Support NeoGAF

[Salmonax]

And while Clinton did give lip service to “systemic racism” during the Democratic National Convention last year, the fact remains that she has yet to take full ownership of her role (and that of her political party) in perpetuating the very same systematic racism she ostensibly denounced.

Citation needed? Her role is pretty important to this argument, and (unless I'm missing it) the article never gets around to it.

I get what it's saying, but I'm not sure I agree that things had to get far, far, far worse in order to get better.

 

[lightskintwin]

The New York Times article does not wax poetically about a Hilary Clinton presidency.

That is not the point of the article. Maybe read it?

I'm using the words the writer is using. Hence the editorial.

I can't believe people—especially black people—are still using this moment to push a tired, useless narrative about how much better things would have been if corporate Democrats remained in power. What a shame.

This is the point of what she's saying.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

When you're so woke you go back to sleep

Not sure who this is supposed to be for but it's definitely not for black people though older than 30

 

[cdyhybrid]

I'm using the words the writer is using. Hence the editorial.



This is the point of it.

The "point" is arguing against the stating of an objective fact.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Now you've created a strawman. Once again did you read the article. LOL Just like much didn't change under Obama for Black communities.

I mean, we live in a racist country. Minorities have to deal with choosing to get shit on the least. Clinton would have shat on minorities quite a bit less than what we have now. But again, I'm not sure anyone has ever said she'd be a savior to minorities. This isn't really possible given the makeup of the US. But she could have done a much better job than what our reality is now.

 

[pigeon]

it was?

Yes?

 

[Ponn]

This. The article seems to have concocted it's own imaginary claim and argued against it, despite no one making the claim in the first place. Hillary would have been MUCH better than Trump. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is an inarguable, as close to objective as possible, fact

I was here on GAF during the primaries. I saw a lot of yasss queens, vote for Hillary if you want to win and a lot of accusatory posts that any Bernie voters were actual racists. Were Bernie voters doing the if you care about minorities vote for Bernie bit too? Yea they were. The whole thing was disgusting to view as someone watching. Even worse to see the people trying to revise the history. It's bad enough when you have a two party system making you feel your options are limited. The way people treated that primary though was downright fucking depressing.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Exactly. Hillary ran on an EXPLICIT identity politics platform. She didn't try pulling the whole "Fix the economy and social issues are fixed as well" line either

Yeah. She went much harder in that direction than any post-primary candidate I can think of. I mean, if anyone is feeling a bit amnesic, go back and watch some of the Convention for an example. Or that "alt-right" speech.

 

[Jeels]

I'm not sure I get it either. Valid points. But when you vote you vote for your self interests. I would rather have a democrat like Obama and Clinton that marginally improve the lives of minorities than a Trump who is drastically taking away decades of progress.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm using the words the writer is using. Hence the editorial.



This is the point of it.

Except things have gotten worse. Jeff Sessions is literally dismantling the Justice Department's civil rights division, same with DeVos and the Department of Education. Trump is literally emboldening Nazis with his statements and actions.

Maybe the underlying white supremacist structure the nation is built on wouldn't have changed much, but to think that any Democrat would have done the things Trump and his administration have done so far is insane.

You actually need to read Roxane Gay's article, not just what this person says she wrote.

 

[pigeon]

I was here on GAF during the primaries. I saw a lot of yasss queens, vote for Hillary if you want to win and a lot of accusatory posts that any Bernie voters were actual racists.

Just the racist ones

 

[Fuchsdh]

I don't remember anyone saying Hillary Clinton would magically make the world a better place, and you don't have to be Einstein to balance the math and say Clinton would have been 1000% times better than Trump. The idea that Clinton would not have done anything against the rise of hate grumps in the wake of Obama's presidency is bullshit.

She's screaming that if Clinton got elected,liberals would be allowing white supremacists to take power when the president got elected and put white supremacists in power.

She's a doctor at SUNY, seems like she might have let academia go to her head. Because I don't see how giving racists more power is somehow progress because of "awareness".

 

[Veitsev]

I'm using the words the writer is using. Hence the editorial.



This is the point of what she's saying.

You are quoting the author's interpretation of the article in question which she uses to prop up a straw man to argue her typical agenda.

Again maybe you should read the original article which is not arguing what this editorial claims it is.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yes?

She didn't even have the most aggressive social justice policies in her own primary. I mean, I suppose compared to the historical standard, so I'll give a pass on the context.

 

[lightskintwin]

The "point" is arguing against the stating of an objective fact.

Now you're getting hung up on semantics. LOL Her point was thinking Hilary was going to bring all this change to Black communities is to believe she was a "White Savior". Feel free to disagree with her.

I mean, we live in a racist country. Minorities have to deal with choosing to get shit on the least. Clinton would have shat on minorities quite a bit less than what we have now. But again, I'm not sure anyone has ever said she'd be a savior to minorities. This isn't really possible given the makeup of the US. But she could have done a much better job than what our reality is now.

Quit using minorities, she's specifically speaking from a Black perspective. Feel free to disagree with her, but it's not some crazy sentiment she's expressing that hasn't been expressed in Black communities.

You are quoting the author's interpretation of the article in question which she uses to prop up a straw man to argue her typical agenda.

Again maybe you should read the original article which is not arguing what this editorial claims it is.

Except things have gotten worse. Jeff Sessions is literally dismantling the Justice Department's civil rights division, same with DeVos and the Department of Education. Trump is literally emboldening Nazis with his statements and actions.

Maybe the underlying white supremacist structure the nation is built on wouldn't have changed much, but to think that any Democrat would have done the things Trump and his administration have done so far is insane.

You actually need to read Roxane Gay's article, not just what this person says she wrote.

Ok, you're both right. Let me read the New York Time's Article.

 

[Suikoguy]

She didn't even have the most aggressive social justice policies in her own primary. I mean, I suppose compared to the historical standard, so I'll give a pass on the context.

Ah yes, the trope that if we end Income Inequality we end Racism.
Not surprised to see you in this thread pushing the idea anymore.

 

[aeolist]

I mean, we live in a racist country. Minorities have to deal with choosing to get shit on the least. Clinton would have shat on minorities quite a bit less than what we have now. But again, I'm not sure anyone has ever said she'd be a savior to minorities. This isn't really possible given the makeup of the US. But she could have done a much better job than what our reality is now.

lots of people say this kind of thing (which is all correct IMO) but if you suggest that it means the democratic party is bad and should be made better all hell breaks loose.

 

[Staccat0]

Add "Straw Woman" to her list of titles I guess

 

[UnemployedVillain]

She didn't even have the most aggressive social justice policies in her own primary. I mean, I suppose compared to the historical standard, so I'll give a pass on the context.

Please don't tell me you're suggesting Bernie "fix economic inequality and don't focus on identity politics" Sanders did. Or O'Malley lol

 

[cdyhybrid]

Now you're getting hung up on semantics. LOL Her point was thinking Hilary was going to bring all this change to Black communities is to believe she was a "White Savior". Feel free to disagree with her.

The entire point of her article is semantics. The article she was responding to was saying that Hillary would have been better than Trump.

Her response was "Well ACTUALLY, white supremacy would still have been in a thing if she won" - which is both true and not something anyone with a functioning brain actually argued.

Hillary would have been better for minority communities than Trump currently is. This is 100% fact. It is inarguable. Better does not mean perfect, no, but I'm sure you're smart enough to recognize that without having to need it explained to you.

Edit:

Ok, you're both right. Let me read the New York Time's Article.

lol

lots of people say this kind of thing (which is all correct IMO) but if you suggest that it means the democratic party is bad and should be made better all hell breaks loose.

It only "breaks loose" when the aforementioned "better" actually isn't, or is pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ah yes, the trope that if we end Income Inequality we end Racism.
Not surprised to see you in this thread pushing the idea anymore.

Not surprised to see you're being disingenuous. I'm not talking about income inequality in and of itself, I'm actually straight up comparing racial justice issues.

Compare these:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/racial-justice/

One is significantly more comprehensive than the other, and it isn't Clinton's.

 

[pigeon]

She didn't even have the most aggressive social justice policies in her own primary. I mean, I suppose compared to the historical standard, so I'll give a pass on the context.

We've talked about this before and I'm not all that interested in relitigating it here. We differ on this. My perspective is informed by my own life experiences, yours no doubt by yours.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Since when? The time they were clamoring to pursue the white working class after the election, and complaining about the excessive focus on identity politics instead of economics?

Historical revision is unbecoming.

Revisionists are the ones ignoring that Bernie was the candidate forcefully fighting for criminal justice reform and institutionalized racism, in the next breath after he would speak about promoting economic justice for all. Progressives are the ones figthing in your local neighborhoods for better economic opportunities for black people, because they recognize poor blacks want good jobs (versus photo ops and token handouts from corrupt corporate Democrats).

Revisionists are also the gullible bunch who fell for the concerted effort by Clinton camp and their friendly media pundits to spread "Bernie Bros are just white angry college dudes who are racist"

 

[aeolist]

Ah yes, the trope that if we end Income Inequality we end Racism.
Not surprised to see you in this thread pushing the idea anymore.

so it's 100% true that purely economic solutions can't end bigotry of any kind on their own but does that mean we shouldn't strive to reduce inequality?

the hillary thing about "breaking up the banks won't end racism" or whatever was so slimy and cynical because she wasn't proposing an alternate solution, just punching left and insinuating that socialists are all racist.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Not surprised to see you're being disingenuous. I'm not talking about income inequality in and of itself, I'm actually straight up comparing racial justice issues.

Compare these:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/racial-justice/

One is significantly more comprehensive than the other, and it isn't Clinton's.

LOL, this is a bad look for you. A number of the Hillarys point have a "Read More" button where they have full pages and more in-depth information

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Many people still haven't learned the basic lesson of the 2016 election: Over 60 million people voted for an overt racist endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan because we live in a racist society. The white supremacists who are openly marching have been tolerated and normalized by white communities for generations. Each new day brings fresh empirical evidence that while some Republicans claim to disapprove of Trump's open defense of white supremacists in Charlottesville, they don't disapprove quite enough to stop supporting him.

In other words, millions of people in this country, most of them white, either openly embrace white supremacy or openly embrace politicians who openly embrace white supremacy.

While I, too, am horrified by Trump's presidency and all that it reveals about our nation, it is a good and necessary thing that widespread attention is finally being focused on the enduring reality of white supremacy. We now have a unique opportunity to see and name systematic racism clearly and think strategically about the kinds of social and political transformations that will be needed to create anti-racist change.

Those with a platform (especially but not only black intellectuals) should use it to help the public understand that our society has been enabling white supremacy for centuries. Now is not the time to wish for a Hillary Clinton presidency or to lapse into white saviorism. Instead, anti-racists of all backgrounds should seize this moment to challenge the pervasive racial denial that still exists across the political spectrum and build the collective action we need to create a more just society.

We've got work to do, and Hillary Clinton sho' ain't gonna do it for us.

I detect 0 lies.

It's a fine argument. Though I'd still rather have Hillary and the SC justices she would have nominated over what Trump is going to try to put on the bench for a generation. We could have tabled the more meaningful race discussions until after the SC and healthcare were safe. She's more "let it all burn" than I am.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Voter suppression is one of the most pressing civil rights issues happening today, and Hillary addressed that many times, when most folks seem to wanna ignore it, even now. Republican in the mean time are out there having a field day trying to accomplish that little agenda of theirs.

 

[Fenderputty]

We could have elected the mutated love child of every civil rights leader to have ever lived and they would have changed as much as Hillary, considering the state of congress.

 

[pigeon]

so it's 100% true that purely economic solutions can't end bigotry of any kind on their own but does that mean we shouldn't strive to reduce inequality?

the hillary thing about "breaking up the banks won't end racism" or whatever was so slimy and cynical because she wasn't proposing an alternate solution, just punching left and insinuating that socialists are all racist.

tfw when you insinuate that people who care about racism don't want to reduce inequality then complain that people insinuate that you don't care about racism

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Yes?

Wouldn't an anti-racist platform need opposition to the militarism of the predominantly white first world?

 

[Aaronrules380]

I mean, no single individual, no matter the position, be it president or dictator, has the power to singlehandedly end white supremacy. But that doesn't mean Hilary wouldn't have better than what we've got. Of course wishing she'd have won doesn't do anything, but it also doesn't hurt either

 

[pigeon]

Wouldn't an anti-racist platform need opposition to the militarism of the predominantly white first world?

Depends if that militarism is being mobilized against genocidal dictators, doesn't it?

 

[Father_Brain]

so it's 100% true that purely economic solutions can't end bigotry of any kind on their own but does that mean we shouldn't strive to reduce inequality?

the hillary thing about "breaking up the banks won't end racism" or whatever was so slimy and cynical because she wasn't proposing an alternate solution, just punching left and insinuating that socialists are all racist.

Yup. Sanders failed to adequately connect economic justice to social justice and is rightly criticized for that, but at least he never actively pit economic justice and social justice against each other like Clinton did in that speech.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

This feels like it's creeping a bit too close to accelerationism for my tastes.

 

[entremet]

Perfect is the enemy of the good. I wish we could understand this as progressives.

 

[Suikoguy]

so it's 100% true that purely economic solutions can't end bigotry of any kind on their own but does that mean we shouldn't strive to reduce inequality?

the hillary thing about "breaking up the banks won't end racism" or whatever was so slimy and cynical because she wasn't proposing an alternate solution, just punching left and insinuating that socialists are all racist.

Err, I did not say we should not try to tackle income inequality.

The notion among many Bernie supporters was the "Rising tide lifts all boat" mantra, denying that is denying how things are and how people think.

People are going to be racist fucks regardless of income inequality, and in fact, trying to combat such inequality is going to be harder due to that racism.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

We could have elected the mutated love child of every civil rights leader to have ever lived and they would have changed as much as Hillary, considering the state of congress.

I mean, this is also true. You aren't getting anything significant done unless you control everything, and even then it's not a sure thing.

 

[Fenderputty]

so it's 100% true that purely economic solutions can't end bigotry of any kind on their own but does that mean we shouldn't strive to reduce inequality?

the hillary thing about "breaking up the banks won't end racism" or whatever was so slimy and cynical because she wasn't proposing an alternate solution, just punching left and insinuating that socialists are all racist.

People actively want to destroy the ACA because a minority is getting more help then them and you still believe in the "rising tides" bullshit?

 

[lightskintwin]

The entire point of her article is semantics. The article she was responding to was saying that Hillary would have been better than Trump.

Her response was "Well ACTUALLY, white supremacy would still have been in a thing if she won" - which is both true and not something anyone with a functioning brain actually argued.

Hillary would have been better for minority communities than Trump currently is. This is 100% fact. It is inarguable. Better does not mean perfect, no, but I'm sure you're smart enough to recognize that without having to need it explained to you.

LOL Yeah you're right. After reading it, I think the New York Time's article was fairly benign and I agreed with her, and I guess The Roots author just didn't like the idea of an article written by a Black person expressing Hilary winning, "A corporate Democrat" with a history, and wanted to use it as a jumping off point to express what she wanted to say to her Black audience.

Funny enough, I agree with both articles.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

She would've done something. Something is better than accelerating in the opposite direction.

Did we read the same piece? Seems like you missed its entire point.

I can't argue with what it says. It's better to have this shit out in the open where people are forced to face it.

(And for the record, Bernie wouldn't have been any different in that regard, as much as I wanted him to win.)

 

[FreezeSSC]

That is pretty explicitly the platform Hillary ran on.

Nope.

https://youtu.be/LqLfvQfuvsA

 

[Deleted member 231381]

LOL, this is a bad look for you. A number of the Hillarys point have a "Read More" button where they have full pages and more in-depth information

Clinton's "Read More" pages are mostly just filler for a very few policies. Compare and contrast:

Bringing law enforcement and communities together to develop national guidelines on the use of force by police officers, making it clear when deadly force is warranted and when it isn’t and emphasizing proven methods for de-escalating situations.

We need new rules on the allowable use of force. Police officers need to be trained to de-escalate confrontations and to humanely interact with people who have mental illnesses.

These are the same policy, Clinton's just has filler text - making it clear when deadly force is warranted and when it isn't is what the point of these guidelines is.

If you actually compare the policy offerings, Clinton's is quite tame compared to Sanders. For example: Sanders argues for ending private prisons. Clinton argues for 'moving away from'.

Another example (very topical): Sanders argues for that we "need to make sure federal resources are there to crack down on the illegal activities of hate groups". You won't find this on Clinton's pages. Not there!

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Nope.

https://youtu.be/LqLfvQfuvsA

So no real counter argument? Gotcha

 

[Merc_]

Oh cool. I thought it had been a while since the last rehash the 2016 primaries thread.

How are you guys STILL not tired of doing this yet?

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Depends if that militarism is being mobilized against genocidal dictators, doesn't it?

I dunno, she seems to ask one for counsel on her foreign policy so she can't be too worried about it. I suppose Kissinger wasn't a dictator but he sure accomplished plenty of genocide.

or this gem

[Kissinger's] analysis, despite some differences over specific policies, largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Nope.

https://youtu.be/LqLfvQfuvsA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvMaSzRuKjg

Front and center.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Did we read the same piece? Seems like you missed its entire point.

I can't argue with what it says. It's better to have this shit out in the open where people are forced to face it.

(And for the record, Bernie wouldn't have been any different in that regard, as much as I wanted him to win.)

It's been out in the open though. It was out in the open before and during the election as well. The idea that accelerationism will lead to the end of white supremacy seems ridiculously naive to me. Stuff like this makes a stir for a while, and then people will forget about it because they're more concerned with their daily lives than the stuff on the news happening to people they by and large haven't met. It'd take something far more destructive and horrible than what we've gotten under the Trump presidency to truly shake things up, and that isn't something anyone should wish for

 

[And_Gignac]

Shocked at this thread devolving into Sanders vs. Clinton.

 

[FreezeSSC]

So no real counter argument? Gotcha

That literally was the counter argument, when headed face on with concerns from poc she brushed them off, POC didnt trust her and thats because shed spent her entire time fundraising.

 

[cdyhybrid]

Did we read the same piece? Seems like you missed its entire point.

I can't argue with what it says. It's better to have this shit out in the open where people are forced to face it.

(And for the record, Bernie wouldn't have been any different in that regard, as much as I wanted him to win.)

Are they actually facing it though? Or are they just facing it until Nazis stop marching in the streets? Not that that's something we shouldn't be shooting for, mind you, but that's the easy part of dismantling systemic discrimination.

I think the whole "Nazis marching in the streets will cause the white majority to finally open their eyes to the existence of institutionalized racism" narrative is naive as fuck, because these problems have been in existence for decades in their current incarnation and for centuries overall in this country. But that didn't move the needle.

Shocked at this thread devolving into Sanders vs. Clinton.

Devolving? That was the topic in the very article the thread is about.