Do you know any poor white people?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[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.

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've had people tell me that I should be more sympathetic to points of view like IceSpear's because my mother and I have gone from poverty to wealth over the course of my childhood so I Know It Can Be Done. But what that experience actually told me is that it's hard, it's rare, American class divides put up a hell of a lot of resistance even as they give way, and a lot of it is sheer dumb luck. It's true that my mother and I are the only two people I've ever met who've actually lived on food stamps at one point and stock dividends ten years later, but we are the only two.

[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.

[IceSpear]

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.

Yes, because a socialist from the UK is an expert on American society. LOL. It's amusing how your feelings are so hurt from me supposedly acting "superior", when your hubris and pretentiousness practically leaks from every sentence you type. Get over yourself.

I don't see what voting or non voting has to do with anything. Ask 100 non voters what they think about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, and I guarantee most will have an opinion.

Your 60s example proves my point. Whether or not it was a "good thing" that everybody got their news from the same source or not is irrelevant. The point is, for the most part, people were operating in a cohesive reality. In many partisan echo chambers, facts are outright denied and lies are thought of as gospel. Anyone who disagrees will either be shunned or banned, perpetuating the echo chamber. I mean, for god's sake, some Ron Paul supporters were insistent he'd win the nomination up until the day of the RNC in 2012! The cult mentality is scary. People are increasingly seeing all Democrats and Republicans as the same. There are counter examples obviously, but the underlying trend is undeniable.

You had a pretty good summary of what the party is about. It has nothing to do with heirarchy, you dunce. Do a substantial portion of blacks want to inflict harm upon or discriminate against poor Appalachian whites? No? Then it's not equivalent.

Not a single Appalachian district voted Democratic in 2008 unless they already had a Democratic incumbent. But then, it was all theory. Only once the black guy actually took office and reality hit did they turn their back on the Democratic Party for good.

[IceSpear]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, because a socialist from the UK is an expert on American society. LOL.

If in doubt shout 'HE'S NOT EVEN FROM ROUND HERE. I know that one of old. Generally I regard it as an admission of defeat. Indeed a quick scan of your latest reply reveals that you are continuing to not actually engage with any of the criticism I've leveled at you (I would be particularly interested as to why you chose to include a picture of a woman - who clearly you find to be amusingly disgusting physically - in your little photographic essay, and then went on about how all the criticism directed at you came about because 'well white men would defend white men wouldn't they', hmm...?), which would appear to confirm that further.

As to further points, I would never claim to be an expert (just a reasonably well-informed and eternally curious outside observer), and my political leanings aren't at all relevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you've ever wondered why it is that people don't seem to like you very much then perhaps you should re-read that nasty little passage above. Profoundly unpleasant. It also reads as really clunky, btw.

Though I regret to inform you that you have not hurt my feelings and that I have commented on your obvious superiority complex based on a) distaste and b) bemusement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Possibly, but that doesn't make them political (particularly as Trump is literally a Reality TV Star and, frankly, Clinton might as well be).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the point is that a) before the interwar years (i.e. when American elections came to be mostly fought on the radio) the voter was far more hermetically sealed than today (to an extent that is actually quite hard to grasp, I'd argue), that b) the 'nationalisation' of the American electoral landscape was a product of the radio and of the television and so is really not a recent phenomenon, and that c) you can't seriously argue that on the one hand voters are far more locked into their own truths than ever before and also that the parties are increasingly seen as the same by all voters anywhere. That is simply not possible.

None of this is all that relevant to the issue at hand, but it doesn't demonstrate that you're no so sharp, so that's fine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're arguing that some forms of disadvantage are more worthy of attention than others (and implicitly that some are not worth bothering with at all), which...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you have any evidence that a wish to harm or discriminate against black people is a major issue for poor white people in Appalachia? There are basically no black people there. Is racist sentiment there common? Sure, but then this is America (and the American South to boot). Is there any evidence that poor people in the region are more racist than the majority who are not poor, at least as far as that word would be understood locally? None whatsoever.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

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

Of course its possible that he would be a little less crude in expressing it (at least while sober), but that's a different matter entirely.

And this is the knub of the matter, I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I'm not, so all is good

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Death first.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

That's a really unsupported anecdotal "fact" you're pushing there dude. 

[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