5 ms·
It's entertaining to read an article which simultaneously recognizes it's sources are deeply wrong about some things, and then immediately parrots information g
by yummyfajitas 10y ago
It's entertaining to read an article which simultaneously recognizes it's sources are deeply wrong about some things, and then immediately parrots information gained from those very same sources:
It shouldn’t have surprised you that the United States is a deeply racist country. And because that fact is more obvious now, you shouldn’t be surprised what will happen when open bigotry is given even more permission, legitimacy, and empowerment.
It's almost completely impossible to comprehend the possibility that many Trump supporters aren't racist, because the very same media that got the election wrong told us it was true.
Shocking fact: I know a number of Trump supporters and only one of them is white. White supremacists, all of them? Including the African woman who's literally never been in a social setting that was majority white?
Shocking fact #2: you probably also know a Trump supporter or two who are simply afraid to tell you.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- c17r 10y agoI stopped reading after that quote.
- maxerickson 10y agoThe author might point out that you are getting caught up in factiness. I don't think anyone has figured out exactly how important white nationalism was to Trump's victory (he carried most of the traditional Republican coalition), but it is clear enough that he got support from white nationalists in a different manner than any recent president, and that he was doing things to court that support.
- onetime321 10y agoIf you assume that most doctors shop at grocery stores, would you conclude that most people shopping at grocery stores are doctors? Or would that conclusion only seem natural if it somehow fits your agenda?
- maxerickson 10y agoI don't think your construction matches what I am saying. I'm saying that if you assume that most doctors shop at grocery stores that some of the people you see at the grocery store are probably doctors. The phrasing of my statement about the traditional republican coalition isn't very clear, but I wasn't trying to make a statement about the views of the traditional republican coalition there, I was conceding that much of the support Trump got was from the traditional republican coalition.
- naveen99 10y agoThe author claims lefties are facti, righties are truthy. So you should accuse yummyfajitas of truthiness. But yummyfajitas is a Leftie playing devil's advocate for righties... So never mind. Just labeling, not judging --me
- maxerickson 10y agoIs the difference there statistically measurable but insubstantial?
- imgabe 10y agoMy problem with this is, if there is a coalition of white supremacists powerful enough to propel a President to a decisive victory, where were they 4 years ago? 8 years ago? Why did they vote for Obama? It doesn't make sense. They suddenly care enough to go out and vote in large numbers, but they didn't care 4 years ago to vote against an African-American president? That doesn't add up. The only conclusion is that Trump's win is due to something other than racism. I'm not saying there aren't racists who support Trump. There undoubtedly are. But that's not why he won.
- maxerickson 10y agoIf you combine the closest states, winning this election will be a matter of a few hundred thousand votes. In 2012, the margin in several of the individual closest states was larger than that (and even larger in 2008).
- hga 10y agoYou don't have to go so far as "supremacy" to have one good explanation along these lines, unless it's axiomatic that it's racist and supremacist for whites, but no other group, to join the game of identity politics. That could be what changed in the very people in the Rust Belt who voted for Obama in 2008 and then gave the election to Trump in 2016. I don't consider it to exactly be a good thing (among other minor details, absent e.g. Trump building that Big Beautiful Wall, it will inevitably lead to civil war and ethnic cleansing), but I think it's hard to argue it's not inevitable, unless whites just collectively decide to commit suicide as so many are individually.
- kurthr 10y agoedit I retract this as I only read your posts for the last 3 days... which were not all of your posts, and you are a 10 year HNer.[I would take your commentary more seriously, from an account more than 3 days old or with some comments that are not almost entirely about defending racism. I read all your comments since there weren't very many.] It's interesting that you want to focus only on the a single side comment on racism (referring to a foot race doesn't count), rather than the fact that Trump regularly changed his positions, denied that he had changed his position even when confronted with video of him saying it, sometimes claiming such proof didn't exist (when it was often still on youtube or twitter). Perhaps your own comments prove the very point that you are trying to refute?
- thesmallestcat 10y ago> I would take your commentary more seriously, from an account more than 3 days old created: 3205 days ago karma: 39501
- dhimes 10y agoYeah, seriously. yummyfajitas is one of the original great HNers- without the likes of him in the early days this board would have been nothing special (and speaking of this, where did RiderOfGiraffes ever go, anyway?).
- shawndumas 10y agoColinWright
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]