'Maybe we weren't inclusive enough' - was this a real problem?

Status
Not open for further replies.

kmax

Member
It certainly was a sobering experience, and it was indeed a missed opportunity. Like Michelle Obama said:

If they go low, we go high.

Instead of educating, there were attacks. Saying someone's stupid and calling it a day is not going to make them change their minds. A rational approach is always the better way to go.
 
Instead of educating, there were attacks. Saying someone's stupid and calling it a day is not going to make them change their minds. A rational approach is always the better way to go.

Unfortunately the other side do not care about rationality if it goes against their personal beliefs or paints them as being in the wrong

shit is fucked
 

Sblargh

Banned
One might argue that identity politics didn't go far enough to include "poor".

So people are attacking "cis white male" should be attacking "cis white rich male". When you do that, it goes back "to normal" where the left is protecting the poor and the right is saying the poor will one day become rich.

Where identity politics took hold, it took, i.e., here, but then, NeoGAF is a place where people usually have college degrees and/or white collar jobs, so it is an echo chamber against the poor, who should be the focus of the left.

People should be drumming "people like Trump is the reason why you are poor" in addition to "he is a sexist, homophobe, etc." and the reason this wasn't done is that, coming from Hillary, it would be a shot in the foot.
-
Also, you need actual policy that gives an answer to the very fact that the world is moving beyond an industry-based economy (not still the post-work world of Musk, but definetly the post industrial-work).

Trump is also a symptom of this refusal by feeding people the li that blue collar jobs still exist, they're just in another country.

I don't think identity politics is bad, especially because people still suffer for being who they are, but I do think that leftist politics went there and made it such a big focus out of a genuine lack of answer as to what do you do when the "proletariat" is no longer a thing.
 

MogCakes

Member
Can we expect the same courtesy from the other side though? I mean, is not like those people treat us any better and I'd argue they're far more hostile to us than we are to them, I'm a liberal and I live so far from an ivory tower, so hearing so many people saying that we should listen to them without them extending the same courtesy is upsetting. I don't see them wanting to have a discussion in good faith.
No, we can't. Majority of Trump supporters cared more about their interests than social morality and their votes showed it. They will make the necessary rationalizations to keep consistent with their views.
 

Infinite

Member
It certainly was a sobering experience, and it was indeed a missed opportunity. Like Michelle Obama said:

If they go low, we go high.

Instead of educating, there were attacks. Saying someone's stupid and calling it a day is not going to make them change their minds. A rational approach is always the better way to go.
Anecdotal but I saw WAY more of this during the primaries when it came down to Clinton versus Bernie than I did during the primaries. Let's not play ourselves. These people were gonna vote for trump no matter what the fact remains is that the democrats didn't come out for Hillary.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
What's the alternative? You can't use soft language talking about racists.

Let's start by recognizing that racism is (1) not an immutable aspect of identity and (2) not necessarily the driving factor behind a vote.

Trump didn't win because he's a racist. Trump won because enough moderate whites looked past his racism.

There is no dichotomy between racists and non-racists. Essentially all people have some racial prejudice. We can engage with racists just as easily as we can engage with people with other odious views, like Johnson voters who hate welfare or religious bigots who believe gay adoption will lead to more rape. The centrist liberal attitude of viewing racism as an unchangeable blight on one's moral character both ignores why racism exists and offers no solution to change these bigoted views.

We don't need to engage people with racist views. We need to speak to them and prevent them from supporting the demagogues who approach them. If we don't do this, they'll never change and the Right will win.

Conscious whites have a particular burden to fight race-baiting candidates and challenge the prejudices of their friends and relatives. In 2016, these people didn't do this. Instead, they shared smug New Yorker articles on Facebook and hoped blue collar Boomers in economically depressed areas would just magically come to their senses.
 
Have liberals actually contributed to a toxic atmosphere that ostracized the white working class? Even if that's the case, who's responsibility was it to manage these shifts? Or is this just an expression of guilt by some, who are now just getting more opportunities to discuss these problems while the left desperately tries to understand what happened?


Absolutely, though you can logical see why Liberals are angry. And Liberals have every right to be. Why wouldn't you be angry when they run on their platform of racism, gay-conversion therapy, abortion banning, racial profiling and carte balche endorsement of terror, torture and war crimes?
There is a lot to be angry about, but liberals hurt their own chances of winning, unification, bringing updecided disinfranchised voters over when they go full "regressive liberal" when they don't want to be the bigger man.
They call Trump voters racists, man children, misogynists, shames them, deduces them, ridicules them, calls them ignorant voters. This breeds hate and contempt. And once you hate somebody, everything they do is offensive. You have many trump supporters who hate trump and find him disgusting, but their toxic interactions with shaming liberals who talk to them has made them see red.

What happens is that people can't publically say their feelings without feeling prosecuted, so in polling stations and interviews they say Hillary, but inside the voting both they wrote for Trump because they are angry.
Why the fuck would you ever think you get people on your side by talking to them condescendingly or like an asshole? If you're not going to meet them eye to eye, as terrible as their views might be, you will never change them. This wasn't about politics. This was hatred against liberals who angered them, and they took their anger to the voting booth.
Petty? Yes. But that's the emotional irrationality of the human conditioning. So you can call them privileged man children all you want, but that doesn't stop it from just creating a connotation more strongly that liberals are bad feelings. people who shame, people who are extremists and who are not for the process but just for attacking them.
The only way you can change these people is not by making them irrationally angry or making them feel prosecuted but to sneak empathy under them. Kill with love. try and make them see the suffrage of others without lecturing them.
But liberals have become increasingly worse than this. Liberals say they don't have time to argue with bigots, followed by pointless hand signals and blanket statements. And then it's over.

But of course saying that progressives should be bigger, better, turn the other cheek and endure the disgusting beliefs as they try and manipulate these voters without making them feel like they are being lectured or putting them on the defensive which makes them put their walls off is easy enough to say if you're not on the receiving end.
Conservatives win because they play dirty and double down on fear mongering, populist opportunity and anger. When Liberals try to fight fire with fire, they will never be as good as the conservatives because Liberal ideology goes against many of these ideas. Being a Liberal is not about condescending shaming, it's about being a better example. And did YASS Queen help with that? This was counter productive. White men were ignored like they didn't matter and this reflects in the anger.
The feelings of poor whites doesn't matter because according to opression olympics they don't matter. So they are pissed.
If we had all been better at showing another path forward. An alternative to automation- a path from being a coal miner to evolving into something else. a path for them to re-educate themselves as they get better lives. But that wasn't done. What was said: fuck white people. Nobody cares about you because other people are worse off.


These people vote against their own self interests. These jobs never coming back. and even if they did, automation would take them right up. corporations will always look for the cheapest solution. removing human labor is the easiest thing to do it. And yes, many of these are low educated, but how does insults, generalizations and condescending memes help get them to vote for the liberal choice? They believe the billionaire will give them jobs because he has the money, so it must be true. And if you're not paying attention how should you know?
Liberal media is not appearing on their FB. They are not seeing rachal maddows. its an alternative reality of right wing news that plays them.
The liberal base should have reached out to them. But people hiss and fit and it makes us divided. Liberals must endure the impossible in the face of abuse and endure more and be bigger than them. They cannot have their minds changed if they are angry and defensive. It doesn't happen.
 

jgwhiteus

Member
Reading through a lot of different GAF threads on the election, there is this reoccurring thought - that part of the many reasons thy Democrats lost was because some of the language and ideology on display over the last few years.

Some probably already know how I feel about it, but I actually want to challenge my own position before I get too ahead of myself.

Have liberals actually contributed to a toxic atmosphere that ostracized the white working class? Even if that's the case, who's responsibility was it to manage these shifts? Or is this just an expression of guilt by some, who are now just getting more opportunities to discuss these problems while the left desperately tries to understand what happened?

I think this is a complicated topic, and it takes on many forms - the poverty and drug epidemic in the rust belt I think most can agree on, but what about the social ostracizing? Did that actually impact anything? Did it even really happen?

I think one problem is that trying to reach out and be inclusive of people who believe that "other groups" are partially the cause for their problems can be seen as throwing those other groups under the bus.

How do you reach out to people who make statements that we need to ban Muslims, that black people complain too much about being targeted by the police, that immigrants are rapists and druggies stealing jobs, that LGBT people are unnatural and living in sin, etc. without sending an underlying message that you're willing to overlook those views so long as you can get more votes? What message does it send to your other constituents, and about your own principles - and how might that affect their enthusiasm in voting for you? Sure, social shaming and labels can be counter-productive, but is the alternative to stay silent in the face of bigotry and say "all views need to be heard!"

Like, if the Democratic party were willing to reach out to David Duke and his ilk to try to regain votes in the South, how do you think that'd go over with the base? The more different groups you try to fit under your tent, the more likely you are to have inter-group conflicts. This was the "problem" for the GOP (and it still is a problem, regardless of this election) in dealing with immigration - the party realizes it needs to broaden its base to include Latinos to have commanding electoral victories (as shocking a Trump's win was, I don't think anyone would call it a comfortable lead or reliable strategy), but it has another contingent of voters who think any movement on immigration is unacceptable.

It's not as simple as saying "let's all sit at a table together and listen to one another and work things out."

That being said, the DNC seems to have miscalculated on the swell of anger and anti-establishment attitude among Rust Belt voters who felt they'd been overlooked or that they had no better option than Trump - a miscalculation because the primary process with Sanders should have taught them that disruption was possible, and they needed to do a better job in counteracting Trump's play to steal working class voters than simply pointing out how horrible he was.
 

GamerJM

Banned
I don't think they were inclusive enough, but by inclusive I don't mean that in a way to complain about "identity politics," or BLM or feminism or the leftist social political ideology. I mean that they weren't inclusive to the rural rust belt in the sense that they didn't campaign enough there, the campaign didn't touch on issues the people there care about, thus they weren't "included". How could they have properly campaigned there and won it over Trump? I dunno, but I think they could have fared better.
 
But the rust belt was won over by something Obama did - and now they seem to have both voted less and voted Republican more often. Why did they feel like Obama was good, but Hilary bad? A lot of gaffers are thinking they feel ostracized and demonized - I'm actually not sure if that alone is enough to explain it, but can it explain any of it?

The same way Gore and the Democrats lost West Virginia. One candidate promises change for the better vs another candidate who seeks to continue what the previous 8 years have been doing.
 

guek

Banned
Why would you try to be inclusive to white supremacists fuckwits that hate minorities? Why should people tolerate the ones that promote the murder, the deportation, the taking away of rights?

This is the problem a lot of people have, equating all Trump supporters as white supremacists.

Even if they are functionally aiding the white supremacist platform, this kind of language doesn't convince them to rethink their stance.

And the inevitably response from people who think as you do is that they were never going to rethink their stance anyway, they were never going to change their mind or not be racists pieces of shit.

Well guess what, they came out and voted. Those people, whether they're actually racists or just enabling racists, they won the election. You want to say their racist opinions shouldn't be recognized. That they shouldn't matter.

They matter. That's the world we live in. We are not yet in a position where we can escape that fact.
 

Crosseyes

Banned
That white vote can still be appealed to that Hillary got crushed on without giving ground on social issues like civil rights.

The white rural vote in the rust belt has a legitimate grievance with today's capitalist modern world and appealing to the center is not going to get them back. The left has to embrace economic populism, real and meaningful radicalism that can positively effect all those lost to globalization's march.

Trump gave them an outlet of minorities and foreigners, they might have been able to be sold on the real culprit, the rich and wall street.

We have to try that way. Maybe it is just racism and xenophobia that has driven it and there's really nothing we can do. If so then the only answer to a populist facist candidate driven on those type of ideals will have to be met with bullets, not ballets.

History is our guide on that and America is not immune to falling into that trap.
 
Why would you try to be inclusive to white supremacists fuckwits that hate minorities? Why should people tolerate the ones that promote the murder, the deportation, the taking away of rights?

Not all Trump supporters are white supremacists. Most of them aren't. This kind of generalisation and polarisation is driving people away is my impression.
 

jelly

Member
Ivory tower liberals. Absolutely.

I don't think white people were deliberately being ignored or hated on, just the government didn't do enough for normal people of all ethnicities and people who had a decent life suddenly found themselves in a crap situation for too long so they changed their tune.
 

MUnited83

For you.
It certainly was a sobering experience, and it was indeed a missed opportunity. Like Michelle Obama said:

If they go low, we go high.

Instead of educating, there were attacks. Saying someone's stupid and calling it a day is not going to make them change their minds. A rational approach is always the better way to go.

There was educating. There was debate.


Guess what, racist fuckwits do not care about being educated, they don't care about facts, they don't care about rational thought. Welcome to the America of today.
 
This is the problem a lot of people have, equating all Trump supporters as white supremacists.

Because I have asked a million times. What caused Trump to gain traction with people when he was originally bombing in the primaries. What comments caused his major bumps?
 
It's ok to call a spade a spade. Trump is an idiot, surrounded by cowards, who ran a hateful campaign full of lies. All of these things are simply true. The problem isn't with people saying this truth, but with people who heard this truth and then made the active decision to not reject him.

The straight shooting can only come from one side.

-------

I ask only that in the next four years, when you see the unrest in minority communities, in the LGBT, in the religious minorities. When you see their anger and the same rhetoric that you saw at large in this campaign. When you see the same anger and hate.

I ask that you hold the same empathy and deep, deep desire to understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom