The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Davnasty on July 20, 2018, 07:44:02 AM
-
Taken from So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency... (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/so-let's-speculate-about-the-future-of-a-full-trump-presidency/3000/)
Can you give some examples
No. This is a thread about The Trump Show, I don't want to derail it, so perhaps in another thread. That being said, the mods have publicly stated many times they follow the post modern interpretation of the Popper quote, with an emphasis on "civility" (subject to mods' personal preferences). I don't suffer fools well, especially when the data/studies support my unpopular conclusions. We both remember what happened the last time. ya?
This is their house and the mods make the rules, nothing wrong with that. Rules (and laws) are meant to keep/promote order, a well known secret (I recall you being a lawyer) but somehow not apparent to the general public.
I agree we see irrationality a lot with the right wing crowd these days, but it's mostly because their flag bearer is drawing much attention. Does anyone still remember what happened to Lindsay Shepherd? BS like that happens just as much on the left, or at least enough that Shepherd knew she had better record the meeting. Anyone remember/know about this guy (https://quillette.com/2018/07/14/i-was-the-mob-until-the-mob-came-for-me/)? The list goes on and on.
We've simply looked another way because they are our natural allies against Trump, even though they spawned from the same seed. Keep it up, and we will never be rid of the likes of Trump.
Too much rhetoric? I am as much of a stable genius as the 45th, but at least I recognize I am close to 100% douche.
Now, let's return our focus on speculating about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Edit: Attempt to get it back on track. Trump not thrilled about the rate hikes!
As was mentioned in the other thread Lindsay Shepherd was a Canadian at a Canadian University. It sounds like the professors may very well have been out of line.
"Barrett Wilson" and the people who do what he does are a real problem. These people are not a fair representation of progressivism. They are short sited and in many cases are attacking people online for the rush and the attention, not because they believe in the cause (which they may, but it's not their primary incentive). Mob mentality is dangerous no matter whether the goal is righteous or not.
Your intitial claim was that the Progressives are just as responsible in electing Trump as voters who actually voted for him.
To point out that a few irrational people have taken things too far does not suggest to me that "progressives" are equally responsible for Donald Trump's election. Certainly there is a lot of blame to go around but there are some parties more responsible than others.
You mention that data supports your conclusion, but aside from the blame you cast on progressives, I'm not really sure what your conclusions are. Can you elaborate?
-
Lindsay Shepherd was unfairly treated by Laurier University. The university held an independent investigation into the matter that cleared her of all charges, and both the head of the university (as well as the professor) issued public apologies. This incident got a lot of press because of how unusual it is, not because it's the norm.
The university screwed up by not following their own procedure properly . . . then admitted publicly that they screwed up. Lindsay Shepherd was not silenced, the system worked to clear her public name. Shepherd is currently suing the University for damages (and will likely win), and has received multiple awards and accolades related to free speech from various organizations since the incident.
I'm not entirely sure that there's much controversy to get excited about here.
-
I do agree that some progressives helped elect trump...but probably not in the sense that poster meant. There were some progressives who fell for the (in some cases Russian-propaganda-driven) lie that both parties are the same and Hillary was just as bad as Trump, and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. I bump into a lot of these people at political events and they seem to retain this stance unapologetically. Even after the last 18 months.
-
The "Barret Wilson" article has the smell of inauthenticity. It's just too pat.
That said, I've been involved in discussions where some just-graduated racial studies major is literally calling local elected politicians (including minorities) KKK members if they don't agree with their proclamations. When pushed as to proof of Klan membership, they twist words and dance around the issue. Meanwhile, his/her numerous toadies are posting "+1" and "Oh yeah!" -- effectively, a virtual mob where any discussion is shouted down and/or ignored.
However, that in no way changed someone's mind in Alabama and "forced" them to vote for Roy Moore. Or are these voters voting because of spite? "Those damn liberals! I'm going to vote for the perv just to make them mad!"
To put it another way, did PC gone awry* make them angry enough to vote for Trump, or are they angry that they've been left behind by the post-manufacturing era?
* Related, are they angry because disparaging minorities or women isn't tolerated anymore? "Whenever I talk about pussy grabbing, some damn feminist tells me I'm sexist!"
-
I do agree that some progressives helped elect trump...but probably not in the sense that poster meant. There were some progressives who fell for the (in some cases Russian-propaganda-driven) lie that both parties are the same and Hillary was just as bad as Trump, and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. I bump into a lot of these people at political events and they seem to retain this stance unapologetically. Even after the last 18 months.
Agree, and I'll add that I know many of them who just didn't vote. Often, because they assumed that Hillary would win handily without their vote, and they preferred Bernie Sanders. I know several people like this, and most of them admit that they would have been elbowing their way to the poll line had they known Trump would win. On the other hand, all of the conservatives I know, many of whom claimed to despise Trump until he became the Republican candidate fell in line and voted for him in the end, despite their initial misgivings. I think conservatives are more likely than progressives to view voting as a social duty, so they turn out to support the 'pubs even when they personally dislike the candidates. Liberals have a huge turnout problem when they aren't super-excited about the candidates.
-
I do agree that some progressives helped elect trump...but probably not in the sense that poster meant. There were some progressives who fell for the (in some cases Russian-propaganda-driven) lie that both parties are the same and Hillary was just as bad as Trump, and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. I bump into a lot of these people at political events and they seem to retain this stance unapologetically. Even after the last 18 months.
Ugh, I'm going to wade into a politics post against my better judgment. Stop attacking people that participate in our democratic process. The position that somebody should vote how you want them to for a candidate they dislike a bit less than another, rather than the candidate of their choosing is abhorrent. There are plenty of other just targets for your anger.
If you want to rail against people that didn't want to see Trump in office but didn't show up and cast a vote, great. Want to lambaste the people who couldn't be bothered to get informed and just didn't vote, but now whine it's harming them, hell yes. If you want to attack our stupid first past the post voting system that means voting for your first choice also means not having your preference for second versus third choice recognized, I'm right there with you. Want to call the electoral college an anachronism and heap disdain on it, why not? But attacking somebody for participating, that's weak.
-
I do agree that some progressives helped elect trump...but probably not in the sense that poster meant. There were some progressives who fell for the (in some cases Russian-propaganda-driven) lie that both parties are the same and Hillary was just as bad as Trump, and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. I bump into a lot of these people at political events and they seem to retain this stance unapologetically. Even after the last 18 months.
I think that there's probably a reasonable argument that the "deplorables" comment could have turned 80k votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Especially because it seems like the tactic of the far left is to quickly label people Nazi's or <fill in the blnak>ists for not completely buying completely into any facet of the dogma.
-
I do agree that some progressives helped elect trump...but probably not in the sense that poster meant. There were some progressives who fell for the (in some cases Russian-propaganda-driven) lie that both parties are the same and Hillary was just as bad as Trump, and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. I bump into a lot of these people at political events and they seem to retain this stance unapologetically. Even after the last 18 months.
Ugh, I'm going to wade into a politics post against my better judgment. Stop attacking people that participate in our democratic process. The position that somebody should vote how you want them to for a candidate they dislike a bit less than another, rather than the candidate of their choosing is abhorrent. There are plenty of other just targets for your anger.
If you want to rail against people that didn't want to see Trump in office but didn't show up and cast a vote, great. Want to lambaste the people who couldn't be bothered to get informed and just didn't vote, but now whine it's harming them, hell yes. If you want to attack our stupid first past the post voting system that means voting for your first choice also means not having your preference for second versus third choice recognized, I'm right there with you. Want to call the electoral college an anachronism and heap disdain on it, why not? But attacking somebody for participating, that's weak.
I’ve voted third party before (Nader in Bush v Gore, actually), and I don’t believe I was attacking these people by observing that they helped elect Trump because that is, in fact, what they did. I helped elect Bush.
-
I do agree that some progressives helped elect trump...but probably not in the sense that poster meant. There were some progressives who fell for the (in some cases Russian-propaganda-driven) lie that both parties are the same and Hillary was just as bad as Trump, and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. I bump into a lot of these people at political events and they seem to retain this stance unapologetically. Even after the last 18 months.
I think that there's probably a reasonable argument that the "deplorables" comment could have turned 80k votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Especially because it seems like the tactic of the far left is to quickly label people Nazi's or <fill in the blnak>ists for not completely buying completely into any facet of the dogma.
And the tactic of the far right is to quickly label people "Social Justice Warriors" or <fill in the blank>ists for not completely buying completely into any facet of the dogma.
Back to the discussion. Was that the final straw? Or was that the only action taken by the "far left" that caused voters to vote for the Republicans, possibly against their own interests (anti-union)?
Of course, we have to remember that this was more of a enthusiasm problem with Clinton rather than a rising of support for Trump. Romney did better than Trump in a lot of districts.
-
Blame for Trump in order of most blame to least:
1. Trump himself and his parents for creating/being one of the worst Americans of our time
2. The people who voted for Trump
3. The people who didn't bother to vote
4. People who voted third party in a swing state-sorry, but you get some blame. We vote in the system we have, not the one we wish we had. First past the post means you know full well that you aren't getting President Jill Stein. You vote for the best of the major party candidates and agitate on your free time to get Green or Libertarian candidates elected in local elections to actually build the party if it was so important to you. On the plus side, you are still a better voter than groups 1-3 above. So you are in the top 66 million people in the US.
5. People who voted third party in a red or blue state-you mostly get a pass. Also, you get demerits if you don't vote in midterms.
6. People who voted for Hillary but spent the entire election season spreading information about how she is the devil with cankles. And probably killed people. And rigged the primaries.
This is my list, and I'm sticking to it. I accept no blame for Trump.
-
^^^
I think this is a fair list.
-
I do agree that some progressives helped elect trump...but probably not in the sense that poster meant. There were some progressives who fell for the (in some cases Russian-propaganda-driven) lie that both parties are the same and Hillary was just as bad as Trump, and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. I bump into a lot of these people at political events and they seem to retain this stance unapologetically. Even after the last 18 months.
I think that there's probably a reasonable argument that the "deplorables" comment could have turned 80k votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Especially because it seems like the tactic of the far left is to quickly label people Nazi's or <fill in the blnak>ists for not completely buying completely into any facet of the dogma.
And the tactic of the far right is to quickly label people "Social Justice Warriors" or <fill in the blank>ists for not completely buying completely into any facet of the dogma.
Back to the discussion. Was that the final straw? Or was that the only action taken by the "far left" that caused voters to vote for the Republicans, possibly against their own interests (anti-union)?
Of course, we have to remember that this was more of a enthusiasm problem with Clinton rather than a rising of support for Trump. Romney did better than Trump in a lot of districts.
Yep. And I hope that the republicans move back to the center to. But, I think it's less likely to have changes like that in the party that's in power.
I don't think there is such a thing as a "final straw". I think it's more like the sum total of everyone telling everyone how crappy things are and then both sides treating each-other as sub-human for disagreeing about how to solve complex problems that probably require nuance, compassion, and genuinely open conversation between sides to fix. And even if that's not the root cause of the problem, I think it's pretty clear that it's the right direction for the solution.
"more of a enthusiasm problem with Clinton rather than a rising of support for Trump"
This is definitely true (and not just for Clinton). Apparently ~ 47% of people chose not to vote instead of choosing between Clinton (25.6%) and Trump (25.5%). I think that's a pretty clear indication that something's broken (above and beyond that fact that the US elected a bad POTUS).
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8265143/almost-half-eligible-voters-did-not-vote-election-2016/ (https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8265143/almost-half-eligible-voters-did-not-vote-election-2016/)
-
Blame for Trump in order of most blame to least:
1. Trump himself and his parents for creating/being one of the worst Americans of our time
2. The people who voted for Trump
3. The people who didn't bother to vote
4. People who voted third party in a swing state-sorry, but you get some blame. We vote in the system we have, not the one we wish we had. First past the post means you know full well that you aren't getting President Jill Stein. You vote for the best of the major party candidates and agitate on your free time to get Green or Libertarian candidates elected in local elections to actually build the party if it was so important to you. On the plus side, you are still a better voter than groups 1-3 above. So you are in the top 66 million people in the US.
5. People who voted third party in a red or blue state-you mostly get a pass. Also, you get demerits if you don't vote in midterms.
6. People who voted for Hillary but spent the entire election season spreading information about how she is the devil with cankles. And probably killed people. And rigged the primaries.
This is my list, and I'm sticking to it. I accept no blame for Trump.
I'd throw the mainstream media into this pile somewhere, too, for making it all about the 24 hour Trump circus, including echoing every single thing he said about Hillary over and over, and basically never focusing on any actual campaign issues/platform, anything.
-
I do agree that some progressives helped elect trump...but probably not in the sense that poster meant. There were some progressives who fell for the (in some cases Russian-propaganda-driven) lie that both parties are the same and Hillary was just as bad as Trump, and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. I bump into a lot of these people at political events and they seem to retain this stance unapologetically. Even after the last 18 months.
Agree, and I'll add that I know many of them who just didn't vote. Often, because they assumed that Hillary would win handily without their vote, and they preferred Bernie Sanders. I know several people like this, and most of them admit that they would have been elbowing their way to the poll line had they known Trump would win. On the other hand, all of the conservatives I know, many of whom claimed to despise Trump until he became the Republican candidate fell in line and voted for him in the end, despite their initial misgivings. I think conservatives are more likely than progressives to view voting as a social duty, so they turn out to support the 'pubs even when they personally dislike the candidates. Liberals have a huge turnout problem when they aren't super-excited about the candidates.
I think this is an important piece of the puzzle, the complacency on the left around Hillary's lead going into the final days of the election. The day before the election the Huffington Post's "poll data" gave Hillary a 98% chance of winning (while FiveThirtyEight was giving her a 64% chance). If you were a bruised Bernie supporter, left leaning libertarian, or just unenthusiastic about Hillary and getting your information from left wing sources you could convince yourself she was going to win anyways so why give up your moral high ground (of not voting for her) for nothing? Whoops.
I think the coalitions on the left are much more fickle and fragile than on the right partially because they generally are less willing to hold their nose and vote strategically for imperfect candidates. Essentially valuing the protection of their electoral virtue over winning elections.
Said as a discouraged (mostly) liberal tired of seeing our government skew more conservative than the general population.
-
@Dabnasty
Morning,
I didn't misquote the handle, I was actually quoting GuitarStv, a quick click on the link in the post would have cleared that up easily.
Can you give some examples of people opposed to Trump who blatantly lied / mislead people as often and thoroughly as the Trump administration did?
The data/studies I mentioned in the post was referring to a previous discussion I was involved in, not the current one.
But since you invited me to this discussion... I will answer it, give me sometime to write a semi-coherent reply. thanks.
-
Blame for Trump in order of most blame to least:
1. Trump himself and his parents for creating/being one of the worst Americans of our time
2. The people who voted for Trump
3. The people who didn't bother to vote
4. People who voted third party in a swing state-sorry, but you get some blame. We vote in the system we have, not the one we wish we had. First past the post means you know full well that you aren't getting President Jill Stein. You vote for the best of the major party candidates and agitate on your free time to get Green or Libertarian candidates elected in local elections to actually build the party if it was so important to you. On the plus side, you are still a better voter than groups 1-3 above. So you are in the top 66 million people in the US.
5. People who voted third party in a red or blue state-you mostly get a pass. Also, you get demerits if you don't vote in midterms.
6. People who voted for Hillary but spent the entire election season spreading information about how she is the devil with cankles. And probably killed people. And rigged the primaries.
This is my list, and I'm sticking to it. I accept no blame for Trump.
I'd throw the mainstream media into this pile somewhere, too, for making it all about the 24 hour Trump circus, including echoing every single thing he said about Hillary over and over, and basically never focusing on any actual campaign issues/platform, anything.
Absolutely. Trump ran on "any publicity is good publicity" and the media gave him about 80% of the coverage. Even when the story was about Hillary, it was about that thing Trump said about Hilary, or whatever other candidate.
I would also give a little credit to the types of people that anisotropy accused in the post that started this discussion. However I do not identify all progressives as behaving that way, not even close. The real mistake of being overly PC, is that you give a golden example to conservative media to point at and say "look what the world has come to". In other words, I don't blame the PC zealots directly, but rather their actions combined with media outlets more than willing to hold them up as representative of progressivism.
-
I do agree that some progressives helped elect trump...but probably not in the sense that poster meant. There were some progressives who fell for the (in some cases Russian-propaganda-driven) lie that both parties are the same and Hillary was just as bad as Trump, and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. I bump into a lot of these people at political events and they seem to retain this stance unapologetically. Even after the last 18 months.
Agree, and I'll add that I know many of them who just didn't vote. Often, because they assumed that Hillary would win handily without their vote, and they preferred Bernie Sanders. I know several people like this, and most of them admit that they would have been elbowing their way to the poll line had they known Trump would win. On the other hand, all of the conservatives I know, many of whom claimed to despise Trump until he became the Republican candidate fell in line and voted for him in the end, despite their initial misgivings. I think conservatives are more likely than progressives to view voting as a social duty, so they turn out to support the 'pubs even when they personally dislike the candidates. Liberals have a huge turnout problem when they aren't super-excited about the candidates.
I think this is an important piece of the puzzle, the complacency on the left around Hillary's lead going into the final days of the election. The day before the election the Huffington Post's "poll data" gave Hillary a 98% chance of winning (while FiveThirtyEight was giving her a 64% chance). If you were a bruised Bernie supporter, left leaning libertarian, or just unenthusiastic about Hillary and getting your information from left wing sources you could convince yourself she was going to win anyways so why give up your moral high ground (of not voting for her) for nothing? Whoops.
I think the coalitions on the left are much more fickle and fragile than on the right partially because they generally are less willing to hold their nose and vote strategically for imperfect candidates. Essentially valuing the protection of their electoral virtue over winning elections.
Said as a discouraged (mostly) liberal tired of seeing our government skew more conservative than the general population.
This is a well-known phenomenon as characterized by the increasingly-popular (though something I've heard from at least... a decade? ago) phrase "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." The fact that we have to make our fellow dems/liberals/progressives fall in love and be enthusiastic really bothers me as a principal. And it makes me worry, because having to fall in love (and for some, they seem almost proud of it, like the claims that Hillary just didn't excite them and that's her fault) means they are more prey to charlatans and demagogues. Yeah, the Republicans are the ones that handed us the biggest demagogue so far (and there are plenty of them that fell in love, then the rest of the good Rs fell in line with them), but our side is really at risk of that, too, I think.
-
I do agree that some progressives helped elect trump...but probably not in the sense that poster meant. There were some progressives who fell for the (in some cases Russian-propaganda-driven) lie that both parties are the same and Hillary was just as bad as Trump, and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. I bump into a lot of these people at political events and they seem to retain this stance unapologetically. Even after the last 18 months.
Agree, and I'll add that I know many of them who just didn't vote. Often, because they assumed that Hillary would win handily without their vote, and they preferred Bernie Sanders. I know several people like this, and most of them admit that they would have been elbowing their way to the poll line had they known Trump would win. On the other hand, all of the conservatives I know, many of whom claimed to despise Trump until he became the Republican candidate fell in line and voted for him in the end, despite their initial misgivings. I think conservatives are more likely than progressives to view voting as a social duty, so they turn out to support the 'pubs even when they personally dislike the candidates. Liberals have a huge turnout problem when they aren't super-excited about the candidates.
I think this is an important piece of the puzzle, the complacency on the left around Hillary's lead going into the final days of the election. The day before the election the Huffington Post's "poll data" gave Hillary a 98% chance of winning (while FiveThirtyEight was giving her a 64% chance). If you were a bruised Bernie supporter, left leaning libertarian, or just unenthusiastic about Hillary and getting your information from left wing sources you could convince yourself she was going to win anyways so why give up your moral high ground (of not voting for her) for nothing? Whoops.
I think the coalitions on the left are much more fickle and fragile than on the right partially because they generally are less willing to hold their nose and vote strategically for imperfect candidates. Essentially valuing the protection of their electoral virtue over winning elections.
Said as a discouraged (mostly) liberal tired of seeing our government skew more conservative than the general population.
This is a well-known phenomenon as characterized by the increasingly-popular (though something I've heard from at least... a decade? ago) phrase "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." The fact that we have to make our fellow dems/liberals/progressives fall in love and be enthusiastic really bothers me as a principal. And it makes me worry, because having to fall in love (and for some, they seem almost proud of it, like the claims that Hillary just didn't excite them and that's her fault) means they are more prey to charlatans and demagogues. Yeah, the Republicans are the ones that handed us the biggest demagogue so far (and there are plenty of them that fell in love, then the rest of the good Rs fell in line with them), but our side is really at risk of that, too, I think.
Yes. Bill Maher said something the other night along the lines of "Democrats vote for the candidate in the election, Republicans for the consequences of the election." Many conservatives say how much Trump makes them sick, he's a horrible President, etc, but voted for him in 2016 (and will again in 2020) due to the Supreme Court. Everything else can be overlooked.
-
How the Progressives helped Trump win
Preface:
I was originally going to write entire reply myself but it proved impossible as smarter people already wrote about it much better than I ever could. Instead, I lifted many passages from several articles, providing links (beginning of passages) to the originals where I can. For the purpose of internal coherency, I did not use quotation marks and did some editing.
I am a centrist, the purpose of this post is to show how the Progressives aided Trump’s victory, so I will focus on the left. It is widely known to any reasonable person just how ridiculous Trump’s supporters generally are, so don’t accuse me of being a Trump supporter, bully, racist, sexist, MRA activist, etc, just because I choose not to waste time repeating what everyone already knows.
Abstract (TL;DR):
Trump and his supporters are known to rely heavily on alternative facts and bending the physical realities to suit their narratives. These behaviors are natural extension of strong postmodernism, which essentially states that there is no objective truth, only truth claims. I show that ironically, the radical Progressives that promote social justice also exhibit similar M.O (identity politics) and came from the same origin. I also theorize how this behaviour ultimately resulted in Trump’s victory.
Content:
1. Intro
2. Brief overview of Post modernism
3. Post modernism and Identity Politics
4. Identity politics on the left today (Social Justice issues)
5. Progressive "Missteps"
6. What does any of these have to do with Trump’s victory
Intro
It is my belief that the current form of postmodernism presents a threat to democracy, and it has led to the rise of identity politics and the election of Trump.
Many here have questioned my claim (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/why-progressives-elected-trump/) that the Progressives are just as responsible for Trump’s victory as the ones that actually voted for him, not recognizing that their M.O are one and the same, and both came from postmodernism movements.
Brief overview of Post Modernism (a poor attempt)
It is (http://nova.wpunj.edu/newpolitics/issue22/epstei22.htm) generally accepted postmodernism today came from writings of Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan in the 60s. It was a product of its era and it was anti-authoritarian. Ironically, it retained the Marxist doctrine that “power relations and economic inequality determines social structures.” It rejected aspects of humanism, in particular the view of the self as the center of political resistance and embraced the view that all reality is shaped by language. This language, and by extension, reason itself, is a construct that serves the interest of powerful and dominant social groups.
The strongest version (http://nova.wpunj.edu/newpolitics/issue22/epstei22.htm) of postmodernism is that there is no such thing as truth, because all perception of reality is mediated and perceived through discourse; there is no truth, only truth claims. Since there is nothing objective against which these claims can be measured, they all have the same standing.
I believe this strong postmodern view qualifies as being intolerant in Popper’s view (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/so-let's-speculate-about-the-future-of-a-full-trump-presidency/msg2076572/#msg2076572), as it is impossible to have a rational discussion with someone like this; this postmodern view pretty much “denounces all arguments”. These individuals are too far gone, we cannot argue with them, we cannot give them any reason that they believe they must even consider, much less accept. Sadly, it is being actively encouraged across the board, including here, which I will elaborate on later.
Postmodernism and identity politics
The strong (http://nova.wpunj.edu/newpolitics/issue22/epstei22.htm) postmodern view tends to take the form of an extreme social constructionism, a view that identities, relations, political positions are constructed entirely through interpretation, that there is no identifiable social reality against which interpretations can be judged, no ground in material or social reality that places any constraints on the formation of identities or perspectives.
Traditional leftists (https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2017/02/08/how-postmodernism-undermines-the-left-and-facilitates-fascism/) might affirm racism is best understood as a systemically reproduced oppressive ideology, postmodernism would say that reason itself is a form of oppressive ideology. For postmodernists the rules for what counts as knowledge or what counts as valid argument are themselves social constructs which further entrench (perceived) oppression.
This eliminates (https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2017/02/08/how-postmodernism-undermines-the-left-and-facilitates-fascism/) reason as an arbiter of disputes. If you are a postmodernist and someone challenges your moral and political beliefs, you just dismiss their critique on the grounds that reason itself is constructed by systems of power in a manner that marginalizes your view. What’s more, if you can’t show how this is the case through argument it poses you no problem–you can simply claim that the fact that you can’t show how you are marginalized through argument just underlines your claim that the rules of argument necessarily marginalize you. This means that once you have acquired postmodernism, whatever other political beliefs you may have become impossible to challenge through argument. No wonder it’s so popular among the un-learned.
The rise of postmodernism aided the rise of identity politics starting in the 60s, as we see the shift from reason and rational argument to personal experience and testimony, which forms the basics of identity politics: perspectives of social groups with which people identify.
Identity politics seeks to advance the interests of particular groups in society that are perceived as victims of social justice. The identity of the oppressed group gives rise to a political basis around which they can unite. Many feminists (http://nova.wpunj.edu/newpolitics/issue22/epstei22.htm) and gay activists became interested in the work of Foucault in the 70s, whose attention to the social construction of sexuality, view of power as dispersed through society, and insistence on the connection between power and knowledge, intersected with their own concerns. Foucault's work seemed to provide a theoretical ground for shifting the focus of radical analysis away from macrostructures such as the economy and the state, and toward daily life, ideology, social relations and culture. Foucault's view of state power as always repressive and his identification of resistance with the marginalized and suppressed made sense at a time when radical struggles were being led by groups peripheral to mainstream culture and power relations, such as disaffected youth and women, blacks and other racial minorities, gays and lesbians.
Today identity politics is wielded by both the right and left. I will now focus on how the left uses it and the problems with it.
Identity politics on the left today (Issues with Social Justice)
Fifty-five years ago, Dr. King (MLK) famously proclaimed “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men – yes, black men as well as white men.”
In 2004, in a similar vein, Obama also declared in Boston, “There is not a black American and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.” These ideals from the Left eventually led to real change because it transcended identities* and called for an America in which skin color didn’t matter.
In recent (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division) years however, blindness to group identity is now considered the “ultimate sin”, because it masks the reality of group hierarchies and oppression in America. Many on the left have turned against universalist rhetoric (for example, All Lives Matter), viewing it as an attempt to erase the specificity of the experience and oppression of historically marginalized minorities.
The new (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division) exclusivity is partly epistemological, claiming that out-group members cannot share in the knowledge possessed by in-group members (“You can’t understand X because you are white”; “You can’t understand Y because you’re not a woman”; “You can’t speak about Z because you’re not queer”). The idea of “cultural appropriation” insists, among other things, “These are our group’s symbols, traditions, patrimony, and out-group members have no right to them.”
For much (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division) of the Left today, anyone who speaks in favor of group blindness is on the other side, indifferent to or even guilty of oppression. For some, especially on college campuses, anyone who doesn’t swallow the anti-oppression orthodoxy hook, line, and sinker – anyone who doesn’t acknowledge “white supremacy or privilege” in America – is a racist, and anyone who promotes the idea of gender differences – is a sexist.
Progressive "Missteps"
This brings (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division) us to the most striking feature of today’s right-wing political tribalism: the white identity politics that has mobilized around the idea of white males as an endangered, discriminated-against group. Just as the Left’s exclusionary identity politics is ironic in light of the Left’s ostensible demands for inclusivity, so too is the emergence of a “white” identity politics on the right.
For decades (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division) , the Right has claimed to be a bastion of individualism, a place where those who rejected the divisive identity politics of the Left found a home. For this reason, conservatives typically paint the emergence of white identity as having been forced on them by the tactics of the Left. As one political commentator puts it, “feeling as though they are under perpetual attack for the color of their skin, many on the right have become defiant of their whiteness, allowing it into their individual politics in ways they have not for generations”.
At its (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division)core , the problem is simple but fundamental. While black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, and many others are allowed – indeed, encouraged – to feel solidarity and take pride in their racial or ethnic identity, white Americans, especially white males, have for the last several decades been told they must never, ever do so.
People (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division) want to see their own tribe as exceptional, as something to be deeply proud of; that’s what the tribal instinct is all about. For decades now, nonwhites in the United States have been encouraged to indulge their tribal instincts in just this way, but, at least publicly, American whites have not. On the contrary, if anything, they have been told that their white identity is something no one should take pride in.
During a (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division) Black Lives Matter protest at the DNC held in Philadelphia in July 2016, a protest leader announced that “this is a black and brown resistance march”, asking white allies to “appropriately take [their] place in the back of this march”. LOL, contrast that with MLK and Obama.
To make matters worse, the identity politics on the Left is not only openly hostile towards white males, but also towards dissidents from within. The incident of Lindsay Shepherd is not simply the misjudgement of one individual (Nathan Rambukkana), as some here suggest. In the meeting, Shepherd was accused of having created a toxic climate for some students by playing clips and adopting a neutral stance.
The fact that all three figures in the position of power (Adria Joel, acting manager of gender violence prevention; Herbert Pimlott, head of Shepherd’s academic program; and Rambukkana himself, Shepherd’s supervisor) present at the meeting unanimously accused Shepherd suggests this attitude and Leftist belief is condoned, if not sanctioned at the institutional level. They even compared Peterson to Hitler, yet another example of identity politics on the Left. If you think just because this happened in Canada so it doesn’t relate to the States, you are grossly mistaken. The same BS happens all the time, NA colleges are filled with individuals like those three, again suggesting Leftist identity politics at the institutional level. Here are some identity politics at play in the States: Bret Weinstine of Evergreen College; Allison Stanger, Middlebury College; Smith College hosts Anti-Colonial Thanksgiving; UVA faculty and students seek to erase Thomas Jefferson’s legacy.
Finally, I want to briefly touch on another trigger point of the New Left: gender issues. This is something I talked about before so I am not looking for a rehash. If you are interested, you can look at my past posts and read about it on your own. The key, however, is to read replies by other posters and notice the overwhelming “negative” replies relied on personal experience, emotions, and testimony, and how little people knew about the relevant data, studies, and the proper statistical analysis, shocking really, considering the high STEM head count here. Also note certain posters exhibit classic postmodernism views which translated to identity politics: sexual difference is purely socially constructed, and that the sexual difference should be seen as an effect of power relations and cultural practices, refuting all evidences suggesting otherwise.
What does any of these have to do with Trump’s victory
One Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division) voter claimed that “maybe I’m just so sick of being called a bigot that my anger at the authoritarian left has pushed me to support this seriously flawed man.” “The Democratic party,” said Bill Maher, “made the white working man feel like your problems aren’t real because you’re ‘mansplaining’ and check your privilege. You know, if your life sucks, your problems are real.” When blacks blame today’s whites for slavery or ask for reparations, many white Americans feel as though they are being attacked for the sins of other generations.
Or consider this blog post in the American Conservative, worth quoting at length because of the light it sheds:
I’m a white guy. I’m a well-educated intellectual who enjoys small arthouse movies, coffeehouses and classic blues. If you didn’t know any better, you’d probably mistake me for a lefty urban hipster.
And yet. I find some of the alt-right stuff exerts a pull even on me. Even though I’m smart and informed enough to see through it. It’s seductive because I am not a person with any power or privilege, and yet I am constantly bombarded with messages telling me that I’m a cancer, I’m a problem, everything is my fault.
I am very lower middle class. I’ve never owned a new car, and do my own home repairs as much as I can to save money. I cut my own grass, wash my own dishes, buy my clothes from Walmart. I have no clue how I will ever be able to retire. But oh, brother, to hear the media tell it, I am just drowning in unearned power and privilege, and America will be a much brighter, more loving, more peaceful nation when I finally just keel over and die.
Trust me: After all that, some of the alt-right stuff feels like a warm, soothing bath. A “safe space,” if you will. I recoil from the uglier stuff, but some of it— the “hey, white guys are actually okay, you know! Be proud of yourself, white man!” stuff is really VERY seductive, and it is only with some intellectual effort that I can resist the pull … If it’s a struggle for someone like me to resist the pull, I imagine it’s probably impossible for someone with less education or cultural exposure.
So the Progressives lost white men to Trump, what about black voters? Well they simply didn’t show up (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/), because they did not identify with a rich white woman. Do you see now how damaging identity politics is to a candidate with a universalist platform?
Alright, what about white women? Surely they identified with her? How could 45% of college educated white women possibly side with a known sexist? Guess what, not every woman is a radical feminist, who believed that the concept of gender is merely a social construct or that they were being systematically oppressed, especially not the college educated ones.
If we (https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2017/02/08/how-postmodernism-undermines-the-left-and-facilitates-fascism/) fight right wing postmodernism with left wing postmodernism, the only possible result is a politics that is increasingly reducible to might makes right, and the right will win that fight. We need to articulate and stand up for a robust set of objective left wing principles and values, which all people have reasons to accept. Of course we should continue to debate and interrogate those principles and values, asking ourselves who really benefits from them. But we cannot indulge in the broad, deep, unearned skepticism of postmodernism, which cannibalizes all principles and all values, including our own, leaving nothing in its wake but blood and carnage.
Like I said in my earlier post (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/so-let's-speculate-about-the-future-of-a-full-trump-presidency/msg2076572/#msg2076572) , so long as we operate under the misguided form of tolerance, where we value civility and feelings above what is objectively real, we will never be rid of the likes of Trump. Ok I am done.
-
At its core , the problem is simple but fundamental. While black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, and many others are allowed – indeed, encouraged – to feel solidarity and take pride in their racial or ethnic identity, white Americans, especially white males, have for the last several decades been told they must never, ever do so.
This is patently false and this assertion drives me up a fucking wall.
Please describe "white" culture to me. What is it?
There is no "white" identity or culture except in its contrast to other brown or black cultures. That is a meaningless term by itself. There is no "white" culture. Most of modern history is made up of white people killing other white people, partly over various cultural disputes. There is however, Russian, Irish, French, British, German etc.... culture, and white people are absolutely allowed to celebrate and take pride in these various cultures and encouraged to do so. Oktoberfest, Italian-American festivals, etc....
Go up to an average white person and ask them what their ancestry is. Most people will have some idea. Now go ask the average black person the same question. Most have no idea because their ancestors were removed from whatever culture they were a part of and there is no record of it. The only culture they can really claim to be a part of is "black" culture, because their ancestral culture was stolen from them.
Most of the other cultural groups you mention above have been either forcibly removed from their original culture, or been attacked or been nearly eradicated by genocide over their culture by the various "white" cultures above.
To celebrate "white culture" is non-nonsensical, because it doesn't exist.
-
That's quite the analysis.
I'd always wondered what post-modernism was:
a late-20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.”.
Is your thesis then that white people felt so dis-enfranchised by the left that they voted for Trump in sufficient numbers to give him the presidency? That's actually a better explanation than most.
-
Thank you Scottish, it was my pleasure to copy and paste enough material into a semi-coherent analysis that represents my view. The central thesis is due to poorly crafted identity politics on the left, white males went to trump, black voters simply didn't show up to vote, and white women (even some college educated ones) also went to trump.
There is a really douche saying that goes something like this, "I see much, but not all, yet still more than most; I know much, but not enough, yet still more than most." That is what I strive for in life.
Now golden1,
Albion's Seed by David Fischer might be of use to you, if you are interested in learning which things are generally considered to be "white American culture". We are all (ok I am, I don't know about you) LIVING and BREATHING it. Democracy, Capitalism, Individualism, Rationalism, and Diversity.
Yes, even Diversity.
-
Ah so you are saying that concepts of democracy, capitalism, individualism, rationalism and diversity are somehow tied to skin color?
What about colonialism? Slavery? Work ethic? How are these tied to skin color?
Conversely, how would you describe “black” culture?
-
Going back to an earlier comment about the Republican inclination to fall in line and Democrats needing to care about their candidate:
I think religion is a huge factor there. When you leave religion behind (a state of being that requires you to listen to someone else and follow their path for your life, no matter how you may privately feel about things), you have to start figuring out what you care about and why, then move to mold your life accordingly. It sets up a situation where more people are inclined to reject others’ ideas about how things should be, hence a real difficulty in getting people to fall in line just because.
I say this as someone who was once very religious and Republican because it was expected of me. I’m now an Independent because I have no desire to ever be put in someone’s box again, but I lean left on most issues at his point.
-
golden1,
Ah so you are saying
totally reminds me of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmYvjt5lGX0)
I anticipated your response, which was why I pre-emptively recommended Fischer’s book to you, where it details the distinct roots of white immigrants, how the culture of each group persisted and formed the basis for the modern USA. More importantly, he presented arguments on why, or rather, how the roots of democracy, capitalism, individualism, rationalism and diversity came from these white immigrants. I am not going to copy+paste more articles, much less entire chapters of a book. It’s complicated and I can’t possibly properly address it here, you are better off reading the book. What I can try to do is talk about the trend a bit.
The past and the Present
The most prominent long term “white american cultural trend” throughout modern American history is how the dominant group (white males) incorporated and absorbed minorities into a system where democracy, capitalism, and “civil rights” were already in place.
Broadly speaking, from the emancipation proclamation in 1863, to the 13th – 15th amendments, to the Reconstruction, to the 19th amendment in 1920, to the Fair Labour Standards Act in 1938, to the second emancipation proclamation in 1964 and beyond, there is a very clear track record where whites (especially white men), following reason and rationalism, continuously expanded the coveted circle of “civil rights” to the minorities.
In short, whites had shared their “culture” and attempted to make it universal (ie American) to an increasing number of people, but it’s rarely taught in this fashion in schools (for many PC reasons). Many citizens don’t even recognize how modern American values came to be.
Despite how historically (over long periods) whites had been largely "universalists", what we are seeing today from the minorities is the opposite, as I had outlined in “my” essay: Progressives rejected rationalism and embraced postmodernism in recent decades, where identity politics reign supreme. These progressive minorities then began actively alienating and excluding whites (especially white males) based on identity politics, for the sins of previous generations much like you had done here.
Most of the other cultural groups you mention above have been either forcibly removed from their original culture, or been attacked or been nearly eradicated by genocide over their culture by the various "white" cultures above.
What about colonialism? Slavery?
The current generation of white Americans have very little, if anything, to do with the sins most people accuse them of. I am not denying all the horrible things that happened, no one should. But we need to articulate and stand up for a robust set of objective left wing principles and values, which all people have reasons to accept. Instead of simply making white people feel like everything is their fault.
This is a thread about how Progressives helped Trump win, if you want to talk about white culture we should go somewhere else.
-
Where's all this supposed guilt coming from? I'm white, straight, middle class, and male . . . and don't feel anything like what you're talking about.
I lean towards a progressive outlook on many thing because I've seen first hand the disadvantages that many have to face that I never did . . . but everything being my fault? Oppression of my culture? Never experienced it.
-
Where's all this supposed guilt coming from? I'm white, straight, middle class, and male . . . and don't feel anything like what you're talking about.
I lean towards a progressive outlook on many thing because I've seen first hand the disadvantages that many have to face that I never did . . . but everything being my fault? Oppression of my culture? Never experienced it.
And you shouldn't, no one should.
-
Where's all this supposed guilt coming from? I'm white, straight, middle class, and male . . . and don't feel anything like what you're talking about.
I lean towards a progressive outlook on many thing because I've seen first hand the disadvantages that many have to face that I never did . . . but everything being my fault? Oppression of my culture? Never experienced it.
And you shouldn't, no one should.
Agreed. But your thesis is that whites are somehow hard done by . . . and in my 37 years as a white dude, I've rarely to never seen this happening in reality. What is relatively common though, is the expectation that straight/male/white privilege will last forever . . . and anger when equality of others starts to erode this position of power.
-
I think I had been quite clear throughout. It's not so much "anger when equality of others starts to erode this position of power" but more about how in recent years the Progressives identity politics became increasingly hostile towards whites, especially white males.
If it were truly "anger when equality of others starts to erode this position of power" as you suggested, we would have observed similar white voter behaviors in past waves of civil right movements. Recall, in the past, more whites sided with MLK and Obama (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/07/obama-won-lots-of-votes-from-racially-prejudiced-whites-and-some-of-them-supported-trump/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.156fb3b48c61) when they were welcomed.
Also don't forget, Clinton lost many black votes because they simply didn't vote (didn't identify with a rich white woman). That's also a key demographics she lost.
I am not white myself, full disclosure. As a side note, I find labeling people privileged to be a dangerous endeavour, as by association one by default accepts the validity and "truth" of victims of social justice, which identity politics is based on. But you do you.
edit: changed wordings to reflect data
-
You've said several times that progressives have become increasingly hostile towards whites. Assumption of this is fundamental to your thesis. You haven't provided evidence of this claim though.
-
Not so much an assumption. As I pointed out, in the past a more Universalist approach was favored by the Left, but it was rejected in recent years. I have given some examples in my lengthy post, here I will point out two biggest public examples: All Lives Matter was thoroughly denounced in favor of a more exclusive slogan, and DNC rally in 2016. Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2015/black_lives_matter_or_all_lives_matter) in 2015 clearly showed how whites felt about All Lives Matter vs Black Lives Matter (you can see how whites reacted).
People who challenge the notion of cultural appropriation and white privilege has been recent years labeled racists and bigots, shamed relentlessly on social media (medium?); the incidents at Evergreen College and Middleburry are by no means isolated, but more of a snapshot of the bigger picture.
Like I said, for much of modern era, whites had been making the society more egalitarian for all (Universal), then came the rise of identity politics where minority groups seek to exclude whites, that doesn't sit well with many whites. Not only that, almost every other group is encouraged to complain some social injustice that they had suffered.... except the whites. Does it not make you wonder, why is this group missing (in terms of proportion)? Or do you seriously believe that all whites have little to complain about. Please read the quote of the lower-middle class white guy in my lengthy post.
Racism used to have clear meanings, but now some think that a simple "emotional disconnect (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race)" is enough to suffice such accusation for a postmodernist believer, also note how the author promotes "positive discrimination" against whites.
I think I've provided plenty of evidence of how minorities alienate whites, if it is not up to your satisfaction, could you explain what constitutes as evidence to you?
One last note.... notice how I gave examples of actual events where minorities excluded whites, including how the whites felt about it (Rasmussen Reports), and how the white votes changed in 2012 and 2016. So far, all I am getting from you are your perspective from your experiences..... recall what I said.....
we see the shift from reason and rational argument to personal experience and testimony, which forms the basics of identity politics: perspectives of social groups with which people identify.
dangerous path to go down
-
You sound quite a bit like that Jordan Peterson guy who created such an uproar with the left leaning folks.
I've personally seen a bit of that. As a white male, I've been told to 'check my privilege' once or twice. So I can understand why white men and women in a difficult economic situation would be pretty upset by it.
I think we've made lots of progress in improving equality across society and that we will continue to do so. I also think the folks getting excited about gender-free pronouns and what washrooms they use should find something more important to do. There are lots of major problems to deal with, and they sit there and worry about being called zhe or they instead of he or she.
I don't care what washroom someone uses as long as they aren't sexually harassing the other users. I don't care who they sleep with, or what clothes they wear. I care much more that they can contribute to society and have a meaningful life.
So if I interpreted Trump as worrying about real problems and the Clinton as worrying about trivialities I could imagine holding my nose and voting for Trump.
-
Ha, I wish I were more like Peterson, sadly I am much less intelligent and articulate but infinitely more douche.
Much of what I presented regarding the dangers of postmodernism and identity politics is not new, nor is it truly original to Peterson. The rational progressive thinkers such as Barbara Epstein and Camille Paglia had been talking about it for ages (at least 15-20 years). The left chose to ignore them, well, look at where we are today. Even now the Progressives still don't see the problem with identity politics, maybe it is too late.
The thing about identity politics is that for the folks that get excited about gender-free pronouns (or any identity politics issues), it is the most important issue for them, because it is their identity, and for those of us that do not share their sense of identity (because its all personal perspectives and experiences, not reason), we often react with ?!?!?!?!?!?
Like I said I am a centrist, I dislike identity politics on both sides.
-
You've provided some examples of colleges gone wrong and some examples of how some minorities alienate whites but so what?
There are five million college students in the US and you've provided a handful of examples. The vast majority of students are busy getting drunk and having sex and aren't worrying about "zhe" or whether the forgotten bust in the corner of library was an accountant for the Confederate state of Georgia.
So, indeed, some minorities alienate whites and some gay rights activists are silly but there's a big leap from a curated list of egregious incidents to "progressives," and I assume you mean most of them, dissing whites and causing them to vote for Trump. The world's much bigger than an echo chamber Instagram newsfeed.
-
Broadly speaking, from the emancipation proclamation in 1863, to the 13th – 15th amendments, to the Reconstruction, to the 19th amendment in 1920, to the Fair Labour Standards Act in 1938, to the second emancipation proclamation in 1964 and beyond, there is a very clear track record where whites (especially white men), following reason and rationalism, continuously expanded the coveted circle of “civil rights” to the minorities.
In short, whites had shared their “culture” and attempted to make it universal (ie American) to an increasing number of people, but it’s rarely taught in this fashion in schools (for many PC reasons). Many citizens don’t even recognize how modern American values came to be.
Despite how historically (over long periods) whites had been largely "universalists", what we are seeing today from the minorities is the opposite, as I had outlined in “my” essay: Progressives rejected rationalism and embraced postmodernism in recent decades, where identity politics reign supreme. These progressive minorities then began actively alienating and excluding whites (especially white males) based on identity politics, for the sins of previous generations much like you had done here.
Are you actually saying that the only reason that disenfranchised groups have rights is because “white culture” somehow allowed it? Do you really think that the accomplishments and rights of other cultural and ethnic groups are only because of “white” people? Do you understand how offensive and dismissive and dehumanizing that is?
Are you saying that the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, and the rights that these people lived and died to obtain are because somehow “white” culture allowed it?
What you are actually doing is rewriting history to your benefit, in effect practicing “white” identity politics. “White” identity, as I have said before, doesn’t really exist, except in terms of it’s racist context.
-
I am genuinely curious if you are actually a minority. Such a bizarre take on civil rights. I am white and don’t think white people are at all responsible for generously creating a more civil society. Maybe it’s because I’m a woman, not a man, but I’d say the white power circles only widen when forced to. Otherwise there would have been a whole lot less strife.
-
golden1,
DO NOT twist my words. DO NOT. Read what I wrote again.
1. I recounted the political events that had happened from 1863 onward. Do you deny those happened?
2. I made the case that whites had shared their culture and made it universal (ie American) to an increasing number of people. Do you deny that?
3. I then contrasted it with how minorities today focus more on identity politics and began to exclude whites, I provided examples in previous posts. Do you deny that?
No where in my posts did I say it is ONLY because white ALLOWED anything. Those are your OWN words. DO NOT START THIS.
I think your problem is you are unaware of all the events and history that led to the formation of white American culture. Read the book, do yourself a favor. The white American culture share the same root as modern western culture. Enlightenment, Humanist movements, rationalism, etc, all leading to necessary grounds for diversity and equality. I will no longer reply to you, as you appear incapable of become not racially charged.
First strike: Most of the other cultural groups you mention above have been either forcibly removed from their original culture, or been attacked or been nearly eradicated by genocide over their culture by the various "white" cultures above.
Second strike: What about colonialism? Slavery?
Third strike: this one.
bacchii, yours warrant a more serious response. maybe tomorrow.
-
I am genuinely curious if you are actually a minority. Such a bizarre take on civil rights. I am white and don’t think white people are at all responsible for generously creating a more civil society. Maybe it’s because I’m a woman, not a man, but I’d say the white power circles only widen when forced to. Otherwise there would have been a whole lot less strife.
I am a little perplexed, I think there are two issues here, I am not sure which one you meant was bizarre.
1. Fischer's argument how white American culture ended up being the tenet of modern America, including democracy, individualism, and civil rights.
2. Historically whites had adopted a universalist approach and reached several milestones as noted.
which one did you find bizarre?
It is a good point you brought up that circles widen when forced to, as another poster did.
Yes, there was much confrontation prior to each and every "milestones" that I had marked, there is no denying that. But if you believe political equality would come anyway if there had not been an egalitarian and universalist ideology that served as a founding principle, I don't know what to say. Find me an example of that happening in other parts of the world (must be non-western and no later than 1950s, this restriction is due to cultural transport in modern periods) I suppose.
And yes, I am a minority, but recall what I said about identity politics, whether I am white or black or Hispanic or Asian should be meaningless. When we start labeling people with these group identities, it's very hard to not descend into tribalism.
-
You've provided some examples of colleges gone wrong and some examples of how some minorities alienate whites but so what?
There are five million college students in the US and you've provided a handful of examples. The vast majority of students are busy getting drunk and having sex and aren't worrying about "zhe" or whether the forgotten bust in the corner of library was an accountant for the Confederate state of Georgia.
So, indeed, some minorities alienate whites and some gay rights activists are silly but there's a big leap from a curated list of egregious incidents to "progressives," and I assume you mean most of them, dissing whites and causing them to vote for Trump. The world's much bigger than an echo chamber Instagram newsfeed.
Alright bacchii,
I am going to first show you three variants of what you wrote for demonstration purposes. They are only for demonstration purposes, so don't puke on the screen, I will elaborate later.
Trump did not collude
You've provided some suspects of collusion but so what?
There are so five million trump staffs and volunteers in the US and you've provided a handful of suspects. The vast majority of trump staffs are busy getting drunk and having sex and aren't worrying about "zhe" or collusion.
So, indeed, some trump staffs colluded but there's a big leap from a curated list of egregious incidents to "trump collusion" and I assume you mean himself, colluded with you know who. The world's much bigger than an echo chamber Instagram newsfeed.
There is no racism in the police force
You've provided some examples of policing gone wrong and some examples of how some minorities are discriminated against but so what?
There are one million cops in the US and you've provided a handful of examples. The vast majority of cops are busy getting drunk and having sex and aren't worrying about "discriminating against minorities.
So, indeed, some cops targets minorities and some cops are racists but there's a big leap from a curated list of egregious incidents to "racist cops" and I assume you mean most of them discriminate against minorities. The world's much bigger than an echo chamber Instagram newsfeed.
Guns don't kill people
You've provided some examples of gun control gone wrong and some examples of mass shootings but so what?
There are 150 million gun owners in the US and you've provided a handful of examples. The vast majority of gun owners are busy getting drunk and having sex and aren't plotting mass shootings.
So, indeed, some gun owners are nuts but there's a big leap from a curated list of egregious incidents to "gun control" and I assume you mean most of them are dangerous. The world's much bigger than an echo chamber Instagram newsfeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are all garbage arguments.
Intellectually lazy and non-constructive arguments such as these, refuses to acknowledge the systematic problems present in a system, believing everything is an isolated event. Any reasonable man would agree Trump most likely colluded, racist cops is a problem, and guns definitely kill people.
How do we know we are or aren’t in an echo chamber? Bayesian statistics. Mr. Livermoore has an outstanding article on philosophical economics. It boils down to do things we expect keep happening, or do they not happen even if we think they “should”? Once you read it, we can discuss how it applies here.
The Shepherd incident suggests a PC culture that has gone too far at the institutional level, as all three “adults” unanimously reached the guilty “verdict”; if it had occurred at a company (the three adults would correspond to the roles of HR manager, immediate supervisor, department head), we would be blaming the company culture and the founders right away, don’t you think? Listen to the tape, will you?
Still you might argue this is an isolated incident. Yet we continue to see incidents like this occur in NA colleges one after another, almost all involving mid-level to senior administrators, as I noted in the post, here is another one at NYU (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/03/campus-pc-culture-is-so-rampant-that-nyu-is-paying-to-silence-me/). Read it, it has even more examples from other schools.
I had not only listed incidents on a “curated list”, but also showed they share the same philosophical root, the same M.O, and target the same kind of “victim”. I think I have demonstrated there is a united group of “Radical Progressives” that take identity politics way too seriously and the expense of universalist ideals, the mainstream Progressives (if they still exist independently) did nothing as they thought everything's coo.
Now let’s talk about how this relates to white voters. The examples/data I had presented cleared show a logical and coherent argument. Black Lives Matter was formed in 2013, let’s take a look what else happened since then.
1. Black and White view “BLM” and “ALM” very differently, look at the numbers in Rasmussen reports, I gave link. BLM was adopted in the end.
2. All groups except for white males are encouraged to complain about social injustice
3. People who challenged the notion of cultural appropriation and white privilege has been recent years labeled racists and bigots, shamed relentlessly on social media
4. Obama scored more white male votes than Clinton, by about 3%.
5. The votes went to Trump
Do you seriously think, given the timeline of these issues clustered together within a 3yr period, it had no effect on a regular white male voter? As we see in #4, all it needs to do is to alienate a tiny % of the white voters and we are done, and it did.
Now, just to be through, if you still find my argument insufficient, what other evidence would you like to see (that is not intellectually lazy, like the ones above). And can YOU provide an alternative argument that is as coherent, logical, and support it with data/evidence.
[90% douche, 5% serious, 5% sarcasm]
Once again I find myself in a familiar position where I present my argument based on the data and evidence I supplied, and my "adversaries" rely on their intellectually lazy arguments, personal experience, and identities to carry the conversation. Be serious, or has postmodernism castrated our abilities to think critically and present coherent arguments based on data and reason.
-
This is parallel to the discussion going on here, but I just listened to the latest Sam Harris podcast.
In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Ian Bremmer about the failure of globalism and the rise of populism. They discuss immigration, trade, automation, wealth inequality, Trump, identity politics and other topics.
Ian Bremmer is the president and founder of Eurasia Group, the leading global political risk research and consulting firm. Eurasia Group provides analysis and expertise about how political developments and national security dynamics move markets and shape investment environments across the globe.
Bremmer created Wall Street’s first global political risk index (GPRI). He is the founding chairman of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Geopolitical Risk and is an active public speaker. He has authored several books including the national bestsellers Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World and The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations? Bremmer is a contributor to the Financial Times A-List and Reuters.com. He has written hundreds of articles for publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek, Harvard Business Review, and Foreign Affairs. He appears regularly on CNBC, Fox News Channel, Bloomberg Television, National Public Radio, the BBC, and other networks.
https://samharris.org/podcasts/133-globalism-brink/ (https://samharris.org/podcasts/133-globalism-brink/)
-
1. I recounted the political events that had happened from 1863 onward. Do you deny those happened?
2. I made the case that whites had shared their culture and made it universal (ie American) to an increasing number of people. Do you deny that?
3. I then contrasted it with how minorities today focus more on identity politics and began to exclude whites, I provided examples in previous posts. Do you deny that?
No where in my posts did I say it is ONLY because white ALLOWED anything. Those are your OWN words. DO NOT START THIS.
I think your problem is you are unaware of all the events and history that led to the formation of white American culture. Read the book, do yourself a favor. The white American culture share the same root as modern western culture. Enlightenment, Humanist movements, rationalism, etc, all leading to necessary grounds for diversity and equality. I will no longer reply to you, as you appear incapable of become not racially charged.
First strike: Most of the other cultural groups you mention above have been either forcibly removed from their original culture, or been attacked or been nearly eradicated by genocide over their culture by the various "white" cultures above.
Second strike: What about colonialism? Slavery?
Third strike: this one.
bacchii, yours warrant a more serious response. maybe tomorrow.
Wow, you seem really angry and defensive. This is how I, and many others would interpret the things that you have said. If you can’t actually answer my questions without getting upset, then maybe you don’t have much of an argument.
You are just making stuff up, and then getting offended at my interpretation of your statements. You are the one playing identity politics by taking the real accomplishments of other cultural groups and saying that they are due to “white” culture, which doesn’t actually exist.
The fact that I haven’t read the books you want me to read doesn’t invalidate my opinion.
I have some books for you to read too.
“Lies my teacher told me” by Loewen.
“Stamped from the beginning” - Ibram X. Kendi
“Peoples history of the United States” - Howard Zinn
Full disclosure: I am white, feel no shame in being white, and believe the very idea that “white” culture exists as anything but a way to divide racial group is patently false.
To answer your questions above:
1) I deny your interpretation.
2) I flat out deny that whites “shared” their culture (not that it exists). More like forced.
3) This is hilarious, because you are the one playing identity politics by making up a culture based on skin color.
-
I also find it fascinating that you are so willing to assign positive traits to “white” culture, like enlightenment values, diversity etc... but can’t even discuss things like genocide and colonialism without getting irate. This is how I know your version of “white” culture is a farce. If “white” culture helped bring diversity and equality by pulling people up with one hand, it was pushing them down with the twin forces of colonialism and genocide on the other hand.
The very idea that “progressives” lost because they are playing identity politics is countered by the fact that Trump won by exploitation of white identity politics. What white people who seem to share your views can’t seem to tolerate is the fact that other cultures are gaining recognition and status in our society and want to viewed with dignity and respect.
P.S. You can stop engaging me all you want, but I am going to attempt to stay in this thread as time permits.
This is fascinating to me on a lot of levels, because I never understood taking pride or wrapping my identity around what my ancestors did. Their accomplishments and flaws are their own. I truly wonder at the motives of people who so strongly want to defend “white” culture and take it so personally when the obvious flaws are pointed out, and yet expect that we should be able to disparage other cultures without them taking offense.
-
I am genuinely curious if you are actually a minority. Such a bizarre take on civil rights. I am white and don’t think white people are at all responsible for generously creating a more civil society. Maybe it’s because I’m a woman, not a man, but I’d say the white power circles only widen when forced to. Otherwise there would have been a whole lot less strife.
Agreed. The OP’s interpretation of history is bloodless. One would think, reading his interpretation that women just said “Oh we want more rights” and men said “Oh, all right then”, instead of fighting tooth and nail every step of the way. It’s absurd.
Later on I will come in with an alternative explanation for the expansion of civil rights that has nothing to do with being “white”.
-
Agreed. The OP’s interpretation of history is bloodless. One would think, reading his interpretation that women just said “Oh we want more rights” and men said “Oh, all right then”, instead of fighting tooth and nail every step of the way. It’s absurd.
Canada, not the US, but male privilege and the fight for women's rights:
The Persons Case (officially Edwards v. A.G. of Canada) was a constitutional ruling that established the right of women to be appointed to the Senate. The case was initiated by the Famous Five, a group of prominent women activists. In 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women were not “persons” according to the British North America Act and therefore were ineligible for appointment to the Senate. However, the women appealed to the Privy Council of England, which in 1929 reversed the Court’s decision. The Persons Case opened the Senate to women, enabling them to work for change in both the House of Commons and the Upper House. Moreover, the legal recognition of women as “persons” meant that women could no longer be denied rights based on a narrow interpretation of the law.
My bolding. Of course even after that women could not do many things that men could do. Like have their own bank accounts without their husband's permission.
-
Once again I find myself in a familiar position where I present my argument based on the data and evidence I supplied, and my "adversaries" rely on their intellectually lazy arguments, personal experience, and identities to carry the conversation.
You seem nice.
-
Now, just to be through, if you still find my argument insufficient, what other evidence would you like to see (that is not intellectually lazy, like the ones above). And can YOU provide an alternative argument that is as coherent, logical, and support it with data/evidence.
I had a long reply but really it boils down to: provide the fucking evidence. Merely pasting links from google and name dropping authors doesn't prove a thing.
Your argument is obviously borne by your personal experience. It's also built on a house of cards.
* Are the majority of progressives wandering around biting their nails because of white guilt? Are the majority of non-progressives doing the same?
* Are white males really discouraged to complain about social injustice? Or is this from your own echo chamber Instagram newsfeed?
* Does Obama getting more white male votes mean what you think it means? Is there another reason?
* There were fewer people voting in 2016 than in 2008, even though the voter ranks grew by over 10 million. Why didn't they vote? Were they shamed? Were they non-enthusiastic? Were they complacent?
Finally, you're a big fan of the strawman argument. That's intellectually lazy.
[90% douche, 5% serious, 5% sarcasm]
Once again I find myself in a familiar position where I present my argument based on the data and evidence I supplied, and my "adversaries" rely on their intellectually lazy arguments, personal experience, and identities to carry the conversation.
It's tough to be a stable genius.
-
This is parallel to the discussion going on here, but I just listened to the latest Sam Harris podcast.
In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Ian Bremmer about the failure of globalism and the rise of populism. They discuss immigration, trade, automation, wealth inequality, Trump, identity politics and other topics.
Actually, this is counter-evidence to anistropy's theory. Populism is not unique to the US. Where did it start? Middle-eastern immigrants to Europe? Or does it trace back to the loss of jobs and opportunity for factory workers and the need to blame someone? The usual pro-corporate leaders have also given a big "fuck you" to those same workers for years.
-
Bachii
It is clear you neither read my links of studies and data nor intend to. I simply showed you where to look to better inform yourself, as copy+pasting everything to you here borders spoon-feeding. Accusing someone of name dropping is a common reaction from a person who really has very limited understanding of what they are talking about. But you do you.
the rules for what counts as knowledge or what counts as valid argument are themselves social constructs which further entrench (perceived) oppression
Populism rises when both sides start focusing on what feels good to them. Not only is it not counter-evidence to my thesis, but it directly reinforces my points here. Populism can be a form of identity politics (or vice versa), a simple google shows a paper showing exactly that by M. Marchlewska. Why do I bother, you are not going to read it anyway. Sorry, did I just name drop on you again?
I have provided plenty of evidence to reinforce my theory, in forms of links and books. Instead you simply complained about pasting links and name dropping. I asked you what kind evidence would you like to see, you didn’t answer, instead just said “provide the fucking evidence.” Since you didn’t answer, I will stop asking and close that door here.
Currently your counter-argument (to me) boils down to this:
How do you know you are right, did you consider possibilities other than bad identity politics from the progressives?
I don’t know if I am right. Which is why I considered many possible explanations, I looked for common themes and evidences that might provide a coherent and logical explanation to
1. Obama got more white males votes than Clinton
2. Less black votes for Clinton than Obama (which is related to your point that 2016 had less total votes than 2008, before BML, before “marked rise of identity politics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics)”)
3. Why did a sizeable portion of white female vote for Trump
I found one coherent and logical (occam’s razor) explanation that is backed and linked to all the things I mentioned in my lengthy post: identity politics gone wrong.
If you had actually read and comprehended my conclusion, you would know it’s not as simple as white males being shamed or excluded, but also blacks did not identify with a rich white woman, and white female voters did not identify with many of the radical progressive views on gender issues.
You say my argument is obviously borne by my personal experience. Yet everything I have presented, whether be the election result, the survey, the incidents, are all independent of my own existence. Indeed I definitely did not confuse objective data with personal experience. Not once did I bring my own personal experience into this.
If anything, you (plural) are the ones that dwelled on my ethnicity and your own personal experience. Are you really this far gone that you can not tell what constitutes as personal experience?
We may never know what really happened, but I find “my” thesis (I use quotations because it’s not truly mine, and has been mentioned in academia, yet remain largely unpopular to the public precisely because of identity politics) reasonable and supported by plenty of data. If you want to present an alternative view that’s equally backed by the same quality and quantity of reason and data, please do. Otherwise, you just do you.
-
You say my argument is obviously borne by my personal experience. Yet everything I have presented, whether be the election result, the survey, the incidents, are all independent of my own existence. Indeed I definitely did not confuse objective data with personal experience. Not once did I bring my own personal experience into this.
You're too far gone in the weeds. Stop reading extreme dailyKos bloggers, stop googling for extreme cases of PC in colleges, and stop reading Foxnews and Breitbart nonstop. Above all, stop scrolling through your obviously bubbled newsfeed before bedtime.
You'll find out that the real world isn't as scary as you seem to think it is and there aren't transgender women's rights majors glaring at you from every corner trying to get you to use "zhe."
Otherwise, you just do you.
I will, thanks.
You keep on tilting at windmills. Good luck out there.
-
Stop reading extreme dailyKos bloggers, stop googling for extreme cases of PC in colleges, and stop reading Foxnews and Breitbart nonstop. Above all, stop scrolling through your obviously bubbled newsfeed before bedtime.
The theory, links/data I provided came from
Washington post x3
The Guardian x3
Rasmussen Report
Social Psychological and Personality Science
The works of Barbara Epstein
Camille Paglia
Benjamin Studebaker
by equating these to dailyKos or Foxnews or Breitbart, it truly shows how far gone you are and how little you know. This not only shows my original thesis (postmodern identity politics) to be correct, but also adds yet another example on the danger of identity politics. Again, you do you. I am glad everyone could see an example of this live.
Postmodernism and identity politics
that there is no identifiable social reality against which interpretations can be judged, no ground in material or social reality that places any constraints on the formation of identities or perspectives.
-
Stop reading extreme dailyKos bloggers, stop googling for extreme cases of PC in colleges, and stop reading Foxnews and Breitbart nonstop. Above all, stop scrolling through your obviously bubbled newsfeed before bedtime.
The links/data I provided came from
Washington post x3
The Guardian x3
Rasmussen Report
Social Psychological and Personality Science
The works of Barbara Epstein
Camille Paglia
Benjamin Studebaker
by equating these to dailyKos or Foxnews or Breitbart, it truly shows how far gone you are and how little you know. This not only shows my original thesis (postmodern identity politics) to be correct, but also adds yet another example on the danger of identity politics. Again, you do you.
You read about a theory and then went out and found examples to "prove" it. Posting a handful of examples about PC at colleges does not equal unequivocal proof that identity politics is rampant at universities. You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole because it aligns with your personal experience and biases.
Your failure to see this shows how far gone you are and how little you know.
Again, keep on tilting at windmills. I'll leave you to your genius.
-
Not so much an assumption. As I pointed out, in the past a more Universalist approach was favored by the Left, but it was rejected in recent years.
You have made this claim. Evidence of it has not yet been provided.
I have given some examples in my lengthy post, here I will point out two biggest public examples: All Lives Matter was thoroughly denounced in favor of a more exclusive slogan, and DNC rally in 2016. Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2015/black_lives_matter_or_all_lives_matter) in 2015 clearly showed how whites felt about All Lives Matter vs Black Lives Matter (you can see how whites reacted).
So we've got kinda a funny situation here until you dig a bit deeper into the background. 'All Lives Matter' is a reactionary slogan used by those opposed to and critical of the existing 'Black Lives Matter' political movement. 'All Lives Matter' has often been used to dismiss the differences in danger faced by people of colour who are disproportionately at risk when dealing with the police. This is the reason that candidates didn't support use of the phrase. A universalist approach doesn't really work when one minority group is treated significantly differently by authority than another. The candidates did not decide that black lives matter more than other lives (as you seem to be implying).
As a generic white dude though, if someone asks me if 'All Lives Matter' I'm going to say yes . . . because I'm probably not aware that it's an anti-Black Lives Matter slogan. So the results of the survey that you posted aren't very shocking.
People who challenge the notion of cultural appropriation and white privilege has been recent years labeled racists and bigots, shamed relentlessly on social media (medium?); the incidents at Evergreen College and Middleburry are by no means isolated, but more of a snapshot of the bigger picture.
The Evergreen College incident you're talking about, the college overstepped it's bounds. The professor involved resigned, and then sued the college . . . and settled out of court, receiving half a million dollars for the college's mistake. As with the Canadian example previously brought up, this story was newsworthy because of it's rarity.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to regarding Middleburry College. Are you talking about the violent protest that occurred regarding White Supremacist Charles Murray's scheduled talk about the genetic inferiority of Black and Latino people? If so, I'd argue that violence is never acceptable during a protest . . . but that violent protests do happen during both right and left wing gatherings. By no means are they exclusive to one political spectrum.
Like I said, for much of modern era, whites had been making the society more egalitarian for all (Universal)
Really? I seem to remember a pretty strong backlash by whites against the civil rights movement in the 60s. I seem to remember a backlash against the women's rights movement from the 60s to the 90s. I seem to remember a similar backlash against the gay rights movement from the 90s to today.
Can you provide some examples of white people proactively making society more egalitarian for all? Historically, there has always been inequality and only after the oppressed minority group has risen up and forced change do things start to improve.
then came the rise of identity politics where minority groups seek to exclude whites, that doesn't sit well with many whites. Not only that, almost every other group is encouraged to complain some social injustice that they had suffered.... except the whites. Does it not make you wonder, why is this group missing (in terms of proportion)? Or do you seriously believe that all whites have little to complain about. Please read the quote of the lower-middle class white guy in my lengthy post.
Racism used to have clear meanings, but now some think that a simple "emotional disconnect (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race)" is enough to suffice such accusation for a postmodernist believer, also note how the author promotes "positive discrimination" against whites.
I think I've provided plenty of evidence of how minorities alienate whites, if it is not up to your satisfaction, could you explain what constitutes as evidence to you?
You've provided a refusal of democratic nominees to endorse an anti-black lives matter slogan (which doesn't really seem to be too surprising or particularly exclusive of white people), and mentioned two colleges (three if you count the Canadian one) where people on the left made mistakes, overstepped their bounds, and then were reprimanded for their actions.
What I'm looking for is not a couple unusual anecdotes . . . I'm looking for data. Maybe a widespread study - something showing evidence that your college examples are the norm in the US (say that they occur on 51% or greater of campuses). Maybe a study showing that progressive groups seek to exclude white people the majority of the time. I'm looking for more than a few anecdotes and your own take on it, because they don't match up with my anecdotes and my own take on it.
One last note.... notice how I gave examples of actual events where minorities excluded whites, including how the whites felt about it (Rasmussen Reports), and how the white votes changed in 2012 and 2016. So far, all I am getting from you are your perspective from your experiences..... recall what I said.....
You make a lot of claims like this that are supported by your feelings, and not the real evidence. White vote didn't change much from 2012 to 2016. Donald Trump won the white vote by almost exactly the same margin as Mitt Romney did. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/)
"Trump won white voters by a margin almost identical to that of Mitt Romney, who lost the popular vote to Barack Obama in 2012. White non-Hispanic voters preferred Trump over Clinton by 21 percentage points (58% to 37%), according to the exit poll conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool. Romney won whites by 20 percentage points in 2012 (59% to 39%)."
we see the shift from reason and rational argument to personal experience and testimony, which forms the basics of identity politics: perspectives of social groups with which people identify.
You've provided me with a couple anecdotes . . . which you've used personal experience and testimony to draw conclusions from. There appears to be no actual data supporting your claims. Hence why I was asking for evidence, which you have failed to provide so far.
-
Guitar, you raised many good points, I will attempt to address them one by one (per post).
First, let's do colleges progressive bias and see if any "widespread study" supports this assertion. I present to you a study about the social and personality psychologists who contribute to the basis of progressive movements and campus policies today, and show that indeed there is a systematic bias against conservatives among the scholars themselves.
The following is largely from 538, the original contains many other studies investigating a systematic liberal bias against conservatives.
A survey (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologists-looked-in-the-mirror-and-saw-a-bunch-of-liberals/) of more than 500 social and personality psychologists published in 2012 found that only 6 percent identified as conservative overall, though there was more diversity on economic and foreign policy issues.1 The survey also found that 37.5 percent of respondents expressed a willingness to discriminate against conservative colleagues when making hiring decisions. Psychologists, it appears, tend to fall on the liberal end of the political spectrum.
Social psychology’s left tilt (https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans)has been widely (https://pages.uncc.edu/richard-mcanulty/wp-content/uploads/sites/268/2013/09/Redding_SociopoliticalDiversity.Psychology.pdf) discussed (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sound-science-sound-policy/201411/is-social-psychology-biased-against-conservatives), yet it has been difficult to measure how political leanings influence the work that the field produces. But a new study has tried to quantify just that, and it found that social psychologists assess conservatives differently than liberals. It also found that scientists were aware of the potential for problems and willing to acknowledge them. The results confirm that a lack of political diversity within psychology may bias its findings on political issues.
The new study, by an international team of researchers, will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and had two parts.
.
.
.
The effect sizes they found were “not huge,” Uhlmann said, but they were present. “For a randomly chosen abstract there’s about a 60 percent chance of it describing liberals more favorably than conservatives, and a 56 percent chance of it explaining conservatives more,” he said. (If there were no difference, you’d expect both numbers to be 50 percent.)
These differences are “statistically small, but the practical significance is potentially high (https://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Greenwald,Banaji&Nosek.JPSP.2015.pdf),” Uhlmann said. Most effect sizes in social psychology are quite small, he said, but when they occur across society (or an entire field), their consequences can add up.
The abstract (https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Eitan_et_al_in_press_Politics_in_Science.pdf) of the new study reads:
The present investigation provides the first systematic empirical tests for the role of politics in academic research. In a large sample of scientific abstracts from the field of social psychology, we find both evaluative differences, such that conservatives are described more negatively than liberals, and explanatory differences, such that conservatism is more likely to be the focus of explanation than liberalism.
and its conclusion
The present research informs this discussion by providing the first empirical evidence of systematic effects of political values on research reports in a scientific field.
I showed you there is a systematic bias among the scholars, who are liberal leaning and are biased against conservatives. These scholars, their works go on to influence (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/applying-psychology-to-public-policy) policies (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13876980108412655?journalCode=fcpa20) directly, resulting in a predominately left leaning (liberal), if not progressive, culture in colleges.
Now obviously we don't know how many of those people are radical progressives and how many simply liberal. Yet we tend to observe the presence of radical progressives on campus, which suggests that's where they congregate. At the very minimum, this new widespread study, in addition to old ones, provides some support to my assertion that the radical progressive (due to the silent majority phenomenon) doctrines are institutionalized in colleges whose policies were influenced by these scholars and their work.
caution regarding the result:
Alice Eagly, a psychologist at Northwestern University, called it “a good demonstration of some bias” but cautioned that “it’s a very narrow demonstration” that focused on a single type of bias: in-group bias, the tendency to favor one’s own group. “This must not be portrayed as a big demonstration that psychology has a liberal bias, because it’s a very, very narrow demonstration of how people think of liberals and how they think of conservatives,” Eagly said.
Yes, a very narrow demonstration was made to ensure the results are robust, but taken together with previous studies where "37.5 percent of respondents expressed a willingness to discriminate against conservative colleagues when making hiring decisions" it not only tell you there is bias, but discrimination is also likely.
More studies need to be done to investigate further, but this very first wide scale study leans toward my assertion.
-
That's quite a stretch. Your argument is that colleges skew left (so far so good), therefore they are bastions of exclusionary anti-white policy (that's the unproven off the rails bit that I am having trouble accepting as fact). You could probably support the thesis that conservatives on campus have a harder time though.
-
anisotropy's post was the best I've ever seen on the political boards here; it shall be emblazoned on the 69-dollar bill once Trump is reelected (for life).
The link of the rise of Trump to post-modernism is highly relevant but it's interesting to consider what underlies that trend: the West has been unusually successful since the Age of Reason in developing technological, scientific, and institutional strengths that have yielded an ever-growing surplus of wealth and relative security that has allowed for the insulated curation of garbage-ideologies such as post-modernism (even if correct, post-modernism is self-defeating). Robin Hanson describes our era as the dream time (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/this-is-the-dream-time.html):
When our distant descendants think about our era, however, differences will loom larger. Yes they will see that we were more like them in knowing more things, and in having less contact with a wild nature. But our brief period of very rapid growth and discovery and our globally integrated economy and culture will be quite foreign to them. Yet even these differences will pale relative to one huge difference: our lives are far more dominated by consequential delusions: wildly false beliefs and non-adaptive values that matter. While our descendants may explore delusion-dominated virtual realities, they will well understand that such things cannot be real, and don’t much influence history. In contrast, we live in the brief but important “dreamtime” when delusions drove history. Our descendants will remember our era as the one where the human capacity to sincerely believe crazy non-adaptive things, and act on those beliefs, was dialed to the max.
Of course, there is the idea that a truly accurate perception of reality is generally a mal-adaptive trait (from a biological evolutionary fitness perspective and probably also in the mimetic sense), in which case, Karl Popper may have been peak Popper and we are going to descend into an oblivion dominated by the Twitteratti, Fake News (tm), and irate virtue-signaling circle-jerks.
-
That's quite a stretch. Your argument is that colleges skew left (so far so good), therefore they are bastions of exclusionary anti-white policy (that's the unproven off the rails bit that I am having trouble accepting as fact). You could probably support the thesis that conservatives on campus have a harder time though.
fair enough, my "college bias" bit so far was only meant to support the thesis that conservatives on campus are being marginalized (I hesitate to say discriminated against).
The exclusionary against white (on campus and in general) thesis comes next. I think we are both reasonable people, so I will do us both justice and present my points as well supported as I can. Thank you for your patience.
anisotropy's post was the best I've ever seen on the political boards here; it shall be emblazoned on the 69-dollar bill once Trump is reelected (for life).
I am not sure how to respond.... was it sarcasm? was it mockery? was it serious? hmmm
But yes, Hanson has done great work regarding bias, I must confess I find his "financial stake" idea interesting. Back when I was working (oil exploration), a "game" the management would do was to ask the exploration team how much % of their salary they were willing to bet on the new prospect, which shares a similar vein.
-
Sorry, I was serious but also imagining Trump's re-election and issuance of a $69-bill called the "Stormy"
Hanson seems to expect all of the irrational decadent excesses of the present to self-correct--which seems optimistic--but I guess it's rational for a rationalist to presume such an outcome.
-
This seems like a lot of words to absolve Republicans of their blame for voting for an unstable idiot. I had to vote for Trump because freshmen at Middlebury College are mean and some psychology professors are kind of biased? Sure-I bet that's why Stan the retired cop in Indiana voted for him. He's totally scared of offending those SJW at Middlebury.
It's quite a contortion to say that the political discourse is fact-free and then just slide right on by President Birther, the Fox News empire, and the climate change and evolution-denying Republican party to land on Middlebury college students as the epicenter of the Death of Facts. If only those Middlebury SJW knew how powerful they were. Do you suppose they also are responsible for conservatives not believing in evolution?
It's time for the party of personal responsibilityTM to take some. If you voted for Donald Trump, that's on you. It's not my fault, it's not Obama's fault, it's not Hillary's fault, and it's not the fault of the members of The Middlebury College SJW Drum Circle and Pronoun Police. We warned you. Indeed, we told you so.
-
Doesn’t the lack of conservative politics on a college campus kind of make sense? Young people are generally more liberal. Besides, what is conservatism after all but the idea of strictly interpreting the constitution and generally holding to the status quo. Isn’t that mindset kind of at odds with education, research and discovery? Most of the new ideas that Peterson (for example) talks about has the basic end goal of well....not doing anything because they believe civil rights in it current form is misguided. Gender and racial differences are what they are, inherent, so lets just not change anything and let people hire who they want....etc... However, many people, particularly minorities and women, are on campus today because of those civil rights initiatives, so the bias is kind of built in because those programs benefited them directly.
It’s kind of funny when you think about it. The same people that want to end affirmative action for women and minorities seem to want to implement something like it on college campuses for conservatives. You would think that irony might mean that conservatives would have some understanding and empathy.
Now all that being said, people who try to keep conservatives from speaking on campus at all are hilariously stupid and repressive, but like others in this thread have suggested, this is probably a bit overblown in the same fashion that the racist assholes in Charlottesville don’t represent the entire GOP. It makes good headlines.
I was a conservative back in my college days and never really felt discriminated against, although I was definitely a minority. I did get some hate mail when I posted a conservative article in the college newspaper, but I didn’t really care.
-
This seems like a lot of words to absolve Republicans of their blame for voting for an unstable idiot. I had to vote for Trump because freshmen at Middlebury College are mean and some psychology professors are kind of biased? Sure-I bet that's why Stan the retired cop in Indiana voted for him. He's totally scared of offending those SJW at Middlebury.
It's quite a contortion to say that the political discourse is fact-free and then just slide right on by President Birther, the Fox News empire, and the climate change and evolution-denying Republican party to land on Middlebury college students as the epicenter of the Death of Facts. If only those Middlebury SJW knew how powerful they were. Do you suppose they also are responsible for conservatives not believing in evolution?
It's time for the party of personal responsibilityTM to take some. If you voted for Donald Trump, that's on you. It's not my fault, it's not Obama's fault, it's not Hillary's fault, and it's not the fault of the members of The Middlebury College SJW Drum Circle and Pronoun Police. We warned you. Indeed, we told you so.
/end thread. Nice face punch.
-
I was a conservative back in my college days and never really felt discriminated against, although I was definitely a minority. I did get some hate mail when I posted a conservative article in the college newspaper, but I didn’t really care.
I received hate mail when I posted a radical, socialist, op-ed in the college newspaper. This was at a liberal, urban, campus, too, but the Greeks were fairly powerful.
-
That's quite a stretch. Your argument is that colleges skew left (so far so good), therefore they are bastions of exclusionary anti-white policy (that's the unproven off the rails bit that I am having trouble accepting as fact). You could probably support the thesis that conservatives on campus have a harder time though.
fair enough, my "college bias" bit so far was only meant to support the thesis that conservatives on campus are being marginalized (I hesitate to say discriminated against).
I guess I'm not seeing why this information is particularly important though. Most professions tilt either conservative or liberal.
If you're a member of a surgical practice there's a 70% chance of you being Republican. If you work in the fossil fuel industry there's a 90% chance of you being Republican. (http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/ (http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/)) In any of the many professions that tilt more conservative than liberal, liberals are more likely to be marginalized. In any of the many professions that tilt more liberal than conservative, conservatives are more likely to be marginalized. That's just a byproduct of how people behave socially - tending to prefer those of their own 'tribe'.
Unless you're arguing that somehow when the left does it it's worse in some way than when the right does it?
I was a conservative back in my college days and never really felt discriminated against, although I was definitely a minority. I did get some hate mail when I posted a conservative article in the college newspaper, but I didn’t really care.
I received hate mail when I posted a radical, socialist, op-ed in the college newspaper. This was at a liberal, urban, campus, too, but the Greeks were fairly powerful.
You don't even have to be radical. A quick google search shows that death threats and hate mail from the right are pretty common when someone is publicly arguing for gun control, or explaining climate change, or supporting a woman's right to choose, etc. Both sides have many idiots who will attempt to force other people to obey their point of view by threatening them.
-
That's quite a stretch. Your argument is that colleges skew left (so far so good), therefore they are bastions of exclusionary anti-white policy (that's the unproven off the rails bit that I am having trouble accepting as fact). You could probably support the thesis that conservatives on campus have a harder time though.
fair enough, my "college bias" bit so far was only meant to support the thesis that conservatives on campus are being marginalized (I hesitate to say discriminated against).
I guess I'm not seeing why this information is particularly important though. Most professions tilt either conservative or liberal.
If you're a member of a surgical practice there's a 70% chance of you being Republican. If you work in the fossil fuel industry there's a 90% chance of you being Republican. (http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/ (http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/)) In any of the many professions that tilt more conservative than liberal, liberals are more likely to be marginalized. In any of the many professions that tilt more liberal than conservative, conservatives are more likely to be marginalized. That's just a byproduct of how people behave socially - tending to prefer those of their own 'tribe'.
Unless you're arguing that somehow when the left does it it's worse in some way than when the right does it?
I was a conservative back in my college days and never really felt discriminated against, although I was definitely a minority. I did get some hate mail when I posted a conservative article in the college newspaper, but I didn’t really care.
I received hate mail when I posted a radical, socialist, op-ed in the college newspaper. This was at a liberal, urban, campus, too, but the Greeks were fairly powerful.
You don't even have to be radical. A quick google search shows that death threats and hate mail from the right are pretty common when someone is publicly arguing for gun control, or explaining climate change, or supporting a woman's right to choose, etc. Both sides have many idiots who will attempt to force other people to obey their point of view by threatening them.
That’s true. I’ve gotten death and rape threats for saying Trump is a terrible president.
-
The sector you work in is very important, because the non-tech people are much more likely to work with media and organize social movements. Tech people tend to keep our opinions to ourselves as we focus on exploring the physical realities (their respective trade) instead of politics.
This post will explore and investigate if there is any measureable basis to assert if and how progressives movements alienate other groups (with a focus on whites) on campus and in general.
Recap from last post: we agreed on colleges indeed skew left, and that conservatives on campus have a harder time.
What exactly constitutes as having a harder time on campus? And is it only the conservatives likely to have a harder time?
I propose that if there is indeed discrimination (real or perceived) on campus, the issue of free speech would stand out, and that is where we should look for possible data. We have established that the colleges do indeed have a systematic left tilt, so one could reasonably expect any discrimination would show up as a "censorship against the right". Yet the reported anecdotal incidents, including Wilfrid Laurier, Evergreen, NYU, Yale, and many more, suggests moderates, and even liberals, are not immune to the institutional radical progressive identity politics.
In the 2017 Cato/YouGov (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#41)Free Speech survey (N=2300, 769 being college students), Strong liberals (52%), racial minorities (54%), stand out with slim majorities who believe it’s more important for colleges to prohibit offensive and biased speech on campus. Conversely, majorities of regular liberals (66%), conservatives (73%), and white Americans (73%) think colleges need to expose students to a wide variety of perspectives even if they are offensive or prejudiced.
We now have data suggesting a group of minorities, consisting of mostly strong liberals (diff term, but likely radical progressives) and racial minorities promote (with a slim majority) the idea of censoring "offensive and biased speech", while the vast majority of other groups, liberals, moderates, conservatives, and whites alike are strongly against such idea. Note we have not yet explored what represents as "offensive and biased speech", which I will get to later.
But does censorship actually exist? Indeed, most people (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#35)outside of the strongly liberal group believe that PC is a problem and it silences necessary discussions and stops them from saying what they believe. This suggests the progressives are no longer "in sync" with the rest of the population, and they are now causing resentment even among the liberal group (near 50%). If there were no observed "ideology censorship", one would expect the lines to be either flat or looks like a tent /''''''\. Instead we are seeing the classic scissor chart, implies most people think censorship is high and ideology based.
A sizeable portion of whites voters (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2016/02/05/130647/what-about-white-voters/) had voted for the Dems between 1976-2008, with a mean of ~40%. The Progressives are now alienating a very significant portion of these white voters, who are likely liberal and moderate, through PC "censorships" and movements.
To be fair, whites had long felt they had been subjected to "reverse racism" since the 70s as a direct response of affirmative and race based policies. I say felt, because most data still show whites are still dominating various competitions for grants, scholarships, and admissions (although an argument could be made regarding white men vs white women). If anything, Asians, are the biggest "net loser" of affirmative and race based policies in recent decades. But as we've come to realize, when identity politics get involved, people place perception above reality.
In a multi-decade (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20sommers.pdf)study published in 2011 (N=209), shows that several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. These changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.
It is unfortunate that the study was published in 2011 and predates the latest wave of social justice movements (BML, gender issues, refugees, white privilege debates, etc), and we are unable to judge if these events altered whites perception of anti-white bias in any way. However, a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll indicates that half of all Americans, 57 percent of all white people, and 66 percent of the white working-class believe that discrimination against white people is as big a problem in America as discrimination against black people.
It is reasonable then, that given the markedly increased percentage of whites who view them as being discriminated against in recent years, if we were to remake the same chart (fig 1) today, the "whites rating anti-white bias" would be higher than before, perhaps between 6-7.
The 2011 study attributes white's anti-white perception to the their belief on the zero-sum nature of racism. While I do not personally subscribe to that view regarding racism and supports the view of Justice Powell, the practical nature of various affirmative and race based policies are indeed zero-sum (in the immediate result) in nature, given limited resources. This study situates specific claims of persecution (exclusion)by White Americans in a broader belief in a new, generalized anti-White bias.
We will now go back and focus on the nature of offensive and biased speech, as defined by various groups. In the same 2017 Cato/YouGov survey (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#7), it is found that among Dems (which I relate to progressives, liberals, and some moderates), there is a whopping 28% point gap in "should it be illegal to say offensive things about blacks vs whites", taking first place and last place respectively. I should add, jews and latinos also out scored whites by at least 13%, more than the biggest gap on the Reps side.
On the Reps (likely includes some moderates, conservatives, and ultra conservatives. where whites make up 83% of total Reps (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/21/a-bright-spot-for-republicans-among-millennials-young-white-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4d0828878441)on avg) side, there is a measly 3% point gap regarding white vs black (white outscores by 3%), the biggest gap was between military and LGBT group, which was 12%. All races received relatively similar scores.
Another recent survey N=994 (https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/01/29/racial-attitudes-differ-ideology-class) shows whites, as a group, places the least amount of importance on their sense of identity (last graph). While 16% whites say it's very important, 70% of blacks and 40% of latinos say it's very important. Obviously there are many historical and cultural reasons for this, but the study nonetheless suggests that whites tend to "operate" under a relatively color-blind mindset, as far as identities are concerned.
It is known human tend to reciprocate kindness and inclusion (can't find the paper, but this is not important), whites are no exception (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534702). The five studies (https://www.cswac.org/what-about-me/) taken together show first that white people associate the concept of multiculturalism with exclusion. However, this association can be lessened if white people are explicitly framed as included in multiculturalism. Due to their relatively color-blind mindset, the whites are less likely than people of color to incorporate multiculturalism as part of their self-concept and this contributes to the finding that white people are less likely to support diversity efforts. If one does not consider color as part of one's identity, what logical basis is there for one to support efforts based on colors?
The findings clearly suggest that to get everyone on board for a diversity effort, explicit attention must be given to including white people. The authors make the practical argument that little will change unless white people are on board. Unless white people feel included, they will likely not support “diversity efforts.”
MLK understood that, Obama understood that, the progressives today don't. Not only are they pushing their agendas on campus, at the expense of all other less radical groups, they are also creating social movements and policies that are specifically alienating whites. ALM could have very well been a reactionary slogan, but BLM by its very name makes whites think they are not included. Their intention to explicitly make it illegal to say offensive things to blacks might have been good, but there should not be a massive gap between whites and all other racial groups. I have shown that when whites feel alienated or discriminated against because of identity politics or w/e (and they do), they will be very resistant and not helpful, and as we saw, they went to trump.
Guitar, I have now shown you data that suggest white people as a group do feel excluded and discriminated against, its no longer just anecdotes. What's more, I showed it's no longer just conservatives, but also moderates and liberals being censored against. I have also shown whites are less likely to identify with color, and tend to be on the "censored" end when it comes to free speech on campus and in general. I have also shown whites do become more supportive when they feel included.
-
The findings clearly suggest that to get everyone on board for a diversity effort, explicit attention must be given to including white people. The authors make the practical argument that little will change unless white people are on board. Unless white people feel included, they will likely not support “diversity efforts.”
How are white people not included in diversity efforts? What does it mean to "not be included"?
You also still have a very skewed and flawed view of American history which I urge you to rectify. Read a little more about MLK besides what the common knowledge is. Towards the end of his life, his views took a shift based on his experiences trying the more conciliatory approach:
"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”
He also got murdered for all his efforts at working with white people.
Again, I would encourage you to read "Stamped from the Beginning" by Kendi if you want a better understanding of modern black culture and justice movements.
Tell you what: I promise to read your book if you read mine.
The Cato statistics are interesting, but I got a different read on them. Taking individual questions from that survey is misleading because that survey also clearly shows that conservatives are perfectly willing to demolish free speech when there are certain things they don't like
"Republicans (54%) are more likely than Democrats (38%) to say a business executive should be fired if she or he burned the American flag during a weekend political protest.
Republicans (65%) are far more likely than Democrats (19%) to say NFL players should be fired for refusing to stand for the national anthem before games."
Is this not censoring and punishing free speech? To post a source and cherry pick the results is intellectually lazy and dishonest.
A sizeable portion of whites voters had voted for the Dems between 1976-2008, with a mean of ~40%. The Progressives are now alienating a very significant portion of these white voters, who are likely liberal and moderate, through PC "censorships" and movements.
I don't buy this, and you show no data to support it. Picking out studies doesn't show that this is a problem of any real significance. And it also doesn't show the flip side - how many Republicans are leaving the GOP because of the perception that the party is becoming increasingly racist and corrupt. My guess is those influences counter each other fairly equally.
Another recent survey N=994 shows whites, as a group, places the least amount of importance on their sense of identity (last graph). While 16% whites say it's very important, 70% of blacks and 40% of latinos say it's very important. Obviously there are many historical and cultural reasons for this, but the study nonetheless suggests that whites tend to "operate" under a relatively color-blind mindset, as far as identities are concerned.
Wow...you really lean on the word "suggests" a lot to extrapolate your own conclusions from sources. Quoting a source, and then making up a conclusion that you want to believe doesn't make it true.
Another question: Do you believe in institutional racism?
What I am reading from your posts and seeing in a lot of your arguments, reading between the lines, is that a lot of white people are taking offense at the fact that, yes, they might be a bit racist. This actually explains a lot of your outrage at me up thread. Even if they personally harbor no ill will against people who are of a different race, they are living in a society that is structurally racist. This is provoking an emotional response because in our society, being accused of being a racist is a brutal drop in status. This is activating a sense of victim hood that is overriding the empathy that someone might normally have towards other people. That is actually a shame, because in my opinion, almost every person alive, and I include myself in this, is capable of being racist. We are at least complicit in this, because a lot of the benefits we enjoy were built on human suffering based in horribly racist ideology. Instead of just accepting this, and attempting to help rectify the situation, white people are claiming that they are the true victims here, and that their concerns are more important than the human rights of other racial groups.
-
golden1, you are more reasonable today, so I will talk to you. and yes, I seem nice.
We don't need to trade at all, "Stamped" has been on my list since last year, I am just very behind, because, you know, I spend all my time fighting with random people on the internet.
I will address your concerns regarding anti-black racism once I finish the conversation with Guitar, as they do not directly relate to my identity politics gone bad thesis. one person at a time, I can only take so much. Who knows how long that might take.
For the last time, I am not white. And if you start talking about whites killing others again (focusing excessively on sins of past generations), I will ignore you again. I understand Kendi's central thesis is that there is a racist in everyone, as you suggested, but I am not seeing the merit of such thinking yet.
-
This is a current trending argument among the conservative intelligentsia. "It's not us; it's the progressives that are making us 'move further right.'*"
It denies people self agency by suggesting that their vote was entirely predicated on some liberal college students or tweeters or Hollywood. For those who make the argument, it provides them a shield and cover for their behavior, from Charlottesville to Pizzagate to separating children from their parents.
It's both a tactic and an excuse, and perhaps an excuse based on guilt. Not everyone can be a purely ideological Stephen Miller.
* Bari Weiss tweet, 5/11/2018
** Someone else expressed this more elegantly but I couldn't find it. Wexler? Wenchsenior?
-
For the last time, I am not white. And if you start talking about whites killing others again (focusing excessively on sins of past generations), I will ignore you again.
Why? Why are so emotional about this? Why are you ignoring the negative aspects of “white” culture?
Would you be okay about talking about how whites are killing blacks in your generation? Why do you try to remove historical context from your arguments? Are you afraid?
It’s always funny to watch “rationalists” debate because they try to deny core aspects of human nature by trying to appear calm and unruffled, above the fray, but it is always easy to find where their bias is.
I don’t care if you are white or purple. I am white and arguing against the white identity politics you espouse. Just like how many women are anti-feminists because they benefit from the current power structure, many minorities benefit from white supremacy if they decide to side with their masters. Malcolm X said it better.
https://youtu.be/fwgJewsy2BI
-
The sector you work in is very important, because the non-tech people are much more likely to work with media and organize social movements. Tech people tend to keep our opinions to ourselves as we focus on exploring the physical realities (their respective trade) instead of politics.
As was shown in the link that I posted (http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/ (http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/)) though, most tech jobs are liberal . . . not conservative. By your own reasoning then, liberals (and by extension, their views) are likely underrepresented in politics?
Recap from last post: we agreed on colleges indeed skew left, and that conservatives on campus have a harder time.
What exactly constitutes as having a harder time on campus? And is it only the conservatives likely to have a harder time?
I propose that if there is indeed discrimination (real or perceived) on campus, the issue of free speech would stand out, and that is where we should look for possible data. We have established that the colleges do indeed have a systematic left tilt, so one could reasonably expect any discrimination would show up as a "censorship against the right". Yet the reported anecdotal incidents, including Wilfrid Laurier, Evergreen, NYU, Yale, and many more, suggests moderates, and even liberals, are not immune to the institutional radical progressive identity politics.
Hang on for a second. The plural of anecdote is not 'data'. I can find more than five instances of conservatives and conservative groups explicitly excluding black people. Yet, I would be a fool to claim that all conservatives are racist. The same logic needs to apply to your argument against liberals.
I agreed that conservatives probably have a 'harder time' on university campuses because there are likely to be more liberals on a campus. By the same token, I'd argue that liberals probably have a harder time working as surgeons, or in the oil industry . . . since there are likely to be more liberals in these fields. You have yet to have shown anything beyond a few anecdotes regarding your 'cencorship against the right' argument. I am still waiting for data that proves the initial conditions you're basing your theory on.
In the 2017 Cato/YouGov (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#41)Free Speech survey (N=2300, 769 being college students), Strong liberals (52%), racial minorities (54%), stand out with slim majorities who believe it’s more important for colleges to prohibit offensive and biased speech on campus. Conversely, majorities of regular liberals (66%), conservatives (73%), and white Americans (73%) think colleges need to expose students to a wide variety of perspectives even if they are offensive or prejudiced.
We now have data suggesting a group of minorities, consisting of mostly strong liberals (diff term, but likely radical progressives) and racial minorities promote (with a slim majority) the idea of censoring "offensive and biased speech", while the vast majority of other groups, liberals, moderates, conservatives, and whites alike are strongly against such idea. Note we have not yet explored what represents as "offensive and biased speech", which I will get to later.
With respect, a study by a think tank bought and paid for by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers is obviously going to have some bias issues in this discussion. There are easy to see flaws designed into the study, likely because the conclusion was written before the data was actually collected. To take a look at one item at random:
Under the heading "Liberals more likely to say speech is offensive" we have the following questions:
- A person who says homosexuality is a sin
- A person who says that women should not be in combat roles in the military
- A person who says that all illegal immigrants should be deported
- A person who says that Islam is taking over Europe
Yet, I'm willing to bet that by changing the 'speech is offensive' questions to:
- A person who says that America's foreign policy hurts
- A person who says that Christianity is a danger to rational thought
- A person who provides information to perform safe home abortions
- A person who discusses the benefits of communism over capitalism
you would get opposite results.
As a matter of fact, it's pretty easy to find surveys not funded by people in the business of influencing politics that prove the exact opposite of what the Cato Instutute found:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/03/05/free-speech-survey-leftists-are-generally-more-tolerant-than-conservatives/ (https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/03/05/free-speech-survey-leftists-are-generally-more-tolerant-than-conservatives/)
While I applaud your attempt at finding data, providing bad data is worse than just providing a collection of anecdotes.
But does censorship actually exist? Indeed, most people (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#35)outside of the strongly liberal group believe that PC is a problem and it silences necessary discussions and stops them from saying what they believe. This suggests the progressives are no longer "in sync" with the rest of the population, and they are now causing resentment even among the liberal group (near 50%). If there were no observed "ideology censorship", one would expect the lines to be either flat or looks like a tent /''''''\. Instead we are seeing the classic scissor chart, implies most people think censorship is high and ideology based.
Oh look. The Cato instutute again . . . and . . . shockingly . . . they've produced another study that shows exactly what the Koch brothers want it to show.
Here's a study (not funded by the Koch brothers) that shows that creativity is enhanced by PC culture, and that rather than silencing discussion it actually improves things: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1921&context=articles (https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1921&context=articles).
A sizeable portion of whites voters (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2016/02/05/130647/what-about-white-voters/) had voted for the Dems between 1976-2008, with a mean of ~40%. The Progressives are now alienating a very significant portion of these white voters, who are likely liberal and moderate, through PC "censorships" and movements.
Hang on. You've already said multiple times that we can't talk about things that happened long ago in the past with regards to the unequal treatment that white people have given people of colour, women, and gay folks. But now you're telling me to look at voting records from 42 years ago? Are we going to discuss the past, or are we only allowed to discuss it when it supports your conclusions?
To be fair, whites had long felt they had been subjected to "reverse racism" since the 70s as a direct response of affirmative and race based policies. I say felt, because most data still show whites are still dominating various competitions for grants, scholarships, and admissions (although an argument could be made regarding white men vs white women). If anything, Asians, are the biggest "net loser" of affirmative and race based policies in recent decades. But as we've come to realize, when identity politics get involved, people place perception above reality.
In a multi-decade (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20sommers.pdf)study published in 2011 (N=209), shows that several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. These changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.
It is unfortunate that the study was published in 2011 and predates the latest wave of social justice movements (BML, gender issues, refugees, white privilege debates, etc), and we are unable to judge if these events altered whites perception of anti-white bias in any way. However, a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll indicates that half of all Americans, 57 percent of all white people, and 66 percent of the white working-class believe that discrimination against white people is as big a problem in America as discrimination against black people.
It is reasonable then, that given the markedly increased percentage of whites who view them as being discriminated against in recent years, if we were to remake the same chart (fig 1) today, the "whites rating anti-white bias" would be higher than before, perhaps between 6-7.
The 2011 study attributes white's anti-white perception to the their belief on the zero-sum nature of racism. While I do not personally subscribe to that view regarding racism and supports the view of Justice Powell, the practical nature of various affirmative and race based policies are indeed zero-sum (in the immediate result) in nature, given limited resources. This study situates specific claims of persecution (exclusion)by White Americans in a broader belief in a new, generalized anti-White bias.
Agreed, white people have long felt that they were subjected to "reverse racism" that doesn't exist. Also agreed, that many people place perception above reality. I suspect that might actually be why we're having this discussion.
It's not surprising that the group of people who once were able to rely on racism as a tactic to get ahead in life feel that equality is negatively impacting them. It is. To a certain degree, yes, there is a zero-sum aspect to many situations. White people can no longer rely on racism as their edge to win, now they have to work harder. Almost as hard as a black guy in their situation would. That is going to be tough for a group of people accustomed to the benefits of privilege. It's not indicative of a problem though, but is a reason why white people accustomed to privilege afforded by racist actions and policy would feel hard done by. I don't know how to solve their problem.
We will now go back and focus on the nature of offensive and biased speech, as defined by various groups. In the same 2017 Cato/YouGov survey (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#7), it is found that among Dems (which I relate to progressives, liberals, and some moderates), there is a whopping 28% point gap in "should it be illegal to say offensive things about blacks vs whites", taking first place and last place respectively. I should add, jews and latinos also out scored whites by at least 13%, more than the biggest gap on the Reps side.
On the Reps (likely includes some moderates, conservatives, and ultra conservatives. where whites make up 83% of total Reps (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/21/a-bright-spot-for-republicans-among-millennials-young-white-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4d0828878441)on avg) side, there is a measly 3% point gap regarding white vs black (white outscores by 3%), the biggest gap was between military and LGBT group, which was 12%. All races received relatively similar scores.
Oh hey. It's the Koch brother's private research publishing house . . . the Cato institute again. Sigh.
So, I live in a country where hate speech actually is banned. And you know what? It's not oppressive. It's hard for me to get too worked up about this issue. Especially when you're just pointing out that some people don't like hate speech . . . but literally nobody in the US is currently prevented from saying what he or she wants to.
Another recent survey N=994 (https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/01/29/racial-attitudes-differ-ideology-class) shows whites, as a group, places the least amount of importance on their sense of identity (last graph). While 16% whites say it's very important, 70% of blacks and 40% of latinos say it's very important. Obviously there are many historical and cultural reasons for this, but the study nonetheless suggests that whites tend to "operate" under a relatively color-blind mindset, as far as identities are concerned. [/quote]
From the same study:
(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-01-29/racefixed.png)
This would seem to argue that conservative whites have extremely explicit colour biases as far as black identity is concerned. If you're black, you're a lazy taker from society . . . not a contributor.
It is known human tend to reciprocate kindness and inclusion (can't find the paper, but this is not important), whites are no exception (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534702). The five studies (https://www.cswac.org/what-about-me/) taken together show first that white people associate the concept of multiculturalism with exclusion. However, this association can be lessened if white people are explicitly framed as included in multiculturalism. Due to their relatively color-blind mindset, the whites are less likely than people of color to incorporate multiculturalism as part of their self-concept and this contributes to the finding that white people are less likely to support diversity efforts. If one does not consider color as part of one's identity, what logical basis is there for one to support efforts based on colors?
The findings clearly suggest that to get everyone on board for a diversity effort, explicit attention must be given to including white people. The authors make the practical argument that little will change unless white people are on board. Unless white people feel included, they will likely not support “diversity efforts.”
People tend to be very aligned with their paycheck. As has already been mentioned, white people need to work harder for jobs and to make money if they can't rely on racism to let them win over a large portion of the population. A certain segment of this population will never support multiculturalism, because it means that they have to work as hard as an immigrant . . . and years of privileged have given them different expectations.
I don't know how to solve the lazy white guy problem. I don't believe that rolling back diversity and equality is a valid plan though.
MLK understood that, Obama understood that, the progressives today don't. Not only are they pushing their agendas on campus, at the expense of all other less radical groups, they are also creating social movements and policies that are specifically alienating whites. ALM could have very well been a reactionary slogan, but BLM by its very name makes whites think they are not included. Their intention to explicitly make it illegal to say offensive things to blacks might have been good, but there should not be a massive gap between whites and all other racial groups. I have shown that when whites feel alienated or discriminated against because of identity politics or w/e (and they do), they will be very resistant and not helpful, and as we saw, they went to trump.
BLM is a movement related to black people being killed by police officers. Whites are certainly able to march in solidarity and join events . . . but fundamentally, it is not an issue that impacts white people in the same way as black people. It doesn't make any kind of sense that the name should be changed to 'ALM' so that white people feel more included in the discussion of black people being shot by police . . . just as it wouldn't have made any sense to call the 'Black Panthers' the 'Multiracial Inclusive of Whites Panthers' in the 60s.
Who has made it illegal to say anything to anyone? I'm not sure what you're talking about there, as to my knowledge this hasn't happened in the US. Certainly you've provided no examples of it.
Guitar, I have now shown you data that suggest white people as a group do feel excluded and discriminated against, its no longer just anecdotes. What's more, I showed it's no longer just conservatives, but also moderates and liberals being censored against. I have also shown whites are less likely to identify with color, and tend to be on the "censored" end when it comes to free speech on campus and in general. I have also shown whites do become more supportive when they feel included.
You have shown me data that white people unjustly feel discriminated against. You haven't shown anything that demonstrates the existence of censorship and a silencing of free speech (just some questionable studies indicating that some people think there should be more rules regarding censorship). You have not shown that white people are systematically censored anywhere.
I'm sorry, but there needs to be an awful lot of work done before we can confidently agree on the points underpinning your hypothesis.
-
I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.
-
I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.
Oh, yeah. It's a recognition that police departments, in aggregate, treat black (minorities) people differently. Examining the stop & arrest numbers for numerous police departments, including Ferguson, supports this assertion.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/04/us/ferguson-police-department-report.html
-
I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.
Oh, yeah. It's a recognition that police departments, in aggregate, treat black (minorities) people differently. Examining the stop & arrest numbers for numerous police departments, including Ferguson, supports this assertion.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/04/us/ferguson-police-department-report.html
Exactly. This is the whole reason that it's so silly to be saying white people feel disenfranchised because Black Lives Matter is about black people. It's not exclusionary, it's pointing out an existing problem that happens to not impact white people. If white people want to be closer to the issue they need to start being killed on a regular basis without cause by police officers . . . or y'know . . . offer support to the black people who are. Whining that the name is not inclusive enough to white people, and therefore you're not going to try to help black folks who are being murdered by the police is pretty ridiculous.
The term 'snowflake' to describe people with an unwarranted sense of entitlement is typically used by those on the right to describe this sort, isn't it?
-
I am not sure how much weight we can place on the verdantlabs chart, as the data source is merely campaign contribution from the FEC, and we have no way of telling if it is a general representation of America today. You are more than welcome to show me it does though. Also note it's broken down based on party lines, that's an over simplification, a sizeable moderates overlap exist, how is that accounted for?
What do you mean by its not data but a plural of anecdote? What is data then in soc-sci/arts if not plural of anecdote? Also I think you are confusing liberal vs radical progressives. I am not against liberals.
You say I "have yet to have shown anything beyond a few anecdotes regarding my 'cencorship against the right' argument." and you are still waiting for data that proves the initial conditions. Is it because you dismissed the Cato survey, because it's quite clear based on what I presented, "most people (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#35)outside of the strongly liberal group believe that PC is a problem and it silences necessary discussions and stops them from saying what they believe.
Here is the thing, just because it's founded/owned by Kochs, it doesn't automatically disqualify its result. This is the same fallacy both ends use to their own detriment these days. "its on fox, must be garbage (most times yes)" "its on nbc, fake news! (see)". I reject your tribal view of source data.
Cato is by no means ultra-conservative, despite what Kochs are themselves. If anything, Cato is moderate and right center, or as they call it, Libertarian. Earlier up-thread, someone equated the views I got from Washington post, Guardian, Atlantic, and the works of Barbara Epstein to fox news, breitbart, dailykos, simply because they did not like views presented. To be frank, I find this brash dismissal insulting, not to me personally, but to all that worked on these articles, especially to Epstein, who for decades had been a beacon of liberalism. For what its worth, here is what someone wrote (https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Cato-Institute-a-credible-source-Why-or-why-not) about Cato and Kochs.
Here is what the newyorker said about Cato back when the Kochs and Cato were suing each other in 2012. The arch-conservative billionaire Koch Brothers have sued the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington—often mistakenly seen as merely a tentacle, if not mouthpiece, for the Kochtopus—for control of Cato.
You can also go on to media fact check (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cato-institute/)to see they rated it highly factual.
Now, if we are finished disputing the validity of Cato survey simply because its owned by Kochs, we can take a closer look at the robustness of the data, because otherwise there is no point.
-
Earlier up-thread, someone equated the views I got from Washington post, Guardian, Atlantic, and the works of Barbara Epstein to fox news, breitbart, dailykos, simply because they did not like views presented. To be frank, I find this brash dismissal insulting, not to me personally, but to all that worked on these articles, especially to Epstein, who for decades had been a beacon of liberalism.
Strike ONE!
This is incorrect. Pointing out that a few hand-picked articles do not represent the entirety of the college experience in no way equates the WaPo to dailyKos. You made that comparison yourself.
I'm glad you recognize that news sources have different reputations but it's insulting that you aren't good at reading comprehension and then try to blame it on the messenger.
-
I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.
All lives matter too is indeed nonsensical. So really, the choices would be Black Lives Matter Too, and All Lives Matter.
Adding the "too" at the end of BLM would have made it sound much more inclusive. "subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534702)" can make a huge difference in how whites react. The choice to not have a too tagged in the back represents a missed opportunity to me.
-
I am not sure how much weight we can place on the verdantlabs chart, as the data source is merely campaign contribution from the FEC, and we have no way of telling if it is a general representation of America today. You are more than welcome to show me it does though. Also note it's broken down based on party lines, that's an over simplification, a sizeable moderates overlap exist, how is that accounted for?
Fair enough. If you want to argue that the chart is wrong, you're free to do so. It's not really important to my underlying point . . . which is that some industries tilt right, and some left. That has always been the case, so I'm not entirely sure why you're so hung up on universities tilting left.
What do you mean by its not data but a plural of anecdote? What is data then in soc-sci/arts if not plural of anecdote? Also I think you are confusing liberal vs radical progressives. I am not against liberals.
I mean that providing a few publicized news stories (which received press because of how unusual they are) is not indicative of a trend. We're looking for data proving that white people are systematically silenced on University campuses. So far, nothing like that has been shown . . . just a few anecdotes of unusual occurrences.
You have provided data that there are more liberal people in the arts and social sciences. You have provided none for the wild conclusions you've posited though (white people are regularly silenced on university campuses, white people are oppressed by minorities because of equal rights) - which is what I was hoping to find.
You say I "have yet to have shown anything beyond a few anecdotes regarding my 'cencorship against the right' argument." and you are still waiting for data that proves the initial conditions. Is it because you dismissed the Cato survey, because it's quite clear based on what I presented, "most people (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#35)outside of the strongly liberal group believe that PC is a problem and it silences necessary discussions and stops them from saying what they believe.
Here is the thing, just because it's founded/owned by Kochs, it doesn't automatically disqualify its result. This is the same fallacy both ends use to their own detriment these days. "its on fox, must be garbage (most times yes)" "its on nbc, fake news! (see)". I reject your tribal view of source data.
I didn't ignore the Cato study you brought forth. I pointed out how the study you were referencing was very obviously flawed and biased in it's methodology. Yes, I also pointed out that it's deeply politically connected to the Koch brothers . . . because I think that's important to mention as well. Particularly as most of your "data" was coming from this single source. I also twice showed studies not linked to the Koch brothers that refuted what the Koch brothers are claiming.
Cato is by no means ultra-conservative, despite what Kochs are themselves. If anything, Cato is moderate and right center, or as they call it, Libertarian. Earlier up-thread, someone equated the views I got from Washington post, Guardian, Atlantic, and the works of Barbara Epstein to fox news, breitbart, dailykos, simply because they did not like views presented. To be frank, I find this brash dismissal insulting, not to me personally, but to all that worked on these articles, especially to Epstein, who for decades had been a beacon of liberalism. For what its worth, here is what someone wrote (https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Cato-Institute-a-credible-source-Why-or-why-not) about Cato and Kochs.
Here is what the newyorker said about Cato back when the Kochs and Cato were suing each other in 2012. The arch-conservative billionaire Koch Brothers have sued the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington—often mistakenly seen as merely a tentacle, if not mouthpiece, for the Kochtopus—for control of Cato.
You can also go on to media fact check (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cato-institute/)to see they rated it highly factual.
Now, if we are finished disputing the validity of Cato survey simply because its owned by Kochs, we can take a closer look at the robustness of the data, because otherwise there is no point.
I'm not dismissing evidence from this source out of hand. You are linking studies that clearly show manipulation by the researchers to get desired results. Regardless of the validity of the Cato institute data that you source, there's nothing in it that demonstrates evidence of your claim that white people are being silenced on university campuses. There's just a lot of insinuation about the intolerance of people with the liberal mindset.
-
I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.
All lives matter too is indeed nonsensical. So really, the choices would be Black Lives Matter Too, and All Lives Matter.
Adding the "too" at the end of BLM would have made it sound much more inclusive. "subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534702)" can make a huge difference in how whites react. The choice to not have a too tagged in the back represents a missed opportunity to me.
Because white lives have always mattered, but black lives have not. Getting pissy over leaving out a simple word and claiming it somehow shows discrimination against white folks is about a far of a ridiculous reach as you can get. Black people are still dying at the hands of white folks as a result of their skin color yet somehow a word left out of a phrase is what passes for discrimination against whites?!? You gotta be kidding me!
-
I'm not dismissing evidence from this source out of hand. You are linking studies that clearly show manipulation by the researchers to get desired results. Regardless of the validity of the Cato institute data that you source, there's nothing in it that demonstrates evidence of your claim that white people are being silenced on university campuses. There's just a lot of insinuation about the intolerance of people with the liberal mindset.
https://www.aaup.org/comment/11
Research also calls into question anecdotal accounts of instructors penalizing students with conservative viewpoints. Markus Kemmelmeier of the University of Nevada, Reno, along with Cherry Danielson and Jay Basten, conducted longitudinal research on four thousand undergraduate students during their four-year college experiences and found that students with conservative views make the same grades in most classes as their more liberal peers. The only exception was in business classes, where conservative students did slightly better.
[emphasis added]
-
I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.
All lives matter too is indeed nonsensical. So really, the choices would be Black Lives Matter Too, and All Lives Matter.
Adding the "too" at the end of BLM would have made it sound much more inclusive. "subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534702)" can make a huge difference in how whites react. The choice to not have a too tagged in the back represents a missed opportunity to me.
Because white lives have always mattered, but black lives have not. Getting pissy over leaving out a simple word and claiming it somehow shows discrimination against white folks is about a far of a ridiculous reach as you can get. Black people are still dying at the hands of white folks as a result of their skin color yet somehow a word left out of a phrase is what passes for discrimination against whites?!? You gotta be kidding me!
Exactly. We know white lives matter. They always have.
-
I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.
All lives matter too is indeed nonsensical. So really, the choices would be Black Lives Matter Too, and All Lives Matter.
Adding the "too" at the end of BLM would have made it sound much more inclusive. "subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534702)" can make a huge difference in how whites react. The choice to not have a too tagged in the back represents a missed opportunity to me.
Because white lives have always mattered, but black lives have not. Getting pissy over leaving out a simple word and claiming it somehow shows discrimination against white folks is about a far of a ridiculous reach as you can get. Black people are still dying at the hands of white folks as a result of their skin color yet somehow a word left out of a phrase is what passes for discrimination against whites?!? You gotta be kidding me!
I am not getting pissy, I am simply pointing out that it sounds very different to whites and the conclusions from studies (not going to link again, its up-thread) that whites need to be explicitly included or they would feel excluded against.
Now, if you want to dispute the conclusions of the studies or that whites don't see much difference in the BLM wording. you are more than welcome to show me some studies that demonstrate such.
I will make a crappy analogue and you can decide if it has merit.
Say you want to get to a destination (political goal) and you have a map that tells you the easiest way to get there (studies dating back to early 2000s that show whites need to explicitly included for them to get onboard).
Somehow you choose to not follow the map and go the opposite way of what the map says (not explicitly included white), even though plenty of bystanders have cautioned you along the way (both liberal and moderates (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-simon/black-lives-matter-too_b_8316882.html)).
You ended up not reaching the destination, and that's surprising?
ok.
-
An article discussing identity and the Democratic party without the insults:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-rise-of-kamala-harris-tells-us-about-the-democratic-party/
President Trump’s moves kept identity issues at the forefront, too, and gave Democrats an opportunity both to defend groups they view as disadvantaged and to attack the policies of a president they hate.
Now, the question remains: do the Democrats care? Do they double down or try to appeal more to the middle?
-
I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.
All lives matter too is indeed nonsensical. So really, the choices would be Black Lives Matter Too, and All Lives Matter.
Adding the "too" at the end of BLM would have made it sound much more inclusive. "subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534702)" can make a huge difference in how whites react. The choice to not have a too tagged in the back represents a missed opportunity to me.
Because white lives have always mattered, but black lives have not. Getting pissy over leaving out a simple word and claiming it somehow shows discrimination against white folks is about a far of a ridiculous reach as you can get. Black people are still dying at the hands of white folks as a result of their skin color yet somehow a word left out of a phrase is what passes for discrimination against whites?!? You gotta be kidding me!
I am not getting pissy, I am simply pointing out that it sounds very different to whites and the conclusions from studies (not going to link again, its up-thread) that whites need to be explicitly included or they would feel excluded against.
Now, if you want to dispute the conclusions of the studies or that whites don't see much difference in the wording anyway. you are more than welcome to show me some studies that demonstrate such.
I will make a crappy analogue and you can decide if it has merit.
Say you want to get to a destination (political goal) and you have a map that tells you the easiest way to get there (studies dating back to early 2000s that show whites need to explicitly included for them to get onboard).
Somehow you choose to not follow the map and go the opposite way of what the map says (not explicitly included white), even though plenty of bystanders have cautioned you along the way (both liberal and moderates (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-simon/black-lives-matter-too_b_8316882.html)).
You ended up not reaching the destination, and that's surprising?
ok.
Um yeah I saw the survey. But in what universe does that survey conclude whites feel discriminated against? Of course whites are going to align more with "All Lives Matter" over "Black Lives Matter." Because they are not black. Seems pretty damn obvious don't you think? I wouldn't align myself with gay pride since I am not gay. And I sure as shit don't feel excluded from the gay community because of gay pride. Pride for everyone? Hell yeah. But I understand that as a straight white male I've never had to endure discrimination based on my skin color or sexual preference. So why would I or anyone else in the same situation feel the need to be included in something that has nothing to do with them? Why would anyone feel discriminated against by being excluded from a group that suffers actual discrimination on a daily basis?
You are drawing biased conclusions from reports that aren't actually there. White folks feel excluded from groups whereas black people and gay people are excluded from actual civil rights and equality and even the right to just exist. It's like night and day in terms of discrimination. To be honest it just sound like white folks whining because they don't like the ideal of equality for all.
Who knows though, perhaps a 40 something year old guy with no kids will show up on teen mom tomorrow on the basis of discrimination.
-
You are drawing biased conclusions from reports that aren't actually there.
This is very much the feeling I've been getting through the thread. It's why I keep asking for data that supports the conclusions being stated.
-
Interesting arguments. I'm reminded a little bit of the Steven Pinker book, "Enlightenment Now." He also has little use for cultural relativism, campus political correctness and the like.
-
But in what universe does that survey conclude whites feel discriminated against? .
I would argue this one (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20sommers.pdf). It's also up-thread.
In a multi-decade study published in 2011 (N=209), shows that several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. These changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.
"our data are the first to demonstrate that not only do Whites think more progress has been made toward equality than do Blacks, but Whites also now believe that this progress is linked to a new inequality—at their expense."
You can deny whites have any basis to feel this way all you want. but like it or not, that's their perception, and many whites do feel discriminated against. My conclusions are almost copy and pasted from the studies (authors) themselves, how can you say I am "drawing biased conclusions from reports that aren't actually there". These are absurd accusations that suggest either you didn't read the studies, how you missed what the authors said. These are the conclusions from the authors. Examples above, and below.
"The five studies taken together show first that white people associate the concept of multiculturalism with exclusion. However, this association can be lessened if white people are explicitly framed as included in multiculturalism. The whites are less likely than people of color to incorporate multiculturalism as part of their self-concept and this contributes to the finding that white people are less likely to support diversity efforts."
You gave a good personal anecdote, like I said, might you provide some data that refute these conclusions from the studies (authors)?
Namely, 1. whites feel discriminated against, and 2. whites are less likely to support diversity efforts but the association between multiculturalism with exclusion can be lessened if white people are explicated framed as included in multiculturalism
-
Guitar, I reject your assertion that the cato data qualifies as "bad data", but I am willing to have it examined. First , I need to study the Murphy data and see if there are any similarities and oddities.
Could you please show how those are plotted? I am on https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends/Civil%20Liberties?measure=spkrac but cant seem to reproduce the graphs as Murphy did. I am asking because Kurt (https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/03/05/free-speech-survey-leftists-are-generally-more-tolerant-than-conservatives/)also seems confused about what Murphy found.
"Again, I’m a bit confused. The people who are the most censorious of racist speech are those who are slightly liberal, yet those are people who, compared to other liberals, are also most censorious of militarist speech (those at about 2.5 on the scale). "
"One note: deplatforming of college speakers, as judging by the FIRE “disinvitation database”, is being done far more these days by the Left than the Right. That doesn’t comport with Murphy’s finding that the left is the least censorious wing of politics. But this could reflect Murphy’s claim that the most censorious leftists are “a puzzling minority of vaguely leftist activists, who happen to have gained media attention.” It may be those activists who are responsible for the deplatforming."
If anything, Murphy's idea that a "puzzling minority of vaguely leftist activists", who happen to have gained media attention, wish to suppress free speech, matches with Cato's finding that "Strong liberals (52%), racial minorities (54%), stand out with slim majorities who believe it’s more important for colleges to prohibit offensive and biased speech on campus". Economist also reports a 20% minority who thinks it is acceptable to use violence to prevent a “very controversial speaker” from speaking. All three studies identify a small group that wish to suppress free speech.
This is something we need to keep in mind going forward.
What Murphy found is quite unusual and warrants a deep dive into the data to explain the anomalies Kurt mentioned. If you know how Murphy plotted it, it would be really helpful. Thanks.
Sidenote, the economist has a piece (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/10/18/young-college-educated-americans-are-more-accepting-of-controversial-speech)on GSS findings, and sheds further light on our current discussion (since you do not like cato):
"But young Americans who have attended college are in fact more accommodating of controversial speakers, such as avowed racists, than those who have not"
"Views on these issues seem not to have changed much in recent years. That suggests that the campus stunts, disturbing as they may be, afflict only a fraction of students"
"A survey of 3,000 college students by Gallup for the Knight Foundation and the Newseum Institute finds that 78% favour campuses where offensive and biased speech is permitted. A separate study found that even at Yale, a hotbed of student protest, 72% oppose codes that circumscribe speech, compared with 16% in favour. Truly illiberal tendencies are limited to about 20% of college students."
"Truly illiberal tendencies are limited to about 20% of college students. This is the fraction that thinks it is acceptable to use violence to prevent a “very controversial speaker” from speaking,"
"Yet although they may be outnumbered, this vocal minority can have a chilling effect on what everyone else thinks they can say. At Yale, 42% of students (and 71% of conservatives) say they feel uncomfortable giving their opinions on politics, race, religion and gender. Self-censorship becomes more common as students progress through university: 61% of freshmen feel comfortable gabbing about their views, but the same is true of just 56% of sophomores, 49% of juniors and 30% of seniors."
In short, some of Murphy's findings (The people who are the most censorious of racist speech are those who are slightly liberal) are confusing to Kurt and not in accordance with what the Economist and Cato found, I would like to take a look further, might need your help to show me how.
I will address the cornell study later.
-
But in what universe does that survey conclude whites feel discriminated against? .
I would argue this one (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20sommers.pdf). It's also up-thread.
In a multi-decade study published in 2011 (N=209), shows that several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. These changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.
"our data are the first to demonstrate that not only do Whites think more progress has been made toward equality than do Blacks, but Whites also now believe that this progress is linked to a new inequality—at their expense."
You can deny whites have any basis to feel this way all you want. but like it or not, that's their perception, and many whites do feel discriminated against. My conclusions are almost copy and pasted from the studies (authors) themselves, how can you say I am "drawing biased conclusions from reports that aren't actually there". These are absurd accusations that suggest either you didn't read the studies, how you missed what the authors said. These are the conclusions from the authors. Examples above, and below.
"The five studies taken together show first that white people associate the concept of multiculturalism with exclusion. However, this association can be lessened if white people are explicitly framed as included in multiculturalism. The whites are less likely than people of color to incorporate multiculturalism as part of their self-concept and this contributes to the finding that white people are less likely to support diversity efforts."
You gave a good personal anecdote, like I said, might you provide some data that refute these conclusions from the studies (authors)?
Namely, 1. whites feel discriminated against, and 2. whites are less likely to support diversity efforts but the association between multiculturalism with exclusion can be lessened if white people are explicated framed as included in multiculturalism
Essentially whites think they are the new blacks. And the basis for this thought is due to being left out of groups that highlight actual racism against blacks and affirmative action, that's necessary because of actual statistics proving institutional racism against blacks still exist. The whole think stinks to high hell and just sounds like an excuse to further oppress the "historically disenfranchised." Some white folks simply cannot fathom not being the "top dawg" anymore and refuse to settle for a tie, as in everyone being treated equal. I mean were aren't talking about slavery here. Or being shot by cops because of your skin color. There aren't the reverse of the KKK or black supremacist groups mowing whites down in their cars then being praised by the President. Nope none of that. Apparently it's the exclusion from groups meant to highlight actual real life ongoing inequality and the resistance of equality that somehow translates to "white oppression."
BTW, white females aren't flocking to the right and neither are college educated white males. In fact Dems have gained ground in both those demographics. So it's disingenuous to claim white voters are being driven to the right these days. You are discussing only a subset of people within white voters.
-
Blame for Trump in order of most blame to least:
1. Trump himself and his parents for creating/being one of the worst Americans of our time
2. The people who voted for Trump
3. The people who didn't bother to vote
4. People who voted third party in a swing state-sorry, but you get some blame. We vote in the system we have, not the one we wish we had. First past the post means you know full well that you aren't getting President Jill Stein. You vote for the best of the major party candidates and agitate on your free time to get Green or Libertarian candidates elected in local elections to actually build the party if it was so important to you. On the plus side, you are still a better voter than groups 1-3 above. So you are in the top 66 million people in the US.
5. People who voted third party in a red or blue state-you mostly get a pass. Also, you get demerits if you don't vote in midterms.
6. People who voted for Hillary but spent the entire election season spreading information about how she is the devil with cankles. And probably killed people. And rigged the primaries.
This is my list, and I'm sticking to it. I accept no blame for Trump.
I'd throw the mainstream media into this pile somewhere, too, for making it all about the 24 hour Trump circus, including echoing every single thing he said about Hillary over and over, and basically never focusing on any actual campaign issues/platform, anything.
Absolutely, the media had a major role in propping up Trump. The breathlessly reported every stupid tweet etc.
He is still good for their business.
-
Essentially whites think they are the new blacks. And the basis for this thought is due to being left out of groups that highlight actual racism against blacks and affirmative action,
That's what the conclusions I (and authors) got from the studies.
The whole think stinks to high hell and just sounds like an excuse to further oppress the "historically disenfranchised." Some white folks simply cannot fathom not being the "top dawg" anymore and refuse to settle for a tie, as in everyone being treated equal.
data to support this?
I mean were aren't talking about slavery here. Or being shot by cops because of your skin color. There aren't the reverse of the KKK or black supremacist groups mowing whites down in their cars then being praised by the President. Nope none of that. Apparently it's the exclusion from groups meant to highlight actual real life ongoing inequality and the resistance of equality that somehow translates to "white oppression."
Again, I agree. But based on what just what the studies reported (conclusions from authors). I believe we should focus on bringing the whites onboard (by explicitly making it inviting to whites) instead of the alternative which might alienates them further.
BTW, white females aren't flocking to the right and neither are college educated white males. In fact Dems have gained ground in both those demographics. So it's disingenuous to claim white voters are being driven to the right these days. You are discussing only a subset of people within white voters.
Yes and no, because of EC, national trends are not always reflected when it comes down to electing the pres. Clinton won the popular vote but still lost the election. Many of the "rust-belt" swing states turned in 2016 because of lost white votes (https://lpstrategies.com/white-papers/whathappened2). One could (in theory) won the popular votes by a landslide and still get slaughtered as far as EC is concerned.
-
The whole think stinks to high hell and just sounds like an excuse to further oppress the "historically disenfranchised." Some white folks simply cannot fathom not being the "top dawg" anymore and refuse to settle for a tie, as in everyone being treated equal.
data to support this?
Umm you posted the "data" showing how groups meant to highlight continued inequality toward minorities somehow translates to "white oppression." Minorities don't want special treatment. They just don't want to be killed because of their skin color, you know like white people. If these white folks are complaining of being oppressed then there should be universal data to support this. Outside of a couple outliers you posted there is still absolutely no data to suggest this is happening universally.
Also how does racism play into these stats? For example if you asked staunch racist if they believe BLM is somehow oppressive towards whites, what do you think their answer would be? A resounding "YES!!?" Does that validate or invalidate the stats?
-
Are you rejecting the conclusions from the studies (authors) without providing studies of the contrary?
Or are you accusing
http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20sommers.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534702
being outliers? How about this one? still outliers?
a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll (https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/blacks-white-racism-united-states-polls/index.html) indicates that half of all Americans, 57 percent of all white people, and 66 percent of the white working-class believe that discrimination against white people is as big a problem in America as discrimination against black people.
If you do believe these are outliers, you can show me studies that show otherwise, I have 3 here. Statistically to be considered outlier counter evidence needs to be on the order of 1/10 at least (ie 30), I will be lenient, just show me 6 with the counter-conclusion to that
1. whites feel discriminated against, and
2. whites are less likely to support diversity efforts but the association between multiculturalism with exclusion can be lessened if white people are explicated framed as included in multiculturalism
Or studies that support
3. Some white folks simply cannot fathom not being the "top dawg" anymore and refuse to settle for a tie, as in everyone being treated equal.
I am fine if you don't like the data I showed, bring your own like Guitar did, we can still have a conversation based on those. From all of your posts here so far you have given 0/6. Good luck.
-
Are you rejecting the conclusions from the studies (authors) without providing studies of the contrary?
No I stated there should be data proving there is indeed white oppression. You know actual data to support the conclusions. It's not about my feelings towards the data, it's about whether the data is based on actual provable facts/events. Pretty sure I am not the first to ask this. You are more concerned about feelings than if those feeling are based on reality. You might as well start citing anti-AGW stats in an effort to claim somehow the anti-AGW crowd has validity.
I am fine if you don't like the data I showed, bring your own like Guitar did, we can still have a conversation based on those. From all of your posts here so far you have given 0/6. Good luck.
Quite frankly I don't give a shit about the data. Until you can provide actual proof of continuing institutional white oppression, the data just shows people making decisions based on feelings. Again I refer back to the anti-AGW crowd. The scientific data/facts doesn't support their agenda either.
Not sure where you got 0/6 from because I am not the one making claims. I did ask 3 questions of which you answered none. Does that make you 0/3? Let's be a little more mature about this. I have witnessed real life staunch racist claiming BLM is oppressive towards white. My questions weren't something I grabbed out of thin air. So in relation only to the data you seem obsessed with cramming down everyone's throats without any evidence to validate the data (again so you aren't confused, meaning there indeed is widespread systematic white oppression happening), I still wouldn't take it at face value. You might be surprised to find out our country is still chock full of racist. Especially on the right (just look who they elected and many still support). Bias tends to skew results.
But hey this has been fun. Let me know when you can track down all that rampant "white racism." Then we'll have something to discuss.
-
I am not sure how you can misunderstand the conclusions of the studies (and mine).
No one said there is actual white oppression, I definitely did not, I don't know how you got that. The studies merely show
1. whites PERCEIVE they are being discriminated against, not an outlier, it's universal.
2. For whites to help with diversity, they need to be explicitly included and not perceive to be excluded.
I agree with you that whites are not oppressed like blacks once were, I agree with this 100%.
Again, whites PERCEIVE they are being discriminated against. So I do not need to show anything.
But you then made the assertion that "The whole think stinks to high hell and just sounds like an excuse to further oppress the "historically disenfranchised." Some white folks simply cannot fathom not being the "top dawg" anymore and refuse to settle for a tie, as in everyone being treated equal."
I do not agree with this, do you have anything to support this?
I also do not see how racism is relevant in how whites perceive they are being discriminated against. Are you saying whites that feel they are discriminated against are racists? What about other races that feel discriminated against? Or the people that made the studies?
-
I am not sure how you can misunderstand the conclusions of the studies (and mine).
No one said there is actual white oppression, I definitely did not, I don't know how you got that. The studies merely show
1. whites PERCEIVE they are being discriminated against, not an outlier, it's universal.
2. For whites to help with diversity, they need to be explicitly included and not perceive to be excluded.
I agree with you that whites are not oppressed like blacks once were, I agree with this 100%.
Again, whites PERCEIVE they are being discriminated against. So I do not need to show anything.
I didn't misunderstand the data's conclusions. I showed there most certainly is going to be some bias in that data. You'll find bias in asking conservatives vs liberals about global warming. So what? Let's examine facts, not data about people's feelings. If those feelings (aka "data") is a result of something that isn't actually occurring, then it certainly doesn't support the ideal that progressives are the cause of this. People need to take ownership of their own perceptions and biases. Quit blaming others, especially entire political parties.
"But you then made the assertion that "The whole think stinks to high hell and just sounds like an excuse to further oppress the "historically disenfranchised." Some white folks simply cannot fathom not being the "top dawg" anymore and refuse to settle for a tie, as in everyone being treated equal."
I do not agree with this, do you have anything to support this?
Absolutely. I just provided real life experiences of staunch racist claiming BLM is oppressive to whites. Racist tend to create reasons excuses to justify their behavior.
And for some good reading:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20832074?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20832074?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
-
Let's examine facts, not data about people's feelings. If those feelings (aka "data") is a result of something that isn't actually occurring, then it certainly doesn't support the ideal that progressives are the cause of this. People need to take ownership of their own perceptions and biases. Quit blaming others, especially entire political parties.
Again, I agree 100% that we should focus on facts and not feelings. But the facts are whites feel discriminated, and at this point it's pointless to argue if those are justified (compared to what blacks went through), because we are already at the stage of right vs left identity politics.
We need whites' help to make meaningful changes and whites are not as likely to help unless they are explicitly invited. What are the alternatives? Keep doing the same stuffs and hopefully things magically change in 2020? The white votes lost in the rust-belt states is no joke, and Trump somehow still has support outside of his core base (41%). Like I mentioned, Dems can get 10M extra votes along the coasts, but those mean nothing if they cant win back white votes in the rust-belt states.
Edit: Actually there is an alternative. The Dems could find someone that minorities strongly identify with, likely a minority him/her self, to regain the black votes, and hopefully get a repeat of 2008 and 2012. Given today's political climate, that would almost certainly mean the Dem's have to be even more left leaning than before. I am not hopeful with this.
-
Let's examine facts, not data about people's feelings. If those feelings (aka "data") is a result of something that isn't actually occurring, then it certainly doesn't support the ideal that progressives are the cause of this. People need to take ownership of their own perceptions and biases. Quit blaming others, especially entire political parties.
Again, I agree 100% that we should focus on facts and not feelings. But the facts are whites feel discriminated, and at this point it's pointless to argue if those are justified (compared to what blacks went through), because we are already at the stage of right vs left identity politics.
We need whites' help to make meaningful changes and whites are not as likely to help unless they are explicitly invited. What are the alternatives? Keep doing the same stuffs and hopefully things magically change in 2020? The white votes lost in the rust-belt states is no joke, and Trump somehow still has support outside of his core base (41%). Like I mentioned, Dems can get 10M extra votes along the coasts, but those mean nothing if they cant win back white votes in the rust-belt states.
Edit: Actually there is an alternative. The Dems could find someone that minorities strongly identify with, likely a minority him/her self, to regain the black votes, and hopefully get a repeat of 2008 and 2012. Given today's political climate, that would almost certainly mean the Dem's have to be even more left leaning than before. I am not hopeful with this.
I don't think it is pointless. That's the "rub." In order to appeal to these folks, one would have to blindly accept what actually isn't happening and offer solutions, again to a problem that doesn't actually exist. And then you risk further alienating people who actually are being discriminated against. Appealing to many of these rust belt voters is going to mean appealing to white supremacist and those types of people as well. Again, it's the victim ideology. And it doesn't just stop at race.
And then you have the conservatives who quite frankly feed into this bullshit. They blame Democrats for them losing jobs, losing healthcare, wage disparity, and convincing them they are being discriminated against. Despite immigration actually helping communities, many gaining healthcare under the ACA, Dems offering training programs (which is actually part of what's spurring the increase in manufacturing jobs). See, facts don't really matter to these people.
So I understand it might give you a warm fuzzy to think we can and should appeal to these people. And perhaps the Dems should point blank lie to them (hey it worked for Trump). But as has been stated Trump won by the slightest of margins so I don't think a full on smear campaign is necessary to win these votes. At the end of 4 years, if things aren't better and they still insist on voting R, then they are likely a lost cause.
-
1. whites PERCEIVE they are being discriminated against, not an outlier, it's universal.
2. For whites to help with diversity, they need to be explicitly included and not perceive to be excluded.
I agree with you that whites are not oppressed like blacks once were, I agree with this 100%.
Again, whites PERCEIVE they are being discriminated against. So I do not need to show anything.
I do agree that some whites, particularly rural, lower income whites for the most part feel that they are being discriminated against, but it is certainly not universal.
I do think your argument is pretty condescending to white people though, implying that we need to cater to their inaccurate belief systems if we want their vote, and I reject that this is the only path to victory, or even a desirable one. Soft bigotry of low expectations.....Reinforcing someone’s inaccurate beliefs just makes the problem worse in the end. Why not attempt to educate them, or if that doesn’t work, try to improve minority turn out?
In any case, I heard a fascinating statistic the other day:
Average ages of US citizens by demographic groups:
African American: 29
Asian: 27
Hispanic: 11 (!)
White: 57
The demographics don’t support your approach in the long run.
-
Average ages of US citizens by demographic groups:
African American: 29
Asian: 27
Hispanic: 11 (!)
White: 57
The demographics don’t support your approach in the long run.
This got me curious and according to Wikipedia the following is also true:
according to the Census Bureau’s estimation for 2012, 50.4% of American children under the age of 1 belonged to racial and ethnic minority groups
And that was 6 years ago. The times they are a changin’.
-
In any case, I heard a fascinating statistic the other day:
Average ages of US citizens by demographic groups:
African American: 29
Asian: 27
Hispanic: 11 (!)
White: 57
The demographics don’t support your approach in the long run.
The numbers you quoted are the mode values, not the median or even the mean.
The Mode:
https://qz.com/1013714/one-metric-shows-that-race-in-america-is-about-to-experience-a-dramatic-shift/ (https://qz.com/1013714/one-metric-shows-that-race-in-america-is-about-to-experience-a-dramatic-shift/)
The differences in median ages are not as dramatic:
https://www.theatlas.com/charts/B1DaM6A7W (https://www.theatlas.com/charts/B1DaM6A7W)
-
I am very hesitant to accept your view, MM, because we are talking about a near-majority group in the population (whites) here: "half of all Americans", including ethnic minorities (even ~33% blacks and Hispanics) "believe that discrimination against white people is as big a problem in America as discrimination against black people".
Perhaps I am unlearned, but I seriously can not recall an example where, in a democratic setting, a minority actually achieved meaningful and lasting changes for the better, without acknowledging the concerns of the majority group and getting them onboard.
Education might work as another poster suggested, but at this late stage of right vs left identity politics, I am not hopeful at all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will now provide some comments on the Cornell study (https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1921&context=articles), provided by Guitar: How Political Correctness Influences Creativity in Mixed-Sex Work Groups
The study presents evidence from two group experiments showing that the PC norm promotes rather than suppresses members’ free expression of ideas by reducing the uncertainty they experience in mixed-sex work groups. (PC norm promotes creativity in mixed-sex work groups).
The stat analysis is sound, but I have issues with certain aspects of the study.
1. The participants are students on campus, whom, we know tend to be more liberal/progressive leaning than the general population, therefore more accepting to PC norm. I am unsure the same effects would be observed if the same studies were repeated with a more representative sample population.
2. The task for the participants in the experiment was to generate new business ideas to fill an empty space on campus that was left vacant by a mismanaged restaurant. This makes the results of the study, at best, only applicable to business solutions, and not "bigger" issues like the ones we had been discussing.
3. This is a big one. The performance of the participates is judged based on "creativity" or "novelty of ideas". People very often confuse being innovative and creative with "good". Just because something is creative or novel, doesn't mean it's necessarily good or practical. It's been very well documented that most (http://fortune.com/2014/10/07/innovation-failure/) innovations are great big failures. The study does not even consider the quality of these novel ideas, this is a huge problem when one tries to link creativity to "actually improves things" in general.
Yes, creative work relies on failures, but simply saying new "actually improves things" good is insane (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/why-new-ideas-fail/381275/). Ideas that actually improves things occupy a very small percentage of new ideas. So please stop linking creativity (there for PC norm) to "actually improving things".
4. Despite the statistical significant improvement in terms of creativity between PC norm and Control (no PC norm) groups in mixed-sex groups. There is NO statistical significant differences between the PC norm mixed-sex group and the Control same-sex group. The PC norm same-sex group performed worse than Control same-sex group. Indicating a very limited situation where PC norm could be of use, and may not be the optimal solution universally.
5. This directly relates to #4, and is my biggest problem with the implication of the study. Suppose we give it the benefit of doubt that PC norm is universally good (not according to study results) and higher creativity means better business solutions or better results (it does not). What exactly are we promoting here?
The authors explicitly linked PC norm with self-censorship: "We focus on the PC norm because it sets relevant expectations for appropriate behavior and uniquely highlights the social sanctions that result from failing to comply with the expectation to avoid language and behavior that may offend women and other underrepresented minorities", "(1) My group censored themselves while generating ideas, (2) My group worried about the words that they used to express themselves while working together, and (3) When suggesting a new idea I tried to avoid offending the other
people in the group (α = .78.)."
I am usually reluctant to accept that sometimes civil liberties need to be suspended for security reasons, but I understand sometimes it is the only way and the most rational (utilitarian?) solution. But the implication of this study pushes it to a new area. What exactly is the use of higher creativity in business setting (as this study was based on)? More revenue? More profit? More money?
Also, because There is NO statistical significant differences between the PC norm mixed-sex group and the Control same-sex group. Why then must we go the PC norm route if we can get the same result without self-censorship?
In summary, the Cornell study demonstrates PC norm results in higher creativity in "only" mixed-sex group. Creativity is not always a good thing, in fact, majority creative ideas don't make things better. And if it's creativity we are ultimately after, same-sex work group can achieve just as much without imposing PC norm.
I see the results of this study to be of very limited use and merit, as far as "actually improving things" are concerned.
Note that not once did I take the authors political views into account, because no matter who funded it or what the authors believe, data is data. It should be judged on its own merit. You are more than welcome to attack the data, methodology, and the analysis. But if you have to resort to refuting studies using because it has an "ideology tilt". It's really pointless to go any further.
Next, I will address the concern that the methodology of the Cato study is biased. And an explanation to the irregularities in Murphy's data (provided by Guitar), and how to view the similarities and differences in all three surveys regarding free speech (Cato, Murphy using GSS, Economist).
-
Perhaps I am unlearned, but I seriously can not recall an example where, in a democratic setting, a minority actually achieved meaningful and lasting changes for the better, without acknowledging the concerns of the majority group and getting them onboard.
In the civil rights era, many white people were not on board with it.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-on-civil-rights-reflections-on-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/
Reading this article, 60% of people had an unfavorable view of the march on Washington in the 1960s.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/08/how-americans-view-the-black-lives-matter-movement/
As of 2016, 43% of people support Black Lives matter and 30% of people were not sure or hadn’t heard of it in 2016. Only 22% were opposed.
By your standards, we should not have passed the civil rights act without getting more whites on board, but by the 1990’s, the vast majority of whites approved of the civil rights act.
If we had used your approach, an entire generation might have grown up with separate schools, separate water fountains.
-
Also, what ideas do you consider “politically correct”? Are you actually trying to defend having only white men in working groups?
Anecdote: I am a female engineer, and in my last position, I was the only female in a male dominated technical group. It was awful, basically just guys shouting at each other and being aggressive, trying to be dominant. I now work in a company with 50% female representation and none of the aggression. It’s a fantastic and productive environment. My husband, who got his MBA and worked in a lot of different group projects noticed that the groups with more females tended to be more productive overall.
At this point, quoting studies and statistics is counterproductive. Anisotropy is just going to devalue anything that doesn’t fit his world view while defending sources that have clear bias.
-
You don't think the dramatic shift in public opinion between 1963 to 1964 (40% favorable to 60% favorable) had something to do with MLK's speech that explicitly included whites?
His speech was in 1963, bill passed in 1964, less than a year later. the general consensus is the kennedy admin and congress (after he died) helped a lot, because they were onboard.
Studies and stats help people to see the merits of the tested ideas and hypothesis. They should be well supported by all sorts of studies. Only people who spew lies should be afraid of a through and systematic examination of studies.
If you have issues with the conclusions from studies, you are more than welcome to attack the data, methodology, and the analysis like I had done here. Well designed studies are meant to withstand these examinations, its only the poor to mediocre ones that fail. You are an engineer, I trust you know how.
But if you have to resort to refuting studies because you think they (or I ) have an "ideology tilt", and your response is to tell people to stop reading altogether, instead of encourage them to think critically, it's really pointless to go any further. How's that behavior any different from Trump's core base?
As of 2016, 43% of people support Black Lives matter and 30% of people were not sure or hadn’t heard of it in 2016. Only 22% were opposed.
by the way, 43+30+22 does not equal 100. Where does the other 5 stand? Did you misquote the numbers? Or did you quote it correctly but failed to comprehend they didn't add up to 100 as you typed it? Judging by how you confused mode with average earlier, you don't seem to be well versed with statistics.
Also, what ideas do you consider “politically correct”? Are you actually trying to defend having only white men in working groups?
The authors linked PC to self-censorship, so thats what I will go with. Also, no where in the Cornell paper did it say Control group same-sex group = only white men. "the same-sex condition consisted of three men or three women." their ethnic background was never explicitly mentioned. you didn't even read the paper, and somehow you automatically thought same-sex control group = white men.
-
All of this mumbo jumbo makes me very glad I’m not one of these fragile “whites” who needs reassurance from minorities that I really can give them a piece of the pie. WTF did I just read...
-
All of this mumbo jumbo makes me very glad I’m not one of these fragile “whites” who needs reassurance from minorities that I really can give them a piece of the pie. WTF did I just read...
Please, speak quietly and with respect. The whites need some time to process all this change.
-
Judging by how you confused mode with average earlier, you don't seem to be well versed with statistics.
You are so adorable. Did you ever stop to think that you might convince more people of your opinions if you weren’t so condescending.
Seeing as I have two engineering degrees, I am well aware of the difference between mode and median. I heard that statistic on a podcast, and they did not specify mode, they said “average”. My bad for not digging into that statistic further, but by nitpicking at it, you have completely missed the point. Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem? (See how belittling that sounds?)
The demographics of this country are changing, rapidly and dramatically.
I reject your argument that the MLK speech was some sort of turning of the corner for white opinions.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/back-the-day-what-critics-said-about-king
https://www.thenation.com/article/misremembering-i-have-dream/
It took his assassination for opinions of him to change.
-
All of this mumbo jumbo makes me very glad I’m not one of these fragile “whites” who needs reassurance from minorities that I really can give them a piece of the pie. WTF did I just read...
Please, speak quietly and with respect. The whites need some time to process all this change.
Apparently they aren't processing it well. Well some at least. "WTF, you mean I have to play nice and share? Well I like the way things have always been, I don't want to share!!" Somehow this is the fault of progressives and somehow progressives are supposed to develop an action plan to attack a problem that only exist in some people's minds.
-
To be fair, whites had long felt they had been subjected to "reverse racism" since the 70s as a direct response of affirmative and race based policies. I say felt, because most data still show whites are still dominating various competitions for grants, scholarships, and admissions (although an argument could be made regarding white men vs white women). If anything, Asians, are the biggest "net loser" of affirmative and race based policies in recent decades. But as we've come to realize, when identity politics get involved, people place perception above reality.
In a multi-decade (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20sommers.pdf)study published in 2011 (N=209), shows that several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. These changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.
It is unfortunate that the study was published in 2011 and predates the latest wave of social justice movements (BML, gender issues, refugees, white privilege debates, etc), and we are unable to judge if these events altered whites perception of anti-white bias in any way. However, a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll indicates that half of all Americans, 57 percent of all white people, and 66 percent of the white working-class believe that discrimination against white people is as big a problem in America as discrimination against black people.
It is reasonable then, that given the markedly increased percentage of whites who view them as being discriminated against in recent years, if we were to remake the same chart (fig 1) today, the "whites rating anti-white bias" would be higher than before, perhaps between 6-7.
The 2011 study attributes white's anti-white perception to the their belief on the zero-sum nature of racism. While I do not personally subscribe to that view regarding racism and supports the view of Justice Powell, the practical nature of various affirmative and race based policies are indeed zero-sum (in the immediate result) in nature, given limited resources. This study situates specific claims of persecution (exclusion)by White Americans in a broader belief in a new, generalized anti-White bias.
Agreed, white people have long felt that they were subjected to "reverse racism" that doesn't exist. Also agreed, that many people place perception above reality. I suspect that might actually be why we're having this discussion.
It's not surprising that the group of people who once were able to rely on racism as a tactic to get ahead in life feel that equality is negatively impacting them. It is. To a certain degree, yes, there is a zero-sum aspect to many situations. White people can no longer rely on racism as their edge to win, now they have to work harder. Almost as hard as a black guy in their situation would. That is going to be tough for a group of people accustomed to the benefits of privilege. It's not indicative of a problem though, but is a reason why white people accustomed to privilege afforded by racist actions and policy would feel hard done by. I don't know how to solve their problem.
So, the above was never answered but is still an important point I think.
Given that white people are giving up a clear advantage that racism brings them, why do you think that including them in a few speeches is going to turn around their whole viewpoint on the issue. The whites who most benefited from racist policy are going to be most opposed to policy that prevents racism . . . because they do not personally benefit in any way from them.
I don't know how to solve the problem of racist whites who don't like equality . . . but am pretty sure that changing the name of 'Black Lives Matter' to 'All Lives Matter' isn't going to do much on that front. Why do you think it will?
-
To be fair, whites had long felt they had been subjected to "reverse racism" since the 70s as a direct response of affirmative and race based policies. I say felt, because most data still show whites are still dominating various competitions for grants, scholarships, and admissions (although an argument could be made regarding white men vs white women). If anything, Asians, are the biggest "net loser" of affirmative and race based policies in recent decades. But as we've come to realize, when identity politics get involved, people place perception above reality.
In a multi-decade (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20sommers.pdf)study published in 2011 (N=209), shows that several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. These changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.
It is unfortunate that the study was published in 2011 and predates the latest wave of social justice movements (BML, gender issues, refugees, white privilege debates, etc), and we are unable to judge if these events altered whites perception of anti-white bias in any way. However, a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll indicates that half of all Americans, 57 percent of all white people, and 66 percent of the white working-class believe that discrimination against white people is as big a problem in America as discrimination against black people.
It is reasonable then, that given the markedly increased percentage of whites who view them as being discriminated against in recent years, if we were to remake the same chart (fig 1) today, the "whites rating anti-white bias" would be higher than before, perhaps between 6-7.
The 2011 study attributes white's anti-white perception to the their belief on the zero-sum nature of racism. While I do not personally subscribe to that view regarding racism and supports the view of Justice Powell, the practical nature of various affirmative and race based policies are indeed zero-sum (in the immediate result) in nature, given limited resources. This study situates specific claims of persecution (exclusion)by White Americans in a broader belief in a new, generalized anti-White bias.
Agreed, white people have long felt that they were subjected to "reverse racism" that doesn't exist. Also agreed, that many people place perception above reality. I suspect that might actually be why we're having this discussion.
It's not surprising that the group of people who once were able to rely on racism as a tactic to get ahead in life feel that equality is negatively impacting them. It is. To a certain degree, yes, there is a zero-sum aspect to many situations. White people can no longer rely on racism as their edge to win, now they have to work harder. Almost as hard as a black guy in their situation would. That is going to be tough for a group of people accustomed to the benefits of privilege. It's not indicative of a problem though, but is a reason why white people accustomed to privilege afforded by racist actions and policy would feel hard done by. I don't know how to solve their problem.
So, the above was never answered but is still an important point I think.
Given that white people are giving up a clear advantage that racism brings them, why do you think that including them in a few speeches is going to turn around their whole viewpoint on the issue. The whites who most benefited from racist policy are going to be most opposed to policy that prevents racism . . . because they do not personally benefit in any way from them.
I don't know how to solve the problem of racist whites who don't like equality . . . but am pretty sure that changing the name of 'Black Lives Matter' to 'All Lives Matter' isn't going to do much on that front. Why do you think it will?
I feel like there are a lot of similarities between: a) the people who say they aren't racist but also object to "Black Lives Matter" and are in favor of "All Lives Matter"; and: b) the people who say they aren't racist by saying things like, "I don't care if you're black, white, green or purple... you treat me well, and I'll treat you well."
The first erases the specific problem that black lives manifestly don't matter as much in our society as white lives do. And saying "All Lives Matter" is an attempt to ignore that. The second also erases and belittles the problem of structural racism in our society by putting in nonsense colors like green and purple. In that sentence "I don't care if you're black or purple..." I think the operative phrase is "I don't care." In other words, I don't care to hear about any of the ways that systemic racism have and continue to affect your life. I prefer to ignore it.
It reminds me a little of a phrase I used to hear a hell of a lot by people who thought they were "tolerant" of homosexuals: "I don't care what they do, as long as they don't shove my face in it." In other words, as long as gay people erase their gayness in front of me, they're okay.
Erasure. That's what fragile white people demand of anyone who demands to exist as what they actually are.
-
Average ages of US citizens by demographic groups:
African American: 29
Asian: 27
Hispanic: 11 (!)
White: 57
The demographics don’t support your approach in the long run.
This got me curious and according to Wikipedia the following is also true:
according to the Census Bureau’s estimation for 2012, 50.4% of American children under the age of 1 belonged to racial and ethnic minority groups
And that was 6 years ago. The times they are a changin’.
The small midwest town/county my wife grew up in now has 50%+ hispanic in grade school classes at the public school. However, there are some big religious private schools there which are probably 98% white. They are also in one of the most religious and republican counties in the midwest. Most of the comments I hear from my inlaws about the hispanics are positive or neutral. Overall they feel the immigrants (even illegal ones) are good for the local economy which did well even through the recession. But they still just don't like those changes. It is exhausting listening to them talk about their perceptions of what is wrong with the US.
-
This post will address the concern that the methodology of the Cato study is biased. And an explanation to the irregularities in Murphy's data (provided by Guitar), and how to view the similarities and differences in all three surveys regarding free speech (Cato, Murphy using GSS, Economist).
Guitar said Cato (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#5) study is "bought and paid for by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers is obviously going to have some bias issues" and that "There are easy to see flaws designed into the study. I already addressed the Koch brothers issue many times here, each study should be judged on its own merit, not by who paid for it or did it. You are more than welcome to attack the data, methodology, and the analysis. But if you have to resort to refuting studies using because it has an "ideology tilt". It's really pointless to go any further. To be fair, you raised a methodology problem, lets take a look.
The "flaws designed into the study", such as questions targeting liberals, was indeed designed in such a way to illustrate "82% Say It’s Hard to Ban Hate Speech Because People Can’t Agree On What Speech Is Hateful or Offensive". In fact a set of questions targeting conservatives can be found in Appendix B, including "A person who says that all white people are racist", and "A person who says the police are racist" just to drive the point home. And looking at the survey results in Appendix B, the answers match the party line division. This is a feature of the study to showcase it's hard for people to agree on what is hateful or offensive, not a bug or inherent bias as you said. The claim you made regarding bias is therefore erroneous.
A side musing when I first looked at Murphy (http://jmrphy.net/blog/2018/02/16/who-is-afraid-of-free-speech/)'s analysis: I was almost immediately drawn to the similar shapes of "extremely liberal" and "extremely conservative", which reminded me of the Political Horseshoe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory).
The Murphy analysis is problematic, not only to me, but also to Kurt, Guitar's source whom commented on the Murphy analysis.
"Well, I can understand the conservatives, because many of them are racists, but the extreme liberals?"
"Again, I’m a bit confused. The people who are the most censorious of racist speech are those who are slightly liberal, yet those are people who, compared to other liberals, are also most censorious of militarist speech (those at about 2.5 on the scale)."
"One note: deplatforming of college speakers, as judging by the FIRE “disinvitation database”, is being done far more these days by the Left than the Right. That doesn’t comport with Murphy’s finding that the left is the least censorious wing of politics."
It is fortunate then, that Murphy himself provided us with the tools to examine his work: his own robustness check. Namely, we can sample the 2014 data points from Fig.2 and map it on the same X-scale from fig.3. If Murphy's analysis is robust and what he had observed truly present, both the trend and shape of both lines should be at least comparable. I have attached a basic xlsx file, and you can all see that the two lines are nothing alike, especially for the "racist speakers". Worse, when we actually go on to GSS Explorer (https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends/Civil%20Liberties?measure=spkrac)and plot the graph ourselves, separated by political affiliation (under break down), we see the Dems are decidedly less open to let a racist speaker speak, which is not necessarily always a bad thing. But it directly contradicts Murphy's finding and analysis. Why? Murphy himself gave us an answer.
"One might object that my finding about the “Slight Leftist Speech Suppressor,” which surprisingly exonerates the radical leftists from the speech suppression tendency, might be a false artificat of the ambiguous meaning of the term “liberal.” Perhaps one could say that survey questions measuring “liberalism” are not accurate measures of leftism because they may be tapping Classical Liberalism (more libertarian than leftist). I used the “liberalism” measure of ideology because it had the most data over time, but we can check our findings against survey questions asking about “leftism,” although they have much less data. "
Murphy used survey questions measuring "liberalism" to make his own analysis, but as we just saw, it indeed suffered from a false artifact of the ambiguous meaning of the "liberal", which resulted in it failing the robustness test and showing the opposite of what the raw data shows.
Despite all this, Murphy acknowledges that there is "a puzzling minority of vaguely leftist activists, who happen to have gained media attention, wish to suppress free speech", this coincides with the Cato finding that "Strong liberals (52%), racial minorities (54%), stand out with slim majorities who believe it’s more important for colleges to prohibit offensive and biased speech on campus".
The difference being Murphy did not know whom these leftists were, and described them simply as a puzzling minority of vaguely leftist activists. Knowing Murphy's analysis suffered from a false artificat of the ambiguous meaning of the term “liberal", we need to look elsewhere to solve this mystery, after all, if a phenomenon is real, it's bound to be observed again and again no matter who does the survey, as long as the data is factual and analysis artefact free.
Enter the Knight Foundation survey (https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/pdfs/000/000/248/original/Knight_Foundation_Free_Expression_on_Campus_2017.pdf) which the Economist (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/10/18/young-college-educated-americans-are-more-accepting-of-controversial-speech)piece alluded to.
"More students now (61%) than in 2016 (54%) agree that the climate on their campus prevents some students from expressing their views. Although a majority of college students, 69%, believe political conservatives on campus are able to freely and openly express their views, many more believe political liberals (92%) and other campus groups are able to share their opinions freely. (pg 16)"
Seeing how Rep leaning students accounts for less than 1/4 of all students surveyed (weighted 27%), this means a sizeable number (if not all) of Rep leaning students feel the pressure to at least self-censor.
Compared with the 2016 survey, students now perceive the five freedoms as significantly less secure. This includes a 21-percentage-point decline in perceptions that freedom of the press is secure and nine-point declines for free speech. Shockingly, the biggest drop came from the Dems, while the Reps numbers stayed flat (pg 4). Why did Reps' numbers stay flat? The study says "Democrats were more likely to participate in all types (diversity and free speech) of protests than Republicans were." They simply refuse to engage and keep to themselves.
Recall what Kurt said "One note: deplatforming of college speakers, as judging by the FIRE “disinvitation database”, is being done far more these days by the Left than the Right." The drop in Dems' "security" numbers reinforces the notion that the "deplatformers" efforts are negatively impacting moderates and liberals.
The study concludes "Further, college students acknowledge that campus norms can act to deter speech — a larger majority than a year ago perceive that their campus climate prevents some people from expressing their ideas for fear of offending others. Also, students perceive that some groups on campus have a lesser ability to voice their opinions than other groups do."
Look. At this point, I can show you a thousand studies and it will likely do nothing. I have responded to the two studies you quoted. The Cornell study is of very limited use, if any, in the context of what we are discussing, and the Murphy analysis likely suffers from a false artefact of the ambiguous meaning of the term “liberal".
All the studies examined point to a group of leftists (perhaps extreme) actively seek to push their agenda to "supress free speech" as Murphy put it. I will leave it at that, you can decide for yourself if this is a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few words being I finish. My original lengthy post was the result of being invited by the OP, who had since gone silent. I was very reluctant to share my view at first because I knew it would be unpopular and I would be denounced by multiple posters.
At first I was attacked because I didn't show any data and most of it were "anecdotes". I then supported my points with studies but were accused of "bias" and worse. I showed in many follow-up posts that the studies I used are not biased, and the counter studies presented actually either reinforces my points, of limited use in the context of this discussion, or suffers from serious analytical artefact.
To the people who say studies/data are biased, do you even know what are the steps of designing a study/experiment? 1. Investigators have a hypothesis 2. Investigators design an experiment/study that might best capture and observe the hypothesized effect. And somehow that becomes a bias? IT IS A FEATURE, NOT A BUG.
True experimental bias comes in the form of non-factual data, or introducing artefacts into the analysis. It has nothing to do with whom paid or worked on it.
Do you, like, not remember anything you learned from high school science classes?
So far, I have been the only person (other than perhaps Guitar and occasionally golden1) that supported my view with studies and examined counter studies based on their own merits and robustness (instead of screaming bias with no proof whatsoever). Plenty of people have accused whites simply being resentful because "white people are giving up a clear advantage that racism brings them" yet have so far show no widespread data that supports such assertion.
This attitude that whites don't like this because they are racist (so far no one has provided any data that supports this. It is amazing to see such serious accusations levelled, casually, without adducing a shred of supporting evidence), is very different from my points that whites don't like this because they feel excluded (which I have supported with studies).
I will end here because I see there is no point to engage further. It's been fun, I hope you all enjoyed the show.
ps. golden1, the clear contrast in terms of public opinion in 1963 and 1964 (40% favorable to 60% favorable) is clearly correlated with MLK's speech delivered in mid 1963. Kennedy's death prob also helped. It's not like you have personally come up with a reason that might explain the drastic change in public opinion between 1963 and 64. I am open to learning more and I will read the links you provided in my spare time.
-
Isn't there a difference between "racism" and "prejudice?" My understanding has always been that "racism" is an intentional state of mind. People who are explicitly "racist" affirmatively and actively believe in their own superiority and the inferiority of the other racial/ethnic group, and they have an open hostility to them.
"Prejudice" is not really intentional. It seems to be more of a latent condition that people develop through their upbringing, their social conditioning, and their experiences or experiences of others viewed from a narrow point of view. They literally "pre-judge" a person of color as more likely to be a "thug," or "on welfare," or lazy, or unqualified, or whatever. In my experience (I live in the South), there are still plenty of racists hanging around, but they do not represent the majority of whites in the South. As to prejudice, I feel pretty comfortable stating that a majority of white Southerners still have some substantial level of prejudice. Now, can prejudice be overcome? Absolutely. Most of these folks are the same people who say "I have black friends," or "I have black neighbors," and they are "just fine" because they have jobs and homes and they obey the laws and they live their lives just like "everyone else." In other words they are okay with a person of color who they "know" and who they are familiar with and who they feel "safe" with. They may not be actively aware that their attitudes in general continue to be "prejudiced," nor are they actively aware of the damage caused by "prejudice." They are also not consciously aware that they themselves never had to overcome prejudice individually to get where they are in life. That, the fact that white people are not themselves subject to racial prejudice, is the very definition of the much-misunderstood "white privilege."
So, the moral of the story I think is that calling everything "racist" is counter-productive. If everything is racist, nothing is racist. There is "racism," and there is "prejudice." There is probably even another level of "insensitivity." I agree that if you just yell at white America and tell them they should all feel guilty because they are all racists, that is going to just turn them off. It would be healthier and more productive to deal with negative attitudes as they are, and work towards tolerance and understanding person by person.
-
I think a lot of handwringing can be avoided by making a certain distinction between prejudiced vs. racist.
"Racism" and "racist" are based on thoroughly thought out science proving that the white race is superior. That is if you define "science" by very precise and well documented, highly selective, empirical observation conforming to subjective white race expectations. (Please re-read that if you think that's positive - it's not) By that meter it was quite good "science." If you read books from the Civil War to the Nazi era - racism is very well thought out. Which is why so many otherwise good and rational people bought into it. Yes, when combined with fascism its vanguard is a collection of misfits and criminals. But pseudo-intellectuals, technocrats, bureaucrats, and more sophisticated demagogues who ultimately replace them provide the motivation. "Racism" is a favorable term to use by a lot of civil rights groups. It brings up visions of jackbooted Nazis, the Holocaust, and sheet wearing hicks lynching black people. The word's negative connotations are justified - but also useful in certain PR realms.
"Prejudice" and "prejudiced" are words that've fallen by the wayside as people over use "racism" and "racist." Prejudice is just a supposition, a feeling, that another group is somehow inherently different in some way that circumvents their humanity. It's insidious in that even positive feelings can be prejudicial - such as celebrating black athletic skills or fortitude enduring societal rejection. Prejudice is definitely non-scientific by any standard. Also, it's inescapable. Everyone, including me and you, are prejudiced in some way. So were all the people of the past.
This distinction - or lack thereof - has interesting effects. First of which if a person has, say, a racial prejudice, and shows it, a certain type of person will accuse them of being a racist - a Nazi or Klansman. This has the same effect as asking someone when they stopped molesting their children. It may make the accuser feel better but it results in the accused often doubling down on their prejudice. If you were to ask a prejudiced person gently where they came up with that attitude they'll cite something like their parents, TV, or a single run in with a racial group. Continued inquiry and some cited facts might remedy the prejudice. (A real racist will cite, if not some discredited 1930's eugenics book, at least some crazy website.)
The second is the real danger of prejudice. Don't think because it has a milder feel than "racism" that it's good. Prejudice can be the gateway drug to racism. Wearing the mask of instinct or intuition, people don't always give it serious credence. But introduce a prejudiced person to a well spoken racist with all their perfectly lined up "scientific" arguments and a convert can be made. Even this isn't the worst. Well spoken evangelical racists are rare - though the internet helps. The real danger is when government or corporate policies negatively effect minorities. Or racists form powerful groups. Prejudiced people have the attitude "I don't have a dog in that fight." That is to say they ignore them. This allows and preserves policies - many actually racist - that do more damage in aggregate than costumed thugs dare dream of. In the end the racists commit the crimes; the prejudiced look the other way.
-
All of this mumbo jumbo makes me very glad I’m not one of these fragile “whites” who needs reassurance from minorities that I really can give them a piece of the pie. WTF did I just read...
Please, speak quietly and with respect. The whites need some time to process all this change.
Apparently they aren't processing it well. Well some at least. "WTF, you mean I have to play nice and share? Well I like the way things have always been, I don't want to share!!" Somehow this is the fault of progressives and somehow progressives are supposed to develop an action plan to attack a problem that only exist in some people's minds.
We live in a democracy. If millions of our fellow citizens have a false idea in their head, which is causing them to vote against both their own best interest and our best interest as a nation, heck yes that is a problem, and a problem we need an action plan to address. I think a lot of people in this thread aren't distinguishing between the average trump voter (who probably is never going to be convinced to vote for progressive or liberal candidates), and the average obama/trump voter (plus all of the obama/I'm-not-gonna-bother-to-vote voters). In the latter two cases these are clearly people who do have a history of voting for progressive/liberal candidates and policies in the past, and presumably may again in the future.
To paraphrase a republican from a more innocent era when we had very different standards for what constituted a disastrous presidency: "You go into [an election] with [the electorate] you have, not [the electorate] you want."*
There are lots of voters who agree with the democrats 40, 60, 80% of the time. And at least some of them are picking up on the videos and quotes from people like the Evergreen protesters** and seeing that as the message of the democratic party: that it has become a party devoted not to equality, but simply to inverting the racial hierarchy.*** Now I'm fortunate enough to know enough progressives and liberals personally to realize just how wrong that interpretation is, and that the videos and quotes that get amplified and repeated online represent fringe views, not the views or goals of the party as a whole. But why intentionally make winning elections harder for ourselves by being unwilling to accept that misinformation and misunderstandings in the minds of potentially winnable voters -- and our fellow citizens -- represents a problem?
TL;DR version: The thing about democracy is that problems that start "only in some people's minds" can end in serious real-world consequences.
* Now of course the alternative is to decide that those Obama/Trump and Obama/Nobody voters are never coming back, and abandon PA, OH, MI, and WI (64 electoral votes), and only try to win the election through victories AZ, GA, and ultimately TX (65 electoral votes) by increasing minority turn out. Both plans have merit, but I'm not comfortable wagering another four years with our current president on that strategy absolutely having to work the first time out of the gate in 2020, rather than pushing forward with both paths simultaneously.
** To take one of the mildest examples: We've taken one of the few (almost) universally accepted political views in this country at the start of the 21st century: "racism is bad" and undermined it by letting some people try to redefine the word "racism" to exclude racism against white people. Now do we have a significant problem with racism against white people in the USA? Absolutely not. But try explaining to a random voter in Ohio or Wisconsin in 30 seconds or less the statement "that's not racist because they're only discriminating against white people" while still leaving them with the impression you're advocating for a future where everyone will be treated equally regardless of the color of their skin.
*** The post modernist facts-and-reason-don't-matter-because-logic-is-part-of-the-power-structure parts of Evergreen and other students protests are also quite alienating to some folks I know in the sciences, but for better or worse I don't think scientists are a particularly important swing demographic in elections.
-
All of this mumbo jumbo makes me very glad I’m not one of these fragile “whites” who needs reassurance from minorities that I really can give them a piece of the pie. WTF did I just read...
Please, speak quietly and with respect. The whites need some time to process all this change.
Apparently they aren't processing it well. Well some at least. "WTF, you mean I have to play nice and share? Well I like the way things have always been, I don't want to share!!" Somehow this is the fault of progressives and somehow progressives are supposed to develop an action plan to attack a problem that only exist in some people's minds.
We live in a democracy. If millions of our fellow citizens have a false idea in their head, which is causing them to vote against both their own best interest and our best interest as a nation, heck yes that is a problem, and a problem we need an action plan to address. I think a lot of people in this thread aren't distinguishing between the average trump voter (who probably is never going to be convinced to vote for progressive or liberal candidates), and the average obama/trump voter (plus all of the obama/I'm-not-gonna-bother-to-vote voters). In the latter two cases these are clearly people who do have a history of voting for progressive/liberal candidates and policies in the past, and presumably may again in the future.
To paraphrase a republican from a more innocent era when we had very different standards for what constituted a disastrous presidency: "You go into [an election] with [the electorate] you have, not [the electorate] you want."*
There are lots of voters who agree with the democrats 40, 60, 80% of the time. And at least some of them are picking up on the videos and quotes from people like the Evergreen protesters** and seeing that as the message of the democratic party: that it has become a party devoted not to equality, but simply to inverting the racial hierarchy.*** Now I'm fortunate enough to know enough progressives and liberals personally to realize just how wrong that interpretation is, and that the videos and quotes that get amplified and repeated online represent fringe views, not the views or goals of the party as a whole. But why intentionally make winning elections harder for ourselves by being unwilling to accept that misinformation and misunderstandings in the minds of potentially winnable voters -- and our fellow citizens -- represents a problem?
TL;DR version: The thing about democracy is that problems that start "only in some people's minds" can end in serious real-world consequences.
* Now of course the alternative is to decide that those Obama/Trump and Obama/Nobody voters are never coming back, and abandon PA, OH, MI, and WI (64 electoral votes), and only try to win the election through victories AZ, GA, and ultimately TX (65 electoral votes) by increasing minority turn out. Both plans have merit, but I'm not comfortable wagering another four years with our current president on that strategy absolutely having to work the first time out of the gate in 2020, rather than pushing forward with both paths simultaneously.
** To take one of the mildest examples: We've taken one of the few (almost) universally accepted political views in this country at the start of the 21st century: "racism is bad" and undermined it by letting some people try to redefine the word "racism" to exclude racism against white people. Now do we have a significant problem with racism against white people in the USA? Absolutely not. But try explaining to a random voter in Ohio or Wisconsin in 30 seconds or less the statement "that's not racist because they're only discriminating against white people" while still leaving them with the impression you're advocating for a future where everyone will be treated equally regardless of the color of their skin.
*** The post modernist facts-and-reason-don't-matter-because-logic-is-part-of-the-power-structure parts of Evergreen and other students protests are also quite alienating to some folks I know in the sciences, but for better or worse I don't think scientists are a particularly important swing demographic in elections.
I don't know I tend to disagree. Those that vote against their own self interest are doing so based on party loyalty. Is this an issue? Sure, but not one you can really address. These are the voters whose minds you will not change. Why devote time, effort and resources to these voters? Seems pointless.
To be fair as well Hillary did offer a plan to help increase manufacturing jobs as a way to appeal to many of these folks. The plan itself is actually one the manufacturers have implemented themselves to spur job growth (training). And Obama passed the ACA which helped many of these folks obtain health insurance. I saw an interview with some rural folks pre-election in which they claimed they would be voting Trump despite getting healthcare for the first time under the ACA, knowing they would probably lose it if Trump became President. More recently saw several interviews from Trump supporters at a nail factory, who could lose their jobs thanks to the tariffs, but still say they support Trump.
This isn't anything new. It's party loyalty above all else and you cannot appeal to these people. Dems do find ways to help them and offer help, but they don't care.
-
It sounds like you are still confounding "anyone who voted for Trump" with "people who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump or stayed home." Sure you can find plenty of interviews of people who are clearly are never going to vote for a democratic candidate, but those folks also voted for Romney and McCain, yet we still elected a progressive and democratic president in both of those elections.
Given that these are specifically people who voted for Obama and then Trump (or stayed home), dismissing their decision as driven solely by party loyalty doesn't make any sense. Either their decision wasn't driven party loyalty to begin with (after all many of them weren't republicans), or there were other factors present in 2012 which overcame the issue of party loyalty.
-
maizeman the fine prints really hurt my eyes lol.
-
Yeah, sorry about that. Was trying to keep it from looking like a giant wall of text, and that was the best option I could come up with to indicate "here's the main idea, here's stuff you can skip if you want." Maybe I should use the spoiler tag instead?
-
It sounds like you are still confounding "anyone who voted for Trump" with "people who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump or stayed home." Sure you can find plenty of interviews of people who are clearly are never going to vote for a democratic candidate, but those folks also voted for Romney and McCain, yet we still elected a progressive and democratic president in both of those elections.
Given that these are specifically people who voted for Obama and then Trump (or stayed home), dismissing their decision as driven solely by party loyalty doesn't make any sense. Either their decision wasn't driven party loyalty to begin with (after all many of them weren't republicans), or there were other factors present in 2012 which overcame the issue of party loyalty.
I still don't think that is representative of the bigger picture. The statistics I have seen show a larger contingent of Bush - Obama voters (17%) than Obama-Trump voters (13%) if we only focus on those types of people I actually don't really see an issue. Bush's approval rating was abysmal for good reason. People that generally identify as Republican but voted Obama because the economy was in shambles are just an aberration. People that stayed at home, well it sure would be nice if they were motivated enough to go vote. If they did there would be no discussion about trying to win over traditionally Republican voters, because that isn't necessary.
-
It's interesting you mentioned relying on minority turnout to take TX. At first I thought you were bats*** crazy, but judging by the demographics, the primaries results, and general election day turnout it now seems at least possible to me, still not likely, but possible. Good point.
-
I still don't think that is representative of the bigger picture. The statistics I have seen show a larger contingent of Bush - Obama voters (17%) than Obama-Trump voters (13%) if we only focus on those types of people I actually don't really see an issue. Bush's approval rating was abysmal for good reason. People that generally identify as Republican but voted Obama because the economy was in shambles are just an aberration. People that stayed at home, well it sure would be nice if they were motivated enough to go vote. If they did there would be no discussion about trying to win over traditionally Republican voters, because that isn't necessary.
I don't think anyone is discussing the bolded bit. Perhaps that's why we are talking so much at cross purposes? People are discussing why a block of traditionally democratic voters (a subset of non-college educated white people, often from union households, in the industrial midwest) who voted for Obama in 2012 and 2008, Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, and Clinton in 1996 and 1992,* but either didn't turn out in 2016 or turned out and voted for Trump.
If Obama-Trump voters were 13% of the people who turned out to both, that'd be close to 17 million voters. Seems like a big enough group to try to worry about to me. Keep in mind that if Clinton had won one percentage point more of non-college educated white voters, WI, MI, PA, and OH all switch from the R column to the D column. You really don't see merit in understanding what drove those voters out of the party in 2016? And if it's something that's just in their heads rather than something that would require an actual change in policy, that's even better! Then we just need (to borrow your phrase) an action plan to reach out to those voters and make sure they understand that the party doesn't now, and actually never did, stand for the things they now think it stands for.
*Well a lot of the folks who were voting for Obama in '12 may not have been old enough to vote in '92 and a lot of voters for Clinton in '92 probably weren't alive to vote in '12, but the key point here is that states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have been reliably blue electoral votes for a LONG time.
-
It's interesting you mentioned relying on minority turnout to take TX. At first I thought you were bats*** crazy, but judging by the demographics, the primaries results, and general election day turnout it now seems at least possible to me, still not likely, but possible. Good point.
Absolutely no offense taken. Texas is already a majority-minority state, but only about 40% hispanic voters turn out to vote, vs ~60% of both black and white voters, so you wouldn't know it from its voting record. I've heard democrats talk for years about the potential for demographics to turn Texas blue, but so far hispanic voter turn out remains stubbornly low regardless of what approaches are thrown into increasing it each year.
I do think once a single democratic candidate wins statewide, we'll see a big uptick in future turnout that could move Texas from solidly red to consistently blue-tinged purple (sort of like Colorado or Nevada) because the people who currently don't vote will suddenly have tangible evidence that their votes have the potential to make a difference.
But until that first state-wide victory, I'm not strategically comfortable with the approach of some on this thread of simply writing off vast swaths of the country and the electorate with a history of backing liberal and progressive candidates and issues as a lost cause. (And even if Texas, Arizona, and Georgia came over to the blue column to address my strategic concerns, I'd still have ethical problems with the racially prejudiced caricatures of white midwesterners apparently held as truth by some of those same people.)
-
Ya I definitely agree with your TX analysis and ethical concerns.
Many of the people I used to work with (oil geos/engg) are quite blue, it just never occurred to me that it's actually possible to flip TX based on minority turn-out. But after looking at "recent" trends and victory margins, I now think it's definitely possible. Thanks for the *mindblasting* idea!
-
People are discussing why a block of traditionally democratic voters (a subset of non-college educated white people, often from union households, in the industrial midwest) who voted for Obama in 2012 and 2008, Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, and Clinton in 1996 and 1992,* but either didn't turn out in 2016 or turned out and voted for Trump.
Sure and the answer seems to be some sort of perceived white oppression. But I will re-iterate there is no need to appeal to these voters. Especially to something that doesn't exist. It's been beaten into the ground the slimmest of margins Trump won by even provided the above. I would be more inclined to appeal to the non-voters and third party voters. Also that shift began before Trump.
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/13/493763493/charts-see-how-quickly-white-non-college-voters-have-fled-the-democratic-party (https://www.npr.org/2016/09/13/493763493/charts-see-how-quickly-white-non-college-voters-have-fled-the-democratic-party)
If Obama-Trump voters were 13% of the people who turned out to both, that'd be close to 17 million voters.
Yep, except those who went Bush-Obama was much higher meaning very likely many of those folks were Republican to begin with.
The only argument that I disagree with is finding some way to win back this subset of voters who started swinging Republican years ago if it's the result of some self perceived white oppression.
-
If Obama-Trump voters were 13% of the people who turned out to both, that'd be close to 17 million voters.
Yep, except those who went Bush-Obama was much higher meaning very likely many of those folks were Republican to begin with.
I don't follow. Your argument is that is a person voted for obama twice, bush once, and trump once they are necessarily a republican?
If we assume everyone who has voted for two republican presidential candidates over a lifetime is an unreachable voter committed to vote for the republican party out of party loyalty, I don't see how the democratic party ever wins another presidential election.
Fortunately, I don't think the above is a correct description of the american electorate.
Sure and the answer seems to be some sort of perceived white oppression. But I will re-iterate there is no need to appeal to these voters. Especially to something that doesn't exist. It's been beaten into the ground the slimmest of margins Trump won by even provided the above. I would be more inclined to appeal to the non-voters and third party voters. Also that shift began before Trump.
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/13/493763493/charts-see-how-quickly-white-non-college-voters-have-fled-the-democratic-party
So to review, you'd rather change the ACTUAL principles of the democratic party to appeal to voters who chose to vote for another party (presumably libertarian and green?) rather than try to educate voters who already agree with the actual principles of the democratic party, but have bad information about what the modern party stands for?
Because you realize oppressing white people isn't actually a core liberal or progressive value, right? So not doing that, and making sure people understand we don't want to do that doesn't require compromising our principles (or at least my principles) in any way.
-
I don't follow. Your argument is that is a person voted for obama twice, bush once, and trump once they are necessarily a republican?
Nope. My argument is that not every Obama-Trump voter is someone the Dems can/should reach because they are Republican to begin with.
If we assume everyone who has voted for two republican presidential candidates over a lifetime is an unreachable voter committed to vote for the republican party out of party loyalty, I don't see how the democratic party ever wins another presidential election.
Sure, but I didn't make the assumption.
So to review, you'd rather change the ACTUAL principles of the democratic party to appeal to voters who chose to vote for another party (presumably libertarian and green?) rather than try to educate voters who already agree with the actual principles of the democratic party, but have bad information about what the modern party stands for?
Hmm, my Dem neighbor voted third party because he thought Hillary was a very bad Dem candidate (fed into a lot of the "corruption" BS). He regrets it because he despises Trump so much. Where does he fit into your above analysis. I said nothing of changing principles. You seem to really be reading into things that aren't there.
Because you realize oppressing white people isn't actually a core liberal or progressive value, right? So not doing that, and making sure people understand we don't want to do that doesn't require compromising our principles (or at least my principles) in any way.
Couldn't agree more. Which brings is full circle back to the million dollar question. How do you appeal to the white folks who think they are being discriminated against? Lie and agree with them? Make false promises? See the issue?
-
I don't follow. Your argument is that is a person voted for obama twice, bush once, and trump once they are necessarily a republican?
Nope. My argument is that not every Obama-Trump voter is someone the Dems can/should reach because they are Republican to begin with.
If there are 17 million of them, we clearly don't need to reach all of them. A million would do the trick.
If we assume everyone who has voted for two republican presidential candidates over a lifetime is an unreachable voter committed to vote for the republican party out of party loyalty, I don't see how the democratic party ever wins another presidential election.
Sure, but I didn't make the assumption.
Okay, so what's your problem with trying to reach out to these voters then? Because you keep trying to write this group off over and over.
So to review, you'd rather change the ACTUAL principles of the democratic party to appeal to voters who chose to vote for another party (presumably libertarian and green?) rather than try to educate voters who already agree with the actual principles of the democratic party, but have bad information about what the modern party stands for?
Hmm, my Dem neighbor voted third party because he thought Hillary was a very bad Dem candidate (fed into a lot of the "corruption" BS). He regrets it because he despises Trump so much. Where does he fit into your above analysis. I said nothing of changing principles. You seem to really be reading into things that aren't there.
I'm trying to understand why you're so opposed to reaching out to a particular group of voters that I see as particularly reachable and our best shot at avoiding eight years with our current president.
I'm trying to understand your thinking because I see a lot of people expressing views like yours both here and on other message boards (much less in person), and I really don't understand your motivation in is.
Because you realize oppressing white people isn't actually a core liberal or progressive value, right? So not doing that, and making sure people understand we don't want to do that doesn't require compromising our principles (or at least my principles) in any way.
Couldn't agree more. Which brings is full circle back to the million dollar question. How do you appeal to the white folks who think they are being discriminated against? Lie and agree with them? Make false promises? See the issue?
Oh that one is simple. When those rare fringy people like the Evergreen protestors and their views make the news, instead of trying to sweep them under the rug, you loudly and clearly say "this person or this group of people doesn't speak for the democratic party, our party does not believe in judging people by the color of their skin" and then you go back to pushing for good policy and electing honest candidates.
Not hard at all.
-
Sometimes I think our resisten en to reaching voters is personal experience with them. I have a friend who voted Trump. I was pretty shocked because she wasn’t someone I thought would have supported him (very educated, female, open to gay people, etc). I spent some serious time trying to understand her views and reasons. She honest didn’t seem to have any empathy for either poor people (they are all gaming the system and defrauding it) or those who looked differently from her. I am part Hispanic through my grandparents, but white otherwise, so I really tried to explain how it feels to be an immigrant and some of the challenges faced by them. After she told me “maybe some people should just die” I couldn’t take it anymore. We stopped talking about anything but the most superficial things.
So if I can’t reach someone I know very well (or thought I did) by having respectful, genuine conversations with her, how is the Democratic Party going to have any luck saying exptremist college students aren’t us? My friend doesn’t care about people who don’t look like her or have the same socioeconomic background. She’s also convinced this isn’t a problem.
-
I'm trying to understand why you're so opposed to reaching out to a particular group of voters that I see as particularly reachable and our best shot at avoiding eight years with our current president.
I'm not. Good grief! We'll leave it at that because you just aren't getting it.
Couldn't agree more. Which brings is full circle back to the million dollar question. How do you appeal to the white folks who think they are being discriminated against? Lie and agree with them? Make false promises? See the issue?
Oh that one is simple. When those rare fringy people like the Evergreen protestors and their views make the news, instead of trying to sweep them under the rug, you loudly and clearly say "this person or this group of people doesn't speak for the democratic party, our party does not believe in judging people by the color of their skin" and then you go back to pushing for good policy and electing honest candidates.
Not hard at all.
Sounds like a great response! And if these folks still lean right because of some "white oppression" then they are unreachable. Let's focus on people that are reachable (like my neighbor).
-
Sometimes I think our resisten en to reaching voters is personal experience with them. I have a friend who voted Trump. I was pretty shocked because she wasn’t someone I thought would have supported him (very educated, female, open to gay people, etc). I spent some serious time trying to understand her views and reasons. She honest didn’t seem to have any empathy for either poor people (they are all gaming the system and defrauding it) or those who looked differently from her. I am part Hispanic through my grandparents, but white otherwise, so I really tried to explain how it feels to be an immigrant and some of the challenges faced by them. After she told me “maybe some people should just die” I couldn’t take it anymore. We stopped talking about anything but the most superficial things.
So if I can’t reach someone I know very well (or thought I did) by having respectful, genuine conversations with her, how is the Democratic Party going to have any luck saying exptremist college students aren’t us? My friend doesn’t care about people who don’t look like her or have the same socioeconomic background. She’s also convinced this isn’t a problem.
That sounds like a very upsetting experience, particularly the "maybe some people should just die" line, and I probably would have the same reaction in your shoes of just deciding to disengage entirely with that particular person.
The only point I will make here is that this is one particular person, and to win elections it is not necessary that we change the minds of any one voter but it is necessary that we change the minds of some voters. So please don't let the realization that your friend is not someone who is open to changing her position convince you that there is no point in continuing to engage with other people as you have the opportunities.
-
Sounds like a great response! And if these folks still lean right because of some "white oppression" then they are unreachable. Let's focus on people that are reachable (like my neighbor).
Alright, sounds like we are in agreement.
I'll just make one final request: Please don't make or encourage jokes (or what you feel are genuine statements of fact) about how terrible, insecure, and/or racist white people are. Because even on internet forums, statements and jokes like that makes the job of reaching persuadable voters harder, and whether a rational response or or not it moves more voters into the unreachable category.
At the same time please do continue to call out, mock, and ridicule white racists. Because they have no place in a democracy founded on the belief that all people are created equal.
-
My personal take is not that the Dems need to spend more time refuting people like Antifa and Evergreen college extremists. They really need to spend more time on policy and why it helps.
Going back to my friend, one thing she also seems convinced of is that government could never run healthcare (despite my assertion that my government healthcare is fantastic and her boyfriend has better healthcare than her - his government, her’s from a contractor) and healthcare for the whole country would not be beneficial at all to her or anyone in general.
In other words, we aren’t better as a nation when people have access to healthcare. I’d suspect there are others who believe this and that is why they blindly hate the ACA. She does think many of the poeple who are sick are just not taking care of themselves (ie, missing necessary appointments, etc - this was a little crazy to me because she just went through some major rehab on her shoulder after a bike accident. She’d been agonizing about taking time off work for it not because she couldn’t afford it, but because she felt guilty taking time off. She was like a deer in headlights when I explained there are many people who can’t afford either the time off or the doctor visits and quit even when they want the care).
Anyway, all that to say I’m tired of Dems focusing on being anti-Trump, and not talking about the issues enough. We all know we hate Trump. Give us reason to want you. I think it was where Hilary went wrong, too.
Yes, “racist” is overused and needs to be saved for the real racists. That would be beneficial. Most of that comes from people other than Democrat candidates, though. Hard to stop it. Plus I don’t think people like my friend can be convinced with nicer words that people who aren’t like her haven’t brought their misfortune upon themselves. I think they can win with a better, clearer message. A solid plan that actually has some research behind it.
I’m with Masterstache that the middle voters are the key, not the ones voting because they feel put upon as white people. I’m actually an Independent who used to lean right. I voted for Bush (disaster, sorry!), then for a Republican other than Romney, but didn’t vote in the last election because NY state never got me an absentee ballot. I lean left after seeing the disaster that is Republican policy, but still register Independent because I despise being locked into one ideology. I feel like there are a whole lot more of me out there that Dems can easily reach with a good message.
-
I’m with Masterstache that the middle voters are the key, not the ones voting because they feel put upon as white people.
I think we are in complete agreement that it is important to focus on the middle voters rather than the extremists who are probably going to vote for the same party no matter way. It would appear the core disagreement we have are who the middle voters are. *shrug*
-
The middle voters are the key. Almost 40% of American voters that responded to a recent poll described themselves as "independent" regardless of party affiliation.
-In general, many people are sick and tired of party loyalty above all else.
-In general, people distrust politicians on both sides.
They are tired of Democrats getting in and legislating every little aspect of their daily lives. This "plastic straw" controversy is a wonderful example of why the Democrats can't win an election these days. Barack Obama was the exception - he had mainstream appeal because he spoke optimistically and well, discussed specific areas he wanted to improve, and rode the wave of populism to a landslide victory. And you know what happened? His own party did him in because it wanted to "negotiate" with the Republicans or dial back the more "extreme" views he had...which is why the ACA was a 2,000 page clusterfuck that actually resembled a Republican plan (RomneyCare) in the end - because of the concessions that had to be made within his own party to appease Republicans who could have been shut out of the process entirely. To an entire generation of voters, this made the Democrats appear weak and stupid. Yet, the same Democratic party will come out and condemn something stupid later on, and demand that it be banned.
So the country will turn their back on Democrats and elect Republicans. Because except where a woman's uterus is concerned for whatever reason, the Republicans don't seem to want to meddle with every aspect of your daily lives. Instead, they just give up the farm to big business and the rich after crying about deficit spending. But at least they don't tell you what kind of straws to use or what to think (unless you're a woman).
And this is how we got in the Trump mess.
In reality, the savior might be a third party. I believe that the overwhelming majority of voters in America believe in conservative values, but believe in liberal policy. We want to help the poor and the down and out, but only those that we feel are actively working towards their own better future - not the freeloaders. We do not want government in our daily lives, telling us we will be arrested for littering, and banning the use of gender specific pronouns in public speeches. We do NOT want the rich to get anymore tax breaks (we want them to pay more to reduce deficits), and we are split 50/50 on corporations because a high tax rate on rich individuals coupled with low rates on corporations could conceivably discourage businesses from paying executives disproportionately. We are divided on the role of religion in politics (unfortunately), but the majority agrees that gay people should be able to marry although many who agree gays can marry disagree about how prominently homosexuality should be featured on television, in movies, and in other controversial areas.
This leads to a situation where neither party directly represents the country's interests. Coupled with a post citizens united world where lobbyists can basically legally bribe politicians to do their bidding, where the 1% controls the message so that major elections are decided on fringe questions like gay marriage or abortion when in reality, what determines the ultimate level of happiness for citizens in this country is the quality of life in their area, the quality of the economy, and the access to opportunity - 3 things that consistently get lost in the shuffle.
The failures of liberal government are shown in crime ridden major cities where anything goes - where violations go unticketed because someone cries "racism" at being issued a ticket for hopping a subway turnstile or blasting loud music in public.
The failures of Republican government are shown in the poverty in most rural areas and the complete inability of these governments to attract people or businesses to these areas, as the talent for a skilled workforce is just not there because they have decimated the education system.
Neither party is going to have a stranglehold on the majority of voters that self identify as independent until they understand this. Regulate the rich and big biz to enforce fairness in the marketplace, get the big money out of politics, and let us live our lives the way we'd like, within the boundaries of established laws that get enforced, with minimal additional government interference. Otherwise, every 4 years, it's just going to be a question who gets more of the self identified Democrat extremists or Republican extremists to turn out in a lackluster showing. People are tired of the status quo. We are tired of being governed by a bunch of god fearing, bible thumping sinners from the south, and we are tired of being governed by a bunch of spoiled professional protestors from California who think banning something makes the problem go away.
-
I’m with Masterstache that the middle voters are the key, not the ones voting because they feel put upon as white people.
I think we are in complete agreement that it is important to focus on the middle voters rather than the extremists who are probably going to vote for the same party no matter way. It would appear the core disagreement we have are who the middle voters are. *shrug*
Ahem, I am a middle voter actually. Might not seem that way but I have indeed voted both Republican and Dem (was a registered Republican and voted Republican only at one time). I am a registered independent now. Hillary wasn't my first choice but voted for her because I was so against Trump and what he stood for.
-
I’m with Masterstache that the middle voters are the key, not the ones voting because they feel put upon as white people. I’m actually an Independent who used to lean right. I voted for Bush (disaster, sorry!), then for a Republican other than Romney, but didn’t vote in the last election because NY state never got me an absentee ballot. I lean left after seeing the disaster that is Republican policy, but still register Independent because I despise being locked into one ideology. I feel like there are a whole lot more of me out there that Dems can easily reach with a good message.
You and I have eerily similar paths.
-
I’m with Masterstache that the middle voters are the key, not the ones voting because they feel put upon as white people.
I think we are in complete agreement that it is important to focus on the middle voters rather than the extremists who are probably going to vote for the same party no matter way. It would appear the core disagreement we have are who the middle voters are. *shrug*
Ahem, I am a middle voter actually. Might not seem that way but I have indeed voted both Republican and Dem (was a registered Republican and voted Republican only at one time). I am a registered independent now. Hillary wasn't my first choice but voted for her because I was so against Trump and what he stood for.
Did I say you weren't a middle voter?
I'm merely pointing out that you're in a big rush to write off a large group of folks that I believe are actually swing voters.
-
I’m with Masterstache that the middle voters are the key, not the ones voting because they feel put upon as white people.
I think we are in complete agreement that it is important to focus on the middle voters rather than the extremists who are probably going to vote for the same party no matter way. It would appear the core disagreement we have are who the middle voters are. *shrug*
Ahem, I am a middle voter actually. Might not seem that way but I have indeed voted both Republican and Dem (was a registered Republican and voted Republican only at one time). I am a registered independent now. Hillary wasn't my first choice but voted for her because I was so against Trump and what he stood for.
Did I say you weren't a middle voter?
I'm merely pointing out that you're in a big rush to write off a large group of folks that I believe are actually swing voters.
Wow dude, you really take what I write to heart. You gotta ease up a bit. I didn't write that with any ill intent or insinuation.
And no I didn't write off a "large group of folks" as you keep claiming. Seems others understand what I was writing, but clearly you didn't. You need a coke and a smile ( :
-
And no I didn't write off a "large group of folks" as you keep claiming. Seems others understand what I was writing, but clearly you didn't.
Obviously you are going to be the ultimate judge of the meaning you tended to convey, all I can tell you is the meaning that actually comes across on the screen.
Since you put quotes around "a large group of folks" but not write off, is your argument that the group you want to write off is small or that you don't arguing to write anyone off?
-
And no I didn't write off a "large group of folks" as you keep claiming. Seems others understand what I was writing, but clearly you didn't.
Obviously you are going to be the ultimate judge of the meaning you tended to convey, all I can tell you is the meaning that actually comes across on the screen.
Since you put quotes around "a large group of folks" but not write off, is your argument that the group you want to write off is small or that you don't arguing to write anyone off?
My meaning was pretty clear. Again others got it. You were the black sheep. The quotes were because I direct quoted you. If I left out a couple words it wasn't intentional. Please don't read too much into that as well. Small vs big is subjective. I am not going down that path.
Relax man! We are on the same page.
-
It was interesting to see that the debate on this thread is being replicated in the democratic party at large.
Some folks want to abandon the traditionally democratic midwest to go after Georgia, Arizona, and eventually Texas. Some people, particularly in Wisconsin, think the reason Hillary Clinton lost those states was pulling resources from the midwest to go after Arizona and argue it's a failed strategy.
Some people favor an "all of the above" approach.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/30/electoral-college-2020-trump-747648
MasterStache, by my count there are three people participating in this particular part of discussion at the moment, you, me and TrudgingAlong. Presumably you're considered TA as the person who understands the meaning you intend to convey, while saying that I clearly do not understand your intended meaning.*
Now I'd argue a 1:1 ratio in terms of two different interpretations of your comments based on two data points is not enough data to separate black sheep and who the white sheep are.
But my main point here is simply that making either jokes or (believed) statements of fact that single out a group of potential democratic voters as bad or insecure or not worth wasting time on based on the color of their skin is not helpful and in fact actively counterproductive. If you agree with that, then yes, you're right I'm just completely misunderstanding your posts. If you disagree with it, then I think we are indeed communicating accurately, we just fundamentally disagree on this particular point.
*Which I base on your repeated insistence that white voters are voting for Trump out of pure party loyalty and are clearly republicans if they voted for Bush, Obama, and then Trump.
-
But my main point here is simply that making either jokes or (believed) statements of fact that single out a group of potential democratic voters as bad or insecure or not worth wasting time on based on the color of their skin is not helpful and in fact actively counterproductive.
Sure it's counter-productive. Feel free to direct quote if I made any such racist comments toward democratic voters.
*Which I base on your repeated insistence that white voters are voting for Trump out of pure party loyalty and are clearly republicans if they voted for Bush, Obama, and then Trump.
Yep, except those who went Bush-Obama was much higher meaning very likely many of those folks were Republican to begin with.
many /= all. Not sure why you keep struggling with this. Perhaps this will help you:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/may-not-be-as-many-trump-democrats-as-previously-imagined.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/may-not-be-as-many-trump-democrats-as-previously-imagined.html)
BTW, this also lines up with PEW research polls which clearly show the flip happening right after Obama was elected. (referring to white voters with HS or less education.) Check out the huge increase between 2008-2012.
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/ (http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/)
Now for future reference feel free to direct quote the statement of fact you believe I made. I don't like direct quoting myself to point our your mistakes.
-
In reality, the savior might be a third party.
(Cutting all the rest of the Fox news propaganda for length--crime-ridden cities? Puhleeze.)
Oh look, another person who believes that a mythical third party can ride in and save the day! I am so tired of this BS. We currently have no less than 29 candidates running for Senate for Washington's primary. At least half of those are third-party candidates, and if you read their platforms, they are pretty much universally wacko. I also never see these parties (Green, libertarian, etc) fielding serious candidates for any mayoral, city council, county, or even most state legislature races.
You know what that tells me? That tells me these people are only in it to stroke their own egos. They're not there to build a coalition or do the hard work of governing.
Politics is a team sport. You want change, you need a whole lot of people (and money) on your side. Running every 4-8 years for President or the occasional Senate/Representative seat won't do jack squat. Even if you win, you STILL won't have any allies to support the changes you want. Which means like it or not, the Democrats and the Republicans are the only game in town.
-
In reality, the savior might be a third party.
(Cutting all the rest of the Fox news propaganda for length--crime-ridden cities? Puhleeze.)
Oh look, another person who believes that a mythical third party can ride in and save the day! I am so tired of this BS. We currently have no less than 29 candidates running for Senate for Washington's primary. At least half of those are third-party candidates, and if you read their platforms, they are pretty much universally wacko. I also never see these parties (Green, libertarian, etc) fielding serious candidates for any mayoral, city council, county, or even most state legislature races.
You know what that tells me? That tells me these people are only in it to stroke their own egos. They're not there to build a coalition or do the hard work of governing.
Politics is a team sport. You want change, you need a whole lot of people (and money) on your side. Running every 4-8 years for President or the occasional Senate/Representative seat won't do jack squat. Even if you win, you STILL won't have any allies to support the changes you want. Which means like it or not, the Democrats and the Republicans are the only game in town.
And this is why so many Americans are disenfranchised with the current system. People are sick of holding their noses and voting for someone who's going to screw them anyway.
Believe me, I am VERY far from a Republican, so I'm not sure what the Fox News comment has to do with me, if anything. Green and Libertarian parties are nuts, we know that. What about Working Families? What about a new third party founded around conservative social values, but liberal economic ones? Don't craft a straw man around a "third party" that wasn't named.
But know this: partisan die hards are becoming the minority. You can rail against the majority of Americans for not turning out, or you can adapt your platform to the needs and wishes of the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans don't really care if gays are allowed to marry - the majority actually support it. The majority of Americans resent being told what to eat, drink, or think, and having the threat of censorship hanging over their heads. The majority of Americans want to address income inequality, raise taxes on the rich without raising them on the not-rich, reduce the deficit, and secure funding for Social Security well into the future without cutting benefits too significantly. The majority of Americans want to address the triple edged sword of rising healthcare, education, and housing costs.
Run on that, and any candidate can win. Posting on here blaming "everyone else" for not voting for your candidate is just sour grapes from bitter losers. Trump is a horrible president, we all know that. But if Democrats don't wake up and appeal to voters who are disenfranchised with economic unfairness, they are going to have to get used to losing a lot of elections. They can't keep playing neoconservative on economics and radical left on social issues and expect to win. Most Americans believe in family values still, and if the Democrats are seen as against that and offer an economic status quo, they are going to lose.
Voters are tired of talk and false promises. They want to see action. There's a reason Obama won 2 elections. He did what he could, but the biggest reason he didn't do more was his own party in his first term. As far as I'm concerned, one of the best things he ever did was allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, which meant the top tax rate climbed back to 39.6%. Could Obama have run against Trump, we'd be looking at a third term president. The only "good" thing about Trump at this point is Republicans are learning what it means to be lied to. But elections and politics are a lot more than just these presidential elections every 4 years, and Democrats have neglected those, and failed to identify themselves as a party for the common people. So if the Democrats stick with the same strategy they've been sticking with, and fail to get the independents to the polls, we'll be looking at 4 more years of the Toupee in Chief, regardless of what anyone tells them to do on a discussion board. Hell, they are winning some local and state elections now as a direct response, and the Democratic establishment is distancing itself from these young, motivated candidates who want to change the status quo who are WINNING. How is this a recipe for governing into the future as a party?
Democrats can sit there and tell people what they "should" do, or they can get out there, listen to them, and develop a platform that addresses their needs and wants.
Otherwise, when someone rich enough to fund a third party has had enough, we'll see that too no matter how unlikely. Or the pitchforks will come out, for real. Why? Because history says so.
-
But if Democrats don't wake up and appeal to voters who are disenfranchised with economic unfairness, they are going to have to get used to losing a lot of elections.
Just curious how they did not appeal? Or what more they could have done? Compare and contrast that to what the GOP promised and if those promises are actually being fulfilled.
-
But if Democrats don't wake up and appeal to voters who are disenfranchised with economic unfairness, they are going to have to get used to losing a lot of elections.
Just curious how they did not appeal? Or what more they could have done? Compare and contrast that to what the GOP promised and if those promises are actually being fulfilled.
Not sure what more they could have done, but it's hard to argue that the parties are appealing when almost half of eligible voters don't vote.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8265143/almost-half-eligible-voters-did-not-vote-election-2016/ (https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8265143/almost-half-eligible-voters-did-not-vote-election-2016/)
-
But if Democrats don't wake up and appeal to voters who are disenfranchised with economic unfairness, they are going to have to get used to losing a lot of elections.
Just curious how they did not appeal? Or what more they could have done? Compare and contrast that to what the GOP promised and if those promises are actually being fulfilled.
Not sure what more they could have done, but it's hard to argue that the parties are appealing when almost half of eligible voters don't vote.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8265143/almost-half-eligible-voters-did-not-vote-election-2016/ (https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8265143/almost-half-eligible-voters-did-not-vote-election-2016/)
The two candidates picked were by the most unfavorable candidates put forth in a long time. Likely explains why a lot of folks didn't vote.
-
But if Democrats don't wake up and appeal to voters who are disenfranchised with economic unfairness, they are going to have to get used to losing a lot of elections.
Just curious how they did not appeal? Or what more they could have done? Compare and contrast that to what the GOP promised and if those promises are actually being fulfilled.
I'm not a D but I think putting up Hillary turned off a lot of folks. Just like the R's recycling McCain and Romney. Both parties need some new blood.
-
But if Democrats don't wake up and appeal to voters who are disenfranchised with economic unfairness, they are going to have to get used to losing a lot of elections.
Just curious how they did not appeal? Or what more they could have done? Compare and contrast that to what the GOP promised and if those promises are actually being fulfilled.
Not sure what more they could have done, but it's hard to argue that the parties are appealing when almost half of eligible voters don't vote.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8265143/almost-half-eligible-voters-did-not-vote-election-2016/ (https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8265143/almost-half-eligible-voters-did-not-vote-election-2016/)
The two candidates picked were by the most unfavorable candidates put forth in a long time. Likely explains why a lot of folks didn't vote.
100% agree.
Picking a human that is likable would be a good start if you're looking for ways to improve the appeal of both political parties in the US.
-
I did some reading and gave it some thought. As far as (winning) the midterm is concerned, the two strategies are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Namely, endorse candidates that are suited for the right demographics (district).
Given the widespread support for D relative to R at the moment (loads of tailwind for the D), the blues can totally go back to the working-class roots in the mid-west, while doubling down on the female/minority identity politics in other areas. This double barrel strategy will likely yield the biggest gain for D in Nov.
The problem is.... this could very well backfire come 2020. As FB made an announcement about how some left-wing (anti-right) pages could also be linked to the Russians, it remains to be seen how the left will react to this new revelation.
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/07/removing-bad-actors-on-facebook/
-
I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO.
Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.
If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.
Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.
-
I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO.
Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.
If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.
Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.
This. Some of the best people I know are gun toting, pickup driving Republicans who fear too much government interference in their lives. They HATE welfare. But yet, if you were stranded on the side of the road, they'd stop whatever they were doing, pull over, give you a tow or at least a ride to the garage behind the tow truck, invite you in for a meal, and be sure you had everything you needed before they sent you on their way.
Identity politics are failing because the majority do not identify with stereotypes, yet that is exactly what identity politics is designed to appeal to. Playing to stereotypes sets unrealistic expectations and emboldens the worst factions of a party's base (read: extremists) if they DO win elections. Then they pursue a bunch of fringe nonsense that alienates the "middle ground" voters. This is why neither party seems to be able to hold onto power for more than 2-4 years.
As for Hillary, Hillary very much marginalized people with some very legitimate economic concerns. She routinely pooh poohed legitimate complaints at her rallies. Trump may be a snake oil salesman peddling lies, but Hillary couldn't even bother to lie. Whether it was lumping the economically disenfranchised in with neo-Nazis as "deplorables" all the same, or her bad handling of pretty much every time she's been called out on something she said ("Well can I talk?" as a result to an upset BLM protestor asking her to apologize to black people for calling them super predators in the 90s is one such example), she pretty much played into Trump's hands the entire way. I mean, no one should be surprised. She did the exact same thing in 2008 when she was in primaries against Obama while He spoke optimistically and hopefully of the American people while acknowledging the country's flaws, and Obama pulled away.
People are tired of being labeled in general. Stereotyping is pretty much out of control in America. There are lots of Latinos who don't want illegal immigration. There are lots of white people with money who do (cheap labor). There are lots of black people that can distinguish between cases like Philando Castile (totally unjustified) and Michael Brown (might well have been). Being for the nation's laws and not wanting illegal immigration does not make one "racist." Wanting better income equality does not mean someone is "socialist" or "communist" - it just means they are sick of this plutocratic kleptocracy where 0.1% control everything. This constant pandering to the lowest common denominator is designed to win votes, not ultimately effectively influence policy. And people are tired of the dog and pony show, they want results. So they'll vote for whoever gives them a shot at a result, or they'll stay home if no one appeals to them.
-
I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO.
Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.
If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.
Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.
You sound like several of my friends. Most of them stopped calling themselves "Republicans" in the wake of Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican party and now just use the term "fiscal conservative" instead. It's pretty clear that the days of a principled, fiscally-conservative Republican party are over. RIP GOP.
-
This constant pandering to the lowest common denominator is designed to win votes, not ultimately effectively influence policy. And people are tired of the dog and pony show, they want results. So they'll vote for whoever gives them a shot at a result, or they'll stay home if no one appeals to them.
I don't know how starting "Lock her up" chants or offering legal aid to someone who sucker punches a counter-protestor at a rally is someone who can stop the dog and pony show. Usually, one looks for someone with more gravitas to do that.
Anyway, going to the LCD won't stop. Many pols want to stay in power.
The real solution for this? Term limits. There are plenty of people who have good ideas. Surely we can find another 535+6 every 6/12 years.
-
I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO.
Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.
If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.
Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.
Look, I'm generally sympathetic to this argument. I wish liberals would stop making remarks like that and I try very hard to understand where conservatives are coming from and to communicate those motivations to my liberal friends. But it becomes very difficult to defend conservatives when they elect someone like Donald Trump to be the leader of their party. I mean, do you really think that any one of those terms doesn't apply to him? Maybe downgrade racist to prejudiced at most, but the rest fits him to a T. I think that at some point you just have to examine whether the names that are being thrown at the groups that you associate with are warranted (not by your actions, but by the actions of the group as a whole). If they are and you don't like being called those names, then maybe you should just stop associating with those groups. In other words, take personal responsibility for the groups that you choose to associate with. I mean, your description of yourself sounds more like a description of a democrat to me anyways.
-
I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO.
Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.
If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.
Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.
I'm a good person, who just happens to stand in solidarity and march with Nazis. I don't agree with their Jew or Black killing stance, but do agree with them on shiny leather boots, stylish arm bands, and short cropped hair. Why do people keep calling me racist? It's sooooo uncalled for and confusing. I'm never going to stop marching with Nazis if people say that they're all racists though, because I'm not a racist. That just turns my ears off. Everyone needs to lay off and let me march along happily.
-
I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO.
Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.
If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.
Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.
I'm a good person, who just happens to stand in solidarity and march with Nazis. I don't agree with their Jew or Black killing stance, but do agree with them on shiny leather boots, stylish arm bands, and short cropped hair. Why do people keep calling me racist? It's sooooo uncalled for and confusing. I'm never going to stop marching with Nazis if people say that they're all racists though, because I'm not a racist. That just turns my ears off. Everyone needs to lay off and let me march along happily.
except no one is killing jews or blacks. let alone leather boots, arm bands, and nazis. over-exaggeration and generalization like this does not help. behavior like this on the left is exactly what fb recently found to be linked to the russians.
-
I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO.
Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.
If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.
Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.
I'm a good person, who just happens to stand in solidarity and march with Nazis. I don't agree with their Jew or Black killing stance, but do agree with them on shiny leather boots, stylish arm bands, and short cropped hair. Why do people keep calling me racist? It's sooooo uncalled for and confusing. I'm never going to stop marching with Nazis if people say that they're all racists though, because I'm not a racist. That just turns my ears off. Everyone needs to lay off and let me march along happily.
except no one is killing jews or blacks. let alone leather boots, arm bands, and nazis. over-exaggeration and generalization like this does not help. behavior like this on the left is exactly what fb recently found to be linked to the russians.
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/599081d015000021008b654c.jpeg?ops=scalefit_970_noupscale)
The leader of the Republican party literally said that a group of folks marching with Nazi signs who were involved in the death of a person were good people.
(You should also pick a side with Russia. If you want to pretend to care about Russian agents, then you can't possibly support President Trump. If you don't care about Russian agents, then why does it matter if I am one?)
-
those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s, if you cant tell the difference i have nothing else to say to you.
how you concluded i am a trump supporter is also beyond me; no one is pretending to care about russians, it is a problem. fb has shown (and to some extent the govt officials) they've infiltrated both right and left, do everyone and the country a favor and just stop it.
-
I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO.
Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.
If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.
Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.
I'm a good person, who just happens to stand in solidarity and march with Nazis. I don't agree with their Jew or Black killing stance, but do agree with them on shiny leather boots, stylish arm bands, and short cropped hair. Why do people keep calling me racist? It's sooooo uncalled for and confusing. I'm never going to stop marching with Nazis if people say that they're all racists though, because I'm not a racist. That just turns my ears off. Everyone needs to lay off and let me march along happily.
except no one is killing jews or blacks. let alone leather boots, arm bands, and nazis. over-exaggeration and generalization like this does not help. behavior like this on the left is exactly what fb recently found to be linked to the russians.
Ya, even if that was meant in jest, it's really not helping the cause.
But I'd like to go back to adjectives that skp is offended by:
Deplorable was used once and it was no doubt a poor choice, but when Hillary said it she was specifically referring to people who were going to vote for Trump. From what you said, you didn't vote for Trump, so this one doesn't apply to you. Why then, does it bother you personally?
Not to mention she said "half" of Trump voters. In context, she was making the point that some of those voting for him were doing so for mean spirited reasons and probably couldn't be won over by appealing to their conscience. The other half were decent people who didn't like his rhetoric but would vote for him anyway because they put their conservative ideology above whatever damage he might cause for minorities, LGBT, etc. ("half" was a poor word choice as well, "some" or "a few" would've gotten the point across)
Racist does get thrown around irresponsibly but in most cases I see it used in specific if/then scenarios. As in If you support X, then you're a racist. Probably still not fair in most cases especially given the disagreement on what "racist" really means, but I don't see many people saying "all republicans are racist". Some perhaps, but it's not the norm. Have you specifically been called a racist for your political beliefs or are you being offended on someone else's behalf?
Lazy? Can't say I've really heard that one used much. I'm sure it does get used, but probably a lot more often to refer to democrats and liberals. Sounds like you have a specific case where someone said this about you?
Crooked is most likely being used to refer to politicians rather than voters, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think it's unfair to refer to a lot of current Republicans as crooked and some democrats as well.
All that said, I would suggest that even if a few people are saying mean things about you because of the group you identify with, you shouldn't let that cause you to vote against what you think is right. Let the candidates and the policy make your decisions.
-
I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO.
Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.
If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.
Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.
Look, I'm generally sympathetic to this argument. I wish liberals would stop making remarks like that and I try very hard to understand where conservatives are coming from and to communicate those motivations to my liberal friends. But it becomes very difficult to defend conservatives when they elect someone like Donald Trump to be the leader of their party. I mean, do you really think that any one of those terms doesn't apply to him? Maybe downgrade racist to prejudiced at most, but the rest fits him to a T. I think that at some point you just have to examine whether the names that are being thrown at the groups that you associate with are warranted (not by your actions, but by the actions of the group as a whole). If they are and you don't like being called those names, then maybe you should just stop associating with those groups. In other words, take personal responsibility for the groups that you choose to associate with. I mean, your description of yourself sounds more like a description of a democrat to me anyways.
So my coworker who associates herself with the Democrats is OK even though she is homophobic IMO because she associates herself as a Democrat and votes Democrat? She did vote for Hilary. So she's alright???
-
those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s, if you cant tell the difference i have nothing else to say to you.
Gotcha. The only Nazis you have a problem with lived in the 30s and 40s. The modern ones are good people and there's nothing wrong with marching in solidarity. Thanks for demonstrating exactly the point I was making.
I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO.
Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.
If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.
Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.
Look, I'm generally sympathetic to this argument. I wish liberals would stop making remarks like that and I try very hard to understand where conservatives are coming from and to communicate those motivations to my liberal friends. But it becomes very difficult to defend conservatives when they elect someone like Donald Trump to be the leader of their party. I mean, do you really think that any one of those terms doesn't apply to him? Maybe downgrade racist to prejudiced at most, but the rest fits him to a T. I think that at some point you just have to examine whether the names that are being thrown at the groups that you associate with are warranted (not by your actions, but by the actions of the group as a whole). If they are and you don't like being called those names, then maybe you should just stop associating with those groups. In other words, take personal responsibility for the groups that you choose to associate with. I mean, your description of yourself sounds more like a description of a democrat to me anyways.
So my coworker who associates herself with the Democrats is OK even though she is homophobic IMO because she associates herself as a Democrat and votes Democrat? She did vote for Hilary. So she's alright???
No, she's not alright. She would have most democrats upset with her homophobia. Her views do not reflect the goals and views of the leadership of the party.
If the leader of the Democrats came out and said that gay people are to be feared, that Nazi marches are filled with good people, or that she wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country, or that transgendered people shouldn't be able to use the washroom that they want to, or that gay people should be booted out of the military . . . then folks supporting the Democrats would really have to look hard at the problems of the party.
-
those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s, if you cant tell the difference i have nothing else to say to you.
Gotcha. The only Nazis you have a problem with lived in the 30s and 40s. The modern ones are good people and there's nothing wrong with marching in solidarity. Thanks for demonstrating exactly the point I was making.
I think this has gone way off the rails. I don't see where skp ever mentioned they marched in solidarity with Nazis. Am I missing something?
-
Ya, even if that was meant in jest, it's really not helping the cause.
But I'd like to go back to adjectives that skp is offended by:
Deplorable was used once and it was no doubt a poor choice, but when Hillary said it she was specifically referring to people who were going to vote for Trump. From what you said, you didn't vote for Trump, so this one doesn't apply to you. Why then, does it bother you personally?
I found it incredibly offensive.
I'm a wealthy and well educated and did not, and will not, vote for Trump (and I sure didn't vote for Hillary). I voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson.
Why do I find her "deplorable" comment offensive? Because she took an arrogant cheap shot at a lot of good people who simply disagree with her politically.
People like those that I grew up with. Many of who I still consider my friends. Hard working, decent blue collar/working class folks.
She was essentially sticking her nose in the air and arrogantly decrying those who didn't grow up with the wealth and privilege she enjoyed her entire life. Insulting the hoi polloi whom she considers beneath her.
Hillary learned a lesson (it was a mistake I'm sure Bill Clinton, who did not grow up with her privilege, never would have made). Even those who don't grow up wealthy and go to Harvard and Yale still get a vote. You piss them off badly enough and you will inspire them to turn out against you. She also turned off a fair amount of working class folks who normally vote DEMOCRAT with that comment.
It's a lesson the next Dem candidate had better pay attention to, because I sure don't want to put up with 4-more years of Trump...
-
those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s, if you cant tell the difference i have nothing else to say to you.
Gotcha. The only Nazis you have a problem with lived in the 30s and 40s. The modern ones are good people and there's nothing wrong with marching in solidarity. Thanks for demonstrating exactly the point I was making.
I am going to say it one more time. these ppl are not Nazis. Real Nazis are the ones in the 30s and 40s. You can call these modern folks carrying Nazi flags something else, but they are not Nazis. equating everything to Nazis is absurd.
Libertarian4321,
That's a point I made in my lengthy post, but many posters seem to be ok with it and think the Dems should just double down on the same tactic going forward.
I am going to be honest, I agreed with the "deplorables" comment (and more). But now I see I was wrong, and there are indeed ppl too far gone on both ends, hence my original post urging for a more universal platform for both D and R.
-
those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s, if you cant tell the difference i have nothing else to say to you.
Gotcha. The only Nazis you have a problem with lived in the 30s and 40s. The modern ones are good people and there's nothing wrong with marching in solidarity. Thanks for demonstrating exactly the point I was making.
I am going to say it one more time. these ppl are not Nazis. Real Nazis are the ones in the 30s and 40s. You can call these modern folks carrying Nazi flags something else, but they are not Nazis. equating everything to Nazis is absurd.
Libertarian4321,
That's a point I made in my lengthy post, but many posters seem to be ok with it and think the Dems should just double down on the same tactic going forward.
I am going to be honest, I agreed with the "deplorables" comment (and more). But now I see I was wrong, and there are indeed ppl too far gone on both ends, hence my original post urging for a more universal platform for both D and R.
I fear that you are right about the Dems. Instead of picking a charismatic moderate Dem who would crush Trump, they will probably choose a strident elite leftist, who may well lose.
Running against Trump should be a "gimme" for the Dems. He's the second worst major party candidate for President in the last 100 years. But if they insist on picking the worst possible candidate their party can offer, we may well end up with 4-more years of Trump.
-
Ya, even if that was meant in jest, it's really not helping the cause.
But I'd like to go back to adjectives that skp is offended by:
Deplorable was used once and it was no doubt a poor choice, but when Hillary said it she was specifically referring to people who were going to vote for Trump. From what you said, you didn't vote for Trump, so this one doesn't apply to you. Why then, does it bother you personally?
I found it incredibly offensive.
I'm a wealthy and well educated and did not, and will not, vote for Trump (and I sure didn't vote for Hillary). I voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson.
Why do I find her "deplorable" comment offensive? Because she took an arrogant cheap shot at a lot of good people who simply disagree with her politically.
People like those that I grew up with. Many of who I still consider my friends. Hard working, decent blue collar/working class folks.
She was essentially sticking her nose in the air and arrogantly decrying those who didn't grow up with the wealth and privilege she enjoyed her entire life. Insulting the hoi polloi whom she considers beneath her.
Hillary learned a lesson (it was a mistake I'm sure Bill Clinton, who did not grow up with her privilege, never would have made). Even those who don't grow up wealthy and go to Harvard and Yale still get a vote. You piss them off badly enough and you will inspire them to turn out against you. She also turned off a fair amount of working class folks who normally vote DEMOCRAT with that comment.
It's a lesson the next Dem candidate had better pay attention to, because I sure don't want to put up with 4-more years of Trump...
Have you ever seen the statement in context?
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
But the "other" basket — the other basket — and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
— Hillary Clinton
First she acknowledged that she was being grossly generalistic. Then she used the word "half", poor choice, don't put numbers on these kinds of comments.
But the important thing is she was speaking at an LGBT fundraiser to a group of people who probably view Trump voters worse than the average person. Her whole point was that not all trump voters really feel the way Trump does. The part where she said "Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well." seems to have gotten lost.
-
Ya, even if that was meant in jest, it's really not helping the cause.
But I'd like to go back to adjectives that skp is offended by:
Deplorable was used once and it was no doubt a poor choice, but when Hillary said it she was specifically referring to people who were going to vote for Trump. From what you said, you didn't vote for Trump, so this one doesn't apply to you. Why then, does it bother you personally?
I found it incredibly offensive.
I'm a wealthy and well educated and did not, and will not, vote for Trump (and I sure didn't vote for Hillary). I voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson.
Why do I find her "deplorable" comment offensive? Because she took an arrogant cheap shot at a lot of good people who simply disagree with her politically.
People like those that I grew up with. Many of who I still consider my friends. Hard working, decent blue collar/working class folks.
She was essentially sticking her nose in the air and arrogantly decrying those who didn't grow up with the wealth and privilege she enjoyed her entire life. Insulting the hoi polloi whom she considers beneath her.
Hillary learned a lesson (it was a mistake I'm sure Bill Clinton, who did not grow up with her privilege, never would have made). Even those who don't grow up wealthy and go to Harvard and Yale still get a vote. You piss them off badly enough and you will inspire them to turn out against you. She also turned off a fair amount of working class folks who normally vote DEMOCRAT with that comment.
It's a lesson the next Dem candidate had better pay attention to, because I sure don't want to put up with 4-more years of Trump...
Have you ever seen the statement in context?
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
But the "other" basket — the other basket — and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
— Hillary Clinton
First she acknowledged that she was being grossly generalistic. Then she used the word "half", poor choice, don't put numbers on these kinds of comments.
But the important thing is she was speaking at an LGBT fundraiser to a group of people who probably view Trump voters worse than the average person. Her whole point was that not all trump voters really feel the way Trump does. The part where she said "Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well." seems to have gotten lost.
I thought it was in poor taste at the time she made the comment. But since then, with Trump doubling down on insulting immigrants, Muslim ban, human rights abuses at the border, the incessant lying, bullying etc and most recently polls showing a large group of GOP actually supporting (certainly not discouraging) Russia hacking the election and Trump being in bed with Putin, I would say she was ahead of her time in the assessment of some of Trump's supporters.
Let's not forget Trump claimed he could murder someone and still not lose support. I mean, it's as Trump knew just how deplorable some of his supporters really are. Sort of ironic isn't it?
-
I consider myself a just right of center republican= I did not vote for Trump. I voted 3rd party because neither candidate was a good choice IMO.
Don't lump all republican voters in one basket. I work with a devout Christian who is socially conservative, anti abortion, anti gay marriage, democrat that otherwise ticks all the boxes of a democrat. I am not a Christian, I'm socially liberal, environmentally liberal, fiscally conservative and call myself a republican. There is a danger in not knowing your "enemy" Not every Republican is a Rush Limbaugh.
If you wanted to sway me as a sorta middle of the road voter. I would start by not calling me since I call myself republican even if I am a kinda RINO names. I agree with you on a lot of things. Actually a Democratic speaker even had my husband who is much more to the right than I, on board with him about health care. That is he had him all on board until he started saying nasty things about Republicans. That ended that. Why can't you just stick to the facts, present your arguments, and quit calling people names. Being called deplorable, racist, Lazy and crooked? (THAT ONE really got to me) Don't call me lazy or crooked is just going to turn my ears off.
Also I am totally fed up with the press. They need to lay off. I feel like I'm under the control of Rasputin, who is feeding me untruths and trying to brainwash me.
Look, I'm generally sympathetic to this argument. I wish liberals would stop making remarks like that and I try very hard to understand where conservatives are coming from and to communicate those motivations to my liberal friends. But it becomes very difficult to defend conservatives when they elect someone like Donald Trump to be the leader of their party. I mean, do you really think that any one of those terms doesn't apply to him? Maybe downgrade racist to prejudiced at most, but the rest fits him to a T. I think that at some point you just have to examine whether the names that are being thrown at the groups that you associate with are warranted (not by your actions, but by the actions of the group as a whole). If they are and you don't like being called those names, then maybe you should just stop associating with those groups. In other words, take personal responsibility for the groups that you choose to associate with. I mean, your description of yourself sounds more like a description of a democrat to me anyways.
So my coworker who associates herself with the Democrats is OK even though she is homophobic IMO because she associates herself as a Democrat and votes Democrat? She did vote for Hilary. So she's alright???
1. No, nobody is okay because they associate with democrats or vote for democrats.
2. I'm not sure why you would ask me this. I don't know her well enough to answer it. She's your friend after all, not mine.
-
those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s...
Serious question, could you explain the difference to me (other than the fact that the current incarnation has less power (for now))?
-
those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s...
Serious question, could you explain the difference to me (other than the fact that the current incarnation has less power (for now))?
I can try, but it wont be good. A proper reply would likely take days, if not weeks, of work. True Nazism is a lot more than being racists, the key difference is expansionism, everything else is simply an "excuse" to expand outward (invasion).
1. Nationalism and expansionism.
The real Nazis were extremely nationalistic, not only that, they also thought they had "lost" territories, so they were extremely interested in taking over "other races'" lands so members of the Aryan race might have room to grow and prosper. This expansionism is decidedly absent today.
2. Racial theories.
The real Nazis saw the Aryans as the master race, and chose to view history as "constant racial struggles" with many other races, jews, slavs, etc. Later on in the War, they officially declared the bottom tier of the racial scale to be jews, romani (gypsise), slavs, and blacks, and that these races must be exterminated by force to maintain the purity of Aryan race. It should be noted that later on, the purification targets were expanded to include aryans that were the sick, the mentally ill, and others who exhibited other forms of social deviance (such as alcoholism and various forms of drug use).
Today, these people that are often compared to the real Nazis are perhaps at best (worst?) racists, against blacks, "browns", and sometimes east asians. Very few of them say anything at all about non-aryan whites, or the sick, the mentally ill, and socially deviant behaviors. And when they act in a racist manner, they rarely do so to the extent of Nuremberg Laws. Now, you could argue if they were more powerful they would do the same things, maybe, maybe not, but until then they are simply racists.
3.Women
Real Nazis believe women should be excluded in politics, and should be confined in homes and churches. Take a look of that photo again, do you see women in it? Real Nazis would never allow that, nor would they march with women.
4. Religion
Real Nazis were surprisingly hmm non-religious. Yes, they incorporated Catholic teachings but they also removed a lot of the teachings. This is a gross simplification and you are better off reading about this on your own if you are interested. Basically the worship was not so much towards the churches and god but to hitler himself, and to the belief that aryans by right should expand and takeover the world.
5.Economics
Real Nazis were notorious in being anti-communists, but few knew they were also anti-capitalists. They are actually....sort of socialists, such as paid holidays, national labour service, state provided healthcare, pensions and other social welfare policies, and aids for farmers. Hitler himself believed (and in the end did) natural resources and means of productions should be nationalized for the purpose of military actions. I doubt very much the so-called racists today support these policies.
6. Forms of government
Real Nazis ditched democracy and embraced totalitarianism, which was essentially an oppressive police state. Again, I doubt very much the so-called racists today would support this (they would all lose their guns).
To summarize, real Nazis were all about militaristic expansion, everything else was to enable it. To be a little douche about this, repeatedly linking modern day racists in 'Murica with real Nazis is more than a stretch, i cant help but question either your intellect and/or your integrity.
-
those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s...
Serious question, could you explain the difference to me (other than the fact that the current incarnation has less power (for now))?
I can try, but it wont be good. A proper reply would likely take days, if not weeks, of work. True Nazism is a lot more than being racists, the key difference is expansionism, everything else is simply an "excuse" to expand outward (invasion).
1. Nationalism and expansionism.
The real Nazis were extremely nationalistic, not only that, they also thought they had "lost" territories, so they were extremely interested in taking over "other races'" lands so members of the Aryan race might have room to grow and prosper. This expansionism is decidedly absent today.
2. Racial theories.
The real Nazis saw the Aryans as the master race, and chose to view history as "constant racial struggles" with many other races, jews, slavs, etc. Later on in the War, they officially declared the bottom tier of the racial scale to be jews, romani (gypsise), slavs, and blacks, and that these races must be exterminated by force to maintain the purity of Aryan race. It should be noted that later on, the purification targets were expanded to include aryans that were the sick, the mentally ill, and others who exhibited other forms of social deviance (such as alcoholism and various forms of drug use).
Today, these people that are often compared to the real Nazis are perhaps at best (worst?) racists, against blacks, "browns", and sometimes east asians. Very few of them say anything at all about non-aryan whites, or the sick, the mentally ill, and socially deviant behaviors. And when they act in a racist manner, they rarely do so to the extent of Nuremberg Laws. Now, you could argue if they were more powerful they would do the same things, maybe, maybe not, but until then they are simply racists.
3.Women
Real Nazis believe women should be excluded in politics, and should be confined in homes and churches. Take a look of that photo again, do you see women in it? Real Nazis would never allow that, nor would they march with women.
4. Religion
Real Nazis were surprisingly hmm non-religious. Yes, they incorporated Catholic teachings but they also removed a lot of the teachings. This is a gross simplification and you are better off reading about this on your own if you are interested. Basically the worship was not so much towards the churches and god but to hitler himself, and to the belief that aryans by right should expand and takeover the world.
5.Economics
Real Nazis were notorious in being anti-communists, but few knew they were also anti-capitalists. They are actually....sort of socialists, such as paid holidays, national labour service, state provided healthcare, pensions and other social welfare policies, and aids for farmers. Hitler himself believed (and in the end did) natural resources and means of productions should be nationalized for the purpose of military actions. I doubt very much the so-called racists today support these policies.
6. Forms of government
Real Nazis ditched democracy and embraced totalitarianism, which was essentially an oppressive police state. Again, I doubt very much the so-called racists today would support this (they would all lose their guns).
To summarize, real Nazis were all about militaristic expansion, everything else was to enable it. To be a little douche about this, repeatedly linking modern day racists in 'Murica with real Nazis is more than a stretch, i cant help but question either your intellect and/or your integrity.
I'm sure someone on here can answer this better than I can, but for starters:
1. Expansionism? Quit making jokes about invading Canada. Upper and Lower Canada residents didn't appreciate being occupied, we would prefer to not have it happen again. Plus the US already has lots of overseas territories that it doesn't look after well - ask Puerto Ricans how well they were treated after massive hurricane damage.
2. Lots of black/brown issues in the US. Target groups depend on location and history.
3. Sounds familiar - "birth control and abortions should never be available". Controlling a woman's choices about her reproductive life is a great first step to controlling the rest of her life. I remember the 50's and 60's and the introduction of the pill (or as we thought of it, THE PILL). No more "having to get married".
4. There has been lots of discussion on various forums about the odd alliance between your very non-religious President and the Religious Right. And of course VP Pence is waiting in the wings. So a different take on religion, but religion is sure involved, which is truly odd in a country whose constitution specifically keeps religion out of government and government out of religion. And of course God save those who are not radical Protestants, because those who are other Protestant groups, or Catholic (Roman or Greek Orthodox), or Jewish, or Muslim, or Sikh, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or any of a number of other religions, or even worse, those who are agnostics and atheists, will all be potential targets. And we already know this government's take on LGTB issues.
5. Germany was in the grip of run-away inflation. Economic policies depend on circumstances. This time around it seems to be MAGA.
6. I am sure the gun-toting supporters assume they would be in the ranks of the gun-toting enforcers, not the poor suckers who loose their guns. And are you so sure the US isn't teetering on a totalitarian state? The TSA sure has lots of power.
If you don't like people being specific with the term "Nazi", can you go to the more general term "Fascist"? Then you could also haul in Mussolini (who actually did not make the Italian trains run on time) and Franco (who managed to cause lots and lots of urban renewal in Spain). Of course "Nazi" is a much easier term to choose to use when marchers are carrying swastika flags. Their self-identity is clear.
Oh, and it is dated, and one of his least-favourite books since he was writing his editor's plot line, but go read R. A. Heinlein's 6th column. He ended up using this as historical background in other novels, since he thought the American zeitgeist could certainly lead to a totalitarian state (his was a theocracy, which sure looks believable now). And 2 easy-to-think-of SF books which have women socially set back to the 18th century set their stories in the US, not Canada, not Mexico, not anywhere in the UK or the EU. I refer of course to books by Margaret Atwood and Suzette Haden Elgin, Ph. D.
-
Heh, if you invade us, we'll get the Brits to burn down the white house. Again.
I always found it ironic that the Nazi's called themselves Aryan. An Aryan was actually
relating to or denoting a people speaking an Indo-European language who invaded northern India in the 2nd millennium BC, displacing the Dravidian and other aboriginal peoples.
I think it's not unrelated to the way groups coin terms today.
Anyway real Aryans were people that the Nazi's thought were subhuman. They adopted the term 'Aryan' and used it to describe Germanics.
Below are pictures of your prototypical Nazi officer, and a prototypical Aryan. Can you tell the difference?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Alber-161-25%2C_Max_Hansen.jpg/300px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Alber-161-25%2C_Max_Hansen.jpg)
(http://listverse.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2-shah-of-iran.jpg)
-
Of course "Nazi" is a much easier term to choose to use when marchers are carrying swastika flags. Their self-identity is clear.
Right, I am saying the guy (in the pic) holding the flag has no clue what Nazism really is, otherwise he wouldn't have marched with women around him. To me, it's very similar to the kid (Ahmed Mohamed) brought his "clock" to school and was mistaken for a bomb. It just "looked cool" to the kid and went way out of proportions.
Whatever you may think of these folks, there are real differences between them and the historical Nazis (the 6 points I brought up). You can call them nationalistic white supremacists for all I care, but simply labeling them Nazis is like calling every socialists a communist.
But yes, if someone self identifies as one, and acts as one, ya then, by all means, call them Nazis (as you would for gender pronouns).
-
I don't know how starting "Lock her up" chants or offering legal aid to someone who sucker punches a counter-protestor at a rally is someone who can stop the dog and pony show. Usually, one looks for someone with more gravitas to do that.
Anyway, going to the LCD won't stop. Many pols want to stay in power.
The real solution for this? Term limits. There are plenty of people who have good ideas. Surely we can find another 535+6 every 6/12 years.
I'd love to see term limits, and pension benefits for politicians since "politician" was never intended to be a career. As well as individual campaign contribution limits, as "free" speech by definition cannot be equated with paid speech / advertising.
That said, the Trump brand was a new form of dog and pony show that had not been seen before, which is why it was effective THIS time. The independents will not fall for that sort of thing again, unless the Democrats give them a reason to by, say, nominating someone as unpopular as Hillary again.
-
those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s, if you cant tell the difference i have nothing else to say to you.
Gotcha. The only Nazis you have a problem with lived in the 30s and 40s. The modern ones are good people and there's nothing wrong with marching in solidarity. Thanks for demonstrating exactly the point I was making.
I think this has gone way off the rails. I don't see where skp ever mentioned they marched in solidarity with Nazis. Am I missing something?
This is the problem with the left of today. They take your argument, logically extrapolate it to an extreme that you never said, and then tell you you're crazy for believing the extrapolation that they themselves created.
It pisses people off, derails legitimate arguments about actual issues, and makes the actual common sense left lose votes to an egomaniac like Trump.
No one wants to be called a deplorable because they wouldn't consider voting for a particular candidate. You wouldn't see Obama throw a word like that out to describe any segment of the American people in a million years, especially not in a campaign speech. That's just bad politics and a stupid mouth.
Secondly, there is an enormous difference between a bunch of idiots with flags at a rally cheering for white supremacy and chanting offensive slogans, and an actual mob going out and committing violence or murder against groups and taking rights away. Neo Nazis have been around for decades, have had marches for decades, and this is suddenly only a problem because Trump gets elected? All the people so offended by the existence of Neo Nazis...where have you been all these years?
And if you actually are serious about eliminating that kind of rhetoric from politics, how in the blue hell do you think you are going to do that if you start labeling everyone "Nazi"...do you think someone who legitimately feels they are not a Nazi, are going to suddenly shift to your line of thinking? Ironically, it was the Nazis who started this whole "ideological purity test" crap, and BOTH extremes of the political spectrum are the ones engaging in this behavior. By labelling people who hold a single controversial viewpoint as Nazis in everyday discussions about politics (note: I am NOT talking about the people in the marches here, I'm talking about labelling people who don't agree with a liberal viewpoint that way), all you are doing is effectively making there be more "nazis" by labelling a greater and greater segment of the population as such. All it is doing is militarizing the fringe elements on both sides and pissing off all the moderates who are sick of listening to these crap straw man arguments, isms, and fourth grade name calling.
-
Of course "Nazi" is a much easier term to choose to use when marchers are carrying swastika flags. Their self-identity is clear.
Right, I am saying the guy (in the pic) holding the flag has no clue what Nazism really is, otherwise he wouldn't have marched with women around him. To me, it's very similar to the kid (Ahmed Mohamed) brought his "clock" to school and was mistaken for a bomb. It just "looked cool" to the kid and went way out of proportions.
Whatever you may think of these folks, there are real differences between them and the historical Nazis (the 6 points I brought up). You can call them nationalistic white supremacists for all I care, but simply labeling them Nazis is like calling every socialists a communist.
But yes, if someone self identifies as one, and acts as one, ya then, by all means, call them Nazis (as you would for gender pronouns).
Interesting that you commented on my comment about who calls themselves what, but ignored the 6 responses to Anisotropy's 6 points. Those were the meat of my comment, who labels themselves as what was an add-on. Re the present NeoNazis, they don't have to follow every single tenet of the original Nazis (how can they, it was a German Political party with a shortened name, sort of like Dem for Democrat or Rep for Republican). In terms of their politics, look at Facism (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco) and see how close they are (or are not) to the basic principles. Of course they won't be identical, no Communist group has been perfectly aligned with the original tenets of communism, why should any fascist group be perfectly aligned with the original tenets of facism? But it does give an onlooker an idea of where they are coming from and where they want to go.
-
This is the problem with the left of today. They take your argument, logically extrapolate it to an extreme that you never said, and then tell you you're crazy for believing the extrapolation that they themselves created.
It pisses people off, derails legitimate arguments about actual issues, and makes the actual common sense left lose votes to an egomaniac like Trump.
I think it's been pointed out numerous times that this line of behavior isn't purely inclusive of the left. If you use this an excuse to vote for someone who actually praises white supremacist, how does that make sense? Wouldn't it make more logical sense to not vote or vote for some third party candidate? I mean you are essentially saying "I don't like being called racist/prejudice (or whatever), so I am going to vote for someone who is."
No one wants to be called a deplorable because they wouldn't consider voting for a particular candidate. You wouldn't see Obama throw a word like that out to describe any segment of the American people in a million years, especially not in a campaign speech. That's just bad politics and a stupid mouth.
Agreed. No one wants to be called a rapist either. No one wants their kids separated from them just for seeking a better life. See where I am going? And to be fair, in the context of Clinton's comment, she wasn't calling everyone of Trump's supporters deplorable. Only the portion that are racist, xenophobic, etc. And there in fact are a portion who fit that mold. Perhaps not half, but who knows?
Secondly, there is an enormous difference between a bunch of idiots with flags at a rally cheering for white supremacy and chanting offensive slogans, and an actual mob going out and committing violence or murder against groups and taking rights away.
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/qvm43b/judge-allows-federal-lawsuit-against-25-neo-nazis-to-proceed-for-violence-in-charlottesville (https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/qvm43b/judge-allows-federal-lawsuit-against-25-neo-nazis-to-proceed-for-violence-in-charlottesville)
Neo Nazis have been around for decades, have had marches for decades, and this is suddenly only a problem because Trump gets elected? All the people so offended by the existence of Neo Nazis...where have you been all these years?
NO, it's always been a problem. It's even more of a problem now that we have a President praising these folks, which only emboldens them. Where were you when people wanted Obama hung from a tree calling him the "N" word and having a now current President leading the birtherism campaign? Where have you been?
And if you actually are serious about eliminating that kind of rhetoric from politics, how in the blue hell do you think you are going to do that if you start labeling everyone "Nazi"
(note: I am NOT talking about the people in the marches here, I'm talking about labelling people who don't agree with a liberal viewpoint that way)
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman)
All it is doing is militarizing the fringe elements on both sides and pissing off all the moderates who are sick of listening to these crap straw man arguments, isms, and fourth grade name calling.
Agreed, so stop doing it!
-
The moral equivalent of “Nazis” today is not ever going to be equivalent to the actual Nazis of the 1930’s. It’s a nonsensical debate to keep having.
I wonder what people used to compare the Nazis to in the 1930’s? People then probably said “Stop calling them blah blah because they are not like them at all!”
These people are bad people, the moral bottom of human society as it currently stands. They mostly suck and should be kept at the extremes and marginalized. They should not be called “good people” and they should not be ignored or dismissed as harmless. They should also not be incentivized by the behavior and rhetoric of our current president.
Someone else already posted the context of HRC’s deplorables speech so I don’t have to. It always amazes me how pretty much every thing she says is taken in the worst light possible.
At the time I thought the speech was politically stupid, and probably hyperbolic, but the more I experience of this administration and it’s supporters, the more I see her being dead on correct. In fact, more and more of the things she said during the campaign have been proven to be accurate, unfortunately. Her main fault is not that she isn’t competent, or smart, but that she just isn’t inherently political or charismatic in the way a leader of people needed to be.
-
those are very different from the real nazis in the 30s and 40s...
Serious question, could you explain the difference to me (other than the fact that the current incarnation has less power (for now))?
I can try, but it wont be good. A proper reply would likely take days, if not weeks, of work. True Nazism is a lot more than being racists, the key difference is expansionism, everything else is simply an "excuse" to expand outward (invasion).
1. Nationalism and expansionism.
The real Nazis were extremely nationalistic, not only that, they also thought they had "lost" territories, so they were extremely interested in taking over "other races'" lands so members of the Aryan race might have room to grow and prosper. This expansionism is decidedly absent today.
2. Racial theories.
The real Nazis saw the Aryans as the master race, and chose to view history as "constant racial struggles" with many other races, jews, slavs, etc. Later on in the War, they officially declared the bottom tier of the racial scale to be jews, romani (gypsise), slavs, and blacks, and that these races must be exterminated by force to maintain the purity of Aryan race. It should be noted that later on, the purification targets were expanded to include aryans that were the sick, the mentally ill, and others who exhibited other forms of social deviance (such as alcoholism and various forms of drug use).
Today, these people that are often compared to the real Nazis are perhaps at best (worst?) racists, against blacks, "browns", and sometimes east asians. Very few of them say anything at all about non-aryan whites, or the sick, the mentally ill, and socially deviant behaviors. And when they act in a racist manner, they rarely do so to the extent of Nuremberg Laws. Now, you could argue if they were more powerful they would do the same things, maybe, maybe not, but until then they are simply racists.
3.Women
Real Nazis believe women should be excluded in politics, and should be confined in homes and churches. Take a look of that photo again, do you see women in it? Real Nazis would never allow that, nor would they march with women.
4. Religion
Real Nazis were surprisingly hmm non-religious. Yes, they incorporated Catholic teachings but they also removed a lot of the teachings. This is a gross simplification and you are better off reading about this on your own if you are interested. Basically the worship was not so much towards the churches and god but to hitler himself, and to the belief that aryans by right should expand and takeover the world.
5.Economics
Real Nazis were notorious in being anti-communists, but few knew they were also anti-capitalists. They are actually....sort of socialists, such as paid holidays, national labour service, state provided healthcare, pensions and other social welfare policies, and aids for farmers. Hitler himself believed (and in the end did) natural resources and means of productions should be nationalized for the purpose of military actions. I doubt very much the so-called racists today support these policies.
6. Forms of government
Real Nazis ditched democracy and embraced totalitarianism, which was essentially an oppressive police state. Again, I doubt very much the so-called racists today would support this (they would all lose their guns).
To summarize, real Nazis were all about militaristic expansion, everything else was to enable it. To be a little douche about this, repeatedly linking modern day racists in 'Murica with real Nazis is more than a stretch, i cant help but question either your intellect and/or your integrity.
The guy who self-identifies as a Nazi, marches with other Nazis, spews racially based hate, carrys a Nazi flag . . . he's clearly not a true Nazi. All the true Nazis are either 80+ years old or dead. OK, even if I accept your ridiculous logic . . . how does that matter at all to the point that was being made?
The point was this: The leader of the Republican party openly supports that (Nazi) guy, and the people he's marching with. You might not be a Nazi . . . but when you vote for the Republican party, you stand in solidarity with the leader of the Republican party. You condone his actions. Currently that means you stand in solidarity with the guy who dresses up and and identifies as a Nazi (but isn't a real Nazi for the sake of argument). Whatever name you call him, that's pretty fucked up . . . and is probably why you're taking some heat for supporting the party that you do.
It's not just being supportive of a bunch of Nazis (who aren't real Nazi's for the sake of argument). You also support travel bans based on religion, homophobic military policy, separating children from parents with no intent to ever return them, etc. This list could go on for pages. I'm sorry that you find it painful to be held accountable for the actions of the people that support (and I get it - the people you are supporting do truly terrible things). But I don't want to see these terrible things happen any more. You are helping them to happen. You need to own your actions and take some level of responsibility for what your chosen government is doing - and if owning those actions make you feel uncomfortable you need to stop supporting the people who do them.
-
Just to bring it back full circle. We've head some (long) arguments presented as to why Progressives Elected Trump. They mostly seem to be demonstrations that college campuses are hotbeds of annoying hippies who are mean to conservatives. So, we have the first word of the proposition taken care of, but the "elected Trump" part remains elusive. And none of the evidence that colleges are full of hippies explains why Trump's biggest growth relative to previous candidates tracks with old/white/no college (men mostly). And his loss of support tracks most closely with younger/college educated people. So, the exact people who are least likely to encounter dreadlocked hippies are the ones who like Trump the most and the people who are steeped in drum circles are the ones who shrugged. I've said before that this is all just attempts at blame shifting from conservatives, but it's a narrative that gives Middlebury college students outsized power as kingmakers.
Which is why it's surprising that young men marching with Nazi flags are apparently something that we should not be concerned about because No True Nazis and all that. Unless they are literally gassing children, we are just overreacting. Nevermind that there is a self-proclaimed Nazi who won a GOP primary:
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walker-arthur-jones-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia
So, just to make sure I understand, I should be chill about Nazis (or "fake" Nazis), but I should be really concerned about mean hippies. I don't know. This argument isn't landing with me.
The argument that did land is that liberals should get better at coddling no college white voters because they like it. And that they see all kinds of other coddling and deference to other groups, and that they want some of that action.
-
The argument that did land is that liberals should get better at coddling no college white voters because they like it. And that they see all kinds of other coddling and deference to other groups, and that they want some of that action.
I mean I feel like that's stated in an unnecessarily pejorative way, but yes, that was indeed the essence of my argument.
If something is a statement that would feel inappropriate if it was made about black people, latino/a people, jewish people, LGBTQ people, women or any other group that's defined based on characteristics a person doesn't chose, don't make that statement about white people (people who happen to live in states that voted for trump, regardless of how they themselves voted), and if you're around people who make jokes or statements of believed-facts like that, call them out on it, or stop participating in the discussion.
We can have a long and academic debate about whether it is fair white people and states-that-voted-for-trump residents* to expect that same protection that is given to other non-voluntary group associations given the big difference in how white people have been treated historically relative to other groups. But pragmatically, it does hurt voter recruitment and retention, and that only thing it requires giving up is the ability to make one set off color jokes (and perhaps a source of emotional venting for some folks).
*Note that this isn't synonymous with "red states" as I've seen and heard an awful lot of hateful things in the last year said about people who live in states that voted for Obama and (Bill) Clinton twice each.
Separately about Evergreen college kids* and american neo-nazis:
1. Neo-nazis, white supremacists, and american fascists are BAD.
2. Having a president who winks at them rather than calling them out for their unamerican, undemocratic, and evil ideas is BAD.
3. The best thing I can think to do about it is make sure we don't have that same president in 2021.
4. The way to make sure we don't have the same president in 2021 is to convince more voters that whoever runs against him in 2020 is less bad for them individually.
5. Folks like the Evergreen protester make it harder for us to do that, and more likely we'll still have a president who (at best) as nothing against neo-nazis, white supremacists, and american fascists.
So on a person by person good to evil scale, white supremacists/neo-nazis/fascists are WAY more evil than a bunch of college kids who have bought into a philosophy of post-modernist tribalism. But it's because that the white supremacists/neo-nazis/fascists that I'm so concerned about people who alienate voters who are not already inherently racist by singling them out based on the color of their skin or where they live.
*You said Middlebury, but the protests in Middlebury were specifically targeted at a conservative speaker and, as a result, I think were much less alienating to potentially winnable voters than the protests at Evergreen which were explicitly based on race rather than political affiliation.
-
Retiredat63,
Your 6 point replies missed the key difference. Nationalsozialismus in English translates to National Socialism, it is a nationalist "redefinition" of socialism. One can be a racist, sexist, white supremacist, w/e, but as long as one does not adhere to the nationalist socialism ideal and willingly live in a totalitarian state where the natural resources and means of productions are nationalized for the purpose of war, they are not Nazis. Your "first steps" argument doesn't even make any sense, by that logic, anyone with anger issues and possess any sort of weapon is a potential murderer.
The TSA comparison was so ridiculous I chose to ignore it the first time.
And there had been countries that came close to resemble Nazi Germany since the 80s. I say close, because they still lacked the expansionist/violent aspect of it, despite of embracing the nationalist socialism ideals.
I cant believe we are having a discussion on what the definition of Nazis is, 80 years after the fact; this is high school material.
Don't get me wrong, any sort of fascists are bad, any sort of racists are bad, so on and so forth, but Nazis are much worse, please stop confusing the two. Again, you can call them something else that's more fitting, and to be quite honest, fascists does not seem to describe these folks well either. I do not see them as having a coherent political platform (let alone fascism, you can disagree) , and are instead simply racists anarchist.
American whites (very generally speaking) in the 1840s, 1950s, and Nazis in the 1930s were racists, but everyone should be able to spot the key difference among these groups.
Who do you think these racists americans today are more likely to become if they got what they wanted? American whites in the 1840s? American whites in the 1950s? or Nazis in the 1930s?
But yes, like Dabnasty said, this is way off the rails. Go back to the original discussion please, extrapolating anything to an extreme doesn't do anyone any good.
-
And the "Soup Nazi"? Come on guys, he's clearly participating in capitalism. So sorry, back to the discussion now.
-
Retiredat63,
Go back to the original discussion please, extrapolating anything to an extreme doesn't do anyone any good.
Um...
-
Retiredat63,
Your 6 point replies missed the key difference. Nationalsozialismus in English translates to National Socialism, it is a nationalist "redefinition" of socialism. One can be a racist, sexist, white supremacist, w/e, but as long as one does not adhere to the nationalist socialism ideal and willingly live in a totalitarian state where the natural resources and means of productions are nationalized for the purpose of war, they are not Nazis. Your "first steps" argument doesn't even make any sense, by that logic, anyone with anger issues and possess any sort of weapon is a potential murderer.
"Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/ (https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/)
Nicely done though. To prove that a person marching for white power in his nation and carrying a Nazi flag cannot be called a Nazi . . . you're changing what the term 'socialism' means and redefining Nazis as socialist. That is getting to Trump level truth alteration.
-
The argument that did land is that liberals should get better at coddling no college white voters because they like it. And that they see all kinds of other coddling and deference to other groups, and that they want some of that action.
I mean I feel like that's stated in an unnecessarily pejorative way, but yes, that was indeed the essence of my argument.
If something is a statement that would feel inappropriate if it was made about black people, latino/a people, jewish people, LGBTQ people, women or any other group that's defined based on characteristics a person doesn't chose, don't make that statement about white people (people who happen to live in states that voted for trump, regardless of how they themselves voted), and if you're around people who make jokes or statements of believed-facts like that, call them out on it, or stop participating in the discussion.
We can have a long and academic debate about whether it is fair white people and states-that-voted-for-trump residents* to expect that same protection that is given to other non-voluntary group associations given the big difference in how white people have been treated historically relative to other groups. But pragmatically, it does hurt voter recruitment and retention, and that only thing it requires giving up is the ability to make one set off color jokes (and perhaps a source of emotional venting for some folks).
*Note that this isn't synonymous with "red states" as I've seen and heard an awful lot of hateful things in the last year said about people who live in states that voted for Obama and (Bill) Clinton twice each.
Separately about Evergreen college kids* and american neo-nazis:
1. Neo-nazis, white supremacists, and american fascists are BAD.
2. Having a president who winks at them rather than calling them out for their unamerican, undemocratic, and evil ideas is BAD.
3. The best thing I can think to do about it is make sure we don't have that same president in 2021.
4. The way to make sure we don't have the same president in 2021 is to convince more voters that whoever runs against him in 2020 is less bad for them individually.
5. Folks like the Evergreen protester make it harder for us to do that, and more likely we'll still have a president who (at best) as nothing against neo-nazis, white supremacists, and american fascists.
So on a person by person good to evil scale, white supremacists/neo-nazis/fascists are WAY more evil than a bunch of college kids who have bought into a philosophy of post-modernist tribalism. But it's because that the white supremacists/neo-nazis/fascists that I'm so concerned about people who alienate voters who are not already inherently racist by singling them out based on the color of their skin or where they live.
*You said Middlebury, but the protests in Middlebury were specifically targeted at a conservative speaker and, as a result, I think were much less alienating to potentially winnable voters than the protests at Evergreen which were explicitly based on race rather than political affiliation.
This seems right to me. If Democrats really are the masters of identity politics, now would be the time to figure out how to deploy those identity politics skills to bring some additional group of voters into the fold to create political change that will help eject the open racists (Stephen Miller) and closet racists (looking at you, Jeff Sessions) from government. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that suburban moms and nonvoters are an easier reach than the sort of people who are really mad about hippies, but I'm open to ideas. And candidates don't lose much by being skilled at pivoting away from associations with fringe groups.
-
If someone does not self identify as a Nazi/Neo-Nazi then calling them one is counterproductive. If someone does self identify as a Nazi/Neo-Nazi then there is no benefit to explaining to them why they aren't a real Nazi.
Does anyone disagree with this?
The whole reason this is being discussed is that GuitarStv suggested that someone who called themselves a republican (and even suggested they may be "republican in name only" and did not vote for Trump) is supporting the party that supports their president who supports a group of people* who claim to be Nazis and therefore that person is standing in solidarity with Nazis. That seems like a significant stretch to me.
*whether he's shown them support or just failed to condemn them is debatable, but I think he has shown support in instances other than just Charlottesville.
ETA: This started with a comment from @skp who did not vote for Trump and presumably would like to see someone better in the Whitehouse in 2020. They voted 3rd party last time around but could probably be convinced to vote for a good Democratic candidate as they favor the stance of the democratic party on some issues. Let's focus on that instead of explaining to them why they're supporting Nazis.
-
Retiredat63,
Your 6 point replies missed the key difference. Nationalsozialismus in English translates to National Socialism, it is a nationalist "redefinition" of socialism. One can be a racist, sexist, white supremacist, w/e, but as long as one does not adhere to the nationalist socialism ideal and willingly live in a totalitarian state where the natural resources and means of productions are nationalized for the purpose of war, they are not Nazis. Your "first steps" argument doesn't even make any sense, by that logic, anyone with anger issues and possess any sort of weapon is a potential murderer.
"Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/ (https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/)
Nicely done though. To prove that a person marching for white power in his nation and carrying a Nazi flag cannot be called a Nazi . . . you're changing what the term 'socialism' means and redefining Nazis as socialist. That is getting to Trump level truth alteration.
Right, because snope is the definitive authority on political ideologies, it's mostly used for urban legends and pop culture if I recall correctly. Do you also have an article where snope says these modern racists are definitely Nazis?
I have said it many times, and somehow you missed them, the guy with flag is not likely a real Nazi or aware of what Nazism really is, because he's marching with women, which is a big no-no according to followers of Nazi ideologies.
I am not changing the term socialism in anyway or form, look at the actual Nazi econ/social policies enacted. I was very clear, Nazism was a nationalist "redefinition" of socialism for the purpose of war. Do not twist my words.
One thing I have noticed about you, is that you are never shy in accusing someone (or a large group of people) racist, sexist, and worse even without a shred of hard evidence.
Let me put it this way, so the guy carries the flag, and shouts racists remarks. That makes him racist, being a Nazi is more than being racist, I have made that very clear. But let's say he's actually a Nazi for all intents and purposes (which we don't know, but like I said, not likely due to marching with women), that by extension somehow makes everyone else marching or shouting racists remarks Nazis?
The data you've provided throughout this thread (cornell study, murphy data) had been thoroughly refuted and if anything actually reinforced my original points. You were very quick in linking from what skp said to these perhaps racists folks to Nazis, even though people other than myself has said its way off the rails. I have no further comments to you.
-
Wexler, I agree with you about voters who are mad about hippies.
Have you watched the videos of the Evergreen protests specifically? To me it didn't come across as hippies but something that was explicitly about tribe/race. And even then it's not "mad about the protesters[whatever name we assign to them]" so much as feeling very unwelcome those protesters are perceived as representing the views of the democratic party (I don't perceive them as representing the democratic party line, but I know some other folks -- and yes they seem to generally be white people although not particularly conservative ones -- who saw them that way).
Anyway, it sounds like we're in broad agreement about the ideal democratic strategy going forward, and in the grand scheme of things whether one specific group of college protesters counts as one of the fringe groups candidates need to be willing to pivot away from is less important than the overall strategy of focusing bringing more groups of non-racist voters into the democratic coalition to throw the explicitly and implicitly racist candidates out of office instead of narrowing the tent by explicitly or implicitly throwing groups of voters out of our own coalition.
-
If someone does not self identify as a Nazi/Neo-Nazi then calling them one is counterproductive. If someone does self identify as a Nazi/Neo-Nazi then there is no benefit to explaining to them why they aren't a real Nazi.
Does anyone disagree with this?
The whole reason this is being discussed is that GuitarStv suggested that someone who called themselves a republican (and even suggested they may be "republican in name only" and did not vote for Trump) is supporting the party that supports their president who supports a group of people* who claim to be Nazis and therefore that person is standing in solidarity with Nazis. That seems like a significant stretch to me.
*whether he's shown them support or just failed to condemn them is debatable, but I think he has shown support in instances other than just Charlottesville.
ETA: This started with a comment from @skp who did not vote for Trump and presumably would like to see someone better in the Whitehouse in 2020. They voted 3rd party last time around but could probably be convinced to vote for a good Democratic candidate as they favor the stance of the democratic party on some issues. Let's focus on that instead of explaining to them why they're supporting Nazis.
Right, I agree.
-
ETA: This started with a comment from @skp who did not vote for Trump and presumably would like to see someone better in the Whitehouse in 2020. They voted 3rd party last time around but could probably be convinced to vote for a good Democratic candidate as they favor the stance of the democratic party on some issues. Let's focus on that instead of explaining to them why they're supporting Nazis.
Hear hear!
-
I just read an article that seems relevant to the original topic...
Data shows a surprising campus free speech problem: left-wingers being fired for their opinions (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown)
-
I just read an article that seems relevant to the original topic...
Data shows a surprising campus free speech problem: left-wingers being fired for their opinions (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown)
I can comment on this.
As the vox article said, the Disinvitation Database (https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/#home/) (Foundation for individual rights in education) is a pretty good database detailing all the events/speeches that had been cancelled (public non-religious schools anyway).
The key, however, is knowing how to use it. As the user's guide (https://www.thefire.org/how-to-use-the-disinvitation-database/)says,
"The term “disinvitation incident” is used to describe the controversies on campus that arise throughout the year whenever segments of the campus community demand that an invited speaker not be allowed to speak (as opposed to merely expressing disagreement with, or even protesting, an invited speaker’s views or positions). We make a distinction between an attempt to censor a speaker and the actual end result of a speaker not speaking. “Disinvitation incidents” is the broadest category, including “unsuccessful disinvitation attempts” and “successful disinvitations.”
"Not only are unsuccessful disinvitation attempts increasing, but so too are successful disinvitations, which fall into three categories:
1.Formal disinvitation from the speaking engagement, such as the revocation of Robin Steinberg’s invitation to address Harvard Law School students.
2.Withdrawal by the speaker in the face of disinvitation demands, as demonstrated by Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers University.
3.“Heckler’s vetoes,” in which students or faculty persistently disrupt or entirely prevent the speakers’ ability to speak, illustrated by the case of Ray Kelly at Brown University. These incidents are labeled as “substantial event disruption.”
So yes, if you set the filter to "successful disinvite", then the ratio of events (dozens total) cancelled by the left vs the right is about 3:1.
If, however, you include "substantial event distruption" and "withdrawal by speaker in the face..." (basically just set it by year), you can see the ratio of events (still dozens, but many times more) cancelled by the left vs the right jumps to almost 8:1. For example, there have been 9 incidents in 2018, only one event was negatively impacted by those "from the right of the speaker". The same trend can be seen in 2017 as well.
Overall the incidents in recent years are still in the dozens (230 if you start from 2010), and yes, in the face of 4000 colleges that seems very low still, and you are free to think that way.
But if you do, then we need to put the "faculty termination for political speech" number into context. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of faculty members in American colleges, and the number of people (50 total?) dismissed are even more statistically insignificant, not to mention the ratio.
Note I said statistically insignificant, that's because there are clear scientifically accepted boundaries in determining if the observed is truly worthy noting, and most people (even here) don't recognize that when they passionately share their opinions on something.
Edit: I took a look at the faculty termination for political speech dataset (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eeTHZQOh9faZ2P3C_O3sVBuRAG1LzIZnsq6LB50NUHk/edit#gid=122618086), the right/left division here is not exactly crystal clear, but I must say I have issues with the way it describes incidents.... under Brett Weinstein it says anti-minority, ok. under Trent Bertrend, it says racist. Under J.D.Winteregg, it says anti-Christian..... you can take a look if you are interested in digging deeper.
-
I just read an article that seems relevant to the original topic...
Data shows a surprising campus free speech problem: left-wingers being fired for their opinions (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown)
I can comment on this.
As the vox article said, the Disinvitation Database (https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/#home/) (Foundation for individual rights in education) is a pretty good database detailing all the events/speeches that had been cancelled.
The key, however, is knowing how to use it. As the user's guide (https://www.thefire.org/how-to-use-the-disinvitation-database/)says,
"The term “disinvitation incident” is used to describe the controversies on campus that arise throughout the year whenever segments of the campus community demand that an invited speaker not be allowed to speak (as opposed to merely expressing disagreement with, or even protesting, an invited speaker’s views or positions). We make a distinction between an attempt to censor a speaker and the actual end result of a speaker not speaking. “Disinvitation incidents” is the broadest category, including “unsuccessful disinvitation attempts” and “successful disinvitations.”
"Not only are unsuccessful disinvitation attempts increasing, but so too are successful disinvitations, which fall into three categories:
1.Formal disinvitation from the speaking engagement, such as the revocation of Robin Steinberg’s invitation to address Harvard Law School students.
2.Withdrawal by the speaker in the face of disinvitation demands, as demonstrated by Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers University.
3.“Heckler’s vetoes,” in which students or faculty persistently disrupt or entirely prevent the speakers’ ability to speak, illustrated by the case of Ray Kelly at Brown University. These incidents are labeled as “substantial event disruption.”
So yes, if you set the filter to "successful disinvite", then the ratio of events (dozens total) cancelled by the left vs the right is about 3:1.
If, however, you include "substantial event distruption" and "withdrawal by speaker in the face..." (basically just set it by year), you can see the ratio of events (still dozens, but many times more) cancelled by the left vs the right jumps to almost 8:1. For example, there have been 9 incidents in 2018, only one event was negatively impacted by those "from the right of the speaker". The same trend can be seen in 2017 as well.
Overall the incidents in recent years are still in the dozens (230 if you start from 2010), and yes, in the face of 4000 colleges that seems very low still, and you are free to think that way.
But if you do, then we need to put the "faculty termination for political speech" number into context. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of faculty members in American colleges, and the number of people (50 total?) dismissed are even more statistically insignificant, not to mention the ratio.
Note I said statistically insignificant, that's because there are clear scientifically accepted boundaries in determining if the observed is truly worthy noting, and most people (even here) don't recognize that when they passionately share their opinions on something.
Edit: I took a look at the faculty termination for political speech dataset (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eeTHZQOh9faZ2P3C_O3sVBuRAG1LzIZnsq6LB50NUHk/edit#gid=122618086), the right/left division here is not exactly crystal clear, but I must say I have issues with the way it describes incidents.... under Brett Weinstein it says anti-minority, ok. under Trent Bertrend, it says racist. Under J.D.Winteregg, it says anti-Christian..... you can take a look if you are interested in digging deeper.
Yeah, that was pretty much the main point that I took from it. Whether it's coming mainly from the right or the left it seems like it's a statistically insignificant amount of events either way. The highest amount of incidents in any year since 2010 has been 42. So, seeing as there are over 4000 colleges and universities in the United States, that's what, a little over 1% (which is below the 5% that significance levels are typically set to)? And once you take into consideration that a significant amount of the incidents being noted recently seem to be instances of trolling spilling over into the physical realm I just don't think it's a significant problem. That's not to say that we shouldn't address the problematic incidents when they happen, but it just doesn't seem like a big issue to me.
-
The thing about
social media media generally is that it can amplify even rare events to the point where even extremely rare phenomena can have outsized impact on society at large. Look at how children's freedom to play on their own outside without supervision has largely disappeared in many parts of the USA in response to greater media reporting of child abduction cases. This despite the infinitesimally small risk stereotypical "stranger" abductions actually represent (the risk is on the same order of magnitude as being struck by lightening).
And again, I think it is important to draw a distinction between Middlebury-style protests based on political disagreements and targeting far-right figures whose entire raison d'etre is to spark controversy just to get people to pay attention to them,* and Evergreen-style protests based on race where the target of protesters ire is someone who is already significantly left of center.
*The Yiannopoulos's and Coulters of the world. I'd argue major protests of speakers like these do more to help the speaker's career than anything else, but I don't see that type of protests as causing any problems with making potentially reachable voters feel unwelcome or unsafe in the democratic coalition, so I'm not losing sleep over it either way.
-
shenlong55,
I am not sure if that's the way to look at if something is statistically significant. It really depends on how you want to frame the null hypothesis.
If you want to see how people perceive if these disinvite things are problematic, you can frame the null hypothesis as follows:
People do not see these disinvites disturbances being problematic.
Then you can survey a few thousand students and/or general public to see if people think its a problem. Problem with this approach is that media exposure inevitably skew results.
If you want to find out how it actually impacts the schools/students,
Disinvite incidents have no effect on security expenditure on a per event basis
or
Disinvite incidents do not cause more annual disturbances (protests? political activities?) on campus
you might find the last one nonsensical, after all, disinvite incidents always add to disturbances on campus. But the key is statistical significance, if there are already tens of thousands of activities, a few hundred more will not make it statistically significant.
Regarding the faculty termination, it's much more straight forward:
Political speech does not play a role in dismissal (and other disciplinary actions) of faculty members.
There are really two parts of my original post (if we ignore the philosophical bit): alienated working class-whites due to poorly crafted identity politics and campus free speech issues (which I postulated to moderates being alienated #110). Anyway, I hope this helps.
-
Regarding the faculty termination, it's much more straight forward:
Political speech does not play a role in dismissal (and other disciplinary actions) of faculty members.
Well this starts to get pretty far afield from the original discussion, but in this case I'd argue a second important question is: can we show that the reporting on faculty dismissals caused many other faculty to alter their behavior? Profs in particular are very sensitive to any violation of tenure protections, and no one wants to most sane people don't want to be pilloried on social media. So it doesn't take a lot of protests or dismissals to have a both statistically significant and large effect size impact on behavior.
(Note: I realize this isn't directly relevant to the topic in the subject line of the thread, just momentarily geeking out.)
Edit: I took a look at the faculty termination for political speech dataset (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eeTHZQOh9faZ2P3C_O3sVBuRAG1LzIZnsq6LB50NUHk/edit#gid=122618086), the right/left division here is not exactly crystal clear, but I must say I have issues with the way it describes incidents.... under Brett Weinstein it says anti-minority, ok. under Trent Bertrend, it says racist. Under J.D.Winteregg, it says anti-Christian..... you can take a look if you are interested in digging deeper.
Yeah, I noticed some problems with the classification too. I mean you could argue that the students who were protesting Weinstein were claiming he was anti-minority, but there's a distinction between making an anti-minority statement and being accused of making an anti-minority statement.
Similarly Melissa "We need some muscle over here!" Click's firing is listed as "anti-conservative" with the description "Called for the forced removal of student journalists from campus." I don't think belief in the importance of a free press is a uniquely conservative point of view (and clearly it is not a point of view shared by our current president).
With Winteregg, I don't see how a joke about "electile disfunction" made in a political ad he ran during a campaign for public office constitutes an anti-Christian statement.
My interpretation of the list is the "speech type" says more about who advocating for the firing the professor than what actions or statements they made:
-Pressure to fire Weinstein came from (fringe left wing) students.
-Click's tenure offer was revoked in response to pressure from the (republican-controlled) state legislature.
-Winteregg's contract wasn't renewed by his (Baptist-sponsored) employer.
Also I'm completely okay with Click being fired. Journalism professors shouldn't try to shut down student journalists on campus, and shouldn't threaten them with "muscle" if they don't walk away when told to. But it would have been cleaner if the university did so itself for that reason instead of standing behind her and then being pressured into firing her by a state legislature that started cutting their budget as punishment for not giving in immediately.
Okay, this wraps up my digression into a discussion of academic freedom. I'll repeat my disclaimer that while I care a great deal about this topic, I don't think it directly influences elections much one way or the other, at least in the short term.
-
shenlong55,
I am not sure if that's the way to look at if something is statistically significant. It really depends on how you want to frame the null hypothesis.
If you want to see how people perceive if these disinvite things are problematic, you can frame the null hypothesis as follows:
People do not see these disinvites disturbances being problematic.
Then you can survey a few thousand students and/or general public to see if people think its a problem. Problem with this approach is that media exposure inevitably skew results.
If you want to find out how it actually impacts the schools/students,
Disinvite incidents have no effect on security expenditure on a per event basis
or
Disinvite incidents do not cause more annual disturbances (protests? political activities?) on campus
you might find the last one nonsensical, after all, disinvite incidents always add to disturbances on campus. But the key is statistical significance, if there are already tens of thousands of activities, a few hundred more will not make it statistically significant.
Regarding the faculty termination, it's much more straight forward:
Political speech does not play a role in dismissal (and other disciplinary actions) of faculty members.
There are really two parts of my original post (if we ignore the philosophical bit): alienated working class-whites due to poorly crafted identity politics and campus free speech issues (which I postulated to moderates being alienated #110). Anyway, I hope this helps.
Okay, I was just trying to determine if it was an actual problem or another problem with perceptions, since different problems require different solutions. It seems that you agree that it's mostly a problem with perceptions.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
-
Okay, I was just trying to determine if it was an actual problem or another problem with perceptions, since different problems require different solutions. It seems that you agree that it's mostly a problem with perceptions.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
Could be. The studies I quoted were surveys, which conveyed perceptions, so the results were definitely amplified by media as maizeman suggested.
I have yet to see a study that investigates the actual impact (such as security expenditure and # of protests) of these incidents, so I don't really know if they are as serious as they appear. I suppose I could do one myself, but that's a daunting task.
It doesn't take much to alienate a group of people, I would bet I alienated some posters here, so ya.
-
I think it's been pointed out numerous times that this line of behavior isn't purely inclusive of the left. If you use this an excuse to vote for someone who actually praises white supremacist, how does that make sense? Wouldn't it make more logical sense to not vote or vote for some third party candidate? I mean you are essentially saying "I don't like being called racist/prejudice (or whatever), so I am going to vote for someone who is."
Dude, I didn't vote for Trump either. Not sure where you are getting that from. However, I am specifically calling out the extremist factions of the left as they created this monster by alienating the moderates within the party. No one wanted an "establishment" candidate, and no one wanted a hippie like Jill Stein. If you want a message of more efficient and meritocratic economic distribution of income and societal inclusion to gain traction, you don't start by labeling people who don't agree with you on social issues as "Nazis" or "(insert pejorative)ist," and you don't start by telling them that the system is working as designed.
Agreed. No one wants to be called a rapist either. No one wants their kids separated from them just for seeking a better life. See where I am going? And to be fair, in the context of Clinton's comment, she wasn't calling everyone of Trump's supporters deplorable. Only the portion that are racist, xenophobic, etc. And there in fact are a portion who fit that mold. Perhaps not half, but who knows?
Except that's an idiotic and irresponsible sound byte that will get abused by her opponents. She has all kinds of handlers who can coach her in getting her message out there. And you're telling me that either they didn't do their job, or she went out and said something like that anyway? Again, Obama stayed away from saying things like that. That's why he had mainstream appeal. All Hillary did was flip flop and stick her foot in her mouth. And she marginalized the very people who were supposed to be shoo-ins to vote for her.
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/qvm43b/judge-allows-federal-lawsuit-against-25-neo-nazis-to-proceed-for-violence-in-charlottesville (https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/qvm43b/judge-allows-federal-lawsuit-against-25-neo-nazis-to-proceed-for-violence-in-charlottesville)
Again, you act like this is something new. This has been going on for decades. Nazis have never been "not a problem" in modern US history, they just never got airtime in the media before recently.
NO, it's always been a problem. It's even more of a problem now that we have a President praising these folks, which only emboldens them. Where were you when people wanted Obama hung from a tree calling him the "N" word and having a now current President leading the birtherism campaign? Where have you been?
Wake up, the president is not the only one praising them. Congressmen were emboldening those people well before this. Movies like American History X were supposed to dissuade the neo Nazi lifestyle and actually helped embolden them, all the way back in 1998. But I guess it's just easier to paint Trump as the big bad boogeyman ruining everything. Trump is nothing but a blubbering egomaniac idiot. We'd still be in this mess regardless. There are cultural forces at play here that go way beyond what some idiot says from the White House. This would have happened regardless because some in this country seem to think that we are still fighting the Civil War.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman)
This is not a strawman. If it was, enough voters would not have bailed on the Democratic party, and we wouldn't be staring at President Trump. There is significant evidence that vitriol from the left and Hillary's wild unpopularity turned voters from working class blue states against the Democrats during the election.
Also, I am specifically pointing out how the extremists within the Democratic party are the problem. Both the neoliberals on the right side of it AND the SJW's on the far left. If the Democrats stopped pandering to the ideological purity test and party seniority/service, there would have been a better presidential nominee in 2016. The problem was the moderates in this country who stand for better economic fairness, rule of law, and really aren't as worried about the social issues right now while wages stagnate and cost of living rises significantly faster felt disenfranchised completely, and that's why so many stayed home.
To be clear, and in summary...my argument is that the Democrats did themselves in - I don't blame the voters (or lack thereof) for Trump, rather, I blame Hillary Clinton herself, the Democratic primary system of first past the pole and the superdelegates who swore their loyalty to her early, as well as certain factions within the party that did just about everything possible to alienate moderates and people who weren't socially far left throughout the process. But I don't believe blaming the voters who didn't vote is justified. No candidate is entitled to the votes from any segment of the population unless they go out and earn them.
-
Agreed. No one wants to be called a rapist either. No one wants their kids separated from them just for seeking a better life. See where I am going? And to be fair, in the context of Clinton's comment, she wasn't calling everyone of Trump's supporters deplorable. Only the portion that are racist, xenophobic, etc. And there in fact are a portion who fit that mold. Perhaps not half, but who knows?
Except that's an idiotic and irresponsible sound byte that will get abused by her opponents. She has all kinds of handlers who can coach her in getting her message out there. And you're telling me that either they didn't do their job, or she went out and said something like that anyway? Again, Obama stayed away from saying things like that. That's why he had mainstream appeal. All Hillary did was flip flop and stick her foot in her mouth. And she marginalized the very people who were supposed to be shoo-ins to vote for her.
Sure, I think we all agree it was a tactical mistake at this point, but what is she really guilty of, "straight talk"? That thing Trump's supporters say they love so much about him? That thing he does half the time time he opens his mouth or gets on twitter?
If I identified as the "corrupt" left or the "crazy" liberals he bashes and degrades on a regular basis, I guess I should feel offended most of the time, or at least offended on their behalf. If insulting large groups of people is pushing people away, Trump pushed much harder than Clinton.
And consider this, if she insulted "Trump voters" directly, who is she really offending? People who have already made up their minds to vote for him? I think this largely effected people who were looking for an excuse to vote against her anyways and who hold women to a double standard.
-
The "basket of deplorables" is an example of extremely bad speechwriting and tactical thinking from a campaign whose pitch was essentially "we're experienced enough to know what we're doing." But even in that speech, Hillary Clinton, just a few sentences later, made the same point I've been trying to make in this thread. Which is that she did NOT say all Trump voters were deplorable and unreachable sexists and racists. She said that half of them were.
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
But the "other" basket — the other basket — and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
It's the people in that second basket who are reachable. But if you dump their basket into the deplorable basket* then they stop being reachable.
*An analogy I can (hopefully) safely use because I'm not trying to run for public office.
-
The "basket of deplorables" is an example of extremely bad speechwriting and tactical thinking from a campaign whose pitch was essentially "we're experienced enough to know what we're doing." But even in that speech, Hillary Clinton, just a few sentences later, made the same point I've been trying to make in this thread. Which is that she did NOT say all Trump voters were deplorable and unreachable sexists and racists. She said that half of them were.
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
But the "other" basket — the other basket — and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
It's the people in that second basket who are reachable. But if you dump their basket into the deplorable basket* then they stop being reachable.
*An analogy I can (hopefully) safely use because I'm not trying to run for public office.
I am not sure why you think this isn’t what most of us are saying? I mean, I reject the idea white people need to be coddled. This is asinine and ridiculous thinking, but I do agree the focus needs to be improved to catch the middle voters who did vote Trump without that racist baggage. More focus on policy and what they will DO, and less on identity (including white identity!!).
Do you not see, though, the irony of begging Democrats to stop being so rude when rudeness is the reason a lot of people voted for Trump? Somehow they believe being an asshole or “plain talking”means he’s more trustworthy. So, how exactly do the Dems employ those tactics without alienating anyone else? I really can’t get my head around that one.
-
I am not sure why you think this isn’t what most of us are saying? I mean, I reject the idea white people need to be coddled. This is asinine and ridiculous thinking, but I do agree the focus needs to be improved to catch the middle voters who did vote Trump without that racist baggage. More focus on policy and what they will DO, and less on identity (including white identity!!).
Well obviously I disagree with you that my position is asinine and ridiculous. I also disagree with you that I am discussing is coddling: Just the same disapproval for anyone singling a group or people for negative comments based on their race, sex, or gender identity, or geographic origin that we'd provide to any other group.
The reason I'm bringing up this point is that I've had debates on this thread with people who are convinced anyone who voted for trump by definition voting for republican candidates out of party loyalty, or was an inherently insecure racist. It can be very hard to judge group sentiment in online discussions, so all I can say for sure is that there weren't very many voices jumping to disagree with that characterization of anyone who voted for Trump.
FWIW, I completely agree with you that a reduced focus on identity (other than maybe a unified identity of americans as a whole) would be good for both winning elections and good for the health of our society generally.
Do you not see, though, the irony of begging Democrats to stop being so rude when rudeness is the reason a lot of people voted for Trump? Somehow they believe being an asshole or “plain talking”means he’s more trustworthy. So, how exactly do the Dems employ those tactics without alienating anyone else? I really can’t get my head around that one.
I disagree with your characterization of my previous posts as begging. But *shrug.*
My answer would be different strategies work when you are trying to appeal to voters' better natures or baser urges.
-
There is significant evidence that vitriol from the left and Hillary's wild unpopularity turned voters from working class blue states against the Democrats during the election.
65 million votes is “wildly unpopular?”. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/popular-vote/
It is so funny how people are so focused on the deplorable comments as a reason for why she lost the election. Trump’s many, many, many, racist, sexist, divisive and hateful comments weren’t enough for him to lose, so why the scrutiny on the lefts relatively tame behavior?
Fascinating how people want to continuously blame HRC, or anyoneor anything else really, instead of facing the reality that a large enough number of the electorate was motivated by a directly racist message, and a larger number was more interested in preserving their wealth and status than in civil rights for minorities. It isn’t that Hillary failed to turn out the left, it is that Trump succeeded in using white identity politics in motivating and turning out people who are deeply frightened of a changing culture and demographics that aren’t in their favor.
-
65 million votes is “wildly unpopular?”.
I voted for HRC because I disliked Trump even more. Votes are not a great measure of popularity.
It is so funny how people are so focused on the deplorable comments as a reason for why she lost the election.
I don't think Hillary Clinton lost the election because of that comment. I think she was already going to lose already, just none of us knew it yet. The deployables comment is useful because it's a good shorthand for the worldview a number of folks have adopted SINCE losing the election which is reducing our chances of winning the next one.
Trump’s many, many, many, racist, sexist, divisive and hateful comments weren’t enough for him to lose, so why the scrutiny on the lefts relatively tame behavior?
Different tactics for appealing to better natures or base natures. Or if you prefer: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
Fascinating how people want to continuously blame HRC, or anyone or anything else really, instead of facing the reality that a large enough number of the electorate was motivated by a directly racist message, and a larger number was more interested in preserving their wealth and status than in civil rights for minorities. It isn’t that Hillary failed to turn out the left, it is that Trump succeeded in using white identity politics in motivating and turning out people who are deeply frightened of a changing culture and demographics that aren’t in their favor.
If that is really how you perceive the american electorate, we're basically doomed, no? So if you're right, nothing we do matters, democrats, at least ones who do not fatally compromise what the party stands for, cannot win the presidency again for decades (perhaps until the united states electorate* becomes majority minority in the second half of the 21st century).
But if I'm right, there are plenty of people, regardless of race, who can be reached with the right message and the right candidate and convinced to pull the lever for a liberal or progressive president (just like they did in 2008 and 2012). What do you have to lose?
*Our overall population is projected to become majority minority before that, but it takes longer for the voting age population to switch over, and longer still for the population that actually votes to switch over if the current pattern of the elderly turning out at higher rates than the young holds up.
-
Again, you are forgetting EC. I've said it before, the Dems can win the popular votes by a landslide (+20million along the coasts for what its worth), but if they lose the mid-west and florida (and they did) by even a single vote its game over. And yes, that comment was unpopular in the mid-west.
It's simple mathematics, look at the margins in these key states, these are super low hanging fruits.
I would argue this whole thing started way before the deplorable comment. Look at how many seats R gained in 2014, the loss of margins in pres. elec. in 2012. Trump did not get elected simply because of the deplorable comment, it took many years to happen.
So now we have a timeline, voters being pushed away (or disenfranchised) since 2012 (perhaps even as early as 2010), then Trump came along in 2016 and said all these racist and sexist things but they simply didn't stick, because like you said, identity politics.
And your solution is to double down on everything the Ds have been doing since 2012 and hopefully the demographics will be on your side sometime in the future?
I don't know if that will happen but I am not optimistic. As people age, they tend to move from left to right (or at least closer to the center), everyone knows this, and its happened throughout modern American history. You can argue the minorities and the young folks today are different, maybe they are, maybe they aren't, we really wont know for another 20-30 years, I am not going to sit around to find out if this pans out in some distant future.
-
There is significant evidence that vitriol from the left and Hillary's wild unpopularity turned voters from working class blue states against the Democrats during the election.
65 million votes is “wildly unpopular?”. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/popular-vote/
It is so funny how people are so focused on the deplorable comments as a reason for why she lost the election. Trump’s many, many, many, racist, sexist, divisive and hateful comments weren’t enough for him to lose, so why the scrutiny on the lefts relatively tame behavior?
Fascinating how people want to continuously blame HRC, or anyoneor anything else really, instead of facing the reality that a large enough number of the electorate was motivated by a directly racist message, and a larger number was more interested in preserving their wealth and status than in civil rights for minorities. It isn’t that Hillary failed to turn out the left, it is that Trump succeeded in using white identity politics in motivating and turning out people who are deeply frightened of a changing culture and demographics that aren’t in their favor.
Actually yes. Look at polls leading up to the election regarding unfavorability. Hillary's unfavorability measures not just the people who voted for Trump, but also many who stayed home or voted third party.
Trump's shock jock comments resonated with BOTH his followers AND the undecided portion of the electorate, especially when he attacked Hillary who went after them. Because he took their side against the name calling liberals, and crafted several different straw men to blame for their economic plight. Hillary's "unfiltered truth" comments didn't resonate with that portion of the electorate, and she offered no explanation for why they had been marginalized by a system she didn't want to change. Because here was Hillary, when you really get down to brass tacks, trying to tell them that the system was "working" and didn't need major changes. And the people who were calling these middle voters racist weren't the candidates, it was the more radical members of the Democratic party, who seem to be triggered by every disagreement these days. Why? Because these economically disenfranchised people might have the gall to personally not believe in *gasp* one of the following: abortion, gay marriage, that every single police killing of a minority was unjustified (some people can actually distinguish between the individual cases, and look at each individually!), that illegal immigrants should have the rights of full citizens, that guns are terrible terrible things that should be banned and somehow that would stop crime despite many crimes being committed with guns owned illegally, that higher education should be 100% free, that everyone should have their student loans forgiven, that because they are white they must constantly apologize for being "privileged" even though they are struggling to make ends meet, etc. etc.
You know, the same people that hijacked Occupy Wall Street, and turned it from a movement interested in protesting the unfairness of bank bailouts, income inequality, and the lack of prosecutions for the financial crisis...and somehow turned it into a feces filled homeless camp that was about "saving the environment."
IMO The Democrats win the election handily if the behavior of their radical elements AND their candidate don't turn off these working class voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, or the working class retirees in Florida. Hell, I live in a deep blue state, and in my district, 45% voted for Trump.
-
There is significant evidence that vitriol from the left and Hillary's wild unpopularity turned voters from working class blue states against the Democrats during the election.
65 million votes is “wildly unpopular?”. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/popular-vote/
It is so funny how people are so focused on the deplorable comments as a reason for why she lost the election. Trump’s many, many, many, racist, sexist, divisive and hateful comments weren’t enough for him to lose, so why the scrutiny on the lefts relatively tame behavior?
Fascinating how people want to continuously blame HRC, or anyoneor anything else really, instead of facing the reality that a large enough number of the electorate was motivated by a directly racist message, and a larger number was more interested in preserving their wealth and status than in civil rights for minorities. It isn’t that Hillary failed to turn out the left, it is that Trump succeeded in using white identity politics in motivating and turning out people who are deeply frightened of a changing culture and demographics that aren’t in their favor.
+1. Matches my experience with what I saw and heard during the campaign here in red/purplish AZ.
The comments about Trump, early on, from local conservatives seemed to focus on how happy they were that "he's saying what people are thinking." To me, as a liberal, that meant that because Trump didn't feel the need to be politically correct (a term and stance that conservatives like to mock) that then freed those whose intense dislike of minorities, women, immigrants, etc. to revel in his open bigotry and support him on the ballot.
-
+1. Matches my experience with what I saw and heard during the campaign here in red/purplish AZ.
The comments about Trump, early on, from local conservatives seemed to focus on how happy they were that "he's saying what people are thinking." To me, as a liberal, that meant that because Trump didn't feel the need to be politically correct (a term and stance that conservatives like to mock) that then freed those whose intense dislike of minorities, women, immigrants, etc. to revel in his open bigotry and support him on the ballot.
I think a case can be made that Trump indeed attracts those with intense dislike of minorities, women, immigrants, etc. But I think this accounts for a only a minority of those ended up voting for him. I call these folks his "core base", some of them are indeed really hateful.
But he also attracted a sizeable portion of minorities and women, in AZ alone.
How do you explain the minorities and women that voted for him?
Based on exit polls, Clinton won about 66% of latino votes in AZ, the rest went to Trump. Sure, exit polls are not always accurate and that number seems high. But another poll (https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_AZ_102516/) one month before the election took place also told the same story.
"Latino voters, who make up a fifth of the state’s electorate, are supporting Clinton over Trump by 35 percentage points (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mexican-americans-are-reshaping-the-electoral-map-in-arizona-and-the-u-s/)."
45% of women in AZ voted for Trump. Are you going to argue that the minorities voted for Trump disliked women and the women voted for Trump disliked minorities?
How about minority women that voted for him then? That they disliked other minorities?
Many of these "Trump voters are all racists and sexists" arguments melt away when we take a closer look at how voters actually voted.
-
Well, to be fair, there are plenty of women who buy into the whole man-as-head stuff, think other women are lying about sexual abuse, and think there is zero pay disparity amongst men and women, etc. I believed some of this myself when I was younger. So, no, I’m not shocked women would vote with their men for Trump. My friend totally fits the profile, actually. Being a female is a complicated thing. I’d imagine it’s the same for minorities, who are clearly very different from person to person as is anyone.
Maybe we should all stop assuming stuff?
-
Basically, the people who voted for Trump don't see racism and sexism as deal-breakers. For whatever reason. For some of them, they can tell themselves what they're seeing from him isn't actually racism and sexism. But I think they have to contort themselves quite a bit to do that.
Not that human beings are strangers to contorting themselves into all sorts of shapes to avoid seeing what they don't want to see.
-
+1. Matches my experience with what I saw and heard during the campaign here in red/purplish AZ.
The comments about Trump, early on, from local conservatives seemed to focus on how happy they were that "he's saying what people are thinking." To me, as a liberal, that meant that because Trump didn't feel the need to be politically correct (a term and stance that conservatives like to mock) that then freed those whose intense dislike of minorities, women, immigrants, etc. to revel in his open bigotry and support him on the ballot.
I think a case can be made that Trump indeed attracts those with intense dislike of minorities, women, immigrants, etc. But I think this accounts for a only a minority of those ended up voting for him. I call these folks his "core base", some of them are indeed really hateful.
But he also attracted a sizeable portion of minorities and women, in AZ alone.
How do you explain the minorities and women that voted for him?
Based on exit polls, Clinton won about 66% of latino votes in AZ, the rest went to Trump. Sure, exit polls are not always accurate and that number seems high. But another poll (https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_AZ_102516/) one month before the election took place also told the same story.
"Latino voters, who make up a fifth of the state’s electorate, are supporting Clinton over Trump by 35 percentage points (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mexican-americans-are-reshaping-the-electoral-map-in-arizona-and-the-u-s/)."
45% of women in AZ voted for Trump. Are you going to argue that the minorities voted for Trump disliked women and the women voted for Trump disliked minorities?
How about minority women that voted for him then? That they disliked other minorities?
Many of these "Trump voters are all racists and sexists" arguments melt away when we take a closer look at how voters actually voted.
I think the key here is that "dislike" was the wrong word, it's more a matter of thinking less of these groups than disliking them. For example, I love dogs but I don't respect them the same as humans and I don't think they should have the right to vote.*
However I also reject the notion that all or even most of the people who have a problem with PC culture are openly bigoted. I think lots of them truly believe that the effort to force political correctness on others is what keeps racism and bigotry alive. I disagree on the whole, but acknowledge that in certain instances this may be true.
*I am in no way comparing any group of people to dogs.
-
I want to point out a recent example of how a moderate D was able to get elected in a state that's decidedly R.
Missouri has long been a red state (last blue was Clinton 1996 D+6, although this could be a special case because of Ross Perot), even Obama couldn't win it there in 2008, he did come close however.
Over the years, Missouri went from R+7 (2004) > R+0.2 (2008) > R+9.4 (2012) > R+20 (2016), the trend is clear, it's a lot redder today than say 2000. Despite all this, Sen. McCaskill was able to get elected both in 2006 and 2012. She actually got more votes in 2012 than in 2006.
Even in the 2004 gubernatorial election that she eventually lost, she outperformed the D presidential candidate Kerry by a substantial margin (-2.9 vs -7).
The race there this year will be close, and she could lose to Hawley, but we have to put it into the context of background trend. Missouri is arguably more conservative today than 15 years ago (R+ margin), it's a remarkable feat that a D, a female D in a conservative state no less, is able to stay competitive against the trend.
Again, this shows it's not all race and gender bias with the conservative voters. Moderation is key, especially in these difficult to win races. It should then come as no surprise that McCaskill is ranked as one of the most moderate senators (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/claire-mccaskills-balancing-act-how-to-be-a-moderate-in-immoderate-times/2017/08/27/9e5dcc66-8814-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?noredirect=on) at the moment.
Perhaps she's just a sneaky politician playing both sides, but her "universal" platform has been working. The Trump voters' votes are winnable, with the right candidate and the right strategy.
-
I want to point out a recent example of how a moderate D was able to get elected in a state that's decidedly R.
Missouri has long been a red state (last blue was Clinton 1996 D+6, although this could be a special case because of Ross Perot), even Obama couldn't win it there in 2008, he did come close however.
Over the years, Missouri went from R+7 (2004) > R+0.2 (2008) > R+9.4 (2012) > R+20 (2016), the trend is clear, it's a lot redder today than say 2000. Despite all this, Sen. McCaskill was able to get elected both in 2006 and 2012. She actually got more votes in 2012 than in 2006.
Even in the 2004 gubernatorial election that she eventually lost, she outperformed the D presidential candidate Kerry by a substantial margin (-2.9 vs -7).
The race there this year will be close, and she could lose to Hawley, but we have to put it into the context of background trend. Missouri is arguably more conservative today than 15 years ago (R+ margin), it's a remarkable feat that a D, a female D in a conservative state no less, is able to stay competitive against the trend.
Again, this shows it's not all race and gender bias with the conservative voters. Moderation is key, especially in these difficult to win races. It should then come as no surprise that McCaskill is ranked as one of the most moderate senators (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/claire-mccaskills-balancing-act-how-to-be-a-moderate-in-immoderate-times/2017/08/27/9e5dcc66-8814-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?noredirect=on) at the moment.
Perhaps she's just a sneaky politician playing both sides, but her "universal" platform has been working. The Trump voters' votes are winnable, with the right candidate and the right strategy.
The major reason mcCaskill did well in the last election was because her opponent, Todd .Aiken, opened his stupid mouth just before the election and let fly idiocy about true rape not resulting in pregnancy. That was huge, and many Republicans wanted him off the ticket for incompetentcy. It was a huge huge deal. Mr Aiken considered himself annoited by the voters to be on the ticket and did not step down.
Mr. Aiken slam dunked the election for McCaskill. It was his gift to her. I know Republicans who didnt vote for him.
She will have a harder time this time around. And no, she isnt very moderate as far as
I am concerned and I wont be voting for her. I am pretty sure I didn't vote for her last time, but didnt vote for Aiken, either.
-
I assume everyone has seen that picture of fine patriots who would rather be Russian than Democrats. We've also seen the picture of angry young men with tiki torches shouting into the void. These are the images of this political era that will always stick with me.
I do indeed blame the people who voted for Donald Trump for this. I really don't subscribe to the idea that they are blameless. The bulk of information available at the time indicated quite clearly who the better choice was. Maybe some of them didn't know better, but they certainly could have. Had they made such poor choices when it came to personal finance, they'd deserve a face punch. When people buy luxury items they can't afford and blame the media or their aspirational friends, we tell them to grow up. So when people vote for an incompetent and corrupt buffoon and habitual liar because they thought he "told it like it is" and would "drain the swamp", I won't give them a pass. Even Fox news viewers could have seen a man mocking a disabled reporter.
I'm ok with learning lessons and honing messages. But blaming the people who didn't vote for Trump to provide cover for those who did is a bridge too far for me.
-
I assume everyone has seen that picture of fine patriots who would rather be Russian than Democrats. We've also seen the picture of angry young men with tiki torches shouting into the void. These are the images of this political era that will always stick with me.
I do indeed blame the people who voted for Donald Trump for this. I really don't subscribe to the idea that they are blameless. The bulk of information available at the time indicated quite clearly who the better choice was. Maybe some of them didn't know better, but they certainly could have. Had they made such poor choices when it came to personal finance, they'd deserve a face punch. When people buy luxury items they can't afford and blame the media or their aspirational friends, we tell them to grow up. So when people vote for an incompetent and corrupt buffoon and habitual liar because they thought he "told it like it is" and would "drain the swamp", I won't give them a pass. Even Fox news viewers could have seen a man mocking a disabled reporter.
I'm ok with learning lessons and honing messages. But blaming the people who didn't vote for Trump to provide cover for those who did is a bridge too far for me.
I don't think anyone has suggested this (except maybe the poorly chosen name of this thread). The comment that initiated the discussion was "the Progressives are just as responsible in electing Trump as voters who actually voted for him."
I certainly don't agree with the "just as" part either, I'm not even sure the person who said it believes that. However, I do accept that the perception of "progressives" that has been created through a combination of a few radical progressives and the likes of fox news played an important role in the election. I also think that the Democratic party should acknowledge this and work on it.
In personal finance, ignorant decisions lead to personal consequences (mostly). In politics it affects us all.
-
I don't know. Republicans have been agitating about long-haired hippies and commie leftists since the 60s. They are a perpetual conservative bugaboo, so I'm not sure that this is anything new. Fox news has an interest in amplifying anything they see, so there isn't anything to do about it other than pivot away if you are a Democratic candidate.
If I had to cast blame on progressives, I'm more troubled by people who still are upset about "RIGGED" primaries. They obviously weren't politically active in 2008 to see the exact reverse process in which Obama took advantage of the Southern vote and superdelegates (that were supposedly evidence of rigging when they benefited Hillary) as well as the natural advantage that the caucus process provides to upstart candidates to capture the nomination. I'm at a loss for how to handle them, since patiently explaining the nomination rules that were in place before Sanders even joined the party doesn't seem to work.
-
I assume everyone has seen that picture of fine patriots who would rather be Russian than Democrats. We've also seen the picture of angry young men with tiki torches shouting into the void. These are the images of this political era that will always stick with me.
I do indeed blame the people who voted for Donald Trump for this. I really don't subscribe to the idea that they are blameless. The bulk of information available at the time indicated quite clearly who the better choice was. Maybe some of them didn't know better, but they certainly could have. Had they made such poor choices when it came to personal finance, they'd deserve a face punch. When people buy luxury items they can't afford and blame the media or their aspirational friends, we tell them to grow up. So when people vote for an incompetent and corrupt buffoon and habitual liar because they thought he "told it like it is" and would "drain the swamp", I won't give them a pass. Even Fox news viewers could have seen a man mocking a disabled reporter.
I'm ok with learning lessons and honing messages. But blaming the people who didn't vote for Trump to provide cover for those who did is a bridge too far for me.
Well said! I find this whole thread a bit disingenuous. People need to take responsibility for their decisions. Clinton's deplorable comment isn't even in the same universe as the verbal vomit Trump spewed and continues to spew. And the very few far left can easily be hand waved away. If you voted for the current shit show own up to it and don't repeat your mistake. If you think he is doing a great job then progressives had no say in your decision anyways.
-
In personal finance, uninvited face punches very rarely achieve the desired goal of changing people's behavior (with the possible exception of here on the forum where posters may well be looking for a face punch to make them sit up and reconsider their assumptions). If anything people also dig in and become more invested in their positions in the face of (what they perceive as) criticism and judgement from outside. On the other hand, the techniques we on the forum have found work for personal finance are things like setting a good example, and offering stories of our own personal struggles and how we overcame them.
My guess is that face punching voters is also unlikely to achieve the desired goal of convincing them to change their behavior.
My fear is that many people on this thread are a lot more interested in apportioning blame (which is different from discussing causality as one includes a moral judgement and the other is just trying to figure out cause and effect relationships and effect sizes) for the last election, then in trying to win the next one.
-
Another example in conservative western Penn (R+20, 2016 pres. elec.):
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/14/pennsylvania-election-results-2018-analysis-217360
"The 33-year-old Marine vet, federal prosecutor and Allegheny County political progeny didn’t pick a side. He took some positions from out of each camp’s bucket, all while brandishing his assault rifle."
"But Lamb was hardly a poster child for democratic socialism. He did not campaign on the left’s most cherished policy plank of a single-payer health insurance system. In fact, he followed the advice of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s cautious health care polling memo, which said, “The American people overwhelmingly want Congress to improve the Affordable Care Act, not repeal it or replace it with something radically different.”
"Lamb stayed away from another major progressive populist goal, a $15 minimum wage, which he said “sounds high based on what I’ve been told by many small-business owners in our area.” He did not endear himself to some environmentalists when he supported natural gas fracking, siding with energy industry workers still reeling from the decline of the coal industry."
"The DCCC is inclined to favor candidates it considers to be good fits for their districts; if a district tilts right, the DCCC will be hesitant to spend a lot of campaign cash on a candidate who swerves left. Many progressives have a different view—they insist that proud, authentic populists can win anywhere, especially in working-class districts that sided with Trump."
"Lamb’s “populism lite” approach doesn’t definitively disprove that argument, but after a year of special congressional elections in reddish areas, the progressive populists lack a model case of their own. Their preferred 2017 candidates, Quist in Montana and James Thompson in Kansas, fell short, while the more moderate Jones triumphed in Alabama. While some credited Roy Moore’s scandals more than Jones’ positions for the victory, Lamb’s similar performance augurs otherwise." Edit: A parallel can be drawn between Moore and Aiken here and scandals likely swayed the results. The flip side of attributing the win to the scandals actually reinforces the argument that not all R voters are racists and sexists, otherwise they wouldn't have switched.
"Lamb’s performance does suggest that Democratic candidates can tailor their messages to their home districts, appeal to swing voters and pacify the Republican base, while still generating strong Democratic base turnout. "
"But as the primary season gears up, those preaching electoral pragmatism, policy restraint and a bipartisan veneer have high-profile special election success stories to cite. Progressive populists are still waiting."
Again, with the right candidate and right strategy, Trump voters' votes are winnable.
-
I want to point out a recent example of how a moderate D was able to get elected in a state that's decidedly R.
Missouri has long been a red state (last blue was Clinton 1996 D+6, although this could be a special case because of Ross Perot), even Obama couldn't win it there in 2008, he did come close however.
Over the years, Missouri went from R+7 (2004) > R+0.2 (2008) > R+9.4 (2012) > R+20 (2016), the trend is clear, it's a lot redder today than say 2000. Despite all this, Sen. McCaskill was able to get elected both in 2006 and 2012. She actually got more votes in 2012 than in 2006.
Even in the 2004 gubernatorial election that she eventually lost, she outperformed the D presidential candidate Kerry by a substantial margin (-2.9 vs -7).
The race there this year will be close, and she could lose to Hawley, but we have to put it into the context of background trend. Missouri is arguably more conservative today than 15 years ago (R+ margin), it's a remarkable feat that a D, a female D in a conservative state no less, is able to stay competitive against the trend.
Again, this shows it's not all race and gender bias with the conservative voters. Moderation is key, especially in these difficult to win races. It should then come as no surprise that McCaskill is ranked as one of the most moderate senators (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/claire-mccaskills-balancing-act-how-to-be-a-moderate-in-immoderate-times/2017/08/27/9e5dcc66-8814-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?noredirect=on) at the moment.
Perhaps she's just a sneaky politician playing both sides, but her "universal" platform has been working. The Trump voters' votes are winnable, with the right candidate and the right strategy.
The major reason mcCaskill did well in the last election was because her opponent, Todd .Aiken, opened his stupid mouth just before the election and let fly idiocy about true rape not resulting in pregnancy. That was huge, and many Republicans wanted him off the ticket for incompetentcy. It was a huge huge deal. Mr Aiken considered himself annoited by the voters to be on the ticket and did not step down.
Mr. Aiken slam dunked the election for McCaskill. It was his gift to her. I know Republicans who didnt vote for him.
She will have a harder time this time around. And no, she isnt very moderate as far as
I am concerned and I wont be voting for her. I am pretty sure I didn't vote for her last time, but didnt vote for Aiken, either.
Fellow Missourian here. You're spot on with Aiken's verbal diarrhea handing McCaskill the win. A lot of people seem to have forgotten about that little incident... still, McCaskill is by far one of the most conservative Democratic senators. She's come out against the $15 minimum wage, Medicare for all, and many other liberal/progressive platforms. So I don't want to derail this convo into a discussion of her policies, just curious why you wouldn't consider her a moderate?
-
Pretty close to neutral, but a little to the right.
Economic Left/Right: 1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.1
-
I want to point out a recent example of how a moderate D was able to get elected in a state that's decidedly R.
Missouri has long been a red state (last blue was Clinton 1996 D+6, although this could be a special case because of Ross Perot), even Obama couldn't win it there in 2008, he did come close however.
Over the years, Missouri went from R+7 (2004) > R+0.2 (2008) > R+9.4 (2012) > R+20 (2016), the trend is clear, it's a lot redder today than say 2000. Despite all this, Sen. McCaskill was able to get elected both in 2006 and 2012. She actually got more votes in 2012 than in 2006.
Even in the 2004 gubernatorial election that she eventually lost, she outperformed the D presidential candidate Kerry by a substantial margin (-2.9 vs -7).
The race there this year will be close, and she could lose to Hawley, but we have to put it into the context of background trend. Missouri is arguably more conservative today than 15 years ago (R+ margin), it's a remarkable feat that a D, a female D in a conservative state no less, is able to stay competitive against the trend.
Again, this shows it's not all race and gender bias with the conservative voters. Moderation is key, especially in these difficult to win races. It should then come as no surprise that McCaskill is ranked as one of the most moderate senators (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/claire-mccaskills-balancing-act-how-to-be-a-moderate-in-immoderate-times/2017/08/27/9e5dcc66-8814-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?noredirect=on) at the moment.
Perhaps she's just a sneaky politician playing both sides, but her "universal" platform has been working. The Trump voters' votes are winnable, with the right candidate and the right strategy.
The major reason mcCaskill did well in the last election was because her opponent, Todd .Aiken, opened his stupid mouth just before the election and let fly idiocy about true rape not resulting in pregnancy. That was huge, and many Republicans wanted him off the ticket for incompetentcy. It was a huge huge deal. Mr Aiken considered himself annoited by the voters to be on the ticket and did not step down.
Mr. Aiken slam dunked the election for McCaskill. It was his gift to her. I know Republicans who didnt vote for him.
She will have a harder time this time around. And no, she isnt very moderate as far as
I am concerned and I wont be voting for her. I am pretty sure I didn't vote for her last time, but didnt vote for Aiken, either.
Fellow Missourian here. You're spot on with Aiken's verbal diarrhea handing McCaskill the win. A lot of people seem to have forgotten about that little incident... still, McCaskill is by far one of the most conservative Democratic senators. She's come out against the $15 minimum wage, Medicare for all, and many other liberal/progressive platforms. So I don't want to derail this convo into a discussion of her policies, just curious why you wouldn't consider her a moderate?
She might be “moderate” for the left, I will give you that, and given your examples. But she votes eith the Democrats more often than not.
She does like referring to herself as moderate.
I wont be voting for her, but I will nt be surprised if she wins here.
-
Again, with the right candidate and right strategy, Trump voters' votes are winnable.
Would the right strategy involve running against a child molester? Just curious since there seems to be no doubt that had Moore not been a child molester, he would have easily won. I can't believe how many people still voted for that POS.
-
Technically, Roy Moore was more of a late-adolescent molester. Hey, at least the girls were over 16, right? (I think they were, I'm not really sure). Who hasn't cruised the malls looking for hot high school girls when you are a 30-something prosecuting attorney, right? And who hasn't creeped out a teenage waitress by offering to drive her home and then trying to feel her up in a parked car?
-
Technically, Roy Moore was more of a late-adolescent molester. Hey, at least the girls were over 16, right? (I think they were, I'm not really sure). Who hasn't cruised the malls looking for hot high school girls when you are a 30-something prosecuting attorney, right? And who hasn't creeped out a teenage waitress by offering to drive her home and then trying to feel her up in a parked car?
One of the girls he assaulted was 14.
-
In personal finance, uninvited face punches very rarely achieve the desired goal of changing people's behavior (with the possible exception of here on the forum where posters may well be looking for a face punch to make them sit up and reconsider their assumptions). If anything people also dig in and become more invested in their positions in the face of (what they perceive as) criticism and judgement from outside. On the other hand, the techniques we on the forum have found work for personal finance are things like setting a good example, and offering stories of our own personal struggles and how we overcame them.
My guess is that face punching voters is also unlikely to achieve the desired goal of convincing them to change their behavior.
My fear is that many people on this thread are a lot more interested in apportioning blame (which is different from discussing causality as one includes a moral judgement and the other is just trying to figure out cause and effect relationships and effect sizes) for the last election, then in trying to win the next one.
I think you have a good point, but I still struggle with the double standard. Conservative voters and their candidates talk shit about liberals all the time, and no one wrings their hands about how they are going to look uncivil and lose potential swing voters. In fact, given the authoritarian bent of the average conservative voter, there is a good argument that this incivility is a feature and not a bug for them. They want their candidate to be an asshole to the other side. Our voters aren't motivated by the same things.
I very much agree that figuring out how to get Trump out of office does involves more than talking about how much his voters suck.
If anyone has seen John Mulaney's standup special, he has a bit about how Trump is like a horse loose in a hospital. Half his friends are like "there shouldn't be a horse in a hospital at all" and he is like "ok-but we are WAY past that". I'm on team Figure Out How to Motivate Nonvoters. I think Trump voters are just too difficult to reach at this point. They've shut out all other sources of information. I can promise not to face punch them in real life, but I think they've already dug in.
-
Technically, Roy Moore was more of a late-adolescent molester. Hey, at least the girls were over 16, right? (I think they were, I'm not really sure). Who hasn't cruised the malls looking for hot high school girls when you are a 30-something prosecuting attorney, right? And who hasn't creeped out a teenage waitress by offering to drive her home and then trying to feel her up in a parked car?
One of the girls he assaulted was 14.
Oops, my bad. I also left out creepy yearbook signing.
-
Again, with the right candidate and right strategy, Trump voters' votes are winnable.
Would the right strategy involve running against a child molester? Just curious since there seems to be no doubt that had Moore not been a child molester, he would have easily won. I can't believe how many people still voted for that POS.
The flip side of attributing the win to the scandals reinforces the argument that not all R voters are racists and sexists, otherwise they would have voted for moore regardless. Compare the votes Sessions got in 2008 to what moore got in 2017 (even though the margins stayed ~constant for 2008 ad 2016 pres. elec.), not all Trump* voters are racists and sexists.
The right strategies are quite evident from the previous articles linked (Lamb and McCaskill).
While some credited Roy Moore’s scandals more than Jones’ positions for the victory, Lamb’s similar performance augurs otherwise."
"Lamb’s performance does suggest that Democratic candidates can tailor their messages to their home districts, appeal to swing voters and pacify the Republican base, while still generating strong Democratic base turnout. "
Here is something that is eerily similar to what the thread had been discussing:
Debbie Phillips, a 65-year-old Republican in a cropped white denim jacket who wasn’t afraid to stand up in a packed room full of Democrats to voice her displeasure.
“All I’m hearing on TV is that because I’m a white conservative woman, I’m a racist, a white supremacist and a neo-Nazi,” she said. “Somebody besides me has to be sick of this.”
The crowd booed, but McCaskill wasn’t here to go head-to-head with Trump supporters. She was here to try to win them over.
“First of all, let me say,” McCaskill responded, her voice made tinny by the microphone, “I don’t think anybody in this room thinks you’re a racist. If you’re being stereotyped that way that’s just as unfair as stereotyping every black person as a terrorist for Black Lives Matter.”
Do not stereotype, study and be critical with the numbers, find what really tick the voters, Trump voters' votes are winnable.
* changed from R to trump
-
Again, with the right candidate and right strategy, Trump voters' votes are winnable.
Would the right strategy involve running against a child molester? Just curious since there seems to be no doubt that had Moore not been a child molester, he would have easily won. I can't believe how many people still voted for that POS.
The flip side of attributing the win to the scandals reinforces the argument that not all R voters are racists and sexists, otherwise they would have voted for moore regardless. Compare the votes Sessions got in 2008 to what moore got in 2017 (even though the margins stayed ~constant for 2008 ad 2016 pres. elec.), not all R voters are racists and sexists.
Sure and I don't think anyone would ever peg all Republicans in that light. Jones narrowly eeked out a victory. 650K people still voted for a child molester. That's really sad. This is a good break down of how folks voted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.327ce371ec51 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.327ce371ec51)
-
Here’s another point: ultimately, what we say here on the forum doesn’t matter. What candidates say doesn’t matter if all Trump voters do is watch Fox News or get their sources from Facebook shares. I mean, I really do get on some level what you’re saying. It’s not like I can really make or break an election, though, living in a blue state (nor am I even a dem haha). Candidates in town halls, like your example, may make a difference IF Trump voters show up. Better public speeches and televised debates, most likely yes.
For the record, I don’t spend basically any of my time canvassing my neighbors or telling them they are racists for voting Trump. It kind of feels like this is what some of you think of us who vent frustration in an Internet forum... I keep my thoughts to myself. Even my friend, who I used to think highly of before really sitting down and trying to understand her reasons (shocked me quite a bit), I keep silent. I still hold out hope she’ll come around. She, though, voted Trump in a blue state. Her vote counts about as much as mine.
-
Again, with the right candidate and right strategy, Trump voters' votes are winnable.
Would the right strategy involve running against a child molester? Just curious since there seems to be no doubt that had Moore not been a child molester, he would have easily won. I can't believe how many people still voted for that POS.
The flip side of attributing the win to the scandals reinforces the argument that not all R voters are racists and sexists, otherwise they would have voted for moore regardless. Compare the votes Sessions got in 2008 to what moore got in 2017 (even though the margins stayed ~constant for 2008 ad 2016 pres. elec.), not all R voters are racists and sexists.
Sure and I don't think anyone would ever peg all Republicans in that light. Jones narrowly eeked out a victory. 650K people still voted for a child molester. That's really sad. This is a good break down of how folks voted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.327ce371ec51 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.327ce371ec51)
sorry I made a typo, meant to say Trump voters instead of R, fixed it now. And yes, the ones that voted for moore regardless could be the group that included racists and sexist, it's entirely possible. also note the really low turn out, many historically R voters stayed home in the end instead of supporting moore against their "values".
-
Here’s another point: ultimately, what we say here on the forum doesn’t matter. What candidates say doesn’t matter if all Trump voters do is watch Fox News or get their sources from Facebook shares. I mean, I really do get on some level what you’re saying. It’s not like I can really make or break an election, though, living in a blue state (nor am I even a dem haha). Candidates in town halls, like your example, may make a difference IF Trump voters show up. Better public speeches and televised debates, most likely yes.
I agree individual actions within the (red/blue) state doesn't matter as much simply because how elections work. But in these places where voters watch primarily fox news and are conservative leaning, a more moderate approach is needed to win their votes. As Lamb and McCaskill have shown, if your actions can convince the voters that you don't see them as racists/sexists/w.e. they can get onboard electing some of the more palatable politicians.
Granted this approach will be more difficult on the national stage, but I think it can still succeed.
-
Here’s another point: ultimately, what we say here on the forum doesn’t matter. What candidates say doesn’t matter if all Trump voters do is watch Fox News or get their sources from Facebook shares. I mean, I really do get on some level what you’re saying. It’s not like I can really make or break an election, though, living in a blue state (nor am I even a dem haha). Candidates in town halls, like your example, may make a difference IF Trump voters show up. Better public speeches and televised debates, most likely yes.
For the record, I don’t spend basically any of my time canvassing my neighbors or telling them they are racists for voting Trump. It kind of feels like this is what some of you think of us who vent frustration in an Internet forum... I keep my thoughts to myself. Even my friend, who I used to think highly of before really sitting down and trying to understand her reasons (shocked me quite a bit), I keep silent. I still hold out hope she’ll come around. She, though, voted Trump in a blue state. Her vote counts about as much as mine.
Just want to take a moment to enlighten the left on how Trump was elected since most still dont have a clue and this will impede their efforts to take back control of government. Addressing your bolded statement above, at least for my individual case (and there are MANY more like me): I'm a Trump voter, I have never been a Republican and probably never will be one, I never watch or listen to FOX news, Infowars, etc, I rarely ever use Facebook, I am highly educated (PhD), am not even the slightest bit racist (am in an inter-racial marriage), and am very well read in politics, international affairs, economics.
I dont listen to what Trump SAYS, he's off the rails with regard to language. I watch what he DOES (this is good advice for any politician or person for that matter). And watching what Trump DOES, I have zero regrets in my vote, I am deeply satisfied with it. Does that mean I approve of everything he does? Certainly not. But I stand by my choice. And to reiterate, there are many more out there like me. Until the left stops demonizing/identifying Trump voters as all dumb racists fux, they will get nowhere.
Just my 2 cents.
-
Don't sell yourself short, dude. I wouldn't say there are many like you. There aren't that many Phds in the US (less than 5% of the population?), and I believe that the majority of them vote for Democrats. You are a low incidence voter profile, so I'm not sure a campaign strategy focused on advanced degree holders who don't watch Fox news and who don't take anything the President says seriously will have a big impact.
Something is resonating with highly educated voters to turn them away from Trump relative to other candidates. That isn't resonating with you in particular, but it is having an impact on other voters. His support is bleeding from educated women more quickly than other groups. The problem is that there just aren't that many of them relative to the absolute juggernaut of support Trump has with no college white men. They love Trump. They also do love what he says and watch Fox and Info Wars.
-
Don't sell yourself short, dude. I wouldn't say there are many like you. There aren't that many Phds in the US (less than 5% of the population?), and I believe that the majority of them vote for Democrats. You are a low incidence voter profile, so I'm not sure a campaign strategy focused on advanced degree holders who don't watch Fox news and who don't take anything the President says seriously will have a big impact.
Don't underestimate people's ability and willingness to separate a politician's policies from their words and personal actions. I'll just throw this one out there:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/4609/presidential-job-approval-bill-clintons-high-ratings-midst.aspx (https://news.gallup.com/poll/4609/presidential-job-approval-bill-clintons-high-ratings-midst.aspx)
-
Don't sell yourself short, dude. I wouldn't say there are many like you. There aren't that many Phds in the US (less than 5% of the population?), and I believe that the majority of them vote for Democrats. You are a low incidence voter profile, so I'm not sure a campaign strategy focused on advanced degree holders who don't watch Fox news and who don't take anything the President says seriously will have a big impact.
I think ~12% of the population has some sort of advanced degrees. Of people with post-Bachelor higher ed experience (doesn't necessarily mean actually finishing a post-bachelor degree), 63% identified or leaned Dem in 2017. ETA...however, I'm not sure that means that atypical voters such as this are not worth targeting. Independent voters seem to dominate headlines every election and do seem to swing results sometimes. Not as much as mobilizing base voters does, usually, but those votes can matter.
-
Here’s another point: ultimately, what we say here on the forum doesn’t matter. What candidates say doesn’t matter if all Trump voters do is watch Fox News or get their sources from Facebook shares. I mean, I really do get on some level what you’re saying. It’s not like I can really make or break an election, though, living in a blue state (nor am I even a dem haha). Candidates in town halls, like your example, may make a difference IF Trump voters show up. Better public speeches and televised debates, most likely yes.
For the record, I don’t spend basically any of my time canvassing my neighbors or telling them they are racists for voting Trump. It kind of feels like this is what some of you think of us who vent frustration in an Internet forum... I keep my thoughts to myself. Even my friend, who I used to think highly of before really sitting down and trying to understand her reasons (shocked me quite a bit), I keep silent. I still hold out hope she’ll come around. She, though, voted Trump in a blue state. Her vote counts about as much as mine.
Just want to take a moment to enlighten the left on how Trump was elected since most still dont have a clue and this will impede their efforts to take back control of government. Addressing your bolded statement above, at least for my individual case (and there are MANY more like me): I'm a Trump voter, I have never been a Republican and probably never will be one, I never watch or listen to FOX news, Infowars, etc, I rarely ever use Facebook, I am highly educated (PhD), am not even the slightest bit racist (am in an inter-racial marriage), and am very well read in politics, international affairs, economics.
I dont listen to what Trump SAYS, he's off the rails with regard to language. I watch what he DOES (this is good advice for any politician or person for that matter). And watching what Trump DOES, I have zero regrets in my vote, I am deeply satisfied with it. Does that mean I approve of everything he does? Certainly not. But I stand by my choice. And to reiterate, there are many more out there like me. Until the left stops demonizing/identifying Trump voters as all dumb racists fux, they will get nowhere.
Just my 2 cents.
This is interesting. While I cant stand Trump most of the time and didnt vote for him, I usually dont mind what he is doing.
What you say goes with that wisdom I heard in the 2016 election: Trump supporters do not take him literally but they take him seriously. The anti-Trump people take him literally but not seriously.
I think there is real wisdom in that which points out a great divide.
-
Don't sell yourself short, dude. I wouldn't say there are many like you. There aren't that many Phds in the US (less than 5% of the population?), and I believe that the majority of them vote for Democrats. You are a low incidence voter profile, so I'm not sure a campaign strategy focused on advanced degree holders who don't watch Fox news and who don't take anything the President says seriously will have a big impact.
Something is resonating with highly educated voters to turn them away from Trump relative to other candidates. That isn't resonating with you in particular, but it is having an impact on other voters. His support is bleeding from educated women more quickly than other groups. The problem is that there just aren't that many of them relative to the absolute juggernaut of support Trump has with no college white men. They love Trump. They also do love what he says and watch Fox and Info Wars.
One of my female friends who is a strong Trump supporter has a doctorate from an Ivy, and in a hard science. My other Trump ,loving friend is really smart and college educated, of course. Both of them have IQS well above mine.
They do watch Fox News, tho.
-
Here’s another point: ultimately, what we say here on the forum doesn’t matter. What candidates say doesn’t matter if all Trump voters do is watch Fox News or get their sources from Facebook shares. I mean, I really do get on some level what you’re saying. It’s not like I can really make or break an election, though, living in a blue state (nor am I even a dem haha). Candidates in town halls, like your example, may make a difference IF Trump voters show up. Better public speeches and televised debates, most likely yes.
For the record, I don’t spend basically any of my time canvassing my neighbors or telling them they are racists for voting Trump. It kind of feels like this is what some of you think of us who vent frustration in an Internet forum... I keep my thoughts to myself. Even my friend, who I used to think highly of before really sitting down and trying to understand her reasons (shocked me quite a bit), I keep silent. I still hold out hope she’ll come around. She, though, voted Trump in a blue state. Her vote counts about as much as mine.
Just want to take a moment to enlighten the left on how Trump was elected since most still dont have a clue and this will impede their efforts to take back control of government. Addressing your bolded statement above, at least for my individual case (and there are MANY more like me): I'm a Trump voter, I have never been a Republican and probably never will be one, I never watch or listen to FOX news, Infowars, etc, I rarely ever use Facebook, I am highly educated (PhD), am not even the slightest bit racist (am in an inter-racial marriage), and am very well read in politics, international affairs, economics.
I dont listen to what Trump SAYS, he's off the rails with regard to language. I watch what he DOES (this is good advice for any politician or person for that matter). And watching what Trump DOES, I have zero regrets in my vote, I am deeply satisfied with it. Does that mean I approve of everything he does? Certainly not. But I stand by my choice. And to reiterate, there are many more out there like me. Until the left stops demonizing/identifying Trump voters as all dumb racists fux, they will get nowhere.
Just my 2 cents.
On second thought, are you really a persuadable voter? If all of us agreed en masse to nod respectfully while you explained your total satisfaction with Trump and repeatedly pointed out how not racist and extremely smart you are, would that have any impact on your voting habits? "deeply satisfied" is about as full-throated support for Trump I've seen here. If you are deeply satisfied, he's doing what you want, and your voting has nothing to do with how the opposition acts. So, the only thing that impacts you is the unpleasant social pressure from your fellow smart and not racist peers.
Why doesn't anyone ever demand that Trump supporters stop stereotyping us? Maybe we'd vote for Trump if his supporters stopped calling us snowflakes or thugs.
-
Here’s another point: ultimately, what we say here on the forum doesn’t matter. What candidates say doesn’t matter if all Trump voters do is watch Fox News or get their sources from Facebook shares. I mean, I really do get on some level what you’re saying. It’s not like I can really make or break an election, though, living in a blue state (nor am I even a dem haha). Candidates in town halls, like your example, may make a difference IF Trump voters show up. Better public speeches and televised debates, most likely yes.
For the record, I don’t spend basically any of my time canvassing my neighbors or telling them they are racists for voting Trump. It kind of feels like this is what some of you think of us who vent frustration in an Internet forum... I keep my thoughts to myself. Even my friend, who I used to think highly of before really sitting down and trying to understand her reasons (shocked me quite a bit), I keep silent. I still hold out hope she’ll come around. She, though, voted Trump in a blue state. Her vote counts about as much as mine.
Just want to take a moment to enlighten the left on how Trump was elected since most still dont have a clue and this will impede their efforts to take back control of government. Addressing your bolded statement above, at least for my individual case (and there are MANY more like me): I'm a Trump voter, I have never been a Republican and probably never will be one, I never watch or listen to FOX news, Infowars, etc, I rarely ever use Facebook, I am highly educated (PhD), am not even the slightest bit racist (am in an inter-racial marriage), and am very well read in politics, international affairs, economics.
I dont listen to what Trump SAYS, he's off the rails with regard to language. I watch what he DOES (this is good advice for any politician or person for that matter). And watching what Trump DOES, I have zero regrets in my vote, I am deeply satisfied with it. Does that mean I approve of everything he does? Certainly not. But I stand by my choice. And to reiterate, there are many more out there like me. Until the left stops demonizing/identifying Trump voters as all dumb racists fux, they will get nowhere.
Just my 2 cents.
I’m finding it amusing you called me “the left”. I’m very center, but lean a tiny bit left. I hate what Trunp SAYS, but I also don’t like what he DOES, and pretty much everyone I know who dislikes him also has a very concrete reason that just tends to include what he says as a side issue. You (can I call you “the right”?) might want to really talk to people about this instead of looking at the news, which is definitely way too focused on Trump’s words.
The number one reason I didn’t vote for the guy was because I (correctly) feared he’d put our standing on the world stage in the toilet. If you give up your seat at the table and make everyone hate you, it’s super hard to win it back, if you even can. I think Americans are very arrogant when thinking about their unquestioned importance. The king can always be dethroned, especially if he turns his back on everyone else.
As a military family (hey, a military family who votes blue? ?! See, stereotypes again - many of us are less conservative then people think), this is a massive concern. My community has bled over and over again in stupid wars Republicans started and most of the country has decided to forget. I don’t want any more started because our president is a total moron when dealing with other countries.
-
Intellectually, I understand that liberals shouldn't be badmouthing Trump voters because it's unpersuasive and ineffective, but to the Trump voters in this thread, try to understand the liberal perspective: there's a horse loose in the hospital!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6CwhvzqLYA
As a liberal voter, I disagree with this analogy.
Edit: To clarify, I understand the analogy and I agree it is useful to understand the mindset of some voters. I just disagree with it being put forward as representing the perspective of liberal voters uniformly.
-
Don't sell yourself short, dude. I wouldn't say there are many like you. There aren't that many Phds in the US (less than 5% of the population?), and I believe that the majority of them vote for Democrats. You are a low incidence voter profile, so I'm not sure a campaign strategy focused on advanced degree holders who don't watch Fox news and who don't take anything the President says seriously will have a big impact.
Something is resonating with highly educated voters to turn them away from Trump relative to other candidates. That isn't resonating with you in particular, but it is having an impact on other voters. His support is bleeding from educated women more quickly than other groups. The problem is that there just aren't that many of them relative to the absolute juggernaut of support Trump has with no college white men. They love Trump. They also do love what he says and watch Fox and Info Wars.
Wexler, I agree with you that I dont represent the bulk of the electorate. I'm not the average Trump voter. But I disagree with you that there aren't "many more like me" out there. It only takes a small fraction to push a swing state in either direction as we have seen time and time again. I really do personally know many other educated, racially unbiased folks like myself who support Trump, that includes those of Caucasian, Asian, Afro-American, Latino, and Carribean persuasions. If the left doesn't want to listen to us, fine, it won't be our loss. As a reasonable person, I am open to persuasion; I am not so deeply "entrenched" that my vote cannot be impacted through discourse, new information, and otherwise. But the left calling us stupid rednecks is not that path (e.g. was born and raised in the heart of NYC). This is not meant to be a personal attack on you, I am merely commenting on what I generally see and hear from the anti-Trumpists, so please don't take any of this personally.
-
Here’s another point: ultimately, what we say here on the forum doesn’t matter. What candidates say doesn’t matter if all Trump voters do is watch Fox News or get their sources from Facebook shares. I mean, I really do get on some level what you’re saying. It’s not like I can really make or break an election, though, living in a blue state (nor am I even a dem haha). Candidates in town halls, like your example, may make a difference IF Trump voters show up. Better public speeches and televised debates, most likely yes.
For the record, I don’t spend basically any of my time canvassing my neighbors or telling them they are racists for voting Trump. It kind of feels like this is what some of you think of us who vent frustration in an Internet forum... I keep my thoughts to myself. Even my friend, who I used to think highly of before really sitting down and trying to understand her reasons (shocked me quite a bit), I keep silent. I still hold out hope she’ll come around. She, though, voted Trump in a blue state. Her vote counts about as much as mine.
Just want to take a moment to enlighten the left on how Trump was elected since most still dont have a clue and this will impede their efforts to take back control of government. Addressing your bolded statement above, at least for my individual case (and there are MANY more like me): I'm a Trump voter, I have never been a Republican and probably never will be one, I never watch or listen to FOX news, Infowars, etc, I rarely ever use Facebook, I am highly educated (PhD), am not even the slightest bit racist (am in an inter-racial marriage), and am very well read in politics, international affairs, economics.
I dont listen to what Trump SAYS, he's off the rails with regard to language. I watch what he DOES (this is good advice for any politician or person for that matter). And watching what Trump DOES, I have zero regrets in my vote, I am deeply satisfied with it. Does that mean I approve of everything he does? Certainly not. But I stand by my choice. And to reiterate, there are many more out there like me. Until the left stops demonizing/identifying Trump voters as all dumb racists fux, they will get nowhere.
Just my 2 cents.
On second thought, are you really a persuadable voter? If all of us agreed en masse to nod respectfully while you explained your total satisfaction with Trump and repeatedly pointed out how not racist and extremely smart you are, would that have any impact on your voting habits? "deeply satisfied" is about as full-throated support for Trump I've seen here. If you are deeply satisfied, he's doing what you want, and your voting has nothing to do with how the opposition acts. So, the only thing that impacts you is the unpleasant social pressure from your fellow smart and not racist peers.
Why doesn't anyone ever demand that Trump supporters stop stereotyping us? Maybe we'd vote for Trump if his supporters stopped calling us snowflakes or thugs.
As indicated above, I am not totally satisfied with Trump; hell, no politician has ever delivered in totality, come on man!
You should not vote for a President just because someone stops calling you names (e.g. snowflake/thug). It sounds like a bad voting strategy, but I am assuming you said it tongue in cheek.
-
Why doesn't anyone ever demand that Trump supporters stop stereotyping us? Maybe we'd vote for Trump if his supporters stopped calling us snowflakes or thugs.
A) I don't want you, or anyone else, to vote for Trump.
B) I don't think it would do any good.
C) I don't doubt that there are Republican strategists who are indeed trying to come up with ways to get the crazy fringe of the republican party to just shut up and/or gaming out strategies for how they could actively disavow those fringe groups in ways that would be convincing to middle of the road voters but not get them eaten alive by that same radical fringe.
The democratic party has the advantage of not having a president of our party in power who either actively supports or at least winks at racism and tribalism. Which should make it easier to disavow our own fringe, and easier to avoid falling into the trap of saying we don't even want the votes of anyone who didn't already vote for us in an election that we lost.
For the record, I don’t spend basically any of my time canvassing my neighbors or telling them they are racists for voting Trump. It kind of feels like this is what some of you think of us who vent frustration in an Internet forum... I keep my thoughts to myself. Even my friend, who I used to think highly of before really sitting down and trying to understand her reasons (shocked me quite a bit), I keep silent. I still hold out hope she’ll come around. She, though, voted Trump in a blue state. Her vote counts about as much as mine.
I'm happy to hear that first sentence. FWIW your restraint is not a characteristic which is universally shared by those who advocate these views.
However, you do realize the internet is a public forum, don't you? As a result, some of the voters we're talking about -- potentially from swing states -- are reading these posts and it may be influencing their perception of whether they'll have a chance to being accepted if they end up supporting democratic candidates/causes in the future.
I certainly do understand the urge or need to vent. And over the past year and a half, I've been a sounding board for several people who needed to vent a lot of the same feelings it sounds like you are struggling with. But generally they did so in private one-on-one conversations, and after each of us had ascertained how the other had voted.
-
Why doesn't anyone ever demand that Trump supporters stop stereotyping us? Maybe we'd vote for Trump if his supporters stopped calling us snowflakes or thugs.
A) I don't want you, or anyone else, to vote for Trump.
B) I don't think it would do any good.
C) I don't doubt that there are Republican strategists who are indeed trying to come up with ways to get the crazy fringe of the republican party to just shut up and/or gaming out strategies for how they could actively disavow those fringe groups in ways that would be convincing to middle of the road voters but not get them eaten alive by that same radical fringe.
The democratic party has the advantage of not having a president of our party in power who either actively supports or at least winks at racism and tribalism. Which should make it easier to disavow our own fringe, and easier to avoid falling into the trap of saying we don't even want the votes of anyone who didn't already vote for us in an election that we lost.
For the record, I don’t spend basically any of my time canvassing my neighbors or telling them they are racists for voting Trump. It kind of feels like this is what some of you think of us who vent frustration in an Internet forum... I keep my thoughts to myself. Even my friend, who I used to think highly of before really sitting down and trying to understand her reasons (shocked me quite a bit), I keep silent. I still hold out hope she’ll come around. She, though, voted Trump in a blue state. Her vote counts about as much as mine.
I'm happy to hear that first sentence. FWIW your restraint is not a characteristic which is universally shared by those who advocate these views.
However, you do realize the internet is a public forum, don't you? As a result, some of the voters we're talking about -- potentially from swing states -- are reading these posts and it may be influencing their perception of whether they'll have a chance to being accepted if they end up supporting democratic candidates/causes in the future.
I certainly do understand the urge or need to vent. And over the past year and a half, I've been a sounding board for several people who needed to vent a lot of the same feelings it sounds like you are struggling with. But generally they did so in private one-on-one conversations, and after each of us had ascertained how the other had voted.
Of course this is the internet. It’s not social media, however, where most of the political influence is made. I’m really not worried.
-
Of course this is the internet. It’s not social media, however, where most of the political influence is made.
I realize we are rapidly approaching a conversational impasse (if we're not there already), but I am curious about the reasoning and/or evidence that lead you to the above conclusion.
Also what are the significant qualitative differences you see between an internet forum (like this one) and social media?
-
You should not vote for a President just because someone stops calling you names (e.g. snowflake/thug). It sounds like a bad voting strategy, but I am assuming you said it tongue in cheek.
I did, and you kind of made my point for me. No one votes for someone because of name calling by opposition supporters. It may be annoying and slightly hurtful that the kind of people you are surrounded by (just hazarding a guess-you are a PhD in an interracial relationship) think Trump is a racist dickhead and don't think too highly of his voters either. But you aren't going to Trump Harder in response. You are already Trumping about as hard as you can. I misquoted you as saying you were totally satisfied, but you did say that you were "deeply satisfied" with your vote. That's pretty epic support. I think you'll find most people in these parts are like "eh-he sucks BUT HILLARY" as the highest level of support.
Anecdata: I followed maizeman's advice for years. I was silent during the Bush years when people were busy measuring spots on Mt. Rushmore for him and shitting on democrats for daring to protest the war. I was patient and kind when I explained my ideas in favorable conditions. I listened to those same people who were "just asking" about whether Obama was born in the US. I patiently explained why those theories were untrue. What did it get me? Jack shit. Those same people proudly voted for Trump. Guess what? Now I call them out, make fun of Trump's idiotic mistakes, and generally don't pull any punches. And you know what? Those people are silent now. But they aren't my audience. My audience is the people around them who don't want the shame of being a Trump voter to stick to them. Because the more shameful it is, the harder it is to capture the social movement and excitement that lead to Trump in the first place. If it's embarrassing to say you were at a Trump rally, maybe you won't go. If talking about voting for Trump is just going to get you endless grief, you'll stop talking about it. How did I learn this strategy? From the Bernie Bros who jumped down the throats of Hillary voters to the point where they had to gather in private social media groups. It's effective. It kills excitement and that sense of in-group belonging that Trump used to great effect.
We are on the same team, and we are just kicking around strategy at this point on how to get Trump out of office. My strategy will work on some voters, patient and kindness will work on others. But every time I hear about some poor Trumper who can't get a date, I think about all the dudes reading that article and thinking "shit-if I vote for Trump, I'm never going to get laid". That's motivation right there.
-
This entire thread is an attempt by Trump supporters to ransom potential votes in exchange for ending freedom of speech for anyone who doesn't agree with the sexist, racist, homophobic, and plain cruel actions of the administration and it's supporters.
Fuck negotiating with terrorists.
-
Here’s another point: ultimately, what we say here on the forum doesn’t matter. What candidates say doesn’t matter if all Trump voters do is watch Fox News or get their sources from Facebook shares. I mean, I really do get on some level what you’re saying. It’s not like I can really make or break an election, though, living in a blue state (nor am I even a dem haha). Candidates in town halls, like your example, may make a difference IF Trump voters show up. Better public speeches and televised debates, most likely yes.
For the record, I don’t spend basically any of my time canvassing my neighbors or telling them they are racists for voting Trump. It kind of feels like this is what some of you think of us who vent frustration in an Internet forum... I keep my thoughts to myself. Even my friend, who I used to think highly of before really sitting down and trying to understand her reasons (shocked me quite a bit), I keep silent. I still hold out hope she’ll come around. She, though, voted Trump in a blue state. Her vote counts about as much as mine.
Just want to take a moment to enlighten the left on how Trump was elected since most still dont have a clue and this will impede their efforts to take back control of government. Addressing your bolded statement above, at least for my individual case (and there are MANY more like me): I'm a Trump voter, I have never been a Republican and probably never will be one, I never watch or listen to FOX news, Infowars, etc, I rarely ever use Facebook, I am highly educated (PhD), am not even the slightest bit racist (am in an inter-racial marriage), and am very well read in politics, international affairs, economics.
I dont listen to what Trump SAYS, he's off the rails with regard to language. I watch what he DOES (this is good advice for any politician or person for that matter). And watching what Trump DOES, I have zero regrets in my vote, I am deeply satisfied with it. Does that mean I approve of everything he does? Certainly not. But I stand by my choice. And to reiterate, there are many more out there like me. Until the left stops demonizing/identifying Trump voters as all dumb racists fux, they will get nowhere.
Just my 2 cents.
On second thought, are you really a persuadable voter? If all of us agreed en masse to nod respectfully while you explained your total satisfaction with Trump and repeatedly pointed out how not racist and extremely smart you are, would that have any impact on your voting habits? "deeply satisfied" is about as full-throated support for Trump I've seen here. If you are deeply satisfied, he's doing what you want, and your voting has nothing to do with how the opposition acts. So, the only thing that impacts you is the unpleasant social pressure from your fellow smart and not racist peers.
Why doesn't anyone ever demand that Trump supporters stop stereotyping us? Maybe we'd vote for Trump if his supporters stopped calling us snowflakes or thugs.
As indicated above, I am not totally satisfied with Trump; hell, no politician has ever delivered in totality, come on man!
You should not vote for a President just because someone stops calling you names (e.g. snowflake/thug). It sounds like a bad voting strategy, but I am assuming you said it tongue in cheek.
Has anyone else noticed that a Trump supporter just said that you shouldn't vote for a president because someone did the thing that some people are saying "the left" should do to get the support of Trump voters?
-
This entire thread is an attempt by Trump supporters to ransom potential votes in exchange for ending freedom of speech for anyone who doesn't agree with the sexist, racist, homophobic, and plain cruel actions of the administration and it's supporters.
Fuck negotiating with terrorists.
Yeah. Trump supporters want to vote for him but also avoid the unpleasant social consequences. This is very self-serving.
-
This entire thread is an attempt by Trump supporters to ransom potential votes in exchange for ending freedom of speech for anyone who doesn't agree with the sexist, racist, homophobic, and plain cruel actions of the administration and it's supporters.
Fuck negotiating with terrorists.
lol ok
-
This entire thread is an attempt by Trump supporters to ransom potential votes in exchange for ending freedom of speech for anyone who doesn't agree with the sexist, racist, homophobic, and plain cruel actions of the administration and it's supporters.
Fuck negotiating with terrorists.
I object to being falsely labeled as a Trump supporter.
I object to your false assertion that I am trying to prevent people from criticizing the trump administration, or criticizing people who advocate sexism, racism, or homophobia.
I sincerely ask that you retract both assertions.
-
You should not vote for a President just because someone stops calling you names (e.g. snowflake/thug). It sounds like a bad voting strategy, but I am assuming you said it tongue in cheek.
I did, and you kind of made my point for me. No one votes for someone because of name calling by opposition supporters. It may be annoying and slightly hurtful that the kind of people you are surrounded by (just hazarding a guess-you are a PhD in an interracial relationship) think Trump is a racist dickhead and don't think too highly of his voters either. But you aren't going to Trump Harder in response. You are already Trumping about as hard as you can. I misquoted you as saying you were totally satisfied, but you did say that you were "deeply satisfied" with your vote. That's pretty epic support. I think you'll find most people in these parts are like "eh-he sucks BUT HILLARY" as the highest level of support.
Anecdata: I followed maizeman's advice for years. I was silent during the Bush years when people were busy measuring spots on Mt. Rushmore for him and shitting on democrats for daring to protest the war. I was patient and kind when I explained my ideas in favorable conditions. I listened to those same people who were "just asking" about whether Obama was born in the US. I patiently explained why those theories were untrue. What did it get me? Jack shit. Those same people proudly voted for Trump. Guess what? Now I call them out, make fun of Trump's idiotic mistakes, and generally don't pull any punches. And you know what? Those people are silent now. But they aren't my audience. My audience is the people around them who don't want the shame of being a Trump voter to stick to them. Because the more shameful it is, the harder it is to capture the social movement and excitement that lead to Trump in the first place. If it's embarrassing to say you were at a Trump rally, maybe you won't go. If talking about voting for Trump is just going to get you endless grief, you'll stop talking about it. How did I learn this strategy? From the Bernie Bros who jumped down the throats of Hillary voters to the point where they had to gather in private social media groups. It's effective. It kills excitement and that sense of in-group belonging that Trump used to great effect.
We are on the same team, and we are just kicking around strategy at this point on how to get Trump out of office. My strategy will work on some voters, patient and kindness will work on others. But every time I hear about some poor Trumper who can't get a date, I think about all the dudes reading that article and thinking "shit-if I vote for Trump, I'm never going to get laid". That's motivation right there.
Yep, gotta admit that’s where my thoughts go. Being nicer isn’t going to catch a Trump voter who thinks Trump is doing it right, despite what he says. Nothing I say about how wrong he is about immigrants has swayed anyone I knew who was sure they are the source of all wrong, as just one example.
-
Anecdata: I followed maizeman's advice for years. I was silent during the Bush years when people were busy measuring spots on Mt. Rushmore for him and shitting on democrats for daring to protest the war. I was patient and kind when I explained my ideas in favorable conditions. I listened to those same people who were "just asking" about whether Obama was born in the US. I patiently explained why those theories were untrue. What did it get me? Jack shit.
You consider 8 years of a liberal presidency, guaranteed access to healthcare, government subsidies to guarantee poor families have access to life saving treatment, the biggest expansion of the social safety net in a generation, "jack shit"?
-
Of course this is the internet. It’s not social media, however, where most of the political influence is made.
I realize we are rapidly approaching a conversational impasse (if we're not there already), but I am curious about the reasoning and/or evidence that lead you to the above conclusion.
Also what are the significant qualitative differences you see between an internet forum (like this one) and social media?
Mostly the audience. We’re this tiny corner of the internet where people actually try to formulate an opinion and consider someone else’s viewpoint. It’s literally the only reason I’m still engaging here, heh. Personally, I don’t think we’re as far apart as it seems, and a real face to face would probably confirm that, but, yay, internet. Most people on the net don’t seem to communicate that way anymore, though. Forums seem to be dying out compared to what I remember them being. A couple I once belonged to actually shut down when everyone started posting on FB most of the time.
Facebook and Twitter are toxic cesspools of chest beating, memes, and a whole lot of insults. After the last election, I stopped posting anything political after realizing it really didn’t make a difference. Ironically, though, it seems a whole lot of what happened on FB and Twitter last election DID. I doubt the Russians spent so much money creating fake accounts and spreading fake news there because it didn’t work. Pizzagate a great example. I don’t like what social media has become and barely use it anymore, but it’s still there, sigh, and not going away anytime soon.
-
I agree we're probably a lot less far apart than it may seem from this discussion (just because it's natural to focus on the areas of disagreement rather than agreement).
Also agree that FB/twitter etc are a toxic cesspool when it comes to political discussion. I got so much happier once I set up strong filters to remove political posts from each before I can see them (whereas the only filter I use on this forum is for a single journal thread I'm trying not to engage with).
Also agree that political discussion (whether organic or from international sources pretending to be organic) on social media clearly did move the needle on the last election.
My guess is that political discussion on forums is qualitatively similar in its potential to influence people's perceptions and ultimately political decisions, even though quantitatively the effect is clearly much smaller just because the audiences are so much smaller (and because presumably we're small enough to not be worth targeting with fake accounts).
-
Anecdata: I followed maizeman's advice for years. I was silent during the Bush years when people were busy measuring spots on Mt. Rushmore for him and shitting on democrats for daring to protest the war. I was patient and kind when I explained my ideas in favorable conditions. I listened to those same people who were "just asking" about whether Obama was born in the US. I patiently explained why those theories were untrue. What did it get me? Jack shit.
You consider 8 years of a liberal presidency, guaranteed access to healthcare, government subsidies to guarantee poor families have access to life saving treatment, the biggest expansion of the social safety net in a generation, "jack shit"?
Oh-that stuff is great, and I'm happy we got it. But that came about because liberals banded together and voted for it. Too bad it's all in danger now because people elected Trump. And some salty people had to vote for Jill fucking Stein. And let me tell you, conservatives didn't take their frustration with Obama in 2008 and try to engage in meaningful and polite dialogue with liberals. Nope. They put tea bags on their hats and held up Obama=Hitler signs and voted in the likes of Devin Nunes et al. And no one said "oh, conservatives are so uncivil. I worry that it will make their message ineffective."
Conservatives have been concern trolling liberals into soft-pedaling their message like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown for years. I'm tired of it, and I'm ready to take the fight to them. And, I think it's working. That's why they are squawking about it. Because it turns out that Ivanka wants to go to spin class and Scott Pruitt wants to go out to fancy restaurants just like all the filthy elitist liberals they are supposed to hate. That's the real reason they are complaining-because we are making them uncomfortable, and they'd rather we shut up while they put kids in cages. And that's happening all the way down to their voters. Shutting up is what they want. Let's not indulge them. Because they don't respect us more if we are polite-they despise us for our weakness.
-
Anecdata: I followed maizeman's advice for years. I was silent during the Bush years when people were busy measuring spots on Mt. Rushmore for him and shitting on democrats for daring to protest the war. I was patient and kind when I explained my ideas in favorable conditions. I listened to those same people who were "just asking" about whether Obama was born in the US. I patiently explained why those theories were untrue. What did it get me? Jack shit.
You consider 8 years of a liberal presidency, guaranteed access to healthcare, government subsidies to guarantee poor families have access to life saving treatment, the biggest expansion of the social safety net in a generation, "jack shit"?
Oh-that stuff is great, and I'm happy we got it. But that came about because liberals banded together and voted for it. Too bad it's all in danger now because people elected Trump. And some salty people had to vote for Jill fucking Stein. And let me tell you, conservatives didn't take their frustration with Obama in 2008 and try to engage in meaningful and polite dialogue with liberals. Nope. They put tea bags on their hats and held up Obama=Hitler signs and voted in the likes of Devin Nunes et al. And no one said "oh, conservatives are so uncivil. I worry that it will make their message ineffective."
Conservatives have been concern trolling liberals into soft-pedaling their message like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown for years. I'm tired of it, and I'm ready to take the fight to them. And, I think it's working. That's why they are squawking about it. Because it turns out that Ivanka wants to go to spin class and Scott Pruitt wants to go out to fancy restaurants just like all the filthy elitist liberals they are supposed to hate. That's the real reason they are complaining-because we are making them uncomfortable, and they'd rather we shut up while they put kids in cages. And that's happening all the way down to their voters. Shutting up is what they want. Let's not indulge them. Because they don't respect us more if we are polite-they despise us for our weakness.
It appears you completely misunderstand my position (Why would I be telling republicans that they should change their message so they have a better chance with voters? I don't want them to win.), and reading through the lines, it sounds like you are actually questioning my political affiliation because I disagree with you on the most effective tactics to achieve my goals.
I do not support trying to mold the democratic party into a mirror image of the republican party. I think trying to do so is actively counter productive to achieving real and lasting political change.
I'm not sure what else there is to say. *shrug*
-
maizeman-my apologies. We are on the same team, and we want the same thing. We need people like you out there doing your thing. I'll be doing my thing, too. Trust me-I'm not a dick in person. But I'm not going to bite my tongue any longer.
-
The democrats need to actually stand for something other than opposing and hating on Trump.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/09/democrats-oppose-trump-republicans-passive
-
Trump needs to stand for something besides rolling back all Obama’s achievements.
If you don’t understand or can’t read the Democrats platform, then the problem is your reading comprehension and complete failure to do any sort of critical thinking.
-
Trump needs to stand for something besides rolling back all Obama’s achievements.
See, YOU just prove my point. It's all about Trump. And I bet you didn't even read the article I linked to, speaking of reading comprehension. LOL
-
maizeman-my apologies. We are on the same team, and we want the same thing. We need people like you out there doing your thing. I'll be doing my thing, too. Trust me-I'm not a dick in person. But I'm not going to bite my tongue any longer.
Thank you, Wexler.
I think we just fundamentally disagree about the best path to the same end goal and we both really really want that end goal. And that's okay. Best -MM
-
Trump needs to stand for something besides rolling back all Obama’s achievements.
See, YOU just prove my point. It's all about Trump. And I bet you didn't even read the article I linked to, speaking of reading comprehension. LOL
What was your point? Other than to post an opinion piece of one person's perspective of the Dems platform. Do you agree with this person's assessment of Trump or only his assessment of the Dem's platform?
-
Trump needs to stand for something besides rolling back all Obama’s achievements.
See, YOU just prove my point. It's all about Trump. And I bet you didn't even read the article I linked to, speaking of reading comprehension. LOL
What was your point?
That for Democrats it seems to be mostly about opposing Trump, hating on Trump, rather than having their own message about what they're for and getting that message out.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/09/democrats-oppose-trump-republicans-passive
-
Trump needs to stand for something besides rolling back all Obama’s achievements.
See, YOU just prove my point. It's all about Trump. And I bet you didn't even read the article I linked to, speaking of reading comprehension. LOL
What was your point?
That for Democrats it seems to be mostly about opposing Trump, hating on Trump, rather than having their own message about what they're for and getting that message out.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/09/democrats-oppose-trump-republicans-passive
The author says you should also oppose Trump and pretty much puts what he stands for through the ringer (to put it nicely). Do you agree with this? OR did you just cherry pick the parts that seem to rip on Dems?
-
Trump needs to stand for something besides rolling back all Obama’s achievements.
See, YOU just prove my point. It's all about Trump. And I bet you didn't even read the article I linked to, speaking of reading comprehension. LOL
What was your point?
That for Democrats it seems to be mostly about opposing Trump, hating on Trump, rather than having their own message about what they're for and getting that message out.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/09/democrats-oppose-trump-republicans-passive
The media decides to make everything about Trump.
-
Trump needs to stand for something besides rolling back all Obama’s achievements.
See, YOU just prove my point. It's all about Trump. And I bet you didn't even read the article I linked to, speaking of reading comprehension. LOL
What was your point?
That for Democrats it seems to be mostly about opposing Trump, hating on Trump, rather than having their own message about what they're for and getting that message out.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/09/democrats-oppose-trump-republicans-passive
The author says you should also oppose Trump and pretty much puts what he stands for through the ringer (to put it nicely). Do you agree with this? OR did you just cherry pick the parts that seem to rip on Dems?
The point for linking to that article was that it aligns with the point I was making as opposed to making a comment based on an article. I do agree with some of the comments about Trump, although going on about that is contrary to the point I was making in the first place. As I've stated before, I very much want to see the dems take back at least one chamber of Congress.
-
Sigh....missing the point as usual. I was mocking the clickbait title of that article.
Dems have a detailed policy platform which anyone actually arguing in good faith would know about. Hillary had policy coming out her ears, but no one cared. Trump draws all eyes and boosts ratings so the media covers him, and the dems are forced to respond. If they didn’t, the headline would be “Dems don’t push back against Trump”
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
The real question is, what do the Republicans stand for these days? Because with them, I have no fucking clue anymore.
-
Trump needs to stand for something besides rolling back all Obama’s achievements.
See, YOU just prove my point. It's all about Trump. And I bet you didn't even read the article I linked to, speaking of reading comprehension. LOL
What was your point?
That for Democrats it seems to be mostly about opposing Trump, hating on Trump, rather than having their own message about what they're for and getting that message out.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/09/democrats-oppose-trump-republicans-passive
The author says you should also oppose Trump and pretty much puts what he stands for through the ringer (to put it nicely). Do you agree with this? OR did you just cherry pick the parts that seem to rip on Dems?
The point for linking to that article was that it aligns with the point I was making as opposed to making a comment based on an article. I do agree with some of the comments about Trump, although going on about that is contrary to the point I was making in the first place. As I've stated before, I very much want to see the dems take back at least one chamber of Congress.
The Dems do have a valid platform. Not sure your point is valid.
-
Trump needs to stand for something besides rolling back all Obama’s achievements.
See, YOU just prove my point. It's all about Trump. And I bet you didn't even read the article I linked to, speaking of reading comprehension. LOL
What was your point?
That for Democrats it seems to be mostly about opposing Trump, hating on Trump, rather than having their own message about what they're for and getting that message out.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/09/democrats-oppose-trump-republicans-passive
The author says you should also oppose Trump and pretty much puts what he stands for through the ringer (to put it nicely). Do you agree with this? OR did you just cherry pick the parts that seem to rip on Dems?
The point for linking to that article was that it aligns with the point I was making as opposed to making a comment based on an article. I do agree with some of the comments about Trump, although going on about that is contrary to the point I was making in the first place. As I've stated before, I very much want to see the dems take back at least one chamber of Congress.
The Dems do have a valid platform. Not sure your point is valid.
From the article:
"A Washington Post poll last year showed a majority of registered voters thought the Democratic party stood for nothing other than being against Trump."
That goes in line with the point I made about getting the message out.
-
Trump needs to stand for something besides rolling back all Obama’s achievements.
See, YOU just prove my point. It's all about Trump. And I bet you didn't even read the article I linked to, speaking of reading comprehension. LOL
What was your point?
That for Democrats it seems to be mostly about opposing Trump, hating on Trump, rather than having their own message about what they're for and getting that message out.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/09/democrats-oppose-trump-republicans-passive
The author says you should also oppose Trump and pretty much puts what he stands for through the ringer (to put it nicely). Do you agree with this? OR did you just cherry pick the parts that seem to rip on Dems?
The point for linking to that article was that it aligns with the point I was making as opposed to making a comment based on an article. I do agree with some of the comments about Trump, although going on about that is contrary to the point I was making in the first place. As I've stated before, I very much want to see the dems take back at least one chamber of Congress.
The Dems do have a valid platform. Not sure your point is valid.
From the article:
"A Washington Post poll last year showed a majority of registered voters thought the Democratic party stood for nothing other than being against Trump."
That goes in line with the point I made about getting the message out.
As a registered Democrat, I completely agree. I believe that the party has a platform, but not so sure it's coherent. And they clearly are not doing a good enough job communicating it to people. If you have to go to the party's website to find out what it even is, then you're losing the battle. Only total wonks will do that. Everybody in this country should be able to hold up one hand and list the points of their platform while counting off on their fingers.
I can't even do that. And I pay a hell of a lot of attention to this stuff.
-
These are good points. I agree the Dems aren’t doing a good job communicating what they will DO. I noticed upthread that when you try to explain why what Trump is doing, someone defending him and calling me “the left” completely ignored my very specific comment.
Their examples are things like the economy (already doing well when Trump took over), jobs (once again, already very low numbers when he was elected - I find it curious no one has a concrete example of people being put back to work), and judges. Okay judges, although I think the Republicans scammed their way into the that one, I can’t argue there, but the rest? Thank you, Obama.
Wages haven’t gone up at all, despite the big tax bill for corporations. Foreign policy is in the toilet, tariffs might derail that “great economy” and the jobs numbers, immigration is a bigger mess than before (despite Trump fast tracking his immigrant in laws to citizenship, the hyppocrite). Oh, and instead of fixing healthcare like he promised, he’s just done everything he can to make it worse, and clearly has zero concrete plan to solve it.
I’m still waiting for a Trump supporter to really get into the weeds with that stuff. They’d prefer to talk about how we hate him irrationally because he talks shit.
-
I would be interested to see how things turn out in KY6. Lt. Col. McGrath understands the importance to reach out to the rural and working class in the district. At the same time she's a bit on the more progressive side (namely for "new generation of leaders" and some other stuffs), maybe it might still work out in her favor.
According to herself, she sat on a runway on 9/11 with missiles strapped on her fighter-jet waiting orders to shoot down civilian planes to defend the general public. I wouldn't want to underestimate the resolves and determination from someone like that.
-
This entire thread is an attempt by Trump supporters to ransom potential votes in exchange for ending freedom of speech for anyone who doesn't agree with the sexist, racist, homophobic, and plain cruel actions of the administration and it's supporters.
Fuck negotiating with terrorists.
I object to being falsely labeled as a Trump supporter.
I object to your false assertion that I am trying to prevent people from criticizing the trump administration, or criticizing people who advocate sexism, racism, or homophobia.
I sincerely ask that you retract both assertions.
Well, I've had time to sulk about it, but you're right. I retract my false assertion in your case, and apologize. I do kinda feel that there are people in this thread who are doing exactly what I outlined, but you're certainly not one of them.
-
Thank you @GuitarStv, I appreciate it.