This is the Republican Party
- Thread starter astonmartin708
- Start date
an article reported that the 60,00 members of Proud boys are ctive in and represent the Republican party.
That is less than one percent of the number of votes that trump got.
hardly even a focus group.
That is less than one percent of the number of votes that trump got.
hardly even a focus group.
How many Proud Boys are there? Does this represent most of them?
Nobody is saying most of his votes came from Proud Boys anyway.
This is the kind of thing that turns off mainstream voters - obvious pandering to identity politics. Democrats are their own worst enemies.
From Social Sciences faculty to Corporate culture to Dem messaging at warp speed. The political re-alignment shows no signs of slowing
I think you are correct. Hard to know how it will settle out in the end.
I am cool with call folks whatever they prefer to be called. Jim, June, he, her, they. I will try to remember. But it is deeply offensive to be viewed as prehistoric because I don't have my pronouns in my signature.
Everybody wants to jump off a cliff it seems sometimes.
I’m not really sure what to make of it at this point. I think we can be kind to people without pretending there aren’t biological realities, and I think we can take gender dysphoria seriously without chemically castrating / removing sexual organs from little kids, but even talking about it in the way I just have will get you labeled a bigot. I understand why Dems feel some need to pay lip service here because the parts of their coalition with the most energy want to hear it. It’s similar to “Latinx” in that way. At some point though, if you continuously shed working class voters of all races you can’t help the people you say you want to help with your policies. White people with degrees isn’t a large enough group to cater to exclusively. Republicans do plenty to drive away some of their traditional urban/suburban voters with nutjob candidates, but I think they’re probably ok with the coalition trade offs that are happening.
Last edited:
this pronoun thing is like contrasting white paint as snow or milk, and a pink paint as blush or bashful.
To be clear, anyone who got offended by this should be aware that they are at least a slight bit gullible. Also, note that she was speaking to representatives representing Americans with Disabilities. She was describing herself for people who might not be able to see her.
It is a losing optic for democrats to die on that hill. Though transgender people do deserve more inclusion and understanding in our society.
It is a losing optic for democrats to die on that hill. Though transgender people do deserve more inclusion and understanding in our society.
Understanding for people with disabilities is all to easy to sacrifice on the altar of political gain. Actually understanding of any kind....
I remember the first time I ran into this several years ago when I was at a non-profit board meeting, and we were introducing new board members. As the oldest board member, I introduced myself by name only and then heard new boardmembers introduce themselves with names and pronouns. Talked to my sons about it later, and while they don't routinely do it, they advised me to get used to it. When something like this happens, I think about the low opinion my parents and their friends had of rock and roll in the early 60's. Gotta roll with it.
Last edited:
If others want to do that it is fine with me. It bothers me when it is more coercive.
I read an article recently that use a plural pronoun to refer to a singular person.(They) It was a tough article to read. They was used as it is properly used, and to refer to this individual. It will never not be confusing. It caused the writer to type the person's name multiple times, and it still was not clear and easy to read. It will be even harder to follow if the 'proper' pronoun is used to refer to them in a conversation. The whole issue is ridiculous. If you want to be referred to as he or she regardless of your sex, then fine. Zir goes a bit too far, and They goes way to far. At least Zir can become something you get used to, but They will never work. And I believe We is used in a similar fashion. That will never work either. Someone creating a language would never do this, nor should we.
I can’t imagine being in a large business meeting and everyone going around stating their pronouns and then trying to remember how to refer to the 25 people I just met for the next few hours. To the woke of our board, what purpose does telling people the color of your blazer accomplish? Is this something we are now suppose to address?
That's why I said I would TRY to address folks as they prefer. Errors are pretty much guaranteed.
You clearly didn't read my post about who she was addressing. You probably would not do this when talking to a normal co-worker (even one who has or is transitioning). She was doing it because she was talking to a bunch of people with disabilities including people that had limited or had lost their vision.
The purpose of most norms now being established is to create an ever changing and ever expanding (and often conflicting) set of rules that are impossible to follow so that at any moment a person can claim to be victimized. Trying to be nice should be enough, but it never will be.
Might believe that was the reason if it didn't mimic the trend in corporate culture.
I did indeed read it. I have a friend whose parents are both blind. I’ve been at several events with them. I’ve never heard anyone come up to them and tell them what color of shirt they were wearing. Just asking if this was something new ?
Coercive? I call people by their own names. Pronouns are different? Heck, I can't even remember people's names anyway, so as you said, mistakes are a given.
Last edited:
I’m guessing you use pronouns more often than you believe. We use them in the normal course of conversation without thought.
Coercion = corporate policy to include one's preferred pronouns in their signature
Just one example.
As it stands, we all don't expect you to know anything about anything. Unnecessary edict.
Last edited:
we have out of control inflation, worse economy in years and the dems are worried about pronouns.
Yes. It's a new wokism specifically designed to make you feel like an inadequate dinosaur. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Got it. Annoying. Haven’t run across it. “He/she/it”. Will likely be used in protest?
To my crossfire colleagues, I’m wearing a green shirt today.
Me too! Perhaps it will be good if I announce it on all my conference calls today as well.
for democrats, the only person worse than a Republican. is a person with a job that doesnt depend on the government
Agree, and with your comment that Dems can be their own worst enemy with this stuff. It's worth pointing out that Kamala Harris is not very popular in or out of the party. She did pretty terribly in the 2020 primaries.
Some people around here put that stuff in their email signature. I've even heard the argument that it is the moral/ethical thing to do. I disagree. I use a (mostly) male name. I have a beard, and otherwise dress and style myself in ways customary for men. Anyone interacting with me would immediately perceive me as a male. If, for some reason, I wanted to be called "her" despite all that, then hey, okay. But the onus is on me at that point to make that clear, and to be patient with people that are well-meaning but get it wrong on occasion.
By the same token, I also wouldn't be offended if I got a random email that addressed me as "her". I'd assume it was just a mistake or typo, or if in person, some sort of Freudian slip of the tongue, not malice. I'd politely correct them and move on. It would only be offensive if they made a point to continue the pattern.
I do get that the trans/nonbinary community has to deal with that a lot more frequently, and they do face some real bigots. That's a rough ticket, but making everyone disclose their preferred pronouns constantly is a bizarre burden on everyone else, and I don't actually think it would help alleviate the problem much. Particularly if everyone at a meeting is required/expected to say their pronouns. Then it all just turns into that much more noise that most people ignore during introductions and half the people won't even register you asked for something unique.
EDIT: About the blind and the blue dress thing... I am legit confused. How does telling someone who has no concept of "blue" that your dress is "blue" help them in any way?
On my list of priorities that issue is so far down it's hard to find. That faith in our national elections may vanish or the efforts to ameliorate the effects of climate change are largely non-existent do deserve serious attention. Meahwhile oil companies continue to show they have no interest in doing anything for society beyond enriching their shareholders at the expense of the poor.
Really, pronouns?
Really, pronouns?
At the expense of the poor? Comrade, cheap energy has been the single greatest thing for the poor in all of human history. Energy companies producing more cheap fossil fuels to ameliorate the government created energy crisis is a good thing and the policies you advocate do nothing but make it more difficult for them to do so. If you want fewer stock buybacks you should be pushing for policies that make oil companies want to make long term investments in production. Right now we're doing the opposite.
This quote from your article is just perfect
"The profits have been described as “obscene” with calls for new taxes on the sector to help people struggling with inflation."
I would love to know how taxing energy would help inflation. Where do you find this stuff?
Last edited:
WATU….why would you post this nonsense? Surely your partisanship hasn’t so clouded your opinion that you understand the above statement is beyond ludicrous? The fact there are sheep which blindly believe this type of harmful action is downright scary.
We can argue honestly about the effects of taxing fossil fuels on climate change. There is certainly a case to be made that it would make fuel more expensive and reduce demand.
But it is ridiculous to think it would reduce inflation. Not logical. We don't have a ready, less expensive alternative people will flood to. And just "giving it up" like cigarettes is not in the cards either.
