Yes. Also if you want to change people's minds don't use phrases that are backhanded insults. Use language that appeals to their sensibilities.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I agree.

I have seen so many posts(including one today that I strategically avoided as I have better things to do than argue all day) where people argue against cancel culture, political correctness or some such nonsense. The reality is that the world doesn't revolve around any single one of us. Other people have different perspectives and recognizing that as the case as opposed to acting as though you are being mistreated is the sign of being a mature adult.

Case in point, I've referred to Jeep Cherokees by their name for as long as I can remember. I just heard that some folks from the Cherokee Nation have asked Jeep to change the name. I never once, in my entire life, thought that the use of the name on the vehicle was offensive. Never even thought about it. Now that I know, I think it merits consideration. Why the hell not? But I feel no guilt, I'm not ashamed. When I know better, I try to do better. Keep that up for 60/70+ years and you can improve a whole helluva lot. But there is no reason for guilt.

Or I could pout, cry about wokeness and keep pissing someone else off just so I don't have to admit any wrongdoing(intentional or otherwise). There was a time when blacks were referred to as the N word. Then colored. Then Negro. Then Black. Then African American. Now it appears we are back to Black. Don't even get me started on my confusion over the LGBTIQ+ stuff with all the pronouns. But I try to listen, learn and treat/address people in a way that is kind. If you can't appreciate that I am trying to be respectful, that's on you. But over the years, I can't remember ever going through that. Because just trying says you care and I have found that marginalized folks are in general quite skilled at discerning who is acting as a friend and who is acting as a foe.

When you know better, do better. Be kind to and respectful of your fellow humans out there.

Agree. It's like an effective marketing slogans 101. In and of itself, MAGA was pretty good as a slogan. Who could argue against it at face value?

"Defund the police". (Flat No). BLM (No, all lives matter). As slogans, there's an obvious counter/reaction begging to be called out. Instead, "Re-fund the police". "Our Lives Matter". Those would have been better and more effective at limiting counter arguments and not creating further division. And just as easily fit on a placard/banner.

I think you are clearly demonstrating an important issue here. People's biases make certain language appeal to them, but they think it is universal.

For example, you seem to believe that MAGA was somehow a better slogan that nobody could argue against. That obviously reveal certain biases on your point that you are not aware of. Of course people could argue against it. When was America great for Black people? When was it great for gay people? Women? What exact time are you thinking America can be like again?

Also, for some reason you have a problem with Black Lives Matter as a slogan. How do you argue against that exactly? It is pretty clear that society does not value black lives as much as others, so the slogan is to emphasize that black lives matter. They don't say only black lives matter.

mmm some people see the 'again' part as dog whistle to a time when the non dominant elements of the culture knew their place.

but that isn't blatant, which makes it a very effective slogan for the group using it

Democrats should have used GOP tactics and hammered them endlessly for suggesting that America isn't great right now.

Just replying to the last entry.

I run a manufacturing plant (I'm the Plant Manger) that looks like the UN. Every race, every religion, and every sexual orientation (I assume). We all get along fine because none of that is discussed. People talk about the difference between equality and equity. I understand the difference in theory, but in practice it all comes down to simply doing the same thing every time to everyone, and holding everyone to the same standard. We don't ignore the differences, we just don't use them to differentiate anyone.

In my personal life I belong to a group of bikers (we call ourselves a bike club but really we are just a bunch off older men with expensive bikes that ride together) and I am one of the few that could honestly put "white - non-Hispanic" on the census form. That was not by design or intent, it is just the crowd that I fell into. We are all professionals, with careers and status in the community. Doctors, lawyers, and business people, and race never comes up. We ride together, we go out to dinner with our families, we do things in the summer together, and it simply never comes up. Occasionally something happens that makes us laugh - We were all waiting for a table at a restaurant and the person seating everyone assumed my wife and I were not with the group we were in, and tried to seat us separately and ahead of the bigger group. We declined and then everyone made a joke about needing to hang with us so they could get seated early or hail a taxi.

Call me naïve it you want, but getting along with each other is pretty simple. You will see race, religion, and sexual orientation, that is unavoidable, but that should not be what differentiates you, and you should not use it to differentiate yourself.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

I doubt that would have made any difference. Any right wing pundit would have followed with, "What they are saying that YOUR lives don't matter," and then we'd be explaining THAT away as a "bad slogan idea."

America, in general, is going through it's Jackie Robinson phase, and it's going to be a matter of time before enough people die off, and the rest get used to it.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Your workplace is similar to mine, except that we're not in manufacturing. I sometimes jokingly call myself the token white American. And the experience is the same.

As was my high school track team, which was ~50% white, 50% black. Or all the times I played pickup basketball in college (a lot), which was pretty close to 50/50, or a club I used to hang out in that was 50/50.


The problem arrises when its much less diverse, or there's a power imbalance. I've been saying for a while that the only real cure for racial tensions in the US will be the browning of America.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Yes, ok, fair point. Absolutes don't apply, there are always exceptions, and things can also viewed on a relative basis.

Biases or perspectives, here's a couple of examples that inform my views to your question:

I was listening to an interview of Lonnie Bunch last night. He's the Secretary of all Smithsonian museums. Formerly head of the African-American Art Museum (where my wife had some interactions w/him given her line of work, so we were both listening). Phenomenal leader/person. He can better articulate times and greatness of AA art/culture and the AA museum in DC's intent is to showcase some of that. Granted, there are also the painful lows including in the present time and Lonnie and others are calling that out as well. It's not absolute, and there are relative differences. My point (and to your question) is that Yes, here in the US, there is/was greatness for Black people.

I look at my kids and their interactions and see positives..... Like my wife, daughter is into the arts and has multiple friends and adult interactions with folks that are gay. Also, son shrugged about his hockey teammate being gay. No big deal to them. I look at these reactions and interactions and feel pretty good at the tolerance we have today relative to what it was like when I was their age; and/or relative to what I hear it's like outside the US. To be clear, I'm not saying all is hunky dory and there aren't issues.

On the MAGA slogan thing. Emotionally loaded now/today to be damaged goods. For something equivalent, look at - "RTG, Return To Greatness". Easy to run with. Can inspire, and get people on board with etc. Sure, one can say, what do you mean "return"?, weren't we great already? etc. But on face value, it's a good one. Could work for a sports team as well as any other grouping. My point is that on face value, it's an easy one to enlist support.

On BLM, as a slogan, it was too easy for people to interpret that as *only* BLM -- because the exclusivity that is suggested makes it easy to misinterpret. And that's what happened vs. the intent of calling out B was to emphasize the plight face by Blacks. So what happened is a ton of energy wasted to clarify the intent and fighting for support.

I'm not black (or white). But if I and a bunch of folks of my particular racial-mix-constitution were similarly aggrieved to march down an avenue, B-LM wouldn't work (not being black), but we could go with "Our Lives Matter!". And I could even engage other passive bystanders that aren't my mix to join in with a call, "C'mon now ... say it with me.... Our Lives Matter...Our Lives Matter". And they could, because saying "Our" works. Imagine the power of *everyone* chanting that in support of my particular racial-mix*.

Shouldn't matter, but people wonder anyway -- I don't know what I would label myself and kids racially..... We're a mix of Asian, Spanish (Spain and SA), White (European). Plus I grew up in different countries as a kid - UN brat. Depending on who my daughter is hanging out with she has easily been thought of as Italian, Persian, Hispanic, Asian, White. I will say, all of that has given me and family a "unique" perspective (healthy bias?) on social issues - racial and otherwise.

It always matters. Part of effective communications is understanding your audience. Like someone mentioned earlier, if you're looking to start national discussion about an important topic; you phrase things one way. If you're looking to stir up voter passions and fundraising; you phrase it a different way. If you're looking to piss off your ideological opposition; you might phrase it yet another way.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

As someone who has been right leaning his whole life until a few years ago, who never voted for Trump, and I consider myself a centrist who is leaning more left lately, I find it amusing that both left and right think they are as pure as the driven snow, and the other side is the devil.

You bet your ass that a right wing pundit would follow with that. So would CNN/MSNBC, etc. do the exact same thing in the other direction.

Since I took a step back from side and try to look at issues individually, it's crazy how much 'brainwashing' occurs on both sides while everyone points at each other and says they're idiots, they're brainwashed, etc., while sitting in the opposite, but similar echo chambers.

---

~Brad

As any marketer knows, phrasing and knowing the audience matters -- for dimensions that are important.

I was saying knowing my race shouldn't matter - e.g. what if you can't label my race? How would you message me differently?

As an undergrad, I had a prof (Poli Sci, International Law class), that I noticed seemed to looking at me a little too intently/oddly. Then after one lecture, he asked me to stick around. He explained that he's been trying to figure out my race/ethnicity. He had travelled all over, and took pride in being able to identify students' backgrounds based on their looks and accents, etc. but he can't figure me out. Had a nice chat and I liked the course a lot.

So, before vs. after knowing my race - that shouldn't and didn't change how he taught the course, or me specifically.

Yep, and it's not just a sleazy salesman or politician skill. As a military leader, I know I have to deliver a particular message differently when talking to a group of senior personnel, than I would when delivering the same message to a group of younger junior personnel. I know I have to communicate a point differently to my peers than I would to a 3 or 4 Star Admiral.

When people develop slogans or chants or messaging that they think is great, and it somehow falls flat or generates a bunch of hate and discontent; it's frequently because that messaging was developed to appeal to the people delivering the message, without sufficient thought to the people who would be receiving the message. Preaching to the choir, as they say.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't doubt the CNN/MSNBC does something similar. I, honestly, have virtually no exposure to those channels.

If you ever want to have a discussion about crazy liberalism gone bad, we can talk about my experiences from when I was a high school teacher and why I left education.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Replying to no one in particular (myself, I suppose, technically....)


Yes, words matter.
Yes, how you phrase something effects how you communicate ideas.
Yes, how you market your movement is important.
And, yes, I'll agree that "defund the police" was a particularly bad slogan.


Having said all of that, people have brains and access to the internet, and it shouldn't be hard to figure out what these phrases are supposed to mean regardless of what first impressions they make. more importantly, we have journalists who are supposed to do that for us.

Which brings us to Fox News and right wing radio/internet. Don't think for a second that the problem with Tuck Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, Dave Rubin, Fox & Friends, etc. is that the slogans were poorly thought out and that it was hard to understand the intended purpose of them. They're not idiots, and if they had any intention of "finding common ground," they wouldn't keep doubling down on their straw man arguments YEARS after they should have figured out what the actual arguments are.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

As someone who has looked at every single issue individually (and not through a right/left lens) his whole life, I would generally agree.

For example, I think Obama was a pretty decent president. But I had some severe misgivings about certain of his actions (like his administration's rabid and unjust pursuit of patriotic whistleblowers) and when I shared those misgivings with certain democratic leaning folks (not here), damn, they reacted with remarkable venom. Just like trumpists who react similarly when trump is criticized.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

To the extent it wasn't right (unproven allegations), the affected should be able to win large cash settlements in court.

Back to whomever said it should be "consequence culture" not "cancel culture" (I think you hit the nail on the head).

Anyone claiming to be "cancelled", pretty much did something to deserve it and they are trying to deflect from being held accountable for what they did. Or they use the excuse "people have been doing it for years and not being punished, and now I am being punished". Sorry, the fact that people have been able to get away with bad actions with no consequences for years does not guarantee you are insulated from consequence for perpetuity. Because that would mean we are never allowed to change anything (which at the end of the day, is exactly what people who currently have the upper hand want, nothing to change so they can continue to always have the upper hand).

Because for example, if an employer fires you and says it was because of reason X and reason X can be proven to be untrue, pretty much at a minimum you can get your job back and likely also a lot of walking around money to boot (we have a court system to enforce fair treatment, including the 14th Amendment for "equal treatment under the law"). And to the extent reason X was true, you are being held accountable for bad actions and what is "not right" about that?

You may be oversimplifying in some cases. There were more than a few of these “cancel” cases where the call for cancellation came after something was dug up from decades earlier. The person had already suffered the normal consequences of their behavior, in many cases had grown and changed as a result, but were still the subject of cancellation efforts from the current pack of overly virtuous social media juries. Or the person had engaged in behavior that was considered perfectly acceptable by the standards of 20 or 30 years ago, but is being judged by the new standard of today’s same juries.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Take the real life example of my friend.

In his last year of highschool, he hooked up with a girl at a party. She was later embarrassed by the attention that incident was getting her and she claimed that he raped her. Police were called, he was taken out of school by the cops and that was the last time he was allowed in school. No graduation, no chance to say bye to friends, etc. His family was quite religious and kicked him out upon hearing "what he had done". He had trouble finding work and I believe had to be on a registry. It took years to clear his name. By that time he was maybe 25 and just wanted to move on with his life. He didn't go after the girl for money, he had already lost the most valuable thing to him (time, his youth, etc).

Until then, he was known as a sex offender. He lost friends, family, opportunities etc. I don't care how much walking around money you can have awarded to you when it all shakes out (if the girl even had any to pay him), you still have to live your life in the meantime.

So no, not everyone who has been cancelled has done something to deserve it. Far from it. And not every bad action means someone should be cancelled. Cancelling is such a weirdly permanent way to punish. I've certainly done some hurtful, shitty things in my life. I've certainly grown from them and tried my best to right wrongs. Had I been 'cancelled' within my social group, what opportunity is there for growth and reconciliation? If you're cancelled what are you supposed to do, just crawl in to a hole and die?

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

The canceling you mention seems to be quite a bit different than the canceling of MyPillow guy or even Trump and his impeachments—or someone who engages is a racist tirade at a kid drawing BLM with chalk on the sidewalk. “Cancel” seems to cover a wide swath of consequences for a wide range of behaviors.

It does, which is why I feel we should be careful and hesitant in it's use. I'm not against taking away someone's platform under overwhelming evidence of their wrongdoing.

However, what I see most often online is something like "Hey, this business treated me shitty and I think it's because of my race/gender/orientation, let's shut them down!!"

The weaponization of this cancel movement is truly frightening.

So, yes, it's one thing if a person is loudly proclaiming from the rooftop what a POS they are (my pillow guy). It's entirely another if there is a lack of certainty. I don't like how quick people are to promote cancelling, and I don't like how it doesn't leave any room for the cancelled to possibly redeem themselves. In general I question why people are so quick to paint with a very broad brush.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Frankly I thought the spin on Gina's comments were a little over the top, unless of course it was combined with a history of stuff that she's said (which I'm not really aware of).

One of my pet peeves is when someone says. "here's an analogy involving the holocaust," and people respond with, "that's anti-semtic" regardless of what teh analogy actually meant.

Here's the actual quote:

"Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors... even by children... Because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?"


I think there's some truth to her point, and also think that there is a decent bit of hyperbole and over dramatization of it, I don't really see how anything in here was anti-Jew unless there's some obvious dog whistle that I'm completely missing, or if it was the last straw or something.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I think the objection to Carano’s comments were that she was casting modern Republicans in the role of the German Jews in her analogy. I also think there’s a substantive difference between hating someone for their politics, and hating someone for their ethnicity, which is recognized in the fact that we have ethnicity as a protected characteristic in our country and don’t have a similar protection for political belief.

Both types of hatred are counterproductive and bad, but I think there’s a clear difference between them.

Yes, Carano’s comments were overblown. They were overblown because she stepped afoul of the same social justice juries when she made a comment that was deemed as careless with regard to transgenders. That episode was even more ridiculously overblown.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I agree with this point.

I think you and I are in agreement, but I just want to restate it. While casting modern Republicans in the role of German Jews is absurd, this seems to be a new standard for "canceling" based on "racist comments.".....and sadly kind of proving her point, to a degree.

Frankly I think her detractors thought, "what an absurd comment" and then remembered it as "something something Jews something something Nazis" and then thought the worst of it.


Side note: a local bar owner offered up a menu item called the Levine Lunch which was going to be a plate of pickles for $0.25. It was to bypass a requirement to have food with your drink (they were trying to reduce bar hopping during the pandemic).

His facebook page blew up over his "transphobic comments." Apparently people thought that it was mocking levine because pickles are like penises, or because transwomen like (or don't like) pickles because of some hormone they take that has something to do with pickles.....or something.

None of this was true. I literally was talking to the owner when he came up with this idea. Levine was the one who proposed the rule to the governor, who implemented the law. Pickles were chosen because they're cheap.

Nevertheless "something something transexual something something I'm trying to get around the rules"

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485