It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:01 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 203 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:48 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12076
subgenius wrote:
So, first it was electoral college, then immigration, then it was Russia, now it's Racism - can you give me a hint for what tomorrow's hysteria will be?....honestly the chaos from all the hair on fire is disorienting

Look. Either Trump can be xenophobic, racist, or he and his inner circle can have alarming behavior with respect to Russia. It can't be all three. That's impossible.

That's why I'm glad Trump fired James Comey so he can get down to America's business of building a wall and encouraging police to rough up suspects in those "inner-city" hell-holes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:35 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 11966
Location: On the imaginary axis
This reasonable and evidence-based post deserves to be seen on the current page.

It would be good if those who think otherwise would bring an equal evidential weight to the argument they make against EAllusion's position.

This from the first article cited:

Quote:
THE POLITICS OF THE FUTURE IS THE POLITICS OF RACE
So what’s going on? Well, it seems Trump is both the product, and a further catalyst of, the increasing sorting of parties along racial attitudes.

What does sorting mean? One example from history is abortion: for a long time there were pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, but parties have sorted so that party identification strongly predicts views on abortion. Similarly, there used to be racially liberal Republicans (think of George Romney) and racially conservative Democrats (think Robert Byrd). As recently as 2000, George Bush discussed micro-agressions at the Republican National Convention and pushed for immigration reform, though his presidency was defined by anti-Muslim fearmongering and callousness towards the victims of Katrina.

Still, as other research has shown, many low-interest voters still had trouble distinguishing parties in terms of attitudes about aid to black Americans as late as 2008. Obama’s election and the subsequent backlash ensured that very few racial progressives would vote for Republicans and very few racially resentful individuals would vote for Democrats. As the chart above shows, individuals are now well-sorted into parties and Republicans score nearly twice as high on our explicit racial resentment scale.

The one-two punch of Obama’s presidency and Trump’s candidacy sent a clear signal to voters what the parties stood for: diversity on one side, resentment on the other. Trump built upon a decades-long campaign to erase support for the safety net by racializing government programs but extended it further by openly demonizing people of color. Graphs from political scientist Thomas Wood show this relationship clearly: voters are increasingly sorted along the lines of racial resentment. At the same time, the role of income has been twisted: “While the wealthy are usually most likely to vote for the Republican, they didn’t this time; and while the poor are usually less likely to vote for the Republican, they were unusually supportive of Trump.”

It’s likely that political elites (party leaders, activists, media organizations) will continue on the current path and the issue of identity will fully map onto the current political divides. Economic conservatism and white nationalism will become more fully intertwined for Republicans, as will racial and economic equity for Democrats. Republicans have shown little interest in attempting to hold back Trump’s openly racist rhetoric. On the other side, few Democrats have proposed abandoning civil rights (and those who have met intense backlash). Democrats may press forward with an economic, racial and gender progressive agenda, while Republicans continue to tie economic conservatism to white identity politics.


And some graphs that sum it up:

Image

Image

EAllusion wrote:
There's a fairly robust body of data at this point indicating that racial resentment played a significant causal role in the constitution of Trump's voter base.

https://www.thenation.com/article/econo ... acism-did/
https://www.economist.com/news/special- ... race-helps
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... trump.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 6cead53d17

The more likely a white person holds racial animosity, the more likely they were to vote Trump with the most racist voters being a virtual guarantee to vote Trump. Moreover, this effect was significantly more pronounced than it was with Romney or McCain even though they both were running against a black man.

Trump did better among whites that Romney did, though the racial resentment vote is actually stronger than those numbers indicate because Clinton picked up some educated white vote in exchange for losing more uneducated whites. Her gains in white voters were more than washed out in her losses among the most racist subgroups of them.

If it wasn't racial resentment explaining such a shift in the racial resentment vote to Trump, then what was it? The most obvious alternative explanation is that Trump appeals to poorly educated voters for other reasons and poorly educated voters tend to be more racist. Problem is, even when you control for education the effect is there. This shouldn't be terribly surprising. Trump built up a Republican following on the back of relentless pursuit of a racist conspiracy theory. He opened his campaign with profoundly racist comments. It would be more surprising if he wasn't appealing to racists.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:04 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 13404
I love it. McDaniel is a white male. And the organization responsible for the survey is composed of... Drum roll 22 white people (and yes I count the one Chicano (?) as a Caucasian because I'm inclusive).

http://www.electionstudies.org/overview ... tBoard.htm

Racist supremacists not diversifying their own organization... Telling everyone who voted for Trump they're racist. Must feel good for people like EAllusion and Chap to virtue signal to one another how open-minded, toelrant, and diverse they are while they're surrounded by other white hypocrites patting each other on their backs, quoting surveys done by white people, all the while denying opportunity to the oppressed.

Disgusting.

Anyway. If you click on the above link you'll be unsurprised to find these people are consumed with racial identity and far-leftism.

- Doc

_________________
I have Mental Gymnast on ignore until he makes amends with Grindael, and both Grindael and IHAQ start posting again. I will not allow a troll to drive off two great board members without taking a stand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:13 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 11966
Location: On the imaginary axis
Is DrC seriously suggesting that the results of the survey I quoted and its conclusions (that racial animosity rather than economic distress was a significant factor in getting white people to vote for Trump) were in some way falsified or distorted by a conspiracy of white males in the organisation that carried it out?

I'd just like to get that point clear, since at the moment it is somewhat obscured by the usual fog of abuse and rage that accompanies a DrC post nowadays.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:20 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12076
I said multiple times on this thread alone that I don't think everyone who voted Trump is racist.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:20 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 13404
Chap wrote:
Is DrC seriously suggesting that the results of the survey I quoted and its conclusions (that racial animosity rather than economic distress was a significant factor in getting white people to vote for Trump) were in some way falsified or distorted by a conspiracy of white males in the organisation that carried it out?

I'd just like to get that point clear, since at the moment it is somewhat obscured by the usual fog of abuse and rage that accompanies a DrC post nowadays.


Did you read the article associated with the survey (of course you didn't)? Don't you believe the four questions provided were meant to invoke anxiety in those polled? And, in fact, who were the individuals polled?

You're seriously suggesting the complexity and nuance that is a human being and then exercised through voting can be distilled down to four questions designed to produce a graphic demonstrating the polling bias of the organization conducting it.

And from an organization made up of white racists. Really?? What's wrong with you?

- Doc

_________________
I have Mental Gymnast on ignore until he makes amends with Grindael, and both Grindael and IHAQ start posting again. I will not allow a troll to drive off two great board members without taking a stand.


Last edited by Doctor CamNC4Me on Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 13404
EAllusion wrote:
I said multiple times on this thread alone that I don't think everyone who voted Trump is racist.


And I believe you even though you implied otherwise, only because it's statistically impossible. I have a feeling you believe a good majority of them are racists, or harbor some sort of white supremacist feeling. Which, honestly, I don't know why you're threatened by that since you're clearly a crypto-racist and surround yourself with white people. Maybe you feel guilt and this is somehow your penance. I dunno.

- Doc

_________________
I have Mental Gymnast on ignore until he makes amends with Grindael, and both Grindael and IHAQ start posting again. I will not allow a troll to drive off two great board members without taking a stand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:25 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:17 pm
Posts: 6547
EAllusion wrote:
There's a fairly robust body of data at this point indicating that racial resentment played a significant causal role in the constitution of Trump's voter base.

https://www.thenation.com/article/econo ... acism-did/
https://www.economist.com/news/special- ... race-helps
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... trump.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 6cead53d17

The more likely a white person holds racial animosity, the more likely they were to vote Trump with the most racist voters being a virtual guarantee to vote Trump. Moreover, this effect was significantly more pronounced than it was with Romney or McCain even though they both were running against a black man.

Trump did better among whites that Romney did, though the racial resentment vote is actually stronger than those numbers indicate because Clinton picked up some educated white vote in exchange for losing more uneducated whites. Her gains in white voters were more than washed out in her losses among the most racist subgroups of them.

If it wasn't racial resentment explaining such a shift in the racial resentment vote to Trump, then what was it? The most obvious alternative explanation is that Trump appeals to poorly educated voters for other reasons and poorly educated voters tend to be more racist. Problem is, even when you control for education the effect is there. This shouldn't be terribly surprising. Trump built up a Republican following on the back of relentless pursuit of a racist conspiracy theory. He opened his campaign with profoundly racist comments. It would be more surprising if he wasn't appealing to racists.

The problem with this reductionist argument is that it could just as easily be changed to Clinton lost because black people and men generally were so reluctant to vote for a white female they decided it was better to stay home and let the openly racist thug get elected if not vote for him outright. That's basically the difference between 2012 and 2016 if one wants to be so reductive that it all must be explained by crayon-written labeling. I mean, the math is the math. Stats I've seen put white support for Trump basically even with Romney, at 59% of the white vote for Romney and 58% Trump. Every single minority category voted at higher percentages for Trump than Romney. If we want to be reductionist, the best explanation for 2016 is misogyny. I think that played a real roll, just as racial prejudice did, but it's ridiculous to be this overly simplistic.

Why the need to reduce this to something so overly simplistic?

_________________
Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced.
~ Soren Kierkegaard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:27 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 11966
Location: On the imaginary axis
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
And from an organization made up of white racists.


Can I be quite clear here? You are seriously suggested that the organisation known as American National Election Studies (ANES), whose board members are listed here:

http://www.electionstudies.org/overview ... tBoard.htm

are white racists?

You're just trolling again, aren't you?

PS - one of them is not white at all.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Last edited by Chap on Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:37 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 11966
Location: On the imaginary axis
honorentheos wrote:
The problem with this reductionist argument ... If we want to be reductionist, the best explanation for 2016 is misogyny. I think that played a real roll, just as racial prejudice did, but it's ridiculous to be this overly simplistic.

Why the need to reduce this to something so overly simplistic?


I don't think that the evidence cited is really open to this kind of dismissal.

It is clear from the ANES data (check it out) that Trump voters were much more strongly distinguished from non-Trump voters by their negative racial attitudes than they were by their sense of economic disadvantage. That shows fairly clearly that it is more likely that people voted for Trump for the first reason than for the second.

Of course that does not mean there were no other reasons. You may be right in your personal feeling that 'the best explanation for 2016 is misogyny'. But can you cite any reliable statistical evidence to that effect?

Until you can, the maximum possible claim on this board is 'the anonymous poster known as honorentheos feels that the best explanation for [Trump being elected rather than Clinton in] 2016 is misogyny'. And (forgive me) that is, absent hard data, a less interesting statement than the one which shows that racism probably played a larger role than economics in the choices of Trump voters.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:12 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:17 pm
Posts: 6547
Chap, the numbers are the numbers. Whites made up a smaller percentage of the total electorate 2012-2016 (72% in 2012, 70% 2016). White support of Trump v. Romney was basically even at 58-59% of whites. Yet in 2012 Obama won and in 2016 Clinton lost. It's not my opinion that the clear role that race played in certain white voters decisions to vote for Trump fails to explain why Clinton lost and Trump won. It's just math.

_________________
Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced.
~ Soren Kierkegaard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:25 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 13404
honorentheos wrote:
Chap, the numbers are the numbers. Whites made up a smaller percentage of the total electorate 2012-2016 (72% in 2012, 70% 2016). White support of Trump v. Romney was basically even at 58-59% of whites. Yet in 2012 Obama won and in 2016 Clinton lost. It's not my opinion that the clear role that race played in certain white voters decisions to vote for Trump fails to explain why Clinton lost and Trump won. It's just math.


Do you believe if the Democrats had fielded a male they might've picked up the election? What are your thoughts on Sanders, if he had gotten the nomination? I'd like to believe he would've been our first Jewish President, but then again I was sooooo off thinking Hillary Clinton had it in the bag.

- Doc

_________________
I have Mental Gymnast on ignore until he makes amends with Grindael, and both Grindael and IHAQ start posting again. I will not allow a troll to drive off two great board members without taking a stand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:34 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 11966
Location: On the imaginary axis
honorentheos wrote:
Chap, the numbers are the numbers. Whites made up a smaller percentage of the total electorate 2012-2016 (72% in 2012, 70% 2016). White support of Trump v. Romney was basically even at 58-59% of whites. Yet in 2012 Obama won and in 2016 Clinton lost. It's not my opinion that the clear role that race played in certain white voters decisions to vote for Trump fails to explain why Clinton lost and Trump won. It's just math.


This is what I claim. Note the bolded words, and what follows them.

Quote:
It is clear from the ANES data (check it out) that Trump voters were much more strongly distinguished from non-Trump voters by their negative racial attitudes than they were by their sense of economic disadvantage. That shows fairly clearly that it is more likely that people voted for Trump for the first reason than for the second.

Of course that does not mean there were no other reasons. You may be right in your personal feeling that 'the best explanation for 2016 is misogyny'. But can you cite any reliable statistical evidence to that effect?


Do you have hard survey data on the way that voters sort between Republicans and Democrats on scores of misogyny? Given your claims, it is up to you to provide some.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:42 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 11966
Location: On the imaginary axis
Looking back on the thread, I think this short extract is worth embroidering on a sampler and hanging it up in the kitchen:


Analytics wrote:
... I think Coates nailed it when he said, "Certainly not every Trump voter is a white supremacist, just as not every white person in the Jim Crow South was a white supremacist. But every Trump voter felt it acceptable to hand the fate of the country over to one." There is no way around that.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:47 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:51 pm
Posts: 6619
I don't believe it was racism, sexism, or economic anxiety flight that cost the Dem's the election. They certainly were factors but not conclusive. You have to remember that Hillary still got 3 million more popular votes than Drumpf. The biggest single factor was Russian collusion with Drumpf to steal it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:48 am 
Prophet
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:50 pm
Posts: 870
Chap wrote:
Looking back on the thread, I think this short extract is worth embroidering on a sampler and hanging it up in the kitchen:

Analytics wrote:
... I think Coates nailed it when he said, "Certainly not every Trump voter is a white supremacist, just as not every white person in the Jim Crow South was a white supremacist. But every Trump voter felt it acceptable to hand the fate of the country over to one." There is no way around that.


That was THE zinger for me as well (noted back on page 2, before being buried in other things).

I also feel the last sentence is a bit ironic, given the back and forth that has occurred on this this thread.

Quote:
The first white president in American history is also the most dangerous president—and he is made more dangerous still by the fact that those charged with analyzing him cannot name his essential nature, because they too are implicated in it.

_________________
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehesi Coats spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:54 am 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 12211
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
EAllusion wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Well, since you can't be bothered to abide by Dr. Shades' policy, and you've done nothing to induce any sort of interest other than saying it's really neat I'll pass.

Shades policy is based on his idiosyncrasies that are silly and inconsistent.

First, since when is requiring the poster (as opposed to the reader) to do the "heavy lifting" idiosyncratic as opposed to courteous? Second, how is this policy either silly or inconsistent?

Quote:
I'm within the principle of it.

Nope. To be within the principle of it, you would've had to tell us the subject matter contained within so readers could've judged for themselves whether it was a topic they were interested in reading more about. (Famous writers come a dime a dozen. Major American publications also come a dime a dozen.)

Thanks to DoctorCamNC4Me's comments, you eventually got around to doing it, but doing so in the opening post is "the tech."

_________________
Lesson: if Joseph can imagine it, if Joseph wants to do it, then God must have always been all right with it. Joseph's beliefs are the divine order of things.

--Kishkumen, 10-10-2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:06 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 11966
Location: On the imaginary axis
Dr. Shades wrote:
since when is requiring the poster (as opposed to the reader) to do the "heavy lifting" idiosyncratic as opposed to courteous? Second, how is this policy either silly or inconsistent?


It is neither, and I know I am not the only poster who feels that way.

But then, there are apparently people here whose gratitude to Shades for keeping this board running is not sufficient to move them to accept his rulings on such points with a little bit of grace and courtesy. They simply have the habit of indignant complaining; probably an after-effect of a lifetime of being forced to obey rules with no sense or reason in them?

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehesi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:13 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 14191
EAllusion wrote:
Coates' arguments don't rely on thinking there is a monolithic white culture among white people. That's not what "whiteness" refers to. Because you are so richly educated and don't live in an echo-chamber, perhaps you might instead to choose to actually address what he's talking about? There are weaknesses in the cultural studies conception of whiteness, but I think that is secondary to the thrust of his argument. Your criticism is just off base, though.

Regarding Obama having to work 2x as hard, you decided to attack that by pointing out that Obama working 2x as hard would be hard to quantify in an exact mathematical sense. That's of course just a figurative way of saying that Obama, a man who once was crushed for wearing a tan suit, had to be thoughtful, eloquent, and squeaky clean in his personal life to be acceptable as a candidate, but Trump obviously does not. The talent gap and contrast in personal lifestyle between the two is large. Trump is a buffoon and a ethical train-wreck right out in the open.

The way to attack this is not to point out that "lol. What is 2x?!" It's to point out that the media biases hold Democrats and Republicans to different standards and Obama simply got caught up in this dynamic under the full maturation of right-wing media. That likely explains some of this inconsistent standard. Moreoever, Trump has continued to benefit from being so awful that people have a hard time focusing on any one thing, and this explains part of the wild swing in standards. It doesn't explain all of it though, and I think Coates is correct that Obama could only be acceptable as the first black president by being as personally impressive as he was and Trump's election is a thumb in the eye showing that someone who is white has no such standard. The people who got Trump elected - the people who showed up to his rallies and placed their lot with him early on in the primaries - had a lot of excitement about his clownish persona and reveled in it in a way that they would destroy Obama for. There is a racial component to that as much as a partisan one.

That is nothing if not a display of white privilege.


It boggles the mind that anyone could even contest this.

But here's a clip from Bill Maher in case anyone lacks imagination:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swcJzacZkWU

(around 2:25)

I think some posters here misunderstand his primary point - or perhaps I do. My take-away was that no non-white candidate for the presidency of the US would ever have won if he/she had said or did the things that Trump did.

He had to be white to win.

How can anyone contest this with a straight face?

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:20 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 14191
Analytics wrote:
... I think Coates nailed it when he said, "Certainly not every Trump voter is a white supremacist, just as not every white person in the Jim Crow South was a white supremacist. But every Trump voter felt it acceptable to hand the fate of the country over to one." There is no way around that.


Quoted for truth.

I don't remember anyone saying that everyone that voted for Trump is a racist. But obviously Trump voters were comfortable with his problematic history and pretty open race-baiting during the election.

It reminds me of the debate about whether or not Trump is really racist.

I do think he's racist. But let's consider, for a moment, what it would mean if Trump were not personally a racist. It means that he felt comfortable deliberately manipulating, encouraging, and benefiting from the racisms of others. It's like someone is not a racist, but wants to start a race war anyway to sell weapons.

I don't see how that's any better. In fact, I think I'm being kinder as dismissing him as a 70-year-old racist, the product of a racist upbringing.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:43 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12076
honorentheos wrote:
The problem with this reductionist argument is that it could just as easily be changed to Clinton lost because black people and men generally were so reluctant to vote for a white female they decided it was better to stay home and let the openly racist thug get elected if not vote for him outright. That's basically the difference between 2012 and 2016 if one wants to be so reductive that it all must be explained by crayon-written labeling. I mean, the math is the math. Stats I've seen put white support for Trump basically even with Romney, at 59% of the white vote for Romney and 58% Trump. Every single minority category voted at higher percentages for Trump than Romney. If we want to be reductionist, the best explanation for 2016 is misogyny. I think that played a real roll, just as racial prejudice did, but it's ridiculous to be this overly simplistic.

Why the need to reduce this to something so overly simplistic?


First, I think a confusion needs to be cleared away. There is a decent chance that the weather explained why Clinton lost. That is to say, the election was so close that the margin of victory for Trump in key states was small enough that it fell within the range that weather is known to impact vote outcomes. When you have a close election, any number of small factors are large enough to be determinant of outcome.

What I'm asserting is that racial resentment was a significant explanatory factor in the rise and success of Donald Trump beyond marginal factors and beyond some other things that many journalists like to focus on rather than discuss this uncomfortable fact. I have said multiple times, including in this thread, that the result necessarily was the result of a multiplicity of factors and I'm not sure how you can call the arguments I've shared or the research in the links "reductionist" when this is plainly acknowledged.

For your comments, I think you are neglecting two important issues here before you get off the ground. The first is that racial resentment was significantly more predictive of Trump support than it was for Romney or McCain voters. White voters, falling in line with this correlative data, resorted themselves somewhat by racial resentment to explain this phenomenon. Relying on racial demographic exit polls doesn't get at this. The second is that you are narrowly focused on the Clinton/Trump campaign when that doesn't at all account for why Trump was the Republican nominee in the first place. And Trump did draw in a relatively xenophobic / racist crowd even within the confines of the Republican party. That shouldn't be surprising, though, as Trump was the most explicitly bigoted candidate since George Wallace.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 203 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EAllusion, Google [Bot], huckelberry, Maxine Waters, subgenius and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group