The Forward Party- a third party that actually stands a chance?

[Famine]

Contrary to @Famine’s opinion, stupidity can very much be considered a disability.

It can't. It can be an aspect of a disability - usually a developmental disorder or learning disability - but it is not itself a disability. Nobody has "stupidity" as a disability diagnosis, because it's simply not a diagnosis.

Compounding the issue with this stance:

So therefore calling someone a dumbass is absolutely in the same category as calling someone a spaz. If one is ableist, so is the other.

... is that neither "dumb" nor "ass", nor the combination, derives from a term relating to a disability.

If there was a disability called "dumbness" and the term "dumb" referred to dumbness, and people used the term "dumb" to mean "acting like someone with dumbness" and it was an insult, then it would be an equivalent term. But there's not.

There is, however, the R-word, and that's very much on the same kind of level, and also derives from a time when a group of developmental disorders was slapped together under the term. And also used by kids as if it isn't anything to do with the disability it derives directly from.

"Spaz/spastic" are in the same category as "gay", as a term derived from a physical difference adapted for use as an insult relating to that difference - it means someone who "spazzes out" (acting all crazy like having a fit or other spasms) just as a "spastic" (someone with cerebral palsy) would do. Perhaps it's also equivalent to the N-word, but that gets a special status as (aside from its use among the group of people directly affected by it, which is their choice) a term only used as abuse.


Other non-equivalent, and therefore also entirely acceptable, pejoratives include dick, pussy (which isn't a vagina, but short for "pusillanimous", meaning "timid"), asshat, ****nugget, pisspot, and ****hawk. None are derived from a physical difference and used as an insult relating to characteristics or mannerisms of that difference.

 

[Dennisch]

The state of modern day politics in a thread. Who is offended and who isn't.

 

[Duke]

From this side of the cultural pond, I'm not buying the semantics, but I refuse to belabor it any further, particularly out of respect for @Scaff .

 

[Danoff]

... is that neither "dumb" nor "ass", nor the combination, derives from a term relating to a disability.

Technically dumb is a disability referring to someone who is mute. I always assumed that eventually morphed into stupidity just because, as you've been saying, that's how all disabilities ultimately seem to get used in slang.

 

[Famine]

Technically dumb is a disability referring to someone who is mute. I always assumed that eventually morphed into stupidity just because, as you've been saying, that's how all disabilities ultimately seem to get used in slang.

"Dumb" is only term of abuse directed at a disability when used to reference the inability to speak.

I checked into this once for the same reason - maybe mute people were considered stupid through... well, not speaking, but it turns out that dumb and dumb have entirely different roots. I can't remember which, but one's an Old English root and the other is a more recent but still pretty bloody old fork from... I think Old High German. The mute dumb means "silent" and the stupid dumb means "stupid" - but both come from a PIE word meaning "dull".

 

[FerrariF1GT]

Anywho...

Duverger's law suggests that first-past-the-post electoral systems (like the US) will favor two dominant parties.

If this Forward Party wants to become viable, it should start at the local level because local politics and elections affect people's lives much more closely and strongly than national elections. When the party fields candidates for mayor, alderperson, sheriff, school board member, or even coroner and they get elected across the country (not just in a couple states), then I might take the party seriously.

 

[Danoff]

I checked into this once for the same reason - maybe mute people were considered stupid through... well, not speaking, but it turns out that dumb and dumb have entirely different roots. I can't remember which, but one's an Old English root and the other is a more recent but still pretty bloody old fork from... I think Old High German. The mute dumb means "silent" and the stupid dumb means "stupid" - but both come from a PIE word meaning "dull".

Would not have guessed that they were remotely independent.

 

[TexRex]

The state of modern day politics in a thread. Who is offended and who isn't.

Taking offense isn't political. Intent to offend may very well be political, however.

...maybe mute people were considered stupid through... well, not speaking...

Thinking about this, one who speaks is likely to find it difficult to communicate with one who does not, and thinking that one who does not is stupid seems very much like the one projecting their own inadequacy on another.

I can't think of any reason one who is mute would be inherently less intelligent*, though it's likely their depth and breadth of knowledge (certainly not the only measure of intelligence) is affected by their being mute, due to the emphasis on communication in conventional education.

*Obviously this is subject to my own limited depth and breadth of knowledge.

 

[Scaff]

Taking offense isn't political. Intent to offend may very well be political, however.

Thinking about this, one who speaks is likely to find it difficult to communicate with one who does not, and thinking that one who does not is stupid seems very much like the one projecting their own inadequacy on another.

I can't think of any reason one who is mute would be inherently less intelligent*, though it's likely their depth and breadth of knowledge (certainly not the only measure of intelligence) is affected by their being mute, due to the emphasis on communication in conventional education.

*Obviously this is subject to my own limited depth and breadth of knowledge.

It's a significant issue within the Autistic community, given that some autistic people are non-verbal, and yes far too many people do equate non-verbal with lower intelligence/potential/ability/value.

I like to use Prof. Steven Hawkins as a good counterpoint in that regard.

 

[Imari]

Hate to break it to you, but that one doesn't work either, I know a good number of Australians that find it offensive.

Every Australian knows it's offensive, it's just that some choose to use it anyway. It's part of a culture in which harsh language is considered situationally appropriate, not one where the language isn't considered harsh.

Fine. Pick a word. I know Australians who use the C word with practically the same frequency as 'mate'. Does it occur to them that others might find it offensive? I doubt it. In their specific part of the culture, it's just anogther word.

It's really, really not. Even Australians who spend most of their time in environments where that sort of language is acceptable are aware that there's a time and a place. If they're choosing not to moderate their language around you then it means that they feel that you're part of that same in-group that they feel comfortable using it around, not that they're unaware that it's sometimes inappropriate.

It's a significant issue within the Autistic community, given that some autistic people are non-verbal, and yes far too many people do equate non-verbal with lower intelligence/potential/ability/value.

It's also an issue that for a long time being autistic was explicitly associated with being of low intelligence. Being autistic but with higher intelligence and/or lower support needs was labelled as Aspergers, and there's a whole truckload of problematic that goes along with Hans Asperger.

 

[LeMansAid]

Seems pretty demented to use the word "spaz"..... Oh dear.

With wave after wave of linguistic evolution, it's pretty easy to be unknowingly offensive these days. As someone who suffers from (among other things) autism/sensory-overload/anxiety-related jolts I like to judge intent when others are speaking to me but hold myself to a high standard of sensitivity toward others' specific experiences when I speak. When one is speaking to "the whole world" that's damn hard to do, though.

 

[Imari]

With wave after wave of linguistic evolution, it's pretty easy to be unknowingly offensive these days. As someone who suffers from (among other things) autism/sensory-overload/anxiety-related jolts I like to judge intent when others are speaking to me but hold myself to a high standard of sensitivity toward others' specific experiences when I speak. When one is speaking to "the whole world" that's damn hard to do, though.

Right, and if you use language in a way that you didn't intend to be offensive but then you learn that it is, that's not actually a problem unless you double down on your right to use offensive language but maintain that you're not using it offensively.

That's why stuff like the Lizzo thing is not as massive a deal as some people would like to make it out to be, it wasn't intended as an ableist slur and when it was identified it was quickly addressed. If people make mistakes and correct them, no problem.

What shouldn't be swept under the rug though is that it's still important for people to be able to point out when people make these mistakes. Criticism when people overstep the bounds of polite society is important because it lets people learn where the limits are.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Not a good look for "upholding democracy".

 

[Lain]

Third parties stand zero chance until we have ranked choice voting, and AFAIK Democrats are the only major political party who would even half entertain the notion of implementing such a thing.

 

[Scaff]

Not a good look for "upholding democracy".

View attachment 1182269

You do understand he's talking about the perception these people hold, not the reality?

That perception is no reason for the law not to be followed, as failing to do so because of a potential backlash from the rich/powerful would be a real failure of democracy (not that the US legal system isn't already stacked in favor of the rich/powerful, as it is), the reality is that the sheer weight of evidence that would be needed to get a judge to sign-off on this raid (and that's who would do it) is likely to have been significant. Not to mention that the FBI is headed up by a person Trump himself appointed.

 

[Imari]

Not a good look for "upholding democracy".

Isn't it? Democracy holds it's leaders to account, and that includes legitimate investigations. There seems to be enough evidence to justify this and it's not like it was rammed through without correct oversight. It certainly isn't democracy to allow people who have potentially committed serious crimes to go uninvestigated because it would be unpopular with a vocal minority.

IMO, this is exactly what upholding democracy looks like. People who see this as a threat were already supporters of authoritarianism and minority rule. I'm not sure you should listen to what people like that think "democracy" should be.

 

[Pupik]

Seems like a hell of a hill to choose to die on to me.

Now you're assuming hills enjoy dead people. Landforms deserve better than our litter.

Circling back, the Forward Party sounds noble, but it seems like the already inherent compromise of what we get when the two parties work together. In short, we mostly get 80% of that result, but each side takes some credit for it in a small but convoluted way. If anything, each party would call Forward a watered-down solution to issues, to which the more established parties would ironically mention is part of the problem. Sometimes the issues are fed by the media who requires a human populace in exchange for glances, sometimes the snake feeds on its own tail, and sometimes the tail wags the dog.

If a third party wants to put a serious stake in the ground*, it should be bringing up serious issues for the public-at-large that both major parties are largely ignoring: automation/AI removing jobs, privacy rights, data acquisition, responsibility of elected leadership, et al. Sure, there's a unsteady answer from each party but a muted to those kinds of issues, as evidenced by their entire absence in debates, press, and advertising...but they do come up in serious non-political discussion.

Political parties do best when they can console people's issues and ally their problems, but become monsters because they put no emphasis on personal change, public responsibility, requirements for elected leaders to have a backbone, and typically blame others for their concerns. If the voter pool doesn't find Their Candidate, they'll keep scraping the bottom of the barrel or dumpster** until one appears. There's no honest and sensible discussion to found, and I suppose that's the nature of this crummy game of politics. What they need to do is remind people of unpopular decisions are typically the result of easy answers, that there are no free lunches, and that if you want leadership accountability, you have to believe in magic and fiction (or you know, actually model it).

* d'oh
** food is expensive, too

 

[GranTurNismo]

@Scaff @Imari I will concede that I may have misunderstood Andrew Yang's tweet. I want to make it crystal clear that I support the FBI raiding Mar-A-Lago and doing so is, albeit indirectly, pro-democracy. I had comprehended his tweet as sympathizing with- effectively emboldening- the millions of Trump supporters who view the raid as "The Establishment" cracking down on him because he is a supposed political threat. So no, I don't think Yang is actively building a case against the raid, when in actuality he was just outlining the Trump base's thoughts. Though, if the "millions of Americans who will see this as an unjust persecution" refers to anyone outside the Trump base, I will still push back on Yang. I don't see how this would make liberals or independents or those completely disaffected by politics somehow more in accordance with Trump's narrative.

 

[Imari]

I had comprehended his tweet as sympathizing with- effectively emboldening- the millions of Trump supporters who view the raid as "The Establishment" cracking down on him because he is a supposed political threat.

That seems like a problem right there. There are already enough Republican politicians in power willing to overlook or explain away crimes, Yang doesn't need to be publically coming up with reasons why he shouldn't be held to account.

So no, I don't think Yang is actively building a case against the raid, when in actuality he was just outlining the Trump base's thoughts. Though, if the "millions of Americans who will see this as an unjust persecution" refers to anyone outside the Trump base, I will still push back on Yang.

But as long as he's only talking about Trumpists, it's a reasonable thing to say? It's implicitly suggesting that the raid is maybe not a good idea because of how Trumpists will see it.

That's why the word "But" is in that tweet. Otherwise he would have said "a fundamental part of his appeal has been that it's him against a corrupt government, but we shouldn't let that turn us away from justice". He's absolutely making excuses, he's just doing it in a really weaselly way.

America has no policy against investigation, trial and conviction of persecuted peoples. Quite the opposite, your chances of being investigated and/or convicted of a crime seem strongly linked to how marginalised or persecuted you are. As a rich, old, white dude with plenty of friends in high places, Trump has a pretty reasonable expectation that he doesn't get pursued for anything he does. Even if he shot someone dead on Fifth Avenue as the saying goes.

Any action against someone like that looks like "persecution" if you think that the status quo is legitimate and fair. But it's not, and while there's a lot of rich and powerful people that should probably be held to account Trump is a damn good place to start. Trumpists will complain no matter what because more attached to the man than the well-being of their country, but Yang and other politicians should be making sure that this is correctly portrayed as legitimate and necessary action by a justice system operating as it should. Or if it's not, then he should explain to us why it's not, but don't use populism as a reason why the FBI shouldn't be investigating the actual corrupt government that was in place for four years.