4 ms·

Where’d you get the idea they shifted to any of that whatsoever? Right wing talking heads claim those things, but democrats don’t govern as if it’s true and tho

Where’d you get the idea they shifted to any of that whatsoever? Right wing talking heads claim those things, but democrats don’t govern as if it’s true and those aren’t positions espoused by the vast majority of the party, including all the ones with notable power.

gruez 1y ago
>but democrats don’t govern as if it’s true and those aren’t positions espoused by the vast majority of the party, including all the ones with notable power. Maybe they're not "governing as if it’s true", but their statements certainly do. See for instance, the "Kamala is for they/them" attack ad? Granted, it was an attack ad and Kamala moderated her stance in the 2024 election, but her statements in 2020 was far left of the average voter, which was why it was why it was so effective.
palmotea 1y ago
> but democrats don’t govern as if it’s true and those aren’t positions espoused by the vast majority of the party, including all the ones with notable power. Even if that's true, those kind of positions are a notable and visible part of progressive/Democratic culture. For instance, the famous "in this house we believe" yard sign (https://www.amazon.com/Debbies-Designs-18x24-inch-Weatherproof-Corrugated/dp/B08B9JDRNH https://www.amazon.com/Debbies-Designs-18x24-inch-Weatherpro...). "No human is illegal" can be reasonably interpreted to imply "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy." It was also pretty well documented in the 2024 postmortems that people and groups who espoused those extreme positions were very constraining on "democrats...with notable power."
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  > "No human is illegal" can be reasonably interpreted to imply "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy." Reasonably? No.
  - palmotea 1y ago
    > Reasonably? No. Sorry, yes. Given the political charge around the term "illegal," the sign repudiates the status of "illegal immigrant," and if you can't have illegal immigrants (or whatever euphemism of the day is), you can't have an immigration policy.
    - alabastervlog 1y ago
      This is pretzel-logic to justify the original absurd claim. No, it’s not reasonable at all.
      - palmotea 1y ago
        > This is pretzel-logic to justify the original absurd claim. No, it’s not reasonable at all. No it isn't. It's what you need to interpret the sign. It's not list of literal statements statement of clear positions, but a thing that plays off vibes and associations to send a political message without being super direct (at least when it was new). But if you think my interpretation absurd (which it is not), what you you think "no human is illegal" means, in the context of the sign? The problem may be that the wide use of these kinds of vague signals and slogans invited misinterpretation.
        alabastervlog 1y ago
        See my explanation a couple posts away. It means the thing that many on the left often express on this topic, not the thing that almost none ever do. [EDIT] To ground this, the claim is that it's reasonable to interpret "no human is illegal" as "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". This is a "reasonable" leap reached by following "what you need to interpret the sign". Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that.
        gruez 1y ago
        >[EDIT] To ground this, the claim is that it's reasonable to interpret "no human is illegal" as "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". This is a "reasonable" leap reached by following "what you need to interpret the sign". Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that. I don't get it. Are you conceding that independents and Republicans might genuinely believe that "No human is illegal" means all migration should be legal? By "genuinely believe ", I don't mean a maximally uncharitable interpretation either, but at the same time I also don't expect them to go out of their way to figure out exactly what is meant by "No human is illegal".

gruez 1y ago

>but democrats don’t govern as if it’s true and those aren’t positions espoused by the vast majority of the party, including all the ones with notable power. Maybe they're not "governing as if it’s true", but their statements certainly do. See for instance, the "Kamala is for they/them" attack ad? Granted, it was an attack ad and Kamala moderated her stance in the 2024 election, but her statements in 2020 was far left of the average voter, which was why it was why it was so effective.

palmotea 1y ago

> but democrats don’t govern as if it’s true and those aren’t positions espoused by the vast majority of the party, including all the ones with notable power. Even if that's true, those kind of positions are a notable and visible part of progressive/Democratic culture. For instance, the famous "in this house we believe" yard sign (https://www.amazon.com/Debbies-Designs-18x24-inch-Weatherproof-Corrugated/dp/B08B9JDRNH https://www.amazon.com/Debbies-Designs-18x24-inch-Weatherpro...). "No human is illegal" can be reasonably interpreted to imply "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy." It was also pretty well documented in the 2024 postmortems that people and groups who espoused those extreme positions were very constraining on "democrats...with notable power."

alabastervlog 1y ago
> "No human is illegal" can be reasonably interpreted to imply "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy." Reasonably? No.
- palmotea 1y ago
  > Reasonably? No. Sorry, yes. Given the political charge around the term "illegal," the sign repudiates the status of "illegal immigrant," and if you can't have illegal immigrants (or whatever euphemism of the day is), you can't have an immigration policy.
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    This is pretzel-logic to justify the original absurd claim. No, it’s not reasonable at all.
    - palmotea 1y ago
      > This is pretzel-logic to justify the original absurd claim. No, it’s not reasonable at all. No it isn't. It's what you need to interpret the sign. It's not list of literal statements statement of clear positions, but a thing that plays off vibes and associations to send a political message without being super direct (at least when it was new). But if you think my interpretation absurd (which it is not), what you you think "no human is illegal" means, in the context of the sign? The problem may be that the wide use of these kinds of vague signals and slogans invited misinterpretation.
      - alabastervlog 1y ago
        See my explanation a couple posts away. It means the thing that many on the left often express on this topic, not the thing that almost none ever do. [EDIT] To ground this, the claim is that it's reasonable to interpret "no human is illegal" as "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". This is a "reasonable" leap reached by following "what you need to interpret the sign". Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that.
        gruez 1y ago
        >[EDIT] To ground this, the claim is that it's reasonable to interpret "no human is illegal" as "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". This is a "reasonable" leap reached by following "what you need to interpret the sign". Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that. I don't get it. Are you conceding that independents and Republicans might genuinely believe that "No human is illegal" means all migration should be legal? By "genuinely believe ", I don't mean a maximally uncharitable interpretation either, but at the same time I also don't expect them to go out of their way to figure out exactly what is meant by "No human is illegal".