3 ms·

> I was a Democrat for most of my life. I’m socially liberal, and that’s always been a key part of my values and my identity. I’m pro choice, pro LGBTQ rights,

> I was a Democrat for most of my life. I’m socially liberal, and that’s always been a key part of my values and my identity. I’m pro choice, pro LGBTQ rights, pro environmental issues, pro free speech, and anti-racism. To be more clear, she's a millennial Republican. She was born at a time where these social liberal points she tries to claim as her beliefs deserving acclaim were already long resolved in the mainstream and she seems to have no interest in working for further social justice beyond what was already fought and won before she became politically aware. For the apparent contradictions she highlights and questions she asks there are of course reasonable answers, but she doesn't seem to have the curiosity to dig into the issues behind what the posters on twitter are referencing. Instead simply being distraught at the discourse that she doesn't understand.

Tiktaalik 6y ago
lmao just marvelling at how blissfully rich and ignorant you have to be to not understand why some people might be mad at you for talking about gentrification as a good thing.
- fileyfood 6y ago
  I don't believe she's talking about gentrification as a good thing, just using it as a metric. For example, on a lower income, I wouldn't choose to look in a highly gentrified area for housing, because rent prices may be unaffordable and come with a lot of amenities I don't need. Food/restaurant prices may also be unaffordable. Personally, I have chosen to live in more and less gentrified areas based on how much money I was able to/comfortable spending on rent. At an extreme end of the spectrum, most of us may not live in Beverly Hills, CA, or own a condo in midtown Manhattan, and it's informative to say those areas are extremely gentrified and un-affordable. There are more discussions about income inequality, capitalism in the housing market, unfair housing practices, etc, that the author wasn't trying to comment on when she was broadcasting information. Imo, the challenge is that it may be assumed that you have bad intent. And also imo, I don't expect this challenge to go away, or be "fixed" (if it is a problem at all). The power to have your words be broadcast to millions in an instant is also the challenge of having millions of reactions to your words.
  - Tiktaalik 6y ago
    She said one 'hood was better than the other and the only metric she cited was 'gentrification'. Do you figure she was saying the gentrification was a bad thing? Gentrification is an incredibly political third rail. Either she's dumb, oblivious or she knew what she was saying. In the latter two cases she can't claim to be upset at the outcry.
fileyfood 6y ago
It sounds like she's both socially and fiscally liberal, but doesn't identify with the mechanisms at play in the liberal sphere because they threaten individuals. In many states in the US, socially liberal policies like abortion, gay rights, etc, etc are heavily blocked and contested, so I don't agree with your characterization of these as mainstream. I agree they are mainstream among liberal Americans. My understanding is that her article is advocating for respectful and open discourse, and greater detail and understanding of the issues is always welcome. The point I see is that a person can be offended by a post or statement, out of context of the post's intent. Currently, the discourse supports the offended person, and condemns the poster. For example, in the gentrification example, the retweet was focused on communicating relative wealth of the communities, it was not focused on the political issue of gentrification. The author was not saying she agreed with gentrification, and was expressing any opinions about race, rather, she was trying to communicate the relative wealth of the different communities. This backlash to her retweet drove her to release an apology.
- Tiktaalik 6y ago
  Yeah they're mainstream if she's liberal. You don't get a cookie for not being a bigot if you're a democrat. re: gentrification example, she was explicitly saying that she preferred one hood over the other, and the sole attribute she gave to the hood was the heavily loaded term gentrification. Easily could be understood that she was implicitly approving. Her not understanding how directly harmful gentrification is to working class people and BIPOC, and being distraught at the reaction. Wild. I have no sympathy honestly. Have any sort of tact and THINK. I don't really have any sympathy for people who are concerned at the threat of being "cancelled" when are they are so oblivious, uncaring and blind to others in their community and the world.
kangnkodos 6y ago
Wow, @Tiktaalik. Your claim has crossed the line to a personal attack which should not be tolerated. Please stick to discussing the issues instead of making personal attacks in the future.
- Tiktaalik 6y ago
  wtf are you talking about?

Tiktaalik 6y ago

lmao just marvelling at how blissfully rich and ignorant you have to be to not understand why some people might be mad at you for talking about gentrification as a good thing.

fileyfood 6y ago
I don't believe she's talking about gentrification as a good thing, just using it as a metric. For example, on a lower income, I wouldn't choose to look in a highly gentrified area for housing, because rent prices may be unaffordable and come with a lot of amenities I don't need. Food/restaurant prices may also be unaffordable. Personally, I have chosen to live in more and less gentrified areas based on how much money I was able to/comfortable spending on rent. At an extreme end of the spectrum, most of us may not live in Beverly Hills, CA, or own a condo in midtown Manhattan, and it's informative to say those areas are extremely gentrified and un-affordable. There are more discussions about income inequality, capitalism in the housing market, unfair housing practices, etc, that the author wasn't trying to comment on when she was broadcasting information. Imo, the challenge is that it may be assumed that you have bad intent. And also imo, I don't expect this challenge to go away, or be "fixed" (if it is a problem at all). The power to have your words be broadcast to millions in an instant is also the challenge of having millions of reactions to your words.
- Tiktaalik 6y ago
  She said one 'hood was better than the other and the only metric she cited was 'gentrification'. Do you figure she was saying the gentrification was a bad thing? Gentrification is an incredibly political third rail. Either she's dumb, oblivious or she knew what she was saying. In the latter two cases she can't claim to be upset at the outcry.

fileyfood 6y ago

It sounds like she's both socially and fiscally liberal, but doesn't identify with the mechanisms at play in the liberal sphere because they threaten individuals. In many states in the US, socially liberal policies like abortion, gay rights, etc, etc are heavily blocked and contested, so I don't agree with your characterization of these as mainstream. I agree they are mainstream among liberal Americans. My understanding is that her article is advocating for respectful and open discourse, and greater detail and understanding of the issues is always welcome. The point I see is that a person can be offended by a post or statement, out of context of the post's intent. Currently, the discourse supports the offended person, and condemns the poster. For example, in the gentrification example, the retweet was focused on communicating relative wealth of the communities, it was not focused on the political issue of gentrification. The author was not saying she agreed with gentrification, and was expressing any opinions about race, rather, she was trying to communicate the relative wealth of the different communities. This backlash to her retweet drove her to release an apology.

Tiktaalik 6y ago
Yeah they're mainstream if she's liberal. You don't get a cookie for not being a bigot if you're a democrat. re: gentrification example, she was explicitly saying that she preferred one hood over the other, and the sole attribute she gave to the hood was the heavily loaded term gentrification. Easily could be understood that she was implicitly approving. Her not understanding how directly harmful gentrification is to working class people and BIPOC, and being distraught at the reaction. Wild. I have no sympathy honestly. Have any sort of tact and THINK. I don't really have any sympathy for people who are concerned at the threat of being "cancelled" when are they are so oblivious, uncaring and blind to others in their community and the world.

kangnkodos 6y ago

Wow, @Tiktaalik. Your claim has crossed the line to a personal attack which should not be tolerated. Please stick to discussing the issues instead of making personal attacks in the future.

Tiktaalik 6y ago
wtf are you talking about?