Rep. Jasmine Crockett honors Chris Brown

[Apec 432]

General comment after having read the whole thread. You've all given me food for thought as a non-US-citizen. I'll just keep it at: Don’t platform abusers at all costs (and yes, those proverbial apology letters belong to the victims and those she represents, those podcasters had no foreknowledge of this), please don't let anyone on your team turn campaigns into Reality TV-lookalikes without a whole lot of policy if you're center or even an inch to the left (that seems to have happened if I'm not mistaken?), don't happily enjoy the benefits of an Epstein associate billionaire donor if you're against Epstein and/or Billionaires let alone both (that Citizens United ruling really effed everyone over but the 1% and Politicians who aren't yet in the 1%, didn't it...). Misogynoir is all too present (not talking about this thread, just generally).

Thanks for the extra nuance in general though, folks! Hadn't followed this particular Dem race or person. Tbh, I gave up - not completely, just the following of the nitty gritty - when Trump won the first time (knew you lost abortion rights fought for for so long and hard by so many brave women/people in general the literal second HRC gave her concession speech and that result was truly a "The cishet patriarchal structure has spoken" for me, I was knee-deep in following the US national as well as the most important state/"local" races since John McCain appeared in the ring. My BS meter just died right there and then tbh.

I wish you all the very best of luck come midterms and beyond! You're all so steadfast and unwavering in trying to oust this beast, this time will hopefully cripple him for good, which gives me hope! I am very determined too, as much as possible though, on my home front in the EU - I may be bedridden but I fill out a medical warrant/PoA form made by my specialist that lets one of my parents vote in my name and luckily I've got nothing to fear there, we're all in complete and utter agreement even though we have like ten parties+.  

Edited 18 hours ago by Apec

[RaveMonster 685]

13 hours ago, bxr said:

Just for the sake of reference, to your point, they didn‘t tell the audience to vote (for either candidate), they told their audience “… don‘t waste your money sending to Jasmine Crockett. Do not do it;” which, again, the semantics (and optics of two podcasters from outside any particular realm of pratical, geographic, or policy-driven expertise within the given election—by their own admission—commenting in this way, on this one campaign in particular), though brief and direct, were understandably read as inflammatory (even if only within the realm of representation / identity politics) … and/or, as acknowledged by Yang and Rogers in their own apology …

  Hide contents

 

Bowen Yang, Matt Rogers apologize for saying listeners shouldn’t donate to Crockett campaign ( via Salon )

In a series of social media posts over the weekend, comedians Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers apologized for their comments on the Senate campaign of Rep. Jasmine Crockett.

The hosts of the “Las Culturistas” podcast discouraged their listeners from donating to the Texas Democrat’s campaign in their most recent episode, which touched on Democratic politics and the 2028 presidential election. Crockett announced a bid to be the Democratic nominee in December.

“Any time a politician is making it too obviously about themselves, I’m already done,” Rogers said. “And don’t waste your money sending to Jasmine Crockett. Do not do it.”

Later in the episode, Rogers gave his reasoning.

“She’s not going to win a Senate seat in Texas, you guys. If Beto O’Rourke couldn’t do it, Jasmine Crockett is not going to to do it,” he said. “It’s nothing against her… [She is] very well defined already.”

Rogers words and Yang’s agreement with them sparked outrage on social media, leading both hosts to walk back their statements in posts to Instagram.

“I’m a very progressive person who cares deeply about winning these elections, but my phrasing was not right. I will be more thoughtful! I really do promise,” Rogers wrote. “I have great respect and admiration for Rep. Crockett, and I regret that my words suggested otherwise.”

Yang added in a repost that he “should not have cursorily weighed in on this” and vowed to use his platform “responsibly.”

The outrage comes despite the fact that national Republicans see Crockett as an ideal opponent, an already well-known Democrat who they can effectively message against because of that name recognition. The National Republican Senatorial Committee reportedly ran an astroturf campaign to goad Crockett into the race, seeing her as the most likely to lose a statewide race in Texas among likely Democratic candidates.  The NRSC amplified polls that showed Crockett as a frontrunner and “seeded them in progressive digital spaces,” per a report from NOTUS. 

[ Source ]

Just a note for the sake of reference to your point

Yeah my bad I should have said not to “send their money”.

I still think they did nothing wrong even though I can understand it may have been out of place. If anything I now can see that she was showing early signs of being a moron. I think the main thing with them is that they didn’t back up their reasoning to voice their dislike towards her but she already had a list of things that could have been brought up by either of them. If anything they should have apologized for not being educated enough to drag her even more 

Edited 14 hours ago by RaveMonster

[bxr 2,899]

1 hour ago, RaveMonster said:

Yeah my bad I should have said not to “send their money”.

I still think they did nothing wrong even though I can understand it may have been out of place. If anything I now can see that she was showing early signs of being a moron. I think the main thing with them is that they didn’t back up their reasoning to voice their dislike towards her but she already had a list of things that could have been brought up by either of them. If anything they should have apologized for not being educated enough to drag her even more 

I see your point, though “nothing wrong” is quite strong; just cultural context, and having worked in media/comms/pr … and just, honestly personal experience with people within the aforementioned sectors, across demographics, in various pockets of the U.S. … the optics and messaging and messengers and timing and tone and copy and context … expressed misogynoir (at the very least intentional negligence/ignorance) with an easy pivot to plausible deniability …

To your point, if said politician is “just not qualified to be representing the democrats,” how much more or less qualified are two podcast comedians to be dictating how voters should spend their money (political or otherwise) after admitting they lacked proper education within said campaign … and, further, to not make any statement on how their audience should vote, in said election … so, that messaging alone reflects a sense of “not a two-party system of Democrat or Republican, but a one party system of capitalism”

Moreover, Bowen Yang didn‘t seem to be as actively oppositional to Elon Musk when he co-starred with the polarizing guest on SNL, and he seemed to exercise a certain civility in not naming said name … so, the selective activism is also clear in context … Yang didn‘t boycott his role in the episode, so, by practical logic, he supported the advertising dollars that contributed to Elon‘s appearance … additionally, he withheld any concerns until after the episode aired … and for all intents and purposes was complicit and compliant in promoting Elon‘s promotional appearance

Over the summer, SNL cast member Bowen Yang was asked to name the “worst SNL host behavior” he’s seen during his time on the show. “This man who — this person, this host — made multiple cast members cry on Wednesday before the table read because he hated the ideas,” he said, adding that he was “terrible.”

Yang didn’t name names, but according to The Hollywood Reporter, fellow cast member Chloe Fineman did.

[ Source ]

At the end of the day … what did anyone gain from the off-handed remark, and what was at stake? If nothing else, why punch down in public when the party is as fragmented as it is … why feed the opposition with more fodder … critique by creation, not by fault-finding … create a better alternative with your communication platform, if you have influence, direct people on what they should do to improve their community, rather than jest upon what they shouldn‘t do …

Not sure if this made any sense to you, but just top line considerations given the situation

 

ETA: Honest question … do you feel a candidate who runs on an anti-billionaire and anti-corruption policy platform, and does not oppose the funding of his campaign media spend through an Epstein-adjacent billionaire, reflects the qualifications of a Democrat representative?

Lesser of evils is still not good … no one‘s perfect, but accountability for flaws, and humility amidst institutional/party hypocrisy speaks volumes

Political theatre features broken heroes and villains across the stage

Edited 12 hours ago by bxr

[RaveMonster 685]

9 hours ago, bxr said:

I see your point, though “nothing wrong” is quite strong; just cultural context, and having worked in media/comms/pr … and just, honestly personal experience with people within the aforementioned sectors, across demographics, in various pockets of the U.S. … the optics and messaging and messengers and timing and tone and copy and context … expressed misogynoir (at the very least intentional negligence/ignorance) with an easy pivot to plausible deniability …

To your point, if said politician is “just not qualified to be representing the democrats,” how much more or less qualified are two podcast comedians to be dictating how voters should spend their money (political or otherwise) after admitting they lacked proper education within said campaign … and, further, to not make any statement on how their audience should vote, in said election … so, that messaging alone reflects a sense of “not a two-party system of Democrat or Republican, but a one party system of capitalism”

Moreover, Bowen Yang didn‘t seem to be as actively oppositional to Elon Musk when he co-starred with the polarizing guest on SNL, and he seemed to exercise a certain civility in not naming said name … so, the selective activism is also clear in context … Yang didn‘t boycott his role in the episode, so, by practical logic, he supported the advertising dollars that contributed to Elon‘s appearance … additionally, he withheld any concerns until after the episode aired … and for all intents and purposes was complicit and compliant in promoting Elon‘s promotional appearance

Over the summer, SNL cast member Bowen Yang was asked to name the “worst SNL host behavior” he’s seen during his time on the show. “This man who — this person, this host — made multiple cast members cry on Wednesday before the table read because he hated the ideas,” he said, adding that he was “terrible.”

Yang didn’t name names, but according to The Hollywood Reporter, fellow cast member Chloe Fineman did.

[ Source ]

At the end of the day … what did anyone gain from the off-handed remark, and what was at stake? If nothing else, why punch down in public when the party is as fragmented as it is … why feed the opposition with more fodder … critique by creation, not by fault-finding … create a better alternative with your communication platform, if you have influence, direct people on what they should do to improve their community, rather than jest upon what they shouldn‘t do …

Not sure if this made any sense to you, but just top line considerations given the situation

 

ETA: Honest question … do you feel a candidate who runs on an anti-billionaire and anti-corruption policy platform, and does not oppose the funding of his campaign media spend through an Epstein-adjacent billionaire, reflects the qualifications of a Democrat representative?

Lesser of evils is still not good … no one‘s perfect, but accountability for flaws, and humility amidst institutional/party hypocrisy speaks volumes

Political theatre features broken heroes and villains across the stage

I don’t agree that anything they said was misogynistic or had misogynistic undertones. I can’t even think of anything they said that could have been interpreted that way besides them saying something about a woman who happens to be in power. But you know what’s actually misogynistic? A woman in power giving any kind of support to a woman beater, that is pure misogyny that actually gets women killed.

I never said they were qualified to give their opinion, I quite literally addressed that point in  my other comment, so I don’t understand why you’re trying to compare them to her,  especially considering she is a government employee who should be qualified for her job and they are comedians with a podcast. I couldn’t give two shits about them two but I do care when a politician that works for the people does something irresponsible.

I’m not here to defend them and act like they had it all right but they were right to feel a certain way about her and I’m happy everyone can see the kind of person she really is. 
 

My honest answer is that you have to be more direct on what kind of answer you’re fishing for. Ask me if I like one candidate more than another and then we can discuss about that but what I’m going to tell you is that Jasmine is dead to me and I’m honestly happy she probably will be for many people as well. 

[bxr 2,899]

18 minutes ago, RaveMonster said:

I don’t agree that anything they said was misogynistic or had misogynistic undertones. I can’t even think of anything they said that could have been interpreted that way besides them saying something about a woman who happens to be in power. But you know what’s actually misogynistic? A woman in power giving any kind of support to a woman beater, that is pure misogyny that actually gets women killed.

I never said they were qualified to give their opinion, I quite literally addressed that point in  my other comment, so I don’t understand why you’re trying to compare them to her,  especially considering she is a government employee who should be qualified for her job and they are comedians with a podcast. I couldn’t give two shits about them two but I do care when a politician that works for the people does something irresponsible.

I’m not here to defend them and act like they had it all right but they were right to feel a certain way about her and I’m happy everyone can see the kind of person she really is. 
 

My honest answer is that you have to be more direct on what kind of answer you’re fishing for. Ask me if I like one candidate more than another and then we can discuss about that but what I’m going to tell you is that Jasmine is dead to me and I’m honestly happy she probably will be for many people as well. 

I appreciate your candor. I feel we have both articulated our perspectives given our experiences and observations of the information we were given; for my part, I feel I have expressed my point of view adequately enough to conclude my commentary here with you in relation to the immediate dynamic frame.

Operating within the dialectics of dialogues such as ours, particularly within a forum such as this, sheds light on the range of interpretations living within contemporary discourses. Again, I appreciate your participation in this dialogue, and welcome any further commentary should you feel it necessary to express any additional considerations regarding the dynamic at hand.

Onwward, Godspeed.