Yes, I know that Rightists like yourself are trying to push the narrative that the Left is irrelevant because we actually acknowledge that discrimination is still a major problem, and that if we want to win we need to just keep our mouths shut (i.e. concede that entire debate to you).Admiral X wrote:Sure, keep going with that. That totally didn't turn people against the Democrats in the last election at all.
To which I reply that one should not take campaign advice from those who's goal is to defeat you, that such advice is likely given in bad faith, that no fight was ever won by surrendering to the opposition, and that the Left's biggest problem for years has been the fallacy that we must constantly move further to the Right and compromise with those who, by and large, have no interest in compromising with us. If we wish to win, we must not be afraid to stand for something, and if we simply adopt the positions our opponents tell us to adopt, then it really doesn't matter who wins, does it?
No, the 2016 election was not a repudiation of Left wing views on social justice and discrimination. This can be demonstrated by the following facts:
1. Clinton actually won the popular vote, by nearly three million, although neither she nor Trump won an outright majority. Trump's victory says next to nothing about the collective sentiments of the American people, and if it says anything at all, its that the people as a whole (marginally) still prefer the Left's position. All Trump winning demonstrates is that the Electoral College weights the scales in favour of Republicans, and that Trump's campaign knew how to play that system.
2. It is disingenuous to insist that resentment of Left wing views on discrimination was the decisive issue, without providing any further evidence for that claim than the fact that the Democrats lost. The election was close enough that if any one of several factors had been slightly different, it might have changed the outcome, but a far more obvious explanation is that Hillary Clinton's personal baggage and lack of either credibility or charisma, combined with FBI sabotage on the email scandal shortly before election day, tipped the scales. It is also likely that economic arguments played a significant role.
And you know, the Right cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim at the same time that you're not bigoted, that Trump's support was not driven by bigotry, and then turn around and in the same breath argue that the election was a repudiation of the Left on the issue of race.
In any case, throwing the concerns of our female and minority supporters who rightly feel that they are still not treated equally would do us no good. We would lose more votes than we would gain by soothing the egos of insecure white conservatives.
Your argument is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to silence the debate on social justice- exactly the sort of behaviour the Right loves to accuse those nasty "SJWs" of engaging in.
I will stop accusing those on the Right of bigotry when you stop either actively engaging in it or, in your case insisting that society turn a blind eye to it.
Edit: I will add, in fairness, that obviously not everyone who votes Republican/conservative/etc. is motivated simply, or even primarily, by bigotry.
However, they are choosing to side with bigots, for whatever reason. So at the very least, they are either in denial about the consequences of their actions, or demonstrating that they consider the persecution of women and minorities less important than whatever issues do motivate them. And if that's your position, then you have to own responsibility for that choice.
Not even going to bother with most of this.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, btw, when it comes to how the working class was treated by the Clinton campaign, and contributed to her loss.
