5 ms·

I'll say this again: Does this not prove that "diverse" liberalism isn't so diverse after all? Shouldn't a diverse group of people have seen this coming? Or i

by gragas 10y ago

I'll say this again: Does this not prove that "diverse" liberalism isn't so diverse after all? Shouldn't a diverse group of people have seen this coming? Or is liberalism actually systematically excluding people by labelling them as "racist" and "sexist", when in fact they're just fiscal and social conservatives?

CalChris 10y ago
Don't blame your election of a demagogue on liberals. Take responsibility for that yourself. Own it.
- gragas 10y ago
  Sure! I can proudly say I voted for Donald J Trump.
qntty 10y ago
Diversity means including people in out-groups at the risk of alienating people in the in-group
- yomly 10y ago
  But one of the main "in-groups" of the Trump supporter base were the working class. In its current form "diversity" is nothing more than a weapon for classism. We are completely fine understanding root causes and bias which may underlie racial or gender based observations, but conveniently turn a blind eye to well-studied drivers for phenomena like nativism. A lot of the current form of diversity against the disenfranchised "in-group" amounts to "you're f'd for being poor and FU again for being unhappy about being poor".
  - qntty 10y ago
    It's acceptable (if short-sighted) to exclude people for being racist. It's not acceptable to exclude people for being poor and uneducated. The Democrats messed up by ignoring the pain of poor people, not by being insufficiently tolerant of racism.
    - 794CD01 10y ago
      Those principles might make sense in isolation, but we know that being poor and uneducated leads to being racist.
      - qntty 10y ago
        The fact that Sanders was predicted to do significantly better than Clinton against Trump means that there's plenty of votes to be won by listening to poor people without being racist.
- TheGirondin 10y ago
  And right now working class, rural, and blue-collar Americans are in the left-wing out-group.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
> Does this not prove that "diverse" liberalism isn't so diverse after all? Shouldn't a diverse group of people have seen this coming? Even people on the GOP side seemed to accept that Trump was going to lose, so I'd say 'no'. Sometimes the polls are wrong, sometimes you just get surprising results.
- jules 10y ago
  It didn't surprise me. You have to look through the reality distortion field of the media and established politicians, because that only represents the views of a tiny and intellectually very non-diverse group of people. Consider the mismatch between what the media was reporting, and the undeniable fact that Trump's rallies attracted a far greater number of people than Clinton's. You also can't rely on the polls when you have a candidate whose voters are underrepresented in those polls because they've never voted before. Many polls sampled people as if this was Obama instead of Clinton. It's was clear that the number previous non-voters who would actually go out to vote for Clinton would be lower than for Obama, whereas from Trump it's the opposite.
  - TulliusCicero 10y ago
    > Consider the mismatch between what the media was reporting, and the undeniable fact that Trump's rallies attracted a far greater number of people than Clinton's. By itself that doesn't mean anything. Sanders got way bigger rallies than Clinton too and still lost.
- mc32 10y ago
  Interestingly the Trump campaign was complaining about those polls and used that as a basis for their "rigged" claims. So I'd be curious how they produced their numbers internally that showed them ahead in tossup states.
mhurron 10y ago
What does any of this mean? Trump is labeled racist, sexist and misogynistic because of his words and actions. As are most people. And lots of people saw a Trump presidency as a possibility, like, everyone paying attention to the fact that there was a Republican presidential runner, and that person was Trump.
- gragas 10y ago
  I'd argue he's none of those things.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.
  - mhurron 10y ago
    I would like to see you try. And I mean that with no sarcasm. I would genuinely like to see you make the case that he is not racist, sexist and/or misogynistic.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - venomsnake 10y ago
      I'll bite. The majority of insults Trump hurled were targeted at individuals. Insulting someone even if race/sex/gender is included is not by itself racist, misogynistic or whatever. It is just hitting where you know it will hurt the most - which is good tactic IMO. And he was careful never to insult big parts of the electorate - it was usually the left that generalized. All of his big gaffes were either towards non citizens or specific citizens. He never had his basket of deplorables moment. It was between him and Megyn Kelly, the latino judge, the khans. And we get to the "grab them by the pussy" - and we end in the messy world of human courtship ... where we are all sexist and objectifying the objects of our desire. Both sexes included. Of course the assaults are assaults ... and I won't defend them. Somehow they disappeared from the media in the last few days though. Trump is a dirty fighter. But I think that the majority of his sexism, racism or wherever is mostly opportunistic strikes where he sees weakness.
tdb7893 10y ago
I don't mean this disrespectfully but I don't really understand your argument. It looks like there is a decent chance Clinton will win the popular vote and it seems like more a failure of statistics rather than diversity to not have been able to see her loss in a couple key states in the polls.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
What does "socially conservative" mean in 2016 if not racist/sexist/homophobic? One of Trump's slogans was "Take America back"; that's not particularly subtle as to from who. The line gets a bit muddier on the fiscal side. If you're all for cutting programs that disproportionately support the poor and the poor happen to be disproportionately minority is there a racial component? That's worth being aware of.
- vlunkr 10y ago
  Pro-life, opposed to drug legalization, 2nd amendment rights, to name a few. Sorry, but if that's what you think of all conservatives you have as much prejudice as you think they do.
  - lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
    Pro-life is pretty tightly coupled to the idea women don't have the right to manage their reproductive health-> not very equalist[0]. The drug war was started by Nixon inorder to better control the black and hippie population, so not getting any points there[1]. You're left with gun rights which becomes a question of degree. It's thankfully largely divorced from the issues of sex and race, but pretty tightly coupled to regional culture more than anything else. The fact that Trump won on the backs of uneducated white men certainly says a lot. [0] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-l... [1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    I definitely don't think of guns as a social issue... is that where it is usually classified? Granted that it doesn't fit "economic" perfectly either.
- dvdcxn 10y ago
  > "Take America back"; that's not particularly subtle as to from who. Depends on the context really. If that was Sander's slogan, you'd immediately assume whom you'd be taking it back was the bankers & corporation. It's one of those generic slogan that reflects the views of the beholder. Some will assume it means from the immigrants, others the bureaucrats. It's definitely smarter than the damp squibs that Clinton came up with.
mc32 10y ago
It's a complex issue. Anecdotally some Obama voters broke for Trump, so it's hard to see them being 'racist'. But people like to discount the hurt in the working class and are happy to label them racist --just because this time they didn't agree with you. My thoughts on some of it is that while the white working class (as well as the black working class) are happy to see America help others out, internationally, domestically; they are not happy to see America help others out but at the same time ignore them and belittle them. That can be in trade deals, acquiescing to illegal immigrants, talking down to them, etc. There are likely a sprinkling of racists on the Trump side, but I dare say, there is the same likelihood of reverse racists on the Clinton side ['white people are the devil'].
- robin_reala 10y ago
  I’d love to see a citation of the ‘same likelihood’.
TheGirondin 10y ago
Rural or blue collar Americans only have one place in America where they are represented on the national level: the ballot box. All of the shocked media people and here on HN live in a bubble and have no idea what it's like to live in a working class community.

by gragas 10y ago

CalChris 10y ago

Don't blame your election of a demagogue on liberals. Take responsibility for that yourself. Own it.

gragas 10y ago
Sure! I can proudly say I voted for Donald J Trump.

qntty 10y ago

Diversity means including people in out-groups at the risk of alienating people in the in-group

yomly 10y ago
But one of the main "in-groups" of the Trump supporter base were the working class. In its current form "diversity" is nothing more than a weapon for classism. We are completely fine understanding root causes and bias which may underlie racial or gender based observations, but conveniently turn a blind eye to well-studied drivers for phenomena like nativism. A lot of the current form of diversity against the disenfranchised "in-group" amounts to "you're f'd for being poor and FU again for being unhappy about being poor".
- qntty 10y ago
  It's acceptable (if short-sighted) to exclude people for being racist. It's not acceptable to exclude people for being poor and uneducated. The Democrats messed up by ignoring the pain of poor people, not by being insufficiently tolerant of racism.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    Those principles might make sense in isolation, but we know that being poor and uneducated leads to being racist.
    - qntty 10y ago
      The fact that Sanders was predicted to do significantly better than Clinton against Trump means that there's plenty of votes to be won by listening to poor people without being racist.
TheGirondin 10y ago
And right now working class, rural, and blue-collar Americans are in the left-wing out-group.

TulliusCicero 10y ago

> Does this not prove that "diverse" liberalism isn't so diverse after all? Shouldn't a diverse group of people have seen this coming? Even people on the GOP side seemed to accept that Trump was going to lose, so I'd say 'no'. Sometimes the polls are wrong, sometimes you just get surprising results.

jules 10y ago
It didn't surprise me. You have to look through the reality distortion field of the media and established politicians, because that only represents the views of a tiny and intellectually very non-diverse group of people. Consider the mismatch between what the media was reporting, and the undeniable fact that Trump's rallies attracted a far greater number of people than Clinton's. You also can't rely on the polls when you have a candidate whose voters are underrepresented in those polls because they've never voted before. Many polls sampled people as if this was Obama instead of Clinton. It's was clear that the number previous non-voters who would actually go out to vote for Clinton would be lower than for Obama, whereas from Trump it's the opposite.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  > Consider the mismatch between what the media was reporting, and the undeniable fact that Trump's rallies attracted a far greater number of people than Clinton's. By itself that doesn't mean anything. Sanders got way bigger rallies than Clinton too and still lost.
mc32 10y ago
Interestingly the Trump campaign was complaining about those polls and used that as a basis for their "rigged" claims. So I'd be curious how they produced their numbers internally that showed them ahead in tossup states.

mhurron 10y ago

What does any of this mean? Trump is labeled racist, sexist and misogynistic because of his words and actions. As are most people. And lots of people saw a Trump presidency as a possibility, like, everyone paying attention to the fact that there was a Republican presidential runner, and that person was Trump.

gragas 10y ago
I'd argue he's none of those things.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.
- mhurron 10y ago
  I would like to see you try. And I mean that with no sarcasm. I would genuinely like to see you make the case that he is not racist, sexist and/or misogynistic.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - venomsnake 10y ago
    I'll bite. The majority of insults Trump hurled were targeted at individuals. Insulting someone even if race/sex/gender is included is not by itself racist, misogynistic or whatever. It is just hitting where you know it will hurt the most - which is good tactic IMO. And he was careful never to insult big parts of the electorate - it was usually the left that generalized. All of his big gaffes were either towards non citizens or specific citizens. He never had his basket of deplorables moment. It was between him and Megyn Kelly, the latino judge, the khans. And we get to the "grab them by the pussy" - and we end in the messy world of human courtship ... where we are all sexist and objectifying the objects of our desire. Both sexes included. Of course the assaults are assaults ... and I won't defend them. Somehow they disappeared from the media in the last few days though. Trump is a dirty fighter. But I think that the majority of his sexism, racism or wherever is mostly opportunistic strikes where he sees weakness.

tdb7893 10y ago

I don't mean this disrespectfully but I don't really understand your argument. It looks like there is a decent chance Clinton will win the popular vote and it seems like more a failure of statistics rather than diversity to not have been able to see her loss in a couple key states in the polls.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

lordCarbonFiber 10y ago

What does "socially conservative" mean in 2016 if not racist/sexist/homophobic? One of Trump's slogans was "Take America back"; that's not particularly subtle as to from who. The line gets a bit muddier on the fiscal side. If you're all for cutting programs that disproportionately support the poor and the poor happen to be disproportionately minority is there a racial component? That's worth being aware of.

vlunkr 10y ago
Pro-life, opposed to drug legalization, 2nd amendment rights, to name a few. Sorry, but if that's what you think of all conservatives you have as much prejudice as you think they do.
- lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
  Pro-life is pretty tightly coupled to the idea women don't have the right to manage their reproductive health-> not very equalist[0]. The drug war was started by Nixon inorder to better control the black and hippie population, so not getting any points there[1]. You're left with gun rights which becomes a question of degree. It's thankfully largely divorced from the issues of sex and race, but pretty tightly coupled to regional culture more than anything else. The fact that Trump won on the backs of uneducated white men certainly says a lot. [0] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-l... [1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...
- dllthomas 10y ago
  I definitely don't think of guns as a social issue... is that where it is usually classified? Granted that it doesn't fit "economic" perfectly either.
dvdcxn 10y ago
> "Take America back"; that's not particularly subtle as to from who. Depends on the context really. If that was Sander's slogan, you'd immediately assume whom you'd be taking it back was the bankers & corporation. It's one of those generic slogan that reflects the views of the beholder. Some will assume it means from the immigrants, others the bureaucrats. It's definitely smarter than the damp squibs that Clinton came up with.

mc32 10y ago

It's a complex issue. Anecdotally some Obama voters broke for Trump, so it's hard to see them being 'racist'. But people like to discount the hurt in the working class and are happy to label them racist --just because this time they didn't agree with you. My thoughts on some of it is that while the white working class (as well as the black working class) are happy to see America help others out, internationally, domestically; they are not happy to see America help others out but at the same time ignore them and belittle them. That can be in trade deals, acquiescing to illegal immigrants, talking down to them, etc. There are likely a sprinkling of racists on the Trump side, but I dare say, there is the same likelihood of reverse racists on the Clinton side ['white people are the devil'].

robin_reala 10y ago
I’d love to see a citation of the ‘same likelihood’.

TheGirondin 10y ago

Rural or blue collar Americans only have one place in America where they are represented on the national level: the ballot box. All of the shocked media people and here on HN live in a bubble and have no idea what it's like to live in a working class community.