HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » La Lioness Priyanka » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

La Lioness Priyanka

Profile Information

Name: Priyanka
Gender: Female
Hometown: NYC
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 8, 2003, 01:35 PM
Number of posts: 49,621

Journal Archives

I am deeply suspicious of people posting the article on Obama's criticism of BLM

either on DU or on other social media (facebook, twitter etc.)


Obama is black and has suffered from institutionalized racism. He has black kids and black nieces and nephews, and other family. When he criticizes BLM, one can safely assume he is talking about strategies that work and strategies that don't work. He is coming from a place of actual concern.

When non-black people start parroting these concern, one wonders if they are concern trolling. Do you only care about their strategies in as much as in affects your candidate (Bill, Hillary, Bernie, Jeb, Trump etc.)?

It's hard to say if you actually value black lives, or whether you are concern trolling because this movement is inconveniently timed for you.

Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:13 PM (57 replies)

We are the base of the party. The POC, the LGBT, the feminists.

The ones disenfranchised in multiple ways, not just by economics.

Insinuations on DU, that Sanders would win if not for the base of the party, is OTT racist and sexist, and the fact that these posts and OP's don't get deleted continue to demonstrate that the internet space is mostly for straight white men and the votes considered most legitimate also come from that demographic.

We are the base, and we make this party. And if the large parts of the entire base is voting for one candidate, then she is the legitimate representative of the party. No amount of belittling her and the base of the party changes that.

Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:57 AM (304 replies)

Would you support the general elections be held in caucus format

Why or why not?
Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Mon Apr 4, 2016, 04:14 PM (68 replies)

I'm really annoyed that someone people have JUST discovered the consequence of gutting the VRA

and are posting as though HRC was personally responsible for it. I don't really care about whether you support HRC or Bernie, but how can democrats who claim to care so much about the people, really not know that the VRA was gutted in 2013, a price that communities of color (mostly black/hispanic) have been effected by?

I have friends who are posting this article from US UNCUT, that talks about the voting problems in AZ as though these problems were JUST created to spite Bernie.

I am not sure that i am being particularly eloquent in my argument, but this lack of understanding the impact of the VRA on minority communities, is just really maddening to me.

Here is the article http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/
Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:43 PM (94 replies)

Just to be clear, Garner was not killed due to taxation, he was killed because he was black

i am not sure what all these anti tax memes are, but taxes is not how and why he died. conflating the two is appropriate for worldnetdaily but not for DU.


Also just to clarify, i believe conflation occurs when you raise an unrelated issue into the middle of another issue. So for instance, talking about black on black crime in the middle of a conversation on racism, raising the issue of OJ when Warren was not indicted, and taxes when talking about Garner.

Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Thu Dec 4, 2014, 11:39 AM (49 replies)

You're not going to like me for saying this, but I am going to say it anyway

Words like rethuglican, floriduh, repukes, rapeublicans, utards etc. lower the quality of the debate we have, and make you sounds less than intelligent.

Also, using several of these 'words' makes the writing itself less clear.

Not sure why intelligent adults do it, but I really wish they would stop.





Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Mon Sep 15, 2014, 03:20 PM (231 replies)

A short rant about the need for victims to be perfect & react perfectly to violence and oppression

I am sick of hearing about how victims and victimized communities should react to violence and oppression. The reality is when faced with violence and oppression and constant discrimination, most of us break social mores. However, i really hate how much the media focuses on these 'riots' or 'looting' rather than what instigated these transgressions. Also, in my experience the media grossly exaggerates about how bad things are (remember, Katrina) when covering the transgressions of the victimized community.

I literally can't stand it.

Victims and victimized communities do not need to be perfect to have certain inalienable civil rights.


Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Wed Aug 13, 2014, 02:33 PM (74 replies)

I am the American left and I do not support fundamentalism in any religion.

Nor do I support the meaningless killing of people because of their religion/ethnicity.

It is not a love that dares not speak its name. It is mere consistency in my beliefs.

I also am not a fool and don't get taken in by pink-washing an issue.

I bet I am not the only one.
Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Fri Aug 8, 2014, 03:30 PM (74 replies)

Yes, acknowledging privilege is hard work.

It's difficult to admit that through no fault of our own necessarily, our race/gender/sexual orientation/sexual identity/religion/caste/ level of education gives us a certain access that we would necessarily not have had if we were members of that particular privileged category.

However, without knowing how your particular social group membership privileges you, it becomes impossible for you to see how others are equivalently oppressed by their group memberships.

For instance, I am queer but gender conforming, which means that on a daily basis I don't get harassed for being queer. However, my wife does.

To understand oppression, one needs to understand the opposite of oppression (privilege).

No one is seeking to make you 'confess' your privilege, but being aware of your privilege makes you more likely to understand how the lack of it effects other people.

It's really your choice whether or not you want to be defensive about this privilege, or understand how your privilege works in a society. However, I really doubt that you know better than the oppressed group how they should go about talking about their oppression.
Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Thu Feb 27, 2014, 05:25 PM (114 replies)

When a hate crime occurs against gays, we talk about homophobia immediately afterwards

When a hate crimes occurs against a transperson we talk about transphobia immediately afterwards.

When a gang rape happens in Delhi, we talk about endemic misogyny in India immediately afterwards.


So why is it that when a massacre with a gun occurs, if we discuss gun politics suddenly we are politicizing a tragedy or expressing glee about a tragedy?

Isn't the best way to deal with a tragedy, to deal with root causes of said tragedy? Why is this considered some evil form of gloating?


I think it's extremely convenient to label people callous and insensitive to shutdown a debate you don't want to have at any given time. Before, during and after a massacre with a gun.

Posted by La Lioness Priyanka | Tue Sep 17, 2013, 04:54 PM (154 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »