Chapo Trap House and the rise of the dirtbag left

it's more "the left still has a misogyny problem when they're trying to bill themselves as the political wing that's for women's rights"

now I'm thinking of the Achewood strips from the time when Todd the squirrel was running for elected office and his policy ideas were ok but the way he phrased everything was horrible and sexist

ok, his stances were questionable
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=02062004

it's more "the left still has a misogyny problem when they're trying to bill themselves as the political wing that's for women's rights"

― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:10 (one minute ago) Permalink

The mainstream democratic party isn't trying to bill itself as the wing that's for women's rights?

the democrats are the mainstream party on the left, guess I need to be clear since this is the left of center-left thread

I mean I don't think they're very much on the left, buuuuuut

Current DNC leadership is only about 1/3 female.

https://www.democrats.org/about/our-leaders

Do you think mansplaining never goes on in their meetings? Where is the thinkpiece?

it's more "the left still has a misogyny problem when they're trying to bill themselves as the political wing that's for women's rights"

― mh, Tuesday, October 24, 2017 1:10 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

LOL didn't Sanders say that abortion/reproductive rights don't need to be a make-or-break issue for left candidates?

That was quite a while ago I think? He's been a pretty damned staunch defender of abortion rights for the last while.

Like 5 months ago?

Fuck, time is not moving fast enough.

I think there was a lot of tooth-gnashing about the fact he said Planned Parenthood is part of the establishment

Which I don't think is wrong -- because of the inequities in healthcare and especially in reproductive and women's health, there's a strong need for an institution like PP as part of the landscape, and in a country with universal healthcare we'd need _more_ clinics offering those services, because of the specialization. However, saying that to people who are constantly battling against republicans trying to eliminate funding any way possible who are hell-bent on the elimination of abortion rights, it sounds horrible.

Someone hit the button.

https://dejareviewer.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ludicrous-speed.jpg

it's more "the left still has a misogyny problem when they're trying to bill themselves as the political wing that's for women's rights"

― mh, Tuesday, October 24, 2017 1:10 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

LOL didn't Sanders say that abortion/reproductive rights don't need to be a make-or-break issue for left candidates?

― Monster fatberg (Phil D.), Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:26 PM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm pretty sure it was in the context of backing a candidate for Omaha mayor, i.e. an office that has absolutely zero impact on abortion.

However, I think it's worth asking: if you have a race where the only viable democratic candidate is quietly pro-life but progressive on a lot of other issues, and the alternative is some kind of GOP monster, shouldn't you back the democrat? That was the case in the Louisiana senate special election for example -- should progressives not have supported that guy? I don't understand why this seems to be conventional wisdom on pretty much every other issue but not abortion.

Also, there is a difference between pro-life and supportive of legislation that restricts abortion access, the two are not always the same. Doesn't Tim Kaine lean pro-life?

Yeah, and it diluted the national platform on reproductive health to have him on the ticket

It's not nearly as bad as Gore picking Lieberman. Somehow that's gotten lost over time, but it's still one of the things that makes me insanely irritated

it's too bad American civilization won't survive to that glorious day when unwanted pregnancies are goddamn technologically impossible

cuz fucking fucking fuckin abortion

However, I think it's worth asking: if you have a race where the only viable democratic candidate is quietly pro-life but progressive on a lot of other issues, and the alternative is some kind of GOP monster, shouldn't you back the democrat?

Well, for me, the answer is yes. That answer will differ for every voter, obviously, but I'd venture to guess that Democratic and leftist women would generally feel differently about it. And the goal should be to ensure that the viable candidates are progressive on all the issues, not just a few.

it's too bad American civilization won't survive to that glorious day when unwanted pregnancies are goddamn technologically impossible

We could make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past tomorrow with comprehensive reproductive healthcare as part of a universal healthcare program. But we won't.

... how the fuck are you going to make unwanted pregnancies technologically impossible

cuz fucking fucking fuckin abortion

what

O yeah lol forgot hilary had a running mate

I forget Kaine's existence on a regular basis.

fb: baby factories

Well, for me, the answer is yes. That answer will differ for every voter, obviously, but I'd venture to guess that Democratic and leftist women would generally feel differently about it.

I wouldn't venture to guess anything about what they'd generally feel. I'd imagine there are different opinions on it though.

The point is that Tim Kaine's pro-life leanings were never made out to be a reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton, but Sanders endorsing a candidate for mayor of Omaha is supposed to be some kind of albatross.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/bernie-sanders-tim-kaine-veep-convention-226313

If you're going to relitigate this every fucking chance you have, at least get your facts straight.

Tim Kaine's anti-choice trash was in fact something many of us involved in reproductive justice work were very pissed about and talked about a lot.

Yeah, I was going to say, it was a thing

Every super policy wonk person I know caucused for O'Malley in Iowa!

also, flappy: what Phil D said

me llamo tim kaine

Tim ka-YEEN

We could make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past tomorrow with comprehensive reproductive healthcare as part of a universal healthcare program.

I always wonder if there's a way to sell Christian voters on this sort of argument. At least one noted leftist (Elizabeth Bruenig) is pro-life but favors this type of approach/thinking.

I think it probably depends greatly - you could certainly approach, say, your average Lutherans and Episcopalians and whatnot with that argument. But both a lot of Catholic leaders and congregants, as well as evangelicals of all stripes, categorize a variety of widely used birth control methods as "abortifacents" because they stop a fertilized egg from implanting. That makes it tantamount to abortion in their eyes, so its a non-starter.

I understand why Bruenig states her views the way she does, but afaik she and her husband are against legislation further constricting the status quo, which means she's pro-choice. It's a rhetorical position that's useful for attracting people who are personally against abortion and want to make peace with it being part of the system.

also, what Phil said is the rhetoric of a lot of people, but it's not necessarily indicative of their actual actions, which muddies the issue further

I always wonder if there's a way to sell Christian voters on this sort of argument.

No, because American Christianity has very little to do with 'Christianity' in the sense of the positive principles laid out by the religion. For most it's not that 'innocent babies are being murdered, how can we stop that' it's 'these immoral/poor people won't stop having sex in ways we don't approve of!'

people are willing to accept policy positions, and even strongly advocate for them, on the basis of a cultural identity, according to a few studies. you can not really care about, in this instance, reproductive rights, but if you buy into the conservative evangelical identification, it can provoke strong policy positions

the logical thing is to appeal to schisms in groups in order to push a change in at least a segment of that section of the population. the cynic in me says we just need to craft stronger, new groups or repurpose some that will pull people in. that is, to an extent, what's going on with the DSA

xp yeah, that's why it's pointless to field pro-life democrat candidates. A position like 'I'm against abortion- that's why its important to me that our young people receive good quality sex education and have access to contraceptived' is going to win over precisely zero anti-abortion conservatives

Who cares? Anti-abortion conservatives wouldn't vote for their own mom if she had a D after her name. The voters in question here aren't movement conservatives or anti-abortion crusaders or committed evangelical Christians, they're people generally sympathetic to Democratic goals who've been led to believe a central party plank is enthusiasm about aborting as many fetuses as possible. People whose own personal attitude is "I wouldn't have an abortion but in the end a country's got all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs, and somebody else who feels that way feels more like my kind of person." Those people are real and plenty of them voted for Barack Obama.

Obama is pro-life?

You got that backwards; the voters eephus is talking about are pro-life but were willing to vote for Obama based on the rest of his platform.

That's what I thought. So, the best wat forward seems to be to try and win those that its possible to win over with the rest of the platform, and don't piss off your base and thriw women under the bus by fucking about with pro-life candidates. And certainly don't ever appear to concede that the maggots on the right might be arguing about abortion in good faith.

I don't have empirical evidence of this claim, but I'd certainly be willing to bet that there's a huge divide between "baby holocaust" voters who are either one-issue voters or the rest of their views track perfectly with everything else right-wing, and most other "pro-lifers" who probably don't make being pro-life a centerpiece of their voting decisions. This is vague, but I do remember reading a piece recently that convincingly connected ultra-pro-life voting to racism and suggested that pro-life had become a sort of surrogate or proxy issue for what used to be the racist vote.

Used to be?

i.e. what used to be the vote that was openly courted with outright racism (tbf, Trump has kind of brought that back)

remember when Bill Clinton's stump speech included "safe, legal, and rare"

wouldn't fly with the party now

I guess now it's the "I think water fountains should be for everyone but I sure don't like that law I heard about where all blacks go to college for free and white people have to pay double" vote

The voters in question here aren't movement conservatives or anti-abortion crusaders or committed evangelical Christians, they're people generally sympathetic to Democratic goals who've been led to believe a central party plank is enthusiasm about aborting as many fetuses as possible.

How many of those people are there and how many don't already vote Democratic (as you said, plenty of them voted for Obama)? 'Gun rights' and abortion are binary issues at this point for people who put them among the issues they care about - if it's not a absolute yes/no in terms of voting it's not really an issue to bring up or be concerned with because it's not that important to the person.

remember when Bill Clinton's stump speech included "safe, legal, and rare"

lindsay lohan: "safe, legal and rare!"

Interested in checking this out

https://www.versobooks.com/books/2426-the-end-of-policing

Author was just on The Dig, would like to read it as well. ILX dirtbag crew book club?

I'm interested

I was trying to figure out the other day how to quickly explain "the existence of police is fine, there are good police officers, but the police are a horrible institution"

also, "unions are good, police unions are inherently bad"