Platner and The Purity Trap
-
@FIAR_Light @liquor_american @mastodonmigration I posted this in another part of the thread, but this was required reading for the board of any org I ran (Julia Reed, former third vice chair of KC Dems and now state leg representative sent it to me) to understand how broken stairs and moral compromise ruin organizations: https://truthout.org/articles/why-misogynists-make-great-informants/
It's not really about 'informants' per say, it's how misogynists/bigots/etc are indistinguishable from informants in the corrosiveness of their impact.
-
@mastodonmigration The Purity Trap is enabled primarily by the Purity Ponies, single-issue persons who will spend hours arguing with you that issue X totally disqualifies a politician. For example Kamala didn't come out immediately saying that Jews were Nazis exterminating Palestinians so that totally disqualified Kamala from being President. Despite the multitude of other reasons she would have been a better President than the orange underwear skidmark. #PurityPony #fail #politics
@badtux @mastodonmigration I wouldn't call them single-issue persons. Because it's not just a single issue with them. They will switch to whatever is the only important issue as the reason to not vote for the Democrat in the next upcoming election.
And also, this single issue which is supposedly so important will NOT apply to the Republican opponent. It doesn't matter how much worse the Republican opponent is on this supposedly important issue.
-
Platner and The Purity Trap
Feel like these last few days in Maine can be a teachable moment. What we are seeing play out is political information warfare that could be branded a "purity trap".
Purity trap tactics have their roots in the swift boating of John Kerry and the destruction of Al Franken. Purity traps were run effectively against 'Genocide' Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
So, let's talk about 'purity traps'...
1/
@mastodonmigration I'm just replying to show support for the fact that this Purity Trap stuff is true and a problem.
Looking at the replies ... I see the usual denial.
I don't have anything interesting to add to your explanation. I'm just chiming in support and agreement.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux It's not about electing Platner or not. It's about putting our resources into candidates who uphold our stated party values. It's about those values demonstrating the importance of the humanity of each and every person we claim to be representing, in full.
Again, it works, it can cause short term pain, but you know what we don't have in WA now? Back and forth districts. We have gained every single election, even ones where Reps were ascendant nationally.
Applaud your experience in reforming the party, but this is not an intra party matter. This is for control of the Senate.
That's what is at stake here. Your position seems to be losing this fight is worth it in order to achieve reform. That is a valid position, but it comes with a consequence. Unchecked GOP fascist power. Continued ICE raids. Destruction of science. Another two Supreme Court seats.
-
Applaud your experience in reforming the party, but this is not an intra party matter. This is for control of the Senate.
That's what is at stake here. Your position seems to be losing this fight is worth it in order to achieve reform. That is a valid position, but it comes with a consequence. Unchecked GOP fascist power. Continued ICE raids. Destruction of science. Another two Supreme Court seats.
@mastodonmigration @badtux 1) Yes, because backing abusers costs us in the long run, we've been swinging back and forth because we keep backing 'winners' rather than backing people who live by our values
2) There are other races with better candidates
3) Dems are the party of ICE and Obama still holds the record for the most deportations. That's just a fact.
4) Elect Dems who will expand the SCOTUS.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux 1) Yes, because backing abusers costs us in the long run, we've been swinging back and forth because we keep backing 'winners' rather than backing people who live by our values
2) There are other races with better candidates
3) Dems are the party of ICE and Obama still holds the record for the most deportations. That's just a fact.
4) Elect Dems who will expand the SCOTUS.
Just so we are clear. Yes, above means go ahead and lose the Senate rather than elect Platner. That is your advice.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Again, the party has choices it can make. What we don't do to support an abuser like Platner could go to win another seat. Maine is not the only option.
Why not divert to Talarico in Texas? Unlike Platner he won't stain the party, harm women and polls give him a damn good chance.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Again, the party has choices it can make. What we don't do to support an abuser like Platner could go to win another seat. Maine is not the only option.
Why not divert to Talarico in Texas? Unlike Platner he won't stain the party, harm women and polls give him a damn good chance.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux I refuse your framing. I will frame it this way: Do not choose to materially support sex pests and war criminals. Unless of course the democratic party position is that women are not important to us, and war crimes are okay.
We have other opportunities that are not direct attacks on our supposed base.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux I refuse your framing. I will frame it this way: Do not choose to materially support sex pests and war criminals. Unless of course the democratic party position is that women are not important to us, and war crimes are okay.
We have other opportunities that are not direct attacks on our supposed base.
So, that's a yes then.
The point is you don't get to just refuse framing. Every decision has consequences. You can not just argue one side of a matter. You need to tell people why the sacrifice you are demanding will be worth it. You need own the consequences of whatever position you take, both short term and long term.
-
So, that's a yes then.
The point is you don't get to just refuse framing. Every decision has consequences. You can not just argue one side of a matter. You need to tell people why the sacrifice you are demanding will be worth it. You need own the consequences of whatever position you take, both short term and long term.
@mastodonmigration @badtux Using your logic, if control of the Senate came down to voting for Donald Trump were he running as a Dem, you'd vote for Trump.
That is the question you are asking here. In other words, you are saying you vote for a sports team, not values.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Using your logic, if control of the Senate came down to voting for Donald Trump were he running as a Dem, you'd vote for Trump.
That is the question you are asking here. In other words, you are saying you vote for a sports team, not values.
Yes, in the general election you are voting for a team. Like it or not, power in this country is wielded by the teams.
Efforts to improve the team are great, but on game day your team takes the field.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Okay, so to be clear, you are voting for Trump if he wears blue in an election you deem critical.
Got it. I understand you now.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Okay, so to be clear, you are voting for Trump if he wears blue in an election you deem critical.
Got it. I understand you now.
Sure, because the absurd gotcha hypothetical you posed was gaining the majority in the Senate vs. putting a truly awful person in one seat. It is a horrible choice, but if it means saving democracy and getting ICE out of our streets it is the least bad option.
The point is you don't just get to argue one side of your position. You have to accept the consequences. All of them.
-
Sure, because the absurd gotcha hypothetical you posed was gaining the majority in the Senate vs. putting a truly awful person in one seat. It is a horrible choice, but if it means saving democracy and getting ICE out of our streets it is the least bad option.
The point is you don't just get to argue one side of your position. You have to accept the consequences. All of them.
@mastodonmigration @badtux You can go away now, I do not associate with people who dehumanize women.
-
@mastodonmigration I think that women are fully human and their humanity is a baseline value that any party I support must uphold. This is especially true in an era where women's rights and autonomy are massively eroding.
You are complaining about the tactic and looking past the information because it is inconvenient to your political goals, and you are willing to sacrifice women to win elections.
@reflex @mastodonmigration
️ Woman here. Based on your statements, I encourage you not to vote for male candidates ever. The reality for women (see: would you rather meet a man or a bear in the woods scenario) is that men have misogeny and white supremacy engrained in them (in the US) from the moment they are born. Unfortunately also, in the US, the majority of candidates in either party with the ability to get the financial backing to run for office are ...men. So either women will perpetually be fucked by purity voting getting "us" the worst possible electeds or we work with what we have and start shaping that shit (literally 
) once theyre in office until we can get more candidates of any gender/sexual orientation (yes! Women also have ingrained misogeny & white supremacy in the US) who have worked thru their upbringing and will work towards the common goals I think everyone in this thread is interesred in.
We absolutely need better candidates but why would a decent human even want to run for office here? -
@TagYourToe @mastodonmigration Nope, fuck you, you fucking plant. How many of these accounts are you running and how much are they paying you?
-
@mastodonmigration That's an assertion without evidence. Joe had no intention of slowing down. We don't' know about Kamala. Regardless, voting for genocide is wrong. Voting for sexual abusers is wrong. Being unclear about who we are and what we represent destroys our movement. This can be seen in elections ever since Clinton in the 90s.
@reflex @mastodonmigration Purity is what destroys electoral chances. When you demand purity of your own candidate but not of the opposition you essentially cede the election to the opposition. I have seen the purity ponies destroy many Democrats while never pointing their ire at Republicans. Makes me wonder if the purity ponies are actually Republicans in disguise, except I know a few and they aren't Republicans in disguise, they are just tunnel visioned zealots.
-
@badtux @mastodonmigration If we vote in people who are a bit racist, sexist, transphobic, etc all we have accomplished is making our government more racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. To win elections.
In other words, we aren't actually the better alternative. We are conceding that sexism, racism, transphobia, etc are valid tactics to gain power. Just like the fascists.
@reflex @mastodonmigration Demanding purity of our candidates but not of opposition candidates merely cedes the election to the opposition which typically has even worse consequences as the destruction of abortion rights, violations of civil rights by ICE goons, and continuing genocide in Gaza amply illustrate. Demanding purity is not an effective birth control method nor an effective electoral method.
-
@mastodonmigration @badtux Do you understand how utterly offensive it is to keep labeling refusing to support abusers a 'purity trap'?
This shit is why we lose elections we should win. Nobody believes our rhetoric because we claim moral superiority and then abandon it the moment it *may* cost us an election.
If you don't live in Maine he isn't on your ticket. You have hundreds of important races across the country. You could focus on the ones not running abusers.
@reflex @mastodonmigration So you would literally vote for a pedophile mentioned hundreds of times in the Epstein files than vote for an impure candidate. That... is shortsighted.
