Autopsy (Finger Pointing)

[Philly]

[ToddStarnes]

So you recognize that focusing on identity politics turns off those not in the group, but you think BLM is still a good thing? Odd.

Then there's Saz who says how great it is BLM forced Dems to give them disproportionate attention then is earnestly lecturing the class on the dangers of identity politics a month later lol.

[Saz]

[Saz]

[Philly]

[ToddStarnes]

[ToddStarnes]

[Philly]

[ToddStarnes]

Okay, I can agree with that. I do hope this means liberals will stop pushing shit like BLM down our throats but that probably won't happen obviously.

[Philly]

I understand, but once again, I have to emphasize that far more troubling thing about what the shitlibs tried to do this election was not "shove BLM down our throats", rather, they tried to form an identity-only coalition that could win without economics. It failed, which in a certain principle is good, but from the practical standpoint is obviously bad. Democrats lost this election because they were experimenting with how they could no longer owe anything to the working class or poor. They thought identity politics could cobble together enough women and minorities who felt threatened by the GOP to do just that. I don't want Dems to stop caring about BLM, but it is not mutually exclusive to care about BLM and also care about economic conditions in the rust belt. If you follow a lot of the discourse on the left since the election, there has been a lot of in-fighting between the Sanders and Clinton wings of the party. Clinton wing says that any attempt to appeal to white working class voters is inherently ceding ground to racism and misogyny cause that's who these people are. Sanders wing is saying that progressive economics and social justice are not mutually exclusive, and that even if the "that's who these people are" line is true, they'll still be enticed by better economic conditions if we actually sell the message to them properly.