9 ms·

Rather, it was the exposure to individuals who were being hurt by the politics he favored. And whites, especially male and/or heterosexuals, aren't "being hurt

by hga 10y ago

Rather, it was the exposure to individuals who were being hurt by the politics he favored. And whites, especially male and/or heterosexuals, aren't "being hurt" by the Left's campaign against them, that says we're uniquely guilty, uniquely unable to absolve ourselves of this guilt, or as Hillary put it, "irredeemable"? Just what is the Left's end game for us? Should we take a clue from its crowing about how soon we'll be a minority in the US? Any particular reason we shouldn't join the game of identity politics that every other group is playing? Any particular reason we must commit suicide (which is by no means an entirely figurative thing in the US)?

maxerickson 10y ago
Suicide rates among older men rose from 6/100,000 to 10/100,000. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db241.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db241.htm This increase is a public health issue. It isn't a particularly significant cause of death. See page 27: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf On the younger end (~40), the death rate is 200/100,000. By age 60 it is 1200/100,000.
- hga 10y ago
  However, is not the tend worrisome? One of the reasons we do "public health" is to nip things in the bud. In the domain of infectious diseases, to prevent epi- and pandemics.... The other notable thing I've been told is that this is a unique in the US phenomena, which suggests a whole lot.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    No, the trend is not worrisome in a general sense. It does not represent an existential crisis, not even for aging conservative men. I mean, it is small enough that it could largely be the result of some particular book becoming popular.
Quarrelsome 10y ago
you need to stop identifying with left/right or "us" as a colour of skin. You do that you'll just get shafted by someone claiming to represent you against "them" (a la Trump). Don't identify either way, realise that most politicians are acting against "us" and pick and choose each election on the basis of what policies politicians are putting forward and try to ignore their rhetoric.
- hga 10y ago
  It's perhaps a little late to tell someone who's about to turn 56 to stop doing this ^_^! Seriously, the "Right" and "Left" are abstractions for two general philosophies about human nature, the Right believing that human nature is basically fixed, or as a favorite history teacher put it, "Original Sin is an empirical observation!", and the Left believes in the perfectibility of man. And historically, at least since the French Revolution which created the modern versions of these two, has gotten downright murderously violent when their attempts to "perfect" men failed, as we on the right believe is inevitable. So you're asking me to drop a perfectly usable and useful abstraction that helps to make more sense of the world because of the danger I'll be disappointing by any particular politician. Seeing that my first great disappointment was Nixon in his second term, I've got to tell you I've got other tools for that, like "best is the enemy of good enough", "the lessor of two evils", and so on. And you shouldn't assume I didn't look at the actual policies both put forward, and could make a choice on those alone. And how to you characterize a rhetorical policy against political correctness? Or an attack on a common enemy like the MSM that's more carried out by rhetoric than actions? Or the simple fact that many if not most people simply cannot be reached by dialectical arguments, it's rhetoric or nothing (or I'm told, see Aristotle's book on the subject, this is said to be a good translation: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195064879/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195064879/ ). As for your point "'us' as a colour of skin", the best reply is the one attributed to Trotsky, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you". I'd prefer to be left alone to code up neat stuff, but that's not an option today in the US.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >Seriously, the "Right" and "Left" are abstractions for two general philosophies about human nature, the Right believing that human nature is basically fixed, or as a favorite history teacher put it, "Original Sin is an empirical observation!", and the Left believes in the perfectibility of man. And historically, at least since the French Revolution which created the modern versions of these two, has gotten downright murderously violent when their attempts to "perfect" men failed, as we on the right believe is inevitable. This is a uniquely right-wing view of what "left" and "right" mean. On the Left, we view it as your preferring hierarchy over equality, and our preferring equality over hierarchy. We also think of our politics as materialist and class-based, while yours are idealist (in the continental philosophy sense) and identity-based. So you probably should drop an abstraction that isn't informative about anything except your own ideology.
MereInterest 10y ago
The loss of a privileged position is not the same as being hurt. I, as a cisgender heterosexual white male, am still able to walk down the street without being catcalled. I can go to a public restroom without fear of physical assault. I can marry whomever I choose. I can apply for a job without having my application thrown out on account of my name. Why does it hurt me if those basic human decencies are given to other people as well? As to the "irredeemable" comment, I don't believe that has ever applied to all white males. It doesn't apply to those who give basic human decency to others. On the other hand, if you claim special rights by virtue of skin color, gender, or religion, and if you would deny human rights to others based on these factors, then yes, I would call you part of the basket of deplorables.
- hga 10y ago
  The Alt Right's position on your first paragraph is that all those are fine, but those "basic human decencies" should be accorded to others in their own lands ("diversity + proximity = war), ignoring the minor detail that simple facts always put women at a disadvantage in physical combat unless they effectively arm themselves. You are, I assume, in favor of legal concealed carry? Or have noted that women, and minority women, are doing it at ever greater rates, enough to significantly change gun design and production patterns? But some of what you say in it is ludicrous on its face: I can go to a public restroom without fear of physical assault. Really? You must live some place special where no crime occurs in such venues. I can apply for a job without having my application thrown out on account of my name. But your race, sex or sexual orientation? Haven't you noticed you're at a disadvantage here more and more? I mean, this was the theme of an episode of Archie Bunker which aired in the 1970s, the iconic scene was "Meathead" slamming a door so hard it broke the glass in it, very memorable. Moving on: On the other hand, if you claim special rights by virtue of skin color, gender, or religion You're claiming a full on assault is "[t]he loss of a privileged position"; I guess at best we'll just have to agree to disagree, since it appears that simply asking for equal rights in the identity politics game, heck, even being allowed to play it, is beyond the pale for you, puts me in the basket of deplorables. But correct me if I'm wrong about that summation of your position.
  - 10y ago
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
As a kinda-technically-white male heterosexual myself, I think you've been reading too many conspiracy websites, or possibly idiotic Twitter feeds, if you think anyone is asking us to "commit suicide", or claiming we're "guilty". Also, as a Jew, welcome to being a minority: you'll live.
- hga 10y ago
  Also, as a Jew, welcome to being a minority: you'll live. That wasn't true for 5-6 million of your minority in WWII.... You're welcome to square Hillary calling me "irredeemable" with the Left's treatment of such people, the National Socialist German Workers' Party providing just one particularly relevant example to your and my discussion here. As for "guilty", white guilt is a thing that goes way beyond "conspiracy websites" or "idiotic Twitter feeds": https://www.google.com/search?q=white+guilt https://www.google.com/search?q=white+guilt To finish, with you being a Jew, "What you mean 'we,' kemosabe?" You're very much correct to weasel word "kinda-technically-white".
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Clinton's remarks did not reflect well upon her and were revealing about her attitude towards a large number of people. That said, her meaning was not "Trump Supporter"->"irredeemable", it was "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic"->"irredeemable". It's weird to claim "irredeemable" as a badge if you aren't also claiming one of those other things as a badge.
    - hga 10y ago
      As the Left defines them, I am every one of "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic". Although you would think more would realize by now "The Race Card is Maxed Out": http://www.cc.com/video-clips/m0pvy5/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-race-card-is-maxed-out http://www.cc.com/video-clips/m0pvy5/the-daily-show-with-jon...
      - maxerickson 10y ago
norea-armozel 10y ago
The Left in America is hardly left of anyone. What you should be calling the modern Democratic party is neoliberal because their policies reflect this ideology perfectly. And there's plenty to criticize on neoliberalism but when it comes to civil rights that's not one of them. Plus, what hurts white men isn't social but rather economic which is the principle issue I have with Democrats who've ignored the economy (it was Democrats who held Obama's stimulus hostage and not the Republicans as they already voiced their opposition). So until the Democrats cleans out the neoliberal garbage I expect them to keep crowing about id politics without regard to the larger econ politics which affects us all.
- hga 10y ago
  My reply is the Instapundit's, embrace the power of "and", it can be both ideology, although that's really now becoming more identity politics, and economics. Sometimes they go hand in hand, like the importation of vast numbers of low skilled workers as eventual citizens, displacing native low skilled workers. and "dissolving the people and electing another" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_L%C3%B6sung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_L%C3%B6sung forgive my paraphrasing of the German I don't know). See all the crowing about how whites will soon become a minority in the US. Sometimes it's purely economic, like US citizens and permanent residents being forced to train their H-1B indentured servant replacements. (Then we could e.g. get to the more complicated things like why manufacturing has become so expensive here, lots of that is ideology and the like, but the above serves to illustrate my point.)
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    The funny thing about the H1B program is that the majority of people who voted for Trump or vote for the Republicans rarely ever talk about it. It's always fear of some Mexican teenager trying to "steal" some low wage agriculture job. It never seems to enter the minds of the conservatives that the facts of immigration aren't what they make it out to be. Specifically, that illegal immigrants are the least significant factor in depressed wages. H1B is a larger factor in this regard. So, it's funny that Trump's the only candidate in a long time to raise this issue. Too bad he's utter crap on the rest of his politics.

by hga 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

Suicide rates among older men rose from 6/100,000 to 10/100,000. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db241.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db241.htm This increase is a public health issue. It isn't a particularly significant cause of death. See page 27: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf On the younger end (~40), the death rate is 200/100,000. By age 60 it is 1200/100,000.

hga 10y ago
However, is not the tend worrisome? One of the reasons we do "public health" is to nip things in the bud. In the domain of infectious diseases, to prevent epi- and pandemics.... The other notable thing I've been told is that this is a unique in the US phenomena, which suggests a whole lot.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  No, the trend is not worrisome in a general sense. It does not represent an existential crisis, not even for aging conservative men. I mean, it is small enough that it could largely be the result of some particular book becoming popular.

Quarrelsome 10y ago

you need to stop identifying with left/right or "us" as a colour of skin. You do that you'll just get shafted by someone claiming to represent you against "them" (a la Trump). Don't identify either way, realise that most politicians are acting against "us" and pick and choose each election on the basis of what policies politicians are putting forward and try to ignore their rhetoric.

hga 10y ago
It's perhaps a little late to tell someone who's about to turn 56 to stop doing this ^_^! Seriously, the "Right" and "Left" are abstractions for two general philosophies about human nature, the Right believing that human nature is basically fixed, or as a favorite history teacher put it, "Original Sin is an empirical observation!", and the Left believes in the perfectibility of man. And historically, at least since the French Revolution which created the modern versions of these two, has gotten downright murderously violent when their attempts to "perfect" men failed, as we on the right believe is inevitable. So you're asking me to drop a perfectly usable and useful abstraction that helps to make more sense of the world because of the danger I'll be disappointing by any particular politician. Seeing that my first great disappointment was Nixon in his second term, I've got to tell you I've got other tools for that, like "best is the enemy of good enough", "the lessor of two evils", and so on. And you shouldn't assume I didn't look at the actual policies both put forward, and could make a choice on those alone. And how to you characterize a rhetorical policy against political correctness? Or an attack on a common enemy like the MSM that's more carried out by rhetoric than actions? Or the simple fact that many if not most people simply cannot be reached by dialectical arguments, it's rhetoric or nothing (or I'm told, see Aristotle's book on the subject, this is said to be a good translation: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195064879/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195064879/ ). As for your point "'us' as a colour of skin", the best reply is the one attributed to Trotsky, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you". I'd prefer to be left alone to code up neat stuff, but that's not an option today in the US.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >Seriously, the "Right" and "Left" are abstractions for two general philosophies about human nature, the Right believing that human nature is basically fixed, or as a favorite history teacher put it, "Original Sin is an empirical observation!", and the Left believes in the perfectibility of man. And historically, at least since the French Revolution which created the modern versions of these two, has gotten downright murderously violent when their attempts to "perfect" men failed, as we on the right believe is inevitable. This is a uniquely right-wing view of what "left" and "right" mean. On the Left, we view it as your preferring hierarchy over equality, and our preferring equality over hierarchy. We also think of our politics as materialist and class-based, while yours are idealist (in the continental philosophy sense) and identity-based. So you probably should drop an abstraction that isn't informative about anything except your own ideology.

MereInterest 10y ago

The loss of a privileged position is not the same as being hurt. I, as a cisgender heterosexual white male, am still able to walk down the street without being catcalled. I can go to a public restroom without fear of physical assault. I can marry whomever I choose. I can apply for a job without having my application thrown out on account of my name. Why does it hurt me if those basic human decencies are given to other people as well? As to the "irredeemable" comment, I don't believe that has ever applied to all white males. It doesn't apply to those who give basic human decency to others. On the other hand, if you claim special rights by virtue of skin color, gender, or religion, and if you would deny human rights to others based on these factors, then yes, I would call you part of the basket of deplorables.

hga 10y ago
The Alt Right's position on your first paragraph is that all those are fine, but those "basic human decencies" should be accorded to others in their own lands ("diversity + proximity = war), ignoring the minor detail that simple facts always put women at a disadvantage in physical combat unless they effectively arm themselves. You are, I assume, in favor of legal concealed carry? Or have noted that women, and minority women, are doing it at ever greater rates, enough to significantly change gun design and production patterns? But some of what you say in it is ludicrous on its face: I can go to a public restroom without fear of physical assault. Really? You must live some place special where no crime occurs in such venues. I can apply for a job without having my application thrown out on account of my name. But your race, sex or sexual orientation? Haven't you noticed you're at a disadvantage here more and more? I mean, this was the theme of an episode of Archie Bunker which aired in the 1970s, the iconic scene was "Meathead" slamming a door so hard it broke the glass in it, very memorable. Moving on: On the other hand, if you claim special rights by virtue of skin color, gender, or religion You're claiming a full on assault is "[t]he loss of a privileged position"; I guess at best we'll just have to agree to disagree, since it appears that simply asking for equal rights in the identity politics game, heck, even being allowed to play it, is beyond the pale for you, puts me in the basket of deplorables. But correct me if I'm wrong about that summation of your position.
- 10y ago

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

As a kinda-technically-white male heterosexual myself, I think you've been reading too many conspiracy websites, or possibly idiotic Twitter feeds, if you think anyone is asking us to "commit suicide", or claiming we're "guilty". Also, as a Jew, welcome to being a minority: you'll live.

hga 10y ago
Also, as a Jew, welcome to being a minority: you'll live. That wasn't true for 5-6 million of your minority in WWII.... You're welcome to square Hillary calling me "irredeemable" with the Left's treatment of such people, the National Socialist German Workers' Party providing just one particularly relevant example to your and my discussion here. As for "guilty", white guilt is a thing that goes way beyond "conspiracy websites" or "idiotic Twitter feeds": https://www.google.com/search?q=white+guilt https://www.google.com/search?q=white+guilt To finish, with you being a Jew, "What you mean 'we,' kemosabe?" You're very much correct to weasel word "kinda-technically-white".
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Clinton's remarks did not reflect well upon her and were revealing about her attitude towards a large number of people. That said, her meaning was not "Trump Supporter"->"irredeemable", it was "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic"->"irredeemable". It's weird to claim "irredeemable" as a badge if you aren't also claiming one of those other things as a badge.
  - hga 10y ago
    As the Left defines them, I am every one of "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic". Although you would think more would realize by now "The Race Card is Maxed Out": http://www.cc.com/video-clips/m0pvy5/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-race-card-is-maxed-out http://www.cc.com/video-clips/m0pvy5/the-daily-show-with-jon...
    - maxerickson 10y ago

norea-armozel 10y ago

The Left in America is hardly left of anyone. What you should be calling the modern Democratic party is neoliberal because their policies reflect this ideology perfectly. And there's plenty to criticize on neoliberalism but when it comes to civil rights that's not one of them. Plus, what hurts white men isn't social but rather economic which is the principle issue I have with Democrats who've ignored the economy (it was Democrats who held Obama's stimulus hostage and not the Republicans as they already voiced their opposition). So until the Democrats cleans out the neoliberal garbage I expect them to keep crowing about id politics without regard to the larger econ politics which affects us all.

hga 10y ago
My reply is the Instapundit's, embrace the power of "and", it can be both ideology, although that's really now becoming more identity politics, and economics. Sometimes they go hand in hand, like the importation of vast numbers of low skilled workers as eventual citizens, displacing native low skilled workers. and "dissolving the people and electing another" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_L%C3%B6sung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_L%C3%B6sung forgive my paraphrasing of the German I don't know). See all the crowing about how whites will soon become a minority in the US. Sometimes it's purely economic, like US citizens and permanent residents being forced to train their H-1B indentured servant replacements. (Then we could e.g. get to the more complicated things like why manufacturing has become so expensive here, lots of that is ideology and the like, but the above serves to illustrate my point.)
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  The funny thing about the H1B program is that the majority of people who voted for Trump or vote for the Republicans rarely ever talk about it. It's always fear of some Mexican teenager trying to "steal" some low wage agriculture job. It never seems to enter the minds of the conservatives that the facts of immigration aren't what they make it out to be. Specifically, that illegal immigrants are the least significant factor in depressed wages. H1B is a larger factor in this regard. So, it's funny that Trump's the only candidate in a long time to raise this issue. Too bad he's utter crap on the rest of his politics.