The Political & Philosophy Thread

[CiG]

When large numbers of poor blacks vote for Clinton, it's because of entitlement mentality. Why isn't it entitlement mentality when large numbers of poor whites vote for Trump?

I believe it actually is. It's one of the reasons I personally opposed him (from a distance obviously, being Australian) because to me it just looks like a right-wing social justice warrior movement, complete with a victimhood mentality, identity politics and social justice oriented economics and trade policies.

So I honestly take your point as a very valid one. It's entirely hypocritical of people on the right to lambaste left-wing social justice positions and then support Trump because he's going to give special favours to poor whites by forcing businesses to do things. It's rather moronic in my opinion.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well said. And it is its own identity politics, I think you're right.

There may be more conservatives around today, younger ones, who don't perpetuate as strongly this issue of cultural behaviorism (or something like that). I'm just more familiar with a line of traditional conservative thought that extends back prior to the institution of the welfare state, which treats white behavior as somehow automatically more sensible and rational than behavior in non-white communities.

This doesn't mean we can't critique the behaviors of non-white communities (we should), but it does make me raise an eyebrow when conservative commentators don't want to extend such behavioral theories to whites.

 

[CiG]

Well said. And it is its own identity politics, I think you're right.

There may be more conservatives around today, younger ones, who don't perpetuate as strongly this issue of cultural behaviorism (or something like that). I'm just more familiar with a line of traditional conservative thought that extends back prior to the institution of the welfare state, which treats white behavior as somehow automatically more sensible and rational than behavior in non-white communities.

This doesn't mean we can't critique the behaviors of non-white communities (we should), but it does make me raise an eyebrow when conservative commentators don't want to extend such behavioral theories to whites.

To me that sounds a lot like the paleo-conservatives which I do think in many ways Trumpism is a resurgence of, but the alt right stinks of Pat Buchananism too. The whole, you can't truly have western values unless you're white, thing.

I would put myself much more in the #NeverTrump/conservatarian section which I think actually makes up a good chunk of the 'young and republican' section of the right-wing, which is what I personally consider to be true or sensible conservatism.

I don't see that in Trump's movement, in fact I see the very opposite. I personally despise the alt right actually. If I have to hear one more rant about muh white genocide and da Jewz...

Actually to your point about conservatives not looking at white behaviour, it's a big reason that I like Sowell's writing on race and culture, because he points out very effectively in my view that not only are whites just as bad when it comes to government subsistence fueled cultural failings, but actually a lot of their cultural shortcomings have rubbed off on blacks, especially in the south, to the point that it holds them back too. So if anything the critique of white culture is essential to even getting to the discussion of black culture.

 

[Dak]

That wasn't meant to be snarky, I was just saying it was an example. Meth could fit just as easily into the argument.

I specifically said meth because opioid addiction cuts across race and class. You were talking about issues specific to rural whites.

Third, ISIS do not possess the means of production and distribution necessary to make anything of the oil on which they sit. Complete red herring to suggest they are somehow the symptom of an embarrassment of riches.

ISIS is just the most visible and organized version of the default theocratic political organization in Arab world. Baathism was the primary secular alternative to that, which while using similar methodologies, kept a relative "lid" on things and was able to manage more modern infrastructure and institutions.

I don't have the time to go line by line but I want to address a couple of things:

Wanting a job is not the same thing as wanting money for netflix & chill; lumping them together is disingenuous. It's a truism that humans generally make decisions based on perceived self-interest, but that doesn't mean all self-interests are equally viable.

Yes economics and culture play parts, but humans have at a minimum, a recursive relationship with their culture and economy. Why is Iran relatively stable and modernized despite sanctions and US meddling etc when their neighbors are backwards as hell (Iraq was obviously thrown into chaos by the US invasion, but it was previously stable because of US support). Maybe because Persians operate differently than Arabs, even when nominally in the same religion? One doesn't have to hate just because one notices.

I think it's absurd to stand there and complain about how terribly rural whites are responding to their economic predicaments wrought on them by the coastal elites. They've obeyed the rules of the system and taken nonstop verbal abuse along the way. Maybe the coastal elites would notice "subtle" cultural differences if all those rural whites converted to Wahhabism. Voting for Trump would readily be seen as a mild protest.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not stringently opposed to anything you just said, although the extent of ISIS's organization doesn't necessarily mean that it has the capabilities to profit from Middle-Eastern oil (other than holding it hostage, which yields its own unprofitable consequences).

The vast majority of Islamic history has been intertwined with political and military meddling from Western Christian nations. This isn't to blame Christianity, but merely to say that it's impossible to assess anything like Islam in itself, its core values or tendencies. It has always been a reaction, the same way that Christianity is a reaction. A major difference is that Christians enjoyed a considerable geographical and apolitical territory in which to expand (i.e. North America).

You say you mention meth because the opioid addiction cuts across race and class; but I'm trying to suggest (and I think the author is as well) that some of these explanations do cut across race and class. The point is that conservatives like to appeal to certain explanations for whites and different explanations for non-whites. This strikes me as symptomatic of ideological affiliations, not rational arguments.

 

[EternalMetal]

When large numbers of poor blacks vote for Clinton, it's because of entitlement mentality. Why isn't it entitlement mentality when large numbers of poor whites vote for Trump?

It is probably the case in both instances. Rural whites dont want massive amounts of money and effort being spent on liberating shitty urban areas, and urban blacks dont give a shit about the plight of common white country folk.

I believe it actually is. It's one of the reasons I personally opposed him (from a distance obviously, being Australian) because to me it just looks like a right-wing social justice warrior movement, complete with a victimhood mentality, identity politics and social justice oriented economics and trade policies.

So basically the direct inverse of the leftist democrats in charge of the current status quo then? In a situation where the currently failing system is trying to overcompensate for the plight of minorities and urban citizens, it is just a natural response. Trump merely capitalized on and projected the fight of people who havent truly had a voice in this country (ironically enough) for many years. You cant win these campaigns without injecting passion that is equal to or greater than that of the opposition.

So I honestly take your point as a very valid one. It's entirely hypocritical of people on the right to lambaste left-wing social justice positions and then support Trump because he's going to give special favours to poor whites by forcing businesses to do things. It's rather moronic in my opinion.

Emphasis on special favors. I dont think that Trump's position on economics has anything to do with the plight of the poor White man (just poor rural and working class people in general), whereas the pro(re)gressive left has implications of the reverse. It is about checks and balances, and the attitude of Trump is more about attempting to find homeostasis in an environment of profound minority enablement than it has to do with further empowering whites.

To me that sounds a lot like the paleo-conservatives which I do think in many ways Trumpism is a resurgence of, but the alt right stinks of Pat Buchananism too. The whole, you can't truly have western values unless you're white, thing.

I would put myself much more in the #NeverTrump/conservatarian section which I think actually makes up a good chunk of the 'young and republican' section of the right-wing, which is what I personally consider to be true or sensible conservatism.

I don't see that in Trump's movement, in fact I see the very opposite. I personally despise the alt right actually. If I have to hear one more rant about muh white genocide and da Jewz...

Unfortunately I am inclined to agree with this more than I want to, but it isnt so straightforward. Trump wouldnt have had a chance in hell if he didnt at least attempt to appeal to the true conservatives (hence Mike Pence being the VP), and the reason why you saw a subtle softening of opinion when it comes to the border wall with Mexico and the initially radical exclusion of middle eastern Muslims is because Trump doesnt truly want to represent the white racist conservatives.

The alt-right and their own memetic war cannot also be taken at face value. Their propaganda is indeed entirely filled with hyperbole laced with autism. It is a counterattack on the pervasive PC culture that demonizes men and whites to the point of oppression. I am far more sick of black people complaining about slavery, but the alt-right is turning a bit extreme in their rejection of minority representation. But the sentiment of their movement is to maintain a proper balance between PC culture and freedom for all (with an emphasis on not subjecting the majority of the past to oppression in the end-game). I am led to believe that these people are not truly racist, but sometimes this becomes hard to believe. Ultimately I sympathize with the plight of actual equality, in which I think the alt-right is attempting to bring to fruition.

I will post more on this later. I have to go to work so I can pay for shit.

 

[Einherjar86]

It is probably the case in both instances. Rural whites dont want massive amounts of money and effort being spent on liberating shitty urban areas, and urban blacks dont give a shit about the plight of common white country folk.

Right. To put it in terms of political buzzwords, poor whites often recoil at the suggestion of welfare programs because such proposals now carry a significant racial connotation - i.e. welfare is for lazy African Americans who don't want to work for a living - despite the fact that welfare, being based on class disparity, would be available to poor whites too (depending on how and where it's distributed, of course; but the underlying principle remains the same).

I think that the interjection here is often that poor blacks accept welfare, and desire it, because they're lazy, whereas poor whites reject welfare because they want to work - they want a job. Not only is this an inaccurate generalization, it also carries an implicit bias that elides the effects of welfare: that is, welfare is equally helpful and harmful to both blacks and whites, but the acceptance or rejection of it has less to do with willingness to work than it does with the racial connotations that the term "welfare" carries. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[CiG]

So basically the direct inverse of the leftist democrats in charge of the current status quo then? In a situation where the currently failing system is trying to overcompensate for the plight of minorities and urban citizens, it is just a natural response. Trump merely capitalized on and projected the fight of people who havent truly had a voice in this country (ironically enough) for many years. You cant win these campaigns without injecting passion that is equal to or greater than that of the opposition.

Which parts are natural responses?

Emphasis on special favors. I dont think that Trump's position on economics has anything to do with the plight of the poor White man (just poor rural and working class people in general), whereas the pro(re)gressive left has implications of the reverse. It is about checks and balances, and the attitude of Trump is more about attempting to find homeostasis in an environment of profound minority enablement than it has to do with further empowering whites.

Which is originally why I said I didn't support him. If every race except white people have special pandering policies, that would by process of elimination mean that any policy he proposes with intent to balance justice is either blatantly or indirectly there to target whites. If he were to attempt a clean slate and then focus on the poverty issue from a universal position, I'd concede on this, but as far as I'm concerned alt right Trumpism is a vehicle for white social justice of some form or another.

Unfortunately I am inclined to agree with this more than I want to, but it isnt so straightforward. Trump wouldnt have had a chance in hell if he didnt at least attempt to appeal to the true conservatives (hence Mike Pence being the VP), and the reason why you saw a subtle softening of opinion when it comes to the border wall with Mexico and the initially radical exclusion of middle eastern Muslims is because Trump doesnt truly want to represent the white racist conservatives.

The alt-right and their own memetic war cannot also be taken at face value. Their propaganda is indeed entirely filled with hyperbole laced with autism. It is a counterattack on the pervasive PC culture that demonizes men and whites to the point of oppression. I am far more sick of black people complaining about slavery, but the alt-right is turning a bit extreme in their rejection of minority representation. But the sentiment of their movement is to maintain a proper balance between PC culture and freedom for all (with an emphasis on not subjecting the majority of the past to oppression in the end-game). I am led to believe that these people are not truly racist, but sometimes this becomes hard to believe. Ultimately I sympathize with the plight of actual equality, in which I think the alt-right is attempting to bring to fruition.

Some of what you say about the alt right simply being irreverent anti-PC cultural trolls is true, but I'm friends with enough alt righters to know that behind that face value is actually some very genuine ideological positions. Jewish conspiracism is definitely a thread throughout it all, many genuinely believe in nationalist populism, Pat Buchananist concepts of superior white culture (as in, you can't truly have western values unless you're white), Holocaust denialism, and so on. I've had many discussions with alt righters and behind the fun of memes etc there is definitely genuine belief.

I have no problem with people having views I think are utterly retarded of course, but I think it's stretching the truth to say the alt right are after any kind of equality, not that the term really has any meaning anymore in my mind.

I don't even think the alt right is genuinely against PC culture, I believe they believe they are, but actually they conflate not being PC with being a subhuman piece of shit.

Also, I agree I do think Trump is actually very moderate. I don't think he gives a shit about social issues at all and he is legitimately coming to the job because he sees business-esque issues he believes he can solve. People on the left are negatively comparing him to Reagan but I honestly think he'll be much more like Nixon. Just a feeling.

Right. To put it in terms of political buzzwords, poor whites often recoil at the suggestion of welfare programs because such proposals now carry a significant racial connotation - i.e. welfare is for lazy African Americans who don't want to work for a living - despite the fact that welfare, being based on class disparity, would be available to poor whites too (depending on how and where it's distributed, of course; but the underlying principle remains the same).

You would assign this as the poor white opinion? I think it's more accurate to say that the right-wingers that assume to speak for the poor white community might say these things, and the actual poor white community don't really give a shit about what the poor black community does and vice versa.

I could be wrong.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I won't call you racists. I don't think I've ever accused anyone in this conversation of being racist.

The point, for me, doesn't lie in accusing individuals of being racists, in any normative sense of the word; the point is trying to make people aware of how racism is a symptomatic function of language and cultural relations. The more we acknowledge that language is not only a field or network of communication and understanding, but of miscommunication and misunderstanding, the more we will be able to check hostilities and possibly even anticipate them.

This isn't an attempt to police language or thought, but simply to illuminate how words never mean just one thing, and they definitely don't mean only what their speakers intend.

It looks to me like I just had a relatively congenial discussion about welfare with people who, I assume, are skeptical of it.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

The important thing that we have to recognize is that this election was a milestone for diversity. Barack Obama was the first black president, and now we will have the first orange president.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Im a Muslim, a woman and an immigrant. I voted for Trump. - Asra Q. Nomani

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-trump/?postshare=5571478804916292&tid=ss_tw

 

[CiG]

The important thing that we have to recognize is that this election was a milestone for diversity. Barack Obama was the first black president, and now we will have the first orange president.

More seriously though, it is a milestone for the special needs community.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

@Einherjar86 It was less directed at you and more my telling you that this attitude will not change at all. You have people from many different communities saying how welfare is inadvertently causing economic hardship and keeping people in poverty, but those conversations, in all likelihood, will be shut down by those who say that it is "racist". This applies to many other issues as well when it comes to proper discussion.

This is really my main point of contention with much of the left as someone who is center-left. Instead of properly reassessing and critically self-analyzing this toxic rhetoric (which may as well have cost them the election) they have been using for the past 18 months, they are making the choice of doubling down on those positions, spurning the class of people they spent demonizing, ridiculing, and alienating. It's shameful to see this large of a disconnect from reality.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkot...presidenti-victory-demographics/#20057bbb79a8

Also, for all those people that are "literally shaking with fear", the only reason that it seems impossible to them is because of the liberal echo chamber in the media. When the media spend 18 months telling people that a candidate isn't going to win as an assurance, those people will start breaking down like toddlers when the looming threat of reality finally shatters that expectation. The party I previously thought to be for the common citizen is just using a different version of the right wing's tactics at this point and it disgusts me. Given the complacency of the Clinton campaign and the media's piss-poor coverage of both candidates, the Democrats deserve 4 years of Trump so that they can learn from their mistakes.

Best quote from this article, by the way:

Trump owes his election to what one writer has called “the leftover people.” These may be “deplorables” to the pundits but their grievances are real – their incomes and their lifespans have been decreasing. They have noticed, as Thomas Frank has written, that the Democrats have gone “from being the party of Decatur to the party of Martha’s Vineyard.”

 

[Dak]

The very interesting thing from the last 8 years of Democrat Party political power is that the bench is empty. The Clinton machine is done and Barack isn't running anymore. Bernie probably won't. Are we going to see a Warren campaign? I doubt that will go over much better than Hillary unless the GOP reaalllllly pisses everyone off over the next four years.

 

[Einherjar86]

You would assign this as the poor white opinion? I think it's more accurate to say that the right-wingers that assume to speak for the poor white community might say these things, and the actual poor white community don't really give a shit about what the poor black community does and vice versa.

I could be wrong.

I can't say for certain. I hesitate to generalize, but I think it's prevalent among poor whites.

@Einherjar86 Also, for all those people that are "literally shaking with fear", the only reason that it seems impossible to them is because of the liberal echo chamber in the media.

Well, it's not entirely a media echo chamber. There have already been incidents at BU, where I teach, of students being called "terrorists" and told to "go home." And this is Boston. The fear is not contrived out of nothing.

 

[CiG]

I'm honestly really tired of hearing about students. Fuck students, on both sides. These people that were called terrorist and told to go back home, I wonder if they're bipartisan innocents caught in the middle of an inflamed political system or are they the types that rant about banning white males from everything ever and throwing fits over Halloween costumes? If it's the latter then I struggle to have sympathy when it's that kind of bullshit that created Trump reactionism in the first place.

The party I previously thought to be for the common citizen is just using a different version of the right wing's tactics at this point and it disgusts me.

Which is?

 

[Dak]

I can't say for certain. I hesitate to generalize, but I think it's prevalent among poor whites.

Probably depends on the region. Most probable in the south, where there is the visible evidence to create that connection. However, I don't know that there's any actual difference in the total numbers of welfare users by race even in the south.

Well, it's not entirely a media echo chamber. There have already been incidents at BU, where I teach, of students being called "terrorists" and told to "go home." And this is Boston. The fear is not contrived out of nothing.

Not that I would anyway, but I'd be relatively scared of wearing anything pro-Trump to school.

The people who are scared about citizens being deported are entirely ignorant of Trump's platform, and he's explicitly stated he supports the LGBTQ population.

 

[CiG]

Wasn't it just yesterday that a Trump supporter was jumped and beaten up/his car ransacked?

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm sure that openly declaring your support for Trump will invite aggression too, not saying it wouldn't.

But a lot of the fear on campuses right now isn't over deportation; it's over being called a terrorist for wearing a hijab, or being told to "go home" because one has Asian features. There might not be physical violence, but the hatred that underlies such comments is palpable. Students shouldn't have to endure that. That's not a condition of living in the "real world."