|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 12 2016 20:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 20:10 LastWish wrote:On November 12 2016 19:36 Acrofales wrote:On November 12 2016 19:13 LastWish wrote:On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle. This is actually what is wrong with the neo-liberals. They are ok bashing white people no problem. They read the history books and white people are the slavers the racists the bigots the sexists... But in fact most of the living white people have nothing to do with this. It's like the inherited sin that some christians believe in. If I now replaced the "angry white people" with "angry black people", "angry women", "angry gays", "angry muslims" then you wouldn't like it. So stop using the form of language you dispise and make yourself a better person in the process. Every time someone writes something like this, I am just going to post this blog, in the hope that some people will eventually read it and have an honest discussion about the topic. If you really believe in what you have just posted then I feel really bad for you. You are an individual just like every other person on earth. If you put someone into some basket according to the place/race/sex he/she has been born then you are in fact the racist, sexist... I think we read that blog differently. I didn't see any mention of baskets. What I saw was it pointing out quite explicitly that while you are an individual, you are very much a product of society and history. And who and what you are today is not exclusively because of you. So far no controversy, I presume? So let's continue. Today's society, shares the responsibility for rectifying the errors of what came before. No blame, no name-calling. Just an admission that not all is right with the world, and that even if you are not personally to blame, as part of the society in which it is wrong, it is your responsibility to help in improving society. Can we agree on this, so far very abstract, argument? Today's society = your society?, the white society?, every society that fucked up its history somehow?. i'd say it should be the later and if so, you know that arabs massively trafficked black people a few centuries ago(an estimated 17millions), right?; yet when they come to you, to your society, you don't have them make amends for their past/history.
(so you have there a double standard, a bit of defeatism and racism).
the errors of what came before = who gets to define an error and how far back does before go?; monkey times?, neanderthal times?, modern human times?, pre-Columbus/italians/vikings/Biruni times?, american slavery times? ... Adam and Eve?.
and this part - "and that even if you are not personally to blame, as part of the society in which it is wrong, it is your responsibility to help in improving society" it's missing something or you purposely left out "except the ones that are to blame based on their forefathers errors that came before".
somewhere along the line you decided that only white dudes fucked up so only they have to rectify what "they" did before.
Edit: and as a trivia do you even know how slavery started? - people with goods(arabs, whites, asians, whomever) were going to Africa and were trading said goods for slaves. the slaves were exchanged for those goods by the African king who owned them.
so, black african kings had black african slaves which they traded for goods. have african-americans rectify their errors.
|
On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle.
Well the demographics were far better for the dems than they were in 2008 yet they got 9,000,000 less votes.This should be a huge concern.Plus republicans do better with hispanics each generation.
I think we're going to run into huge problems before that though due to automation.3,000,000 truck drivers in the US now, what happens when that work is automated? We're maybe 5-7 years away.And it ain't just truckers under threat, robots will be far better surgeons than humans in the near future.There will not be enough jobs (not enough now) and the US government cannot afford more welfare handouts.What will happen?
|
On November 12 2016 22:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle. Well the demographics were far better for the dems than they were in 2008 yet they got 9,000,000 less votes.This should be a huge concern.Plus republicans do better with hispanics each generation. I think we're going to run into huge problems before that though due to automation.3,000,000 truck drivers in the US now, what happens when that work is automated? We're maybe 5-7 years away.
Your argument, while maybe true, is pathetic. "The left can't win on the ideas field, so we are are just gonna import people and make them breed, we just have to wait a bit". (To Nyxisto)
|
On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair.
If you want to have a discussion about the fact that the finger pointing at (angry) white men is unproductive or unfair, which i think is a valid point even though you guys are portraying the whole discussion in a really caricatural way, you should really, really stop using the term sjw, which is twice as condescending and way more stupid than the whole white men bashing.
From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected.
If any one if you think that liberals have a bias agaist white men you haven't been following. The finger pointing is at people who are hateful and angry because their priviledges have been taken away and that they don't exclusively own the place anymore.
That's very different.
|
On November 12 2016 22:02 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 21:58 Jockmcplop wrote:
Fair point, but I haven't really dismissed the article, I have said repeatedly that it is fair, although the position it is trying to justify is a little bit extreme and basically not helpful when it comes to today's political environment. You are dismissing it in that you present a logical connexion between the existence of this article and a trumpian reaction by cis white males. If the article is fair, it shouldn't elicit such a reaction, or that reaction should be perceived as incorrect and/or irrational.
This is so one-dimensional though. The question I'm asking, and I think its a fair one, is this:
Given the values of SJWs, and the wish for social equality and justice, what would be the best way to achieve that?
My answer, as far as I have given so far, is that alienating the vast majority of the people you are trying to win over is probably the worst way to try and achieve that.
This is as far as I have gone, I have not dismissed the legitimacy of the claims the article makes, simply the usefulness of them.
On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. If you want to have a discussion about the fact that the finger pointing at (angry) white men is unproductive or unfair, which i think is a valid point even though you guys are portraying the whole discussion in a really caricatural way, you should really, really stop using the term sjw, which is twice as condescending and way more stupid than the whole white men bashing.
I have used that term here because its the easiest way to define this group. They are not synonymous with the hard left, or rights campaigners, so instead of using long winded language this is the easiest way to refer to them, and it is very well known exactly what it means.
|
On November 12 2016 22:36 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle. Well the demographics were far better for the dems than they were in 2008 yet they got 9,000,000 less votes.This should be a huge concern.Plus republicans do better with hispanics each generation. I think we're going to run into huge problems before that though due to automation.3,000,000 truck drivers in the US now, what happens when that work is automated? We're maybe 5-7 years away. Your argument, while maybe true, is pathetic. "The left can't win on the ideas field, so we are are just gonna import people and make them breed, we just have to wait a bit". (To Nyxisto)
The way you talk about strangers as if they're cattle is disgusting. “Import and make them breed,” seriously? You think you're talking about animals in a zoo or what?
|
What an awful blog. At one point it claims that white people have a responsibility to fix inequality. It asks that a black genius be regarded individually in terms of potential, but a white minimum wage person must be regarded as part of a gesalt cultural force. Awfully Americocentric. Very bizarre. I suppose this can only be understood as a specific cultural product of American culture. Nowhere else is there the term "angry white man" just as the concept of "happy black woman" doesn't exist.
|
On November 12 2016 22:40 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:36 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 12 2016 22:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle. Well the demographics were far better for the dems than they were in 2008 yet they got 9,000,000 less votes.This should be a huge concern.Plus republicans do better with hispanics each generation. I think we're going to run into huge problems before that though due to automation.3,000,000 truck drivers in the US now, what happens when that work is automated? We're maybe 5-7 years away. Your argument, while maybe true, is pathetic. "The left can't win on the ideas field, so we are are just gonna import people and make them breed, we just have to wait a bit". (To Nyxisto) The way you talk about strangers as if they're cattle is disgusting. “Import and make them breed,” seriously? You think you're talking about animals in a zoo or what?
Sorry to hurt your feelings. We are going to open the border and subsidize a subset of the population to have kids trough the welfare state, so the keep voting for bigger government.
|
On November 12 2016 22:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:02 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2016 21:58 Jockmcplop wrote:
Fair point, but I haven't really dismissed the article, I have said repeatedly that it is fair, although the position it is trying to justify is a little bit extreme and basically not helpful when it comes to today's political environment. You are dismissing it in that you present a logical connexion between the existence of this article and a trumpian reaction by cis white males. If the article is fair, it shouldn't elicit such a reaction, or that reaction should be perceived as incorrect and/or irrational. This is so one-dimensional though. The question I'm asking, and I think its a fair one, is this: Given the values of SJWs, and the wish for social equality and justice, what would be the best way to achieve that? My answer, as far as I have given so far, is that alienating the vast majority of the people you are trying to win over is probably the worst way to try and achieve that. This is as far as I have gone, I have not dismissed the legitimacy of the claims the article makes, simply the usefulness of them.
If the article is logically sound, it shouldn't alienate the vast majority of the people it's trying to win over.
|
If any one if you think that liberals have a bias agaist white men you haven't been following. The finger pointing is at people who are hateful and angry because their priviledges have been taken away and that they don't exclusively own the place anymore.
Here is how liberal respond to people in a downward social trajectory : suck it up guys, you (not you yourself, your parents, but who cares) were dominating for the whole XXth century (altho there were still inequalities ...).
Resentment politics without empathy.
|
On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected.
Hardly.
Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other.
Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, OH, WI.For economic reasons solely.Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt.
|
On November 12 2016 22:46 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 12 2016 22:02 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2016 21:58 Jockmcplop wrote:
Fair point, but I haven't really dismissed the article, I have said repeatedly that it is fair, although the position it is trying to justify is a little bit extreme and basically not helpful when it comes to today's political environment. You are dismissing it in that you present a logical connexion between the existence of this article and a trumpian reaction by cis white males. If the article is fair, it shouldn't elicit such a reaction, or that reaction should be perceived as incorrect and/or irrational. This is so one-dimensional though. The question I'm asking, and I think its a fair one, is this: Given the values of SJWs, and the wish for social equality and justice, what would be the best way to achieve that? My answer, as far as I have given so far, is that alienating the vast majority of the people you are trying to win over is probably the worst way to try and achieve that. This is as far as I have gone, I have not dismissed the legitimacy of the claims the article makes, simply the usefulness of them. If the article is logically sound, it shouldn't alienate the vast majority of the people it's trying to win over.
I hope you don't sincerely believe that people only or mainly use reason and logic in politics, you would/will be disappointed.
|
On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt.
If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this?
|
On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this?
Resentment expressing itself after years contempt towards poor white people. "Any form of contempt, if it intervenes in politics, prepares or introduces fascism". Seriously deep down I shake my head at the stupidity of all this : if you don't have a universalist discourse, egalitarian and inclusive for everyone, you always end up promoting autoritarian backlash.
What the "left" lost is its intelligence in all this.
In the US, only the black political movement were intelligent enough to promote such discourse in the last years : both the black panther party (with someone like Boby Seale) and the MLK side had a positive discourse towards poor white people (altho the black panthers were inaudible).
|
On November 12 2016 22:50 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2016 22:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 12 2016 22:02 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2016 21:58 Jockmcplop wrote:
Fair point, but I haven't really dismissed the article, I have said repeatedly that it is fair, although the position it is trying to justify is a little bit extreme and basically not helpful when it comes to today's political environment. You are dismissing it in that you present a logical connexion between the existence of this article and a trumpian reaction by cis white males. If the article is fair, it shouldn't elicit such a reaction, or that reaction should be perceived as incorrect and/or irrational. This is so one-dimensional though. The question I'm asking, and I think its a fair one, is this: Given the values of SJWs, and the wish for social equality and justice, what would be the best way to achieve that? My answer, as far as I have given so far, is that alienating the vast majority of the people you are trying to win over is probably the worst way to try and achieve that. This is as far as I have gone, I have not dismissed the legitimacy of the claims the article makes, simply the usefulness of them. If the article is logically sound, it shouldn't alienate the vast majority of the people it's trying to win over. I hope you don't sincerely believe that people only or mainly use reason and logic in politics, you would/will be disappointed.
The argument appears to be, the article is logical, but it should be removed anyway cause it alienates its target audience.
I contest the logic of that argument, cause something logical shouldn't be expected to alienate an audience.
When it does, there are several possibilities:
1. The article isn't actually logical, there is something incorrect.
2. There is something wrong with the audience's perception of the article. If that is so, then the article isn't alienating, the audience is already alienated.
You get to pick which one you prefer. Either way, the argument doesn't stand.
|
On November 12 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this? Resentment expressing itself after years contempt towards poor white people. That doesn't make any sense. In any form. Resentment of the more powerful and numerous against the poorer minority? OK. Sure. Somehow I highly doubt these incidents would occur in areas where these white Americans were in the minority.
|
On November 12 2016 23:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this? Resentment expressing itself after years contempt towards poor white people. That doesn't make any sense. In any form. Resentment of the more powerful and numerous against the poorer minority? OK. Sure.
In which dream are you to actually believe uneducated white are dominant (67 % for Trump).
|
On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this?
340 million people.
I'm sure you've seen the video of the three African Americans beating up the old white guy because he voted Trump? I have and I'm not going to judge a whole race due to that.
From what I understand the states I mentioned that flipped have a fairly low hispanic population.
|
On November 12 2016 23:05 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 23:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this? Resentment expressing itself after years contempt towards poor white people. That doesn't make any sense. In any form. Resentment of the more powerful and numerous against the poorer minority? OK. Sure. In which dream are you to actually believe uneducated white are dominant. They are certainly dominant over poorer minorities in their local area. In any case I do not see any part of your statement that makes sense. How exactly are poor white people suffereng contempt any more that poor people in USA are generally treated with contempt? How does this take effect that they are taking out their fustrations on minorities?
|
On November 12 2016 23:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 23:05 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 23:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this? Resentment expressing itself after years contempt towards poor white people. That doesn't make any sense. In any form. Resentment of the more powerful and numerous against the poorer minority? OK. Sure. In which dream are you to actually believe uneducated white are dominant. They are certainly dominant over poorer minorities in their local area.
Give me stats. I just had this discussion like ten or so pages ago. Please show me how uneducated white are dominant.
To correct you : they are not dominant over poorer minorities, they are just in better shape than the black population because this population suffer heavy discriminations in the US. That's it, from a certain perspective, one could argue that they are in a worst shape than latinos.
How exactly are poor white people suffereng contempt any more that poor people in USA are generally treated with contempt? How does this take effect that they are taking out their fustrations on minorities?
Because people still argue that "white" is a decisive advantage, that goes with privilege and all, which contredict entirely the actual experience of many americans who are in a downward social trajectory.
Or do you believe that equality can be achieve by pinning down all white people ?
Here is your argument in a nutshell (putting aside actual statistical facts) : poor white are one-eyed when poor black are blind, so them losing the second eye is no problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
