Is the world becoming more racist?

[zorax]

Yeah those dopey trogs need to just know their place and get over it. How dare they try to shape their lives as best they see fit.

Look I agree with you to an extent. The world isn't the same as it was and as things change people will need to find new ways to provide value, however that kind of dismissive attitude is exactly the kind of insensitivity that the article highlights as a driver of someone like Trump. I think that no one from any class (you and I included) really knows how best to unravel this mess, but offhandedly dismissing the understandable concerns people have about their place in this world is a short path to a bloody future.

Yea I actually agree with this.

Its kinda the only silver lining to this mess. We get to talk about it more. And if both sides can listen to each other, then maybe we can actually solve these issues.

 

[Zinzan]

You can be complicit in racism without being driven by it. In fact I'd personally argue that's extremely common, people buying into a racially biased system and defending it from anti-racist pressure whilst having no personal racial animus themselves.

There's some truth to that, especially in an isolated scenario, but we're talking in the context of an election, & why people ultimately voted a certain way, with several factors at play.

The assertion that every single Trump voter to a man & woman must be tarnished at the very least with the 'complicit racism' brush, seems mighty harsh to me. Especially on those who genuinely, rightly or wrongly, thought this election was going to make a huge difference for the well-being of their families, in spite some rhetoric they found distressing.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah those dopey trogs need to just know their place and get over it. How dare they try to shape their lives as best they see fit.

Look I agree with you to an extent. The world isn't the same as it was and as things change people will need to find new ways to provide value, however that kind of dismissive attitude is exactly the kind of insensitivity that the article highlights as a driver of someone like Trump. I think that no one from any class (you and I included) really knows how best to unravel this mess, but offhandedly dismissing the understandable concerns people have about their place in this world is a short path to a bloody future.

Everyone needs to know their place in the world, and I wasn't being condescending, at least not more condescending than the people saying "you don't understand working class".

The part in bold is exactly my point. There are two ways to engage with the working class concerns:

1) Tell them the way it is right now and that it's a very hard route out of the mess but there's no silver bullet. It's going to take a lot of work and guesswork and we will try to get there and hopefully we will get there.

2) Lie about how it's all going to be awesome and we're just a couple of tough policies away from going back to the golden days.

The fact that the working class prefers 2) to 1) does not mean I'm being condescending. It means they have no understanding of the world as it is. And calling me a dismissive elite won't fix that.

 

[zorax]

There's some truth to that, especially in an isolated scenario, but we're talking in the context of an election, & why people ultimately voted a certain way, with several factors at play.

The assertion that every single Trump voter to a man & woman must be tarnished at the very least with the 'complicit racism' brush, seems mighty harsh to me. Especially on those who genuinely, rightly or wrongly, thought this election was going to make a huge difference for the well-being of their families, in spite some rhetoric they found distressing.

Its harsh but it should be done

Just like every person who ignores grassroots politics and then complains about the final candidates needs to be called out for their apathy. Or those who vote Clinton need to be aware that they're supporting a corrupt blood thirsty career politician.

You shouldnt absolve people of their culpability just because its harsh imo

 

[Magrat Garlick]

You can be complicit in racism without being driven by it. In fact I'd personally argue that's extremely common, people buying into a racially biased system and defending it from anti-racist pressure whilst having no personal racial animus themselves.

Yes. And when criticized of our own structural complicity, we deflect it as a personal attack ("you called me a racist"). I've probably done it lots of times but it's still a frustrating dynamic.

 

[Ausage]

Everyone needs to know their place in the world, and I wasn't being condescending, at least not more condescending than the people saying "you don't understand working class".

The part in bold is exactly my point. There are two ways to engage with the working class concerns:

1) Tell them the way it is right now and that it's a very hard route out of the mess but there's no silver bullet. It's going to take a lot of work and guesswork and we will try to get there and hopefully we will get there.

2) Lie about how it's all going to be awesome and we're just a couple of tough policies away from going back to the golden days.

The fact that the working class prefers 2) to 1) does not mean I'm being condescending. It means they have no understanding of the world as it is. And calling me a dismissive elite won't fix that.

You can look at my post as an attack on you, but you aren't really the target here. I'm trying to highlight how such an attitude sounds to someone who lives in a decimated former manufacturing town and has had no job for the last 5 years being told by an academic with a cushy job on the east coast that "x demographic" has it worse so suck it up princess.

I'm not suggesting lying to people is the best way to go about it (and that article highlights what happens when Trump doesn't bring the jobs back as an explicit danger) but I think energy and rhetoric are as important as actual policy when it comes to revitalizing depressed economies. Like it or not the Dems (nor establishment Reps) don't currently have that while Trump undoubtedly does. Unfortunately that energy is only half the solution.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes. And when criticized of our own structural complicity, we deflect it as a personal attack ("you called me a racist"). I've probably done it lots of times but it's still a frustrating dynamic.

It probably doesn't help that it's often actually framed as that exact personal attack though.

FTR being tolerant of racism makes you complicit in it, and I think its fair to call a person complicit with racism a racist.

Not only do I think zorax is hopelessly wrong on this but I think it'd be rather unhelpful path to go down even if he was right.

Trump didn't win due to any one thing but I do think a lot of people have become a bit desensitised to the R word and the B word. When even Mitt Romney was painted as some sort of bigoted, misogynistic racist, I think some of the sting was taken out that criticism to a point where some people in the US stopped thinking of it automatically as such a horrible thing. A Republican candidate being painted as such by his opposition wasn't a new development, so I think to some extent we had a bit of a 'boy who cried' wolf type situation with some people. I don't think that was the biggest factor at play and I'm not going to sensationalise by saying "THIS IS WHY TRUMP WON" as I've seen people do with various other (and sometimes similar) points, but I do think it played a part.

Spark is spot on but I think it's important to actually articulate his point properly as he did rather than just calling people racists.

 

[Zinzan]

Its harsh but it should be done

Just like every person who ignores grassroots politics and then complains about the final candidates needs to be called out for their apathy. Or those who vote Clinton need to be aware that they're supporting a corrupt blood thirsty career politician.

You shouldnt absolve people of their culpability just because its harsh imo

That's fine if that's your position, but you must then be philosophically consistent with it, & that also makes you and I 'complicit' to poverty in Africa, simply because we could both (i'm sure I speak for you) be more selfless & give more of what we have away, to ensure slightly more equality in the world, & whilst still surviving.

As long as we're all guilty of some form of selfishness of putting ourselves & our families before others. In fact, why should people even put their fellow countrymen & women ahead of those people unlucky enough to be born in poorer countries?

Isn't that just a natural extension of the same argument, or do they get a pass on that?

What you'll generally find in life is that it's self & family first, country 2nd, & then others in the world in that order.

 

[harsh.ag]

You can look at my post as an attack on you, but you aren't really the target here. I'm trying to highlight how such an attitude sounds to someone who lives in a decimated former manufacturing town and has had no job for the last 5 years being told by an academic with a cushy job on the east coast that "x demographic" has it worse so suck it up princess.

I'm not suggesting lying to people is the best way to go about it (and that article highlights what happens when Trump doesn't bring the jobs back as an explicit danger) but I think energy and rhetoric are as important as actual policy when it comes to revitalizing depressed economies. Like it or not the Dems (nor establishment Reps) don't currently have that while Trump undoubtedly does. Unfortunately that energy is only half the solution.

Yeah, try telling that to Chile under Pinochet and many other places. You think like this only at your own peril. China has done extraordinary things with their working class with zero energy and rhetoric of the kind you're talking about.

So I write about how the working class is deluding itself from a realistic pov, not from the pov of electoral politics, and you reply to my posts as if I am writing about electoral politics. Why would you do that?

Also, why would only academics with cushy jobs say this kind of stuff? Anyone can pick up the economic data and figure it out in a few days at best. If people can spend so much time going to the rallies of politicians, surely they can do this.

 

[harsh.ag]

You can look at my post as an attack on you, but you aren't really the target here. I'm trying to highlight how such an attitude sounds to someone who lives in a decimated former manufacturing town and has had no job for the last 5 years being told by an academic with a cushy job on the east coast that "x demographic" has it worse so suck it up princess.

And how the hell did you get this from my posts?

 

[Prince EWS]

FTR being tolerant of racism makes you complicit in it, and I think its fair to call a person complicit with racism a racist.

I understand that perhaps a bit harsh and not everyone will agree with it, but at the same time if we're ever going to be harsh on people for being indifferent, it should be for issues like these.

It's kind like how you either are Feminist or a Sexist. There is no middle ground. Either you think women are worthy equal rights and opportunities, or they aren't. You can't be indifferent. You can't straddle the fence.

I think this sort of think collapses in on itself within the context of voting though, and the very fact that you've brought up both racism and sexism really illustrates why. There is more than one sociopolitical issue in the world and sometimes (see: effectively always) people will have to rank them in order of importance when choosing a candidate.

If one candidate is a sexist and one candidate is a racist, and you're forced to vote in what is either effectively or literally a two party system, are you sexist for voting for the sexist candidate and racist for voting for the racist one (ie. would every single voter be either racist or sexist?) If so then I think we've set a problematically low bar for sexism and racism to the point where we're going to lose important words to describe people and actions who are actually, you know, racist or sexist. And if not then I think you've accepted that people who aren't racist could have voted for Trump because they just ranked racism lower than some other issue or combination of issues.

People who rank racism lower than you do aren't necessarily racists any more than you're a bloodthirsty, warmongering murderer for supporting Clinton.

 

[vcs]

I think this sort of think collapses in on itself within the context of voting though, and the very fact that you've brought up both racism and sexism really illustrates why. There is more than sociopolitical issue in the world and sometimes (see: effectively always) people will have to rank them in order of importance when choosing a candidate.

If one candidate is a sexist and one candidate is a racist, and you're forced to vote in what is either effectively or literally a two party system, are you sexist for voting for the sexist candidate and racist for voting for the racist one (ie. would every single voter be either racist or sexist?) If so then I think we've set a problematically low bar for sexism and racism to the point where we're going to lose important words to describe people and actions who are actually, you know, racist or sexist. And if not then I think you've accepted that people who aren't racist could have voted for Trump because they just ranked racism lower than some other issue or combination of issues.

People who rank racism lower than you do aren't necessarily racists any more than you're a bloodthirsty, warmongering murderer for supporting Clinton.

These are tricky issues. I was appalled to see Modi voted in so unanimously after the Godhra riots (the man appointed a woman who instigated a massacre as a Minister for Women and Child Development FFS), but at some point you have to accept that the majority prioritizes things differently.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

It probably doesn't help that it's often actually framed as that exact personal attack though.

Given that it's pretty much the only way to address racism under a libertarian framework, as the structural outcomes arise from people's expressed preferences in the Perfect Market and can therefore not be addressed without statist overreach, I can see why it happened.

Also, boy who cried wolf is a rubbish fable

and racist is not a slur.

 

[zorax]

I think this sort of think collapses in on itself within the context of voting though, and the very fact that you've brought up both racism and sexism really illustrates why. There is more than one sociopolitical issue in the world and sometimes (see: effectively always) people will have to rank them in order of importance when choosing a candidate.

If one candidate is a sexist and one candidate is a racist, and you're forced to vote in what is either effectively or literally a two party system, are you sexist for voting for the sexist candidate and racist for voting for the racist one (ie. would every single voter be either racist or sexist?) If so then I think we've set a problematically low bar for sexism and racism to the point where we're going to lose important words to describe people and actions who are actually, you know, racist or sexist. And if not then I think you've accepted that people who aren't racist could have voted for Trump because they just ranked racism lower than some other issue or combination of issues.

People who rank racism lower than you do aren't necessarily racists any more than you're a bloodthirsty, warmongering murderer for supporting Clinton.

Look, I agree with you, and there is merit in the point you are making if the voters were presented with a choice between victimising one group within the community or another. If presented with such a choice, then yes it wouldn't be fair to label one group of voters as sexist and the other as racist.

But that isn't the case here. Only one of the two candidates has, during their campaign, openly sought to target segments of the population. Only one of the two candidates actually has a history of mistreating segments of the population. Only one of the two candidates has received approval from those who look to marginalise segments of the population. The worst Hilary has done in this regard is vote against Gay Marriage once upon a time (a position she no longer has) and call all Trump voters 'a basket of deplorables'. That pales in comparison to Trump.

And this is ultimately what bothers me so much. As I said, IMO Social issues > all else, and I am shocked that people are willing to overlook Trump's rhetoric and history for 'other issues or combination of issues'. I am very surprised that this decision was not an open and shut case to these people. The fact that they are willing to be complicit in the mistreatment of certain groups of the population at all worries me. Because I cannot fathom any 'other issue or combination of issues' that would outweigh this. But hey, maybe that's just me.

This leads me to this:

That's fine if that's your position, but you must then be philosophically consistent with it, & that also makes you and I 'complicit' to poverty in Africa, simply because we could both (i'm sure I speak for you) be more selfless & give more of what we have away, to ensure slightly more equality in the world, & whilst still surviving.

As long as we're all guilty of some form of selfishness of putting ourselves & our families before others. In fact, why should people even put their fellow countrymen & women ahead of those people unlucky enough to be born in poorer countries?

Isn't that just a natural extension of the same argument, or do they get a pass on that?

What you'll generally find in life is that it's self & family first, country 2nd, & then others in the world in that order.

First off, you are confusing things.

The President of the United States has to be someone who looks out for and represents the entire population United States. Thats it. Starving kids in Africa are not his concern because he is not the President of Africa. Those aren't the people he is looking over.

What this means is that, when voting for the president of the United States, I would expect people of good conscience to vote for a person who has everyone in the USA's best interests in heart.

So to stay philosophically consistent - If we were electing King of the World, then yes, I think its every bit as important to vote someone in who will look after the poor and starving in Africa, and if that means I lose some of my wealth and resources then be it. I am 100% behind that idea.

But that is not what is happening.

What is happening is that the majority of the populace in the USA have voted in a man who claims to have their interest in heart, and in the process have become complicit in the mistreatment of their countrymen. They have put themselves ahead of other people within their community when it came to making a decision that affects all of them. I wouldn't expect them to be concerned with what their President means for the starving in Africa or the war in Middle East honestly; I'd expect them at the very least to care about what their votes means for their fellow Americans. Which is also why this is so shocking to me - that the treatment of their fellow countrymen doesn't matter to them.

And ethics aside, when you try to defend their decision as 'putting themselves and their families before others', you remind me of this quote:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

History is repeating itself here. No one benefits in the long run by being complicit in the mistreatment and marginalising of groups of people within their community. Be it the liberal elites downplaying the concerns of the working class, be it white america being complicit in systematic racism, or even be in men being A-okay with sexual offenders being in positions of power.

Ultimately this just all comes back to bite everyone in the ass.

Sorry if I'm coming off preachy and naive and unrealistic, but I really don't buy any of these justifications on voting for Trump after all he has said. I really am quite disturbed that so many people are okay with this. And frankly a bit concerned that so many members here are tolerant of it too.

 

[vcs]

....
And this is ultimately what bothers me so much. As I said, IMO Social issues > all else, and I am shocked that people are willing to overlook Trump's rhetoric and history for 'other issues or combination of issues'. I am very surprised that this decision was not an open and shut case to these people. The fact that they are willing to be complicit in the mistreatment of certain groups of the population at all worries me. Because I cannot fathom any 'other issue or combination of issues' that would outweigh this. But hey, maybe that's just me.
....

Agree with the over-reaching principle of your post, but this is where you are over-simplifying matters. I guess the real world is more complicated, and sometimes forces us to make more difficult choices, than idealists like us would care to admit.

I absolutely don't believe the majority of America is racist, or is OK with racism because they voted Trump in, any more than I believe the majority of India wants us to abandon secularism and turn us into a Hindu nation. Those would be very sobering thoughts. I guess the only way forward is to vehemently oppose and criticize any action the Govt. takes along those lines, while accepting that the majority voted it in because they thought other things were of more immediate or critical importance.

 

[Ausage]

And how the hell did you get this from my posts?

Again, this line of posting isn't directed at you specifically.

 

[zorax]

Agree with the over-reaching principle of your post, but this is where you are over-simplifying matters. I guess the real world is more complicated, and sometimes forces us to make more difficult choices, than idealists like us would care to admit.

I absolutely don't believe the majority of America is racist, or is OK with racism because they voted Trump in, any more than I believe the majority of India wants us to abandon secularism and turn us into a Hindu nation. Those would be very sobering thoughts. I guess the only way forward is to vehemently oppose and criticize any action the Govt. takes along those lines, while accepting that the majority voted it in because they thought other things were of more immediate or critical importance.

Again, the point that these issues isn't a make-or-break point for everyone - that this isn't a line in the sand you can't cross, that this isn't a no-tolerance subject, that this isn't a straight up black and white situation - is scary to me.

I really am dealing in absolutes here. I see no justification whatsoever for accepting someone who holds these views as a Leader unless, as PEWS pointed out, the option is another Leader with similar views.

I am absolutely not allowing for any nuance for this. And it seems like I'm the only one who feels this way. And that just concerns me more

 

[Uppercut]

One thing that's annoying me is the discussion of racism as a working class problem. The WWC were the last to come over to the racist party, the middle and upper classes have been voting for them for years. They've just done a much better job of following the Rules for Not Being Called Racist, using the correct words and wearing the correct Halloween costumes while advocating policies that demonstrably hurt minority communities.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry if I'm coming off preachy and naive and unrealistic, but I really don't buy any of these justifications on voting for Trump after all he has said. I really am quite disturbed that so many people are okay with this. And frankly a bit concerned that so many members here are tolerant of it too.

It's actually a little off-putting seeing someone with such a fundamentalist approach to wrong or right - or maybe good and evil, it seems. As patronising as it will sound; you really have to appreciate that your perception of this world can be wrong and that life is the ultimate theatre of nuance.

I can understand your concern but your lack of perspective is dangerous. When the do-gooders take over and decide who the other do-gooders are, and only them, you usually get a lot of dead people.

 

[Zinzan]

I think this sort of think collapses in on itself within the context of voting though, and the very fact that you've brought up both racism and sexism really illustrates why. There is more than one sociopolitical issue in the world and sometimes (see: effectively always) people will have to rank them in order of importance when choosing a candidate.

If one candidate is a sexist and one candidate is a racist, and you're forced to vote in what is either effectively or literally a two party system, are you sexist for voting for the sexist candidate and racist for voting for the racist one (ie. would every single voter be either racist or sexist?) If so then I think we've set a problematically low bar for sexism and racism to the point where we're going to lose important words to describe people and actions who are actually, you know, racist or sexist. And if not then I think you've accepted that people who aren't racist could have voted for Trump because they just ranked racism lower than some other issue or combination of issues.

People who rank racism lower than you do aren't necessarily racists any more than you're a bloodthirsty, warmongering murderer for supporting Clinton.

Lol PEWS exactly what I was saying, but the likes of NZT like it when it comes from you

Joking aside, you're bang on, hopefully this makes it clearer for the likes of zorax and OS, seems so simplistic to think otherwise. Well said.