Can anyone explain how "SJW politics" will enter the Democratic campaign?

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

What Democratic politician or remotely plausible 2020 candidate has said anything like that?

I didn't say any candidate has said that, but many aligned with the Democratic Party (albeit mostly on tumblr) push the "white males amirite?" message, then follow up by saying that "you can't be racist against whites yada yada yada", which is one of the reasons why the Democrats are losing votes. Mostly I feel no pride or nationalism in being white, but I don't like being mocked or slandered either.

[Devout Centrist]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

What Democratic politician or remotely plausible 2020 candidate has said anything like that?

I didn't say any candidate has said that, but many aligned with the Democratic Party (albeit mostly on tumblr) push the "white males amirite?" message, then follow up by saying that "you can't be racist against whites yada yada yada", which is one of the reasons why the Democrats are losing votes. Mostly I feel no pride or nationalism in being white, but I don't like being mocked or slandered either.

None of this makes any sense. If you don't like hearing those talking points, why go in search of them? The Democratic Party's base isn't making these arguments either, so I don't see how you could say they're losing votes to talking points made by randos online.

But I think that, at the end of the day, any criticism is too much for some people. We need to remember the atrocities of the past and present. We need criminal justice reform, we need to attack structural racism. None of this is supposed to make you or me feel guilty, it's a reminder that anyone is capable of rationalizing any prejudice and evil itself.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

What Democratic politician or remotely plausible 2020 candidate has said anything like that?

I didn't say any candidate has said that, but many aligned with the Democratic Party (albeit mostly on tumblr) push the "white males amirite?" message, then follow up by saying that "you can't be racist against whites yada yada yada", which is one of the reasons why the Democrats are losing votes. Mostly I feel no pride or nationalism in being white, but I don't like being mocked or slandered either.

None of this makes any sense. If you don't like hearing those talking points, why go in search of them? The Democratic Party's base isn't making these arguments either, so I don't see how you could say they're losing votes to talking points made by randos online.

But I think that, at the end of the day, any criticism is too much for some people. We need to remember the atrocities of the past and present. We need criminal justice reform, we need to attack structural racism. None of this is supposed to make you or me feel guilty, it's a reminder that anyone is capable of rationalizing any prejudice and evil itself.

I don't go on my computer and search "white people are evil," so I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I mean I do search the forums to look for things to talk about, and I stumbled on this thread.

As for criticism, I'm fine with criticism. But I'm not fine with outrageous attacks, ala not supporting the ing Civil Rights Act if this were the 1960s.

[Kamala]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

I mean, it's kinda true.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf

[Devout Centrist]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

What Democratic politician or remotely plausible 2020 candidate has said anything like that?

I didn't say any candidate has said that, but many aligned with the Democratic Party (albeit mostly on tumblr) push the "white males amirite?" message, then follow up by saying that "you can't be racist against whites yada yada yada", which is one of the reasons why the Democrats are losing votes. Mostly I feel no pride or nationalism in being white, but I don't like being mocked or slandered either.

None of this makes any sense. If you don't like hearing those talking points, why go in search of them? The Democratic Party's base isn't making these arguments either, so I don't see how you could say they're losing votes to talking points made by randos online.

But I think that, at the end of the day, any criticism is too much for some people. We need to remember the atrocities of the past and present. We need criminal justice reform, we need to attack structural racism. None of this is supposed to make you or me feel guilty, it's a reminder that anyone is capable of rationalizing any prejudice and evil itself.

I don't go on my computer and search "white people are evil," so I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I mean I do search the forums to look for things to talk about, and I stumbled on this thread.

As for criticism, I'm fine with criticism. But I'm not fine with outrageous attacks, ala not supporting the ing Civil Rights Act if this were the 1960s.

I wouldn't be so sure you or I would. It's easy to say with hindsight that we would do the right thing, but it's a lot different to actually live through that era.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

I mean, it's kinda true.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf

To be fair, I was not referring to the deep south in the 60s. I was referring to white suburbanites of today.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Wasn't this the strategy for Dems moving forward? The great suburbanite white moderate Romney Republican will defect to them? They're probably some of the first people to b!tch about SJWs particularly if they're younger in age.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

What Democratic politician or remotely plausible 2020 candidate has said anything like that?

I didn't say any candidate has said that, but many aligned with the Democratic Party (albeit mostly on tumblr) push the "white males amirite?" message, then follow up by saying that "you can't be racist against whites yada yada yada", which is one of the reasons why the Democrats are losing votes. Mostly I feel no pride or nationalism in being white, but I don't like being mocked or slandered either.

So you base your vote not primarily on what policies the candidates running want to enact but what various nobodies on Tumblr say?

[Devout Centrist]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

I mean, it's kinda true.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf

To be fair, I was not referring to the deep south in the 60s. I was referring to white suburbanites of today.

He was referring to white suburbanites of the 1960's, and many of those talking points are still used by that same group today.

Techno Tim, people ages 24-45 probably care very little about this debate. Most of them will probably not vote Democratic, either. I don't really care about their children who can't vote yet

[TheLeftwardTide]

Are you talking about issues such as safe-spaces and gender pronouns? It won't happen, period. The "ess jay dubyoos" aren't going to seize any real political power. They're just a source of fear mongering for the right, as well as an embarrassment to the left.

If you want to expand the definition of "ess jay dubyoo" politics to be less ridiculous and more & nuanced, then I suppose there is a point to be made. The establishment wants to push identity politics on all of us, because that's the only way for them to stay in power. Look at the people pushing for Kamala Harris. She has almost no national record; it's obvious how the main reason for her candidacy is because shes a young, mixed-race woman. She let Mnuchin off the hook as Attorney General, then was the only Democrat to receive campaign contributions from him in 2016 (for a safe D seat). They just want to play up the "racist sexist Bernie Bros" strategy during the 2020 primaries while having a better chance at holding onto Clinton's minority support.

To give Harris credit, she still seems like a much better candidate than Hillary, she did do some good things as Attorney General, and I still don't know how her Senate years are going to be. If she's the eventual nominee I'll probably end up voting for her.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

I mean, it's kinda true.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf

To be fair, I was not referring to the deep south in the 60s. I was referring to white suburbanites of today.

He was referring to white suburbanites of the 1960's, and many of those talking points are still used by that same group today.

Techno Tim, people ages 24-45 probably care very little about this debate. Most of them will probably not vote Democratic, either. I don't really care about their children who can't vote yet

Those suburbanites overwhelmingly supported LBJ in New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, etc. The south at that time was mostly rural, or at least in my eyes I consider it rural and not suburban. My home state's results are below:

President Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX)/Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) - 65.6%
Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)/Congressman William Miller (R-NY) - 33.9%

[Devout Centrist]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

I mean, it's kinda true.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf

To be fair, I was not referring to the deep south in the 60s. I was referring to white suburbanites of today.

He was referring to white suburbanites of the 1960's, and many of those talking points are still used by that same group today.

Techno Tim, people ages 24-45 probably care very little about this debate. Most of them will probably not vote Democratic, either. I don't really care about their children who can't vote yet

Those suburbanites overwhelmingly supported LBJ in New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, etc. The south at that time was mostly rural, or at least in my eyes I consider it rural and not suburban. My home state's results are below:

President Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX)/Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) - 65.6%
Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)/Congressman William Miller (R-NY) - 33.9%

Uh, plenty of racists voted for LBJ, who was also quite racist himself...

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

I mean, it's kinda true.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf

To be fair, I was not referring to the deep south in the 60s. I was referring to white suburbanites of today.

He was referring to white suburbanites of the 1960's, and many of those talking points are still used by that same group today.

Techno Tim, people ages 24-45 probably care very little about this debate. Most of them will probably not vote Democratic, either. I don't really care about their children who can't vote yet

Those suburbanites overwhelmingly supported LBJ in New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, etc. The south at that time was mostly rural, or at least in my eyes I consider it rural and not suburban. My home state's results are below:

President Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX)/Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) - 65.6%
Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)/Congressman William Miller (R-NY) - 33.9%

Uh, plenty of racists voted for LBJ, who was also quite racist himself...

Still the reason why the Civil Rights Act was passed in quick time. If LBJ wasn't President, it probably wouldn't have happened for years.

[Devout Centrist]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

I mean, it's kinda true.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf

To be fair, I was not referring to the deep south in the 60s. I was referring to white suburbanites of today.

He was referring to white suburbanites of the 1960's, and many of those talking points are still used by that same group today.

Techno Tim, people ages 24-45 probably care very little about this debate. Most of them will probably not vote Democratic, either. I don't really care about their children who can't vote yet

Those suburbanites overwhelmingly supported LBJ in New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, etc. The south at that time was mostly rural, or at least in my eyes I consider it rural and not suburban. My home state's results are below:

President Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX)/Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) - 65.6%
Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)/Congressman William Miller (R-NY) - 33.9%

Uh, plenty of racists voted for LBJ, who was also quite racist himself...

Still the reason why the Civil Rights Act was passed in quick time. If LBJ wasn't President, it probably wouldn't have happened for years.

While that is certainly true, it doesn't address my point. MLK's letter was specifically addressed to white surburbanities and urbanities too, not White Southerners. In fact, that's his point, racism isn't just something that people in white hoods do.

[henster]

I feel like somebody is going to ask some candidate, 'how many genders are there' and it's going to be some big issue.

[7,052,770]

"My name is Cory Booker, and my pronouns are he, him, and his. I accept your nomination as the Democratic candidate for 2020."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I feel like somebody is going to ask some candidate, 'how many genders are there' and it's going to be some big issue.

I can see that unfolding pretty dumbly...especially on social media.

"Candidate A said that there is a countably infinite number of genders. Unacceptable. Everyone knows that genders are a choice and the axiom of choice gives larger aleph numbers."

[OSR stands with Israel]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Civil rights of course the suburbs would support it , the great society mostly no (cause many of its programs were a disaster)

[Hindsight was 2020]

Okay I got ask why does Trump get off the hook on this topic? Seriously the man is the biggest "identity politics" abuser in politics right now. The NYT did a great piece today on it but really think about it since he took office he hasn't renegioated trade deals or banned lobbying for his populist wing and he has botched Obamacare for the establishment wing but he has done the Muslim ban, Trans ban, brought back the war on drugs, and now got after AA at college which is all stuff his alt-right "racial resentment" wing wanted. Yet we still see threads here with both the right and some on the far left saying "the dems have got to stop using 'identity politics'" like seriously Trump is trying to ban trans people from serving the country they love but it's the democrats who actually are the hateful ones because Lena Denham wrote something about white privilege on Tumblr?Give me a break

[Technocracy Timmy]

Okay I got ask why does Trump get off the hook on this topic? Seriously the man is the biggest "identity politics" abuser in politics right now. The NYT did a great piece today on it but really think about it since he took office he hasn't renegioated trade deals or banned lobbying for his populist wing and he has botched Obamacare for the establishment wing but he has done the Muslim ban, Trans ban, brought back the war on drugs, and now got after AA at college which is all stuff his alt-right "racial resentment" wing wanted. Yet we still see threads here with both the right and some on the far left saying "the dems have got to stop using 'identity politics'" like seriously Trump is trying to ban trans people from serving the country they love but it's the democrats who actually are the hateful ones because Lena Denham wrote something about white privilege on Tumblr?Give me a break

He doesn't get off the hook. And a lot of people have pointed out he does identity politics (all of his trade rhetoric catering towards the rust belt for example). But a lot of what he's doing is white identity politics. And there's a lot of white people in the United States.

[HisGrace]

Due to Trump making that stuff an issue people just took out their anger at random people on Tumblr on Clinton. It's not like she was running on tossing people in jail for microagressions.

So in other words, it has nothing to do with the campaign, but people will pretend it does because they're stupid.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Racism is obviously still a major problem, but we need to remember that the majority of Americans are not racists.  Its sad to see serious issues like the mistreatment of minorities by police departments hijacked by people who think that there should be safe spaces and that its impossible to be racist against white people.

It seems like America is divided between people who don't see racism anywhere, and people who see it behind every corner.

[publicunofficial]

"Conservatives believe there are only 2 genders, while the SJW alt left thinks there are infinite genders! As a centrist, I believe the genders should be capped at 4."

[Coraxion]

Racism is obviously still a major problem, but we need to remember that the majority of Americans are not racists.  Its sad to see serious issues like the mistreatment of minorities by police departments hijacked by people who think that there should be safe spaces and that its impossible to be racist against white people.

It seems like America is divided between people who don't see racism anywhere, and people who see it behind every corner.

Racism can be subconscious.

[maga2020]

It's the democrats so it always does, starting with open borders.

Hence why they will become a permanent minority and are viewed as anti-white in rural America, even if 2018 is like 2006 or 2008 rural whites are still going to trend GOP