If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

White people in the far northeast and western frontier have no negative preconceptions of minorities because they never interact with them, whereas whites in segregated communities still close to segregated black communities tend to be much more racist (obviously owing to hundreds of years of history).

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2014...ism-score-high-in-some-states-and-not-others/

My experience, and those of others I know, has been the people with the highest opinions of black people in general have never been around (generally poor) southern blacks, only urban northern/western(rare bird) blacks if any at all, and get all bent out of shape when someone makes a derogatory comment......until they meet some(if they ever do). But these same people also never met any poor white southerners and are all FUCKN REDNEX LOLOL. Which is at least half right anyway.

 

[Einherjar86]

Whether or not contact eliminates prejudice is partially a matter of analysis - it's not entirely statistical.

The same study also found closer proximity to immigrants and immigrant labor saw a decrease in Trump support, which seemingly counteracts the aforementioned claim that Trump supports tend to be racially isolated/segregated:

Trump doesn’t do well in areas affected by trade or immigration: This is perhaps the most surprising finding. Contact with immigrants seems to reduce one's likelihood of supporting Trump, as areas that are farther from Mexico and with smaller Hispanic populations saw more Trump support.

Areas with more manufacturing are significantly less likely to support Trump. An increase in the level of manufacturing employment from 2000 to 2007 predicted higher Trump support — which is the opposite of what you'd expect, given the narrative around this campaign. While the finding isn't statistically significant, greater exposure to Chinese imports predicts lower support for Trump, despite his agitation for higher tariffs on the country.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/12/12454250/donald-trump-gallup-trade-immigration-study

Long story short, I think the study pokes some holes in the pop-psych analyses that journalists keep trying to perform on Trump supporters. For a long time it's been the downtrodden, disenfranchised, anti-intellectualist blue collar workers, on which nativism and nationalism feeds. While his supporters certainly are hurting in other ways (as the articles make clear), this study makes it harder to support the theory of the economically ignored Rust Belt worker and sheds some more suggestive (although perhaps at times contradictory) data on racial makeup.

I was made to understand that a large chunk of Trump's support was from poor/working class, white redneck types.

If poor whites are a large chunk of Trump's support, I question how one's fear of losing white privilege could be a factor. Poor people very rarely feel privileged and thus have no fear of losing something that they didn't know they were supposed to have.

There's definitely from what I can tell a lack of understanding with regards to the job market (you can't bring jobs back without leveraging control over businesses, eg car industry) fused with nationalism that Trump is running on and it's kind of hilarious considering the republican party considers itself the party of economic intelligence.

His rantings on NAFTA for example are laughable.

This new study suggests that his base isn't actually comprised of poor whites (see link above):

Trump's base is not poor whites — it's way more complicated than that
What Rothwell found was revelatory, to say the least. He finds that individuals who are struggling economically are not more likely to support Trump, nor are people living in areas that have suffered a loss of manufacturing jobs, an influx of immigration, or competition from China. By contrast, people in areas where whites are struggling health-wise, and in terms of intergenerational mobility (and in areas that are very racially segregated), do seem more likely to back Trump.


Trump supporters are richer, not poorer, than average: For one thing, Rothwell found that both across the overall population and among whites, support for Trump is correlated with higher income, not lower. That’s not surprising; low-income people have always preferred Democrats. But it definitely contradicts the image of Trump as spokesman for the economically struggling.

 

[Dak]

Areas with more manufacturing are significantly less likely to support Trump. An increase in the level of manufacturing employment from 2000 to 2007 predicted higher Trump support — which is the opposite of what you'd expect, given the narrative around this campaign. While the finding isn't statistically significant, greater exposure to Chinese imports predicts lower support for Trump, despite his agitation for higher tariffs on the country.

It's analysis like this that keeps me from taking people like this seriously. If their analysis on something this simple is this bad, what does this say about the source study(s) and any other analyses? "Areas with more manufacturing" =/= "An increase in the level of manufacturing employment from 2000 to 2007". Not only was 2007 nine years ago, 2007 was the top of the economic housing related bubble. 2000 was the year after/of-ish the dotcom bubble bust. Way to cherry pick the bubble economy of nearly a decade ago. People who have seen some success and lost it are much more likely to be ill about it than those that haven't seen much at all. I don't know how you chart "exposure to Chinese imports". Pretty much everything is a Chinese import to some degree or another. Is he suggesting there are places without Walmarts?

Now maybe these flubs are specific to the Vox author and a detailed reading of the Rothwell paper will be better (it probably is, I don't have time to digest it right now), but I think this might sort of cut through everything:

Nonetheless, Trump supporters tend to be blue-collar and less educated: On the other hand, Rothwell also finds that Trump supporters are more likely to work in blue-collar fields and to have less education. This fact, however, sits uneasily with Trump’s greater support among the wealthy and lower support among the poor, and suggests that his sweet spot is less-educated people in blue-collar fields who are nonetheless doing pretty well economically.

"Hardworking" White Murkans. Small Business Owners and tradesman (often the same thing) etc. They can make pretty decent money with relatively little formal education. These are also the types of people that I expect are most likely to be disdainful of both welfareites as well as "cushy do nothing white collar jobs" (like academia).

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Based tranny on the Rubin Report:

 

[CiG]

Blaire is the one that received tons of death threats from BlackLivesMatter supporters.

 

[rms]

is there anything worth hearing there

 

[SentinelSlain]

People love saying that racists need to meet more minorities but what about white flight? maybe the people in the enclaves retreated to them decades ago.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Meeting minorities is what makes people racist.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's no way to definitively say what makes people racist, coming into contact with minorities or being isolated from them. Both can feed into racism, it just matters on the context.

A particular individual may come into brief contact with minorities and have a bad experience. He may then move his family somewhere where there are fewer minorities, and he will probably teach his children to be racist (inadvertently even). Racism can be taught and passed on, and in this case it doesn't require any contact.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's analysis like this that keeps me from taking people like this seriously. If their analysis on something this simple is this bad, what does this say about the source study(s) and any other analyses? "Areas with more manufacturing" =/= "An increase in the level of manufacturing employment from 2000 to 2007". Not only was 2007 nine years ago, 2007 was the top of the economic housing related bubble. 2000 was the year after/of-ish the dotcom bubble bust. Way to cherry pick the bubble economy of nearly a decade ago. People who have seen some success and lost it are much more likely to be ill about it than those that haven't seen much at all.

I'm not sure why these are the years of the study, but this is a good point. My first reaction was that most Trump supporters now probably aren't thinking too much about their relative class status from nine years ago - they're thinking about their status now, or during the past five years or so. Regardless, I still think the trend is interesting, even if it is dated.

I don't know how you chart "exposure to Chinese imports". Pretty much everything is a Chinese import to some degree or another. Is he suggesting there are places without Walmarts?

I think I understand what the author means here. There are few areas that have literally no Walmarts (as you say), but there are areas where more people buy products from local stores. Whether or not the products are all American-made, I have no idea about that.

"Hardworking" White Murkans. Small Business Owners and tradesman (often the same thing) etc. They can make pretty decent money with relatively little formal education. These are also the types of people that I expect are most likely to be disdainful of both welfareites as well as "cushy do nothing white collar jobs" (like academia).

Agreed (I'm related to people like this). And lol at academia being a "cushy do nothing white collar job." That's an extremely narrow view of academics that most people have because their view of academia is restricted to the big-time players (not saying it's your view, btw). A lot of academics are not comfortable financially and they work as hard as fucking hell.

 

[Internally Deformed]

There's no way to definitively say what makes people racist, coming into contact with minorities or being isolated from them. Both can feed into racism, it just matters on the context.

A particular individual may come into brief contact with minorities and have a bad experience. He may then move his family somewhere where there are fewer minorities, and he will probably teach his children to be racist (inadvertently even). Racism can be taught and passed on, and in this case it doesn't require any contact.

It's true that it varies from case to case. What I object to is the condescension of liberals who assume that an opinion contrary to their own must stem from more limited understanding or experience, or from emotional bias (i.e. racists are racist because they haven't come into contact with minorities, people who dislike muslims or homosexuals do so because of an underlying phobia). The first thing you've got to do when attempting to dissuade someone from a position you disagree with is properly understand why your opponent holds that position. Liberals shoot themselves in the foot when they base the substance of their argument around an assumption of inferiority in those that dissent from the liberal consensus.

 

[CiG]

It's idiotic on it's face, because minorities can also be racist.

 

[CiG]

Stay classy, Milwaukee.

 

[Dak]

 

[The Ozzman]

When I saw this on Facebook, you would tap the picture and it would stop on whatever insult it was. I'm not sure if that'll work on here

 

[CiG]

It looks like a future migraine.

 

[Dak]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ted-happened-when-seattle-raised-minimum-wage

 

[rms]

always weary when an article is that much on one side of an argument, but hot damn Brad Pitt over-bolds haha

 

[Dak]

Zero Hedge is more miss than hit but the hits are pretty good. This one wasn't linking blogposts as evidence or anything. The Fed and a university research study is about as good as one can ask for.

 

[rms]

http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-holding-summits-lesbian-farmers/

During a summit in Jackson, Mississippi last year, the head of the USDA’s rural pride summit Ashlee Davis said the agency is working very hard to change how people think about rural America, away from the “white, rich male.”

?? seriously ??