Elissa, stop running your mouth and do it yourself if you have a better idea.
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
527 points (91.8% liked)
politics
23206 readers
4113 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ah another closet republican, nice
More woke, less selling out your citizens to the wealthy. Thats what I want.
Nope, Elissa fails to realize US income distribution is a huge problem in the USA and the oligarchs are controlling it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I understand where people are coming from when they say "identity politics" are politics getting in the way of class struggle. I vehemently disagree with it, these are also important issues we need to stand up for even when they are sometimes unpopular, but I understand where it comes from.
But if she also thinks we shouldn't be talking about class either, what the fuck does she want to do?
load more comments
(8 replies)
Sure stop pandering to the wealthy and make plans to support and lift the general populace in all areas and you will stop being "woke".
And guess what, the best way to pay for it is to get the fair share of taxes back from those that are avoiding paying completely by paying lawmakers privately.
Wow, so easy, much fun.
"I can't believe the country doesn't get this!? The Republicans won and they hate this stuff so we just need to be Republicans and then we can win!"
.... /wrist
Slotkin is the kind of Democrat who will be literally seig heiling at the DNC convention in ten years if the party continues to pursue the policies of capitulation that she is advocating for here. Four decades of this approach by this party has enabled the rise of US fascism we are dealing with now.
Read the fucking article before you comment. It's obvious most did not.
The article title is incredibly misleading. Even the first sentence of the article makes clear what she was actually saying:
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the “oligarchy” on Thursday, arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans and should be replaced with “kings.”
She’s advocating for using a more relatable term, not for a change in party values. The “woke” comment irks me, but again is focused on terminology and not ideology.
When you need the dumb fucks’ votes, you gotta speak their language. Or at least water it down to be palatable to someone who was “educated” in our broken-ass system.
I read the article and I completely disagree with her. ‘Oligarch’ means something different than ‘king’, and many Americans don’t have the same negative reaction to the word ‘king’, which is often romanticised in media, whereas ‘oligarch’ calls up images of nefarious machinations in authoritarian regimes – exactly what’s actually going on.
Also, being whiny that the bullies are calling us ‘woke’ is reactionary and misses the whole point. This is where we should be doubling down, not diluting our language.
e: also also, having spent decades in UxD and usability (which entailed a lot of surveying and analysis), I’d be hesitant to rely on surveys that show a population’s preference for one word over another, because word feels are affected by far more than knowledge of their definitions, and the reasons aren’t easily captured in a survey. The reasons are what matter, not necessarily the word, and I’m sure she didn’t explore this enough to understand the sociology here.
What's more "alpha" than backing down from a bully and adhering to their chosen framing of an issue?
You know what would actually be "alpha" (ugh)? Not trying to figure out the ideal terminology for whatever state she thinks the populace is inclined to right now and actually driving the conversation to bring people to our viewpoint. Like having a national tour highlighting wealth inequality and corruption by literal mustache twirling villains. Because if you say it enough and talk about the problem that's right there fucking everything up right now and LEAD, they'll adopt whatever goddamned term you feel like.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Yea but opposing 'kings' isn't even close to the problem of 'oligarchs'
One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.
If it was really not ideologically tilted she'd suggest 'billionaire' instead of oligarch, but the dems are afraid of losing the support of the 'good billionaires
load more comments
(18 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Whelp.
Guess Slotkin is getting a “collaborator” postcard from me.
Controlled opposition
I have no regrets leaving
Just another clueless asshole.
If anybody wanted to read the article (ha! yeah, I know) she's not saying we should lose 'woke' ideology or stop attacking 'oligarchy'. She says the opposite of those things, which was phrased by mediaite this way for clickbait reasons.
What she's saying is to use the word "kings" instead of "oligarchy". Which I get. Sure - do that. Makes sense. Same argument, same vitriol, more punch.
As for the 'woke' part, she said:
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy” inspired by Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell.
She's mad as fuck and doesn't want to explain why people need to be treated with respect - it should be a given and we don't need to explain it.
So there's sixty comments on here so far, most of them railing against her but I don't see it. I think she's been misinterpreted, deliberately, in the case of the mediaite headline writer.
What she’s saying is to use the word “kings” instead of “oligarchy”. Which I get. Sure - do that. Makes sense. Same argument, same vitriol, more punch.
Still don't agree with that. Oligarchy is a very specific thing that we are currently living in. We don't have a king, not even by the most new-speak of definitions.
Detailing her plan, Slotkin – a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Also hard pass. The CIA should be shuttered they will never be able to provide solution to the problems of capitalism, because their number one goal is to secure "US Interests Abroad" meaning, prop up the oligarchy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)