Serious The Politics Thread

[lilyhollow]

DR, I think that your response betrays a callousness to the reality of what is happening right now. Note that I didn't even make a comment there about voting for a politician--I literally did nothing more than say the truth, which is that the democrats are currently murdering many, many people. This apparently upset you, which imo is quite worrying. (edit: also applies to pinecoishot's post if you were in fact directing your post at them)

The reason I felt the need to pop in here and make that comment is that it really does feel like people have forgotten. I've been sickened by comments treating top establishment democrats as some kind of celebrities to worship. Comments gushing about how great of a job Kamala is doing at a speech, "Thank you Coconut Queen," happily comparing her to Pokemon, etc. This is not healthy. To be honest, it is dangerous

The democrats are murdering people right now. Do whatever kind of electoral whatever you feel you need to do, but the moment you forget or try to deny that reality, it is basically over for you if your goal is to contribute to any sort of meaningful movement towards liberation.



(edit: unless your post was responding to someone else. if so, my bad)

 

[SittinGamer]

Comments gushing about how great of a job Kamala is doing at a speech, "Thank you Coconut Queen," happily comparing her to Pokemon, etc. This is not healthy. To be honest, it is dangerous

Yeah its like we're expressing some kind of happiness when we think that losing to Donald Trump is marginally less likely than it was with the prior Democrat. As was stated, in this two party state, electoralism will not be the way to equality for all, but electoralism is certainly being used to pave the way for more inequality than there already is.

 

[MrHands]

DR, I think that your response betrays a callousness to the reality of what is happening right now. Note that I didn't even make a comment there about voting for a politician--I literally did nothing more than say the truth, which is that the democrats are currently murdering many, many people. This apparently upset you, which imo is quite worrying. (edit: also applies to pinecoishot's post if you were in fact directing your post at them)

The reason I felt the need to pop in here and make that comment is that it really does feel like people have forgotten. I've been sickened by comments treating top establishment democrats as some kind of celebrities to worship. Comments gushing about how great of a job Kamala is doing at a speech, "Thank you Coconut Queen," happily comparing her to Pokemon, etc. This is not healthy. To be honest, it is dangerous

The democrats are murdering people right now. Do whatever kind of electoral whatever you feel you need to do, but the moment you forget or try to deny that reality, it is basically over for you if your goal is to contribute to any sort of meaningful movement towards liberation.



(edit: unless your post was responding to someone else. if so, my bad)

Even if we sit here and take "liberals on Smogon" as a 1-1 representative of what the average American actually feels there's a pretty clear, blatant difference to Kamela Harris / the Democrats and... Trump. If you genuinely can not see the difference between the two it just shows you're either not paying attention or trolling. One side has policies that range 50 / 50 between "lets make things better" and "things are fine" vs the other side who's entire political party rallies behind "two dudes fucking isn't okay. We need less taxes on the rich. Why black people able to vote."

Kinda hyperbole in the last part but also... sort of not.

If you're genuinely looking for some far left Tik-Tok styled gen Z revolution it isn't coming in 2024. You should be very thankful that the party that wants trans people to go away might not win. Maybe in 2028 or a little later there will be a candidate that does what we want in a Congress / Supreme Court that actually supports these views. But right now we're fighting to go forward, not backwards.

 

[Pinecoishot]

No one is saying liberals are the equivalent of Trump, even me who might be the biggest hater of liberals on this site lmao. I’ll probably vote for Kamala myself. My post was mainly just being angry at the Democratic Party and elites that they are unable to move forward on anything besides like labor and unions and social justice. They can see the disappointment in Joe Biden over these things mainly sparked over Gaza. And refuse to choose anyone or for Kamala to make any statement saying she will change any part of her policy around this. Instead we get a younger candidate with the exact same policies

 

[lilyhollow]

I will never, ever in life be thankful to the democrats for relentlessly murdering many, many people--using our money, and in our name, at that.

I'm not concerned with anything you are talking about with 'difference between parties' and so on. I didn't say anything about this in my post. I did nothing more than express revulsion at the mass murder the democrats are committing and the gleeful celebration and worship their chosen candidate, and current vice president, is receiving in this thread. I think this is a position that can be respected and should not upset anyone who dislikes genocide and its perpetrators.



edit @ below post bc i dont want to fill up the thread: I am not a moderator, youre free to celebrate as you like. I'm also free to point out my opinion on that, as I have done

 

[SittinGamer]

If we accept that the capital E Establishment (both party) platform will not change on Israel/Imperialism As A Whole short of a literal bloody uprising and also cannot express any joy whatsoever about the current candidate because of that, we may as well close the thread.

 

[juoean]

~ if u want to be precise, polls are essentially voluntary samples, and idt theres any reason to believe that ppl who volunteer for polls are representative of eligible voters as a whole . but the polls prob do accurately represent some small portion of eligible voters so in that sense they arent 'meaningless'.

~ hopefully no one is intentionally policing ppls emotions, maybe some people react to electoral politics with ridicule and taking pleasure from little things they can find and maybe some ppl want to feel excited abt the 60 year old war criminal being younger as a way of (repressing other feelings or whatever the details may be i cant rly speak to that).
emotional regulation systems are personal and it would be absurd to tell strangers on a random online thread that u know how to regulate their emotions better than they do.

what is at issue tho is eg the music of chappell roan, who as i learned refused to perform at the white house in accordance with anti-normalization of the palestinian genocide, being put onto kamala campaign propaganda. and in general, when chosen methods of promotion of kamala's campaign make the choice to whitewash a career prosecutor who has a clear commitment to continue enacting imperial terror both within us borders and around the world, and obv rn particularly in palestine.
all agitation and propaganda is a choice and the choice to push propaganda that represents kamala's campaign as something other than the imperialist status quo, is directly harmful to the ability to organize bc it is further promoting mythology that then needs to be undone to organize for p much anything (as well as violating anti-normalization).

i do also want to say that every decision of every person doesnt need to be picked apart and obv social media people are often j kind of joking / playing around with stuff, its not abt blaming individual behavior but describing and analyzing a concerning social trend, ppl's right to express their emotions about that trend as well as proposing a (subjective) change in order to reverse/correct that (objective) trend

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

I just wanted to pop my head above the parapet and say how refreshing it is to see political debate on a forum that is done with such a high level of respect and conduct. Truly humbling, as I have seen some awful discussion on other forums elsewhere, particularly where the issues of Palestine, Palestinians and Gaza is concerned.

I know the present and future looks bleak right now, but reading through this thread and seeing how much more switched on younger generations of Pokemon fans are than mine is to the core issues of inequity and ethical behaviour in the world gives me great hope for a better world.

 

[Divine Retribution]

I just wanted to pop my head above the parapet and say how refreshing it is to see political debate on a forum that is done with such a high level of respect and conduct. Truly humbling, as I have seen some awful discussion on other forums elsewhere, particularly where the issues of Palestine, Palestinians and Gaza is concerned.

I know the present and future looks bleak right now, but reading through this thread and seeing how much more switched on younger generations of Pokemon fans are than mine is to the core issues of inequity and ethical behaviour in the world gives me great hope for a better world.

Don't go back a few pages.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I appreciate Lily’s point and I think it’s important to always hold that perspective— but I can’t live in it. And I don’t think everyone can.

The theoretical perfect left is also perfectly morally right but also in constant state of defeat— with no hope of righting it in our lifetimes. So focusing in on the useful, on the possible, is helpful for sanity…

 

[Myzozoa]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/22/sonya-massey-illinois-shooting-video

Another high profile, caught on video (don't watch it, even reading about it is quite scarring), egregious, and not even yet entirely extrajudicial white supremacist enjoyment-murder. What we hold in common in America or as "Americans" is more and more a national mausoleum of everyday routine horror and violence. It's like we are going back to our societal roots, in the throws of a sort of 1600s Puritanical horror morality where we self-flagellate and prostrate to liberal nonviolence and security but when 'no one' is watching, barely repressed colonial fantasies are indulged by those most empowered within the legal hierarchy.

A throw back from 2017 as people celebrating the nomination of Harris sleep walk to another Trump victory. The change seems to have been a much needed anesthetic for progressives until the inevitable in mid-January.

https://yasminnair.com/should-you-march-against-trump/

"The proposed marches are steeped in hypocrisy. What marchers seem to be complaining about is that Trump is simply not as genteel about his hatred for the most vulnerable, that he has not cloaked his vile policies in the feel-good rhetoric of empire (yes, we vanquished them, but we taught them so much) or joked about drones. Your marching has the effect of creating the illusion of a radical break in history. In fact, you are merely the suture between a terrible period of time and another, and as long as you cling to your wishful fantasy that things are changing — rather than acknowledge the truth, which is that things are just the same, with less politeness — your political agenda, whatever it is, is doomed to fail and it deserves to fail."

Of course it is not inevitable that Harris will lose, little in life is ever really inevitable. But if Harris loses we will all have 'known' the whole time, a little instinct in the back of our minds reminding us that we've done this before. We are practiced, both in the stumbling into radical right-wing electoral outcomes, and in our forgetting of how their victory was paved: "Space is always a practiced place". And we are obviously more practiced than ever now.

 

[RaikouLover]

In today’s episode of gaslight horse(shit)race polling, convicted felon Donald Trump clings to a 1 point lead over Vice President Kamala Harris! Convicted felon Trump is powered by his unprecedented coalition of lower income voters (2020 D+12), suburban voters (2020 D+2), and uncharacteristically high support from younger voters (2020 D+22), Latinos (2020 D+22) and even Democrats (2022 D+88)! What do you make of this?

“Convicted felon Trump’s platform of toxic masculinity, misogyny, environmental destruction, and mass deportations is clearly resonating with America. He is re-aligning the electorate before our very eyes. He is en route to a historic victory. It is truly something to behold! The Democrats just have no answer. Every attempt on his political (and physical) life has only made him stronger!”

 

[faint]

In today’s episode of gaslight horse(shit)race polling, convicted felon Donald Trump clings to a 1 point lead over Vice President Kamala Harris! Convicted felon Trump is powered by his unprecedented coalition of lower income voters (2020 D+12), suburban voters (2020 D+2), and uncharacteristically high support from younger voters (2020 D+22), Latinos (2020 D+22) and even Democrats (2022 D+88)! What do you make of this?

View attachment 651105

“Convicted felon Trump’s platform of toxic masculinity, misogyny, environmental destruction, and mass deportations is clearly resonating with America. He is re-aligning the electorate before our very eyes. He is en route to a historic victory. It is truly something to behold! The Democrats just have no answer. Every attempt on his political (and physical) life has only made him stronger!”

This is.... entirely unsurprising? Kamala is a better candidate than Biden. But why would you expect polls to immediately reflect that? It's now the job of the Democratic party to show that she's fit to defeat Trump. They've been great so far at putting their full support behind her. It's been 3 days since the swap. What matters is that she's more attractive to Democratic voters than Biden was, so let's let the party you were once ride or die for do their job and prop her up to be an actual president. Like it or not, they weren't doing that with Biden.

 

[RaikouLover]

This is.... entirely unsurprising? Kamala is a better candidate than Biden. But why would you expect polls to immediately reflect that? It's now the job of the Democratic party to show that she's fit to defeat Trump. They've been great so far at putting their full support behind her. It's been 3 days since the swap. What matters is that she's more attractive to Democratic voters than Biden was, so let's let the party you were once ride or die for do their job and prop her up to be an actual president. Like it or not, they weren't doing that with Biden.

As much as you want to believe candidate quality accounts for seismic shifts in the electorate (it doesn’t unless you are a pedophile like Roy Moore), this was a poll bashing post. Donald Trump is never winning 16% of Democrats on this planet, nor are any of these other margins plausible. It’s laughable that people believe these polls have credibility. They are published for “horse race” engagement.

 

[myowngamertag]

The reason I felt the need to pop in here and make that comment is that it really does feel like people have forgotten. I've been sickened by comments treating top establishment democrats as some kind of celebrities to worship. Comments gushing about how great of a job Kamala is doing at a speech, "Thank you Coconut Queen," happily comparing her to Pokemon, etc. This is not healthy. To be honest, it is dangerous.

I don't think people have forgotten or are under any illusion that she's going to be significantly better on Palestine than Biden, a lot of it just reads as people jilted by Biden celebrating his ousting. The coconut stuff has largely been nothing more than a joke since it popped up like a year ago, anyone who is parlaying it into genuine support of Kamala was going to vote for Dem regardless of nominee

 

[bdt2002]

I had been meaning to ask this when Kamala Harris received her endorsement from President Biden before anyone says anything, no, I don't think he's secretly dead and I was reintroduced to the term "DEI". To anyone not caught up to speed, DEI stands for diversity, equality, and inclusion, if I'm not mistaken. This question for the Democrats in the room, since I would like to see both sides of the picture and I feel like I already have a good grasp on what the majority of Republican voters think of Harris (spoiler alert: they don't like her at all). My question is: what are your opinions on the status of a possible DEI presidential candidate? It has come to my attention that the official Democrat nominee will be selected, well, officially, at the Democratic National Convention that's happening next month. I'm still expecting Harris to be the official nominee when the dust settles, and since that's looking more likely every day, I'm hearing multiple people say that her only merit as a candidate is that she's DEI. I'm not sure how much of those statements are true or false; so, I figured, I would ask you guys what you think. Not just about Harris, but about the DEI movement and its place in American politics. Are you for it? Are you against it? What are you looking for in a DEI politician? Whatever it is, I'm interested in hearing what a more experienced group of posters has to share.

Also while I'm here, I wanted to share a website with you guys that I'm going to go on a limb and assume most of you have already seen before anyways. I remember back in 2020, me and my roommates were browsing this sight on Election... Day? I guess it technically would have been "Election Night" as America waited for the results, but you get my point. This website contains daily updated statistics on voting polls in every state and distract, an interactive map, and even its own voting simulator. Apologies in advance if I am not allowed to post links here, I can remove this if need be. The link is: https://www.270towin.com/

Edit: if anyone is curious, the interactive map as of the time of posting this currently lists voting projections of 251 for Republicans and 226 for Democrats based on the most up-to-date polling information and the website's daily simulation data. Notably, Pennsylvania is now listed as a must-win state for the Democratic Party, as the highest amount of (currently projected) electoral votes Democrats can earn with a Republican win for Pennsylvania is 268. Pennsylvania joins Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan here as currently projected battleground states on the interactive map.

 

[Divine Retribution]

DEI is a dogwhistle and the idea of a "DEI presidential candidate" is a fucking absurdity. In what way is Harris a "DEI candidate"? Be explicit.

 

[awyp]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/22/sonya-massey-illinois-shooting-video

Another high profile, caught on video (don't watch it, even reading about it is quite scarring), egregious, and not even yet entirely extrajudicial white supremacist enjoyment-murder. What we hold in common in America or as "Americans" is more and more a national mausoleum of everyday routine horror and violence. It's like we are going back to our societal roots, in the throws of a sort of 1600s Puritanical horror morality where we self-flagellate and prostrate to liberal nonviolence and security but when 'no one' is watching, barely repressed colonial fantasies are indulged by those most empowered within the legal hierarchy.

I will be toning down my opinion because I'm a moderator, but I didn't want to comment about this situation unless someone posted about it. I watched the body cam footage, which to be honest is quite haunting. Law enforcement in the states has not improved, it's still absolute shit regardless of whatever policies the Biden administration has committed to. Minorities are constantly targeted by the police force, and it just needs to change (I'm so sick of it). I think 2020 was incredible because there was a lot of cities defunding the police including mine and it has definitely helped by putting a leash on them. I will be voting Harris, but a part of me can't stop to think of how much of a cop lover (rumors or whatever but she was a prosecutor) she is. Many cases that she oversaw where plenty of people were jailed for marijuana possession for YEARS, her stance has changed apparently on that but I dont know.

Back to the Sonya Massey case, its absolutely disgusting that this women called the police for help, and you can see the tone of the 2 cops how they just wanted to ask for identification and not help, they saw Sonya Massey as a threat holding a pot of boiling water because these cops don't know how to control the situation by de-escalating and going ahead to the stove (whichever one of them) and shutting it off versus putting themselves in a situation to even consider Massey a threat (which she wasn't). She called the cops for help, suspecting there might be a intruder / prowler outside her home and the cops show up to view her as a threat because she's a black women? The cop pointed the gun to her head before she even MOVED.

The excerpt from the audio recording of the body cam:

In the footage, deputy Sean Grayson and another deputy speak calmly with Massey in her home when she goes to the stove to turn off a pot of boiling water. She then picks up the pot and the other deputy steps back, “away from your hot steaming water,” he says.

“I rebuke you in the name of Jesus,” she says in response.

“Huh?” the deputy says.

“I rebuke you in the name of Jesus,” she repeats.

“You better f**king not or I swear to God I’ll f**king shoot you in the f**king face,” Grayson says.

Calling the name of Jesus is apparently a threat now...but lets say it is right. Threatening to shoot someone in the face as law enforcement is what you're taught right?

Sean Grayson was fired by his police department and is now charged with murder, hopefully justice is served.

 

[bdt2002]

DEI is a dogwhistle and the idea of a "DEI presidential candidate" is a fucking absurdity. In what way is Harris a "DEI candidate"? Be explicit.

I had a feeling someone might ask that question. My own personal definition of what makes someone a DEI candidate is if they have any demographic qualities that would constitute them as a minority figure relative to previously elected candidates for their position. I don't care if what I'm about to say next upsets any Republicans because it's a proven fact: for the sake of the presidency, everyone who won the election for except Barack Obama has been a white dude. By this definition I use, at least, Kamala Harris would be a DEI presidential candidate. But then, I ask you. How can I, an uneducated young voter with a mostly Republican background and a desire to learn and be as unbiased as I possibly can, learn more without asking for the opinions of voters on the other side? I don't mind how you guys react to my initial post, because the way I'm looking at it, any and all reactions can be seen as valuable information for me to learn from. Something else I would like to clarify, too. I myself don't view Kamala Harris in the same way I mentioned:

"I'm hearing multiple people say that her only merit as a candidate is that she's DEI. I'm not sure how much of those statements are true or false; so, I figured, I would ask you guys what you think."

I can assure you guys that I don't think this way myself, only that this is what I've been hearing from others. Maybe- hear me out, MAGA supporters- someone who coincidentially is a part of a minority group does actually have more merit to their political identity and knows what they're talking about. Maybe- are they still listening?- not everything has to be a DEI discussion at all, and this term being thrown around so much is completely asinine. Maybe, the candidate prospects we (Republicans) have such a bad habit of slapping the DEI label onto are actually good at their job. True to the nature of this reply post, I have reason to believe you're not actually mad at me, and if you are, I apologize for upsetting you. I am willing to handle this like a civilized adult. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like your "anger" (for lack of a better word) seems aimed at other people than myself for the time being.

 

[RaikouLover]

I had been meaning to ask this when Kamala Harris received her endorsement from President Biden before anyone says anything, no, I don't think he's secretly dead and I was reintroduced to the term "DEI". To anyone not caught up to speed, DEI stands for diversity, equality, and inclusion, if I'm not mistaken. This question for the Democrats in the room, since I would like to see both sides of the picture and I feel like I already have a good grasp on what the majority of Republican voters think of Harris (spoiler alert: they don't like her at all). My question is: what are your opinions on the status of a possible DEI presidential candidate? It has come to my attention that the official Democrat nominee will be selected, well, officially, at the Democratic National Convention that's happening next month. I'm still expecting Harris to be the official nominee when the dust settles, and since that's looking more likely every day, I'm hearing multiple people say that her only merit as a candidate is that she's DEI. I'm not sure how much of those statements are true or false; so, I figured, I would ask you guys what you think. Not just about Harris, but about the DEI movement and its place in American politics. Are you for it? Are you against it? What are you looking for in a DEI politician? Whatever it is, I'm interested in hearing what a more experience group of posters has to share.

Also while I'm here, I wanted to share a website with you guys that I'm going to go on a limb and assume most of you have already seen before anyways. I remember back in 2020, me and my roommates were browsing this sight on Election... Day? I guess it technically would have been "Election Night" as America waited for the results, but you get my point. This website contains daily updated statistics on voting polls in every state and distract, an interactive map, and even its own voting simulator. Apologies in advance if I am not allowed to post links here, I can remove this if need be. The link is: https://www.270towin.com/

Edit: if anyone is curious, the interactive map as of the time of posting this currently lists voting projections of 251 for Republicans and 226 for Democrats based on the most up-to-date polling information and the website's daily simulation data. Notably, Pennsylvania is now listed as a must-win state for the Democratic Party, as the highest amount of (currently projected) electoral votes Democrats can earn with a Republican win for Pennsylvania is 268. Pennsylvania joins Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan here as currently projected battleground states on the interactive map.

“DEI” is a dogwhistle the right uses for black people. Other dog whistles they use:

-woke (mob)
-thug
-CRT
-welfare (Queen)
-hood
-Chicago
-urban
-low-income (housing)

Anyone can feel free to add for other minority groups.

Re: 270 to win since I think polling is complete shit I will model the upcoming race and post my prediction for November.

 

[Divine Retribution]

I had a feeling someone might ask that question. My own personal definition of what makes someone a DEI candidate is if they have any demographic qualities that would constitute them as a minority figure relative to previously elected candidates for their position. I don't care if what I'm about to say next upsets any Republicans because it's a proven fact: for the sake of the presidency, everyone who won the election for except Barack Obama has been a white dude. By this definition I use, at least, Kamala Harris would be a DEI presidential candidate.

Right, DEI is a dogwhistle for "any minority who doesn't pass for a straight white male". I'm glad we're more or less on the same page for that.

I can assure you guys that I don't think this way myself, only that this is what I've been hearing from others. Maybe- hear me out, MAGA supporters- someone who coincidentially is a part of a minority group does actually have more merit to their political identity and knows what they're talking about. Maybe- are they still listening?- not everything has to be a DEI discussion at all, and this term being thrown around so much is completely asinine. Maybe, the candidate prospects we (Republicans) have such a bad habit of slapping the DEI label onto are actually good at their job. True to the nature of this reply post, I have reason to believe you're not actually mad at me, and if you are, I apologize for upsetting you. I am willing to handle this like a civilized adult. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like your "anger" (for lack of a better word) seems aimed at other people than myself for the time being.

No, I believe you're asking in good faith, but I'm also not really understanding your perspective here. You seem to acknowledge that DEI is a dogwhistle and that Harris has more merit to her political identity than being a minority, as you say. I agree with this. But then earlier you asked...

I would ask you guys what you think. Not just about Harris, but about the DEI movement and its place in American politics. Are you for it? Are you against it? What are you looking for in a DEI politician? Whatever it is, I'm interested in hearing what a more experienced group of posters has to share.

This is a nonsensical question to ask given the context of the previous information. The answer is Dems and leftist don't have any opinion on the "DEI movement" because it's an overblown made-up phenomenon that doesn't mean what Republicans are desperately trying to make it mean. It's the same thing as CRT, really. I don't really get why you'd ask what we're looking for in a DEI politician if you acknowledge that people like Harris aren't just DEI politicians. DEI politicians don't exist, why would we look for anything in them? You might as well ask our favorite kind of unicorn.

 

[TheMantyke]

My man, using the term "DEI president" "DEI Candidate" etc at all is wholesale swallowing right wing propaganda. It is the most recent trend this year to discredit minorities in any position by calling them a DEI hire, that they are incompitent at their job and only on board because of their race. It is the next brick on a long road of hateful dogwhistles. "Are you for or against the DEI movement?" is just such an incredibly broken question; where did you even hear people talking about a "DEI movement"?

Edit: Oops, late to reply. Keeping this up because I am genuinely interested how that question came into existence.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I had a feeling someone might ask that question. My own personal definition of what makes someone a DEI candidate is if they have any demographic qualities that would constitute them as a minority figure relative to previously elected candidates for their position.

Is it fair to assume that you believe in racial equality in civil society?

If so, your definition of DEI as stated would be meaningless, carry no connotation. It would just be a blank observation that the individual has a historically un(der)represented background— irrespective of qualifications. In an egalitarian society, such an observation would never carry a negative connotation.

But, we know that on the Republican side, in their media, from the lips of their loudest voices— DEI is ALWAYS embued with an extremely negative connotation.

That’s why those who believe in any sort of egalitarian society, civil society, genuine commitment to those virtues—

—will probably see it for what it is; just a veiled slur used by folks who really wish they could just say the n-slur.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

they just wanted to ask for identification and not help

It's like a drug to cops, they have to have it. Makes no sense

 

[bdt2002]

This is a nonsensical question to ask given the context of the previous information. The answer is Dems and leftist don't have any opinion on the "DEI movement" because it's an overblown made-up phenomenon that doesn't mean what Republicans are desperately trying to make it mean. It's the same thing as CRT, really. I don't really get why you'd ask what we're looking for in a DEI politician if you acknowledge that people like Harris aren't just DEI politicians.

Excellent point. This knowledge of DEI- what it actually means, that is- this has been news to me so far. Now things are starting to make a bit more sense. Which, again, I have you to thank for because I wanted to learn and you were happy enough to answer my question. Now to actually answer why I wanted your opinions if I'm willing to acknowledge what you pointed out: there are three reasons:

• Apparently DEI didn't mean what I thought it did before writing my initial post, so I'll admit that's on me for being unaware despite still not wanting to be biased or offensive.
• From what I can tell, most of the people in this thread are at least slightly Democrat-leaning on average; this is perfectly fine by me, it's moreso that what I've grown up hearing and what I hear from this thread tends to not match up
• That second point wouldn't be a factor for me, if it wasn't for the fact that I haven't heard any Democrats going crazy about this compared to the Republican side. I would imagine that not all Republicans are like this, but the difference between parties in regards to whether or not this is a sensitive comment to make is night and day. Going back to my first point, what I thought going into this conversation was that DEI was just a way to describe a minority group, not unlike how many neurodiverse people, particularly kids/students (this is an area I have far more experience with than politics, hence the example) tend to have the "special ed" label slapped onto them by the schools they're attending. In other words, using that same logic, I can see why DEI is a sensitive and disrespectful term, both in general and towards these people.

Do I recognize now that this was a nonsensical question? Absolutely. Does this change my perspective on things? Even though it was such a sudden turn of events from my point of view, yes, I would say. It helps me a lot when I can try and explain things to myself in relating ways I can understand, too. Thanks again for your help, I really appreciate it.

My man, using the term "DEI president" "DEI Candidate" etc at all is wholesale swallowing right wing propaganda. It is the most recent trend this year to discredit minorities in any position by calling them a DEI hire, that they are incompitent at their job and only on board because of their race. It is the next brick on a long road of hateful dogwhistles. "Are you for or against the DEI movement?" is just such an incredibly broken question; where did you even hear people talking about a "DEI movement"?

Edit: Oops, late to reply. Keeping this up because I am genuinely interested how that question came into existence.

I was first "introduced" to the term DEI on the news at work the other day; I was working the front counter at my fast food job, and from where I stand I can see the TVs. I can't remember what day it was specifically, only that they were talking about the breaking news of Biden dropping out of the 2024 presidential race and that somehow the discussion shifted to why Harris isn't a qualified candidate. I wanted to pay more attention to what kind of nonsense they must have been spouting, but it was hard to do so given I had a job to do and the TV volume wasn't on very loud (no subtitles, either). My initial question had come into existence because I wanted other people's opinions that I knew wouldn't be so blatantly biased against Kamala Harris and the people who do support her work.

In other words, pretty much everything you just said checks out with what actually happened.

Is it fair to assume that you believe in racial equality in civil society?

If so, your definition of DEI as stated would be meaningless, carry no connotation. It would just be a blank observation that the individual has a historically un(der)represented background— irrespective of qualifications. In an egalitarian society, such an observation would never carry a negative connotation.

But, we know that on the Republican side, in their media, from the lips of their loudest voices— DEI is ALWAYS embued with an extremely negative connotation.

That’s why those who believe in any sort of egalitarian society, civil society, genuine commitment to those virtues—

—will probably see it for what it is; just a veiled slur used by folks who really wish they could just say the n-slur.

Especially after the conversation that is ongoing, I do not believe I am in the right position to say what I necessarily believe in compared to what is morally and ethically right. It should, in theory, go without saying that being racist is a bad thing, but as we see time and time again, apparently this common sense has lost the "common" part. I would like to say that I believe in what is right for everyone depending on what they deserve, regardless of ethnicity or other factors, but what someone "deserves" is up to opinion much of the time. Do I deserve to be making more money at my fast food job in the year 2024? Do I deserve to have grown up listening to a pretty heavily conservative family not always say the most intelligent or respectful comments at family gatherings? At their core, bipartisan political conversations and debates are largely that- contrasting opinions that can have major effects on the good will of the country and its citizens. My point I'm trying to make is, I don't really know how to answer that question or what to believe. I feel like it's up to me to do my own research and form my own opinion after having looked at as many sides of the conversation as possible. I would like to push my old definition of DEI out the window and acknowledge the truth, if at all possible. No matter what ethnicity, background et cetera, someone is, that should not influence how I treat them. I don't think my family necessarily had the intention of raising me to be disrespectful, but I suppose there could always be more to that story behind the scenes that I haven't seen.