a group, that stands aside the mainstream. Extreme is often negatively associated, but you can use it neutral. But probably it is also not what I meant. I meant more a group that started to exclusively move in their own circles, therefore using the specialized vocabulary more and more as normal. That is what I understand if Jaicee references Jane Average. Sure enough even 'average' people are very differently. But there is a common core language that can be used to communicate with nearly everyone. If you want a change, you should use that. That doesn't mean that these words are per se bad, but you should be aware if the other side of your communication can understand these terms and their implications.

You should realize what using a specialized language makes with persons that not usually come into contact with these terms do. They feel excluded. Language can be used to separate the "Plebs" and the aristocracy. That can be intention or not, but normal person often understand a strong usage of many such terms as a separating language. Even if they understand the term, but it doesn't get into their day-to-day life a person making much use of such terms can come off as "the other one that doesn't understand a bit our life". Really, no way to convince people of the need of certain actions.

This is the same for right circles. "gynocentrism" as Jaicee said as an example is as much strange language as "cisgender". Use that terms sparsely and be ready to explain them if you communicate to the general public.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Around the Network

So no russian bots? ok, good. now I'm more assured.
So I can see you still have the sjw problem and the gender issue to solve in USA.
Hot topic.
In portugal we dont have that problem, we just dont give a crap about that.
But the states are a strong economy so I think probably it is of most importance business we just dont get it here.
It is urgent to discuss and to define at last what about pronouns and the spectrum of gender fluidity, toxic feminists and politically correctness.
Let's solve that problem. it is time.



Mnementh said:
tsogud said:

Most sects of feminism are intersectional even if not explicitly stated. And feminists aren't an extreme group. Feminism, usually within communities of color, use intersectionality to describe different ways we're systemically oppressed. A queer latin transwomen will have different struggles than a straight white cis women. It's just common sense.

Learning new words are a part of life and the definitions of intersectionality and cisgender aren't difficult to learn. Saying a group is extreme because in your personal vocabulary you don't know words they do is mind boggling. I'm sure most people didn't know what Trans meant or pansexual but that doesn't mean they were an extreme group. And people eventually adjusted to using those terms.

And I'll just add, every trans person knows what cisgender means because that's part of realizing you're trans. It's like "okay I'm trans but what are people who're born with their gender matching their sex?? Cis. Okay they're cis." Obviously that's not how it goes but it's the best illustration I could come up with rn lol I'm tired.

Don't get me wrong. I educated myself and learned about these terms. But most people will not and I too felt that this was an unnessecary step and a complication. But in the end it is a sign of elitism to use a specialized vocabulary. If people don't understand you without learning a lot of stuff, you will not convince them about your point of view.

Using a special vocabulary works well in a small circle of 'initiated'. We as gamers use special terms specific to gamers. Like RPG, cut-scene, lag, aggro, party and so on. Using these terms in your circle is fine. But it fails the moment you try to communicate outside that circle. If you want that communication, you can't ask the others to learn your vocabulary. In politics you want to communicate outside of your circle. Because otherwise you lose, at least in democracies. You need to communicate to a lot of people and convince them, to get the change you want. That is why the usage of the specialized vocabulary is damning. Funny enough that left and right do it both.

Maybe extreme was the wrong word. I meant a group, that stands aside the mainstream. Extreme is often negatively associated, but you can use it neutral. But probably it is also not what I meant. I meant more a group that started to exclusively move in their own circles, therefore using the specialized vocabulary more and more as normal. That is what I understand if Jaicee references Jane Average. Sure enough even 'average' people are very differently. But there is a common core language that can be used to communicate with nearly everyone. If you want a change, you should use that. That doesn't mean that these words are per se bad, but you should be aware if the other side of your communication can understand these terms and their implications.

You should realize what using a specialized language makes with persons that not usually come into contact with these terms do. They feel excluded. Language can be used to separate the "Plebs" and the aristocracy. That can be intention or not, but normal person often understand a strong usage of many such terms as a separating language. Even if they understand the term, but it doesn't get into their day-to-day life a person making much use of such terms can come off as "the other one that doesn't understand a bit our life". Really, no way to convince people of the need of certain actions.

This is the same for right circles. "gynocentrism" as Jaicee said as an example is as much strange language as "cisgender". Use that terms sparsely and be ready to explain them if you communicate to the general public.


Ehhh I have a bit of a problem with a person's gender identity being seen as "specialized vocabulary"

As a trans rights activist I've definitely had to use the word cis to draw distinctions when explaining to people about the trans experience. It's part of the job to explain and raise awareness.

I'm really just stating that it's ridiculous to say someone is a sjw just because they happen to use a word that's really not even connected to sjws.

Anyways I've taken what you've said and agree with most of it.



 

Gabbard has officially crossed the 200k donor requirement for debate 6. 1 more poll, either nationally or state, and she fully qualifies. I expect her to qualify soon.

Yang also needs 1 more qualifying poll as he has the donor count.

Steyer has the polls but hasn't updated his donor count since Oct 1. I do expect him to qualify before the Dec 12 deadline.

Castro is 6k away from the donor requirement but still needs all qualifying polls. I suspect he might make the donor requirement but not the poll requirement.


No one else appears likely to meet any of the requirements.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

@SpokenTruth I'm not sure about tulsi, the DNC is being the DNC



Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD

Around the Network
uran10 said:

@SpokenTruth I'm not sure about tulsi, the DNC is being the DNC

It's time to end this silly notion that the DNC is constantly out to get Gabbard.

1. It's not like they are accepting this poll for other candidates but not her.

2. It's not like they knew this poll would have her at 6% in Nov/Dec back when they announced which polls they were using for qualifications way back in February.

3. It's not like keeping her off the debate stage in Dec is the only thing keeping her from running away with the nomination.

4. I've read her campaign's lawsuit against Google.  As a legal document filed with the courts, it was atrocious. Her campaign is what is killing her campaign, not the MSM or Google.

Points 1 and 2 alone invalidate the entire premise that her campaign's claims are based upon.  If I were her, I'd sue the hell out of her 'remaining campaign team' for gross incompetence when the election is over. 

And by 'remaining campaign team', I mean that her campaign manager and campaign consulting firm quit last Feb.  She hasn't has a campaign manager or campaign consultant since.  I like Tulsi.  She was one of my early favorites. But her team is shit and doing her way more harm than good.

Last edited by SpokenTruth - on 01 December 2019

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Things are going poorly for the Harris campaign, one of her top aides just ran off to join Bloomberg's campaign and doesn't have anything nice to say about the campaign she left:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kamala-harris-campaign-democrats-2020-election-staff-resign-letter-a9226406.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/27/kamala-harris-aide-bloomberg-campaign-074243



Harris has been in a slow decline since her peak in late June when she blasted Biden at the debate. While this certainly isn't going to help her any, she has been on the way out for a while now.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Whether you believe it or not, the DNC has put the thumbs on the scales before, they're doing it now and a part of that is the debate criteria and how which polls count and others don't. You're looking at it as tho "oh this poll is not qualifying for everyone, so how is it targeting tulsi" and not at the why is this poll not qualifying considering all of the facts of this poll? On top of that why are they so hush hush about it?



Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD

tsogud said:


Ehhh I have a bit of a problem with a person's gender identity being seen as "specialized vocabulary"

As a trans rights activist I've definitely had to use the word cis to draw distinctions when explaining to people about the trans experience. It's part of the job to explain and raise awareness.

I'm really just stating that it's ridiculous to say someone is a sjw just because they happen to use a word that's really not even connected to sjws.

Anyways I've taken what you've said and agree with most of it.

To intervene here if I can, I would point out that "cisgender" is not a term that non-trans people have either invented or broadly chosen to embrace ourselves, it's just an arbitrary term that the transgender community has simply imposed on the rest of the population and which most of the time is used in a derisive context. It's not a big deal, but I'm just saying.

Also, the two 'hypothetical' conversations I offered up in that other post were loosely based on somewhat longer real ones that I've either had before or observed unfold. I feel like when one isn't willing to even try and explain what they mean when questioned on the meaning of terms not in common usage among the general population, that has a condescending feeling to it.