Do you know any poor white people?

[IceSpear]

Bernie just lost West Virginia tonight. This crucial swing voter was very offended.

[IceSpear]

Bernie just lost West Virginia tonight. This crucial swing voter was very offended.

so your answer is "no" then.

? I must've missed the implication.

After consulting with my West Virginia focus group (pictures below), I've determined that they are unanimously switching from Bernie to prison inmate Keith Russell Judd. They would've considered De La Fuente but his name sounded far too "ethnic."

[IceSpear]

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.   

This forum is hilarious. How many different groups of people are constantly bashed here? Yet like clockwork, the second anyone takes aim at the hicks, droves of people start hyperventilating about how mean, insensitive, and cruel you are. lol

As for your post, GOOD! I don't want WV/KY in the Democratic coalition. Democrats being angst ridden about those places voting Republican is about as silly as if Republicans were angst ridden about not being able to appeal to socialists in Vermont or far left hippies in San Francisco. Oh wait, that wouldn't happen, since they're not retarded. If anything, bashing those places helps fire up their base and improve where they actually need to.

[IceSpear]

I see this forum's oddly specific boner for poor white Appalachian "populist" men (but not really populist, just generic right wingers) and making them "see the light"/vote Democratic is alive and well. Some things never change I guess.

[IceSpear]

I see this forum's oddly specific boner for poor white Appalachian "populist" men (but not really populist, just generic right wingers) and making them "see the light"/vote Democratic is alive and well. Some things never change I guess.

What do you mean?

I see you're new here. Many of the lefties/Democrats on this forum have some odd fascination with poor white Appalachian men, and are desperate to get them to vote Democratic by any means necessary. It's quite an odd phenomenon. As I said earlier, it would be like the GOP constantly pining for the days when Vermont was a red state. Granted, we do have a few of those here, but not anywhere near the scale of the former. Times have changed and coalitions have changed, get over it already. The GOP already has.

Also, per Atlas leftie rules, poor white Appalachian men are the only people immune from criticism and should be treated with the utmost respect. But you can bash blacks all you want for voting for the she-devil, and are free to hold positions viewing gays and illegal immigrants as less than human. That's just respectful political disagreement after all.

[IceSpear]

Actually IceSpear does kind of have a point. I have seen people here argue, for example, that the Democrats should abandon environmentalism in an effort to win West Virginia, which is incredibly ridiculous.

However, "Other people on Atlas are bigoted too!" isn't an excuse to be bigoted. Classism is a form of bigotry.

My point was that hicks are the only "protected group" among Atlas lefties. Xenophobia, racism, sexism, and homophobia is brushed off as "legitimate respectful political disagreement." Only when you bash poor white people does a swarm of angry posters come out of the woodwork to condemn you as literally Hitler. You know, despite the fact that class can be changed, whereas race, sexuality, etc. cannot be. In fact, my initial posts were bait just to prove this very point! It worked beautifully.

Let's be real for a second: A typical Atlas leftie would trade the votes of 1,000 black people for a single racist white Appalachian conservative coal miner. They would trade Virginia for West Virginia just because it makes them "feel good." I think I'll just take it as some weird compulsion/quirk (lord knows Atlas has no shortage of those), because the alternative is too sad to think about.

[IceSpear]

P.S.: Does anyone seriously believe a generic racist, sexist, or homophobic comment would've attracted nearly as much attention or condemnation as posting a few pictures of hicks did? I rest my case.

99.9% white male Atlas loves to coddle white males. News at 11.

[IceSpear]

P.S.: Does anyone seriously believe a generic racist, sexist, or homophobic comment would've attracted nearly as much attention or condemnation as posting a few pictures of hicks did?

I guess you could post some pictures and comments intended to denigrate these groups of people and see what the reaction is, if you think that sort of thing is totally fine.

Sexist and racist comments are posted on this forum on a daily basis, particularly when it comes to these groups' support for Hillary Clinton. Usually they get a blind eye, and at most are confronted by a few posters, but certainly nothing of this scale. Just admit the double standard and this forum's coddling of white men and move on.

And can the pearl clutchers who add nothing to the conversation take it elsewhere? It's getting old. Go make some excuses for why referring to Hillary Clinton as a shrill harpy isn't sexist, and why implying blacks are too stupid to know what's good for them isn't racist at all.

[IceSpear]

Sexist and racist comments are posted on this forum on a daily basis, particularly when it comes to these groups' support for Hillary Clinton. Usually they get a blind eye, and at most are confronted by a few posters, but certainly nothing of this scale.

I think most of us have given up.  We're such a tiny minority on this forum that we'll get shouted down and silenced if we complain, and the moderators at best do absolutely nothing to help us.

I usually don't bother to point it out or confront it since it's the internet and is to be expected, and my psyche isn't fragile glass like some here, so it's very easy to brush off. But the double standard is quite funny when it comes to poor white people. If you make a single derogatory comment, it inevitably turns into an enormous dogpile and circlejerk about how evil and cruel and heartless you are, and about how YOU are what's wrong with the Democratic Party, and West Virginia would still love Democrats if it wasn't for some random internet commenters being mean to them. It's as funny as it is predictable.

Again, the fact that a 99.9% white male forum is going to give special consideration to white males is not exactly a groundbreaking discovery. Just admit it and move on.

[IceSpear]

This forum is hilarious. How many different groups of people are constantly bashed here? Yet like clockwork, the second anyone takes aim at the hicks, droves of people start hyperventilating about how mean, insensitive, and cruel you are. lol

This is a really curious complaint given that we have had longterm posters banned for racist and homophobic remarks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You appear to have something of a superiority complex, which is curious as you don't exactly come across as intelligent.

But I'm reminded now of 'Red' Ted Grant of Lambeth who while out canvassing encountered a senior local government officer who said that he intended to vote Labour and responded to this by shouting 'I don't want someone of your class voting for me!' - except that at least that was laughable ideological inflexibility rather than pure unadulterated snobbery.

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.

[IceSpear]

My point was that hicks are the only "protected group" among Atlas lefties.

Utterly bizarre statement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Posters have been banned for all of those reasons in the past and attempts to have others banned on those grounds are not infrequent. Not aware of anyone being banned for being anti-hick, whatever that would mean.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Translation: special snowflake IceSpear doesn't like being called out on his moronic behavior and so screams about how its all SO UNFAIR.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Literally seeing a self-identifying Progressive pull that silly old AMERICA canard of an antisocialist argument. Fycking amazing.

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

I couldn't care less that people are "calling me out." I knew exactly that would happen, I've observed it for years. Bashing no other group of people other than poor whites evokes such a visceral and widespread response from this forum. It's quite curious, and it proved my point. As for your last statement, I suppose you're one of those silly and delusional far leftists that think the only way to achieve upward mobility these days is hitting the lottery? lol. Really not doing much to dispel the fiction that you're a moron.

[IceSpear]

My point was that hicks are the only "protected group" among Atlas lefties.

Utterly bizarre statement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Posters have been banned for all of those reasons in the past and attempts to have others banned on those grounds are not infrequent. Not aware of anyone being banned for being anti-hick, whatever that would mean.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Translation: special snowflake IceSpear doesn't like being called out on his moronic behavior and so screams about how its all SO UNFAIR.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Literally seeing a self-identifying Progressive pull that silly old AMERICA canard of an antisocialist argument. Fycking amazing.

I couldn't care less that people are "calling me out." I knew exactly that would happen, I've observed it for years. Bashing no other group of people other than poor whites evokes such a visceral and widespread response from this forum. It's quite curious, and it proved my point.

I think maybe it's because in the white liberal circles most on here are in, it goes without saying that bashing minorities is not acceptable, so it's assumed only a minority on here would say things like that and it's not worth arguing with those people, whereas with poor whites, that is an unfortunately widespread sentiment among white liberals, so people feel the need to push back against it since they  fear that a majority of this forum would agree with that.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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