"Referendum 88 is still losing in the polls: The affirmative action measure is currently losing by just under 13,000 votes."
Every "yes" vote should be worth 1.5 of every "no" vote.
Wow! I usually don’t do political speeches, however this one by Buttigieg is downright inspiring; I’m getting Obama 2008 tingles.
If he were a 47 year-old governor instead of a 37 year-old mayor, this thing would be over.
I just wish Bootygig would run for the Senate; he’d kickass there, and it seems like a much better fit at this point.
Both the inbreds Indiana’s got now look like refried dogshit.
@douche -- you're 'right' -- White Privilege
Does Not Exist.
And we can thank far far FAR right mostly White Supremicist Court*
that the Voting Right Act of 1965 -- is no longer Necessary!
So fucking What if Black folk gotta wait Hours to vote
(IF they're allowed to) -- it's just how shit IS.
Yep, all that racial Inequity's (finally!) long gone.
Sorry -- can't help but wonder -- how come Black wealth
is so much Less Than White? Why are they so
many (disproportionally) Black peeps in prison?
Is criminality just inherently endemic?
Were the Jim Crow laws Successful?
And we oughtta just fucking move On?
*"The Voting Rights Act was renewed and extended several times during the last half-century. Then, in June 2013, a divided U.S. Supreme Court, voting 5-4, gutted the law. Almost immediately, Southern states began passing restrictive voting laws, disenfranchising hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters."
"Biden fucked up and elites want a bottom4business who isn't actually a gay." --Chase
"you're 'right' -- White Privilege. Does Not Exist."
I'm not sure how wearing a condom, finishing high school and having children with only one father and only after marriage makes you "privileged". Seems like a pretty low bar to pass for "privilege". The Asian Americans wholed the fight against the bill seemed to have figured that out, even more so than wipipo.
Chase you scamp I like the photo you chose to illustrate "bear spray," probably sting like a mother if it gets in your eyes.
“ Southern states began passing restrictive voting laws, disenfranchising hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters."
All you need to Washington State is a 2B pencil and a wet tongue.
@3 You can wish all you like, but the next Senate seat in Indiana isn’t up for grabs until 2022.
White men who feel that actual equality means they are getting
a demotion probably should have had a demotion long ago.
@10 It was Asian Americans who led the fight against I88 in Washington State.
@4: Why do you portend to celebrate democracy (democracynow link), and then go off pouting and claiming the mantle of social justice bleeding heart hyperbole when it's the results of the democracy that is bruising your delicate sensibilities?
Pray tell. Exactly who are the "elites"? Are they the uber wealthy? Are they middle class Liberal Americans who don't embrace socialism and progressivism? Are they the more conservative blue collar unionized Democratic voters? Are they they over-educated intellectual voters? Are they Democrats who also happen to be business owners?
Or is "elites" just another current buzz word at The Stranger that's relevant only to the staff there?
How did they even know that the bear spray was released? That SODO Goodwill is a serious dump that always reeks of something.
Did someone say rub my Renault Cliotoris?
Going after the Lesbaru buyer there.
The good news is that there are other ways to combat institutional bias than affirmative action. Even though white supremacists have removed one tool the fight for equity can continue.
Does the Renault come with a trailer hitch so it is easier to rig up U-Hauls every five months or so?
"Even though white supremacists have removed one tool the fight for equity can continue."
Are you calling the Asian American's who led the opposition to I-88 "white supremacists"?
What a funny world you live in.
That car ad shows a LGBT no-no:
Lesbian marries man even though she know's she's a lesbian. Hurting the man unnecessarily.
No excuse for that crap in this day and age.
Golf clap and tip of the hat for the photo, Chase. Well-played.
"Lesbian marries man even though she know's she's a lesbian. Hurting the man unnecessarily."
More appropriate for an ad for a 1958 Chevrolet.
@19: Asians are either non-existent or count as evil whites when they complicate liberal narratives with their pesky social/financial success and cultural conservatism.
@4 The success of new African immigrants in the US is doing the same.
That should be @24 above.
Legacy of American slavery? What legacy of American slavery? I don't see any legacy of American slavery here. Nope, no sir, haven't got any of that left in America. It's all gone now.
Noooooo.... Ya really think so, genius? And here we'd all always thought you were something of an idiot!
@27 - Saw "Harriet" the other night. A really awesome movie on many levels.
27 I second that robotslave. Like “we don’t see any racism. There is no police brutality. The prison industry isn’t about imprisoning poor people and people of color”. Reality is not something these bigots have a handle on. The very rich STILL benefit from racism and slavery. And of course the other word they don’t want to hear CLASSISM.
Raindrop, I'm here to enlighten you with the shocking fact that bi women exist.
Regarding the conversation around Asian Americans:
I know y'all are just bickering, but it's actually going to be an interesting phenomenon in upcoming years. Because yes, white supremacy is a thing, and yes white privilege is also a thing, but as the culture becomes more diverse and as the wealth inequality continues to persist and liberal politics has, in fact, made it more possible for non white people and women to achieve elite status (by any definition) than it was just a few decades ago, the result of these combined factors will be a more class based analysis of social problems among libs as well as a better understanding of id pol on the left- both of which are already happening (and it's not new, it's a conversation that's been going on for decades, it's just newly mainstream). How this relates specifically to Asian Americans- well my guess is you guys are talking about East Asians in tech, so I'll let you carry on. But more broadly in the US, you are going to find more and more conservative Asians, especially wealthy Asians from the subcontinent a lot of whom are already firmly right wing and just avoid voting Republican b/c there are so many white supremacists in that party. But they are also really worried about being taxed, and yes I think they could start voting GOP before long. What's going to be interesting is to see what sort of reactionary changes happen in the GOP itself- American fascism must be multi-cultural. It's already taken a turn so that it's cool to be both gay and fash. I think the hard lines are going to remain against feminism and black people, but it's going to include other forms of diversity. The only way to fight this politically is to redraw our own lines specifically on class lines- the id pol emphasis falls apart along class lines as we've seen again and again. Let the right wing split itself on those lines- they are going to have to grapple with non white elites joining their ranks which also includes white supremacists and white idpol with all its cultural resentments. Libs and the left shouldn't fall out over similar reasons. White privilege is a thing and it's useful to talk about it, but it's not an explanation for most political alliances and, more importantly, there's not so much you can do politically about it anyway except tsk tsk.
@31: Bisexuality is no excuse either. Her vows (and yes, maybe his too) were made dishonestly.
Nevertheless, the ad depicts her reuniting with her true after a failed marriage.
How do you know raindrop? Point me to the scene where she told him she was straight and not bi.
Do you think that most people who get married do not have past lovers that they still care about? That's a pretty lonely view of the world.
But even considering that, I ask again, point me to the scene in which she told her husband that he is the only person on the face of the planet that she loves.
@32 You don't know what their vows were. This is 2019, and open marriages exist, too.
It's a funny conversation altogether, Raindrop, I wonder sometimes how much you believe any of the things you write. Like you know what the content of the undepicted vows of a fictional person are.
No, I don't. No more than you know that it's an open marriage EmmaLiz. It's all what we make it, right? You can't discount that the depiction of the failed marriage juxtaposed with a happier ending for the women, leaves one wondering what happened with the man.
More often than not, when a marriage ends there is unhappiness and damage left behind. The inherent trivialization or disregard for the marriage is obvious and some of us are more sensitive to these things than others, obviously.
I didn't see any indication that it's an open marriage and I don't see what difference that would make since she went to her old lover AFTER her marriage ended anyway.
Yes people get divorced and yes people are hurt in the process. Is your objection to the fact that the romance story portrayed includes a divorce? If so, state it. The fact that it includes a divorce has nothing to do with anyone lying about their marriage in the first place.
I do agree that there's a lot of dismissal of the spouses who are cast aside when someone comes out with a different sexuality and/or gender. There's often more sympathy and support for the people who are coming out than the people left behind. I've seen it in my own real life in fact, when gay men who marry women realize they must come out after having children- it fucks up a lot of people's lives. But there's loads of things that fuck up marriages, so many that we can't enumerate them. It's an antiquated arrangement that has outlived its usefulness in my opinion, and as a society we should be building other networks with which we can have homes and raise children that don't require a person to stay relatively the same for decades and decades or else have to traumatically alter the lives of the people most intimately connected to them. It's horrifying, to me, that we carry on as if this is the best system.
But back to the fucking car commercial, it's just a trope. A character thinks back to the long lost love of youth, when it was easy, and once life gets complicated they consider running back to them- it's manipulating your nostalgia and the alienated human-who-has-become-consumer's desire to believe there is a place where you belong, where you are loved for who you are, that you could get back there "if only". This is why it's so disgusting.
They've added the same sex romance to make it seem modern and cool. If the "other woman" had been an "other man" then it would've been too obvious an outdated trope, ridiculous in a too on-the-nose way to manipulate anyone's emotions. Not too long ago, the same bullshit would've been made that way, showing the woman (slay queen!) leaving the confines of her marriage, probably stepping out in the world with a man who was an artist or some such bullshit. If it would not work with a straight man leaving his wife for another woman it's because this has always existed and therefore would never have felt manipulatively modern to any audience since it's not a recently gained freedom.
These assholes know their market- urban white wealthy liberals who think it makes them cool to have gay friends or that it makes their own romances and life crises more special if they include an experience that is outside the hetero norm.
@36 Marriages of convenience also exist. They've been around a lot longer than open marriage, too.
You're presuming to know the intimate details of a pretend marriage depicted in a television commercial, whereas normal people don't even presume to know the intimate details of the real marriages of their own siblings.
Marriage is a deeply private affair. Why aren't you showing any respect for that?
@38: It is my prerogative to assume, as it is yours to assume the opposite. People talk about fiction and hidden meanings all the time. This is no different.
My take (failed marriage) doesn't negate yours (it's an open marriage) and the converse is true.
@39 You were making broad moral claims in @20 and @32, specifically "No excuse for that crap in this day and age." and "Bisexuality is no excuse either." You were not merely relating your personal interpretation of the ad.
It sounds like you're retracting those broad claims now, and apologizing for them?
It's fun to talk about our various takes on fiction and hidden meanings, I agree. However this is different because it's a commercial, not a work of fiction. And so the emotional manipulation has a goal, well considered for the target audience, beyond simply giving them some sort of experience or insight. All stories are manipulations, but yes the motivations behind them do matter, and you can't have an honest conversation about these things if you don't consider that. Most advertising attempts to attach its product to a potential consumer's desired identity and wish for a place of belonging. The reason the long lost lover, nostalgia for when life was easier, trope in this case includes a same-sex romance is because they are attempting to attach their product emotionally to people who think of themselves as modern and openminded. And it will, by definition, not resonate with people who are conservative or feel a longing for traditional marriage though there is likewise plenty of marketing towards that as well. Regardless, if gets that response out of you- either you got emotionally swept up in the story or it offended you because you see them as disrespecting the traditional marriage vows, it has had its intended effect. The whole goal is to validate the emotions person who thinks of themselves as more modern and open-minded, the liberal taking a moral high ground, against conservatives who are offended. There is no moral high ground to take on this matter once conservatives are not offended- then it just becomes any old personal drama. So you are playing right along, Raindrop.
@40: No retraction whatsoever. It is crap.
I gave deference and acknowledgements to EmmaLiz's and your opinions, but no way does it change how I feel.
You're at liberty to feel differently.
@41: Indeed: "it has had its intended effect."
If its intention is to trash the former husband, then its crap.
You're at liberty to determine its intention differently.
It's intention, like all commercials, is to make its target audience feel that their product is attached to their desired identity. This specific story manipulates the consumer's feelings of alienation by playing with nostalgia for a place where they belong. The trope they use is the long lost lover, back when life was young and easy, that we can get back there, it's waiting for us, "if only" we could cast off the complications of real life. It's fantasy.
The addition of the same sex relationship is simply there to appear modern so that the trope and manipulation are more easily disguised because their target audience are wealthy urban white people who are far more likely to be mundane liberals than anything else, but who have a sense of themselves as being special or morally correct or hip since gay rights were so long linked to "good politics"- in fact for a lot of people of a certain generation, it's the defining feature of "good politics" and they are still sort of stuck in that understanding of the world.
The intention is not to "trash the former husband" but the intended affect does in fact rest upon the persistence of conservatives who are offended by the casting off of traditional marriage.
It's boring, btw, just to say "well we are both at liberty to interpret it as we see fit". Sure, but some interpretations are stupider than others. And the one that rests upon making up stories behind the marriage vows are pretty dumb imo.
"It[marriage]'s an antiquated arrangement that has outlived its usefulness in my opinion, and as a society we should be building other networks with which we can have homes and raise children that don't require a person to stay relatively the same for decades and decades or else have to traumatically alter the lives of the people most intimately connected to them. It's horrifying, to me, that we carry on as if this is the best system."
"It[marriage]'s an antiquated arrangement that has outlived its usefulness in my opinion, and as a society we should be building other networks with which we can have homes and raise children that don't require a person to stay relatively the same for decades and decades or else have to traumatically alter the lives of the people most intimately connected to them. It's horrifying, to me, that we carry on as if this is the best system." --EmmaLiz
I mean, raindrop, if you want to argue that the advertisement trashes the husband, then you have to explain why they would do that.
If they want to target people who get a thrill out of bashing husbands, then the husband would surely be more central to the story rather than simply featured for a few seconds in the middle.
It's far more interesting to ask yourself how it helps them resonate with their target audience to portray a love story in this way which does feature both parents and husband who is left when the wife wants to embrace nostalgia and personal freedom? It's the old story about running off to be one's true self in the face of adversity and you can't feel that way if there is no adversity limiting your true self in the first place. The emotional response rests, in part, upon people like you. The traditional marriage and the disapproving parents are just stand ins to remind the consumer that they are the ones taking the brave moral high ground against judgmental conservatives like you.
Oh EmmaLiz, how you love to anoint yourself as the arbiter of truth: "Sure, but some interpretations are stupider than others"
You only think it's stupid because you start getting defensive and can't intellectually think of a way to refute it.
@47: Oh, so now it's a traditional marriage. I though you postulated it was an open marriage and they were both bi?
I love you can so quickly change your dispositions. It looks weak.
lol I've offered you post after post of refutes, and to make the conversation more interesting for myself (since you offered no refutes of your own) I even argued your side then argued against it. I'd be more than happy for you to step up your game. If by "defensive" you mean "bored and trying to amuse yourself in the most lazy way as possible to distract from shitty things in your own life" then you'd have me. But see, now I'm even offering you better ways to own me than you've come up with yourself. :)
@raindrop, I never said anything about an open marriage. That was not me. I said the woman is bi which she obviously is since she has a relationship with a woman and a man in the commercial.
Traditional marriage does not exclude bi people. These days, "traditional" marriage does not even exclude gay people. Marriage itself is an antiquated tradition. That's my whole point. It's allowing the target audience the feeling that they are seeking some true self and moral high ground in the face of adversity without them having to actually do much at all- it's just a fantasy. Look I can return to my safe childhood lover, back before life was complicated, and all will be well. Naturally they can't portray anything actually radical as it would alienate most viewers and point is to sell cars. It's the exact same affect as marketing a truck of some sort to a suburbanite with footage of adventures in the mountains that the suburbanite would never really take in order to play up their desired identity as being an adventuresome person. The fact that driving an expensive truck off road isn't actually adventuresome in the first place is irrelevant.
Yes, marriage is a tradition steeped in antiquity. That's why couples still enter into it because it's a time tested tradition for a commitment between two individuals in love. That's why same sex marriage was fought for. That's why clergy typically begins the ceremony with the words that marriage should not be entered into lightly.
Why would you want to begrudge that? The holy covenant of marriage deserves our respect for the couples that enter into it. If you can't be gracious enough to do that, then, well, I pity you.
Same sex marriage was fought for because of a number of reasons.
An aspect of liberal democracy includes applying the same laws equally to the same people
Marriage still comes along with actual rights and material conditions- property, inheritance, child custody, health/finance decisions, etc.
Whether or not gay people can marry has absolutely zero effect on the political reality of our society meaning it does not challenge whatsoever the distribution and control of resources in any way, and so long as people are busy arguing over whether or not gay people should get married, they will attach their political identities to questions of liberal or conservative social values instead of organizing around the distribution and control of resources.
Marriage itself exists because there must be some way to organize kinship & parentage and to provide for the needs of the vulnerable (children, the elderly, pregnant women, the sick/disabled). Throughout time, it has been central to the distribution and control of resources as it's the foundation of societies, including the addition of religious institutions and gender roles etc. As the ability of women to control reproduction has exploded around the world, one of the foundations of marriage has disappeared, leading to its breakdown. And the replacement of legal systems to handle issues of property and rights in response has contributed to that. Unfortunately, the other of its foundations (networks of belonging and care for the vulnerable) has not had any replacement, and sentimental/moral habits persist, often with the help of manipulative media such as this commercial.
You can take your holy covenants and worship them or shove them up your ass or turn them to fetishes all you want, but they have nothing to do with me. I don't give a flying fuck what you do, and no one is entitled to respect. You are entitled to rights under the law, that's it, to the extent that you harm no one else. I'm not required to respect your choices or to refrain from telling you I think they are stupid any more than you are required to not pity me.
We all get along in this world because of deference and respect for others, and their ways and customs including their religions. So yes, you are required to respect the choices of others are they are required to respect yours.
Required not by law of course, but by good manners.
Plastic smiles are totally acceptable.
And @EmmaLiz, I sincerely take back that I pity you, I do not. I was just momentarily unnerved by your impertinence.
“ Marriage itself is an antiquated tradition. ”
We’ll only among white urban hipsters and the underclass. In the bigger world, your swinging lifestyle is about as popular as the syphylis comeback you’re enjoying.
@56 You haven't been to Europe since you were a student, have you.
You remember Europe, right? The center of western civilization? First thing you run into when you cross the Atlantic ocean? The one where all the white people are from?
Raindrop, as I've been very clear with you before, I have no interest in good manners. I think they are extremely overrated and they generally just serve to protect people who are already in power as well as obscuring reality of situations. I don't care if you pity me or not. I only care about the opinions of people I know and respect, and no, there are customs all over the world that are undeserving of any respect at all. Frankly, I find plastic smiles to be extremely insulting and I'd prefer an honest scowl any day. Manners are a matter of opinion, and opinions, as they say, are like assholes...
@The Clap, you are incorrect about that. White people have higher rates of marriage than many other racial groups. And it's funny that you think a swinging lifestyle is the only alternative to marriage. Also I'm old, bicultural and have been married for decades. Trends are going against marriage in all demographics, with fewer people getting married generation after generation. Antiquated traditions don't die overnight but you'd have to be delusional not to see the trend against it. This is before we consider that around half of all marriages (among the people who still do it) end in divorce anyway.
@58: Fine. At least if you have good table manners.
Since we'll never share a meal, Raindrop, I hardly see why that matters. But just for sake of continuing this amusing conversation, I'll point out that there is no objective standard for what good table manners are, and since we probably do not share a cultural heritage, there isn't even any way to judge fairly between the two of us. If we were sharing a meal, it would be either because I liked you or else I was in a position to need to know you for some reason- in the first case I'd be concerned about your pleasure but primarily wish to share pleasure with you, in the second case I'd probably take up the formal norms of whatever the situation required in whatever culture we were in and privately judge you without letting on to your face. Which is exactly how an insistence upon "good manners" serves the function of enforcing cultures that already hold more power. My grandmother might shove food into your mouth with her hands if she liked you, ignoring your protests, she'd certainly feed herself that way and have no skill with the various silverware, but she'd pity you if you took your meals in a restaurant in the first place and her "holy covenant" of marriage looked very different from what you have in mind, though it's equally as undeserving of respect as either a social or religious institution.
EmmaLiz dear, does this mean we won't be seeing you at the Annual Slog Holiday Dinner Dance? Raindrop always kicks it off with his recitation/interpretive dance of The Pledge Of Allegiance.
Catalina, depends on whether or not there's an open bar.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134