4 ms·

Although there's much we likely agree on (as you can see downthread), I downvoted this comment due to your use of "Democrat party" as an epithet. I think there'

Although there's much we likely agree on (as you can see downthread), I downvoted this comment due to your use of "Democrat party" as an epithet. I think there's room for substantive conversations about these policies that cross partisan boundaries, but epithets are going to work against that. Even if you mean "Democratic politicians" and not "Democratic voters," that's not necessarily how Democratic voters are going to interpret it, and you're reducing the chance of communicating effectively across party lines. Related: I think many Democratic voters would be highly receptive to discussions about how policies they might support or that they haven't thought much about contribute to structural racism and class inequality. I'm one such example (registered Democrat and typically vote Democratic, but I've been reading a lot about the effect of these policies lately), and I've had such a discussion very recently within my friend group. It's not a message that's lost on us. Just don't present it as a partisan battle against the people you're talking to, because you will get tuned out quickly if you do that.

zozbot234 5y ago
See, this would be a reasonable point of view if only we weren't currently seeing far more strident rhetoric coming from the other side, routinely accusing Republicans, white folks, those who care about traditional values, etc. etc. of furthering "racism and white supremacy". This kind of divisiveness does far more in practice to "reduc[e] the chance of communicating effectively across party lines" than a mere quip ("Democrat party") that's essentially intended to unambiguously convey the intention to say not-really-nice things about Democratic policymakers, and that I've also striven to reasonably back with facts unlike so much recent discourse about "the evils of white supremacy".
- ryukafalz 5y ago
  The people you're referring to are also engaging in partisan battles. As you can probably tell, it's not very convincing to those on the opposite side (yours, in this case). I agree, it's divisive. It's why I try not to do so whenever there's a chance that I might change someone's mind. Quip or not, it frames the conversation in partisan terms, and people on the other side are going to check out if you do that. I'm not defending partisan warfare, but being divisive in response isn't going to contribute to making the conversation any less divisive. I can't stop you, obviously, but realize that you're doing your own position a disservice by making it less likely that people will listen. Or, if you like, think of it this way: the country is divided about equally politically. You only need to sway a small portion of people to win an election. If you can engage with like-minded people who lean the other way but the opposing party can't, you're likely to win consistently. Don't you want to win? (Democrats, you take note too.)

zozbot234 5y ago

See, this would be a reasonable point of view if only we weren't currently seeing far more strident rhetoric coming from the other side, routinely accusing Republicans, white folks, those who care about traditional values, etc. etc. of furthering "racism and white supremacy". This kind of divisiveness does far more in practice to "reduc[e] the chance of communicating effectively across party lines" than a mere quip ("Democrat party") that's essentially intended to unambiguously convey the intention to say not-really-nice things about Democratic policymakers, and that I've also striven to reasonably back with facts unlike so much recent discourse about "the evils of white supremacy".

ryukafalz 5y ago
The people you're referring to are also engaging in partisan battles. As you can probably tell, it's not very convincing to those on the opposite side (yours, in this case). I agree, it's divisive. It's why I try not to do so whenever there's a chance that I might change someone's mind. Quip or not, it frames the conversation in partisan terms, and people on the other side are going to check out if you do that. I'm not defending partisan warfare, but being divisive in response isn't going to contribute to making the conversation any less divisive. I can't stop you, obviously, but realize that you're doing your own position a disservice by making it less likely that people will listen. Or, if you like, think of it this way: the country is divided about equally politically. You only need to sway a small portion of people to win an election. If you can engage with like-minded people who lean the other way but the opposing party can't, you're likely to win consistently. Don't you want to win? (Democrats, you take note too.)