Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

And to address your point, I would cite the studies that say racism and sexism (and not economic anxiety) actually drove voters to Trump. You know, the ones you try so hard to ignore.

I'm not ignoring them. I think about a 1/3 to 40% of his vote was bigoted in one way or another.

My Republican friends (some of whom are lunatics) either plug their ears when it comes to the racist shit or they resort to whataboutism. Hell, a guy I grew up with told me the other day that black people should like Trump because immigrants tend to take resources that would otherwise go to poor blacks. We argued about why he was wrong, of course. But one thing is for sure: None of them deny the racism anymore. Even they accept that Trump and Miller and their racist fucking policies are indeed racist. They either overlook it because their 401k is up or they embrace it as one the main features of his Presidency.

Right. Except Trump and Miller are not Trump's voters. The issue I was raising was the argument made after 2016 that a majority of his voters were racist. Now, of course that's walked back when challenged. If I say that sounds high, people like Ty will backpedal and say it's "some percentage." Not you. I think you really think it's a majority.

Also, I doubt anyone you know would laugh at me, unless it was behind my back, because I bet the Republicans you know are full of bravery on the internet only. Like you.

Seriously? People aren't allowed to laugh at you? This isn't 1880s honor culture. If I say something to someone and they think it's absurd, they'd had better laugh at me. If you have an opinion and you air it, people are allowed to mock it.

What is amazing about you is that you manage to build up a reality in your head and there is nothing that can penetrate that vibranium-reinforced empty vacuum. You think I only talk about politics with people who agree with me, or that I only do it here, or that the media is a leftist monolith, or everyone in cities share the same opinions, or whatever. You absolutely ignore anything anyone says that doesn't fit your stupid, limited, "what you think you think you think" bullshit narrative in favor of your own and then you argue that. That's why almost everything you post is fucking idiotic.

I have said a percentage of Trump voters are racist. I draw the line at people abusing that fact and stretching it to suggest that racism or bigotry explains the man's voters. Brexit and Trumpism are complex, and it infuriates me to hear people try to simplify them.

If I say racism is the feature, not an outlier, and I point to policy and proof that those who set his policy are actually raging racists, that has nothing to do with the election. If we talk about the racism that drove the 35% of this country that loves racism to a racist, that's not discussing a fucking symptom. Jesus fucking Christ.

If that's all we discuss, and we don't address the economic issues that drove the other 65% to vote for him, we do ourselves a grave disservice. And that's what we've been doing.

Hell, just bringing up Taibbi's book here is met with anger. Why? Because he asserts that the media has been oversimplifying these issues? What's wrong with doing that? Let me guess... Perhaps because if we do that, things turn from an easy narrative of bigot candidates and their bigoted voters to one about complex economic issues where nobody can so easily claim the moral high ground?

The Right and the Left have narratives. A lot of the Left's narratives find there way into discussions here. Taibbi does a great job of exploring how these narratives are created. It hurts no one, and actually improves political debate, to engage that discussion.

Or you can just keep having the same conversations over and over and wonder why on earth your "side" keeps losing elections.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not ignoring them. I think about a 1/3 to 40% of his vote was bigoted in one way or another.

I firmly believe that almost all of his supporters are racist or okay with racism because it doesn't affect them. But the distinction is absolutely meaningless to me because Trump's policies are actually fucking racist. He fans racism. He thrives on it. He quotes and retweets racists with the largest megaphone in the world.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Right. Except Trump and Miller are not Trump's voters. The issue I was raising was the argument made after 2016 that a majority of his voters were racist.

This is what I'm talking about. You can only have a conversation on your weird ass terms. You accuse everyone of something (in this case that the majority of his voters are racist) and then that's it. It's all related. If you can't handle a conversation that takes that into account, you are a clown who can only focus on what's in your clown head.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Now, of course that's walked back when challenged. If I say that sounds high, people like Ty will backpedal and say it's "some percentage."

That isn't what happened. Ty pushed back on your assertion and how you tried to pigeonhole him and the conversation. You can only discuss this topic (and all topics) on your own screwy terms.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not you. I think you really think it's a majority.

If his policies are racist and he says racist things and he hires racist people and fans the flames of racist hate to his screaming, lunatic followers, what fucking difference does it make if you have true racist feelings in your heart or you love a man who does all the racist things I've listed?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Seriously? People aren't allowed to laugh at you? This isn't 1880s honor culture. If I say something to someone and they think it's absurd, they'd had better laugh at me. If you have an opinion and you air it, people are allowed to mock it.

You can't be serious. If I say something mock-worthy, everyone should feel free to mock away. If I say that Trump fans the flames of racial hatred to the detriment of this country and people like me and someone laughs in my face, they've got a problem. Since that statement is a fact, the act of laughing in my face would be a challenge. And I don't think the people you know at your cocktail parties have the balls for that. Stop being obtuse.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I have said a percentage of Trump voters are racist. I draw the line at people abusing that fact and stretching it to suggest that racism or bigotry explains the man's voters. Brexit and Trumpism are complex, and it infuriates me to hear people try to simplify them.

What is infuriating is your inability to listen. If we're arguing about the number of racists supporting Trump, why do you think that means I've rejected all other factors when it comes to why he won? If every single Trump voter is racist, there are still many reasons why he won. Among those are the racist gerrymandering and vote suppression. We've also all discussed third-party voting (hi Hank!) in this ridiculous electoral college system. We've spent plenty of time talking about economic factors. But your dismissal of the studies that state that racism and sexism drove him to win because you think the line should be drawn at 40% racist is just fucking stupid. No one here thinks any of this shit is the sole reason for his win.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If that's all we discuss, and we don't address the economic issues that drove the other 65% to vote for him, we do ourselves a grave disservice. And that's what we've been doing.

Wrong. We've spent 3 years talking about what makes Trump voters tick. We've discussed automation, foreign trade, the drawn out death of fossil fuels, demographic shifts, immigration, the economy generally, taxation, etc. But whenever anyone brings up the question of whether race played a significant role (and points to a study that says it most definitely has), you throw this same little shit fit.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Hell, just bringing up Taibbi's book here is met with anger. Why? Because he asserts that the media has been oversimplifying these issues? What's wrong with doing that?

I didn't really respond to your Taibbi posts because I think that guy has gone off the deep end. So I'm less likely to care about his opinion. Same with Dershowitz or Lindsay Graham. It's not just because I disagree with their points that I dismiss them. It's because there is something off with them.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Your problem Let me guess... Perhaps because if we do that, things turn from an easy narrative of bigot candidates and their bigoted voters to one about complex economic issues where nobody can so easily claim the moral high ground?

Please give me a few minutes to re-roll my eyes all the way back to the front of my head, because this sentence is completely fucking ridiculous.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Right and the Left have narratives. A lot of the Left's narratives find there way into discussions here. Taibbi does a great job of exploring how these narratives are created. It hurts no one, and actually improves political debate, to engage that discussion.

Here's the thing: I probably won't read Taibbi's book. He seems to have turned into a kook. But if you are telling me that the Left (read: all of the media not named Fox News and Breibart) has a narrative, you're stupid. If that's Taibbi's point, his point is stupid. If you want to point at Fox and Breitbart, two sources that fucking coordinate with the Trump Administration and tell me they have a narrative, okay. That makes sense.

If you're talking about the Left's narrative generally (Trump does awful shit) like this is somehow coordinated derangement (and you've said this) and not just based on the awful shit he is clearly doing, I'm not interested.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Or you can just keep having the same conversations over and over and wonder why on earth your "side" keeps losing elections.

Oh Sebby! Thank god for you! Bringing your much-needed perspective and insight to this conversation and not just saying stupid shit constantly to be contrary or because you think everyone is tribal and can't have an independent thought unless it's the opposite of what they actually think! Thank you so much for your service.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I firmly believe that almost all of his supporters are racist or okay with racism because it doesn't affect them. But the distinction is absolutely meaningless to me because Trump's policies are actually fucking racist. He fans racism. He thrives on it. He quotes and retweets racists with the largest megaphone in the world.

Real live quote from Trumpster relative I did not get together with this Thanksgiving: "You can't call me a racist just because I believe white people are superior."

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Real live quote from Trumpster relative I did not get together with this Thanksgiving: "You can't call me a racist just because I believe white people are superior."

Brilliant.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Real live quote from Trumpster relative I did not get together with this Thanksgiving: "You can't call me a racist just because I believe white people are superior."

I'm sorry about your gene pool. But is there any reason to write this here other than to re-emphasize the stereotype that all Trump voters are knuckle dragging troglodytes?

I mean, I get it... It's fun to make fun of the dimwits. Makes you feel like the better person, creates a sense of community (someone here will surely give me an atta boy for writing this!).

But aren't you just feeding similar minded folks empty calories by doing this sort of thing? You aren't changing that bigoted person's mind. A person making that statement is past saving, in many regards. He's interesting and relevant why?

Doesn't it make more sense to focus on the Trump voters who voted for economic reasons? These are people a lot of whom voted for Obama in 2008. These are people many of whom are actually thinking about issues and figured Trump was the better bet. And for a lot of them, he was.

Now, of course, you can write these people off as nihilists of a sort who'll happily deal with an odious, racist leader in exchange for stock market gains or low taxes. But in doing that, you're ignoring your real enemy here.

There are loads of reasons small business owners almost always vote Republican. I needn't list them here. Some of it has to do with GOP defunding of one particular agency small business owners fear and detest. Some of it has to do with the perception that GOP regimes unlock "animal spirits" and create growth. Some of it has to do with people believing GOP control leads to easier lending and better rates. The reasons are myriad. And that's just one sector of the Trump voters - small business owners. The list of reasons other groups of people voted for Trump, and vote for GOP candidates more generally, could go on for volumes.

I don't say this to deflect focus from the bigots. The pure, hardened bigot vote is always there for the GOP. But they're incurable. You can talk, talk, talk, but nothing changes these people. The real discussion of Trumpism, and how it might be countered, requires a focus on the complex reasoning of those who voted for him for economic and policy reasons. These people are thinkers. They are rational actors. What made them pull the lever is far more important than what made a moronic bigot pull the lever.

When you continue focusing exclusively on Trump's most lurid followers, I think you take a form of bait. To have that discussion repeatedly and elevate the bigoted sentiments of that slice of his voters comes at cost of ignoring and letting off the hook those who voted for Trump for self-serving economic reasons. And they're a much bigger piece of the Trump coalition heading into 2020.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm sorry about your gene pool. But is there any reason to write this here other than to re-emphasize the stereotype that all Trump voters are knuckle dragging troglodytes?

I mean, I get it... It's fun to make fun of the dimwits. Makes you feel like the better person, creates a sense of community (someone here will surely give me an atta boy for writing this!).

But aren't you just feeding similar minded folks empty calories by doing this sort of thing? You aren't changing that bigoted person's mind. A person making that statement is past saving, in many regards. He's interesting and relevant why?

Doesn't it make more sense to focus on the Trump voters who voted for economic reasons? These are people a lot of whom voted for Obama in 2008. These are people many of whom are actually thinking about issues and figured Trump was the better bet. And for a lot of them, he was.

Now, of course, you can write these people off as nihilists of a sort who'll happily deal with an odious, racist leader in exchange for stock market gains or low taxes. But in doing that, you're ignoring your real enemy here.

There are loads of reasons small business owners almost always vote Republican. I needn't list them here. Some of it has to do with GOP defunding of one particular agency small business owners fear and detest. Some of it has to do with the perception that GOP regimes unlock "animal spirits" and create growth. Some of it has to do with people believing GOP control leads to easier lending and better rates. The reasons are myriad. And that's just one sector of the Trump voters - small business owners. The list of reasons other groups of people voted for Trump, and vote for GOP candidates more generally, could go on for volumes.

I don't say this to deflect focus from the bigots. The pure, hardened bigot vote is always there for the GOP. But they're incurable. You can talk, talk, talk, but nothing changes these people. The real discussion of Trumpism, and how it might be countered, requires a focus on the complex reasoning of those who voted for him for economic and policy reasons. These people are thinkers. They are rational actors. What made them pull the lever is far more important than what made a moronic bigot pull the lever.

When you continue focusing exclusively on Trump's most lurid followers, I think you take a form of bait. To have that discussion repeatedly and elevate the bigoted sentiments of that slice of his voters comes at cost of ignoring and letting off the hook those who voted for Trump for self-serving economic reasons. And they're a much bigger piece of the Trump coalition heading into 2020.

You probably wouldn't call that particular relative Trump's most lurid follower. He's a regional president for a financial institution you would have heard of, with an Ivy League MBA. But he is a Charles Murray style believer that whites have superior IQs, thinks that is just a genetic fact, and objects to being called a racist because in his view he is not being discriminatory just stating facts. He feels broadly disgruntled that his own children have to compete with African Americans for college seats, and is convinced they are at a disadvantage because of it, and resents that he is expected to hire diversely in his own operation. And, sure, he also likes getting tax cuts for him and his buddies.

I also have some of Trump's most lurid followers in my gene pool.

This kind of white conservative victimization thing, with its attendant racism, is core to Trumpism and is often part of the Republican elite's perspective, not just the flannel clad Trump rally attendee you think of as lurid. Here's some good background on its historical roots, in a few short tweets: https://twitter.com/LarryGlickman/st...10326027976709

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You probably wouldn't call that particular relative Trump's most lurid follower. He's a regional president for a financial institution you would have heard of, with an Ivy League MBA. But he is a Charles Murray style believer that whites have superior IQs, thinks that is just a genetic fact, and objects to being called a racist because in his view he is not being discriminatory just stating facts. He feels broadly disgruntled that his own children have to compete with African Americans for college seats, and is convinced they are at a disadvantage because of it, and resents that he is expected to hire diversely in his own operation. And, sure, he also likes getting tax cuts for him and his buddies.

I also have some of Trump's most lurid followers in my gene pool.

This kind of white conservative victimization thing, with its attendant racism, is core to Trumpism and is often part of the Republican elite's perspective, not just the flannel clad Trump rally attendee you think of as lurid. Here's some good background on its historical roots, in a few short tweets: https://twitter.com/LarryGlickman/st...10326027976709

Sebby has this notion that economic insecurity and bigotry are two separate things. That link I posted yesterday says they are intertwined:

Two popular explanations have emerged post-election: 1) economic anxiety, and 2) racial resentment. Many commentators have argued that a sense of economic loss drove many white working-class voters toward Trump. Meanwhile, here at the Monkey Cage, Michael Tesler has explained that support for Trump was especially linked to racial resentment.

Examining our data from the GenForward Survey, we find a hybrid explanation. First, white millennial Trump voters were likely to believe in something we call “white vulnerability” — the perception that whites, through no fault of their own, are losing ground to other groups. Second, racial resentment was the primary driver of white vulnerability — even when accounting for income, education level or employment. ...

Contrary to what some have suggested, white millennial Trump voters were not in more economically precarious situations than non-Trump voters. Fully 86 percent of them reported being employed, a rate similar to non-Trump voters; and they were 14 percent less likely to be low income than white voters who did not support Trump. Employment and income were not significantly related to that sense of white vulnerability.

So what was? Racial resentment.

Even when controlling for partisanship, ideology, region and a host of other factors, white millennials fit Michael Tesler’s analysis, explored here. As he put it, economic anxiety isn’t driving racial resentment; rather, racial resentment is driving economic anxiety. We found, as he has in a larger population, that racial resentment is the biggest predictor of white vulnerability among white millennials. Economic variables like education, income and employment made a negligible difference.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby has this notion that economic insecurity and bigotry are two separate things. That link I posted yesterday says they are intertwined:

Isn't all of this based upon surveys- "Can I ask you some questions? Who'd you vote for? Why?"

Given that a decent percent of employed people would not answer the phone- another decent percentage who accidentally answered would say no to question 1- and another decent percentage who did vote for Trump would lie about question 2, how can you extrapolate percentages from answers to question 3?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby has this notion that economic insecurity and bigotry are two separate things. That link I posted yesterday says they are intertwined:

That link is mind-numbingly dumb. The section you cited might be one of the least clear things ever written - basically a semantic shell game where the words racist and economic anxiety are juggled quickly and then a deus ex machina is offered stating: It's all about racial resentment!

I feel stupider for having read some of it.

But forget that for now. What's more important is your statement that I see racial resentment and economic anxiety as unique. Well, they are unique. But I have never and would never say that they don't overlap. Of course they do. So you can retire that straw man.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You probably wouldn't call that particular relative Trump's most lurid follower. He's a regional president for a financial institution you would have heard of, with an Ivy League MBA. But he is a Charles Murray style believer that whites have superior IQs, thinks that is just a genetic fact, and objects to being called a racist because in his view he is not being discriminatory just stating facts. He feels broadly disgruntled that his own children have to compete with African Americans for college seats, and is convinced they are at a disadvantage because of it, and resents that he is expected to hire diversely in his own operation. And, sure, he also likes getting tax cuts for him and his buddies.

I also have some of Trump's most lurid followers in my gene pool.

This kind of white conservative victimization thing, with its attendant racism, is core to Trumpism and is often part of the Republican elite's perspective, not just the flannel clad Trump rally attendee you think of as lurid. Here's some good background on its historical roots, in a few short tweets: https://twitter.com/LarryGlickman/st...10326027976709

I’ve read the Powell Memo. Some of the connections Glickman makes make sense. Some do not. But anyone citing the memo for any reason is a positive. That document has done a shitload of damage and should be studied as one of the most effective articulations of corporate arrogance ever drafted. It reads like corporations are divinely created entities.

Re your relative, his lack of basic scientific literacy (he probably doesn’t even know Murray’s arguments) puts him in the lurid camp. That you’ve an MBA doesn’t mean you aren’t a fool. (I could cite endless examples supporting the argument that an MBA can actually make one into a fool, but that’s a different discussion.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Re your relative, his lack of basic scientific literacy (he probably doesn’t even know Murray’s racist, bigoted, moronic arguments) puts him in the lurid camp.

I'd say he knows that mother-fucking racist bigot's half-assed racist arguments quite well, and shares them. Murray is a great example of the racist shitheads dominating the Republican party, who need to be called racists regularly, shamed for the fucking bigots they are, and invited to crawl under a fucking rock with the rest of their white-robed brethren.

And I fixed your post.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If you're talking about the Left's narrative generally (Trump does awful shit) like this is somehow coordinated derangement (and you've said this) and not just based on the awful shit he is clearly doing, I'm not interested.

It's one thing to have your own narrative, and another thing to believe in your own facts. There are plenty of narratives out there. You can believe that the US has been an imperialist genocidal project from the arrival of the first Vikings off Newfoundland, or you can believe that the US has been the global avatar for democracy, or you can believe that the US reflects the triumph of free-market capitalism, or whatever other narrative you want, but those are all narratives that can be based on actual facts, and you can dispute them with other actual facts.

What is different about the right is its epistemic bubble. What I said in the post that Sebby responded to with made-up nonsense about Trumpkin bigots was: "But it seems like a bigger problem that conservatives have constructed an alternate reality which is impervious to facts that the rest of us get. You engage in a little both-sideism here, as you are wired to do, but I don't know of a single person who thinks that everything in the Steele dossier is right, but there are plenty of people like Slave who reject it as fake." It still seems like a bigger problem than media laziness, or whatever else Taibbi is on about.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's one thing to have your own narrative, and another thing to believe in your own facts. There are plenty of narratives out there. You can believe that the US has been an imperialist genocidal project from the arrival of the first Vikings off Newfoundland, or you can believe that the US has been the global avatar for democracy, or you can believe that the US reflects the triumph of free-market capitalism, or whatever other narrative you want, but those are all narratives that can be based on actual facts, and you can dispute them with other actual facts.

What is different about the right is its epistemic bubble. What I said in the post that Sebby responded to with made-up nonsense about Trumpkin bigots was: "But it seems like a bigger problem that conservatives have constructed an alternate reality which is impervious to facts that the rest of us get. You engage in a little both-sideism here, as you are wired to do, but I don't know of a single person who thinks that everything in the Steele dossier is right, but there are plenty of people like Slave who reject it as fake." It still seems like a bigger problem than media laziness, or whatever else Taibbi is on about.

When in front of a Jury do you use words like "epistemic?" Oh wait, never mind.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When in front of a Jury do you use words like "epistemic?" Oh wait, never mind.

Sorry if the rest of us were talking above you. Here's Urban Dictionary.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sorry if the rest of us were talking above you. Here's Urban Dictionary.

Dude- I understand big words, I've degrees from Harvard AND Yale. And I've recently been considering claiming a degree from Cal Poly- just working out how that could be possible timeline wise, TYVM. Your word choices just make no sense for someone trying to convince people. And your plan B, tell your opponent to fuck off, or Plan C, delete your opponent's post? I don't think either are particularly skilled rhetorical memes. Have you considered accusing your opponents of being like Hitler?