NiskVXZT

1here's what deeply worries me
2the weaponization of social justice rhetoric to defend the powerful
3& pitting liberals against the left, more broadly
4i think i'm seeing how that's not the case here. but as someone whose longview, politically is "hold hillary clinton accountable for the shit she will do over the next decade," i see this as an obstacle
5the obvious rejoinder, well make sure your critiques aren't sexist, sure
6but even now, the discourse around hillary and money in politics has centered on "democratic whores" and the throwing dollar bills thing
7one person can fuck it up for all of us
8so how do we proceed?
9
10Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
11One person can always fuck it up for all. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but welcome to the club. This is something that has always and forever affected marginalized communities who are judged by the one who screws up
12The one false rape accusation lasts decades
13The o.j. case reverberates far beyond any actual police persecution of a black man
14
15YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
16I don't think it operates the exact same way unless you concede that left critics of HRC are a marginalized class -- and I 
17hope you don't intend to justify any of them
18
19Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
20The Bernie supporters who are pissed at being judged by the sexist actions of others are getting a small experience of that
21Those criticizing power have always been in the club
22
23Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
24I'm not saying they're marginalized. I'm saying that they are often very much not, and thus unused to the bulk judgments they are getting
25You asked how to proceed when one person can ruin things by being sexist.
26And the answer I gave was that your position is anything but new for the rest of us and you proceed like we do. Make your points and call out your own people when you have to
27
28YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
29Derailing a cogent critique by focusing only on its least appealing example is wrong
30The fact that it happens all the time does not make it less wrong
31
32Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
33Fuck that
34
35YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
36I have to defend against false rape narratives and the oj shit too
37When I am arguing for the values I hold
38So this is not some new phenomenon for me
39What is new is the political orientation of the derail
40And that's what worries me
41
42Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
43When its least appealing element is actively harmful? No it's not derailing to critique
44
45YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
46You don't think this will be brought up to defend Hillary against corruption?
47Call it wrong. But if that's the whole discussion, we've failed miserably
48
49Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
50When I feel so actively attacked by the movement you're a part of that I don't like getting involved in discussions of my favorite topic anymore?
51I'd like to see that make it into the conversation, yeah
52No one's called Obama a whore for his fundraising
53
54YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
55I'm sure people have, but it functions differently anyway
56
57Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
58They really haven't thigh
59Though
60Even if it functions, differently, they haven't.
61I work in fundraising. And I wouldn't be ok with someone, even donating to common cause, throwing singles at me
62If you can't make your argument without that sort of thing, it's not a good argument. If it is a good agreement, get that shit sorted
63
64YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
65There will be people who critique Hillary from the political left in gendered terms
66
67Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
68Yeah, and it's up to the political left to call that shit out
69Don't leave it to people who might use it to derail, do it yourself
70
71YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
72They can then be used to write off the underlying valid critique, not in the minds of the general public (as with false rape, oj, etc) but specifically among progressives
73I can criticize them but I can't stop them all
74Now, just as there are misogynists in our big tent
75
76Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
77But I don't hear anyone from that side criticizing!
78
79YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
80There are ppl who oppose the kind of climate action we need, ppl who support aggressive military intervention, people who are okay with the current levels of economic inequality
81
82Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
83I just hear "it's not me" and "it's still true"
84
85YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
86I criticize that shit all the time, come on
87
88Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
89Opposing issues isn't the same as opposing people
90
91YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
92Disagree
93Climate change is people
94So are victims of warfare
95Intersectionality includes class, nationality, etc.
96Insulation from the worst effects of climate change is most certainly a privilege, on its own terms
97
98Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
99Also, you weren't criticizing it today
100
101YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
102So I go back to zero or what? You said you haven't heard any critiques of misogyny towards Hillary Clinton. From personal experience that is not true
103
104Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
105I meant on this stuff, on what we have been discussing
106
107YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
108I see how throwing singles can be a gendered attack
109But you're doing the exact thing I'm worried about -- collapsing the whole critique into a single instance
110
111Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
112And really, I haven't heard it on the subversive stuff. The obvious sexism? Sure
113
114YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
115Okay
116I know where I stand on that. If I haven't conveyed that to you properly that's on me
117
118Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
119I genuinely feel like I haven't seen it from the revolutionaries, not just you, but that it has to constantly explained and argued
120This is sexist because...
121
122YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
123Im a revolutionary?
124I work for common cause lolol
125
126Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
127No, really!
128Sorry that's a no really on what I have to say every time
129You don't like Bernie bros as a label, so I used a different one
130
131YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
132This is difficult because I am very careful to explicitly call out misogyny against Clinton on both moral and tactical grounds
133But I can't argue with you about your own perception
134
135Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
136Sure, but today you started by telling me throwing singles was fine
137Were you ok with the "not qualified" comment?
138
139YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
140I thought both campaigns were using different meanings, but qualification can still be a dog whistle so I would have spoken more precisely
141
142Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
143Sure, but you didn't "explicitly call it out"?
144
145YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
146I would have said voting for iraq is disqualifying, if that's what I meant to avoid playing into the trope
147
148Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
149So Edwards and Kerry are also disqualified?
150
151YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
152Oh hell yes they are
153
154Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
155What about Biden? Didn't he?
156
157YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
158By my metric
159
160Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
161Sure but people saying this now voted for them then
162
163YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
164But any American president is gonna have done multiple things that I think should be disqualifying
165Like... Voting for that crime bill, or opposing gun liability
166
167Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
168So maybe don't use that word
169So again, the critique was a cogent one, but making it in a way that aligns with misogynist tropes is wrong
170
171YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
172But see, if the whole convo ends there
173
174Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
175Also not a cogent critique, beyond the sexism
176
177YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
178We're left hamging on the actual substance of the critique
179
180Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
181Because then all are disqualified and no one is left
182
183YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
184Still deflecting but... If your extrapolation that everyone is disqualified is true doesn't that just bolster the case for a fundamental reimagining of dem politics?
185But see now we're jumping back and forth
186I will be more explicit about my reactions to coded sexism directed at hrc
187
188Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
189But my point wasn't the critique there, it was the lack of the left saying "this language is wrong"
190Though you've claimed left v. Liberal without pushback from me
191
192YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
193I'll say that it was wrong. But if that's all I'm saying then I'm ignoring the actual critique
194Which was my original point
195
196Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
197Because I thought that would divert too far and you didn't like revolutionaries
198Sure, but to me they're linked. If you are saying sure it's misogynist, but listen to it?
199That's not going over any better from a deflection point of view
200Just the other direction
201The difficulty is that there are genuinely misogynistic reasons that Clinton is the main recipient of potentially valid critiques that could get leveraged against a plethora of other people who still see support from the revolutionary elements
202It's the people who jump on Chris Brown with valid anger, but never gave a shit about Sean Penn or Woody Allen or anyone white
203And that is a problem, even were the critiques as valid as those against Brown. (Which we haven't even started on, but I'm happy to get into another time)
204
205YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
206yeah i agree there was a double standard there
207so where does that leave the ppl who stridently criticize brown, allen, baldwin, etc
208or clinton (both), biden, obama, kerry
209when the contours of oppression lead more people than otherwise would to make a needed critique
210for me it's that like, you can be aware of two problems at once
211clinton takes money from wall street, and also gendered double standards put that tendency of hers under more scrutiny
212but the latter isn't a rebuttal of the former, they're coexisting problems
213nor is the former a rebuttal of hte latter
214
215Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
216Sure, and obviously I agree that the racism of the response doesn't negate Chris Brown's assault. But even as someone who has made it my mission to yell about Sean Penn anytime I hear his name, I don't think anyone in the world we live in can be as strident about all the people with issues (I didn't even know what Baldwin incident you were referring to) as they can about the ones from marginalized groups
217Also a problem I have with some of the themes off Obama critique, though I think there's valid criticism there as well
218So I think a major thing here is to be clear why you think the things she does have disqualified her from the presidency when they didn't disqualify Kerry, Edwards, Obama, or Biden (four people who probably got your/other revolutionaries support when they ran)
219
220YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
221they got the same support i'll give clinton -- choosing them over a republican
222while still vocally criticizing their various apostasies
223
224Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
225Oh, who were you for in the primary?
226
227YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
228in 2004 i was for bush lol
229in 2008 i liked obama but liked him less as i did my research and found out he was more centrist than his portable hope/change rhetoric implied
230i have since vocally criticized obama for the same things i'm criticizing clinton for now
231
232Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
233Hahaha, i always forget your ideological purity it's the zealotry of the convert
234
235YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
236ok i'm done talking to you
237Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
238Ok, that was a bridge too far, and I'm sorry
239
240YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
241it's ok. i don't respond well to second-guessing of why i hold the values i hold. but i gotta get this delegate pledge thing out
242
243Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
244I wasn't second guessing why, just thinking about how fiercely. :) I do think a lot of my political perspective was shaped by being a young progressive from Bush v Gore through the horrors of his presidency. That isn't a better or worse perspective (though I ended up supporting Edwards in 08, make of that what you will) just when interrogate my philosophy of us political change, a lot of it comes from then
245*when I interrogate
246Back to the original question, I have one real answer for you. Watch how people, even those who speak against all politicians who do the things they dislike, talk about them. Obama gets called out for not doing enough against the banks, or for foreign policy that's too militaristic. (He's a weird example because of the racism factor, but this applies generally). Clinton is corrupt. Is a warmonger. Is a whore. Is bloodthirsty, monstrous. (This still from the left - what Obama gets called from the right mirrors this). It's critique of policy vs. denigration of person.
247When Joe Biden is called out, it's rightfully for his Anita Hill actions or AUMF vote. It's not for being evil. His vote isn't made into the crucial step that led us to war (or a character judgment that he loves war)
248
249YA BOY JM (jrmumby@gmail.com)
250sure, i'm also against character based analysis because it's not falsifiable or useful
251doesn't matter what's in their souls
252it's useful for messaging bc we think in narrative/personal terms, which i know you disagree with, but we've already gone over that dispute a million times
253what matters is how they wield the power vested in them
254
255Drew Boston (@gmail.com)
256Yes, you use it for messaging. My point is that it is used differently against men and women
257I'm saying looking hard at your messaging helps change the dynamic where you get accused of misogyny and you feel like it details
258*Derails
259You say you call out misogyny, and I appreciate that, but I'm saying there are a lot of dynamics in the race that are misogynistic without it being overt. Like that messaging you and I have disputed those million times