this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
127 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10163 readers
62 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
JuBe@beehaw.org
JCPhoenix@beehaw.org
kalanggam@beehaw.org
circularfish@beehaw.org
knokelmaat@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
127
Racism Is Why Trump Is So Popular: Trump’s popularity with his base in the U.S. isn’t the result of economic anxiety, as many claimed in 2016. It’s about race and demographics. (theintercept.com)
submitted 1 month ago by tardigrada@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived version

In 1980, white people accounted for about 80 percent of the U.S. population.

In 2024, white people account for about 58 percent of the U.S. population.

Trump appeals to white people gripped by demographic hysteria. Especially older white people who grew up when white people represented a much larger share of the population. They fear becoming a minority.

While the Census Bureau says there are still 195 million white people in America and that they are still the majority, the white population actually declined slightly in 2023, and experts believe that they will become a minority sometime between 2040 and 2050.

Every component of the Trump-Republican agenda flows from these demographic fears.

The Trump phenomenon and the surge of right-wing extremism in America was never about economic anxiety, as too many political reporters claimed during the 2016 presidential campaign.

It was, and still is, about race and racism.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

A great many people in the US, Trump supporters certainly included, are experiencing uncertainty living in an economy in which the lifestyle earlier generations took for granted gets further out of reach every day - in which they find themselves ever further in debt with less all the time to show for it, and in which they're one catastrophic illness away from destitution.

Trump has cynically exploited that uncertainty by beating the racist, and especially anti-immigrant drum. People are primed to find somebody to blame for their misfortunes, and he's provided them with somebody.

And yes - to the degree that they've responded to his rhetoric, it's because they were already racist enough that when he led them in that direction, they willingly followed. So as far as that goes, yes - racism really is a driving force. But their racism isn't just some atbitrary thing that appeared out of thin air - for a great many, it's a specific reaction to a specific set of circumstances, and those specific circumstances are largely economic uncertainty.

It's sort of akin to people with chronic respiratory problems ending up hospitalized during a period of high air pollution, then other people arguing about whether to blame their respiratory conditions or the air pollution. Rather obviously, "or" is the wrong conjunction - it should be "and."

And by the bye - that whole dynamic is a good part of the reason that Musk and Thiel and many other billionaires are supporting Trump - because they and their actions comprise the lion's share of the real reason that that economic uncertainty exists, and Trump is not only determined to hide that fact, but to self-servingly make it so that they'll be free to cause even more harm.

[–] taanegl@beehaw.org 4 points 1 month ago

Spot on. Racists will scapegoat people groups for the corruption within their own system, in effect blaming someone completely innocent of any wrongdoing against the economy, because that will always be and the politicians fault.

But of course, historically speaking, you screw up the economy and you you go "oh no, it's the Jews" or "the Darkies" or whatever people group you can find, because at that point you'd be stupid to not play that card.

I mean, what are you gonna do? Fess up and make amends? No. That's dumb, optically. Better hope it blows over and we can just forget the whole thing... or, you know what we can do...

[–] Exaggeration207@beehaw.org 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's no question in my mind that the oligarchs in the U.S. want to encourage racism and culture wars, in order to keep lower-class Americans at each others' throats rather than united against the bourgeoisie. It's also true that populist dictators have leveraged, and continue to leverage, anti-immigrant and other racist viewpoints in order win support and push their twisted ideologies on their entire country. Trump is, without question, an example of a would-be dictator who's in the pocket of billionaires and is appealing to Christofascists in hopes of going back to the White House in lieu of jail.

That being said, articles like these which insinuate that Trump's campaign is primarily about racism is a repetition one of the key, fatal mistakes that Hillary Clinton's campaign made in 2016. It's also not a good way of fixing the "us vs. them" environment that allows the oligarchs to keep thriving.

While it's hard for us to understand their motivations for doing so, some voters in the black, Latino and Asian communities still support him. It's irresponsible and short-sighted to pretend these voters don't exist, so it becomes necessary to concede that while many of Trump's supporters are indeed racist, there are still some legitimate ideological reasons why certain people continue to embrace conservatism. And if you actually want long-lasting change in this country, you have to engage with those people and not dismiss them as being just as deplorable as the rabid Trump cultists.

Granted, it's getting harder with each passing week to justify supporting Trump for non-racist reasons, as seen by the fact that some conservative influencers have started walking back support for him. That being said, there remains a perception (no matter how invalid) that Kamala Harris is an insider, a cog in an inherently corrupt political machine, while Trump is the guy who's going to drain the swamp. I know perfectly well that Trump is way more corrupt than Harris, but the 'drain the swamp' narrative sticks because some Democrats have been just as subservient to the oligarchs as Republicans. Even when they controlled the White House and Congress, they didn't undo the Reagan-era tax cuts for the wealthy, or cut the billions of dollars in spending on defense contractors, or pass any reforms that would make our government more accessible to non-elites (like term limits or ranked choice voting).

The status quo isn't working out too well for the majority of Americans, and the Democrats represent a continuation of that status quo. A lot of these disaffected Americans just want to see the system "shaken up" in hopes of seeing an improvement. The "vote them all out" sentiment is popular for a reason. Hopefully, those people realize we already gave Trump a chance in 2016, he didn't fix a damned thing, and it's not going to be any better for them if he gets a second term. However, Democrats in the U.S. (just like Labour in the U.K.) are going to have to deliver some significant improvements in the quality of life for the common folk instead of serving the oligarchs first and foremost. Otherwise, we're just going back to conservative leadership in a few years, and the next would-be dictator might be less incompetent than Trump was in staging a coup.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 13 points 1 month ago (4 children)

articles like these which insinuate that Trump’s campaign is primarily about racism

It's not insinuating anything. It's make a very factual statement. It's so exhausting that you and others come to the defense. Their core is 100% racism. Accept this and then we can finally start moving forward.

[–] millie@beehaw.org 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Okay, so if we take it as a given that Trump's supporters are largely, even mostly racists, how does that allow us to 'start moving forward'?

I'm honestly less and less sure that pointing fingers, even for good reason, is politically useful at all. To those who are already convinced, it seems heroic, sure. But for those who aren't? All it does is put them on the defensive and entrench their position.

I'm not saying we shouldn't call out racism when we see it, because we should. The left needs to call out injustice, because the right isn't about to do it. But like, that can't be the entirety of our political strategy. It doesn't work. It makes us look preachy and more importantly it puts the impetus for us getting our goals accomplished on racists.

When we're focusing all our political energy on decrying the wrongness of the right, our visible political identity becomes just that: criticism. That's not what wins elections. If anything, it signals to the racists on the right that this is a rallying point for them, and it gives them the opportunity to turn to others who tend to lean Republican and say, "See what monsters they think you are? We know what you're really like."

If we want to win the election, we need positive energy. We need to motivate our own base, and we need to give people on the fringes of our ideologies something that draws them in rather than something that makes them feel defensive. That doesn't mean we can't also call out injustice, but we have to do it with empowering language, not with language that shifts power to those we see as an obstacle.

This is why the Obama campaign's "Yes We Can" slogan was so effective. It allowed Obama to have a platform for addressing the obstacles he wanted to direct attention at, but it did it in a way that highlighted Democratic agency rather than simply saying "this is wrong". Each time one of these problems was touched on, he could again touch back on the positive energy of "Yes We Can" and it energized crowds and voters rather than making them feel bored and doomed.

"Or We're Fucked" isn't a very good campaign slogan, as we've seen with Biden. Harris has a chance to move away from that, and seems to be doing so. You can already feel the power shifting, because her campaign uses her personal confidence and magnetism to show voters that she can handle it. Yes, we have problems, but they're not going to crack her armor and make her stop expressing joy. Yes, the right is sinister, but we don't have to obsess over it. We can call them weird and move on with our actual work, while building confidence that we have the ability to get it done.

Dress for the job that you want.

If you want to get something done, you're a lot better off if you know that you can do it. We need to know that the injustices of the right are just some ill-tempered old fogies spouting off about a time that's passed as they slowly fade away. We need to know that their weirdness is ultimately going to lose.

Their threat is real, to be sure, but if we focus on the threat and give it power, we give ourselves nothing. We need to build that power inward, and for that we need energy that focuses on our own confidence in our ability to get things done.

Harris and Walz seem to know this, which is a great sign. Once they're in, we can put their feet to the fire on taking care of this stuff, but just pointing at the Republicans and identifying the reasons they're a large ideologically motivated threat just makes the optics seem more and more hopeless for us and more and more like the wild thrashing of a dying prey animal to the right.

If we focus on our goals regardless of any crazy bullshit they run up their flagpoles, we get to pick the focus. If we let ourselves be led about with patter and distracting hand-waving, we may well miss the plot.

Are a lot of Republicans racist? Obviously. Is laser focusing on it to the point of in-fighting going to give us the ability to render their racism irrelevant to public policy? I'm skeptical.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why are you going off on some rant about how to win the election? What you're saying is correct about how to approach the election and that's not the subject of this post or this conversation.

Trump and the majority of his supporters are a bunch of god-damned racists. Welcome to reality.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Why are you going off on some rant about how to win the election? What you’re saying is correct about how to approach the election and that’s not the subject of this post or this conversation.

You directly quoted and replied to a sentence referencing Trump's presidential campaign. It is perfectly reasonable for people to assume you are interested in discussing the upcoming presidential election.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] zeroday@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago

There's also a significant percentage of people there for the patriarchy and misogyny, and just think they're "one of the good ones so the leopards won't eat MY face", so they ignore the parts of the MAGA platform that target them. For example, women who vote for Trump usually aren't doing it because they're misogynistic, the racism and transphobia might be bigger draws but they believe the misogyny won't be applied to them. Same with Black and Latino men who are there for the patriarchy, misogyny, transphobia, but think the old white guys will accept them. Same again with the "Gays for Trump" folks, and the TERFS who support him.

[–] MayonnaiseArch@beehaw.org 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Also there is no healing the divide, that's an insane idea. You don't sit at the same table with people who want to kill and maim and destroy other people. Fuck that stupid shit, you all spent decades sitting on your thumbs while this crap was cooking - you can't heal shit now

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

you all spent decades sitting on your thumbs while this crap was cooking

Young people are the ones inheriting this issue from the people who did this for 'decades', and are having to deal with it. Old people in the Democratic Party should not be absolved of blame for their inaction for decades over the spread of racism on the Right and doing nothing, but, concurrently, young people shouldn't be blamed for the 'sins of their fathers', when they're clearly trying to change the party. I would personally love if we could ditch the DNC as a political apparatus, and let them all die in bankrupt obscurity, but using this as a weapon against people who are now actually trying to push change is just itself serving to bolster their racist opponents.

[–] MayonnaiseArch@beehaw.org 1 points 4 weeks ago

And there is in fact one matter where trumpists are right - the media is a complete and utter shitshow, it's like they're insane. I guess the far right and capital go hand in hand but this is fucking ridiculous.

[–] Exaggeration207@beehaw.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Painting "the others" as killers and destroyers is exactly the sort of rhetoric that racists use to dehumanize minorities. If you want the population at large to believe that we're better than the racists, then we have to actually be better than them-- not fall into the trap of thinking like they do.

Sure, some Trump supporters are inherently broken people that you can't even have a civilized conversation with. No one is denying that. I'm saying that some are just very misguided and although we're all very tired of dealing with them, writing them off as lost causes is only going to make our current problem bigger.

Modern psychology can successfully deprogram former cultists; we do not march these people straight into a wood chipper.

[–] MayonnaiseArch@beehaw.org 3 points 4 weeks ago

I understand where you're coming from, and I do agree in general. Just feels like this should not be a priority right now, especially considering that any deprogramming is extremely more difficult than going nuts in the first place. But then again I don't think that there is any equivalence when I say that trump cultists are nuts and when they say that all of us other people should be killed.

[–] Exaggeration207@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's a big difference between saying "a majority of his supporters are racist" and "their core is 100% racism." This is exactly the trap you have to avoid if you want to start moving forward.

There's also a big difference between defending racism and pointing out the fact that-- like it or not-- some Trump supporters are minorities, and that forces us to accept that there's something besides racism at play here.

Is this exhausting? Absolutely. Trump should not even be eligible to run for public office as far as I'm concerned, and yet here we are, dealing with the third straight Presidential election where we have to ask ourselves why his polling numbers are as high as they are despite how thoroughly awful he is as a human being. And because people are tired, we're willing to accept an easy answer rather than dig deeper.

But if we dismiss this recurring nightmare yet again by saying that only racists voted for him, there's no point in trying to debate a racist, so we should never engage with any Trump voter, ever, until the End of Time? Then progress isn't going to last very long, because we'll have failed to understand why some people believe so strongly that the system is broken that they'd rather vote for a convicted felon than someone who is actually qualified to be President. That sentiment is only going to spread if we don't figure out why so many people are feeling so disaffected.

It's like we've discovered a weird lump on our collective pancreas. It's uncomfortable, we don't want to think about it, and we all hope that it'll just go away, but no. You have to biopsy that thing. Ignoring it would be irresponsible.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There’s a big difference between saying “a majority of his supporters are racist” and “their core is 100% racism.”

Core != All ; "their core" == "a majority of his supporters" -- This inherently allows for the dimwits that are so fucking stupid that they support him and his racism even though they are black as well as any other what aboutism you'd like to conjure up.

There are low-income people who constantly vote against their own best interests and ensure they will stay poor. It happens. There are stupid people in the world. By gutting education, Tump and his lackeys seek to make even more stupid people to lead around by the nose.

We can start having the other conversations when we can nail down that it is an absolute truth that Trump and his core are racist.

[–] Exaggeration207@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Okay, I think we're on the same page; we're just saying it two different ways. Trump and his core/inner circle are racist? Yes, agreed. There are low-income people who are voting against their best interests, and gutting education makes it even worse? Yes, also agreed.

The key point I'm trying to make is: it's not inherently the fault of these lower-income people that conservatives have actively tried to keep them stupid. Lumping these unlucky rubes in with the actual malefactors isn't helpful, it's just kicking them when they're already down.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 4 points 1 month ago

Yes, it sounds like we are. Unfortunately, you saw how difficult that was to get aligned on something so simple. Yet, until everyone is aligned on that, the excuse making will continue. Those who know and are racist are provided free cover and distraction. Those who don't know don't know who to believe, so they stick with what they think they know.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

This is a huge over simplification of a complex problem. Sure some people are bigoted and support trump but it doesn't follow that all folks that support trump are bigoted. Wingers on the left and right use the same strategies of othering folks they disagree with. It's ignorant to assert that people only support trump because they're racists or people only support Harris because they're communist/woke.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If you read it, it's not saying simply that all Republican voters are racist, it's saying that Trumpism and the surging Christian-Nationalist movement is, in a way that other Republican and conservative candidates in the past has not been, and that is the x-factor that makes them so appealing to many of their base right now.

If you live in those spaces and can "pass", you'll hear it come out. People start spewing racist shit when they think they're in safe company. It's not all Republicans, to be sure, but I'm my experience it's definitely the majority of (remaining) Republicans. A lot of the ones who weren't on board with that abandoned the party when Trump took over.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I have a side of the family that still supports Trump. That same side of the family has interracial marriages and there are black babies that are very loved upon (and no, it wasn't some scandalous thing, the relationship and the marriage was uncontroversial).

Clearly, those members of my family are not voting for Trump because they're racist and afraid of skin colors.

They're (in my understanding) voting for Trump because the older members when they were younger had more economic opportunities and felt more attached to their community and their faith. I don't agree with them on priorities, but it's not racism, it's in more ways a sort of nostalgia for a time period when life didn't involve so many complex and nuanced topics.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

First off, it's certainly possible that everyone in their family absolutely does love their interracial kids, but it's also very possible they don't; that is a dynamic I'd need to see to know. Behind closed doors, people change.

But either way, that would still be anecdotal, and not prove or disprove the tracked and statistically-validated rise in racist rhetoric in conservative spaces online, in conservative candidate platforms, in conservative legislators' bills, etc etc etc.

but it’s not racism, it’s in more ways a sort of nostalgia for a time period when life didn’t involve so many complex and nuanced topics

I hate to burst your bubble, but "life was simpler when white people were 80% of the population, and we didn't have to deal with Black people, we just let the cops do their thing, pre-phone-cameras" IS racism, whether they realize that or not. We know what was actually happening to Black people (lynchings, murder, sundown towns, Jim Crow laws used to imprison and enslave, etc). If your argument is, "well they just don't care to think about that all, they want what was a better society for themselves, even if it was much worse for people of other ethnicities", then you are acknowledging that they are (whether they realize it or not) making an argument for their (racial) comfort at the expense of others'.

Ignorance to the harm you're advocating is not an actual defense, and it's highly suspect when it's very readily-known information. Willful ignorance at that level borders on malice (and once again, it's not like the Republican platform isn't absolutely rife with racist rhetoric, so it's not like they're just in a bubble where race isn't discussed).

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

First off, it's certainly possible that everyone in their family absolutely does love their interracial kids, but it's also very possible they don't; that is a dynamic I'd need to see to know. Behind closed doors, people change.

Yeah, I'm done, you're blocked. You don't get to tell me about my own family.

EDIT (for anyone else that actually wants to engage in good faith): Furthermore, yearning for the effects of a time period doesn't mean you're in favor of the effects that caused that time period. Someone saying "I miss when gas was cheap" doesn't mean "they miss exploiting and bullying people internationally to get the cheapest possible oil" ... they just want their cheap gas (and that's assuming what you miss is even directly related to the other thing, you can, e.g., miss how there used to be more drive-ins in the 60s while acknowledging it's great that we got rid of leaded gas).

Trump's a conman, he won't give them what they feel they've lost back; but they believe he will. This doesn't equate to middle America being filled with racist. You can't write off an entire time period as exclusively being good for some people because it was bad for others. People can (as an example) like things about the 50s and 60s without liking Jim Crow.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Furthermore, yearning for the effects of a time period doesn’t mean you’re in favor of the effects that caused that time period. Someone saying “I miss when gas was cheap” doesn’t mean “they miss exploiting and bullying people internationally to get the cheapest possible oil” … they just want their cheap gas

The lie here is that you can engage with Republican rhetoric and only see this message. If you watch any Trump speech, he says racist things. The argument that you only care about the gas and house prices still inherently means that you're choosing to ignore the racist stuff, even if you disagree with it personally.

edit:

You don’t get to tell me about my own family.

You don't get to turn your family into an argument, but then also decide it's unassailable. They're not your "instant win" button against racism in the GOP.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Suggestion: don't use your family when discussing politics.

There are also, as they say, five levels of "truth" to any person:

  • Public: the persona they project outwards
  • Private: what they say when "no one is listening"
  • Intimate: what they only let their closest family know
  • Secret: what they don't tell anyone
  • Subjacent: what they don't even realize about themselves

You may or may not know their secret thoughts, and you usually need to spend a lot of time with them (years, decades) to learn about why they hold them.

And following my initial suggestion, I won't tell you how I confirmed this to be true.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I know you mean well, but it's fine to discuss your family at a level you feel comfortable. Your family is part of your experience in the world and that is fundamentally a part of your political perspective.

It's not my problem that some people on the Internet want to insist they're the expert on everything, even people, people they've never met.

When it comes to people, we should all try and keep an open mind about what perspectives might exist. These narratives that people are so divided, that Republicans are racist, greedy, and narcissistic, and that Democrats are handout seeking, weak, and naive ... they need to be challenged (and first hand testimony is important but often seriously lacking).

If we're just going to deny another person's experiences are real anytime they don't align with our world view ... what's the point of even being on a forum?

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

the tracked and statistically-validated rise in racist rhetoric in conservative spaces online, in conservative candidate platforms, in conservative legislators’ bills, etc etc etc.

While this may be true, it doesn't mean that trump supporters must be bigoted. Remember, America is a two party system. People are often forced to vote for who they disagree with less.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If you "disagree less" with vocal racists who have personal ties with White Nationalist groups... I might have some bad news for you.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Try and be more open minded. The world isn't black and white and the issues that are important to you are not universally the priority for everyone. For instance, imagine if you were an immigrant from a country that was heavily drone attacked by the US. You might make your voting decisions based on the party that bombed your homeland less. The world will make more sense if you can invest time in understanding other people in stead of labelling them.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Try and be more open minded. The world isn’t black and white and the issues that are important to you are not universally important to everyone.

Obviously I understand this. The problem is, "racism is not important to me" is still a position with its own moral implications. Understanding a position does not mean you are alright with it. Not every sincerely-held position is equal. And yes, there are many black-and-white, "red line" positions. Genocide, murder, rape, etc, are not positions that people need to just "allow for differing opinions on".

You might make your voting decisions based on the party that bombed your homeland less.

It's funny you brought this up in particular, because I've talked before about a friend of mine who is in this position (he is Palestinian, and has lost a lot of family to Israeli- and likely US- weapons). He is anti-US-government, not anti-DNC/GOP (obviously his reaction is not universal to immigrants, but neither would any other given immigrant's reaction be).

  • If he told me that he didn't want to vote at all, I would understand and have no issue with that.
  • If he told me he was going to vote Democrat despite Biden's complicity, I'd understand that, and it would not affect my opinion of him for better or worse.
  • If he told me he was going to vote Republican because Biden was so pro-Israel, I'd understand the bad logic, and I'd think he was an idiot (and to be clear, I know he doesn't think this).
  • If he told me he wanted to harm Jewish people, I'd understand where that is coming from as an emotional reaction, but I would not be okay with any concrete steps taken towards that (and to be clear, he has never so much as intimated that).

Understanding a viewpoint does not mean you have to be equally accepting of all possible conclusions stemming from that viewpoint.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The problem is, “racism is not important to me” is still a position with its own moral implications.

That's strawmanning my argument. I'm saying that just because someone prioritizes another issue over racism doesn't make them bigoted. And if they believe their priority issues are best addressed by the Republican party or won't be addressed by the Democrats, it would make sense for them to vote for trump.

The "all trump supporters are racists" argument comes from echo chambers and is dismissive of people's legitimate criticisms of the Democrats. It's not accurate or useful in creating meaningful discourse.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

That’s strawmanning my argument. I’m saying that just because someone prioritizes another issue over racism

Apologies. Please amend my comment to

The problem is, “racism is not as important to me as some other issue” is still a position with its own moral implications.

Perhaps more technically accurate, but no different in effect.

And if they believe their priority issues are best addressed by the Republican party or won’t be addressed by the Democrats, it would make sense for them to vote for trump.

I feel like you think this is a counterpoint, or in disagreement with what I said, but it's not. It's literally what I said. If your personal economic issues or religious preferences are above the well-being of others in your personal priorities, that is a moral stance that is perfectly valid to criticize. Whether you are ignoring the harms, or simply de-prioritizing them in favor of your preferred benefits, it's the same outcome.

The “all trump supporters are racists” argument comes from echo chambers

I would refer you to the first line of my first comment in this post, which said

it’s not saying simply that all Republican voters are racist, it’s saying that Trumpism and the surging Christian-Nationalist movement is

The problem is that some conservatives clearly want to be able to associate with the GOP based on piecemeal parts of their platform without actively opposing those parts they disagree with, and then have the right not to be held accountable in part for the damage that those parts they may or may not agree with do. That's not how it works. I voted for Biden, and I have to live with the damage he's done in Gaza and the West Bank. It is 1000% fair to judge me for that complicity. And that wasn't even part of his platform, but I still enabled that.

Trump is openly, unapologetically racist and sexist. If you choose to associate with him, you do have to own that.

dismissive of people’s legitimate criticisms of the Democrats.

Check my comment history if you think I have any shortage of criticism of the Democratic Party, please. I have no issues with criticism of it.

I am highly interested in what criticisms from the Right are legitimate, though. The DNC is still a Center-Right party of neoliberal corporatism, even if we're slowly making progress on it.

It’s not accurate or useful in creating meaningful discourse.

Frankly, I think we're past the point where we can have that conversation at the national level. All of the routes for that have been under attack for years. No one trusts the other side's media networks. No one trusts the other side's politicians. Forums like Beehaw or even Facebook (given the way it's structured) do not have anything even beginning to approach a national scale in their reach.

I've had good results with having these conversations with family members and a friend, but that's not sufficient to fix what is now truly a social problem.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

I appreciate this discourse and your thoughtful responses. These kind disagreements are what we need more of. I still disagree that supporting trump necessarily means condoning racism as depending on what issues you prioritize, it may be a case of choosing the lesser of two evils.

[–] Mispasted@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Hi! I'd like to budge in here, because while I think that the discourse you're having is extremely useful, I think you're missing @Greg@lemmy.ca 's point. I've spent a few hours considering your discussion so far, and I have a lot to say about it, so bear with me. If at any point I mischaracterize what has been said, please correct me.

I believe that Greg was arguing for what I'm going to call "moderate-ism." If that name doesn't suit you, feel free to change it. The idea he's trying to convey is complex enough to warrant a name.

As some background, I consider myself agnostic, but I have both religious and atheist friends with strong points-of-view. Your discussion was similar in style to the conversations I've had with them. I say this to point out that "moderate-ism" is an idea about how to think about ideas, and is beyond any singular ideology.

I'd like to start by remaking your argument, move onto what the "moderate-ism" idea is, and then how it applies to your situation. Finally I'll point out where I think the misunderstandings in your conversation were, and how they are similar to other "moderatist" debates that I've had.

These are the important points you've made: (You made a few others, but I think they were ancillary. I do address some of them later).

"If you “disagree less” with vocal racists who have personal ties with White Nationalist groups… I might have some bad news for you."

And:

"The problem is, “racism is not as important to me as some other issue” is still a position with its own moral implications."

As well as:

"[I'm] not saying simply that all Republican voters are racist, [I'm] saying that Trumpism and the surging Christian-Nationalist movement is."

So, to more accurately convey your point: (and this is where the "correct me" part comes in).

"To vote for Trump requires an inherently flawed point of view; it's important for us to be moral people. Voting for Trump would support racism. This would be so morally reprehensible that there is nothing with enough significance to out-weigh it. Therefore, do not vote for Trump."

Note that neither I nor Greg are actually arguing for Trump. We're arguing for moderate-ism. Assuming that there could be a valid point-of-view is different from believing them.

Lets boil the situation down more: Imagine we have two candidates running for president, but we only know one thing: One is racist; The other is not. The question is: how many valid points-of-view are there that end in voting for the racist? Your statements imply that there are none, but you're assuming too much. A single point of view is extremely complex, and takes time to digest. If we're talking about the millions of people who will vote for Trump, and their millions of different points-of-view, you certainly can't assume most of them are invalid.

To put this in more mathematical terms: Imagine that each point-of-view is a vector. There is a set of point-of-view's that could be considered valid. We don't know very much about this set, only that it's large. Therefore, to assume that this set of valid points-of-view doesn't contain any which involve voting for Trump, would be to act on knowledge you don't have.

The idea is more complicated than it seems at first glance. It's more than just saying "other points-of-view could be valid." A better simplification would be: Don't assume that there isn't a valid point-of-view involving 'X' type of belief. In more humanistic terms I'm saying, don't completely rule out a system of beliefs because there's a lot you might not understand.

The part of your conversation that reeled me in was when Greg made the following statement: "... Imagine ... you were an immigrant from a country that was heavily drone attacked by the US. You might make your voting decisions based on the party that bombed your homeland less." To which you made an argument as to why that specific statement would be incorrect. Gregg then called this rebuttal a straw-man.

There was a major misunderstanding here. Greg wasn't actually making that argument. He was simply illustrating that there could be a point-of-view that you haven't considered; One which is also valid. The difficulty of trying to make the argument in that way, and one that I've run into frequently, is that neither he nor I know specifically what that point of view is. If we did, we would believe it, or have disproved it. Rather, we assume that a valid point-of-view may exist; It's possible we just haven't come across it yet.

The reason the idea of "moderate-ism" is important, is that it helps a person avoid making broad assumptions about what can and can't be true. I think this is what Greg meant when he said "Keep an open mind," and "not everything is black and white." Moderate-ism also avoids alienating the people in the group you aren't a part of.

Ultimately most of us want the same things, we just have different idea's about how to get there; Believing that is called "good faith." Moderate-ism ties in by helping us work together instead of against each other.

Based on what you've already said you may have the following rebuttal:

"[I'm not arguing that their point of view isn't valid, or that to vote for Trump is inherently wrong. I'm simply saying that] Trump is openly, unapologetically racist and sexist. If you choose to associate with him, you do have to own that."

Based on the prior discourse, this could be restated: "It's okay to vote for Trump, if you own that you are a morally reprehensible person." Most people don't want to be morally reprehensible. This is effectively making the same argument as I did (for you) above.

(I thought I would have more counter-counter arguments...)

Anyway, I appreciate that you've made it this far, and your willingness to discuss your opinions. I'm extremely interested in your thoughts on my "essay". xD Again, I understand I'm cutting in. Please point out any and all mischaracterizations of your discussion.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Hi there! I don't mind anyone joining in, it's an open forum. :)

I will mostly keep my response devoid of specific political discussion, and focused on "moderate-ism".

I understand your point in this regard, and Greg's, but I believe that it as an ideology (if you prefer to think of it as one) is based on several incorrect assumptions on your part, first and foremost being that you are intrinsically assuming I (or anyone else you encounter) am not fully familiar with conservatives' (or whatever opposing group's) views on these subjects.

You are essentially just advocating for giving the benefit of the doubt. That is completely fair. It's also something I've already done, many many times.

I would assert that if you do not have a threshold for deciding that your extended good-faith-assumption is not actually correct in a given instance, you do not have a workable ideology, just dangerous apologism. If you (or in this case, Greg) do have a threshold, I think it would be productive or even necessary to state where it lies, so that it can be openly interrogated whether that threshold has been crossed.

If we’re talking about the millions of people who will vote for Trump, and their millions of different points-of-view, you certainly can’t assume most of them are invalid.

First off, I am not assuming anything, I am extremely familiar with the points of view of many different groups of conservatives, and have discussed these issues at length with them. And while I understand the knee-jerk emotional reaction that "millions of people can't be wrong", if you step back a moment you'll realize this is not at all true. Millions of people around the world are racist, sexist, imperialist, supremacist, etc. It's often not their fault, it's just their environment, but that is a reason, not an excuse.

I stated several times that I do not believe all Republicans are racist, and I would add that many who are, are not so knowingly. But many are openly racist, and all of them are, whether they like it or not, following an ideology that is being led by a racist. That tends to attract other racists, greatly increasing their concentration, and also normalizes racism among the group, which makes it very easy to be and to be around open racism without realizing it, much less interrogating it. If you are assuming that the ratio of racists must be even across all groups, that is a very incorrect and flawed assumption. Groups make different biases welcome or unwelcome by their own ideologies and actions.

I'm a white guy with a very full beard that wears jeans, work boots, and t-shirts. Believe me when I say, I have seen many times, in many places, just how fast the bigotry comes out as soon as it's just people who look like me, and who assume they are safely in fellow (conservative) company.

But secondly, why is assuming a group is not bad, more valid than assuming it is? No assumptions should be acted on without verification, so purely from a standpoint of assessing a group, why is the positive starting point only valid? I would argue that you should assume both ways, and see which assumption holds up to the scrutiny of facts better.

"If they actually aren't bad, what am I missing? If I assume an unknown factor is present, does that match the facts?"

"If they are actually bad, what would that look like and mean? Does that match the facts?"

There was a major misunderstanding here. Greg wasn’t actually making that argument. He was simply illustrating that there could be a point-of-view that you haven’t considered; One which is also valid.

Yes, but he was attempting to do it by using an example he assumed I would not have encountered, which was just another an incorrect assumption. Assuming your own ignorance is a useful exercise to a point when it comes to interrogating your own assumptions and viewpoints about another group, but only insofar as you do not have actual evidence to the contrary. Which is what the Intercept article was attempting to demonstrate that we have, about Trumpers.

The difficulty of trying to make the argument in that way, and one that I’ve run into frequently, is that neither he nor I know specifically what that point of view is. If we did, we would believe it, or have disproved it. Rather, we assume that a valid point-of-view may exist; It’s possible we just haven’t come across it yet.

Sure. But once again, what is your threshold for finally saying, "okay, yes, this is a bad group"? You can't just keep assuming that everyone is only good, otherwise you're just serving to cover for bad people.

Moderate-ism also avoids alienating the people in the group you aren’t a part of.

Which is good, unless they are part of a group that should in fact be alienated. My impression from your comment is that you do not actually have a set methodology or threshold for determining whether a group is that.

To loop back to something I said earlier, it's very useful to assume your own ignorance when interrogating your biases and beliefs.

It's not very useful to assume the ignorance of others, except to quash or dismiss criticism, which is what I see Greg as doing (though perhaps not intentionally).

[–] Mispasted@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Thank you for the thorough reply!

We’re still misunderstanding each other. Before we can have a truly productive argument we need to better understand the other’s point, (of course). I draw your attention to the fact that I summarized what I think your argument is. In general I am attempting to disprove the summery using "moderate-ism."

“To vote for Trump requires an inherently flawed point of view; it’s important for us to be moral people. Voting for Trump would support racism. This would be so morally reprehensible that there is nothing with enough significance to out-weigh it. Therefore, do not vote for Trump.”

I find these types summaries useful for a couple reasons. First, it allows me to verify I understand your point correctly. Secondly, when I’m making a rebuttal, it allows me to attack things which are implied in your argument but not explicitly said; It allows me to take the implicit and make it explicit. I will summarize your points similarly for the rest of our discourse. Please give them your best lawyerly eye and correct me as necessary. I would appreciate if you would make similar summaries of my arguments. While this does add some overhead to our discussion, it’s easy to see why arguing against a point not fully grasped is futile; The importance of avoiding this warrants precaution. I find several rounds of revising these summaries to be common in my conversations.

This may clarify a repeated misunderstanding in the discussion.

I stated several times that I do not believe all Republicans are racist.

It’s not that all Republicans are racist, it’s that they’re supporting it. Given what you’ve said, you might also say, “To be a racist, and to support a racist, are very close on the spectrum of morality.”

In general I am attempting to disprove the summery using "moderate-ism" (Or dangerous apologism as you might say ;)

I appreciate that you chose to focus on our ideological differences. Here’s where I think the disconnect is: To say that a point-of-view could be valid is different to saying a point-of-view is correct. It follows that a point-of-view can be both valid and incorrect.

By way of example: to actively seek to harm the innocent (those who do not seek to harm) is invalid and incorrect. To prioritize it’s prevention below other things is valid, and the level of prioritization is either correct or incorrect based on how it’s being prioritized.

To take an example from religion: To assert “God is certainly real” or “God is certainly not real” is both invalid and incorrect. However, to take the stance that “he may be real”, or “may not be real” is valid. Furthermore, we simply can’t know if those statements are correct or not. (This may be highly controversial, I’m willing to argue specifically about this point of view, but it’s a different topic).

I assert that to be racist is both invalid and incorrect, but that to support a racist for office is valid, and depending on the situation may be correct or incorrect. To focus on what I believe the important part of our disagreement is, I’m willing to assume that voting for trump is the incorrect choice, on the other hand I’m arguing that it’s valid. To better define “valid” in this context: A point-of-view which takes into account the facts known by that person and draws what would be a correct conclusion given those facts. “Correct” means to understand all the necessary facts and therefore draw the conclusion which is ultimately the truth.

You’re asserting that nothing should out-weigh the fact that he’s racist. Yet, there are certainly valid points-of-view that do out-weigh the fact he’s racist.

I would like to demonstrate this concept more by addressing your other arguments.

I would assert that if you do not have a threshold for deciding that your extended good-faith-assumption is not actually correct in a given instance, you do not have a workable ideology, just dangerous apologism.

The threshold would be different for determining both validity and correctness. However to your point:

If you (or in this case, Greg) do have a threshold, I think it would be productive or even necessary to state where it lies, so that it can be openly interrogated whether that threshold has been crossed.

I admit my threshold is underdeveloped. However, I have shown above that it does exist. I can’t state specifically where it lies, at least very accurately. Can you state your own threshold both generally and accurately? I would like to point out that we may actually be arguing over whether we’ve crossed the threshold for “validity.”

On your second point

why is assuming a group is not bad, more valid than assuming it is?

My original statement was over-generic. I concede that point to you- it’s not more valid. (Valid by the dictionary definition, not my own). However, in regards to the people who will vote for Trump: Given their large quantity and diversity, we can’t assume their point of view is invalid. They could be making the “correct” choice based on the facts they understand. (Though, ultimately they are incorrect).

This again leads to my rebuttal to your main argument stated above. (Rather, to what I believe your argument to be. I’m emphasizing the importance of the summery). You can’t assume that nothing out-weighs the morality of voting for a racist. We don’t know what other “facts” they think they’re working with. Even if they know he’s racist, that’s not enough to condemn their point of view to invalidity.

Granted, I understand that you’ve had many conversations with conservatives. But that’s not enough to claim that every possible point-of-view, which would result in voting for trump, is invalid.

On your third point

[People who vote for Trump] are part of ... a group that should in fact be alienated.

It’s not very useful to assume the ignorance of others, except to quash or dismiss criticism.

I assert that based on the size of this group we don’t have enough information to alienate all of them. Similarly we can assume that a notable portion of them are ignorant. I’m not attempting to dismiss your criticism of their correctness. I’m attempting to dismiss your criticism of the validity of their point-of-view.

In any case, thanks for the earnest discussion, as always. :)

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'll use your method, and summarize what I believe your position to be:

  • You can do the right thing
  • You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons
  • You can do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons
  • We should not treat people who do the wrong thing for the right reasons as just as bad as those who do it for the wrong reasons
  • Because we cannot know the reasons that each individual holds internally, we should not condemn the entire group of wrongdoers

END OF LIST (since the markdown lists don't leave any space afterwards)

I think I can see why this is leaving you with no definite threshold for labeling a group as inherently bad, and if I may offer a solution: you need to apply the concept of an Affirmative Defense.

An affirmative defense is a legal concept that occurs when someone admits they have done something wrong, but argues that is was for the right reasons. It then shifts the burden of proof to them, to prove that their reasons made their actions right/ valid (e.g. "yes I shot them, but it was self defense, and here's the proof").

Barring that, it will always be impossible under your system to "call a Nazi a Nazi", because there can always be some hypothetical justification in their minds that you can't know. This plays into your point that you can not truthfully claim certainty for/against God. You cannot claim to know what is in someone's mind.

When it comes to real-world harms, though, that cannot be a valid defense. Otherwise, a person can do anything and simply say, "but you don't know if I had a good reason for it".

When it comes to real-world harms, it is beholden on the wrongdoers to prove that their reasons made their actions acceptable. Anything else will leave you unable to condemn and confront evil.

Putting Trump in power is a real-world harm. I have yet to hear a valid reason for doing it.

[–] Mispasted@beehaw.org 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Thanks for using my method :) I like your metaphorical court of law.

Your most recent arguments were:

・It’s important that wrong-doers are able to be found guilty.

・The situation plays a role in the severity of the punishment, but that doesn’t change that fact a wrong-doer is guilty. (I think that’s a good description of affirmative defense)

To continue your train of thought: If a person votes for Trump, it’s important that we are able to accuse them of that evil. It’s true that they could have a good reason for doing so, but to assume that would allow evil in general to go unpunished. We have to make a judgment based on the facts we have or we can’t make progress.

After re-reading the conversation from the beginning I want to reword what I believe your core arguments to be:

・Look, people make evil decisions. They are still humans, but we can’t let that prevent us from fighting back. Ultimately, supporting someone who’s legitimately racist is pretty fucked up, you can't deny that.

・If you haven’t heard a good reason to do an evil thing, than don’t assume there is one. This isn’t to say the reason doesn’t exist, but we have to "sentence the defendant" based on the facts we currently know.

I've been convinced. I have to admit that I think I could have seen your point sooner if I wasn’t affected by bias. I think I was falling to the same trap as @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg because my family is very conservative. It’s difficult to accuse people you care for.

I think that @greg@lemmy.ca and I both had the same gut instinct to defend someone against a seemingly brash insult. Our conversation made me realize that being “nice” in that way is flawed.

(Dark_arc and Greg, I mentioned you because I’m curious to know if you agree with where this argument went, please comment if you feel so inclined).

That being said, you and I never addressed the intercept article specifically. We discussed people who are not racist but still vote for trump. The article discusses people who are racist themselves. I'm willing to leave the conversation here, because I don't think the article is very useful in itself.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

One point to clarify wrt affirmative defense is that if the argument is made successfully, they would not be guilty of a crime, as in that case the action that would normally be a crime is not.

If someone can present a reason that voting for Trump is actually better than not, I'm all ears, but it would be a high bar to clear.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

I never assumed you didn't have exposure to conservatives and I didn't assume you wouldn't have encountered the example I provided. I'm not arguing from ignorance. If some part of my argument isn't clear please feel free to ask questions instead of making assumptions. I'm happy to continue the conversation and I'm sorry if I came across as dismissive.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 7 points 1 month ago

Sure some people are bigoted and support trump but it doesn’t follow that all folks that support trump are bigoted.

Most of his supporters are bigoted and every single one of them who isn't mentally deficient certainly knows that they are supporting a bigot, so they still don't get a free pass.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 6 points 1 month ago

This is just saying the primary motivation wasn't economic anxiety, it was and still is racism. It does not say that it is the only reason or that it is universal for all of his followers.

[–] Kwakigra@beehaw.org 10 points 1 month ago

For no particular reason I'll leave a parody of one of my favorite poems here:

Trump’s presidential campaign wasn’t racist.
And if it was, it hardy had any effect on the election.
And if it did, it was really more about class than racism anyway.
And if it was actually about race, I wouldn't obfuscate that.
And if I did, I’m not racist.
And if I am, it’s only because you talk about racism so much.

[–] Midnitte@beehaw.org 6 points 1 month ago

You might say he was the first "white" president.