I think
you think you are poking holes when you are quite often just stating an opposing position. The blinders you have is that when you do that, you think you're pointing out a weakness and you haven't considered the fact that what you're saying has been considered and discarded before you even brought it up. In fact, whenever you do you play the Sebby advocate, you are convinced that you are revealing some insight just because it's coming from (often) the right. And when it gets rejected you go into the "if only you guys could escape your tribalism!" bit.
I skipped most of this conversation. But from what I did see, people seemed to also be arguing that what he was actually saying was racist. Not saying there wasn't a bit of both. But you seem overly focused on the part that confirms your "everyone is a brain-dead tribalist" theory.
Again, didn't follow. But if you agree with someone, of course it's all good. What kind of response are you looking for?
This is not the standard I think anyone applies. I think it's fair to say that Trump voters are okay enough with Trump's racism (statements and policy) that it doesn't affect their support of him.
I also think that you think you have Trump voters figured out and it's all about the economy as far as you're concerned. You've been presented with studies that
you have chosen to ignore in favor of your own conclusion. These studies have found that racism, sexism and status absolutely was what drove Trump voters. See:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115
https://psmag.com/social-justice/mor...-trump-victory
Obviously there were a number of factors. But, unless we're arguing over exactly how
much racism, sexism, and xenophobia played, then we're back in realm of the article I posted last week about white fragility and the need to deny and get defensive whenever the topic is broached.
I think you're not picking up what I'm putting down. I just want you to consider that people have actually thought about both sides to a position before taking a stance. And that when you think you're poking holes, you're often just stating the other side.
"Poking holes" connotes the discovery of flaws. The act of discovering you disagree does not mean (i) you have discovered a flaw or (ii) you are revealing something that hasn't already been considered. When you get pushback, you throw the tribal accusation around, tell everyone they live in a bubble, and bring up your latest pretend cocktail party conversation. That's what's annoying.
TM
