441
Haley declines to say slavery was cause of Civil War
(www.politico.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
441 points (96.8% liked)
politics
19239 readers
1521 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Use her full name.
Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley
I don't see how dead naming is cool simply because it will hurt her polling with racists.
Edit: Ok, explain the joke. Why is the birtherism of saying "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama" funny on our side? Why should we respect Caitlin Jenner's chosen name but not Nikki's? If it's not a joke, that is, you think it's a genuinely good idea for news outlets to refer to her this way, why?
So from personal experience, I learned Obama's middle name from the mouths' of racists, I learned Biden's middle name from the mouths' toxic masculine chauvinists, and I only hear Jenner's deadname from bigots. I don't like playing the "true name" game.
Edit 2: Ok downvoters, you've convinced me that it is ok to stress politicians' birth names in order to show disagreement. Can you now please provide a list of white politicians whose birth names we should use in order to show we do not support them? I guess we can just put their names in parentheses or something if that is easier.
It's a call out to all the bills republicans are passing to require use of birth names so people like Rafael Cruze and Nimarata Hailey can benefit as well.
Are you seriously in favor of the bills? Why are you trying to enforce them? I vote against racist proposals whenever I can. I certainly don't try to enforce ones that are not even effect.
It's calling out hypocrisy, not support. It's also bringing attention to how short sighted the GOPs plans are. If they support bills that hurt themselves in unintentional ways, how can we trust them to pass bills that work in their intended manner?
Does pointing out that Trump has no idea about Christianity bothered these people? At least when you do that, it’s not some attack via a racism Trojan horse.
Hypocrisy does not matter to the right. It does matter to my reflection. Using her “real name” is using racism as a weapon. I don’t care if it is indirect or that it only hurts racist.
(This post is self-plagiarized from elsewhere in this thread.)
It's not a dead name, she's using her middle name to narrow her proximity to being white.
Are you saying that the paper should seriously call her by that name or that it is a joke about her name?
She's cosplaying a white woman for acceptance.
I know who she is. I want to know if I am responding to a serious proposal or a joke. Because the thing is, the "joke" is hard to distinguish from a call to action. And therein lies the problem.
I neither proposed anything or suggested acall to action, I was pointing out that she's a hypocritical cunt
I am discussing the comment:
I took your comment as a defense of that comment. Are you defending it as a joke or as a call to action?
Dude she is literally cosplaying a white woman.
All politicians at this level are products of marketing consultants. Biden is cosplaying as a younger person with his lifts and fillers. Trump is cosplaying as a rich guy. Obama cosplayed a progressive etc. Clinton failed cosplaying as a likable normal human person.
Is a trans woman a man cosplaying a woman? If you doubt her sincerity that's a fair argument towards her being generally untrustworthy, but I don't think that's what most people mean when they say stuff like this. It's just bigotry of another kind. She always struck me as generally perceiving herself as a white american woman. Who gets to decide who is brown but the person themselves? Am I brown because I'm Greek? I have naturally darker skin than some who identify as black or brown but I've never felt anything other than white.
I dont think transgender should be part of this conversation, people can do whatever they want its their body their right.
I would put "ted" cruz into this same boat if you are in politics and are running for office where your constituency cant handle a person of color if they knew???
Maybe cosplay is not the right word, what would you call it?
This whole conversation started over Nikki vs Nimarata. Why can that logic not be extended to someone's name, whether it's this, someone experiencing gender dysphoria, or someone who doesn't like to be called Matt because their name is Matthew?
So you're gatekeeping who can act white? Please tell me how you're not here, because I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but controlling how she should act due to her race and that's not ok. What she said (or didn't say) is bad on its own, but bringing her race into it just unnecessarily muddies the waters
Edit: everyone is happy to downvote, but nobody wants to say why she can't act like a white American woman (including using a name that better matches that profile) because she's born to Indian parents 🤷♂️
I would agree with you actually, its her racist constituency that would not vote for her unless she portrayed herself as a white woman that is the issue.
I also agree that skin color / race is subjective and does muddy the water.
Yeah, yewb. Let's not let people forget who she really is, an Indian! I'm sorry lady, did you want to get ahead in conservative politics? Well, you should have thought of that before you became an Indian.
Do you not hear yourselves?
If she feels that immigrants should take pains to assimilate, I will disagree with her points, but not her identity.
I get it but whataboutism says: what if it was a white woman pretending to be African American to sway brown voters?
Pretending of any kind should be shamed, but just because a person grew up as a minority in their own community shouldn't preclude them from identifying with the plights and cultures of said community.
Basically what I'm saying is skin color shouldn't matter, experience and honesty should.
Then, I would use their name. Is this a gotcha?
Still has Barrack Hussein Obama vibes. What point are we making here?
Like yeah, she's a race traitor cosplaying a white woman, but surely we have better points to make than hoping her base is racist enough to hate her based on a vaguely foreign name, which is not really at all a secret. meh.
Edit: Plenty of people change their names to more Americanized versions. This is probably the least egregious thing she has ever done... This is a trivial point at best and hypocritical at worst
But Barrack was an African American democrat with an extremely progressive base?
The point being made here was quite clearly missed by you.
My point is that we're calling out her scary foreign name for brownie points with racists and xenophobes. I understand how very different the situations are otherwise. Idk why everyone on lemmy is so aggressive lately jeezus
It’s the same reason I refer to Lady Graham as such: because they’re a powerful politician who have a core personal trait that’s inimical to their base that they try REALLY hard to hide, and that the conservative news sphere tends to help hide (for now).
It’s an open secret that Graham is a HUGE closet case, and he has backed every single heinously anti-gay law, resolution, and regulation that crosses his desk, amongst many other awful things.
Similarly, Nimarata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa) is campaigning on staunchly immigrant-hostile policies (again: amongst many other awful things), but is herself a (white-passing) immigrant.
We are simply hoisting them on the petard of their own hypocrisy. If these inconsistencies are repeatedly, consistently, and unavoidably pointed out, it’ll start to filter through to their base, and the racist elements of the GOP (but I repeat myself) will start to notice, and her viability as a candidate will diminish. It’s an unfortunate tactic that we feel forced to take, but we do feel forced to take it, as this is very much an existential political struggle.
Edit: I do want to say that /u/naught absolutely has their head in the right place, and that I further deeply wish I didn’t feel like shitty tactics like that are genuinely and truly necessary at this point in time. The fact that I may be willing to stoop to rhetorical levels that /u/naught isn’t does not make me more “right” than they are. I just have a different calculus about what I’m willing to do in a political context that I view as pretty dire.
Lady Graham is pretty offensive IMO. You can't just take a bigoted joke and throw it at bad people. You're still participating in homophobia. If a black republican ran for president I wouldn't be asking to see his birth certificate, let alone be throwing racial epithets
Two wrongs and all that.
I get where you’re coming from - I really do. In any other context I wouldn’t use such a targeted epithet.
But the pack of political shitgoblins that is the GOP have turned overtly fascist. They’re looking at Handmaid’s Tale as an aspirational goal instead of a harrowing cautionary tale about how fascism and authoritarianism rises and then entrenches itself. I will apologize to anyone who wants, and will accept any level of ridicule or ostracism that people feel I deserve due to how I target hypocritical, caustic, (small-d) anti-democratic politicians who are actively trying to destroy the advances our society has made after we build a bulwark against that bullshit. I myself am not enthusiastic about targeting people that way, but I genuinely do think that the situation warrants it.
The GOP is not following any rulebook at this point. Hamstringing effective psychological attacks against their base because it generates splash damage to some populations is something I see as a necessary evil because the GOP fully intends to do far, FAR worse to those populations if they gain and solidify their hold on American government for the foreseeable future.
So… yeah. It’s a shitty tactic. But the “critical failure” end-state of all this bullshit is “it’s illegal to be gay again” (amongst many other things), and from where I’m standing, that’s orders of magnitudes worse than having to repair any reputation and relationships I have with gay people - or even simply living with the fact that I’ve permanently offended people because used a dirty rhetorical tactic when it seemed like one of the best and most effective non-violent choices in a set of bad options.
I feel you 100%. For my own sanity, I feel like I have to draw a line in the sand and hold myself to a higher standard than the fascists. It would feel good to stoop to their level for sure, but then how do I tell myself that Im better than that? How could I claim to be? I just wish everyone had the capacity for empathy and kindness. It's insanity that so much of our suffering is man-made through ignorance and small mindedness.
I'm sure the gays will forgive you, but please consider how a gay person would feel hearing "Lady Graham" when there are so many things otherwise wrong with him you could comment on. You're putting an inherent negative spin on being gay - which of course is the point since Graham would happily do the same - but still.
I think hypocrisy is the key ingredient that changes people’s behavior here. By default, we should treat other humans with compassion and respect. A politician being gay/trans/minority normally shouldn’t even be a part of the conversation. However, if that politician happens to be gay, and they consistently work to harm gay people, people have the urge to call that out even if they are an ally.
Yeah, that’s more or less exactly my logic. If they actively harm a group of people that they belong to, and then expect that group and it’s allies to stand up and defend them… well, that’s gonna be a nope from me, dawg.
Hypocritical politicians like that deserve a live and very personal preview of the bigotry that they’re actively pushing for.
Racism-prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Treating someone differently because of the color of their skin is racist. This is prejudice, which is racism regardless of your intention. Full stop.
... what? I think you misread. I said I "wouldn't"
Right, the conditional for not asking was the..wait for it..... Color of skin & political affiliation. That's prejudicial shit. Intent doesn't matter.
The point is that nobody asks the white candidates for one. Equitable treatment is not assuming the american politician running for office was born somewhere else based on the color of their skin. Remember birtherism
No, not for brownie points with racists and xenophobes.
So the racist xenophobes can recognize that this batshit insane lady is actually quite plainly someone they hate for no reason.
No problem reminding them to take the garbage out.
Does pointing out that Trump has no idea about Christianity bothered these people? At least when you do that, it's not some attack via a racism Trojan horse.
Hypocrisy does not matter to the right. It does matter to my reflection. Using her "real name" is using racism as a weapon. I don't care if it is indirect or that it only hurts racists.
I don't understand what you're saying, the racist xenophobes are her supporters.
If they don't want to support her because of her "very scary" legal name they can either stop supporting her or reverse their support for the law forcing legal names being used..
I understand that they are shitty and racist -- why do we have to feed into that? I get the irony! I really do. It just feels hypocritical to me. I would rather us tackle the issues rather than gleefully playing the identity politics game
Nobody is feeding into anything, we are using their logic against them. Pretty basic tactic for getting someone to realize they're being shitty.
I mean, you're "fighting fire with fire" except the fire in this case is racism basically ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
TIL using a politician's LEGAL name is racist.
Seriously, seek help.
Don't blame me I voted for Rachel Dolezal
HAHAHAHA!
I've never understood it either. At this point I don't care which side we swing to, we should just be consistent. People either should or should not be able to dictate their own identities. We can't play the "you're only allowed to dictate your own identity if you vote blue" game if we want anyone to take our arguments seriously.
People who deny rights to others don't deserve to have that right for themselves. Everyone else deserves the right to define their own identity, but those assholes have waived that right.
Yeah this name calling stuff is cringe and shows how Americans have the maturity of 12 year olds. "His name is Donald Drumpf! He has a dumb name guys! HUSSEIN Obama he's a Muslim!! NIKKI IS INDIAN SHES AN INDIAN HER NAME IS ACTUALLY INDIAN!"