White people terrified of losing their majority in the US. They think increasing diversity means the eventual extinction of white people. In other words, they are idiot racists.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fear of Diversity Made People More Likely to Vote Trump (The Nation)
- Thread starter kirblar
- Start date
- Status
White people terrified of losing their majority in the US. They think increasing diversity means the eventual extinction of white people. In other words, they are idiot racists.
shnurgleton
Member
whyamihere
Banned
Yes, I think this "rising" is right.
For example, let's look at Arizona:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opin...t-polls-wrong-latino-voters-arizona/94288570/
Instead of being a straight line where the more Latino a precinct gets, the higher % Hillary gets, there's actually a dip around like 17-25% that eventually recovers. I've been sort of curious about this for a while. Are these previously super white precincts that have become more diverse and then seen a revolt, of sorts, by higher % Republican voting? This study would sort of go along with that, though I'd like to see 2012 graphed on to this chart.
You also see this in Nevada, also with 2012:
Gotta fight your own piece of the pie.
More diversity = more "risk" in their eyes to keep what they have. Hence the persecution complexes many make of themselves, on how the white Christian male is under attack, and that their "ways of life" are under attack. They look for feelings for this, not facts: they assume violence is getting worse, and likely link it to this "problem of diversity."
A more open society, in their eyes, may mean a limited "world" for them and their ideals. Of course, they don't realize they can never hold onto their "world" purely from socioeconomic perspectives.
I do wonder, if such people had to write an essay about their ideals and why they are against diversity, what would it look like? I'm sure it'd be a sour production, but goddamn it would make for a good Twilight Zone script.
More diversity = more "risk" in their eyes to keep what they have. Hence the persecution complexes many make of themselves, on how the white Christian male is under attack, and that their "ways of life" are under attack. They look for feelings for this, not facts: they assume violence is getting worse, and likely link it to this "problem of diversity."
A more open society, in their eyes, may mean a limited "world" for them and their ideals. Of course, they don't realize they can never hold onto their "world" purely from socioeconomic perspectives.
I do wonder, if such people had to write an essay about their ideals and why they are against diversity, what would it look like? I'm sure it'd be a sour production, but goddamn it would make for a good Twilight Zone script.
Hari Seldon
Member
Man if you wore a tinfoil hat you would really believe that this was being deliberately done by the media to distract everyone from the massive and growing wealth disparity that is only going to get worse due to automation.
It's both ways. You have people blaming them (manipulators) and you have people who adopt those platforms (the manipulated). What's interesting even once the former goes away these things can propagate on their own, bits of "knowledge" that keep getting repeated even if they are erroneous or complete lies because of the perceived group consensus.
That wouldn't surprise me, we've seen studies that show that introducing non-white people to a monolithic white community results in a super-negative reaction from that community.
The part about agreeing that "too much power is in the hands of Elites" being a predictor of a Clinton vote was amazing.
The old "it's class not race" spin?
Brown people in America always had crumbs, white people just shoot themselves in foot trying to catch up.
JesseEwiak
Member
Yup, people forget that Trump was really the first explicitly racist Presidential campaign by a major party candidate since before the Great Depression.
Republicans had racial components to their message, but it was never explicit as Trump. Trump primed these voters as the study and article points out to be OK with more racist attitudes.
I also look forward to our more hard Left friends here to respond to this.
Republicans had racial components to their message, but it was never explicit as Trump. Trump primed these voters as the study and article points out to be OK with more racist attitudes.
I also look forward to our more hard Left friends here to respond to this.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
They do not disclose whether their diversity scale was constructed through simple addition of questions or through alpha-reliability index construction / IRT / etc. Plain English: There's a very specific science to how you combine answers to multiple questions into a single index for how you feel about something, and they don't seem to do it here. Weird things can happen when you just add responses or take the average.
They also present some sort of lowess curved response probability (maybe a logistic regression, it's hard to tell) without presenting density on each answer -- it's possible a limited number of outliers are hijacking the curves based on the data they're presenting. They could also solve this with local error bars on the predictions. Plain english: The kind of estimation they're doing requires that they calculate the risk of defection for each part of their diversity fear scale. If there are few people with low racism or few people with high racism in each of the Romney/Obama 2012 samples, then the estimates they have for risk of defection for people with high/low diversity fear will be very inaccurate.
Finally, if they're using CCAP post-election response data, that's dangerous. There's a well documented phenomenon in polling where people over-report voting for the winner after the election. This happens both because people who didn't vote claim to have supported the winner and because people who are unhappy with having voted for the loser report having voted for the winner. Sometimes the reverse happens but less often. So they'd want to have some kind of voter turnout validation to ensure they're not picking up the argument that the most racist people are most likely to overreport having voted for Trump. Plain English: They should make sure the vote data they're using is actually vote data.
Overall it's a good first pass and I think a pretty good analysis that could be enhanced if they did these few things.
They also present some sort of lowess curved response probability (maybe a logistic regression, it's hard to tell) without presenting density on each answer -- it's possible a limited number of outliers are hijacking the curves based on the data they're presenting. They could also solve this with local error bars on the predictions. Plain english: The kind of estimation they're doing requires that they calculate the risk of defection for each part of their diversity fear scale. If there are few people with low racism or few people with high racism in each of the Romney/Obama 2012 samples, then the estimates they have for risk of defection for people with high/low diversity fear will be very inaccurate.
Finally, if they're using CCAP post-election response data, that's dangerous. There's a well documented phenomenon in polling where people over-report voting for the winner after the election. This happens both because people who didn't vote claim to have supported the winner and because people who are unhappy with having voted for the loser report having voted for the winner. Sometimes the reverse happens but less often. So they'd want to have some kind of voter turnout validation to ensure they're not picking up the argument that the most racist people are most likely to overreport having voted for Trump. Plain English: They should make sure the vote data they're using is actually vote data.
Overall it's a good first pass and I think a pretty good analysis that could be enhanced if they did these few things.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
It also made people living in rural areas with little to no immigration vote for brexit...,due to immigration.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
I assume you're covered in tinfoil then?
Shadax the wizard
Member
Doii
theignoramus
Member
These people dont even live in areas where diversity is on the rise. They live in rural America (which Klan terrorism and state government fuckery drove Blacks away from) or an overwhelmingly White suburb and get whipped into a hysteria about minorities taking over the cities.
Pathetic.
In this context it's explicitly about race (and the rapidly shifting US demographics nationwide.)
I have similar concerns, but this is far, far better than any other post-mortem I've seen so far, and stark enough that I don't think the model being fit will matter.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
To conservatives it basically is.
Did you read the OP? It's specifically referring to racial diversity, friend.
hydragonwarrior
Member
That's a big no-shit right there. The scenario is basically:
- predominately white community
- small community
- predominately conservative and listens to most rightwing outlets basically disparaging immigrants and foreign cultures 24/7
- they share with each other their concerns, and repeat for next election
Guess who they'll vote for?
And these communities still outnumber a lot of the multicultural communities in red states, and I assume it's especially the case in a swing state. It's unfortunate that Trump spoke to these very mindsets to invigorate these communities to vote.
- predominately white community
- small community
- predominately conservative and listens to most rightwing outlets basically disparaging immigrants and foreign cultures 24/7
- they share with each other their concerns, and repeat for next election
Guess who they'll vote for?
And these communities still outnumber a lot of the multicultural communities in red states, and I assume it's especially the case in a swing state. It's unfortunate that Trump spoke to these very mindsets to invigorate these communities to vote.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Yeah, I suspect the conclusion would hold up, to be clear.
PastorOfMuppets
Banned
Isn't it funny how now that all these white people are in danger of losing their healthcare, they've become victims of a con man?
Does anyone notice how mollycoddled the noble, innocent white working class have been? Trump "tricked" them.
Well if Trump was such a great con man, how come he lost the non-white vote so overwhelmingly?
Can we just call a spade a Scary Black Man already? These people voted for Trump because they are racists.
Does anyone notice how mollycoddled the noble, innocent white working class have been? Trump "tricked" them.
Well if Trump was such a great con man, how come he lost the non-white vote so overwhelmingly?
Can we just call a spade a Scary Black Man already? These people voted for Trump because they are racists.
Zap Rowsdower
Banned
Racism in this country runs far deeper than homophobia and even misogyny, this country was founded on the notions of white supremacy after all. Doesn't discount other minorities, but racism is just that entrenched and virulent.
CopperPuppy
Member
They discovered a term to make the racists sound like the victims.
Astonishing.
Once again, it boils down to this at the end of the day:
DontBeThatGuy
Member
As Kibler said, this is about race, but yes, if you're a racist, it's also very likely you hold abhorrent views about others groups as well. A bigot is a bigot.
(With things like guns and of course abortion playing a big part in many areas of the country as well).
It plays a role, but in some communities, they thing differentiation of humanity is like a disease that will uproot the "order" they adhere to. That's more of a problem via a hierarchy of thought, but that gets compounded by automation.
I remember one of Bernie Sanders' town halls a few months ago where a manufacturing woman was hoping Trump would deport the illegals because they're stealing "her" job. That woman has no fucking clue what's really on the horizon for labor she's involved in.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I knew it. The exit polls clearly showed that rust belt Clinton voters prioritized the economy and jobs, and rust belt Trump voters prioritized terrorism and immigration, as their more important issues.
But it wasn't politically correct (lol) to point out that racism was the primary factor of voting Trump because few people wanted to admit that yes, so many people are racists and misogynistic (or at least are OK with those things).
But it wasn't politically correct (lol) to point out that racism was the primary factor of voting Trump because few people wanted to admit that yes, so many people are racists and misogynistic (or at least are OK with those things).
Yep.
Its been said for months, but minorities overall suffer worse when the economy struggles. We get ignored when drug epidemics hit our communities. And we are the most underrepresented and unheard by our government.
But as far a demographics go, by and large we didn't vote for Trump.
There's a clear reason for that.
Barkley's Justice
Member
Lord Frieza
Member
I mean, this is a pretty stupid thing to say, to be honest. The two issues are separate. Both are important
The rationalization a racist uses to justify their racism does not "link it" to fuck-all.
Chie Satonaka
Member
The point is that race and economics are tied together. The system doesn't just keep minorities down economically, it also reinforces the idea that black and brown people will take over and rob you of any economic freedom that whites may (or in many cases) or may not have.
"Economic Anxiety" was nothing more than an excuse used by and for racist people who continue to believe their downturn is at the hands of scary black and brown people rather than their betters who rob them blind daily. That doesn't work if they don't have someone to constantly look down on.
See the Lyndon Johnson quote that's been posted a few times.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Simple and to the point.
Not really, because these people will still vote Republican for the same reasons, even when the economy is in an upswing.
It all comes back to race. Until Democrats figure out how to address race in a way that prevents Republicans from weaponizing it by stoking white fear of the other, then it will never matter what the state of the economy actually is, because until then Republicans will always be able to say, "you would be doing better if it weren't for those people. Your way of life is threatened, and it's because of those people." There will never be a point where that message stops being effective on its own. It HAS to be addressed.
Quoting to repeat.
NYC is probably the most racist place on Earth, Queens is spectacularly racist on a block by block basis, everyone hates everyone else (I love it).
Then you have the institutionally racist organizations like the historical society. Look at how white the once celebrated village is.
Abinash117
Member
No. I think what is that White Americans who have high levels of ethnic identification have a tendency to support the racist elements of the ethnic identification. It is hard for me to explain, but white Americans are pretty diverse politically and ideologically, and culturally they are not similar to one and other a lot of the time. Basically a white family from a city might be more liberal when it comes to diversity and probably more secular. A white family in a rural area might be a conservative and more religious; less exposed to diversity of any kind. Also blue vs red states.
So there really isn't a white identity that every white American subscribes too. When a white American that tries to subscribe to an identity about their race or culture some will look towards more racist and nationalistic element. It is one of the reasons why you see some waving a Confederate flag.
Hari Seldon
Member
I don't know, I think the powerful deliberately stoking racism among the lower classes to stay or grow their power is pretty common historically. And I think it would be easier to do this today in 2017 than it would have been 20 years ago.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked