Forum Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About butterbumps!

  • Rank
    totally cromulent

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. U.S. Elections: Orange is the New Wack

    Well I think he's arguing that pandering for votes doesn't mean Hillary is not racist. Further, he's trying to argue that Hillary is part of a long tradition of enduring Democrat racism in this country, which has not evolved at all over the course of history, such that Hillary holds personal as well as collective guilt. Beyond this, Trump is not doing or saying anything more egregious than, say, Andrew Jackson's systematic genocides, ergo his "racism" is normal, just business as usual. It's really the most fantastically audacious attempt at drawing equivalency and normalizing Trymp I think I've witnessed this election cycle. Trump's racism is normal, as its certainly not beyond the extremes of our 200 year history, and since Hillary is inheriting this past, some of which is on the Dem party, she is guilty of those historical crimes and positions too. They are the same and racism is no more present in Trump's campaign than hers. I mean, this is pretty remarkable.
  2. U.S. Elections: Orange is the New Wack

    I'm not sure how far you're going to get with this. That poster rejects the idea that racism is central to Trump's campaign, and appears determined that whatever racism may exist there is no different, or of greater intensity, than politics as usual, which apparently hasn't evolved at all over the last 200 years.
  3. U.S. Elections: Orange is the New Wack

    Yea, it seems the data points to most Trump supporters being fairly well off- at least, not the kind of poverty that's become the popular narrative. Some do perceive doing worse, while some are actually entrenched in rural poverty. And some of the poverty is due to dying industrial cities, per what the Cracked article appeared to be universalizing. But it's been my impression for a while-- reaffirmed by that Vox piece-- that the better off majority of Trump supporters have coopted the narrative of the struggling rural person left behind as a kind of code that masks their socially unacceptable reasons for giving support. There is, and pretty much has always been, a problem of rural poverty in this country. That's real, and it should continue to be dealt with. I mean, i do GAF about trying to eradicate poverty-- how does the cycle end if we don't? And not to go all Helen Lovejoy here, but there's kids involved in this-- their parents might be shitheels, but that doesn't mean they should go without proper education, nutrition, mental health access, or be unable to find a place in the economy, etc etc. I'm not sure how to reach these people, though. They seem to self-select their information sources, sources that seem to demonize anything with a liberal/ dem taint, even when the information could sincerely help these groups of people. Continuing and improving policies meant to mitigate the effects of automation (such as retraining and relocation credits), improvements in health care (a lot of people go into major debt due to health care costs), and increasing infrastructure and the like seem like good ideas, but these people have to be made aware that such options are available in order to make use of them. I'm not completely sure where the breakdown with this is-- are the programs not enough? Are people not aware of the options, and are therefore not taking them? I suspect that for some of the older generations, the idea of retraining and re-entering the workplace might be damn near impossible.
  4. U.S. Elections: Orange is the New Wack

    is this a joke?
  5. U.S. Elections: Orange is the New Wack

    @DunderMifflin: It seems like you've been skeptical of whether racism (and other -isms) are the primary drivers of Trumpism. Data aside, doesn't it just kind of defy logic to believe they aren't, given the incessant messaging of the campaign (not to mention the glaring fact that the Clinton platform is the one actually proposing to address economic hardship)? It kind of strains credulity to claim "it's something else" rather than -isms driving his fans, kind of like how it would be ludicrous if someone claims to "really love" Mein Kampf for "Hitler's delightful turns of phrase," rather than anything, you know, offensive.
  6. Well, I think additionally to advocating for remote tax credits, the government offers credits, counseling and retraining programs, especially for those hit by certain affected industries. I'm not sure how effective those are, but the idea seems good. Additionally, I think there are a lot of industries that don't necessarily require expensive degrees or tons of training that people can go into. Apparently industrial welding pays like $100k (according to the WSJ), and is in high demand because of the fracking business, requiring some retraining. Nursing is another industry that's in very high demand, and while that requires some more training than some can afford, it is very lucrative, and probably can't be replaced by robots any time soon. I really think keeping oneself aware of which industries are growing and making sure you, or at least your kids move toward one of those, is a good way to "exercise your agency" in this. The commuting may not work for everyone, but I do think the writer's portrayal of how America is apparently entirely comprised of patches of inner city Chicago between fruited plains inaccurate, and the idea that you have to live in city limits to find a real job these days to be disingenuous. There are large towns and full blown suburbs that are home to sustaining industries, where the costs of living are not outrageously high. The difficulty of selling your house profitably to relocate is a good point, and wouldn't work for everyone. But in responding to the article-- that seemed to imply all the jobs are in cities, and in order to work in one you must live in one, paying astronomical prices-- the fact that people can commute is the obvious answer.
  7. I thought that was a false dichotomy the author set up. The most obvious solution might be simply that instead of working in your neighborhood or town, you need to start commuting to a large town or city (if there is one in reasonable commute distance. If not, a move toward a suburb or ex-urb might be useful). Your transportation cost and time will rise, but it doesn't necessarily require increased cost of living or even a move. I think the article made far too much of this strict "rural/ urban" divide. There's a lot of space between "urban" and "rural" in the country, and finding opportunity doesn't require moving within city limits. It may require a move to more densely populated areas, admittedly, but I didn't find the author's representation of the divide tremendously accurate. Another issue might be to embrace/ accept change. If it's becoming likely that factory work will become more limited, taking steps to move toward something else-- especially for the next generation-- might have helped avert some of this. I don't mean blaming workers for getting laid off or anything like that, especially those blindsided in the early stages of it. But when it became evident 10, 15, maybe even 20 years ago that a lot of these jobs weren't going to be around, that fact should have been recognized, and the next generation of workers could have been encouraged to do something else instead of expected to follow at the local plant-- to get out in front of it, instead of having to react to it-- with limited options-- on the back end.
  8. I've repeatedly said I think these people need to be helped. No matter what confluence of issues got them there, an intervention is needed. I've also repeatedly said I sympathize with the dire hardship. That's not the issue. And it seems like some Trump supporters really are in a bad place economically. But not most, it seems. The people described in that Cracked piece are, but it seems they aren't the majority of Trumpkins. And I guess, one more time, because I think this is still getting lost-- I'm specifically annoyed by the Cracked article's eliding over this segment of Trump's supporters' faulty worldviews (even the non- ist ones), sense of entitlement, portrayal as agency-less victims, and offensively weak "because Walter White" conclusion that forces a view of Trump supporters as too stupid to know he's not really going to help anyone. I'm saying this stuff needs to be addressed for everyone's sake. We can sympathize with their circumstances, but also look at how they are themselves becoming victimizers, as well as criticizing their toxic and unproductive worldviews.
  9. Ok, but nothing I wrote pertains to criticizing Trump for promising to bring back "Amalgamated Spats," so to speak. Or even voters' desire to support a candidate promising that. I'm saying that the seemingly pervasive attitude coursing through that article-- that people feel entitled to the status quo despite a changing world that's always been changing, and that those "left behind" have no agency-- needs to be addressed. This is not a healthy, productive mindset for large swaths of the population to hold, nor is it even truly in one's own interest. Like racism, it seems that might be an attitude worth trying to change minds about. I definitely agree about helping to expand opportunity. And yea, though they might not be the exact same jobs. Like how Hillary wants to get those in the coal sector over to alternative energy, and the like-- technically she's "taking coal jobs," but wants to create more in more sustainable fields.
  10. If my grandmother made a killing making spats at the Amalgamated Spats Factory, and my mom did as well, but now spats aren't popular and no one is buying them, should I hold the attitude: "Well, my grandmother and mother made a killing off spats, and so should I-- I'm entitled to that life. But now the factory is closed because no one wears them anymore, so I should just be angry about it. It's the world's fault for thinking spats are stupid, and I'm a victim who had no power to do otherwise. I was right to keep expecting to go into this line work profitably, despite knowing the spats trend was on the decline. I'm owed this work." That's the attitude being justified, perhaps inadvertently, behind the Cracked piece.
  11. Yea, that's the party line so to speak-- that Trump is better for their interests. Even though it's 100% objectively false. Do these people actually believe Trump will make things better for them? Some might (or some might want to believe), but I don't think these people are generally that genuinely stupid not to realize he's an incompetent and it won't be better for them. There's something else going on with this. When you listen to what they're actually saying, it's a lot closer to "let's burn it all down," and kind of like punishing the "elites" and establishment, or even settling the score to get those "cutting the line" back into places. This is why facts don't matter! They don't care. And you're missing my point about entitlement. I'm specifically addressing the pervasive issue of feeling entitled to the status quo despite a changing world. The Cracked writer seems to presuppose an acceptability to this particular feeling of "entitlement to the way things used to be" as a device to conjure sympathy.
  12. But I'm not talking about their racism! Even in the part of my post that you quoted! I'm talking about the underlying feeling that one is entitled to things as it's always been (even just economically), and how this is unproductive and hugely troubling. The Cracked writer is trying to stir sympathy for the segment of Trump supporters that have been badly hit by the economy, and explain why they turn to him. But to conjure the sympathy, the writer, perhaps inadvertently, portrays these people as agency-less victims of a system they can do nothing against except get angry. And that's just not true! There's an attitude embedded in there that says "I should be entitled to the status quo, even in a changing world" that helps to foster that stagnation. This attitude needs to be confronted. Then the writer tries to make the jump to why these people run toward Trump. His goal is to make us sympathetic, so he cannot bring up the appeal of Trump's various -isms. Nor can he directly say it's a "fuck you" to those better off than them, because that's not sympathetic either. Rather, these people flock to Trump, because, essentially, he's like a dark hero who breaks rules, but will get things done for them apparently. So, basically, the writer thinks these people are too stupid to realize that Trump is totally incompetent and not really a hero who gets things done. I actually don't think they're that stupid. I think the turn toward Trump is far less savory, and I specified not the racial component, but rather something akin to vengeance as the draw.
  13. You're saying that you suspect the anger toward immigrants has a causal relationship with economic hardship? idk, --wasn't there a lot of noise about public forms and signs becoming bilingual, even back when things were going well economically? I thought we've had a pretty strong tradition of racial/ ethnic intolerance, with complaints about giving entitlements to the "undeserving," even in times of plenty. But I don't doubt that perceived and real economic stagnation (and real and perceived assaults to one's social status) helps to make Trumpism so particularly virulent. ETA: my issues with that article-- aside from how the "it's logical for them to support Trump" conclusion just didn't logically follow-- wasn't that I doubt their economic pain. We definitely need to give these people relief somehow; people are really suffering in some cases. My issue is really in how the writer elided over things in order to present them as super sympathetic rendered them agency-less, apparently abysmally stupid, unable to adapt victims in the process. The unstated notion expressed that one is entitled to stay rooted to the past (even just economically) without consequences is a really problematic view.
  14. I think it's talking about a demographic similar to what was profiled in the Mother Jones piece (though the main subject of the MJ article is of the fairly comfortable economic class explored in Vox). I just think that Cracked piece completely glosses over some incredibly critical issues to portray these people as almost exclusively unracist, agency-less victims of a hard world, and how we should sympathize with their support for that orange shit stain (that turn at the end just kills me). I mean, that piece even excuses/ justifies their steadfast beliefs in utterly misinformed portrayals of reality and other people! In a nutshell, I think the article does a complete disservice to all of the issues going on. We can sympathize with people who feel lost and hopeless. But the article is doing no one any favors by eliding over the desire to completely stagnate (expect the world to adapt to you) and become insular (willfully consume misinformation that only reinforces your world view). ETA: to clarify, I don't think we should write these people off. They are part of the country. But for an article that purports to talk about the "real" issues, that Cracked piece is not getting us any closer to tackling those issues because it avoids and excuses some pretty major underlying ones.
  15. There are all sorts of issues with that Cracked article (beyond its anecdotal nature that shouldn't be universalized, I mean). For one, it takes a tone that renders these people agency-less victims of their circumstances. This piece is asking jerk- liberals to feel sorry for these people for losing their way of life, and feeling like they have no prospects for the future (which, yes, I find worthy of sympathy). But what the article elides over is the fact that these people have felt entitled to have the world change around them, rather than adapt to the world, for the last 50-60 years. They are angry because the same education level, field of work and jobs that generations before them have held are going away, and/ or not getting them as far materially (mostly to automation as I understand it). The way the writer presents this is as though they have had no agency or freedom to respond to the changing world except to become abject, angry victims, which is simply not true. And permeating throughout is the unstated notion that they should be entitled to the same compensation for the same work as generations past, which is a hugely problematic attitude to take. Secondly, playing off fear of the "dangerous inner city" as something other than "that's where the uncivilized minorities live" seems utterly disingenuous to me. I grant that there was a long period of time where the media played a huge role in over-reporting urban crime apparently perpetrated by minorities that undoubtedly served to shape that perception. But let's not pretend fear of the cities doesn't involve fear of minorities. And for the love of god, not mistreating a few PoC in person around one's small town doesn't preclude these townspeople from harboring racism. The turn at the end is also hugely infuriating-- "explaining" how Trump is a logical choice for these totally not -ist, poor agency-less victims of circumstances totally beyond their control because......Walter White. Because Trump is like your favorite fictional character "Who only get shit done because they don't care about the rules?" So they think Trump is actually going to "get shit done" for them? Then I guess the writer thinks these Trumpkins are abysmally stupid on top of it all? I actually don't think a lot of these Trumpkins are genuinely ignorant of the incompetent bag of hate Trump is. They aren't looking for him to make things better for anyone, despite what clumsy mental gymnastics they perform when asked for the cameras. I'm pretty sure what's going on here with a lot of them is simple vengeance. Hardly worthy of sympathy, in my view.