We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

GGG does it because he doesn't give a fuck about economic insecurity. He's a tinpot elitist who doesn't care about the desperate whites who voted for Trump for economic reasons. I can understand and agree with a lot of that view. But to state it's only racism, or overwhelmingly racism, is to lie. And I think he knows it.

You should google the demographics of trump supporters.

I know several articles have been posted here on this little "economic insecurity" chestnut.

Suffice it to say, he may be winning most of the shithole states, but the vote is coming from the upper crust there.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've never been anywhere near even close to aligned with the Bothering Party. Striking up random conversations with strangers, smoking near outdoor bistros, inviting friends to awareness events on Facebook, asking co-workers to join company softball teams... I can't think of a single plank of their platform with which I agree.

Get your facts straight.

It's the bothering tribe, dude. Remember, they disavow party, they're just a tribe. And they tend just to talk to their fellow bros. At cocktail parties.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You know you just called TM's argument idiotic, right?

Man are you completely lacking in self awareness.

I don't think the argument that most whites are reflexively defensive on race matters is persuasive. I think most don't care and don't want to be bothered by people talking about it. That's the better issue on which to focus.

Hmmm. How do I counter the argument that if I counter the argument, I am defensive, and therefore proving the argument? You're a Gordian genius. Your brilliance is wasted here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You should google the demographics of trump supporters.

I know several articles have been posted here on this little "economic insecurity" chestnut.

Suffice it to say, he may be winning most of the shithole states, but the vote is coming from the upper crust there.

$75k average, right? That's upper crust?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's the bothering tribe, dude. Remember, they disavow party, they're just a tribe. And they tend just to talk to their fellow bros. At cocktail parties.

Is this a whiff? Hank?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sometimes a legal education is a hindrance. Neither Klein nor Harris are lawyers, and their discussion didn't take place in any sort of legal proceeding. They were talking about ideas, not about government action. So when say that Klein "has not right to tell Harris how to question Murray," you sound like you are talking about what temperature to set your oven when you bicycle to the store. Of course Klein has a "right" to say whatever he wants, but he wasn't "telling" Harris how to do anything -- he was just offering view about an ongoing dialogue, a key part of which is which ideas are related to which other ideas, and which ideas are related and should be discussed with which other ideas. Harris chose to have a dialogue with Klein, and Klein chose to have a dialogue with Harris. No one is forcing anyone else to do anything. Nor does "censorship" enter into it. Klein can't censor Harris, Harris can't censor Klein, neither can censor Murray. If you tried to express a thought about Klein and Harris that didn't use this language, maybe you would make sense.

Oh wait, you started by saying that Harris made Klein look silly. Never mind.

If we want to assume the everyman takeaway from that conversation, it'd be:

Harris: "Hey, I want to talk about why people should be able to talk about dicey shit and not be shunned for it."

Klein: "I think they way you're doing it should be shunned."

Harris: "Who the fuck are you?"

Klein: "I'm concerned about other people."

Harris: "I'm not."

Klein: "You should be."

Harris: "I'm engaging in purely abstract reasoning regarding censorship here."

Klein: "That kind of limited discourse on this issue should be avoided, and shunned where not."

Harris came off mean, Klein officious. I'll take mean over officious. YMMV.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

$75k average, right? That's upper crust?

Median US income is just north of 50K, but that's also before adjusting for locale. You've seen the maps, Trump supporters are heavily from places with low cost of living. $75K in Kansas is a lot different than $75K in SF or NYC.

Don't also mistake income for wealth, of course. Trump voters are older. The retiree in Pennsacola sitting on a 401K that yields $50K a year, plus $20K from SS and $10K from investments, is probably worth a couple million, while the 35 year old teacher in the Boston burbs with three kids and a dog, a rented apartment and the tail end of their student loans still to pay may have the same income, but a different level of security.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think the argument that most whites are reflexively defensive on race matters is persuasive.

Then you should read DiAngelo's book. Or the review of it TM posted (I have the sense you did not read it). Or have some conversations with white people about race (or straight people about sexuality). Maybe have a conversation with yourself, because you were exactly who came to mind when I read the review.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Man are you completely lacking in self awareness.

At the risk of being told I'm censoring you, I don't see that this is a particular useful response for anyone. His awareness is certainly different from your awareness, and God knows I have disagreed with it as well, but he's certainly not afraid to share it here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You should google the demographics of trump supporters.

I know several articles have been posted here on this little "economic insecurity" chestnut.

Suffice it to say, he may be winning most of the shithole states, but the vote is coming from the upper crust there.

Why does it have to be economic insecurity or racism? Why not both?

Marxism is often understood as a reductive system of simple explanations for complex phenomena, but trying reading Marx -- it's not that simple.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Then you should read DiAngelo's book. Or the review of it TM posted (I have the sense you did not read it). Or have some conversations with white people about race (or straight people about sexuality). Maybe have a conversation with yourself, because you were exactly who came to mind when I read the review.

I did read the review.

I think it makes a point, but it grossly overstates white defensiveness.

And calling me defensive because I disagree with it is majorly irritating. It’s an impossible position to criticize, a perfect can’t win.

And I don’t want to “win.” I would explain what I find lacking in the argument, but every time I do, I’m “defensive.” It’s a moronic elliptical exercise.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If we want to assume the everyman takeaway from that conversation, it'd be:

Harris: "Hey, I want to talk about why people should be able to talk about dicey shit and not be shunned for it."

Klein: "I think they way you're doing it should be shunned."

Harris: "Who the fuck are you?"

Klein: "I'm concerned about other people."

Harris: "I'm not."

Klein: "You should be."

Harris: "I'm engaging in purely abstract reasoning regarding censorship here."

Klein: "That kind of limited discourse on this issue should be avoided, and shunned where not."

Harris came off mean, Klein officious. I'll take mean over officious. YMMV.

Rather than quote them, which you couldn't do, you've moved to your own "everyman" and his take on the conversation. It's a nice trick -- since it's inventive and hypothetical, it's irrefutable. I don't think you are characterizing either Harris or Klein fairly, but whatever.

You are not an everyman. Moreover, the idea that an everyone would have a worthwhile take on their conversation is silly. Everyman doesn't give a shit. You listened to the podcast because you care more than Everyman, and because you're a Harris fan, a Klein hater, or both. Or because the subject moves you -- I don't know. If you have something useful to say about their dialogue, it's because you care enough to engage with what they actually said.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And calling me defensive because I disagree with it is majorly irritating.

You have a long history of being defensive about racism, e.g., arguing "that's not really racism" on this board.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why does it have to be economic insecurity or racism? Why not both?

Marxism is often understood as a reductive system of simple explanations for complex phenomena, but trying reading Marx -- it's not that simple.

Sure, it can be both. Moreover, it can be both sometimes, and it can be just racism sometimes. Sometimes, it can even just be because they don't like the woman who is running on the Democratic ticket.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

You have a long history of being defensive about racism, e.g., arguing "that's not really racism" on this board.

Look, I'd like to stand up for Sebby. It probably WAS just about bigotry against people who mostly have someone darker skin and had absolutely nothing to do with racism.