If anybody wanted to read the article (ha! yeah, I know) she's not saying we should lose 'woke' ideology or stop attacking 'oligarchy'. She says the opposite of those things, which was phrased by mediaite this way for clickbait reasons.
What she's saying is to use the word "kings" instead of "oligarchy". Which I get. Sure - do that. Makes sense. Same argument, same vitriol, more punch.
As for the 'woke' part, she said:
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
She's mad as fuck and doesn't want to explain why people need to be treated with respect - it should be a given and we don't need to explain it.
So there's sixty comments on here so far, most of them railing against her but I don't see it. I think she's been misinterpreted, deliberately, in the case of the mediaite headline writer.
Thank you, Lemmy is looking like a slippery slope back into Reddit today with everyone just screaming at the headlines without knowing the full stories or context.
What she’s saying is to use the word “kings” instead of “oligarchy”. Which I get. Sure - do that. Makes sense. Same argument, same vitriol, more punch.
Still don't agree with that. Oligarchy is a very specific thing that we are currently living in. We don't have a king, not even by the most new-speak of definitions.
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Also hard pass. The CIA should be shuttered they will never be able to provide solution to the problems of capitalism, because their number one goal is to secure "US Interests Abroad" meaning, prop up the oligarchy.
Well you can argue the words or the pronunciation thereof but I don't think you're on the right side of that one. Language is central to reality and you're talking about a wide swath of people's reality where oligarch has little meaning but king has a lot.
As for CIA-bad, no argument there but CIA-bad-therefore-anyone-who-worked-there-bad I'd also disagree with. We gotta have someone to run and if she's progressive and firey, I'll take it. If the left wants to primary her for someone else, fine - so long as they can win. But in most cases they don't have anyone.
Nah, this headline gets it right by ignoring Slotkin's transparent spin
Slotkin voted for the Laken Reilly act and hasn't ever said shit about the CIA being held accountable for torturing people, so she doesn't want to "fucking retake the flag" in any way that isn't just a new reign of terror for brown people
The negging about the word "oligarchy" (which she was happy to use against wealthy Russian assholes who support Putin up until very recently) is continuing a very long tradition of her being against whatever AOC is doing at the moment. She can't come right out and say "I don't like her policies" because those are popular and that would be political suicide, so she's just focusing on AOC's rhetoric and playing to Republican talking points about progressives being the out of touch ones.
Slotkin is a toxic divisive piece of shit who's bad on policy, bad on politics, and drags the whole Democratic party's image down whenever she wants to advance her own career.
I'm not seeing that from this article, but you seem to know a lot about her - what are some other things she's done?
Slotkin is the new Sinema and can GFY, but there is a component to this that does deserve some discussion.
If you look back on the past 10 years of the Democrats climbing hills for issues, I think it's out of sync with the majority of people. The staunch fight for identity politics is not what people seem to want or need right now, and they need to understand that. Maybe there was a time when this was what their constituents wanted, but no longer.
Now they need to be really fucking strong on fighting the billionaires, pushing back against the front to vast majority of the country that has no wealth, and finding ways to make that flip around so that the wealthy who are imposing the enshitification of the lower and middle class are held accountable for doing so.
Forget the current struggles we're forced to dread living through, and give people a clear plan and the hope that you'll actually be attacking these things when elected. Seems pretty simple.
The only reason the party has the woke reputation is that empty lip service is really all they had left. People like this need to get a fucking clue. If people want to vote for republicans, they will never ever ever get confused and accidentally vote for democrats just because you mirrored their policies from 12-20 years ago.
Read the fucking article before you comment. It's obvious most did not.
The article title is incredibly misleading. Even the first sentence of the article makes clear what she was actually saying:
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the “oligarchy” on Thursday, arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans and should be replaced with “kings.”
She’s advocating for using a more relatable term, not for a change in party values. The “woke” comment irks me, but again is focused on terminology and not ideology.
When you need the dumb fucks’ votes, you gotta speak their language. Or at least water it down to be palatable to someone who was “educated” in our broken-ass system.
Yea but opposing 'kings' isn't even close to the problem of 'oligarchs'
One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.
If it was really not ideologically tilted she'd suggest 'billionaire' instead of oligarch, but the dems are afraid of losing the support of the 'good billionaires
I don't see anything wrong with talking about the oligarchs as "kings" as well. I think that language could work just as well with Zuck, Bezos, etc. as it would with Trump.
I think it would have been better if she had used a "yes, and", recognising that the Sanders/AOC rallies are bringing a lot of people out and getting them more engaged, then suggesting using the "kings" language on top of it.
I read the article and I completely disagree with her. ‘Oligarch’ means something different than ‘king’, and many Americans don’t have the same negative reaction to the word ‘king’, which is often romanticised in media, whereas ‘oligarch’ calls up images of nefarious machinations in authoritarian regimes – exactly what’s actually going on.
Also, being whiny that the bullies are calling us ‘woke’ is reactionary and misses the whole point. This is where we should be doubling down, not diluting our language.
e: also also, having spent decades in UxD and usability (which entailed a lot of surveying and analysis), I’d be hesitant to rely on surveys that show a population’s preference for one word over another, because word feels are affected by far more than knowledge of their definitions, and the reasons aren’t easily captured in a survey. The reasons are what matter, not necessarily the word, and I’m sure she didn’t explore this enough to understand the sociology here.
I disagree. How exactly is that obvious?
You're just sore that we all think she's DNC trash.
Do you know what the word "most" means? Do you also see that the article misrepresents her position which is basically "use an easier word than oligarch"?
Take a breath; if you did read the article, you apparently didn't read my comment. It doesn't say "if you disagree it's obvious you didn't read it".
Seems to be an unpopular opinion, but she is right. I think the people upset with her in the comments do not live in red areas.
As stupid as it sounds, that is all people seem to care about. The right used to have abortion as a drum to bang. Now that Roe is overturned the right needed a new social cause, and they found 'woke' which is WAY more effective than abortion since it seems to excite both religious, and non-religious.
If you go and talk with people in rural areas you will be shocked by how prominent this issue is in their minds, and I believe it will always beat economic issues for them.
Fighting Oligarchy resonates greatly. But yes, the dems have focused too much on the culture war in favour of participating in the class war against the working class.
That is definitely something they should put waaaay more focus on. Trump is the cry for help of much of the working class, if people would believe you actually fought FOR the working people in your country, the dems would be unstoppable.
So sad that people are still trying to fix this shitparty that is working perfectly as they intended.
But americans are incapable of change and voting for 3rd party apparently.
It's almost like she is insulting her fellow citizens.
The implication that I see (based on her statement) is that other people in her country lack the capability to comprehend the notion of oligarchy or they are too corrupt themselves to support anti-corruption reform.
or they are too corrupt themselves to support anti-corruotion reform.
Maybe. Or maybe they just shove the honest out of sight, or ridicule them with heavy projections.
You might be surprised how many people have little to no understanding of political philosophy.
See, I don't you need know anything about political philosophy to understand how oligarchs function and to well, identify oligarchs.
I think you need it to be able to identify oligarchy and why it is an issue.
Fucking nailed it. Also need to get the assholes who think everything is solved with protests to sit the fuck down
politics
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