Author Topic: How do you view the popular vote?  (Read 6738 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 7th

  • Posts: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #105 on: November 28, 2016, 12:03:27 PM »
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.


Any chance we can stop using "terrifying" as a synonym for "I don't like it"?    I've been terrified maybe twice, three times in my life, and NOTHING - not the week before when I would have bet my car that Hillary would have won, not the night of when Trump was declared the presumptive winner, not when Steve Bannon was named to the cabinet - even comes REMOTELY close to that feeling. 

I get it; some of us don't like the outcome, and some of us have worries now that certain things you might consider "progress" might be undone.   I'm understanding and respectful of that.  But this complete and utter usurping of the word "TERRIFYING" is getting to be a little much.


I say this with all due respect, but one possible reason you don't see any of it as terrifying is because as a straight, white, well enough off male, none of those terrifying things have any impact on you.

But isn't that a racist, classist, heterophobic view?

No.

Um, yes it is, and the fact that you cannot see that is what's really frightening.  It's also part of the reason why Trump is moving into the white house.  We cannot have unity in our salad bowl nation if people are always assuming one special interest has it better than the next.  I think it is clear that the rich have it better than the poor, but not always, beyond that, we all have the same basic opportunities and barriers given our own genetic advantages and disadvantages.
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #106 on: November 28, 2016, 12:04:30 PM »
No it's not.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...

Online Skeever

  • Posts: 1138
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #108 on: November 28, 2016, 12:40:44 PM »
Yeah... I'm straight, white, and male, come from a pretty blue collar, working man's background - Dad drives a big rig, Mom is a special needs teacher. I wasn't eligible for any assistance getting into college due to the white color of my skin. I didn't get free books. I didn't get a supplemented cell phone. My family could have really used all those things. When I graduated didn't get to check an affirmative action box when applying for a job. I could have really used that.

I don't think I can properly articulate how much better I still had it because of who I am. Yes, my family could have always used more help, but the advantages of being white far outweighed any "advantage" others got due to being eligible for government programs. It took my a long time to acknowledge it, but once you take some time to visit the other side of the tracks, the truth isn't very pretty. When you've done that, you see that these programs people like myself have come to resent so much are more like a "consolidation prize" than an "advantage". That's the ugly truth when generational poverty cycles overwhelmingly affect one race. It's the difference between living tough times and simply navigating through them from time to time, like my family did.

Unfortunately, our political situation allows working class people of all races to turn on one another rather than uniting behind common goals.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25034
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #109 on: November 28, 2016, 02:20:36 PM »
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.


Any chance we can stop using "terrifying" as a synonym for "I don't like it"?    I've been terrified maybe twice, three times in my life, and NOTHING - not the week before when I would have bet my car that Hillary would have won, not the night of when Trump was declared the presumptive winner, not when Steve Bannon was named to the cabinet - even comes REMOTELY close to that feeling. 

I get it; some of us don't like the outcome, and some of us have worries now that certain things you might consider "progress" might be undone.   I'm understanding and respectful of that.  But this complete and utter usurping of the word "TERRIFYING" is getting to be a little much.


I say this with all due respect, but one possible reason you don't see any of it as terrifying is because as a straight, white, well enough off male, none of those terrifying things have any impact on you.

But isn't that a racist, classist, heterophobic view?

No.

Um, yes it is, and the fact that you cannot see that is what's really frightening.  It's also part of the reason why Trump is moving into the white house.  We cannot have unity in our salad bowl nation if people are always assuming one special interest has it better than the next.  I think it is clear that the rich have it better than the poor, but not always, beyond that, we all have the same basic opportunities and barriers given our own genetic advantages and disadvantages.


Well....

The reasons people are terrified are due to what Trump and his team have said about minorities, specifically blacks, latinos, immigrants (both legal and illegal), muslims, Jews, women and LGBT folk. Whether or not he actually makes life worse for them is up in the air, but those are the reasons people are generally terrified (not counting the people who think he'll nuke someone). So since none of that stuff directly effects white middle class Christian men, they are less likely to be terrified.

It's not racist to say that white etc etc people likely won't be nearly as impacted as others.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1561
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #110 on: November 28, 2016, 02:27:35 PM »
It's not racist to say that white etc etc people likely won't be nearly as impacted as others.

Unless they have PTSD...
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline 73109

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4962
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #111 on: November 28, 2016, 03:49:30 PM »
I am a straight white dude who will probably end up solidly in the upper middle class. That being said, I feel confident in using the word terrifying—something I don't use lightly (I haven't said it at all concerning Trump's campaign)—because the way 7th talks is a reflection of a shift in society that, I feel, will, if it takes hold, undermine the order and stability of civil society. Facts are facts. It's as simple as that. People can discuss facts with bias but the outright rejection of the notion of facts as leftist propaganda is genuinely scary. I fear for a society where people refuse to appreciate the severity of situations like climate change. I fear for a society where communication is impossible because one side rejects everything the other side says as lies and conspiracy—this is certainly a more right-wing phenomenon today.

Ultimately, I genuinely fear for political, ecological, economic, and societal collapse. I don't think Trump is going to bring that about. But a certain section of his supporters—with their complete disregard for the way things actually are—absolutely could.

Offline 7th

  • Posts: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #112 on: November 28, 2016, 03:56:08 PM »

Well....

The reasons people are terrified are due to what Trump and his team have said about minorities, specifically blacks, latinos, immigrants (both legal and illegal), muslims, Jews, women and LGBT folk. Whether or not he actually makes life worse for them is up in the air, but those are the reasons people are generally terrified (not counting the people who think he'll nuke someone). So since none of that stuff directly effects white middle class Christian men, they are less likely to be terrified.

It's not racist to say that white etc etc people likely won't be nearly as impacted as others.


Hmmm...  So I guess those people in sanctuary cities who's pretty white daughters were slain by illegal immigrants, only to have the murderers treated like victims by the law, have nothing to fear huh?  Adversity doesn't discriminate!  Right now somewhere there is a black kid chomping on Captain Crunch while somewhere else a white kid is going hungry.  The point where genetics are injected into the idea is the point where the idea becomes racist.   

Look, I understand it is popular to lend credit to ideas like white privilege and rape culture and all that academic jazz.  Nor do I minimize racial/gender issues, discrimination or abuses to people at all.  I actually care a great deal about seeing a world where these awful behaviors are rare.  I just believe that in practice the solution is to assume total equality across the board and not to establish implied imbalances like assumed "privilege".  Privilege is really a socioeconomic phenomenon, not a racial, gender, or religious phenomenon.  The only reason people believe it is would be that they view the world through special interest glasses where "that guy got the job because he's white", or "that guy is a successful doctor because he's Jewish", or "the reason why inner city kids are at a disadvantage is because they are black".  None of these things are true, but those nasty special interest glasses make it seem like they are.


     
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25034
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #113 on: November 28, 2016, 04:01:48 PM »
I clarified a point. Whether or not you got it or agree with it can't be helped.

Of course your post in general is an example of white privilege. Anyway. I'll keep reading but I'm not going to argue white privlidge with you.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline 7th

  • Posts: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #114 on: November 28, 2016, 07:06:41 PM »
I clarified a point. Whether or not you got it or agree with it can't be helped.

Of course your post in general is an example of white privilege. Anyway. I'll keep reading but I'm not going to argue white privlidge with you.

So you are admitting it doesn't exist right?  Just because some professor, who hates western society and white people, concludes that something exists does not make it so.  White privilege is make believe, but academic activists posing as educators would have us consider it a "fact".  We have to start spitting this bullshit back into their faces if we ever want equality for everyone in our society.  Promoting one race as privileged is about the most racist initiative I have seen in my lifetime.   
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16597
  • Gender: Male
  • Truth is not for all men, only those who seek it.
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #115 on: November 28, 2016, 08:40:12 PM »
If blacks, and others, are so tired of this white privilege, maybe they should stop listening to people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson...and the liberal media. They're nothing but race baiters. They contribute to a problem that's already there. They're not doing anything to help. Their capitalizing on something that needs to be alleviated, not amplified. Whatever was said that was so racist was probably something that was blown way out of proportion, like everything else in the media.

Yeah... I'm straight, white, and male, come from a pretty blue collar, working man's background - Dad drives a big rig, Mom is a special needs teacher. I wasn't eligible for any assistance getting into college due to the white color of my skin. I didn't get free books. I didn't get a supplemented cell phone. My family could have really used all those things. When I graduated didn't get to check an affirmative action box when applying for a job. I could have really used that.

I don't think I can properly articulate how much better I still had it because of who I am. Yes, my family could have always used more help, but the advantages of being white far outweighed any "advantage" others got due to being eligible for government programs. It took my a long time to acknowledge it, but once you take some time to visit the other side of the tracks, the truth isn't very pretty. When you've done that, you see that these programs people like myself have come to resent so much are more like a "consolidation prize" than an "advantage". That's the ugly truth when generational poverty cycles overwhelmingly affect one race. It's the difference between living tough times and simply navigating through them from time to time, like my family did.

Unfortunately, our political situation allows working class people of all races to turn on one another rather than uniting behind common goals.

With all due respect, all of that sounds ridiculous. Why don't you go to the Appalachian regions and talk about white privilege? Tell them they don't have a right to feel repressed and withdrawn. There are tens of millions of people in those areas, most of whom are white. You act like because it's not shoved in your face that it doesn't exist. Many of those families live without running water.

Offline 7th

  • Posts: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #116 on: November 28, 2016, 10:02:19 PM »
If blacks, and others, are so tired of this white privilege, maybe they should stop listening to people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson...and the liberal media. They're nothing but race baiters. They contribute to a problem that's already there. They're not doing anything to help. Their capitalizing on something that needs to be alleviated, not amplified. Whatever was said that was so racist was probably something that was blown way out of proportion, like everything else in the media.

Yeah... I'm straight, white, and male, come from a pretty blue collar, working man's background - Dad drives a big rig, Mom is a special needs teacher. I wasn't eligible for any assistance getting into college due to the white color of my skin. I didn't get free books. I didn't get a supplemented cell phone. My family could have really used all those things. When I graduated didn't get to check an affirmative action box when applying for a job. I could have really used that.

I don't think I can properly articulate how much better I still had it because of who I am. Yes, my family could have always used more help, but the advantages of being white far outweighed any "advantage" others got due to being eligible for government programs. It took my a long time to acknowledge it, but once you take some time to visit the other side of the tracks, the truth isn't very pretty. When you've done that, you see that these programs people like myself have come to resent so much are more like a "consolidation prize" than an "advantage". That's the ugly truth when generational poverty cycles overwhelmingly affect one race. It's the difference between living tough times and simply navigating through them from time to time, like my family did.

Unfortunately, our political situation allows working class people of all races to turn on one another rather than uniting behind common goals.

With all due respect, all of that sounds ridiculous. Why don't you go to the Appalachian regions and talk about white privilege? Tell them they don't have a right to feel repressed and withdrawn. There are tens of millions of people in those areas, most of whom are white. You act like because it's not shoved in your face that it doesn't exist. Many of those families live without running water.

I live in Appalachia after spending much of my life in San Francisco.  Once I got over the culture shock and harsh realities like liver mush, I realized these people are about the most misunderstood people in the USA.  I heard more racist shit in California than I have ever heard here.  The culture here is actually very laid back, low stress, everyone is welcome sort of living.  It pisses me off that some folks in the urban areas consider these people inferior.  I'll tell ya, if shit ever hits the fan these people are the ones who know how to live off the grid and take care of business without a nanny state taking care of them.  Yes, many of them are poor.  Actually, I have been all over the world and the Native American reservations in the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana combine with the Appalachian poor are living WAY harder than those in city welfare classes.  Why no support from the left for these people?  How exactly is white privilege helping a family of 8 living in a singewide somewhere in West Virginia?  What good for the Native Americans does the Billions in drug and skin money that keeps many inner city folks in Mercedes and Crystal do??  Seriously, the holier than thou leftists who think they are champions for the downtrodden and weak don't even know who the sufferers are in our world.  Sorry if I am a bit too hyperbolic but it's fucking true.  If I hear another rich-ass college frat boy talk about white privilege I may simply vapor lock.     
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin

Online Skeever

  • Posts: 1138
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #117 on: November 29, 2016, 05:21:18 AM »
If blacks, and others, are so tired of this white privilege, maybe they should stop listening to people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson...and the liberal media. They're nothing but race baiters. They contribute to a problem that's already there. They're not doing anything to help. Their capitalizing on something that needs to be alleviated, not amplified. Whatever was said that was so racist was probably something that was blown way out of proportion, like everything else in the media.

Yeah... I'm straight, white, and male, come from a pretty blue collar, working man's background - Dad drives a big rig, Mom is a special needs teacher. I wasn't eligible for any assistance getting into college due to the white color of my skin. I didn't get free books. I didn't get a supplemented cell phone. My family could have really used all those things. When I graduated didn't get to check an affirmative action box when applying for a job. I could have really used that.

I don't think I can properly articulate how much better I still had it because of who I am. Yes, my family could have always used more help, but the advantages of being white far outweighed any "advantage" others got due to being eligible for government programs. It took my a long time to acknowledge it, but once you take some time to visit the other side of the tracks, the truth isn't very pretty. When you've done that, you see that these programs people like myself have come to resent so much are more like a "consolidation prize" than an "advantage". That's the ugly truth when generational poverty cycles overwhelmingly affect one race. It's the difference between living tough times and simply navigating through them from time to time, like my family did.

Unfortunately, our political situation allows working class people of all races to turn on one another rather than uniting behind common goals.

With all due respect, all of that sounds ridiculous. Why don't you go to the Appalachian regions and talk about white privilege? Tell them they don't have a right to feel repressed and withdrawn. There are tens of millions of people in those areas, most of whom are white. You act like because it's not shoved in your face that it doesn't exist. Many of those families live without running water.

What your missing is that privilege is not just a racial thing. There's racial privilege, gender privilege, financial privilege, and so on. What it means to be "of x privilege" is to say that you're not at a disadvantage because you possess x. So, like the people in Appalachia, there are people that can be be extremely disadvantaged financially, but still benefiting from racial privilege. Then there are of course people of color who do not possess any white privilege, but are also not suffering from financial disadvantages that many whites may be. This is called intersectionality, and it's what makes talking about these topics so difficulty. It's not enough to just talk about one type of privilege or another. We have to talk about racism, sexism, gender, and economics all at once.

Appalachia is an interesting topic because there are a lot of large scale things hurting a very particular population. Poverty in this country is not unique to people of color, and I'll be the first to admit that liberals  like myself do a very bad job of talking about poverty in general. However, the other problem we have in this country, is poverty cycles that overwhelmingly affect one specific racial group, and have for generations. That can't be ignored. So, of course, I want to see things done to combat poverty, period. But broad measures are not going to be enough to help the group that has had the most people stuck in poverty for over 100 years. There needs to be more.

I live in Appalachia after spending much of my life in San Francisco.  Once I got over the culture shock and harsh realities like liver mush, I realized these people are about the most misunderstood people in the USA.  I heard more racist shit in California than I have ever heard here.  The culture here is actually very laid back, low stress, everyone is welcome sort of living.  It pisses me off that some folks in the urban areas consider these people inferior.  I'll tell ya, if shit ever hits the fan these people are the ones who know how to live off the grid and take care of business without a nanny state taking care of them.  Yes, many of them are poor.  Actually, I have been all over the world and the Native American reservations in the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana combine with the Appalachian poor are living WAY harder than those in city welfare classes.  Why no support from the left for these people?  How exactly is white privilege helping a family of 8 living in a singewide somewhere in West Virginia?  What good for the Native Americans does the Billions in drug and skin money that keeps many inner city folks in Mercedes and Crystal do??  Seriously, the holier than thou leftists who think they are champions for the downtrodden and weak don't even know who the sufferers are in our world.  Sorry if I am a bit too hyperbolic but it's fucking true.  If I hear another rich-ass college frat boy talk about white privilege I may simply vapor lock.     
The bold part of this post is all I care to address. See the above, my response to Prog Snob, as a lot of it answers these points. Look, I'll be the first to admit that we need to do a better job of addressing poverty in general and that democrats have done an increasingly bad job with this. I know how snobby it sounds when well-off people from great schools minimize the problems that working class people have. So yeah, you got it.

But there's another problem, that goes beyond poverty, and it's an onslaught of social and economic disadvantages that overwhelmingly and disproportionately affect certain groups, and there is more data than you could ever need to back that claim up. So, yes, we need to do more to address root causes of poverty in general. Beyond that, we need to address how an unbreakable cycle of poverty has affected a specific group.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16597
  • Gender: Male
  • Truth is not for all men, only those who seek it.
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #118 on: November 29, 2016, 05:38:14 AM »
If blacks, and others, are so tired of this white privilege, maybe they should stop listening to people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson...and the liberal media. They're nothing but race baiters. They contribute to a problem that's already there. They're not doing anything to help. Their capitalizing on something that needs to be alleviated, not amplified. Whatever was said that was so racist was probably something that was blown way out of proportion, like everything else in the media.

Yeah... I'm straight, white, and male, come from a pretty blue collar, working man's background - Dad drives a big rig, Mom is a special needs teacher. I wasn't eligible for any assistance getting into college due to the white color of my skin. I didn't get free books. I didn't get a supplemented cell phone. My family could have really used all those things. When I graduated didn't get to check an affirmative action box when applying for a job. I could have really used that.

I don't think I can properly articulate how much better I still had it because of who I am. Yes, my family could have always used more help, but the advantages of being white far outweighed any "advantage" others got due to being eligible for government programs. It took my a long time to acknowledge it, but once you take some time to visit the other side of the tracks, the truth isn't very pretty. When you've done that, you see that these programs people like myself have come to resent so much are more like a "consolidation prize" than an "advantage". That's the ugly truth when generational poverty cycles overwhelmingly affect one race. It's the difference between living tough times and simply navigating through them from time to time, like my family did.

Unfortunately, our political situation allows working class people of all races to turn on one another rather than uniting behind common goals.

With all due respect, all of that sounds ridiculous. Why don't you go to the Appalachian regions and talk about white privilege? Tell them they don't have a right to feel repressed and withdrawn. There are tens of millions of people in those areas, most of whom are white. You act like because it's not shoved in your face that it doesn't exist. Many of those families live without running water.

What your missing is that privilege is not just a racial thing. There's racial privilege, gender privilege, financial privilege, and so on. What it means to be "of x privilege" is to say that you're not at a disadvantage because you possess x. So, like the people in Appalachia, there are people that can be be extremely disadvantaged financially, but still benefiting from racial privilege. Then there are of course people of color who do not possess any white privilege, but are also not suffering from financial disadvantages that many whites may be. This is called intersectionality, and it's what makes talking about these topics so difficulty. It's not enough to just talk about one type of privilege or another. We have to talk about racism, sexism, gender, and economics all at once.

Appalachia is an interesting topic because there are a lot of large scale things hurting a very particular population. Poverty in this country is not unique to people of color, and I'll be the first to admit that liberals  like myself do a very bad job of talking about poverty in general. However, the other problem we have in this country, is poverty cycles that overwhelmingly affect one specific racial group, and have for generations. That can't be ignored. So, of course, I want to see things done to combat poverty, period. But broad measures are not going to be enough to help the group that has had the most people stuck in poverty for over 100 years. There needs to be more.


I'm not missing the privilege issue and I'm not sure why you're trying to educate me on the different types of privilege. I'm not the one biased here. I'm pretty sure you're the one who went off on this white privilege tirade. When you do the same for everything else, then we can talk.

Online Skeever

  • Posts: 1138
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #119 on: November 29, 2016, 06:31:08 AM »
My intent isn't to sound like I'm going off on a tirade. I've tried simply to lay out my points in an understandable way, and am sorry to see you think I'm talking down to you. I'm not, I just understand what it's like to be on both sides of this issue. Is there any particular point about my post that you'd like me to discuss? Hard to defend what I've said against the general dismissal you've offered.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9436
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #120 on: November 29, 2016, 09:05:49 AM »
The fact that an institution like the NYT can be blatantly dismissed as lying, left-wing propaganda in favor of intuition, experience, and "common sense" is genuinely terrifying, as is the assumption that we no longer need to fact check because the facts are bow lies.


Any chance we can stop using "terrifying" as a synonym for "I don't like it"?    I've been terrified maybe twice, three times in my life, and NOTHING - not the week before when I would have bet my car that Hillary would have won, not the night of when Trump was declared the presumptive winner, not when Steve Bannon was named to the cabinet - even comes REMOTELY close to that feeling. 

I get it; some of us don't like the outcome, and some of us have worries now that certain things you might consider "progress" might be undone.   I'm understanding and respectful of that.  But this complete and utter usurping of the word "TERRIFYING" is getting to be a little much.


I say this with all due respect, but one possible reason you don't see any of it as terrifying is because as a straight, white, well enough off male, none of those terrifying things have any impact on you.

Okay... I recognize there are about 15 posts after this that I haven't read, but I'm going to suggest that that's a road we do NOT want to go down.  Because then everything that Bruce, Katy Perry, etc. says about the "blue collar man" is bullshit.   That means that gays, blacks and women ARE different, even though we've spend 50 years claiming that "WE'RE ALL THE SAME ON THE INSIDE!"   

Please.   

The one thing I'll give you (and it sounds WAYYYYYY more arrogant than I mean it) is that it's not terrifying to me because I a) actually understand how this stuff works, and b) don't have an agenda that I need to garner support for.   

Online Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5432
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #121 on: November 29, 2016, 09:11:24 AM »
Because then everything that Bruce, Katy Perry, etc. says about the "blue collar man" is bullshit.   That means that gays, blacks and women ARE different, even though we've spend 50 years claiming that "WE'RE ALL THE SAME ON THE INSIDE!"   

No. It means they are treated differently despite that they are "the same on the inside".


And @7th, we can discuss the extent to which privilege affects all these issues, but privilege is not make believe. It's 100% reality despite the fact that you hear about it in the "liberal media". Have you ever gotten pulled over by a cop and then asked to have your car searched because you were white? How many times have you been "randomly" selected for extra security checks in the airport because you were white? We can argue about the reasons this exists, and the morality/implications, etc., but it exists. People are systematically treated differently based on what they look like or how they sound. It's that simple. You can't deny it.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 09:20:29 AM by Implode »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9436
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #122 on: November 29, 2016, 09:24:30 AM »
Yeah... I'm straight, white, and male, come from a pretty blue collar, working man's background - Dad drives a big rig, Mom is a special needs teacher. I wasn't eligible for any assistance getting into college due to the white color of my skin. I didn't get free books. I didn't get a supplemented cell phone. My family could have really used all those things. When I graduated didn't get to check an affirmative action box when applying for a job. I could have really used that.

I don't think I can properly articulate how much better I still had it because of who I am. Yes, my family could have always used more help, but the advantages of being white far outweighed any "advantage" others got due to being eligible for government programs. It took my a long time to acknowledge it, but once you take some time to visit the other side of the tracks, the truth isn't very pretty. When you've done that, you see that these programs people like myself have come to resent so much are more like a "consolidation prize" than an "advantage". That's the ugly truth when generational poverty cycles overwhelmingly affect one race. It's the difference between living tough times and simply navigating through them from time to time, like my family did.

Unfortunately, our political situation allows working class people of all races to turn on one another rather than uniting behind common goals.

But you're assuming two things:  that it WAS because of the "whiteness" of your skin, and b) that it is good that ANYONE gets those things because of the color of your skin.  That's I think where 7th is coming from (though I want to be clear, I don't speak for him and don't necessarily agree with where he's coming from).   

There's a lot of other variables in this that you're conveniently glossing over in an effort to put forth your idea.   My dad is 77 now, and as he gets to that age, he's remarkably becoming MORE fluent in Polish, a language he spoke fluently (for a kid that age) until he went to school.  He had older sisters, so the family house was "English", but at family gatherings, it was Polish.  Why?  Because it wasn't about "national identity", it was about "what's going to help me succeed".    Both my sets of grandparents barely spoke to each other at the time they finally passed.  I remember asking my Mom about that just before I got married the first time, and she was blunt:  they didn't love each other as much as they needed each other to survive.   My uncle left the house at 17, because he and his father (my grandfather) didn't get along.   What did he do?  Air Force.  Why?  Because it was a way to support himself and his (future) family.   Not "supplemental cellphones".  When I went to college - state school, because I couldn't afford anything better - I worked digging ditches in the summer to pay for it. I ate ketchup and mustard sandwiches at times, collected the McDonald's Monopoly pieces when they played that game, and would go to Huskies to hustle billiards for the beer I drank (Some nights, my roommate Craig and I would go with $5 between us, and play pool and drink quarts all night long).  We had 9 guys in a two-bedroom apartment (each building had a building number and four units, A, B, C, and D; ours was "3D" and was forever referred to as "Three Dump" for obvious reasons).

I would argue to you that the things you DIDN'T get made you better, made you more resilient, and was the real advantage at the end of the day.  I get it; on an individual basis that means some individuals are going to fail, and on an individual basis, there is anecdotal evidence to support any position you want, but if you look at the GROUP, the evidence seems to suggest that safety nets and supplements don't help in the long run, but tend to BECOME the solution. 

Online Skeever

  • Posts: 1138
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #123 on: November 29, 2016, 10:03:37 AM »
Stadler - I don't think we disagree, per say. I don't think I'm glossing over anything to make my point, which is not about safety nets, but rather about how I do not see being white working class as equivalent to being part of group that has experienced longstanding discrimination and generational poverty. I look at it in terms of percentages. Even given the economic situation of my parents, I was born with a certain percentage chance that I'd have parents who were together, a community that was largely safe, a good public school system (that was safe), parents who would be able to afford my needs, parents who would be able to pay for me to go to college, parents who would be able to buy me things I needed to get a start.  In reality, only some of these things ever came true for me, and many didn't. But as a general rule, for a person of color born on the same day as me in a similar economic situation, those percentages were all likely much lower. Why? It's not due to a genetic difference. There's a whole complicated slew of socioeconomic issues that get glossed over by Facebook memes.

As far as safety nets go, the discussion for me isn't about whether or not we need safety nets. The discussion is more along the lines of "what should that safety net look like?" I think your hitting on a greater truth - the safety net ought not to give more than one can go out and earn, because then it does become "the solution". Are we at that point now? Perhaps in some ways. But maybe there are facets of poverty we aren't tackling at all - let's say, healthcare. So then what's the answer? There are two things at play here: 1.) How do you address poverty in general, and to what extent? and 2.) How do you incentivize people remove themselves from generational poverty?

I can fully acknowledge that in the United States, we have a completely ass-backwards way of addressing poverty. There's a better answer out there, and we need conservatives and liberals alike to help figure out what that looks like.

On a related note every generation of my family includes people (including my very brother) who've taken advantage of military service to help improve their life situations. That's great. And it's not just "white working class" who do that. Military demographics mirror the demographics of the nation. So I agree that it's a great thing; it's just not the total solution.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9436
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #124 on: November 29, 2016, 10:08:10 AM »
I am a straight white dude who will probably end up solidly in the upper middle class. That being said, I feel confident in using the word terrifying—something I don't use lightly (I haven't said it at all concerning Trump's campaign)—because the way 7th talks is a reflection of a shift in society that, I feel, will, if it takes hold, undermine the order and stability of civil society. Facts are facts. It's as simple as that. People can discuss facts with bias but the outright rejection of the notion of facts as leftist propaganda is genuinely scary. I fear for a society where people refuse to appreciate the severity of situations like climate change. I fear for a society where communication is impossible because one side rejects everything the other side says as lies and conspiracy—this is certainly a more right-wing phenomenon today.

Ultimately, I genuinely fear for political, ecological, economic, and societal collapse. I don't think Trump is going to bring that about. But a certain section of his supporters—with their complete disregard for the way things actually are—absolutely could.

Why is it all of  a sudden "terrifying" when it's rejected as LEFTIST propaganda?  You don't think that the Bernsters aren't interested in deep, fact-based discussions about economics?  What about that woman on Neal Cavuto that, when confronted by Neal that her proposal would require the top 10% of earners to pay 100% - read that again:  ONE HUNDRED PERCENT; all, everything; the whole kit-and-caboodle - of their earnings and it STILL wouldn't pay for more than about 60% of what she wanted to see, said "so what!".   

Let me tell you:  a racist, blue-collar bigot in Michigan isn't going to bring about "political, ecological, economic, and societal collapse".   George Soros?  Not so much.   Completely undermining the economic system of this country with continued handouts and grants (like Bernie proposed)?  Not so much.   Completely undermining the economic system of the GLOBE with knee-jerk, poorly thought-out, agenda-driven economic solutions to climate change (which I do understand and accept)?  Not so much. 

Point:  this isn't about LEFT and RIGHT, and if you're truly terrified NOW, you should have been just as terrified six months ago, when everyone (including Trump himself) thought Hillary was going to be President.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9436
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #125 on: November 29, 2016, 10:29:42 AM »
What your missing is that privilege is not just a racial thing. There's racial privilege, gender privilege, financial privilege, and so on. What it means to be "of x privilege" is to say that you're not at a disadvantage because you possess x. So, like the people in Appalachia, there are people that can be be extremely disadvantaged financially, but still benefiting from racial privilege. Then there are of course people of color who do not possess any white privilege, but are also not suffering from financial disadvantages that many whites may be. This is called intersectionality, and it's what makes talking about these topics so difficulty. It's not enough to just talk about one type of privilege or another. We have to talk about racism, sexism, gender, and economics all at once.

Appalachia is an interesting topic because there are a lot of large scale things hurting a very particular population. Poverty in this country is not unique to people of color, and I'll be the first to admit that liberals  like myself do a very bad job of talking about poverty in general. However, the other problem we have in this country, is poverty cycles that overwhelmingly affect one specific racial group, and have for generations. That can't be ignored. So, of course, I want to see things done to combat poverty, period. But broad measures are not going to be enough to help the group that has had the most people stuck in poverty for over 100 years. There needs to be more.

What?  So when does it end?  You're now talking not really about "privilege" but "outcomes".  We're also ignoring simple rules of physics like "cause/effect", "correlation", and "coincidence".   If "poverty" affects one specific racial group more than another, is that BECAUSE the race causes the poverty?   Not necessarily.   Is the poverty caused by something else that is caused by the race?   Not necessarily, but it could.   

The problem, Skeever, is that the "[insert] privilege" discussion precludes in-depth understanding of HOW and WHY these facts occur, and most importantly, what we do about it.   

The difference with me - and I'm not suggesting anything about any other poster here - is that I don't care what the answer is. I am not afraid of true equality of opportunity.   I just don't like the crass and self-serving assumptions that are being made, and I don't like the blurring of "outcome" with "opportunity".   Black, white, Jew, Muslim, Kiss fan, you still need to deliver on that opportunity YOURSELF and it shouldn't be handed to you (this is why I'm so against Affirmative Action; it replaces the opportunity with the outcome).   If addressing 'white privilege' through government was the answer, why then is the number of people in poverty INCREASING the more programs we put in place?  This goes back to other discussions too; the dialogue in this country today is such that to even SUGGEST that the economic position of a certain class is not directly tied to suppression of that class - and might actually be related to other things, especially if those things are IN THE CONTROL of that class - open the suggestor up to accusations of racism.   

Quote
The bold part of this post is all I care to address. See the above, my response to Prog Snob, as a lot of it answers these points. Look, I'll be the first to admit that we need to do a better job of addressing poverty in general and that democrats have done an increasingly bad job with this. I know how snobby it sounds when well-off people from great schools minimize the problems that working class people have. So yeah, you got it.

But there's another problem, that goes beyond poverty, and it's an onslaught of social and economic disadvantages that overwhelmingly and disproportionately affect certain groups, and there is more data than you could ever need to back that claim up. So, yes, we need to do more to address root causes of poverty in general. Beyond that, we need to address how an unbreakable cycle of poverty has affected a specific group.

But with that, you're positing a problem, then showcasing that problem.  What group do you mean? African Americans?   So we have to put the poverty discussion for the 46 million people (regardless of color) on hold, in order to address the poverty discussion for the 15 million people (roughly 25% of the 12% of the population that is African American, just using them as an example), even though the 46 million includes them, and for at least SOME (if not the majority) of that 15 million, the answer is the same?   What does that say about the left?   Why does that 12% of the population get special treatment?   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9436
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #126 on: November 29, 2016, 10:48:02 AM »
Because then everything that Bruce, Katy Perry, etc. says about the "blue collar man" is bullshit.   That means that gays, blacks and women ARE different, even though we've spend 50 years claiming that "WE'RE ALL THE SAME ON THE INSIDE!"   

No. It means they are treated differently despite that they are "the same on the inside".


And @7th, we can discuss the extent to which privilege affects all these issues, but privilege is not make believe. It's 100% reality despite the fact that you hear about it in the "liberal media". Have you ever gotten pulled over by a cop and then asked to have your car searched because you were white? How many times have you been "randomly" selected for extra security checks in the airport because you were white? We can argue about the reasons this exists, and the morality/implications, etc., but it exists. People are systematically treated differently based on what they look like or how they sound. It's that simple. You can't deny it.

I absolutely CAN deny it, or at least question the proof and methodology, as you stretch the raw data to conclusions.   You do understand, don't you, that a poverty rate of 12% for whites and 25% for blacks (close to real numbers, by the way) does NOT in and of itself mean that the ONLY difference is RACE, and is not "proof" of white privilege.   Anyone with a college stats course can tell you that, yet that's the "proof" most often offered.   

Connecticut did a study of traffic stops about a year or so ago, using a stretch of road here in the middle of the State, and found that, as compared to the general population demographics of Connecticut (roughly 68% white and 12% black, as compared to the US, which is 65% white and 13% black) blacks were stopped at about twice the rate of whites.    The local leader of the NAACP came out THAT DAY calling for indictments of law enforcement leaders, and sweeping changes, blah, blah, blah.   Then, quietly, about a week later, there was a follow-up noting that further review of the data showed that a) in over half the stops, the officer didn't know the race of the driver when the stop was initiated, and b) when adjusted for that locality (where the demographic percentages didn't hold), and assessing the estimated make-up of the traffic patters (even accounting for public transportation and what not), that in fact, the difference was that blacks were stopped at a rate only about 1% higher than whites, and well within the study's margin of error.    I did not see any retraction or apology from the local leader of the NAACP.   

I strongly suggest that race is likely a variable in the equation, that racism exists, but that much of the "white privilege" argument is evidence of nothing more than "I have a conclusion, and I have to find data to support it" as opposed to a rigorous application of the scientific method. 

Offline 7th

  • Posts: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #127 on: November 29, 2016, 10:57:30 AM »
Because then everything that Bruce, Katy Perry, etc. says about the "blue collar man" is bullshit.   That means that gays, blacks and women ARE different, even though we've spend 50 years claiming that "WE'RE ALL THE SAME ON THE INSIDE!"   

No. It means they are treated differently despite that they are "the same on the inside".


And @7th, we can discuss the extent to which privilege affects all these issues, but privilege is not make believe. It's 100% reality despite the fact that you hear about it in the "liberal media". Have you ever gotten pulled over by a cop and then asked to have your car searched because you were white? How many times have you been "randomly" selected for extra security checks in the airport because you were white? We can argue about the reasons this exists, and the morality/implications, etc., but it exists. People are systematically treated differently based on what they look like or how they sound. It's that simple. You can't deny it.

It's funny you should use those examples because I actually have had my car searched, not because I was white, but because I had long hair.  Also, I have had the TSA make me miss flights on more than one occasion because they singled me out and decided to search me head to toe, one time they even disassembled my computer.  It had trace amounts of gun powder residue on it because I had done work in a shooting range and they held me for hours to see if I was on no-fly lists.  So, yes, I get the same hassles other people do.  I think the point is my shiny white skin didn't give me some free pass.
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin

Online PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1561
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #128 on: November 29, 2016, 11:04:52 AM »
.   Then, quietly, about a week later, there was a follow-up noting that further review of the data showed that a) in over half the stops, the officer didn't know the race of the driver when the stop was initiated,

I don't understand this, unless these stops were made at night when their vision would be obscured. Otherwise, it seems a bit flimsy.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9436
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #129 on: November 29, 2016, 11:04:58 AM »
Stadler - I don't think we disagree, per say. I don't think I'm glossing over anything to make my point, which is not about safety nets, but rather about how I do not see being white working class as equivalent to being part of group that has experienced longstanding discrimination and generational poverty. I look at it in terms of percentages. Even given the economic situation of my parents, I was born with a certain percentage chance that I'd have parents who were together, a community that was largely safe, a good public school system (that was safe), parents who would be able to afford my needs, parents who would be able to pay for me to go to college, parents who would be able to buy me things I needed to get a start.  In reality, only some of these things ever came true for me, and many didn't. But as a general rule, for a person of color born on the same day as me in a similar economic situation, those percentages were all likely much lower. Why? It's not due to a genetic difference. There's a whole complicated slew of socioeconomic issues that get glossed over by Facebook memes.

Understanding that you and I probably come from backgrounds that are more similar than not (including the idea that "some" things came true, and "some" didn't), not all those things are a result of discrimination AGAINST race.  I recognize I'm getting into tricky territory here, but it's not a "white" issue that my parents did or did not stay together.  It's not a "white" issue that I have a safe or dangerous community.   

Quote
As far as safety nets go, the discussion for me isn't about whether or not we need safety nets. The discussion is more along the lines of "what should that safety net look like?" I think your hitting on a greater truth - the safety net ought not to give more than one can go out and earn, because then it does become "the solution". Are we at that point now? Perhaps in some ways. But maybe there are facets of poverty we aren't tackling at all - let's say, healthcare. So then what's the answer? There are two things at play here: 1.) How do you address poverty in general, and to what extent? and 2.) How do you incentivize people remove themselves from generational poverty?

I can fully acknowledge that in the United States, we have a completely ass-backwards way of addressing poverty. There's a better answer out there, and we need conservatives and liberals alike to help figure out what that looks like.

On a related note every generation of my family includes people (including my very brother) who've taken advantage of military service to help improve their life situations. That's great. And it's not just "white working class" who do that. Military demographics mirror the demographics of the nation. So I agree that it's a great thing; it's just not the total solution.

The military isn't the total solution, but it is an example of the type of solution that might work.   The theoretical trick for me is this:  the government benefit shouldn't ever be the only difference between "success" and "failure", because then you have an "outcome" based system.  THAT'S where the problem occurs, not because of race, not because people are "lazy", not because people aren't "proud", but because it's a simple matter of risk reward.   I find it head-scratching when we bend over backwards saying "SEE!  I TOLD you! It wasn't his fault!" when a poor black person gets in trouble for dealing weed because he was making $400 in cash on the daily.  Yeah, there's the notion of "planning for your future", but it's not just African Americans who are more than willing to take "90% certainty of $400 in cash today in exchange for 20% of jail at some point in the future, or a 20% shot at getting into the system, making $1200 per week, in a check, before taxes, etc.".   Anyone you know that goes to a casino or plays the lottery is playing THAT game. 

And let's not ignore that it's not any ONE variable, including race.   To end poverty, we have to get healthcare settled.  We have to legalize weed (and I would go further and legalize most banned substances, including heroin and coke).  We have to revamp education, to make sure that it's not a "two track program" ("college" or "figure it out on your own").   Why we don't start more rigorous career training - no, I'm not talking about "shop class" - in high school is beyond me.  Why we're not teaching kids in high school to balance check books and understand what "APR" means is beyond me.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9436
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #130 on: November 29, 2016, 11:13:11 AM »
.   Then, quietly, about a week later, there was a follow-up noting that further review of the data showed that a) in over half the stops, the officer didn't know the race of the driver when the stop was initiated,

I don't understand this, unless these stops were made at night when their vision would be obscured. Otherwise, it seems a bit flimsy.

Not at all.  I'm in a cruiser, I'm parked in a turn-around - you know the kind:  "Official Vehicles Only" - and I see the flash of a car going by at 65, 70 miles an hour, and my radar gun goes off - beeps - and I engage in pursuit of the "blue sedan" that just flew by me.   My brother is a traffic cop in a reasonably affluent community in Florida, and I actually asked him about this about a year ago (I happened to be dick deep in a conversation about this very issue with our own el Barto) and it was one of the things he was frustrated with in this whole dialogue.   He recognizes the reality of things (he and el Barto got me to understand that body cams are a good thing; he also admitted that he knows officers that might have taken less care about the frame of the police car door and the perps head depending on whether they knew the suspect or not) but was clear:  it's one thing to be standing face to face, 50 feet apart, and know your adversary, but it's not nearly that cut and dry in most cases.   

Online Skeever

  • Posts: 1138
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #131 on: November 29, 2016, 11:15:10 AM »
The problem, Skeever, is that the "[insert] privilege" discussion precludes in-depth understanding of HOW and WHY these facts occur, and most importantly, what we do about it.   
I don't agree with this at all. An intelligent conversation about privilege should include all of those things. That's what I'm trying to facilitate here, hopefully made more apparent in the post you haven't gotten to yet.

The difference with me - and I'm not suggesting anything about any other poster here - is that I don't care what the answer is. I am not afraid of true equality of opportunity.   I just don't like the crass and self-serving assumptions that are being made, and I don't like the blurring of "outcome" with "opportunity".
Who is making self-serving assumptions? I also fail to see how I am blurring outcomes with opportunity. Could you elaborate?

Quote
Black, white, Jew, Muslim, Kiss fan, you still need to deliver on that opportunity YOURSELF and it shouldn't be handed to you (this is why I'm so against Affirmative Action; it replaces the opportunity with the outcome).   If addressing 'white privilege' through government was the answer, why then is the number of people in poverty INCREASING the more programs we put in place?
Fair enough, but that isn't what I'd recommend. Does that mean I think we should cease any racially targeted measures myself? No. I think those are part of the picture. But I think you'll see in my next post what I'm getting at.

Quote
This goes back to other discussions too; the dialogue in this country today is such that to even SUGGEST that the economic position of a certain class is not directly tied to suppression of that class - and might actually be related to other things, especially if those things are IN THE CONTROL of that class - open the suggestor up to accusations of racism.
Anecdotal, but once again (as elsewhere in the sub) I feel you are tasking me with answering for everyone you've ever had a bad conversation with. I'm not trying to make a point about this one way or the other. I feel that "things in control" of that class are pointed out with great frequency - from without and within. When these things are offered constructively, they go over well. When they're offered from a place of callousness, they're not. That's my general rule, or how I see it. You can't expect me to defend some "other" side of this greater dialogue as your perceive it... and it's not helpful to the talk we're having here. Could people in generational poverty lift themselves out? Probably. Do they know it? I don't know. What'll help? That's the discussion we should be having.

Quote
But with that, you're positing a problem, then showcasing that problem.  What group do you mean? African Americans?   So we have to put the poverty discussion for the 46 million people (regardless of color) on hold, in order to address the poverty discussion for the 15 million people (roughly 25% of the 12% of the population that is African American, just using them as an example), even though the 46 million includes them, and for at least SOME (if not the majority) of that 15 million, the answer is the same?   What does that say about the left?   Why does that 12% of the population get special treatment?

Not what I'm getting at all. Clarified in the next post that I think you maybe haven't gotten to yet.

Offline 7th

  • Posts: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #132 on: November 29, 2016, 11:18:09 AM »
Here is my real beef with the white privilege concept: As long as we are blaming perceived privilege for the problems in minority communities, we do not address and fix those problems as a society.  Plus, the concept paints with an absolute brush: if you are white life in the USA has been easier and if you are not it has been harder.  The premise is untrue, stupidly easy to discredit, and incredibly racist.  Why subscribe to ideas that are untrue and racist by nature?

Seriously, the concept is one of the ugliest aspects of political correctness.  We will never be equal if we are imposing default inequalities based on genetics alone.     
     
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #133 on: November 29, 2016, 11:24:53 AM »
I live in Appalachia after spending much of my life in San Francisco.  Once I got over the culture shock and harsh realities like liver mush, I realized these people are about the most misunderstood people in the USA.  I heard more racist shit in California than I have ever heard here.  The culture here is actually very laid back, low stress, everyone is welcome sort of living.  It pisses me off that some folks in the urban areas consider these people inferior.  I'll tell ya, if shit ever hits the fan these people are the ones who know how to live off the grid and take care of business without a nanny state taking care of them.  Yes, many of them are poor.  Actually, I have been all over the world and the Native American reservations in the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana combine with the Appalachian poor are living WAY harder than those in city welfare classes.  Why no support from the left for these people?  How exactly is white privilege helping a family of 8 living in a singewide somewhere in West Virginia?  What good for the Native Americans does the Billions in drug and skin money that keeps many inner city folks in Mercedes and Crystal do??  Seriously, the holier than thou leftists who think they are champions for the downtrodden and weak don't even know who the sufferers are in our world.  Sorry if I am a bit too hyperbolic but it's fucking true.  If I hear another rich-ass college frat boy talk about white privilege I may simply vapor lock.   

I sort of agree that some of the loudest voices on the left lately exhibit boutique outrage that mainly serves what they think is their political and cultural agenda.  I don't like the trashing of rural voters or poor whites.

I'd rather they craft a progressive message based solely on economics--which is a common thread that unites more than 50% of this country.  We had this option this year, but the DNC decided it was too "risky."

In general, though, Democrats' actual agenda is far closer to the latter.  Obamacare is a major boost for healthcare for those in poverty--no matter what your race, even though a lot of Republican governors blocked the Medicaid expansion portion of the law in their own states just to smite Obama and deny him a political victory at the expense of the lives of their own citizens.  Obama's new overtime rule (that is currently being blocked by conservative judges) is a huge boost for low-end salaried employees (lower-middle class).

Almost every major policy Obama has advanced has gone to help poor and working-class people, Republicans have opposed him every step of the way, and yet we have a large bloc of working-class people convinced that he's some tyrannical dictator just waiting to take their rights away.

I do blame this mainly on a steady stream of reality-free propaganda being targeted at certain groups of working-class voters through AM Radio, fake news on Facebook, and various websites (including Steve Bannon's Breitbart).  We're now getting to the point where some isolated red areas are just culturally divorced from fact and what is really going on with this world that it's becoming a danger to our democracy and a danger to civil society.  They think our own democratically-elected government is the enemy, and they're told to buy a lot of guns.  I think we're less than 10 years away from electing a true Nazi as President (Trump's semi-fascist campaign has plowed the road), or some sort of civil war or something.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Online PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1561
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #134 on: November 29, 2016, 11:27:27 AM »
.   Then, quietly, about a week later, there was a follow-up noting that further review of the data showed that a) in over half the stops, the officer didn't know the race of the driver when the stop was initiated,

I don't understand this, unless these stops were made at night when their vision would be obscured. Otherwise, it seems a bit flimsy.

Not at all.  I'm in a cruiser, I'm parked in a turn-around - you know the kind:  "Official Vehicles Only" - and I see the flash of a car going by at 65, 70 miles an hour, and my radar gun goes off - beeps - and I engage in pursuit of the "blue sedan" that just flew by me.   My brother is a traffic cop in a reasonably affluent community in Florida, and I actually asked him about this about a year ago (I happened to be dick deep in a conversation about this very issue with our own el Barto) and it was one of the things he was frustrated with in this whole dialogue.   He recognizes the reality of things (he and el Barto got me to understand that body cams are a good thing; he also admitted that he knows officers that might have taken less care about the frame of the police car door and the perps head depending on whether they knew the suspect or not) but was clear:  it's one thing to be standing face to face, 50 feet apart, and know your adversary, but it's not nearly that cut and dry in most cases.

I'll give you those circumstances. However, the few times that I've been pulled over in the past (and other times when I wasn't pulled over), I have been followed for a significant distance prior to them taking whichever action. I can only assume that they were running my plates, and deciding what to do after the information comes back to them. I'm fairly tall(my head not being obscured by the seat), so I'm sure that along with them being able to see my pasty white skin, they'll also know my basic information from the plate info well before they exit their cruiser to approach me to begin the stop.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Online Skeever

  • Posts: 1138
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #135 on: November 29, 2016, 11:28:11 AM »
Here is my real beef with the white privilege concept: As long as we are blaming perceived privilege for the problems in minority communities, we do not address and fix those problems as a society.
That's NOT what it means. We blame several social and economic factors (some from without, others from within) for problems in minority communities. "White privilege" just means you were lucky enough to NOT be born into one of those communities.

It's just like saying that you're privileged to be born in America. It DOESN'T mean that America caused all the ills that other countries are experiencing. It just means there are certain things you don't have to worry about, because you are American. It doesn't mean that your life is great, or even particularly good. It just acknowledges that being American affords you certain benefits.

And let's not ignore that it's not any ONE variable, including race.   To end poverty, we have to get healthcare settled.  We have to legalize weed (and I would go further and legalize most banned substances, including heroin and coke).  We have to revamp education, to make sure that it's not a "two track program" ("college" or "figure it out on your own").   Why we don't start more rigorous career training - no, I'm not talking about "shop class" - in high school is beyond me.  Why we're not teaching kids in high school to balance check books and understand what "APR" means is beyond me.

Pretty much agree with all this, aside from some of the stuff about banned substances. Like I said earlier, I don't think we're too far apart. It's a complicated problem, and perhaps democrats have done a bad job in giving the impression that they only care about ONE variable. If you're gonna talk about poverty, healthcare, education, and other things we need, you'd best be damned sure you're talking about everyone. That's just the society we live in. Do I think that it's unfair to have initiatives that target specific communities or problems, like AA is (supposed) to do? No, not at all. But again, I see that as only one (imperfect) variable of what we need. Maybe we need MORE that's designed to target specific communities. Maybe we need MORE that's proposed from the ground up, rather than the top down. Maybe it NEEDS to be local. We are not going to get that from Washington, no matter who is President. Regardless, I'd like to move beyond the phoney discussion our politicians promote (should we or shouldn't we have it!) into a more practical one - WHAT is the problem we are experiencing, WHO is going to take care of it, and HOW?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 11:41:43 AM by Skeever »

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #136 on: November 29, 2016, 11:35:56 AM »
No question I've been the benefit of white privilege with law enforcement on multiple occasions.  Getting busted but no tickets written, etc.  I don't even know about the times when I was not pulled over at all.

But still, it's one thing to talk about white privilege.  It's another thing to talk about it as if it trumps all other privileges out there, like economic or cultural privilege.  And it's another to talk about it in a way that accuses all whites of being racist.

It doesn't surprise me that a white family living in Appalachia on food stamps and $20,000 per year turns on their TV, looks at minority Ivy League college students mentally breaking down over Halloween costumes and shouting "white privilege," and as a result feels completely alienated by our political culture--or even worse, reacts in anger and joins a White Supremacist group.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9436
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #137 on: November 29, 2016, 11:45:23 AM »
The problem, Skeever, is that the "[insert] privilege" discussion precludes in-depth understanding of HOW and WHY these facts occur, and most importantly, what we do about it.   
I don't agree with this at all. An intelligent conversation about privilege should include all of those things. That's what I'm trying to facilitate here, hopefully made more apparent in the post you haven't gotten to yet.

Well, fair is fair; you are elevating the discussion to an admirable degree.  Not everyone is following your lead here.

Quote
Who is making self-serving assumptions? I also fail to see how I am blurring outcomes with opportunity. Could you elaborate?

Again, not necessarily you.  But the idea of "[insert class] privilege in and of itself is self-serving. It assumes that despite the data to the contrary, we're ALL in a race war.   I say this to be funny, but it's almost taking on the level of "Godwin's Law".  Can we please call it "Stadler's Law"?  Once one invokes the premise of "white privilege" - that I am incapable of experiencing empathy, that I am incapable of showing any real compassion for those that aren't EXACTLY LIKE ME - one kind of precludes any data driven discussion.

As for "outcomes", because this is not a 'data driven discussion', it's basically free of any burden of showing that any class is dependent on "opportunity", but just measures on "outcomes".   Poverty or no poverty.  There's an element to Appalachia that is not at all dependent on race, or even religion or intelligence, but GEOGRAPHY.   Geography is not a "privilege" issue.  I've long railed against the idea that we are WELL past the days that we can do the same job, in the same town, for the same company, making the same product, for a career at ever increasing wages.   Whether its coal or cars, if your bread and butter isn't buying the bacon anymore, at what point do you eliminate all the variables that you DO control before you're entitled to take the benefits of "white privilege"?   We can argue what the percentage is, but I would emphatically say it's far more than "0%", and a lot of this "white privilege" not only assumes, but REQUIRES that it be "0%". 

Quote
Anecdotal, but once again (as elsewhere in the sub) I feel you are tasking me with answering for everyone you've ever had a bad conversation with. I'm not trying to make a point about this one way or the other. I feel that "things in control" of that class are pointed out with great frequency - from without and within. When these things are offered constructively, they go over well. When they're offered from a place of callousness, they're not. That's my general rule, or how I see it. You can't expect me to defend some "other" side of this greater dialogue as your perceive it... and it's not helpful to the talk we're having here. Could people in generational poverty lift themselves out? Probably. Do they know it? I don't know. What'll help? That's the discussion we should be having.

I understand what you're saying, Skeever, and I apologize for that impression. It's partially a true accusation, but not completely, because I believe that the "white privilege" argument encompasses all those things.  That you didn't bring them up is a fair point, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.   If you're agreeing we should have that conversation, then I'm with you 100%.  I think the "white privilege" discussion overwhelms that though.   There was a quiet line of thought - and no, not just from racists and bigots - that held that Obama's election was a breakthrough for a many reasons, but the one that was most important was that it removed the excuse.  There was no excuse, there was no safety net by crying "racism!" when the most powerful man in the world was an African American.  And yet, that didn't happen, and not only that, it didn't even remain a variable, minor or otherwise.  It just changed the nature of the excuse.  "Overt" racism became more taboo (a good thing) but the argument of "systemic racism" increased.   There likely is systemic racism, at least in certain sectors of the system, but we're losing the thought that it is cyclical.  Every increase in opportunity HAS to be accompanied by a similar increase in earned outcome (meaning, not guaranteed by the safety net).  Where is that? 

Offline 7th

  • Posts: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #138 on: November 29, 2016, 11:46:34 AM »
I think we're less than 10 years away from electing a true Nazi as President (Trump's semi-fascist campaign has plowed the road), or some sort of civil war or something.

Other than a few fringe nutjobs, the right and conservatives in general are not fascist, not racist, and they would never put up with a totalitarian dictatorship.  That very possibility is why the 2nd amendment is so important to uphold.  Actually, the left are WAY more likely to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a new world Stalin or Hitler in my opinion.  Remember, their first steps to power were parallel with modern progressivism: disarm the population, install politically correct propaganda networks, and redistribute the wealth.
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9436
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #139 on: November 29, 2016, 11:48:31 AM »
I'd rather they craft a progressive message based solely on economics--which is a common thread that unites more than 50% of this country.  We had this option this year, but the DNC decided it was too "risky."

Honest question:  why only "50%" of the country?   Economics is the one issue that unites ALL of us.  It's the one universal thread, even if the impact is very different along the spectrum.

(And don't confuse issues; we had this option, but the specific DNC message wasn't "too risky", it was "too untenable".  They knew full well that on the national stage it would have been torn apart for what it was:  a disingenuous and biased sop to the poorest of the poor.)