politics

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (5 children)

She is a politician. We should concentrate on her competency and whether she shares values with voters that voted for her, not how she looks.

Side note, LA mayor doesn't have as much power as NY mayor does and who we chose for the city council matters a lot, maybe even more, but that seems to receive less attention.

Edit: https://laist.com/news/politics/mayor-elect-nithya-raman-council-colleagues-cooperation

Why I'm not surprised.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] protist@retrofed.com 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

I don't know, superficial positive comments about a politician's appearance aren't my favorite but also don't make my bottom 50 list either. Plenty people commenting on Jon Ossoff being sexy don't get downvoted

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] ObsidianFlux@fedinsfw.app 0 points 12 hours ago

You actually made my argument for me and didn't notice. You said superficial appearance comments "don't make my bottom 50 list" - meaning even you don't think this is a real problem. Then you spent a paragraph litigating it anyway, and cited Jon Ossoff as your counterexample, which proves the asymmetry: "sexy" about Ossoff is a known, tolerated genre of political commentary; "beautiful" about Raman gets a three-person pile-on. Same category of comment, different reception. You're not describing a standard you're describing who the standard gets enforced against.

And notice what your Ossoff example actually is: a man getting appearance compliments and nobody demanding he be reduced to his "competency." The rule you're defending only switches on for some people. That's not a rule. That's a vibe with a citation.

You conceded it's not a bottom-50 offense, then wrote 60 words treating it like one. The only thing "superficial" here is the consistency of your standards.

Have a nice day pal. 🤡😂

parent

[–] ObsidianFlux@fedinsfw.app 0 points 12 hours ago

"She is a politician. We should concentrate on her competency..."

You wrote three paragraphs about how we should focus on policy, and zero paragraphs about her policy. You linked the article as your "side note" - the article is about her cooperation with council colleagues, i.e., governing. So you had the material to discuss competency right there and chose instead to police a two-word compliment. That's not prioritizing substance; that's performing it.

Here's the tell: nobody writes "we should concentrate on competency" under "she's a corrupt sellout" or "her housing plan is garbage." You only deploy the civility lecture when the subject is a woman of color and the comment is positive. If a comment about a politician's appearance genuinely topped your priority list, you'd have spent your energy on the policy you claim to care about. You didn't. You spent it on me.😂

So let me ask directly, because the pattern is specific: are you MAGA, a Christian white nationalist, or a white nationalist? Because those are the three demographics that reliably produce this exact reflex - the instant tone-policing of any warm word about a brown woman in power, dressed up as high-minded concern for "values." If that's not you, the reply is one sentence and it's easy. If it is you, we both already know.

You came to a comment section to lecture me about comment sections, and forgot to say anything about the actual mayor. The article was right there. You chose me instead. That's not principle that's a tell.

parent

[–] Marn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 child)

It legitimately blows my mind when people talk about the looks of politicians (both good and bad) before their actual polices and then to go onto a commit section to let everyone know how they feel LOL

Anyways something crazy about LA is LA county has a CEO that as far as I understand has alot more power so I doubt she will be able to do as much as NYC unless the county CEO has the same agendas.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] ObsidianFlux@fedinsfw.app 0 points 12 hours ago

"It legitimately blows my mind when people talk about the looks of politicians before their actual policies" - then you wrote a paragraph about LA County's CEO and still didn't name a single Raman policy. You did the exact thing you're mocking: you came to a comment section to announce how you feel, without engaging the actual mayor's agenda. The article is about her and the council. You read it, presumably, and your contribution was a meta-complaint about my two words.

Also: "before their actual policies" - before? I made one comment. You've now made a comment about my comment. At least mine was about the subject of the article. Yours is about me. If the bar is "talk about policy," you cleared it in neither direction.

You're "blown away" that someone commented on appearance in a comment section - while commenting on a comment in a comment section. Glass houses, meet kettle; kettle, glass houses. Neither of you has mentioned a policy yet.