• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Air

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,262
So, basically, climate change is more important than racism and sexism and we should just worry about them later...during a more convenient season. Is that a good statement of your position?

You're half right. Climate change is the biggest issue. It doesn't sideline racism or sexism, but we'll have better room for those discussions if we don't have to worry about whether or not our species will survive. Because you know if nothing's done about climate change, than racism and sexism would be worse as people fight for resources. Progress will happen as it always has been, but you have to be strategic with your battles. Not every battle is worth fighting at everytime. That's what separates winners from losers. They can take a loss to win the war, and this country is in an ideological war
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
you don't think these events are what make people vote? Taylor Swift, Parkland and Metoo are why a lot of young people and women are voting for the first time. You should admit your wrong
those people will continue to vote because as you said, presidential elections have better turnout ;)
 

Briarios

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,238
indeed, and I don't think it will be competitive in a lot of races which would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

Florida is about to be so blue it might be mistaken as a Smurf.

Being a Floridian, I wouldn't go that far. Population-wise, we've been blue for awhile, but the right had done a phenomenal job of institutionalizing their power - gerrymandering, loading the courts, and passing laws to give themselves a leg up. The state legislature has been solidly Republican for a long time, and I'm not really convinced it will flip anytime soon. The red areas are very seperate from the blue which exacerbates the effects of gerrymandering. I would love to see everything flip here, but it's going to be a long process.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
You're half right. Climate change is the biggest issue. It doesn't sideline racism or sexism, but we'll have better room for those discussions if we don't have to worry about whether or not our species will survive. Because you know if nothing's done about climate change, than racism and sexism would be worse as people fight for resources. Progress will happen as it always has been, but you have to be strategic with your battles. Not every battle is worth fighting at everytime. That's what separates winners from losers. They can take a loss to win the war, and this country is in an ideological war

"It's not that climate change is more important, it's that we should focus on climate change now and worry about racism and sexism later, when it's convenient for me."

Yeah.
 
Oct 25, 2017
41,368
Miami, FL
Being a Floridian, I wouldn't go that far. Population-wise, we've been blue for awhile, but the right had done a phenomenal job of institutionalizing their power - gerrymandering, loading the courts, and passing laws to give themselves a leg up. The state legislature has been solidly Republican for a long time, and I'm not really convinced it will flip anytime soon. The red areas are very seperate from the blue which exacerbates the effects of gerrymandering. I would love to see everything flip here, but it's going to be a long process.
Being a Floridian, I would go that far.

Enjoy the good news on voting night.
 

Briarios

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,238
"It's not that climate change is more important, it's that we should focus on climate change now and worry about racism and sexism later, when it's convenient for me."

Yeah.

No, survival will always take precedence over anything else ... Climate change is more important than anything because it will lead to instability which will make it impossible to address racism and sexism. I mean, you can simultaneously work on both, but, let's be clear, the collapse of civilization is a bit more important.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
No, survival will always take precedence over anything else ... Climate change is more important than anything because it will lead to instability which will make it impossible to address racism and sexism. I mean, you can simultaneously work on both, but, let's be clear, the collapse of civilization is a bit more important.

Racism and sexism collapses society but I guess not for white dudes so it's "different"
 

Tbm24

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,221
I'll be honest, not seeing why it matters what he thinks. He's just a lawyer, what's his clout coming into 2020? That he tweets a lot?
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
No, survival will always take precedence over anything else ... Climate change is more important than anything because it will lead to instability which will make it impossible to address racism and sexism. I mean, you can simultaneously work on both, but, let's be clear, the collapse of civilization is a bit more important.

Sure, the children of color they're putting in prisons will be fine for now
 

Deleted member 283

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,288
No, survival will always take precedence over anything else ... Climate change is more important than anything because it will lead to instability which will make it impossible to address racism and sexism. I mean, you can simultaneously work on both, but, let's be clear, the collapse of civilization is a bit more important.
I mean it's not like it's an either-or situation to begin with. Buying into that to begin is part of the problem with this premise and there's no reason to entertain it. Literally "why not both" applies here, and there's absolutely no reason not to, or that we're unable to, tackle those issues simultaneously.
 

softfocus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
903
I liked this guy a month ago, now I hate him. What a stupid thing to say. I get his point, but jeez what a way to knock down any potential candidate who isn't a white man.
Sometimes we think stupid things, you're meant to filter them out so you don't say them out loud
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
Racism and sexism collapses society but I guess not for white dudes so it's "different"
Sure, the children of color they're putting in prisons will be fine for now
I'm bi and don't agree with his position on avenatti's statement but for me at least climate change is a helluva lot more important to me than bi rights. One ruins the entire world irreparably, the other ruins one country.

of course dems are on the right side of both issues so it's not a hard decision for me
 

Air

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,262
Fuck "them"

And you invoked the idea here and directly associated a non white dude candidate existing with identity politics, you, not them, chose to openly state you want to avoid that.

This isn't them, this is you. Own your words.

I did own my words. Several times. I don't have a problem saying it. But what I also said is true. We have papers and research about this. I'm not making this up.

Let me try to be clearer. Half of this country does not want a woman or a minority to be president. That half is very much used to having a white man be the leader of the country. If we can get a candidate who will assuage the fears of that half of the country, they'll be more inclined to vote for that candidate. If that candidate wins, because they'll be more liberal, they'll open the pathway more for women and minorites to be better represented (it's not like they'll have an all white cabinet).

But if we go with candidate B, who is a good candidate, but a black women- do you think middle American voters, or independent voters are going to be so easily convinced to vote for them? I don't think so, and it'll be harder for them to win (not impossible though). That's what I mean by identity politics. Perhaps I'm using the word wrong. I think we're at a critical point on this planet and I can set aside some of my ideals so that we can course correct by getting in a liberal candidate in the White House because that's more important than anything else.
 

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,244
New York City
His comment is two parts

Part 1. White dudebro privilege exists... duh

Part 2: So the Dems better only nominate a white dudebro... this is the part that's bullshit and not a product of misspeaking

"I think it better be a white male," he says. He hastens to add that he wishes it weren't so, but it's undeniable that people listen to white men more than they do others; it's why he's been successful representing Daniels and immigrant mothers, he says. "When you have a white male making the arguments, they carry more weight," he says. "Should they carry more weight? Absolutely not. But do they? Yes."

There's the part where he doesn't agree with the way it is but understands the unfortunate reality of the situation. signalling that it's unfortunate that victory is so important that such a consideration has to take place. The mental gymnastics it takes to come to this conclusion is less of a balance beam and more of a foot massage. It is entirely possible hes some kind of sleeper agent for republicans pushing for a good ole boys agenda, but id say its much more likely that he just talks shit.
 

MisterSnrub

Member
Mar 10, 2018
5,900
Someplace Far Away
This Is what all the "Avernatti Is what Dems need" people truly mean.
To the extent that I was ever open to an Avenatti run, it was on the premise that by 2020 it might be clear the Dems need someone who is bold, charismatic, and fights hard for their values. It's a shame that Avenatti thinks we need some middle-aged white guy, he's wrong and it makes him seem like a worse person for giving it voice. Personally I'm convinced that Kamala Harris is the right person for the nomination w/ VP Elizabeth Warren... also, after seeing a recent Biden speech I'm confident he's up to the task, but I'd prefer Harris.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
I did own my words. Several times. I don't have a problem saying it. But what I also said is true. We have papers and research about this. I'm not making this up.

Let me try to be clearer. Half of this country does not want a woman or a minority to be president. That half is very much used to having a white man be the leader of the country. If we can get a candidate who will assuage the fears of that half of the country, they'll be more inclined to vote for that candidate. If that candidate wins, because they'll be more liberal, they'll open the pathway more for women and minorites to be better represented (it's not like they'll have an all white cabinet).

But if we go with candidate B, who is a good candidate, but a black women- do you think middle American voters, or independent voters are going to be so easily convinced to vote for them? I don't think so, and it'll be harder for them to win (not impossible though). That's what I mean by identity politics. Perhaps I'm using the word wrong. I think we're at a critical point on this planet and I can set aside some of my ideals so that we can course correct by getting in a liberal candidate in the White House because that's more important than anything else.
Your numbers are off, it's not half.
 
Oct 25, 2017
19,040
Isn't he basically admitting to white privilege being the only electable thing for a country so broken at this point? That's how I read it. It's worded poorly though.
 

Air

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,262
"It's not that climate change is more important, it's that we should focus on climate change now and worry about racism and sexism later, when it's convenient for me."

Yeah.

It's not convenient for me. I'm a middle class black dude in New York City struggling to make ends meet. You can work on all of these issues, but I think you have to play the field to get what you want, and that's manipulating rural voters to put a liberal candidate into office. I like your posts dude, but you're being super reductive here
 

Briarios

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,238
Racism and sexism collapses society but I guess not for white dudes so it's "different"

I didn't say society, I said civilization. When people are starving to death, there are no societal concerns. It's not a hard concept to understand that extinction is a more pressing concern. When you're dead, nothing else matters.
 

NoName999

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,906
We're not talking about the same things here. I'm not endorsing the idea of the 2020 Dem nominee being a white male, but it IS true that white male privilege is A) real and B) can be an advantage in politics. Acknowledging the reality of white male privilege doesn't mean ENDORSING it. Avenatti is doing both here, but him being a shit doesn't negate the veracity of everything else he said.

Avenatti flat out said "I think it better be a white male"

No, ifs, ands, or buts. He's not doing both. He's being tone deaf and he's endorsing it.
 

Soul Skater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,201
I'll be honest, not seeing why it matters what he thinks. He's just a lawyer, what's his clout coming into 2020? That he tweets a lot?
Because the media wants to will an Avenatti campaign into existence because he's an attention whore who says dumb shit like this that these political pundits can yap and both sides about

The news networks are committed to destroying whatever is left of our political systems, they don't care that he's not qualified, he tweets and is combative and controversial. That's all they are interested in. And they'll push him unless they find someone more provocative or interesting to talk about
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
There's the part where he doesn't agree with the way it is but understands the unfortunate reality of the situation. signalling that it's unfortunate that victory is so important that such a consideration has to take place. The mental gymnastics it takes to come to this conclusion is less of a balance beam and more of a foot massage. It is entirely possible hes some kind of sleeper agent for republicans pushing for a good ole boys agenda, but id say its much more likely that he just talks shit.

I don't give a shit that he pays lip service to it being a bad thing. Using racism and sexism with a caveat of I wish it wasn't is still using racism/sexism

Of course he's not a sleeper agent, he's your run of the mill white dudebro liberal.
 

Bronx-Man

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,351
"Only white men can win elections now!"

Yes, which is why:

A) a black man won more votes than any Dem since Lyndon B. Johnson

B) a woman won the popular by a difference of nearly 3 million

It's not demographics or idpol or whatever bullshit that fucked us, it was the electoral college.
 

Poodlestrike

Smooth vs. Crunchy
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
13,489
USA is racist as all fuck. And misogynist as hell too. So he isnt wrong. /shrug
So I'm seeing a lot of comments along this line and I just wanna stop and break down why they're... let's say "off base."

Privilege (in this case, white male) is a social construct. There's absolutely nothing about white men that makes them inherently more compelling, but they control all kinds of social and cultural levers that have made them appear so. And if you don't engage in any critical thinking, that's where it ends - your culture says they're more compelling, so you treat them as if they are, and the gap between what is and what might as well be vanishes because it's irrelevant. But clearly, people have been engaging in that critical thinking - lots of people in this thread (most all, I'd hope) are aware that there's a difference between what social mores tell them is true and what is, that white men don't actually deserve an elevated position just by virtue of being white men.

But then you get posts like the above. And what those posts are saying, in essence, is that yes, you're aware of it, but it's so much easier to just play along. Which strikes me as... uh, insane. Because why even have the awareness of it if that's what you're going to do with it? It's a social construct. It doesn't actually exist if we say it doesn't. So push back. Broadcast that their status is empty, that they've done nothing to deserve it, or that so many people have done so much more and to pass them over for a white man just because all cultural baggage says we should is wrong.

This reminds me so strongly of the "THE OPTICZZZZ" complaints you get every election - where somebody does something that isn't actually wrong, but everybody pretends it is because that's what they're supposed to do - but worse. If you know that something is bullshit, don't play along with it because it's easier. Call that shit out! Especially if it's being advanced by a white man looking to position himself over a field of women and minorities. It's a naked power play, don't give credence to that shit.

edit: and as was just pointed out above me, it's also, uh, wrong. So there's that.
 

Deleted member 283

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,288
"I think it better be a white male," he says. He hastens to add that he wishes it weren't so, but it's undeniable that people listen to white men more than they do others; it's why he's been successful representing Daniels and immigrant mothers, he says. "When you have a white male making the arguments, they carry more weight," he says. "Should they carry more weight? Absolutely not. But do they? Yes."

There's the part where he doesn't agree with the way it is but understands the unfortunate reality of the situation. signalling that it's unfortunate that victory is so important that such a consideration has to take place. The mental gymnastics it takes to come to this conclusion is less of a balance beam and more of a foot massage. It is entirely possible hes some kind of sleeper agent for republicans pushing for a good ole boys agenda, but id say its much more likely that he just talks shit.
But that's not the reality of the situation. The United States having huge issues with sexism and racism yes, but not the conclusion he draws from that that "a white man better win." There's no reason whatsoever to think that that's the "unfortunate reality of the situation" or any reality to begin with. Zip, zero, zilch. That's not the reality of the situation, and is where he messes up. There's no reason to have that mindset, whatsoever. Especially when women are poised to clean up in a bunch of races just over a week from now.

What's he saying does not match reality, and is not the answer, in any way whatsoever. And he of all people is not someone I'd listen to on this especially when *surprise* he, himself, as a white man, planning to run in 2020, benefits from this argument and has everything to gain from making it, trying to push out opponents before anything's even started, so it's rather suspect of him of all people to be making that argument, hmm?

But in any case, that aside, the mistake people are making is him just saying it's "an unfortunate reality" as if that magically makes it so. It's not reality just because he says it is. Yes, the country has problems with racism and sexism. No, that does not however mean that minorities and women can't win, or that we should just run a white male candidate, to be safe or whatever. Both of those are unjustifiable and very unacceptable answers that just reinforce those issues instead of doing anything to actually tackle them in any way.
 

Briarios

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,238
wasn't talking about full control, rather blue bodies taking a majority of the seats that are available, including the Governor's seat.

I fully expect Gillum to win, which would go a long way in shutting down comments like Avenatti's - I'm just hoping he gets enough support in the legislature to get things done.
 

Miles X

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
710
I think he has a point... ? I guess it comes down to whether or not one thinks Obama could be elected today, and after Clinton, who knows.

There is usually always a higher turnout for the opposing party who haven't been in power. Hillary was up against it just like whoever the GOP nominee is in 2024 (if Trump gets another term).

She still achieved the highest amount of votes ever though, so I'd say after that, and two terms of Obama, we don't need a white male to run at all.
 

Gatti-man

Banned
Jan 31, 2018
2,359
But that's not the reality of the situation. The United States having huge issues with sexism and racism yes, but not the conclusion he draws from that that "a white man better win." There's no reason whatsoever to think that that's the "unfortunate reality of the situation" or any reality to begin with. Zip, zero, zilch. That's not the reality of the situation, and is where he messes up. There's no reason to have that mindset, whatsoever. Especially when women are poised to clean up in a bunch of races just over a week from now.

What's he saying does not match reality, and is not the answer, in any way whatsoever. And he of all people is not someone I'd listen to on this especially when *surprise* he, himself, as a white man, planning to run in 2020, benefits from this argument and has everything to gain from making it, trying to push out opponents before anything's even started, so it's rather suspect of him of all people to be making that argument, hmm?

But in any case, that aside, the mistake people are making is him just saying it's "an unfortunate reality" as if that magically makes it so. It's not reality just because he says it is. Yes, the country has problems with racism and sexism. No, that does not however mean that minorities and women can't win, or that we should just run a white male candidate, to be safe or whatever. Both of those are unjustifiable and very unacceptable answers that just reinforce those issues instead of doing anything to actually tackle them in any way.
It's going to take another huge push from minorities, especially those who rarely vote, to get another Obama type into the White House. What do democrats do? Pray for that or run a candidate that's more acceptable to Bible Belt/racist Americans? It's a serious and tough question because we very well could see 8 years of trump if we fuck this up.
 

Derrick01

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,289
What they need is someone with a spine who will stand up and call these fuckers out for the scum that they are. That doesn't have to be a white man as it looks like Andrew Gillum is about to win in Florida. We just need people to stop being wimps and trying to reach out to this insane party. They need to be tough, confident and able to clearly explain stuff to the more "confused" masses. Thankfully none of those traits are exclusive to white men.
 

NoName999

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,906
And of course, Avenatti's mentality will lead to a slippery slope.

Said white male candidate will most likely speak less on women's issues, race issues, gay issues, etc to appease the bigoted Trump supporters.

So now you effectively depressed your own base while the few you pick won't be enough to win because the GOP will still claim that the Dems hate white men.

Thus Trump wins anyway and people will STILL push the white men are catered to enough narrative.