HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » MadDAsHell » Journal
Page: 1

MadDAsHell

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Nov 5, 2014, 11:56 AM
Number of posts: 2,067

Journal Archives

Has Melissa Harris-Perry, with one email, talked her way out of a tv journalism career?

I mean once you've outright admitted that you "played the race card" (I hate that phrase but she's basically admitting in her own words that that's what she did), will any network executive be willing to touch her with a 10-foot pole?

HR lesson one for journalists: If you're going to use racially charged buzzwords like "token" and "mammy" to allude to the idea that your network is racially discriminating against you, maybe wait a few days before backpedaling and saying the core issues have nothing to do with race or racial discrimination. When you backpedal 24 hours later, you look at best, like someone who has no filter or ability to control their emotions for the good of their own career, or at worst, a race-baiter.

What network in their right mind would hire someone who just openly admitted that she dropped allusions to racial discrimination into a conversation just for kicks?

She's normally one of the best and brightest minds on television, but she may have just committed career suicide, not just with MSNBC but with any network with an audience of notable size.

When the #1 most liberal Senator and his supporters are the "racist" wing of our party we've lost it

If the goal for our party is to have zero credibility with independents, and to generally look like we have no idea how to actually vet and evaluate a candidate and his/her positions, we are beyond exceeding.

We are (no joke) calling the nation's most liberal senator a racist. If we're saying it simply to elevate an opposing candidate, we're liars. If we truly believe he's racist, we're nuts.


After this new low, how do we expect as a party to ever be taken seriously again?

Everyone's for political correctness/policing speech until these tactics are used to silence THEM.

Policing speech has all kinds of political advantages:

1) You can take something completely out of context and use it to label your opponent as sexist, racist, whatever label is mostly political effective

2) You can then use those labels as your excuse to not engage in debate/discussion, especially if you're fairly uncertain of the validity/strength of your own argument. e.g. "I'd be more than happy to discuss your concerns about Hillary's donors but Bernie and his supporters are racist, you're a Bernie supporter, and I don't have time to engage with racists.""

It's been all fun and games using these tactics over the last few decades against opponents on the right but it's shitty as hell that we're now having to deal with them internally. Who in their right mind, 1 year ago today, would have guessed that Bernie Sanders and his supporters would be considered the "racist" wing of the Democratic party?

Not to mention that whole separate discussion that we as a party are ACTIVELY eliminating the true horror of such words by using them as political tools. With how much we've abused these words over the years, does the average young person today even know what racism looks like? What sexism looks like? What bigotry looks like?

The question is, will we learn anything from this? Or will we be right back to this the next primary season?

Why the extreme vitriol over a completely thankless job that 99% of us would avoid like the plague?

These folks are asked to interpret the original intent of a 230-year old document...would you want that job?

There's no doubt that some of Scalia's votes tilted Supreme Court decisions in directions we didn't want it to go, but are you surprised? The whole point of having an odd # of Supreme Court Justices is that we know trying to find unanimity on the interpretation of a 230-year old document, whose authors have been dead nearly 200 years in some cases, is nearly impossible. So we force a decision one way or another by (for the most part) not allowing ties.

Some of the responses on DU and elsewhere seem to assume that:

1) we should all 100% agree on the interpretation of this document, and
2) we should be shocked that some justices would come to different conclusions than us personally, and
3) those justices must be idiots, or more likely "evil" for doing so.

None of us would want this job; IMHO both liberals and conservatives ought to have a little more tact when a SC justice dies, regardless of where they tended to ideologically land on their decisions.

On edit, I clearly underestimated how many people would want this job. Personally, I value my personal life, the safety of my family, and my privacy way too much to take a job like this.

And that's not even taking into consideration what we learn each time a SC justice dies: that there are literally millions of people hoping that person is burning in hell. I'm not willing to live a life like that regardless of salary, but clearly not an issue for many DUers?

The accusations of racism against Sanders and his supporters is never going away. We created this.

When a few decades ago we decided that calling someone a racist, sexist, bigot, etc. was useful as a political tool to silence our opponents, whether it was the truth or not, we created this.

This circus world where those words have become absolutely meaningless, is of our own making. Today's young people don't even know what racism or sexism is, because in their lifetime they've heard that EVERYTHING is racist, sexist, etc.

The chickens are home to roost; unfortunately I saw this coming years ago and we have no one to blame but ourselves that our party eats our own.

Let's just hope it doesn't cost us 2016.
Go to Page: 1