All of you who are trying to “normalize” the players and elements in the new Trump Administration, who are saying liberals are just pissed because a Republican won and their candidate lost, who seem to have been hit by the Men in Black Flashy-Thing that has caused you to forget the divisive, hate-filled, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-immigrant rhetoric that he spouted for the last year or so, does the legitimization of white nationalism bother you at all? Even these guys admit themselves that the election has permitted them to come out into the light… and run for office in the midterms.
The worst part is this is just the stuff we’re getting from Trump winning the election. Some of this crowd has to be holding back while Obama is still in office. Wait until January 20. After that, these guys will really come out.
Most Trump supporters aren’t into the White Nationalism thing. It’s true.
But those are the people passively hoping that Trump represents a genuine change and a better America.
They key word being “passively”, because the small contingent of true White Nationalists are mobilizing, organizing, polishing their rhetoric, and aggressively leading the movement. Which means that, even if most Trump Republicans aren’t bigots, they are still going to fall in line with the coming bigoted agenda.
If 2008 is any indication, they’ll quickly lose interest when they find out Trump isn’t going to expel all the brown people, and vote for a third party crackpot instead next time around.
This is the spotlight fallacy at play kids. The media showcases shitty Trump supporters, so you think all Trump supporters are shitty. Just like people who only think of Muslims in the context of terrorism think that all Muslims are terrorist.
Disconnect, go out and try to meet people. The world isn’t as scary as some would like you to believe.
The difference, as I see it, is that radical Muslims, while indeed dangerous, have never been a threat to become a legitimate social, economic, and political force in this country. White Nationalism, on the other hand, could quickly become an existential threat. There is a history of it in our society – a long, brutal, ugly one at that. People are right to be alarmed, even if to the point of overreaction, for the failure to take this sort of threat seriously has very serious consequences.
When news outlets begin sharing tweets from David Duke in support of the president-elect and in condemnation of an exercise of free speech and political protest by a theater group, be afraid – be very, very afraid. This is not normal. This is not right. Even if the purpose is nothing more than to point out the relationship between advocates of white nationalists and more mainstream political parties, the result is ultimately ‘normalization’ – and that is bad. Very bad.
No, I don’t think all Trump supporters are shitty. This thread isn’t about generic “Trump supporters.”
It’s about the legitimization of a specific group of right-wing bigots and racists who now feel they can crawl out from under the rocks where they normally lurk, because their boy is going to be in the White House.
You obliquely answered my question, namely, that you aren’t concerned by this because this group is a minority of Trump supporters, right? And you’re blaming the generic media for scaring us with these stories? Okay, thanks.
When you target a group, white males, you’re going to have a backlash. It’s liberals who coined the term “white privilege.” It’s Democrats who have openly abandoned the white male vote. It’s Democrats who want to flood the country with non-whites with intention of diluting white male political power. You can be assured that Democrats would be totally for banning Muslims if they knew they were going to vote Republican.
Who “targets” white men, exactly? Who’s going around trying to do things that legally or socially push white men down? White men still have the lion’s share of the wealth and power in this country, as they have throughout the nation’s entire history. White privilege, like it or not, is a real concept, and it needs to be addressed. But even that doesn’t amount to any noteworthy social or political pressure in the way that Jim Crow, legal redlining, or even just the fear of being shot or mistreated by the cops does.
Your counterfactual is interesting but wrong - the democrats were not notably opposed to Muslim immigration back before 9/11. Back then, Muslims overwhelming voted Republican, before the Republican party decided it was a good idea to start making life hell for them. You want “targeting”? Try being a Muslim in the USA after 9/11. Try being gay or trans in the USA at any time.
You can whine about being told off about “white privilege” all you want, but given what you’re willing to apologize for when it happens to others, it really just comes off as incredibly hypocritical - you’re perfectly fine seeing any kind of discrimination for other people, but utterly unwilling to face… what, exactly, being told “being white gives you certain advantages, please remember this when evaluating what people of color tell you”?! Oh you poor little dear, do you need a safe space?
“It’s Democrats who want to flood the country with non-whites with intention of diluting white male political power.”
Wow. Did you leave your hood in your car or something?
As much as I don’t want to agree with him (and I largely don’t) he raises a point in that the politics of identity has become more visible over the past decade, and it has alienated some white voters who aren’t actually racist people. I’m pretty doggone liberal these days and yet some of the identity cultivation that takes place in academia is frankly ridiculous. By itself it would be a case of liberal academia being liberal academia but when political parties on both sides start calculating their probabilities of victory on the basis of which specific identities (demographics) they need and they begin public vote mining campaigns, it’s natural for other demographics who are not as attractive to a particular party to take notice. I don’t believe in charges of reverse discrimination – but I can understand how some people look at the democratic party and reach the cynical conclusion that they’re spending time in larger cities and more diverse neighborhoods and summarily ask “But what about us here in Toledo? What about us in Johnstown?” That’s basically how Hillary and the Democrats lost the election.
I think it’s absolutely appropriate to defend minority groups and acknowledge that they’ve had different experiences and that people in power need to acknowledge the concerns based on those experiences, but there really needs to be less emphasis on demography, less “We really need the Latino vote this year” and more focus on things that tie us together, like jobs, national security etc.
The “elephant chart” shows how the prior economically dominant position of the predominantly white lower and middle classes in wealthy countries has eroded dramatically in recent years. And, of course, in the “traditional” prior social situation men were the principal breadwinners.
When there are major economics at stake, people are much more susceptible to seeing themselves as social victims too, opening the way for neo-fascist propaganda.