Comment on Elections Have Consequences
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day agoThe time we’re discussing when the Democrats were supposedly “too woke.”
Comment on Elections Have Consequences
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day agoThe time we’re discussing when the Democrats were supposedly “too woke.”
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I didn’t want to have to google, but you made me. This article seems to be saying many things I am saying. Democrats went to far being “woke” and have chilled out some.
archive.ph/FLtUR
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Christ, finally. The amount I have to twist people’s arms on this website to do the most basic homework to support their positions. It’s completely ridiculous.
That article is very scant on details and specifics. It mentions “defund the police,” which was mostly a slogan used by activists rather than the party, and which, as the article mentions (and as I mentioned previously) never actually went anywhere and was walked back, with Biden calling specifically to “fund the police” and with many places raising police budgets instead. In spite of this, there was a perception that Democrats actually did defund the police. Not the reality.
It doesn’t really talk about democrat’s positions on trans rights at all. It mentions #MeToo, and one random state assemblywoman who talked about cancelling Thanksgiving.
My whole point is not that there was no perception of the Democrats being woke, but that it was just a perception. Nothing in that article actually challenges that. It just quotes other people who had that perception. You can say, “politics is about feelings and perceptions” but all that makes me think of is how Republicans “felt like” Obama turned the country into a socialist republic.
Here is a Ballotpedia page for Hillary Clinton’s stances on LGBT rights in 2016. I would love to know which parts of it are “particularly pro-trans” rather than just keeping the government out of trans people’s business and ensuring equal protection under the law.
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I got better things to do with my life than to dig up sources to defend my opinion to a random person on the internet. As I said, I read plenty of things, news articles, lemmy articles and comments. There’s podcasts that I listen to. I am hyper aware if what I’m seeing is facts or opinions. I love polling podcasts as they are pure numbers and facts.
I do all this so when I need to have an opinion on something, I don’t need to spend hours “doing homework”. If I felt like I didn’t understand something and needed to research it, I would.
I didn’t know what “woke 1” meant, I googled it and found an article that seemed to validate exactly what I’m saying. “Woke 1” is not used as a good phase of the democratic party. Period. The end. That still not good enough for you? Fine.
Honestly, I feel like you and I are 75% on the same side here.
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
If you have better things to do than source your claims, you probably have better things to do than to make them in the first place.
Well, facts about people’s perceptions of things.
Then I would think that providing a source would be trivially easy. You’re saying that you’ve already done your homework, you just didn’t want to show it to me because… I don’t really know why. Like, when I ask for a source, I’m asking where your information is coming from. If your information is coming from a podcast, then cite the podcast. It’s not a question of whether you’ve researched it. Do you think of sources as proving to some teacher that you put effort in? They’re about showing the reader where the information comes from, so they can evaluate follow along and evaluate it themselves.
The perception of “woke 1” being bad is something I never once disagreed with. What I disagreed with was whether that perception reflected the actual reality of what the Democrats said or did.