Do you know any poor white people?

[RR1997]

I know a lot of poor white people. I know a lot of poor people from every race.

I also know quite a few rich white people too.

[DC Al Fine]

chosen social issues over economic issue.

It's interesting that this is so often treated as such an obviously bad and stupid heuristic. In reality the issue is more likely simply that the views on social issues in question are seen as objectionable (some of them obviously ARE objectionable, of course; others are more debatable). You don't see this argument getting made against rich social liberals who vote for Democrats.

Moreover, social issues (depending on how you define it) can and do have material effects in some cases. If its 1970 and your 6 year old has a two hour bus commute in the name of integration, or if its 2005 and you have to compete with low skilled immigrant labour, your "best interests" isn't just a straight comparison of social programs and marginal tax rates.

[This account no longer in use.]

My vote is that we just burn this thread.

[bagelman]

My household may count, and if it doesn't than at least one of my cousins do.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think the unintelligent person is the one who has no concept of political coalitions. A political party cannot be all things to all people. There's no reason to try to appeal to people who believe the polar opposite of what your party stands for.

The history of the Democratic Party would tend to suggest that it is absolutely possible for a political party to be all things to all people, but that isn't the issue here and you're only raising it to distract attention away from your appalling arguments... if posting ugly stereotypes and going QED actually counts as an argument at all, and I'm not really convinced on that point.

But let us pretend that you have constructed an actual argument rather than engaged in a display of pure unpalatable snobbery. Your argument would appear to be that all poor white people (however defined) are loyal Republicans and firm ideological conservatives, yes? This is laughable. Most poor white people do not vote (abstention rates amongst this loosely defined group have increased markedly in recent decades) and even in the part of the USA that you have decided is the only relevant one as regards this discussion (which is dubious) it is really, really questionable to make claims about partisan loyalty or ideological uniformity.

And then there's the question of 'what your party stands for' - well, what do you think it stands for? Historically the Democratic Party in all of its many and variegated incarnations has always claimed to stand against privilege and on the side of ordinary people against vested interests. Loose as anything and at times a dark joke, but a consistent claim. Is this entirely consistent with the arguments that you have made in this thread I wonder?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Who said anything about being banned for being "anti hick?" It's about forum lynch mobs, not official responses.

Pretty much the only 'forum lynch mob' that I have ever seen (and I've been posting here for far too long) have been directed against posters with a habit of making homophobic (especially), racist and misogynistic remarks. You are basically creating an alternative reality in order to justify your persecution complex.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Had it ever occurred to you that you getting 'called out' after making obnoxious remarks is a reflection of the fact that you have made obnoxious remarks rather than that other people have weird hang-ups and are taking it out on you unreasonably? Like, if you don't like being called a dick have you maybe tried not being a dick?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but repeating a lie enough times does not magically transform said lie into the truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good old circular logic!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I just happen to live in the real world. For most people life is a struggle and it isn't their fault. If you can't accept this, what kind of 'progressive' are you, exactly?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's plausible. Empathy probably has a lot to do with it as well. It's a lot easier for white guys to empathize with other white guys than it is to do so with women, minorities, etc.

I notice that your charming little gallery includes a picture of a woman. Fail.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

After reading this thread, I'm wondering whether some Atlas users know any "people" at all.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

chosen social issues over economic issue.

It's interesting that this is so often treated as such an obviously bad and stupid heuristic. In reality the issue is more likely simply that the views on social issues in question are seen as objectionable (some of them obviously ARE objectionable, of course; others are more debatable). You don't see this argument getting made against rich social liberals who vote for Democrats.

I am not demonizing them at all for making that choice. Personally, I think it is silly, but for some voters, social issues are just more important then economic issues.

Well, simple: there's no such thing as "social" and "economic" issues.

[IceSpear]

I think the unintelligent person is the one who has no concept of political coalitions. A political party cannot be all things to all people. There's no reason to try to appeal to people who believe the polar opposite of what your party stands for.

The history of the Democratic Party would tend to suggest that it is absolutely possible for a political party to be all things to all people, but that isn't the issue here and you're only raising it to distract attention away from your appalling arguments... if posting ugly stereotypes and going QED actually counts as an argument at all, and I'm not really convinced on that point.

But let us pretend that you have constructed an actual argument rather than engaged in a display of pure unpalatable snobbery. Your argument would appear to be that all poor white people (however defined) are loyal Republicans and firm ideological conservatives, yes? This is laughable. Most poor white people do not vote (abstention rates amongst this loosely defined group have increased markedly in recent decades) and even in the part of the USA that you have decided is the only relevant one as regards this discussion (which is dubious) it is really, really questionable to make claims about partisan loyalty or ideological uniformity.

And then there's the question of 'what your party stands for' - well, what do you think it stands for? Historically the Democratic Party in all of its many and variegated incarnations has always claimed to stand against privilege and on the side of ordinary people against vested interests. Loose as anything and at times a dark joke, but a consistent claim. Is this entirely consistent with the arguments that you have made in this thread I wonder?

You keep going back to "historically" as a crutch. Times have changed. Back before the days of the internet and the 24/7 news cycle it might have been possible for Democrats and Republicans in certain regions of the country to run as the polar opposite of their national party and win elections easily. That's clearly no longer the case.

Uh, where did I say all poor white people are loyal Republicans/conservatives? Most clearly are in Appalachia though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky's_5th_congressional_district

One of the whitest, poorest, and most Republican congressional districts in the country. Other Appalachian areas are very similar. They can vote however they wish. I'm not the one begging on my hands and knees for them to see the light and vote Democratic because "it's what good for them!!!!!!!" Clearly they prioritize erm..."other issues" over their economic welfare, and they're well within their rights to do so. I think we shouldn't pander to people that are already locked in to the other party's base because it serves no purpose, and could even end up being a net negative by alienating the people who are already voting for you. Do you see Republicans trying to appeal to Bay Area hippies and radical leftists? Does it make them "arrogant snobs" that they don't? No, it makes them somewhat competent in politics.

[IceSpear]

Who said anything about being banned for being "anti hick?" It's about forum lynch mobs, not official responses.

Pretty much the only 'forum lynch mob' that I have ever seen (and I've been posting here for far too long) have been directed against posters with a habit of making homophobic (especially), racist and misogynistic remarks. You are basically creating an alternative reality in order to justify your persecution complex.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Had it ever occurred to you that you getting 'called out' after making obnoxious remarks is a reflection of the fact that you have made obnoxious remarks rather than that other people have weird hang-ups and are taking it out on you unreasonably? Like, if you don't like being called a dick have you maybe tried not being a dick?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but repeating a lie enough times does not magically transform said lie into the truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good old circular logic!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I just happen to live in the real world. For most people life is a struggle and it isn't their fault. If you can't accept this, what kind of 'progressive' are you, exactly?

Maybe you need new glasses. Very rarely does a lynch mob approach the scale of 7 pages. Keep trying though.

No, not really. It would be logically consistent to either be hypersensitive about everything or have an "anything goes" attitude. Sexist and racist comments tend to be glossed over unless they're extremely explicit, whereas the slightest insult against poor white Appalachian men creates a massive firestorm without fail. And you can call me a dick all you want. If posting a few Google Image "hick" pictures offends your delicate sensibilities so badly, perhaps therapy is in order? I'll get the safe space with warm milk and kittens ready.

You change the subject a lot. I never said life wasn't a struggle for many people, and obviously upward mobility has decreased. That's a problem that needs to be dealt with. But the fact remains that class is not immutable like race.

[Beet]

My vote is that we just burn this thread.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Oh God, I hate these comments and the poor white-hating done.

Yes, absolutely.  This is plain ignorance.  This is why Democrats have no hope of winning West Virginia.  This is why Matt Bevin is governor of Kentucky.  This is what is the matter with Kansas.  This is why George W. Bush won in 2000.   

Very true.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Class, at least as it relates to upbringing, is just as an immutable category as race. Doesn't mean that working class people can't become successful (just like African-Americans can beat the factors stacked against the, and become successful as well), but people born in poverty (especially where it is institutionalised) are always followed by its spectre. One doesn't have to be an timewarp-dwelling orthodox Marxist to undesrstand that.

And the Democrats need a plan to bring the white poor back from apathy. Part of it is moral - the party needs to be one of Social Justice, and poor whites are screwed over the system (I'm not going to get drawn into long pointless arguments about whether poor whites or blacks as a whole are more screwed, because it is fruitless). But part of it is logical - how will the Democrats ever win back the House if they can't connect with white poors?

You seem to be coming from the strange perspective that the white poor as a bulk only respond to crude racism, and winning the votes of white poor people and black people simultaneously is an impossible exercise or something. Which really doesn't hold water - the portrait being painted is of an "enlightened" middle-class that know racism is a folly and the silly working-class who need to hate teh blacks. Whereas Trumpism, for example, draws its strength from the middle-class just as much (if not more) than it does from the white working-class.

[Yank2133]

chosen social issues over economic issue.

It's interesting that this is so often treated as such an obviously bad and stupid heuristic. In reality the issue is more likely simply that the views on social issues in question are seen as objectionable (some of them obviously ARE objectionable, of course; others are more debatable). You don't see this argument getting made against rich social liberals who vote for Democrats.

I am not demonizing them at all for making that choice. Personally, I think it is silly, but for some voters, social issues are just more important then economic issues.

Well, simple: there's no such thing as "social" and "economic" issues.

Yeah....no.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You keep going back to "historically" as a crutch.

Not in the least. I use it to provide context. I apologise if this concept is new to you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is another very bad argument. Firstly, how many people do you think follow politics on the internet or watch 24hr news? And what do you think the demographic profile of the people who do those things tends to be? Secondly, are you aware that American elections have been totally dominated by the television since 1960? And are you aware of what the implications of this for a 'national message' are? I realise that you're just repeating stupid and ignorant arguments made by other people, but I don't think that's a great excuse. And lastly it is kind of irrelevant to the point I made, which was that the Democratic Party has always claimed to stand up for the interests of ordinary people against privilege and vested interests and that this claim has been basically its only consistent feature over the centuries. Your arguments in this thread, I am suggesting, don't really fit in very well with this. You seem to relish in the idea that you are socially superior to a particular group of people (representatives of whom you have presumably never actually met), and appear to ascribe to this some kind of political principle.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have very clearly implied as much. If you did not mean to then you should maybe read your posts over before submitting them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Created in its current form in 1992 from the old 5th district (which covered the south/central parts of the state; historically an area of subsistence agriculture and Republican since it stopped voting Whig) and most of the old 7th district (which covered the mining districts in the east of the state and was a Democratic Party bastion, held for decades by cunning old left-winger Carl D. Perkins who delighted in hoodwinking people who assumed that he was stupid because of his accent and manner). Held very safely by the an old fashioned shameless pork barrel politician (who happens to be a Republican) ever since, though had he randomly decided to retire (hah!) in say 2006 the district would have been vulnerable. Voting patterns in the west of the district very stable (very R), voting patterns in the east of it... less so. If there's hostility towards the national Democratic Party throughout the district (possible) then that would be a very recent development.

I.e. you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Maybe you need new glasses. Very rarely does a lynch mob approach the scale of 7 pages. Keep trying though.

This isn't a lynch mob (should I go all SJW at this point and berate you for the inappropriate nature of the comparison?), not at all. This is people telling you that you are wrong. Totally different thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And here he goes again just making sh!t up, presumably hoping that Tinkerbell will make it real.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And so the Great Progressive decides to head down the route of making sneering remarks about mental health. Doing well kiddo.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

[IceSpear]

You keep going back to "historically" as a crutch.

Not in the least. I use it to provide context. I apologise if this concept is new to you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is another very bad argument. Firstly, how many people do you think follow politics on the internet or watch 24hr news? And what do you think the demographic profile of the people who do those things tends to be? Secondly, are you aware that American elections have been totally dominated by the television since 1960? And are you aware of what the implications of this for a 'national message' are? I realise that you're just repeating stupid and ignorant arguments made by other people, but I don't think that's a great excuse. And lastly it is kind of irrelevant to the point I made, which was that the Democratic Party has always claimed to stand up for the interests of ordinary people against privilege and vested interests and that this claim has been basically its only consistent feature over the centuries. Your arguments in this thread, I am suggesting, don't really fit in very well with this. You seem to relish in the idea that you are socially superior to a particular group of people (representatives of whom you have presumably never actually met), and appear to ascribe to this some kind of political principle.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have very clearly implied as much. If you did not mean to then you should maybe read your posts over before submitting them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Created in its current form in 1992 from the old 5th district (which covered the south/central parts of the state; historically an area of subsistence agriculture and Republican since it stopped voting Whig) and most of the old 7th district (which covered the mining districts in the east of the state and was a Democratic Party bastion, held for decades by cunning old left-winger Carl D. Perkins who delighted in hoodwinking people who assumed that he was stupid because of his accent and manner). Held very safely by the an old fashioned shameless pork barrel politician (who happens to be a Republican) ever since, though had he randomly decided to retire (hah!) in say 2006 the district would have been vulnerable. Voting patterns in the west of the district very stable (very R), voting patterns in the east of it... less so. If there's hostility towards the national Democratic Party throughout the district (possible) then that would be a very recent development.

I.e. you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.

Uh, what exactly is your point here? Even people that loosely follow politics are exposed to the echo chambers of the 24/7 news cycle and the internet. We live in a day and age where you can pick your own reality and not be exposed to other arguments. Want Republican news? Turn on FOX. Democratic? MSNBC. Want to chat about your political views with people who think 99% the same as you? You're in luck, Free Republic and Daily Kos are just a few clicks away! It's a feedback loop that is one of the major factors (in fact, I'd argue the biggest factor) causing political polarization. For you to try to compare this situation to the media environment in the 60s because "TVs were around then!" is laughable idiocy, and another great example of why your antiquated historical examples are irrelevant.

Who said anything about superiority? I just think it makes no political sense to pander to those who are vehemently against what the party stands for. And by your own admission, a group of people that hold bigoted views and seek to further put down an oppressed minority (or minorities) have no place in a party that looks out for the downtrodden.

I didn't imply that all. I think you just need reading comprehension classes.

Hostility to the Democratic Party in districts like those has been brewing for decades now, but it only boiled over once Democrats nominated the black guy. Curious you chose 2006 to suggest a potentially competitive year. Coincidence, I'm sure.

[IceSpear]

Maybe you need new glasses. Very rarely does a lynch mob approach the scale of 7 pages. Keep trying though.

This isn't a lynch mob (should I go all SJW at this point and berate you for the inappropriate nature of the comparison?), not at all. This is people telling you that you are wrong. Totally different thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And here he goes again just making sh!t up, presumably hoping that Tinkerbell will make it real.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And so the Great Progressive decides to head down the route of making sneering remarks about mental health. Doing well kiddo.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

LMAO. And honestly yes, you probably should. Giving me a stern lecture about the term lynch mob would certainly be more justified than clutching your pearls about how I "denigrated mental health" by making a safe space joke.

[IceSpear]

Class, at least as it relates to upbringing, is just as an immutable category as race. Doesn't mean that working class people can't become successful (just like African-Americans can beat the factors stacked against the, and become successful as well), but people born in poverty (especially where it is institutionalised) are always followed by its spectre. One doesn't have to be an timewarp-dwelling orthodox Marxist to undesrstand that.

And the Democrats need a plan to bring the white poor back from apathy. Part of it is moral - the party needs to be one of Social Justice, and poor whites are screwed over the system (I'm not going to get drawn into long pointless arguments about whether poor whites or blacks as a whole are more screwed, because it is fruitless). But part of it is logical - how will the Democrats ever win back the House if they can't connect with white poors?

You seem to be coming from the strange perspective that the white poor as a bulk only respond to crude racism, and winning the votes of white poor people and black people simultaneously is an impossible exercise or something. Which really doesn't hold water - the portrait being painted is of an "enlightened" middle-class that know racism is a folly and the silly working-class who need to hate teh blacks. Whereas Trumpism, for example, draws its strength from the middle-class just as much (if not more) than it does from the white working-class.

In a sense, yes. But it's not the same thing. The distinctions between "old money" and "new money" are not anywhere near as prevalent today as they were in the past. If anything, the transition is beginning to favor people who earned their money over those who inherited it. Whereas the old saying "What do you call a black doctor? A (n-word)" is still very applicable to the present day. Just look at how the first black president has been treated.

Anyway, I don't think it can be stressed enough that I'm not referring to all poor white people here. There is a specific subset of poor whites in Appalachia that clearly have issues with race (not that the rest of the country doesn't, but acutely bad there.) When you're the party of diversity with a black leader, trying to win their votes is a fool's errand. And even if it wasn't for that, the fact that they're dependent on a dying and environmentally hazardous coal industry just makes it even more silly to try. West Virginia, Kentucky, and that entire region are as gone for the Democrats as Vermont is gone for the Republicans. That doesn't mean you should forget about them or pretend they don't exist though. Obamacare's success in coal country is a great example of that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Yank2133]

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.

It is not just racism though, it is the majority of the Democratic platform that a lot of them just don't agree with.

The Democrats would have to shift to the right on many key issues like gay marriage and gun control to get their votes and even that is questionable seeing what happened to the conservative wing of the party the last couple of election cycles.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

It is not just racism though, it is the majority of the Democratic platform that a lot of them just don't agree with.

The Democrats would have to shift to the right on many key issues like gay marriage and gun control to get their votes and even that is questionable seeing what happened to the conservative wing of the party the last couple of election cycles.

Gay marriage is going to fade from salience over the next few years. Gun control I'll grant you.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Uh, what exactly is your point here?

My point is that you are an ignorant idiot. I am demonstrating that you are an ignorant idiot with no understanding of the society in which you live in. I am demonstrating that for you all your pretense to the contrary that you are not on the Left, that you barely even belong within the political tradition (which has not always been left-wing at all) of the party that you support. That is my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah... newsflash: most people don't even loosely follow politics except when there's a big election on. This is the plain and simple truth of the matter. I mean only about half of American adults even vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To an extent this is true, but when wasn't it? I would argue (and I would be right to) that this was actually truer before the triumph of mass media; first the radio and then the television. The idea that the current period is unique in this respect is embarrassing ahistorical nonsense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only the seriously politically committed do any of these things. You should check out the viewing figures for 24hr news channels sometime; even the mighty Fox's figures are paltry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You really suck at arguing your case you know. In the 1960s the whole nation sat down at the same time of day (well, roughly) and watched the same news (well, roughly) as broadcast by a small handful of channels. Do I need to spell out the implications of this with regards to election campaigns and voting patterns? Because I don't think I should have to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You were the one who responded to this thread with a photo essay of unpleasant stereotypes and stated that you did not want the people depicted voting the same way as you. Feel free to try to wriggle out of that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what does the party stand for? I asked earlier and there was no response.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, a hierarchy of oppression now is it? Most amusing. But you don't seem to be very interested in looking out for the downtrodden if this thread is any indication. And you even seem a mite bigoted. I realise that you hate having the light shone on you and will respond to this with another whinge about lynch mobs, etc. Pathetic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And if this is the case why is it the case do you think?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really; similar districts fell in 2008 even if they didn't vote for Obama upticket.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

LMAO. And honestly yes, you probably should. Giving me a stern lecture about the term lynch mob would certainly be more justified than clutching your pearls about how I "denigrated mental health" by making a safe space joke.

Scratch a rich liberal, find a conservative in denial. Kind of amusing how often this turns out to be true.