|
This is not just a thread about the United States of America but because I live in the USA this post, and all my posts, are going to largely focus on issues within the USA. Without a doubt, these issues surely exist in countries outside of America and I welcome posters from foreign countries to contribute to this thread. I would like to know how these things are handled and how they manifest and effect other places. Before we begin I must preface this by stating this post is not supported by data, but data is welcome. This post is based wholly on my observations and experiences. The goal of this thread is to discuss the merits of every "side," to understand what they want out of the world, and explore what A Better World truly is together. That out of the way,  Thread Rules: 1. D&D leans liberal. I want more conservative voices to be welcome in this thread. If a poster does post a really lovely and objectionable thing please respond by explaining why what they advocate is poo poo. Don't extend that to also claim they are poo poo. (No Ad Hominem attacks.) 2. Speak for you. You don't speak for every person who aligns with you. Talk about what you want and what your goals and agendas are. Talk about what you hope the effects will be. Stuff like that. Statements like, "All feminists" or "All libertarians" or whatever are not welcome here. (Exception: Issues that truly do effect all individuals of a group.) 3. This thread is about learning what each side wants. Not telling them what they want. You can tell them the consequences, you can explain the effects, you can link to facts and data and you can point out the flaws but please try to refrain from telling somebody what they're doing or what they believe. Identifying the Sides: As far as I can see, while there are many groups or individuals on each side who want more specific or different things, they largely break up into two factions. The Progressives aka the SJWs: Acknowledging a lack of uniformity, individuals in this group largely want a more inclusive, accepting, tolerant and sensitive society with equal rights, equal access, and privileges and protections for everyone. This group uses trigger warnings to safeguard victims and the sensitive. Creates safe spaces for minority or underprivileged groups to speak or helps them make their own space. (Often amplifying their voices and advocating for them.) This group is interested in having more diversity of voices and perceptions everywhere. They want people of color, the LGBTQ+, religious minorities, the disabled, women, and others represented in government and media and want their voices heard. This group wants us to be respectful and considerate of others and would very much like it if we could all start caring about each other (and everybody really) as soon as possible. This group can be easily offended, extreme members of this group collect and accumulate special statuses excessively and they can be very obnoxious. Progressives often struggle to speak with people, not for them. Politically they're largely interested in: Anti-discrimination laws, a living wage, equal pay for equal work, paid family leave, women's health, accessible abortion services, wealth inequality, rising costs of education, universal health care, same sex marriage, and social services. (I'm on this side.) The Deplorables: a name I refer to them by, not out of any judgment on them, but because it is the moniker they appear to have widely embraced. If there is a better way to refer to or identify this group let me know and I'll change this. Again, acknowledging a lack of uniformity, (*builds strawman*) this group largely thinks we're all becoming a bunch of super sensitive babies and we need to toughen up and stop loving crying. They are contemptuous and condemning of political correctness, safe spaces, racial/social justice, etc. They equate reactions and criticism to their opinions and beliefs as censorship and an infringement on their right to free speech and view any inclusion or representation of others with hostility. (Often dismissing it as marketing or pandering.) They feel they are entitled to be edgy and insensitive and seem to revel in upsetting people and hurting their feelings. They speak their minds and tell it how it is and if you don't like it go gently caress yourself. This is Trump's America now, sugar! Grab 'em by the pussy! MAGA!! Politically this group is interested in: Jobs, helping the struggling (white) working class, guns, states rights, freedom of religion (not yours, Muslim  ), getting those icky illegal immigrants out of 'merica, law and order ( ), and ending free handouts because it creates dependency. Hard work, giftedness or talent are the keys to success. (Bootstraps, etc!)This group is not to be lumped in with the Alt Right/White Nationalists. Because, while there is significant overlap, I believe the Deplorables animosity towards the other is largely due to misinformation, a lack of familiarity and contact with the other, and ignorance. I feel that, with proper outreach and education, we can help these people realize that the folks they don't like, fear, and blame everything on are actually people same as them and in the same loving poo poo pile they are. Whereas the Alt Right/White Nationalists are consummate racists who truly hate all kinds of people and there is no reasoning with them. They're just awful people and literal Nazis. (*stands back and admires her strawman.*) In general I think this "toughen up, pussy" movement from the Deplorables is ostensibly a conservative backlash to the sweeping progressive gains we have made as a society and our continued push towards a safer, more accepting and tolerant country. The progressive gains we have made (examples: woman's suffrage, birth control, working women, civil rights, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and same sex marriage, just to name a few) are largely stable and secure. To strip these gains back would be a hard fought battle and, while I don't doubt that is an aspiration for some, the general sentiment seems to be to stem the tide if not stop it entirely. It is all very, "Enough is enough." (My perspective.) In pushing for change people like me are trying to build the world and future we want (in comparison to the world and future they want.) We don't want to live in their world because it is oppressive and restrictive and really only benefits them and people like them (but, ha ha, not really. We'll get to that.) But they don't want to live in our world because our desire for a world where everyone can thrive and be respected is somehow oppressive and restrictive on them. It is this belief and opinion, that a demand for consideration and sensitivity, that respect of another person, is oppressive. And that this population of individuals feel they are losing something by the addition of more diverse voices and more tolerance that troubles me the most. That a more tolerant, accepting, and loving society is more oppressive and restrictive when it is anything but. It is my opinion that the Deplorables aren't really suffering with things the way they are now. (Not to the extent the others are at any rate.) And they feel that things like Affirmative Action and Non-Discrimination policies actually shut the door on them and limit their opportunities. They are more concerned with safeguarding their own quality of life than making a better place for everyone. This sucks and is really lovely. Without a doubt there really are only so many lucrative and cushy positions in thriving companies or space in colleges or in highly desirable fields and yes, every person that is not you is technically a loss for you. There is nothing wrong with wanting a place for you. But what the Deplorables seem to fail to realize is what society gains as a whole by having these diverse voices and perspectives involved. (Also even if they shut the door on all the other people there still wouldn't be enough room for all of them.) And when minority groups start to learn the tricks to succeed in the system they change the game and move the goal posts because every success for someone not them is a loss for them. (Example: Entry into good colleges being based on academic success and achievement. When Asians started competing they changed it to requiring extra curriculars as well. When Asians started going into music, debate, chess club, etc they started pushing for emphasis in sports and athletics.) It is this that I really want to focus on. That the Deplorables feel they are losing something when others succeed. It's a huge problem. I believe they find our push for diversity and equality objectionable largely because of this. They aren't really seeing the big picture of what we gain when these other groups gain influence, rights, and privileges. That every LGBTQ+, person of color, woman, religious minority or other minority group that has a voice and representation is NOT one less person speaking for them, but one more person speaking WITH them. What world do the Deplorables want? Apparently one that makes the ultra rich even richer and utterly shits on the poor while doing next to nothing for the Deplorables? But seriously, I have no idea and I would really like to know. Because the world we have now is one where prosperity and comfort is bought, not earned. Where a quality life is conditional and not acquired though merit or achievement but through luck. (No really, the real key to success is either being born into it or have connections -- to know a guy who knows a guy to get the right eyes on you then be fortunate enough to be picked. A person can work hard and excel and do many things to improve their chances of standing out and being noticed but it ultimately requires being picked, that's luck.) Where wealth and influence is hoarded and leveraged by a elite select few who are so removed from us that their wants and needs are diametrically opposed to our own. Where the wealthy people thrive and dominate while the gifted, talented and hard working people roll the loving dice. Where one chronic illness or terrible accident can pull the rug right out from under a person. And where the poorer and less fortunate people suffer. And that can't really be what they want, right? From what I see, this Class War is about different/opposing views on how the world should be. But is whatever the Deplorables want truly the way forward? I personally feel we've gotten much better as a people and as a society because of all these progressive gains and that the way forward is to become even more caring. But what do I know. What is a better world to you? What should a better world be? What world do you want?
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
Seems you've already figured out what's wrong with Trump supporters (according to you), what's the point of this thread?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
Yes, yes, but what about the frog?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Kraps posted:Seems you've already figured out what's wrong with Trump supporters (according to you), what's the point of this thread? For you to defend your ideology my good chum! What do you people want? And I do mean honestly want, not the "politically correct" version where we all just dogwhistle "Prosperity for Americans" and pretend it means all of us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Well at least you admit it's a strawman! I think you allude to a more correct understanding in your title - these "deplorables" and "progressives" are inheritors of an ongoing cultural divide in America that's been deliberately fostered by the US Republican party to win votes but is ultimately based on the human need to signal in- and out-groups and behave accordingly. Contrary to your opener, I suspect this is basically a uniquely American problem and even within the Anglosphere similar 'culture wars' are going to express themselves differently and have different root factors at work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
OP I'm struggling to figure out how to engage with your post. You would probably call me a deplorable, yet we probably also agree on a lot of this and many of these things are important to me. quote:Anti-discrimination laws, a living wage, equal pay for equal work, paid family leave, women's health, accessible abortion services, wealth inequality, rising costs of education, universal health care, same sex marriage, and social services. I believe very strongly that this: quote:No really, the real key to success is either being born into it or have connections -- to know a guy who knows a guy to get the right eyes on you then be fortunate enough to be picked. A person can work hard and excel and do many things to improve their chances of standing out and being noticed but it ultimately requires being picked, that's luck. Is sort of true but less true than this: quote:Hard work, giftedness or talent are the keys to success. And that this comic expresses a fundamental truth that any policy to tackle the things quoted above needs to acknowledge. Where does that leave us?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
You're setting up a false dichotomy here, there are more than 2 sides to this conflict, in fact there are at least 4. Observe:
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You're setting up a false dichotomy here, there are more than 2 sides to this conflict, in fact there are at least 4. Observe: There are also no poo poo people in the middle, centrists, independents whatever you'd like to call them. People who take a little from column A and a little from column B. I suspect these are the people who really stayed home in droves this past election and is a group both sides seem unwilling to engage on any serious level. Also yeah that OP is kind of ponderous too because it opens like it's going to foster a discussion between the two sides and closes with a manifesto on what you think your opposition stands for. I would be surprised if any of the few conservatives on this forum engage you in this, and probably for good reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
5. The cynics so disgusted with mainstream politics that they've checked out completely; the ones who didn't see anything more than a superficial difference between Trump and Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Jenner posted:It is my opinion that the Deplorables aren't really suffering with things the way they are now. (Not to the extent the others are at any rate.) And they feel that things like Affirmative Action and Non-Discrimination policies actually shut the door on them and limit their opportunities. They are more concerned with safeguarding their own quality of life than making a better place for everyone. This sucks and is really lovely. People aren't really big on the whole "sacrifice for the sake of society" thing. Sometimes they choose to, but they don't appreciate being forced to, and they certainly don't see the social benefit as proper compensation for their loss - especially since they're often convinced that the supposed social benefit is bullshit someone cooked up as a lame excuse to deprive them of what they rightly deserve. A more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity might benefit society as a whole, but that's no comfort to the people who benefited from the existing inequities. The deplorables feel that their prosperity and comfort was earned, and that anyone could earn it. They believe in meritocracy and long ago rationalized or repressed anything that contradicted that. They believe that everything they've accomplished has been the result of their own efforts, and interpret accusations of privilege as being told that all their hard work and stress didn't matter one bit. Moreover, they're being told that things they've said or done for decades are now offensive or racist, and since they believe that racists are bad people, they rebel against that because basically no one thinks of themselves as a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Not really sure how to approach your points OP, but by the metric of a lot of people I'm a cucked SJW. I like social democracy and treating people with respect I guess. At least in Norway many outspoken elements of the establishment far right (as part of the coalition of parties that currently rules the country) has been relatively successful in casting themselves as victims of a conspiracy they label the "tyranny of virtue/goodness" that is a hysterical reaction grounded in slavish adherence to political correctness to what they view as rational concerns - according to them. I think it is a fascinating aspect of being far-right in this country, that you can view yourself as a put-upon victim of oppression in that you are not able to discriminate against (or in their view, speak the truth about) others without facing social sanctions or losing your job. It's bizarro-world stuff to me, but I'm sure eventual "deplorables" in this thread will put me straight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:People aren't really big on the whole "sacrifice for the sake of society" thing. Sometimes they choose to, but they don't appreciate being forced to, and they certainly don't see the social benefit as proper compensation for their loss - especially since they're often convinced that the supposed social benefit is bullshit someone cooked up as a lame excuse to deprive them of what they rightly deserve. A more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity might benefit society as a whole, but that's no comfort to the people who benefited from the existing inequities. I think that's a pretty big flaw in Privilege Theory. Casting any gain by black people as a loss for white people is not a great way to get white people on-board with anti-racism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I think that's a pretty big flaw in Privilege Theory. Casting any gain by black people as a loss for white people is not a great way to get white people on-board with anti-racism. On the other hand, solipsists like you are good for nothing, so antiracism seems fine without ya.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
It's just not even true. Neither is the assumption that people are unwilling to sacrifice. They do, all the time, they just don't want to get screwed while doing it, they want to get treated fairly. It's rare to find someone who doesn't want to support the elderly or disabled financially, because they know that if/when they're in the same position, they'll get help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:On the other hand, solipsists like you are good for nothing, so antiracism seems fine without ya. What?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:What? Your post considers the truthfulness of the theory as irrelevant. Someone indifferent to whether something accurately describes reality or not and who cares about whether it makes them feel good in their tummy is a solipsist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Your post considers the truthfulness of the theory as irrelevant. Someone indifferent to whether something accurately describes reality or not and who cares about whether it makes them feel good in their tummy is a solipsist. If you seriously think that white people would be worse off in a less racist society, then isn't it logical for white people to support racism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:If you seriously think that white people would be worse off in a less racist society, then isn't it logical for white people to support racism? Only if you are indifferent to evil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
gamergate
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
How in the hell do you even arrive at the idea that life's a zero-sum game where in order to win others must lose? That's literally the logic Trump operates on and it's complete bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FROG?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:If you seriously think that white people would be worse off in a less racist society, then isn't it logical for white people to support racism? FactsAreUseless posted:Aside from the moral argument: Because not everyone in your life is going to be in the same race/gender/socioeconomic bracket. So even if you benefit from your privilege, people you care about are affected negatively by it. This has two immediate impacts: 1. The lives of people who care about are worse and 2. you will end up having to help care for those people. If a friend of yours can't find a place to live because they're black and gay, and they crash on your couch, that has a direct impact (economic and otherwise) on your life. If your wife or girlfriend can't get good medical care because her insurance doesn't cover an issue specific to women, that has a direct economic impact on your life. If your mother or daughter or sister makes less money because of her gender, that will have an economic impact on your life, direct or indirect. Privilege is only unequivocally beneficial if you surround yourself ONLY with others in your demographic: hence the rise of movements like Men Going Their Own Way, who seek to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I think that's a pretty big flaw in Privilege Theory. Casting any gain by black people as a loss for white people is not a great way to get white people on-board with anti-racism. Enriching white people to the detriment of everyone else is literally the point of racism. It's essentially why racism was invented. There's hardly any point in tap-dancing around it because anyone with a brain is already well aware, and combating racism has always come at the detriment of some group of white people because the literal, actual, specific purpose of racism was to elevate white people at the expense of minorities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Enriching white people to the detriment of everyone else is literally the point of racism. It's essentially why racism was invented. There's hardly any point in tap-dancing around it because anyone with a brain is already well aware, and combating racism has always come at the detriment of some group of white people because the literal, actual, specific purpose of racism was to elevate white people at the expense of minorities. Change that to "Enriching a specific subset of white people while setting workers against each other" and I'm onboard. If you seriously think Joe Sixpack is making a material sacrifice by not being as racist as his bosses want, then the bosses' zero-sum narrative wins and the worldview that legitimises racism and allows racists to operate is reinforced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Enriching white people to the detriment of everyone else is literally the point of racism. It's essentially why racism was invented. There's hardly any point in tap-dancing around it because anyone with a brain is already well aware, and combating racism has always come at the detriment of some group of white people because the literal, actual, specific purpose of racism was to elevate that group of white people at the expense of minorities. Who specifically is *that group* of white people? This is an activist's take on racism, and it's both pretty dumb and the exact sort of thing that causes people who would otherwise go "hey you have some good points" to instead look at your side and go "nah".
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:I wrote about this in the feminism thread, but basically the benefits of privilege/racial bias for members of the majority aren't that clear-cut. I wrote these in the context of feminism, but the argument applies to racial issues. I disagree with the notion that there are downsides to anti-racism for white people. I am not materially harmed if cops shoot fewer black people. I do not lose "privilege" if black people aren't imprisoned at a disproportionately higher rate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
The idea that anti-racism is a sacrifice is some backslapping liberal philanthropic bullshit that reframes what should be solidarity as an act of charity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Change that to "Enriching a specific subset of white people while setting workers against each other" and I'm onboard. If you seriously think Joe Sixpack is making a material sacrifice by not being as racist as his bosses want, then the bosses' zero-sum narrative wins and the worldview that legitimises racism and allows racists to operate is reinforced. Racism predates capitalist economic relations, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Rigging an SA threat to inherently favor a "xulture wae". When do the RT quotes start coming in
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I do not lose "privilege" if black people aren't imprisoned at a disproportionately higher rate. Inasmuch as you're then competing socially and economically with more people of colour who haven't been turned into a permanent underclass through the correctional system, you do. It's still the right thing to do, and any negative impact on you or me or other white people is far outweighed by the huge benefit to people of colour, but it is not completely inconsequential to white people. It's just that, if you as a white person are concerned about that impact to your privilege to the point you would support continuing to incarcerate people of colour at a disproportionate rate, you're an objectively awful person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Our expanding for-profit prison system and painfully overtaxed criminal justice system are not concerns? We're flirting with slavery in all but name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Racism predates capitalist economic relations, though. Are we talking systemic, institutionalised racism here or individual racial prejudice? The former I think really emerged with colonialism and the advent of the transatlantic slave trade whereas the latter has probably existed in some form since forever. Either way the perpetuation of the latter in modern times has mostly been a result of the former in order to protect the economic interests of a white elite -- undeniably primarily to the detriment of the minority population but also to the detriment of the lower class white population. Racism is a scapegoating tactic and an attempt to legitimise hierarchy and is harmful to the vast bulk of the proletariat, be they the ethnic minority or majority, due to it hamstringing class consciousness and solidarity. We've just seen an election where racial prejudice was a large motivator in lower class whites voting against their own economic interests, which sort of supports the view that white supremacy is not beneficial to the vast bulk of the white proletariat and that shedding it might actually be a good idea even from a wholely self-interested perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Because globalization is an awful system that destroys rural community and increases the economic divides within society for the sake of GDP growth, and the only people willing to stand up agasint it are populist nationalistic assholes like Trump or true left wing socialists like Bernie/Corbyn. The difference being that Trump survived his own party's backstabbing vs Bernie who did not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:I wrote about this in the feminism thread, but basically the benefits of privilege/racial bias for members of the majority aren't that clear-cut. I wrote these in the context of feminism, but the argument applies to racial issues. Given how segregated much of America is, it isn't unreasonable to expect someone to have minimal contact with other groups. For many white Americans, what little contact they have with minorities is mediated through a police force that is designed to ensure that de facto segregation continues. Minorities won't be crashing on their coach as friends. They'll either be getting arrested as a function of segregation or working menial labor jobs to further the middle class suburban lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
The economic self-interest of white workers should be solidarity with other workers. You're going to have an easier time making them aware of this fact, than trying to argue that it makes them worse off, but that they should do it anyway (because you're just affirming a completely false narrative). Like the excuse seems to be that an expansion of the labor supply necessitates that white laborers should lose, but that expansion also comes with an expansion of the consumer class as well. If all workers are treated fairly, it's the rich who loses, no one else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Who specifically is *that group* of white people? Depends on what aspect of racism was being fought. For instance, preventing non-whites from voting was mostly done to protect and increase the political power of white elites. Redlining and other housing discrimination, on the other hand, largely served the white middle class by creating cleanly segregated geography so that money and investment could be directed away from minority neighborhoods and into white neighborhoods instead. The discriminatory implementation of much of the New Deal benefited poor and middle-class whites by allowing more of the money allocated to those programs to be spent on them. Combating racism is a sacrifice. However, it's a sacrifice in much the same way as bringing an unconscious person to the hospital instead of stealing their wallet and dumping them on the side of the road: it imposes a quantifiable cost by taking your time, gas, and money, but you should do it anyway because robbing, abusing, and endangering others for your own personal profit and convenience is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Are we talking systemic, institutionalised racism here or individual racial prejudice? The former I think really emerged with colonialism and the advent of the transatlantic slave trade whereas the latter has probably existed in some form since forever. Either way the perpetuation of the latter in modern times has mostly been a result of the former in order to protect the economic interests of a white elite -- undeniably primarily to the detriment of the minority population but also to the detriment of the lower class white population. Racism is a scapegoating tactic and an attempt to legitimise hierarchy and is harmful to the vast bulk of the proletariat, be they the ethnic minority or majority, due to it hamstringing class consciousness and solidarity. We've just seen an election where racial prejudice was a large motivator in lower class whites voting against their own economic interests, which sort of supports the view that white supremacy is not beneficial to the vast bulk of the white proletariat and that shedding it might actually be a good idea even from a wholely self-interested perspective. Race isn't ethnicity, and actually predates the Triangle Trade somewhat. But you're insisting that all that matters is vulgar Marxist understandings of economics, neglecting how race serves to create an elite and how the elimination of racism would destroy that elite status.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Go to your university and pick up a cheap used copy of Black Marxism. It is a canonical text and very relevant to the discussion at hand. http://www.aaihs.org/the-lasting-legacy-of-black-marxism/ Some good discussion to be found at the link, which is better than 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Say you're right and anti-racism is a material sacrifice that will adversely effect even lower class white people in meaningful ways, thus making it some honourable sacrifice that it's morally imperative they undertake. How do you sell that to the vast bulk of people, many of whom feel that even as things stand -- with the deck ostensibly stacked significantly in their favour -- that they're getting a raw deal? You can't wield this guilt-tripping idea that poor whites are the enemy of progress and hope to change their minds with it, all you do is feed their own persecution narrative and further entrench whatever prejudices they have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
TomViolence posted:Say you're right and anti-racism is a material sacrifice that will adversely effect even lower class white people in meaningful ways, thus making it some honourable sacrifice that it's morally imperative they undertake. How do you sell that to the vast bulk of people, many of whom feel that even as things stand -- with the deck ostensibly stacked significantly in their favour -- that they're getting a raw deal? You can't wield this guilt-tripping idea that poor whites are the enemy of progress and hope to change their minds with it, all you do is feed their own persecution narrative and further entrench whatever prejudices they have. How do you sell people on the idea they shouldn't murder?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 18:06
|
|