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
view the rest of the comments
In response to the "100 year old language" I do think it's important to not use terminology that is predefined in people's heads to be "bad" when communicating policy. We don't have to do that to with "public owned grocery stores" for example. A lot of leftist terminology is only know by people through the definitions given by liberalism.
But, when critics inevitably start saying "that's Marxist!" its very very important that a politician doesn't try and say "no, it's not. ".
Instead, the defense to that should always be a clear and simple "I don't care what you call it. If having affordable groceries is 'Marxist' to you then ok" Leave it there. I absolutely hate hate hate when politicians put themselves on defense for no reason. They are afraid of the labels from the right and should not be.
Doing this form of agreement as a defense literally makes their "It's Marxist" attack help leftist politics in the long term. You don't have to take the labels of the left as an attack. They are only that way if you accept their definitions. Every time people hear "I guess is Marxist" it is literally helping to correct the lies about socialism in their heads.
The long term consequences of this will actually be that we are allowed to use the language of working class struggle to describe things. It's not really that it's "100 year old language" for why it's bad for communicating right now. It's that for over 100 years it has been allowed to be defined by liberals.
So, you're right, in the short term. But the goal isn't to "not use that language". The goal is gradually remove the predefined ideas of what leftist terms mean (as defined by liberals) and show what they actually result in; through actual policy that helps people.
We will handicap ourselves in the long run if we are constantly trying to pretend that we have to dissociate ourselves from Marxist vocabulary. It doesn't have to be the center of our communication right now. But running from it when it comes up (and it will) is even worse.
Then you surrender to the opposition's framing and end up in semantic contortions because you don't stand your ground.
That's the conclusion you made from my comment? Like, what do you think I'm talking about here?
Like, at most, you could ask for clarification on what "bad" things I mean here. I could definitely explain that better here.
But, damn, what a jump to a conclusion you made. Especially given the context that the rest of my comment was literally about the importance of NOT being afraid of the language of "the left".
Maybe my comment wasn't directed at you? Maybe I was trying to explain something to someone with the opposite belief of you and I?