Do you know any poor white people?

[BundouYMB]

I guess I have two poor-hating democrats now, NY ass hat Millennial, Ice #Hillary for Life Spear, both of them are Hillary supporters who would have thunk.

And if you are a leftist, and berate poor voters, for whatever reason you should honestly just stick to your liberal hypocrisy. The comments made by Ice Spear is disgusting, and things like this, to which working class voters believe that the democratic party  thinks of them is, is why TRUMP is crushing the GOP field due to blue-collar votes.

wow rly makes u think huh

Maybe if you had even the slightest idea of what growing up with a jobless single-parent is like, you'd understand why I have nothing but contempt for inbred Appalachian hicks who literally sh**t away their votes at politicians who have no interests but "muh guns", "muh abortion", "muh cultural values", and "it's dat dang ol' ns fault!" on their mind.

I don't owe these idiots any sort of respect or ing coddling for being poor, nor did I at any point ever expect anybody to owe me any respect or coddling for it.

So yeah, as an answer to the thread, I do: Myself before 25 and most of my family to this day. But continue to tell me of all people that Appalachian hicks are owed some sort of free pass or special attention.

You are an ass hat, a complete ass hat, you display a wholly ing lord of classim, that is worse than the ing tory conservatives.

You might not like what IceSpear or NY said but at least they said something. Their comments had, you know, content. Would you like to try, I don't know, rebutting that? Or just clutch your pearls and spam every thread with "OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[BundouYMB]

I challenge anyone to drive through Eastern Washington or Northern Idaho and claim that the people there enjoy any kind of "white privilege." The intersectional-heavy rhetoric you see from the campus left and Salon-esque sources these days are dangerous not because they prevent downscale whites in the South from voting Democrat - that ship sailed decades ago - but because they color the policy prescriptions offered by progressive politicians who, outside of (to his credit) Bernie Sanders seem desperate to be never seen helping rural voters (middle-class, urban liberal whites have all kinds of policy demands Democrats are quick to cave to including but not limited to higher minimum wage, rent control, mass transit, social policies, etc. All of which I am supportive of, but still).

It should also be pointed out that there are plenty of poor or downscale whites who don't live in Appalachia but in cities and suburbs who are not culturally "poor white" as many modern progressives think of it, and these men and women certainly don't suffer from any privilege themselves.

I've literally lived in poor, rural, 99% white areas all my life so I think I'm entitled to my opinion. You, however, apparently drove through Idaho once and now you think you're the God appointed defender of working class whites, which I guess says everything anyone needs to know about this forum.

And when NY said that attitude was much more condescending then anything he said he was telling the truth.

[BundouYMB]

I challenge anyone to drive through Eastern Washington or Northern Idaho and claim that the people there enjoy any kind of "white privilege." The intersectional-heavy rhetoric you see from the campus left and Salon-esque sources these days are dangerous not because they prevent downscale whites in the South from voting Democrat - that ship sailed decades ago - but because they color the policy prescriptions offered by progressive politicians who, outside of (to his credit) Bernie Sanders seem desperate to be never seen helping rural voters (middle-class, urban liberal whites have all kinds of policy demands Democrats are quick to cave to including but not limited to higher minimum wage, rent control, mass transit, social policies, etc. All of which I am supportive of, but still).

It should also be pointed out that there are plenty of poor or downscale whites who don't live in Appalachia but in cities and suburbs who are not culturally "poor white" as many modern progressives think of it, and these men and women certainly don't suffer from any privilege themselves.

I've literally lived in poor, rural, 99% white areas all my life so I think I'm entitled to my opinion. You, however, apparently drove through Idaho once and now you think you're the God appointed defender of working class whites, which I guess says everything anyone needs to know about this forum.

And when NY said that attitude was much more condescending then anything he said he was telling the truth.

I live a few miles from the Idaho border and have spent considerable time there, nor am I "defending" poor whites. I'm not attacking them, either, nor did I at any point attack your opinion. Jeez.

Yeah, yeah you are. Let's be clear about this. When you blame "intersectional-heavy rhetoric you see from the campus left and Salon-esque sources" for "[coloring] the policy prescriptions offered by progressive politicians" you're both being incredible condescending towards and defending poor, rural whites at the same time.

You're being condescending because you're saying that maybe if we use slightly different words to couch our policies there will be some great proverbial come-to-Jesus moment where rural voters will start voting in progressive politicians, like people in Appalachia, or the south, or Idaho, or wherever are all just that ing stupid and don't have informed, deeply & sincerely held conservative beliefs about what's right for America.

These people are conservatives. If you put a white, male left-wing farmer on TV and have him couch everything in conservative buzz words it won't change anything. As long as he holds the same sets of policy positions as other Democrats, he'll still lose. You, and other people in this thread, have no idea how ing condescending it sounds to act like poor, rural whites are not just as informed and educated in voting in the politicians they vote in as you lot in the suburbs. They are.

You're defending them, because by blaming "intersectional-heavy rhetoric you see from the campus left and Salon-esque sources" for "[coloring] the policy prescriptions offered by progressive politicians" you're letting them off the hook for the things they say, do, and support. If they vote in racist, vile politicians like Donald Trump, or God knows how many other examples, they have no responsibility. It's all the fault of the "campus left" (you know, the Democratic base) and their "intersectional-heavy rhetoric" for alienating them, for not sucking up to them hard enough, or it's societies fault, or whatever. Of course, no one has to pander to the nasty "campus left" to get them not to vote in vile people...

It might sound crazy to hear this from a Democrat, but I do believe in a degree of self responsibility. I do understand how hard it is growing up in rural areas, in trailer parks, and I hope to God the Democratic party represents the interests of poor, rural whites, even if they don't vote for us (and they never will.) HOWEVER, I do not believe in always letting people off the hook for their actions. These poor, rural whites are ideological conservatives, they're educated, they know what they're doing, and a lot of them are great people. I've known racists who were great husbands, brought their wives flowers every weekend, great fathers, volunteered, ect.

Again though, a lot of them are racists. A lot of them are sexists. And they are ideological conservatives. And in those respects, they're vile. It's not the Democratic party's fault, or anyone else's responsibility when they vote in racist, sexist, conservative politicians. The voters who elect these politicians are responsible for them. And they have to be called out, they have to be criticized. And I'm sick to ing death of seeing Democrats, in the Democratic ing party, which is supposed to stand up against racism constantly bending over backwards to make excuses for these people. Just, please, stop.

Rant over.

[BundouYMB]

[snip]

My critique is that dismissing their plight under he guise of "white privilege" hurts progressivism as much as it hurts the rural poor. It is morally unacceptable to rationalize that it is okay to help one marginalized group but dismiss another because they have "white privilege" or are "racist." I do not think that was your point, at least I did not interpret it as such, but that's the vibe I got from some other posters.

I understand what you're saying then, and I think it's fair. I think that looking at the typical poor, white, racist rural voter it's fair to say that they've been exploited in a lot of ways in their life, and that's terrible, but that doesn't mean white privilege doesn't also exist and that they haven't benefited from it some ways while still remaining a member of a poor and marginalized group. I hope that's not me dismissing their plight.

And, like I said, from the bottom of my heart I hope the Democratic addresses those issues and represents poor, rural whites even if they don't vote for us.

However, what you're saying is not the vibe I got from some other posters and that's why I reacted so strongly. The vibe I was getting was that because rural, poor whites are exploited in some ways that absolves them of responsibility for their actions, whether that's what they say, what they do, or who they vote for. Some people in this thread, to me, seem perfectly happy to bend over backwards to make excuses for blatant racism on that basis. I want the Democratic party to try to do right by poor, rural whites but I also want it to be unafraid to call out racism and sexism, not shuffle their feet and make excuses.

[BundouYMB]

This idea that poor Appalachian whites are not only racist--which many or most are--but so racist that the only way to win their votes is to be seen to be screwing over minorities is, uh, it sure is something.

The thing you need to understand is that a lot of posters here are completely ignorant about the society in which they live and assume that the crudest stereotypes are the plainest truths. Sometimes the results are bizarre; in this thread we have a curious conflation of 'poor white' with both 'rural' and (implicitly) with 'fundamentalist'. The latter in particular is hilariously dubious.

I don't per se disagree with the thrust of what you've been saying, but you're being too extreme in the opposite direction from IceSpear. It's not a "crude stereotype" to say that the average rural, poor white guy (notice I'm not conflating poor white and rural in this comment -- I'm using rural as an important modifier) is usually a bit racist and a bit sexist. I'm speaking from actual experience when I say that (no offense, but you're British. You haven't lived in these places.) That's just... reality. Doesn't mean they're terrible people (they're usually brought into the attitudes they have via their parents, and ofc most of the areas we're talking about are 100% white so there's nothing in their lives to challenge the preconceptions they get) or that they should be sold down the road policy wise, but let's not be naive here.

Rural, poor whites in Appalachia (again, note the use of the words "rural" and "in Appalachia") should be championed by the Democratic party, yes, but shouldn't do it uncritically IMO. These areas are also bastions of racism and sexism, which the Democratic party has to tackle as well, because we also stand up against those things. We can't just turn a blind eye and let it off the hook because the people who live in these areas are poor.

When you write things like...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

... it makes it sound like you just want everyone to wave their hands and accept all the nasty stuff you see in Appalachia on the basis of life in Appalachia being "a struggle." Like most things in life, it's a bit more grey then that. I've lived in rural, poor 99% white areas all my life and yeah, life's a struggle, but it doesn't solely account or excuse all the bigotry and general cultural degeneratism. There's definitely fair criticism that can be leveled at the fine people of Appalachia. And if you can't accept that, then I'd seriously question what kind of progressive are you? Tone it down.

[BundouYMB]

Whereas the average suburban, rich white guy is totally free of racist and sexist sentiment? Nonsense. Trash. Rubbish.

That is absolutely not what I was saying at all. We're just not talking about suburban, rich white guys right now (I could say a lot about them -- very little positive. )

Its true that I have never lived in the United States, but a) this does not actually invalidate any observations made (it just means they are those of an outside observer; I have never claimed else, incidentally), and b) I think you'll find that most Western societies have a surprising amount in common, at least in certain respects...

I'm sure that's true, in certain respects, but I have the feeling Appalachia is in many ways culturally unique and I'd be surprised if there was anywhere quite like eastern Tennessee in the UK.

I'd argue that the role of a political party is to win elections and implement policy not to wave a moralising finger at the public, but then that's American Liberalism for you, I guess.

Appalachia is not part of the Democratic party's winning electoral coalition in 2016, so in this case the two don't conflict!

What an utterly bizarre tangent. In that instance I was responding to the belittling of economic hardship and was not commenting on social attitudes (I'm not the sort of sub-Marxist idiot who pins the blame for any that he dislikes on material factors because I'm not living in the 1970s) and nothing else.

Ah, that's good to know then.

Well I'm not, so all is good

I'd hope that whatever you'd call yourself you'd be against, well, all the sorts of stuff you see in Appalachia, making the thrust of the question still valid.

Death first.

xd