I was just on Facebook and I saw a friend post this:
For those who are angry & depressed about the election here is something you can DO that might make a difference. I learned about this today & will be calling first thing tomorrow morning.
Call the House Oversight Committee (202-225-5074) to support the call for a bipartisan review of Trump's financials and apparent conflicts of interest. The friend who shared this with me said the woman she spoke with said that they are absolutely tallying calls - the more they get, the more likely the Committee is to demand ALL of Trump’s financial information.
There’s not much time left; they are out of the office next week for Thanksgiving. A decision will be made following the Thanksgiving recess.
NOW is your chance to use what’s left of democracy to send a strong message and demand change. Please, do this ASAFP. If you get a "mailbox is full" message, call back in a minute or so - that seems to be the default when lines are busy.
That number again is (202-225-5074). Website here: https://oversight.house.gov/
"Likes" feel nice in the short term. "Shares" get the word out. ACTUALLY CALLING ACTUALLY DOES SOMETHING.
I don't know how much they could actually do, but it might be worth a shot to call Friday before they go on break. I also noticed my Rep Ted Lieu is part of the committee, so I'm going to call him again tomorrow about this.
If the democratic party moves to ingratiate themselves with racists, homophobes, or bigots of any stripe then I'm absolutely done with em. Finished. Bigotry must be combatted ferociously, not coddled and catered to. There can be absolutely no compromise on this issue.
The fact that trumps voters were actually pretty well off by and large seems to indicate that the argument for them being merely poor rural rubes is pretty much bullshit. And, by the way, I live in Wyoming, where rubes are manufactured, and economic policy ain't what they were talking about. They were talking about Muslims and those uppity police-hating blacks and illegal immigrant drug dealers and "pc culture" and guns. I have seen the face of America and it's angry and white and armed, and toooootally fine with casual racism, homophobia and misogyny. So even if their concerns were purely economic, they were still totally fuckin fine with all the other shit trump said. And that makes them bad people. End of story.
Pretty much. If the party decides they were too mean to racists and runs like that in 2018, i'll go off and register with the nearest non-Green group of socialists, plant myself on the fringe of American politics, and stay there until my party comes back.
We are losing a war of attrition. We cannot win without capturing some of the people who voted for Obama once, and voted for Trump now.
Ask yourself whether or not vulnerable populations are safer by paying lip service to some racists and getting their vote and then getting a Dem in power, or whether they're safer by taking a principled stand and then playing Making America Great Again a second time in 2020.
Appealing to racists is a great way to lose the dem base. So your first option doesn't follow.
Again, you don't "appeal to racists"
You appeal to people who are indifferent (either due to lack of exposure, or do to being more concerned about their own problems) either way to racial tensions; or to people who disliked Trump's racial rhetoric, but held their nose and voted for him anyway because they felt his overall message was better for them than Hillary's.
These people aren't actively malicious, they're just not in positions to share the same value assessments about racial tensions that you and I are. You get them on board by offering to help them, winning you elections and allowing you to push other progressive policies.
Even with the most dour opinion of Trump supporters, there's got to be at least 1% of them we can get on our side by just not acting like they should be written off. We tried that and it cost us badly.
Assuming that "acting like they be be written off" is what happened. The Clinton campaign made overt appeals to the non-racists. It was a big thing. We were talking about it last page and the one before.
If the democratic party moves to ingratiate themselves with racists, homophobes, or bigots of any stripe then I'm absolutely done with em. Finished. Bigotry must be combatted ferociously, not coddled and catered to. There can be absolutely no compromise on this issue.
The fact that trumps voters were actually pretty well off by and large seems to indicate that the argument for them being merely poor rural rubes is pretty much bullshit. And, by the way, I live in Wyoming, where rubes are manufactured, and economic policy ain't what they were talking about. They were talking about Muslims and those uppity police-hating blacks and illegal immigrant drug dealers and "pc culture" and guns. I have seen the face of America and it's angry and white and armed, and toooootally fine with casual racism, homophobia and misogyny. So even if their concerns were purely economic, they were still totally fuckin fine with all the other shit trump said. And that makes them bad people. End of story.
Pretty much. If the party decides they were too mean to racists and runs like that in 2018, i'll go off and register with the nearest non-Green group of socialists, plant myself on the fringe of American politics, and stay there until my party comes back.
We are losing a war of attrition. We cannot win without capturing some of the people who voted for Obama once, and voted for Trump now.
Ask yourself whether or not vulnerable populations are safer by paying lip service to some racists and getting their vote and then getting a Dem in power, or whether they're safer by taking a principled stand and then playing Making America Great Again a second time in 2020.
Appealing to racists is a great way to lose the dem base. So your first option doesn't follow.
Again, you don't "appeal to racists"
You appeal to people who are indifferent (either due to lack of exposure, or do to being more concerned about their own problems) either way to racial tensions; or to people who disliked Trump's racial rhetoric, but held their nose and voted for him anyway because they felt his overall message was better for them than Hillary's.
These people aren't actively malicious, they're just not in positions to share the same value assessments about racial tensions that you and I are. You get them on board by offering to help them, winning you elections and allowing you to push other progressive policies.
Even with the most dour opinion of Trump supporters, there's got to be at least 1% of them we can get on our side by just not acting like they should be written off. We tried that and it cost us badly.
Please read the quote that started that.
If the democratic party moves to ingratiate themselves with racists, homophobes, or bigots of any stripe then I'm absolutely done with em. Finished. Bigotry must be combatted ferociously, not coddled and catered to. There can be absolutely no compromise on this issue.
And the response
Ask yourself whether or not vulnerable populations are safer by paying lip service to some racists
That is not in any way the same thing as what you're suggesting.
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
White Fragility is real and may need to be coddled to win elections.
It's not real and it's a broadly insulting thing to suggest, not to mention being pretty racist on its own.
White fragility is very real and it's not racist at all to suggest that. The very arguments being made here, that I'm pretty sure you've been hitting agree on, about how we should tone down talk of racism in order to not turn away white voters who totally think they aren't racist is an acknowledgement of it's existence. Like, the whole premise is that bringing up the issue makes white people defensive.
Like, quite simply if the argument is that the Democratic Party needs to lay off the calling out racism thing a bit in order to not turn away white voters, we are talking pretty explicitly about white fragility.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
White Fragility is the name of the term. Look it up, it's the actual name in the literature. It's not intended to insult or belittle, unless you think a bunch of academics are just out to stick it to whiter for some weird reason. I don't know why this is getting you so worked up.
White Fragility is about the reaction of white people in North America (that's the specific place the original paper coining the term was about anyway) to people bringing up racial issues. Essentially they become very defensive and angry and stressed out about the whole situation. It is a character of white people in america in that white people are the dominant racial group and so are not used to dealing with the issue because they are insulated from it by virtue of them being the privileged "default" in society.
When you talk about people getting defensive or angry over racism being brought up, this is what you are talking about. When people are saying "we shouldn't drop social justice, but we should be more careful about how we message it because we don't want to alienate those white voters we need to win" this is an explicit call for coddling them to get around white fragility.
As to the first bolded, I kinda do yeah. I'm neither surprised that "the literature" attempts to describe some characteristic of "white people" without even a hint of self-awareness, or that it would settle on a term like this to describe the phenomenon.
As to the others, you're saying racist things.
As to the concept, unsurprisingly the academic left has once again hit upon the most insulting way to describe a term for a thing they dislike. The idea that it's not intended to insult or belittle is laughable. Of course it is - when you think about "fragility" as a character trait, there are no positive concepts connected to it.
There is no uninsulting way to phrase this is the thing. It doesn't matter how we do it if the merely acknowledging concept shuts conversations down. This isn't about the tone, though sure sometimes we do go overboard (who doesn't on subjects they care about?) it's about ideas.
"Hey, you're just, you know, fragile. Because you're white, understand. That's a thing white people have. Fragility. I'm not trying to insult, I'm just saying is all. Just saying.
Why are you so upset about it anyway? I guess you just proved I was right!"
Not really. The people you're talking to about this subject know all this, have been on the other side before and we do try to make it as friendly as possible. Unfortunately we end up with that same result anyway.
Focusing on why they're upset is also besides the point, since while it's important to consider someone's feelings truth is just as important. We all have our faults, individually and as a species. Putting our head in the sand helps nobody, it merely keeps the status quo in tact. And the status quo is terrible for many people. That's why the glass ceiling exists and minorities have a harder time getting employed, home loans etc.
Tim Ryan of Ohio is challenging Pelosi for House minority leader.
Could be a great way to show the rust belt voters that we're learning from our defeat and willing to change as a party.
Tim Ryan has a plan for restoring the rust belt to its former glory?
No one has that, but Tim probably has the best chance of showing that he actually cares and that the democrats are taking this seriously. According to his bio, he's the co-chairman of the Manufacturing Caucus.
He only converted to pro-choice recently as a result of a long personal journey, rather than being born into a socially liberal family. So he'll have an easier time defending his position to church voters compared to other liberals.
No one is advocating paying lipservice to the racial concerns of any racists.
I've heard of moving the goalposts but narrowing them is a new one.
Sorry, context is pretty clear here.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
"We have to be nicer to these people and not mention racism or misogyny!" just makes me madder at one of my brothers-in-law who told me it was "unbecoming" for me to point out that he needs to use valid sources and not spread falsehoods (He told me not to pontificate at him. sigh.). He's more mad at me for telling him not to spread lies than he is that a Nazi is being offered a high position in the white house. It's like I'm talking about life and death and he's telling me I need to discuss it more sweetly. Excuse me if my frustration makes me say FUCK. THAT.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+14
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
No one is advocating paying lipservice to the racial concerns of any racists.
But there is nothing else for those guys in the rust belt who are hurting because the rust belt has been economically destroyed!
They have a religious belief that if we just slashed international trade agreements, the manufacturing sectors would spring back to life; they ascribe the Chinese & Japanese export booms as a cause of declining manufacturing sectors in North America when in fact they were & are a response to that decline!
They want a thing that is impossible to deliver without a Goddamn time machine; and even if we had one, I am incredibly skeptical that things were really as bright & shiny in Michigan back then as some rose tinted glasses want to suggest!
No one is advocating paying lipservice to the racial concerns of any racists.
But there is nothing else for those guys in the rust belt who are hurting because the rust belt has been economically destroyed!
They have a religious belief that if we just slashed international trade agreements, the manufacturing sectors would spring back to life; they ascribe the Chinese & Japanese export booms as a cause of declining manufacturing sectors in North America when in fact they were & are a response to that decline!
They want a thing that is impossible to deliver without a Goddamn time machine; and even if we had one, I am incredibly skeptical that things were really as bright & shiny in Michigan back then as some rose tinted glasses want to suggest!
And they're literally blaming the one party who does want to help them.
+2
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Whether you call it white fragility or something else, there does not appear to be a good way to discuss the concept of racism or unconscious bias with a white person. I had the only serious fight I've ever had with my dearest sister when I was trying to describe unconscious bias, and I went into that conversation with the complete belief that the racist sentiments she's expressed to me were not as a result of hatred in her heart or any sort of intent and with a strong belief in her natural goodness. It still ended with her in tears. Granted I did gain some ground with her, and I might gain more, but we're two people who love each other and have a good solid relationship. I have no idea how I would do this with anyone I was less close to.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
"We have to be nicer to these people and not mention racism or misogyny!" just makes me madder at one of my brothers-in-law who told me it was "unbecoming" for me to point out that he needs to use valid sources and not spread falsehoods (He told me not to pontificate at him. sigh.). He's more mad at me for telling him not to spread lies than he is that a Nazi is being offered a high position in the white house. It's like I'm talking about life and death and he's telling me I need to discuss it more sweetly. Excuse me if my frustration makes me say FUCK. THAT.
This post here? Important in the end game for the Democratic party. They need to be very careful not to lose the Cambiata's while trying to appeal to white voters. Because if they fuck up, all they'll have left are those white voters and they'll lose anyway.
No one is advocating paying lipservice to the racial concerns of any racists.
But there is nothing else for those guys in the rust belt who are hurting because the rust belt has been economically destroyed!
They have a religious belief that if we just slashed international trade agreements, the manufacturing sectors would spring back to life; they ascribe the Chinese & Japanese export booms as a cause of declining manufacturing sectors in North America when in fact they were & are a response to that decline!
They want a thing that is impossible to deliver without a Goddamn time machine; and even if we had one, I am incredibly skeptical that things were really as bright & shiny in Michigan back then as some rose tinted glasses want to suggest!
And they're literally blaming the one party who does want to help them.
It's been that way for decades - placing fault on every effort that actively, sometimes in desperation, tried to stop the fall of automobile manufacturing in NA.
Moore's 'Roger & Me' is one of the best examples: he faults GM, and uses really dishonest interviewing techniques to incriminate GM management. When you actually go and read about what happened, it is basically an ongoing trainwreck of errors as GM tried every single trick in the fucking book, including trying to implement half-assed specialized robots working in conjunction with workers to decrease automobile costs by dramatically improving factory output (the robots just didn't work; the technology wasn't ready at the time). And the problem wasn't in competing with other auto makers who had cheaper products; it was that everyone had a fucking car, and cheaper used cars were now a gigantic market!
(There are also some arguments to be made about the types of cars made by GM & Ford at the time, but honestly I think this argument misses the forest for the trees. Yes, GM & Ford did make some shitty models that didn't sell well, but this was probably in response to the crisis they were facing rather than a causal agent. They also made some fucking awesome vehicles at the time; the Ranger pick-ups, for example).
"We have to be nicer to these people and not mention racism or misogyny!" just makes me madder at one of my brothers-in-law who told me it was "unbecoming" for me to point out that he needs to use valid sources and not spread falsehoods (He told me not to pontificate at him. sigh.). He's more mad at me for telling him not to spread lies than he is that a Nazi is being offered a high position in the white house. It's like I'm talking about life and death and he's telling me I need to discuss it more sweetly. Excuse me if my frustration makes me say FUCK. THAT.
This post here? Important in the end game for the Democratic party. They need to be very careful not to lose the Cambiata's while trying to appeal to white voters. Because if they fuck up, all they'll have left are those white voters and they'll lose anyway.
Yup, we're walking a thin line.
I just don't think it's impossible to come up with plans dealing with the rust belt economic problems without dropping the outreach to minorities.
Whether you call it white fragility or something else, there does not appear to be a good way to discuss the concept of racism or unconscious bias with a white person. I had the only serious fight I've ever had with my dearest sister when I was trying to describe unconscious bias, and I went into that conversation with the complete belief that the racist sentiments she's expressed to me were not as a result of hatred in her heart or any sort of intent and with a strong belief in her natural goodness. It still ended with her in tears. Granted I did gain some ground with her, and I might gain more, but we're two people who love each other and have a good solid relationship. I have no idea how I would do this with anyone I was less close to.
Human curiosity is an attribute everybody has, and is essential to education. It is easy to hold on to when a person wants what you can give, but when they don't, you need to maintain some opacity as to your agenda. If you're direct and get to the actual practical point, which is often a judgment, too early, you lose the hook and defense mechanisms kick in. Partitioning out concept learning into abstracted and entertaining lessons avoids having to show your judgment or advocate a change in behavior too soon.
It's actually easier to teach people who don't really have a strong connection to you since there's less relationship at stake in an actual argument, which leads to more objectivity and less resistance. You can afford to have a meaningful conversation that isn't 100% dead serious. A person you don't know very well tends to not have complex plans regarding your behavior and your relationship.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
"We have to be nicer to these people and not mention racism or misogyny!" just makes me madder at one of my brothers-in-law who told me it was "unbecoming" for me to point out that he needs to use valid sources and not spread falsehoods (He told me not to pontificate at him. sigh.). He's more mad at me for telling him not to spread lies than he is that a Nazi is being offered a high position in the white house. It's like I'm talking about life and death and he's telling me I need to discuss it more sweetly. Excuse me if my frustration makes me say FUCK. THAT.
This post here? Important in the end game for the Democratic party. They need to be very careful not to lose the Cambiata's while trying to appeal to white voters. Because if they fuck up, all they'll have left are those white voters and they'll lose anyway.
Yup, we're walking a thin line.
I just don't think it's impossible to come up with plans dealing with the rust belt economic problems without dropping the outreach to minorities.
It's actually pretty simple.
You have the national party with a broader message or equality while the state level party finds the best possible compromise for the local population.
i.e., North Carolina and Seattle both have racial issues. But in Seattle, it's along the lines of "what can we do to include more minorities into STEM?" Where as in North Carolina, it's about fighting active attempts at voter suppression.
No one is saying we abandon equal rights. But you can't rely on a one-size fits all solution.
I'm just going to point out actions and rhetoric are two different things.
Better messaging doesn't mean the democrats start ignoring social justice. It means they make it clear that they view economic justice and part of social justice and it makes harder for the right to claim they are ignoring the working class. It also means figuring out how to explain some of the plans better, I've seen some great ones out of the democratic party, but they aren't some quick and easy that most people are willing to take a look at, let along digest. Finally, it does mean also making sure that we don't give the impression that we don't want any input from them at all, rural areas have issues that are unique to them and they do have unique issues are legitimate issues that have fuck all to do with bigotry (they are also issues that minorities living outside the city care about).
I love rubbing the alt right shitheads face into shit (metaphorically speaking), but I like see progress move forward. So I'm willing to make the economic message louder and continue implementing many of the current policies designed to help minorities and the economy. I'm pretty sure we could keep the whole platform if we went with better messaging because democrats already do try to do what's best for minorities, the lower class and the middle class.
We definitely shouldn't fall into the trap of just shitting on everyone that isn't in lock step. We can't ignore a group that could be peeled off with better economic messaging, while telling bigotry to piss up a rope. It doesn't make sense to write them off completely. I mean if we get there votes, it's less votes for the GOP and gives us more votes that the GOP has to overcome in the process.
Better messaging doesn't mean the democrats start ignoring social justice. It means they make it clear that they view economic justice and part of social justice and it makes harder for the right to claim they are ignoring the working class. It also means figuring out how to explain some of the plans better, I've seen some great ones out of the democratic party, but they aren't some quick and easy that most people are willing to take a look at, let along digest. Finally, it does mean also making sure that we don't give the impression that we don't want any input from them at all, rural areas have issues that are unique to them and they do have unique issues are legitimate issues that have fuck all to do with bigotry (they are also issues that minorities living outside the city care about).
Dems need to hire a load of really talented people to figure out how to this right before it gets to politicians. The right wing has made this into an art form, we need to catch up - in the opposite direction.
Yes, we are turning off all the Trump voters reading this thread. Silly us. If only we'd been nicer to ... who exactly?
You like to paint a nice broad picture, but it all falls apart the minute you actually think about it because the people you are worried about offending are not here.
This particular thread? Nah.
But you think liberal blogs and op-eds are somehow firewalled to only be read by liberals? Okay. You think people don't hear us talking?
At this point, they pretty much are. Most conservative outrage against "PC culture" is usually sourced from right-wing Tumblr trolls and Reddit posts that can be filed under "Shit that Totally Happened".
"We have to be nicer to these people and not mention racism or misogyny!" just makes me madder at one of my brothers-in-law who told me it was "unbecoming" for me to point out that he needs to use valid sources and not spread falsehoods (He told me not to pontificate at him. sigh.). He's more mad at me for telling him not to spread lies than he is that a Nazi is being offered a high position in the white house. It's like I'm talking about life and death and he's telling me I need to discuss it more sweetly. Excuse me if my frustration makes me say FUCK. THAT.
This post here? Important in the end game for the Democratic party. They need to be very careful not to lose the Cambiata's while trying to appeal to white voters. Because if they fuck up, all they'll have left are those white voters and they'll lose anyway.
Yup, we're walking a thin line.
I just don't think it's impossible to come up with plans dealing with the rust belt economic problems without dropping the outreach to minorities.
It's definitely possible. The Democrats should be banging on the "help struggling americans in this economy" and "fuck the rich assholes who steal your money" drums anyway.
The biggest hurdle is that the right can still go for the economic populist argument too, as shown by Trump, and they can marry it to and blend it with socially regressive calls to stop the rest of the way the world is changing too. Basically the Democrats can appeal to economics and the GOP can appeal to economics and racism.
That said, at the moment the margins seem thin enough the Democrats can probably get away with just shaving a few points off in key states and driving up turnout and be good to go at the Presidential level. I worry about the state and local level though.
And just generally I worry about the long term prospects in alot of these places. One of the big causes of Brexit (or at least, one of the supposed ones) is related to deindustrialisation in various regions of England. The thing is, those regions were hit decades ago. Back during the Thatcher years alot of it and it hasn't changed in the meantime, the politics of it all have just festered instead. As much as there's been comparison between Trump and Brexit before, it feels to me like Brexit support works as sort of a preview of the future. Or rather, the lack of any foreseeable change in the future for these kind of issues. These issues don't fade away and the anger and resentment doesn't either. Like, what happens to this whole region long term and what does that mean for the way they vote? Because if this election has demonstrated anything it's that they are pretty important. It's looking like the next big battleground for the Dems and GOP at the moment.
Been looking for maps of which states are getting older and which younger and at what rates, cause that's a decent second point after looking at which states are growing or shrinking and I think all that information would be really interesting to look at as a proxy for the economic changes going on.
+2
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Whether you call it white fragility or something else, there does not appear to be a good way to discuss the concept of racism or unconscious bias with a white person. I had the only serious fight I've ever had with my dearest sister when I was trying to describe unconscious bias, and I went into that conversation with the complete belief that the racist sentiments she's expressed to me were not as a result of hatred in her heart or any sort of intent and with a strong belief in her natural goodness. It still ended with her in tears. Granted I did gain some ground with her, and I might gain more, but we're two people who love each other and have a good solid relationship. I have no idea how I would do this with anyone I was less close to.
I don't know. I think it might be a matter of exposure to other cultures.
I'm (culturally) white, and I hang out in largely (culturally) white circles, but all of us are on board with the ideas of institutional racism and unconscious bias.
I wouldn't have been at age 18, or age 20--I was still thinking the quota system for entry into college was reverse racism (lol).
But--and here's the thing--all of us live and have lived in large, multiracial, multicultural cities while poor and just trying to start our careers. We've had the exposure, we all have friends of this race or that, or have worked with 'em. I work with about as many immigrants as I do people born in the US.
I don't know how you transmit that experience to someone who hasn't had it (assuming that's the case)--but it's a lot like water to a fish. You don't know the advantages you have because that's just the way things have always been for you and everyone you know.
Yes, we are turning off all the Trump voters reading this thread. Silly us. If only we'd been nicer to ... who exactly?
You like to paint a nice broad picture, but it all falls apart the minute you actually think about it because the people you are worried about offending are not here.
This particular thread? Nah.
But you think liberal blogs and op-eds are somehow firewalled to only be read by liberals? Okay. You think people don't hear us talking?
At this point, they pretty much are. Most conservative outrage against "PC culture" is usually sourced from right-wing Tumblr trolls and Reddit posts that can be filed under "Shit that Totally Happened".
Indeed. As O'Keefe or the Macedonian Facebook Trolls prove, if the enemy does not exist, he will be invented. And he will be raging about white privilege and political correctness or something because that always triggers conservative white people.
These things exist because there is a market for the outrage. People are looking for that. They want to have their already existing views validated by examples of those damn liberals being all smug and liberal so they can be mad at it.
+7
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Whether you call it white fragility or something else, there does not appear to be a good way to discuss the concept of racism or unconscious bias with a white person. I had the only serious fight I've ever had with my dearest sister when I was trying to describe unconscious bias, and I went into that conversation with the complete belief that the racist sentiments she's expressed to me were not as a result of hatred in her heart or any sort of intent and with a strong belief in her natural goodness. It still ended with her in tears. Granted I did gain some ground with her, and I might gain more, but we're two people who love each other and have a good solid relationship. I have no idea how I would do this with anyone I was less close to.
I don't know. I think it might be a matter of exposure to other cultures.
I'm (culturally) white, and I hang out in largely (culturally) white circles, but all of us are on board with the ideas of institutional racism and unconscious bias.
I wouldn't have been at age 18, or age 20--I was still thinking the quota system for entry into college was reverse racism (lol).
But--and here's the thing--all of us live and have lived in large, multiracial, multicultural cities while poor and just trying to start our careers. We've had the exposure, we all have friends of this race or that, or have worked with 'em. I work with about as many immigrants as I do people born in the US.
I don't know how you transmit that experience to someone who hasn't had it (assuming that's the case)--but it's a lot like water to a fish. You don't know the advantages you have because that's just the way things have always been for you and everyone you know.
Absolutely. I figured out my own racism because I moved from a lily-white hick town (well the town probably wasn't that white, but white and black were definitely segregated to opposite sides of town), to multicultural Dallas and a multicultural workplace. My parents live almost completely isolated from the outside world, they are never going to learn what it's like for other cultures - the closest my mom got was the time there was an Akira Kurosawa film marathon on Turner Classic Movies and she turned to me after watching one of those movies and said innocently, "Oh! Japanese people are just like us!"
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+4
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
No one is advocating paying lipservice to the racial concerns of any racists.
But there is nothing else for those guys in the rust belt who are hurting because the rust belt has been economically destroyed!
They have a religious belief that if we just slashed international trade agreements, the manufacturing sectors would spring back to life; they ascribe the Chinese & Japanese export booms as a cause of declining manufacturing sectors in North America when in fact they were & are a response to that decline!
They want a thing that is impossible to deliver without a Goddamn time machine; and even if we had one, I am incredibly skeptical that things were really as bright & shiny in Michigan back then as some rose tinted glasses want to suggest!
Firstly, this seems to be a rather dismal prediction given the numbers. Trump won ground with a host of minorities compared to the preceding republican candidates, Obama won more white voters in states that Clinton lost. He didn't do it by engaging with outrage or by the virtue of his supporters calling people bigots of one stripe or another, he had a universal message and a charismatic affect. It seems unlikely that the voting demographics that Clinton lost ground in but Trump gained relative to Obama and McCain and Romney only want what we will not allow ourselves to give. It also seems unlikely that the relevant concerns of the minorities with whom he gained ground were operating with an explicitly racial concern. The idea that all people in the rust belt want is overt racism and sexism (which, I point out I do not agree Trump gave them) isn't plausible - specially considering we're talking about demographic blocs in which votes are fungible.
Secondly, while I am certainly sympathetic to the assessment of the economic trajectory of society as increasingly dismal as the invisible dick of unchecked capitalism fucks everyone but the upper classes (and that the increased wealth and prosperity that technology should have afforded everyone has been stolen by the few) I'm not sure if that's quite the right read on the political situation. We're left to conclude Obama sold them snake oil, everything is even worse post-Obama and we can't offer any solutions or they want other things we can promise them. And, unfortunately, if either of the first things are true then we have nothing to offer lots of people but lies.
In the face of such pessimism though, I am still not advocating pandering to the racial concerns of racists and nor is anyone else in the thread. I am saying that the insular outrage culture isn't helping, and yelling at everyone for being sexists or racists doesn't help either.
If the question is "how do we win the big chair?" then calling everyone sexists and racists isn't going to do it, no matter how cathartic it is.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I don't think the argument that academics aren't inherently without bias is a paranoid delusion that they're out to get white people. When we're talking about a term created under the auspices of and submitted to a journal dedicated to a philosophy of education that is explicitly political (and I also note, one that is certainly well intentioned and possibly historically important). But it's also not the fruit of the sort of academic labour we ought consider authoritative in and of itself.
The argument wasn't that academics lack bias, it was that academics are out to "belittle and insult" white people. A wee bit different then what you are claiming and certainly exactly as ridiculous as I pointed out it was.
this is a pretty difficult row to hoe if you're going to support the concept of 'white fragility' and that which undergirds it.
Certainly the assumptions that are operative by those who are enamoured with it as an explanation of the world and a diagnosis of a social group would hold that the product of bias is the belittling and insulting of other groups, likely unconsciously but not always. Or that this bias leads people to believe that their insults are justified and thus not insults.
They won't always use the exact terms "belittle" or "insult" but they certainly do use near analogues.
It is most certainly a way to be dismissive and silence people, to give a diagnosis of anything but surrender to assertions of the proponents. I'm torn as to the degree of self awareness with which this was done though.
That said, I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where Robin DeAngelo, someone whose social sensitivities are so acutely attuned, would be unable to see why attaching a manifestly negative trait to an entire group when they coined their term would be insulting.
Firstly, this seems to be a rather dismal prediction given the numbers. Trump won ground with a host of minorities compared to the preceding republican candidates, Obama won more white voters in states that Clinton lost. He didn't do it by engaging with outrage or by the virtue of his supporters calling people bigots of one stripe or another, he had a universal message and a charismatic affect. It seems unlikely that the voting demographics that Clinton lost ground in but Trump gained relative to Obama and McCain and Romney only want what we will not allow ourselves to give. It also seems unlikely that the relevant concerns of the minorities with whom he gained ground were operating with an explicitly racial concern. The idea that all people in the rust belt want is overt racism and sexism (which, I point out I do not agree Trump gave them) isn't plausible - specially considering we're talking about demographic blocs in which votes are fungible.
I'm sorry, what? No, he didn't engage in outrage at bigots or calling people bigots - bigots were his audience. Trump's the most blatant racist and sexist politician I've ever seen and we've had Todd Akin.
In a local news interview, on August 19, 2012, discussing abortion, Akin claimed that victims of what he described as "legitimate rape" very rarely become pregnant. Airing on St. Louis television station KTVI, his response to a question on rape exceptions for abortion was:
Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.[56]
This comment killed his political career, Trump's thrives upon it.
Are you seriously telling me you didn't find anything Trump said during his campaign or in history as a big time sexist and racist?
His "universal message" was one of hate and fear. He was no Obama.
The charisma was a major advantage to sell this to his marks voters. He's spent his whole life doing this, and is high enough in society to avoid the drawbacks so he's very good at this.
Did you know minorities and women can be racist and sexist? I'm curious to your answer.
Secondly, while I am certainly sympathetic to the assessment of the economic trajectory of society as increasingly dismal as the invisible dick of unchecked capitalism fucks everyone but the upper classes (and that the increased wealth and prosperity that technology should have afforded everyone has been stolen by the few) I'm not sure if that's quite the right read on the political situation. We're left to conclude Obama sold them snake oil, everything is even worse post-Obama and we can't offer any solutions or they want other things we can promise them. And, unfortunately, if either of the first things are true then we have nothing to offer lots of people but lies.
We offer them plenty, all they want is lies.
edit: It's difficult for Obama and the Dems to give them solutions when everything they do is obstructed by the GOP at hilarious levels. That's why we've had an empty SCOTUS chair when Scalia died. They literally shut down the government temporarily too.
In the face of such pessimism though, I am still not advocating pandering to the racial concerns of racists and nor is anyone else in the thread. I am saying that the insular outrage culture isn't helping, and yelling at everyone for being sexists or racists doesn't help either.
It helps a little. It encourages the voters for Hillary, and activates those who are susceptible to that messaging - like women and minorities. It also makes it very clear Democrats aren't fond of racists and sexists, I wouldn't consider this a flaw per se. This kind of activism is important if we ever want to live in a world without sexists or racists. Sure, it's a pipe dream, but it's ever going to get any better by ignoring those issues. They're the main reason we got President Donald Trump - he is their king.
If the question is "how do we win the big chair?" then calling everyone sexists and racists isn't going to do it, no matter how cathartic it is.
It's not the kiss of death in elections either, Hillary won the popular vote.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited November 2016
Harry, the bit you bolded in quote refers to the man himself
BARRY FRICKEN OBAMA, I guess that wasn't entirely clear given the joys of pronoun collision but you have the wrong end of the stick.
As for the rest and "all they want is lies" I have argued why this is unlikely to be true - the victory of Obama, the relative gains and losses of Hillary across various demographics. I'm not really interested in repeating myself in the face of nothing but assertion.
Trump succeeded where Akin failed because Trump portrayed himself as the anti-hero alpha male, and anti-hero alpha males get special privileges that their followers do not.
Unfortunately there is only one Obama, and he's leaving the presidency. What he did was going to be difficult to replicate under the best of circumstances. Not to mention the circumstances are different when it's tried by a white woman like Hillary Clinton, who has to be less subtle with messaging for minority voting blocs.
As for the rest and "all they want is lies" I have argued why this is unlikely to be true - the victory of Obama, the relative gains and losses of Hillary across various demographics. I'm not really interested in repeating myself in the face of nothing but assertion.
Obama's victories have been bluntered from the second he won the presidency by the GOP. He isn't allowed to get whatever he wanted passed into law, or get people appointed he wanted. He was blocked to astonishing levels from the opposition. Even when they say they want certain things to ok them like Garland.
That they liked Obama proves nothing, since Hillary was suffering the same deal. There was no going back to coal mining operating at peak capacity or businesses moving aboard (Trump, being one of them) letting their towns to die. Trump got their votes by saying this isn't true, and he offers them ponies which will never materialize. Trump wasn't being truthful to them.
This is not an assertion.
Harry Dresden on
+1
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Unfortunately there is only one Obama, and he's leaving the presidency. What he did was going to be difficult to replicate under the best of circumstances. Not to mention the circumstances are different when it's tried by a white woman like Hillary Clinton, who has to be less subtle with messaging for minority voting blocs.
Great but it has nothing to do with the post to which you responded
Posts
Yes, fuck em. But also, get their votes. So don't tell them "fuck you". But totally think it.
I don't know how much they could actually do, but it might be worth a shot to call Friday before they go on break. I also noticed my Rep Ted Lieu is part of the committee, so I'm going to call him again tomorrow about this.
Assuming that "acting like they be be written off" is what happened. The Clinton campaign made overt appeals to the non-racists. It was a big thing. We were talking about it last page and the one before.
Please read the quote that started that.
And the response
That is not in any way the same thing as what you're suggesting.
Could be a great way to show the rust belt voters that we're learning from our defeat and willing to change as a party.
A lot of them have been brainwashed into thinking that the KKK claims have been greatly exaggerated by the media.
Tim Ryan has a plan for restoring the rust belt to its former glory?
Be a white dude from Ohio.
Probably won't work. He's way too fragile. On account of how he's white.
There is no uninsulting way to phrase this is the thing. It doesn't matter how we do it if the merely acknowledging concept shuts conversations down. This isn't about the tone, though sure sometimes we do go overboard (who doesn't on subjects they care about?) it's about ideas.
Not really. The people you're talking to about this subject know all this, have been on the other side before and we do try to make it as friendly as possible. Unfortunately we end up with that same result anyway.
Focusing on why they're upset is also besides the point, since while it's important to consider someone's feelings truth is just as important. We all have our faults, individually and as a species. Putting our head in the sand helps nobody, it merely keeps the status quo in tact. And the status quo is terrible for many people. That's why the glass ceiling exists and minorities have a harder time getting employed, home loans etc.
No one has that, but Tim probably has the best chance of showing that he actually cares and that the democrats are taking this seriously. According to his bio, he's the co-chairman of the Manufacturing Caucus.
He only converted to pro-choice recently as a result of a long personal journey, rather than being born into a socially liberal family. So he'll have an easier time defending his position to church voters compared to other liberals.
2020 is gonna be the whitest most penis-having dudes with the mid-western-ness set to 11 competing for the Democratic nomination, isn't it?
I've heard of moving the goalposts but narrowing them is a new one.
Sorry, context is pretty clear here.
It really is not, to me at least. Please spell it out for me.
But there is nothing else for those guys in the rust belt who are hurting because the rust belt has been economically destroyed!
They have a religious belief that if we just slashed international trade agreements, the manufacturing sectors would spring back to life; they ascribe the Chinese & Japanese export booms as a cause of declining manufacturing sectors in North America when in fact they were & are a response to that decline!
They want a thing that is impossible to deliver without a Goddamn time machine; and even if we had one, I am incredibly skeptical that things were really as bright & shiny in Michigan back then as some rose tinted glasses want to suggest!
And they're literally blaming the one party who does want to help them.
This post here? Important in the end game for the Democratic party. They need to be very careful not to lose the Cambiata's while trying to appeal to white voters. Because if they fuck up, all they'll have left are those white voters and they'll lose anyway.
It's been that way for decades - placing fault on every effort that actively, sometimes in desperation, tried to stop the fall of automobile manufacturing in NA.
Moore's 'Roger & Me' is one of the best examples: he faults GM, and uses really dishonest interviewing techniques to incriminate GM management. When you actually go and read about what happened, it is basically an ongoing trainwreck of errors as GM tried every single trick in the fucking book, including trying to implement half-assed specialized robots working in conjunction with workers to decrease automobile costs by dramatically improving factory output (the robots just didn't work; the technology wasn't ready at the time). And the problem wasn't in competing with other auto makers who had cheaper products; it was that everyone had a fucking car, and cheaper used cars were now a gigantic market!
(There are also some arguments to be made about the types of cars made by GM & Ford at the time, but honestly I think this argument misses the forest for the trees. Yes, GM & Ford did make some shitty models that didn't sell well, but this was probably in response to the crisis they were facing rather than a causal agent. They also made some fucking awesome vehicles at the time; the Ranger pick-ups, for example).
Yup, we're walking a thin line.
I just don't think it's impossible to come up with plans dealing with the rust belt economic problems without dropping the outreach to minorities.
Human curiosity is an attribute everybody has, and is essential to education. It is easy to hold on to when a person wants what you can give, but when they don't, you need to maintain some opacity as to your agenda. If you're direct and get to the actual practical point, which is often a judgment, too early, you lose the hook and defense mechanisms kick in. Partitioning out concept learning into abstracted and entertaining lessons avoids having to show your judgment or advocate a change in behavior too soon.
It's actually easier to teach people who don't really have a strong connection to you since there's less relationship at stake in an actual argument, which leads to more objectivity and less resistance. You can afford to have a meaningful conversation that isn't 100% dead serious. A person you don't know very well tends to not have complex plans regarding your behavior and your relationship.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's actually pretty simple.
You have the national party with a broader message or equality while the state level party finds the best possible compromise for the local population.
i.e., North Carolina and Seattle both have racial issues. But in Seattle, it's along the lines of "what can we do to include more minorities into STEM?" Where as in North Carolina, it's about fighting active attempts at voter suppression.
No one is saying we abandon equal rights. But you can't rely on a one-size fits all solution.
Better messaging doesn't mean the democrats start ignoring social justice. It means they make it clear that they view economic justice and part of social justice and it makes harder for the right to claim they are ignoring the working class. It also means figuring out how to explain some of the plans better, I've seen some great ones out of the democratic party, but they aren't some quick and easy that most people are willing to take a look at, let along digest. Finally, it does mean also making sure that we don't give the impression that we don't want any input from them at all, rural areas have issues that are unique to them and they do have unique issues are legitimate issues that have fuck all to do with bigotry (they are also issues that minorities living outside the city care about).
I love rubbing the alt right shitheads face into shit (metaphorically speaking), but I like see progress move forward. So I'm willing to make the economic message louder and continue implementing many of the current policies designed to help minorities and the economy. I'm pretty sure we could keep the whole platform if we went with better messaging because democrats already do try to do what's best for minorities, the lower class and the middle class.
We definitely shouldn't fall into the trap of just shitting on everyone that isn't in lock step. We can't ignore a group that could be peeled off with better economic messaging, while telling bigotry to piss up a rope. It doesn't make sense to write them off completely. I mean if we get there votes, it's less votes for the GOP and gives us more votes that the GOP has to overcome in the process.
Dems need to hire a load of really talented people to figure out how to this right before it gets to politicians. The right wing has made this into an art form, we need to catch up - in the opposite direction.
At this point, they pretty much are. Most conservative outrage against "PC culture" is usually sourced from right-wing Tumblr trolls and Reddit posts that can be filed under "Shit that Totally Happened".
Steam: pazython
It's definitely possible. The Democrats should be banging on the "help struggling americans in this economy" and "fuck the rich assholes who steal your money" drums anyway.
The biggest hurdle is that the right can still go for the economic populist argument too, as shown by Trump, and they can marry it to and blend it with socially regressive calls to stop the rest of the way the world is changing too. Basically the Democrats can appeal to economics and the GOP can appeal to economics and racism.
That said, at the moment the margins seem thin enough the Democrats can probably get away with just shaving a few points off in key states and driving up turnout and be good to go at the Presidential level. I worry about the state and local level though.
And just generally I worry about the long term prospects in alot of these places. One of the big causes of Brexit (or at least, one of the supposed ones) is related to deindustrialisation in various regions of England. The thing is, those regions were hit decades ago. Back during the Thatcher years alot of it and it hasn't changed in the meantime, the politics of it all have just festered instead. As much as there's been comparison between Trump and Brexit before, it feels to me like Brexit support works as sort of a preview of the future. Or rather, the lack of any foreseeable change in the future for these kind of issues. These issues don't fade away and the anger and resentment doesn't either. Like, what happens to this whole region long term and what does that mean for the way they vote? Because if this election has demonstrated anything it's that they are pretty important. It's looking like the next big battleground for the Dems and GOP at the moment.
Been looking for maps of which states are getting older and which younger and at what rates, cause that's a decent second point after looking at which states are growing or shrinking and I think all that information would be really interesting to look at as a proxy for the economic changes going on.
I don't know. I think it might be a matter of exposure to other cultures.
I'm (culturally) white, and I hang out in largely (culturally) white circles, but all of us are on board with the ideas of institutional racism and unconscious bias.
I wouldn't have been at age 18, or age 20--I was still thinking the quota system for entry into college was reverse racism (lol).
But--and here's the thing--all of us live and have lived in large, multiracial, multicultural cities while poor and just trying to start our careers. We've had the exposure, we all have friends of this race or that, or have worked with 'em. I work with about as many immigrants as I do people born in the US.
I don't know how you transmit that experience to someone who hasn't had it (assuming that's the case)--but it's a lot like water to a fish. You don't know the advantages you have because that's just the way things have always been for you and everyone you know.
Indeed. As O'Keefe or the Macedonian Facebook Trolls prove, if the enemy does not exist, he will be invented. And he will be raging about white privilege and political correctness or something because that always triggers conservative white people.
These things exist because there is a market for the outrage. People are looking for that. They want to have their already existing views validated by examples of those damn liberals being all smug and liberal so they can be mad at it.
Absolutely. I figured out my own racism because I moved from a lily-white hick town (well the town probably wasn't that white, but white and black were definitely segregated to opposite sides of town), to multicultural Dallas and a multicultural workplace. My parents live almost completely isolated from the outside world, they are never going to learn what it's like for other cultures - the closest my mom got was the time there was an Akira Kurosawa film marathon on Turner Classic Movies and she turned to me after watching one of those movies and said innocently, "Oh! Japanese people are just like us!"
Firstly, this seems to be a rather dismal prediction given the numbers. Trump won ground with a host of minorities compared to the preceding republican candidates, Obama won more white voters in states that Clinton lost. He didn't do it by engaging with outrage or by the virtue of his supporters calling people bigots of one stripe or another, he had a universal message and a charismatic affect. It seems unlikely that the voting demographics that Clinton lost ground in but Trump gained relative to Obama and McCain and Romney only want what we will not allow ourselves to give. It also seems unlikely that the relevant concerns of the minorities with whom he gained ground were operating with an explicitly racial concern. The idea that all people in the rust belt want is overt racism and sexism (which, I point out I do not agree Trump gave them) isn't plausible - specially considering we're talking about demographic blocs in which votes are fungible.
Secondly, while I am certainly sympathetic to the assessment of the economic trajectory of society as increasingly dismal as the invisible dick of unchecked capitalism fucks everyone but the upper classes (and that the increased wealth and prosperity that technology should have afforded everyone has been stolen by the few) I'm not sure if that's quite the right read on the political situation. We're left to conclude Obama sold them snake oil, everything is even worse post-Obama and we can't offer any solutions or they want other things we can promise them. And, unfortunately, if either of the first things are true then we have nothing to offer lots of people but lies.
In the face of such pessimism though, I am still not advocating pandering to the racial concerns of racists and nor is anyone else in the thread. I am saying that the insular outrage culture isn't helping, and yelling at everyone for being sexists or racists doesn't help either.
If the question is "how do we win the big chair?" then calling everyone sexists and racists isn't going to do it, no matter how cathartic it is.
Certainly the assumptions that are operative by those who are enamoured with it as an explanation of the world and a diagnosis of a social group would hold that the product of bias is the belittling and insulting of other groups, likely unconsciously but not always. Or that this bias leads people to believe that their insults are justified and thus not insults.
They won't always use the exact terms "belittle" or "insult" but they certainly do use near analogues.
It is most certainly a way to be dismissive and silence people, to give a diagnosis of anything but surrender to assertions of the proponents. I'm torn as to the degree of self awareness with which this was done though.
That said, I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where Robin DeAngelo, someone whose social sensitivities are so acutely attuned, would be unable to see why attaching a manifestly negative trait to an entire group when they coined their term would be insulting.
I'm sorry, what? No, he didn't engage in outrage at bigots or calling people bigots - bigots were his audience. Trump's the most blatant racist and sexist politician I've ever seen and we've had Todd Akin.
This comment killed his political career, Trump's thrives upon it.
Are you seriously telling me you didn't find anything Trump said during his campaign or in history as a big time sexist and racist?
His "universal message" was one of hate and fear. He was no Obama.
The charisma was a major advantage to sell this to his marks voters. He's spent his whole life doing this, and is high enough in society to avoid the drawbacks so he's very good at this.
Did you know minorities and women can be racist and sexist? I'm curious to your answer.
We offer them plenty, all they want is lies.
edit: It's difficult for Obama and the Dems to give them solutions when everything they do is obstructed by the GOP at hilarious levels. That's why we've had an empty SCOTUS chair when Scalia died. They literally shut down the government temporarily too.
It helps a little. It encourages the voters for Hillary, and activates those who are susceptible to that messaging - like women and minorities. It also makes it very clear Democrats aren't fond of racists and sexists, I wouldn't consider this a flaw per se. This kind of activism is important if we ever want to live in a world without sexists or racists. Sure, it's a pipe dream, but it's ever going to get any better by ignoring those issues. They're the main reason we got President Donald Trump - he is their king.
It's not the kiss of death in elections either, Hillary won the popular vote.
BARRY FRICKEN OBAMA, I guess that wasn't entirely clear given the joys of pronoun collision but you have the wrong end of the stick.
As for the rest and "all they want is lies" I have argued why this is unlikely to be true - the victory of Obama, the relative gains and losses of Hillary across various demographics. I'm not really interested in repeating myself in the face of nothing but assertion.
Unfortunately there is only one Obama, and he's leaving the presidency. What he did was going to be difficult to replicate under the best of circumstances. Not to mention the circumstances are different when it's tried by a white woman like Hillary Clinton, who has to be less subtle with messaging for minority voting blocs.
Obama's victories have been bluntered from the second he won the presidency by the GOP. He isn't allowed to get whatever he wanted passed into law, or get people appointed he wanted. He was blocked to astonishing levels from the opposition. Even when they say they want certain things to ok them like Garland.
That they liked Obama proves nothing, since Hillary was suffering the same deal. There was no going back to coal mining operating at peak capacity or businesses moving aboard (Trump, being one of them) letting their towns to die. Trump got their votes by saying this isn't true, and he offers them ponies which will never materialize. Trump wasn't being truthful to them.
This is not an assertion.
Great but it has nothing to do with the post to which you responded