Just curious. You seem really clued in on how the pro-liberal media acts and no clue how the anti-liberal media acts but you’re such a anti-liberal guy. Kinda odd.
At this point, it’s overwhelmingly composed of persons who may not be white supremacists themselves, but are willing to tolerate and condone white supremacy if that’s part and parcel of the Republican package.
Well, that’s nice because it is exactly my point. There are different groups in the much less diverse Republican coalition that tolerate each other atm.
I spend most of my political reading/watching time on opposing view points. I do not watch or read politics to reinforce what I already think. I want something that will challenge what I already believe and may cause me to change my mind.
Well, it doesn’t show.
Well yeah. If they can all condone and tolerate racism, where exactly is this wedge opportunity? If Jim’s openly racist, and Joe isn’t but he doesn’t have a problem with Jim’s racism, where’s the wedge? Do you think you’re going to drive a wedge between Republicans with lesser differences, say between Bob the fundie and Bill the non-religious Chamber of Commerce type? Or is there some wedge issue that’s about something even more potent than racism?
By and large, business and religion and racism don’t contradict, and when they do in some way, one side or the other gives fairly quickly. As an example, evangelical Christians used to welcome refugees: the Bible says to welcome foreigners, for we were foreigners in Egypt. But once Trump ran against the infestation from south of the border, they became the biggest supporters of Trump’s border policies. Kids in cages? Goddamn lawbreakers, got what was coming to them.
You’re not going to find wedges within the GOP coalition. The wedge is between the Trump’s hardcore 40% and everyone else.
Nah, that won’t work either. They don’t care if you get your cash out of a different bank’s machine than they do.
Here’s an example of the Democratic party potentially becoming a circular firing squad.
To be clear, I’m not saying that critics didn’t have legitimate grievances or that they’re wrong. But it illustrates that in what is becoming an increasingly hyper-racial era in politics, the Democratic party and progressives generally may fail to agree on how to respond. Moreover, the danger is that tribal elders may be viewed as out of touch and not taking seriously the dangers of this time, while the leadership struggles to coordinate and find unifying themes. This is exactly how polarization tactics work, and it’s how Donald Trump can win re-election.
This may also be why Joe Biden is proving to be resilient despite his apparent weaknesses, which were exposed in the first debate. Hopefully voters of all stripe understand that Democrats don’t need the perfect candidate or the candidate with a spotless record; they just need someone voters can hold up as a contrast to Trump’s nightmarish regime. At least I hope that we can be that pragmatic, because if we can’t, four more years would be more than enough time for Trump and the Republicans to destroy an America that is based on the values of inclusion and equality.
To add one more thought, I hope tomorrow night’s debate doesn’t become a “You’re a racist” shit show. Kamala Harris popped Biden good in the last debate, and it’s entirely possible she needn’t say a word, as she’ll be joined by Julian Castro and Cory Booker, both of whom have brought identity politics into the forum already. And then there’s New York woke tough guy Bill De Blasio to boot. If that’s what happens, it won’t be just Biden who slips in the polls, but the entire Democratic party. Everyone knows Biden’s not a racist and now is not the time to be talking about how woke the party is; everyone agrees Trump’s racism is sick and must stop, and the way to stop it is to unify and get his ass out of office.
Very interesting piece from political scientist Zach Goldberg:
ETA: It’s debatable whether this is admirable in an abstract or substantive sense (I vote “nay”), but it is politically hobbling for Democrats, I guarantee you that much.
Self-hating whites are not new.
Neither are whites who characterize white people who prefer diverse groups as “self-hating”, unfortunately.
Yes, I’ve heard your talking points many times. You are free to shoulder all the white guilt that you can enjoy, and it is clear you enjoy it a lot. I decline and your disapproval of me I will, somehow, endure.
Another Doper mind-reader! I don’t actually feel any guilt, so perhaps your psychic powers are failing you. But diversity really is wonderful – I highly recommend it. It’s nothing to be feared, and folks who prefer it really aren’t “self-hating” – they just prefer diversity to homogenous groups. It’s okay to prefer diversity. It’s not a negative or “self-hating” thing.
I think you’re a fine (if sometimes grumpy) poster and I hope you grow more open to folks who think differently than you do. I think you’re incorrect here, but everyone is incorrect on some things some of the time.
But that’s not what this says. Unless you think nonwhite people do not prefer diverse groups? This scientist says white liberals are the only demographic group that feels more warmly toward the outgroup than their own. The only one. Not equally warmly. More warmly.
The quote from the article didn’t really talk about who might “prefer diverse groups”, you’re making some extrapolation or something. I am curious what it would look like if he had also broke down how liberals of other races felt.
Also, not a fan of when someone goes on about how a shift in sympathy for Israel matters. Why is that the only foreign policy position we’re all supposed to give a crap about and mean something about domestic politics?
It’s a Jewish magazine.
It’s how I probably would have answered, precisely because I prefer diverse groups (with a hint of the disapproval I hold for Trump supporters/enablers, who are overwhelmingly white). In order to counter the tendency to just hire, promote, and hang out with folks with similar backgrounds, one must make an effort to seek out those with different backgrounds. Just pretending to treat everyone equally won’t cut it. It requires this extra effort (with the benefit of far superior results, IMO), which is how I think I would have interpreted “warmth” in such a poll question.
It ain’t so much that white liberals hate themselves, but that white liberals are likely to less likely to give a shit that another candidate is not white. It’s very liberating, I’m an advocate!
“Probably”? LOL
You, sir, are the ne plus ultra of what this cite talks about. The only question is how many standard deviations we are talking about in your case.
Gotcha. Let me know if you’re interested in discussion rather than sniping silliness. Or if you’d prefer the sniping, take it to the Pit and I’ll be happy to respond.