4 ms·

That's exactly the issue. These people have no value to provide modern society, because they're either not smart enough, or dont have the requisite quals to go

That's exactly the issue. These people have no value to provide modern society, because they're either not smart enough, or dont have the requisite quals to go into white collar work. Their 72 years of life experience were working hard in a plant and being loyal to a buiness, which then shutdown or outsourced their jobs Historically, there were places for these people. Manufacturing, truck driving, etc. White collar people are working on automating them out of existence.. So now they deserve to starve ? Because they're hard workers, honest, loyal, decent people, but just can't cut it in the modern professions that provide value? That's the Crux of it. That explains Trump to me

cubano 9y ago
> These people have no value to provide modern society, because they're either not smart enough, or dont have the requisite quals to go into white collar work. Or you have something on your SE history that makes you totally unsuitable for hire, according to the muckity-mucks in charge.
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  EXACTLY. Someone made a mistake at some point like we all do.
crdoconnor 9y ago
>Historically, there were places for these people. Manufacturing, etc. White collar people are working on automating them out of existence.. Trade agreements and austerity != robots
WalterSear 9y ago
They don't deserve to starve for their lack of skills. But it is very difficult to be sympathetic to the plight of the very people whose anti-intellectualism and moral ambiguity have caused so much damage to the country and the world.
- FooHentai 9y ago
  You're lumping one group of people (people who's earing ability is diminishing over time) in with a different one (non-Clinton voters) and making the two a 1:1 correlation. That's incorrect. Also, flip it around and it works equally on the other side: 'it is very difficult to be sympathetic to the very people who's intellectualism and morality policing have caused so much damage to rural areas and the working classes'.
  - WalterSear 9y ago
    > You're lumping one group of people (people who's earing ability is diminishing over time) in with a different one (non-Clinton voters) and making the two a 1:1 correlation. That's incorrect. No, because the damage I'm referring to has been done over decades, due to support for the Republican policies, foreign and domestic, and at the state and federal level. >Also, flip it around and it works equally on the other side: 'it is very difficult to be sympathetic to the very people who's intellectualism and morality policing have caused so much damage to rural areas and the working classes'. Except that makes no sense at all - it's dissembly. Intellectualism has not hurt the rural demographic, while their refutation of it certainly has. And, it's laughable to suggest that they have been hurt by morality policing. Moreover, the bulk of the actual, legislated morality policing has come from the right, and is being driven by the hate and intolerance of, you guessed it, those same voters.

cubano 9y ago

> These people have no value to provide modern society, because they're either not smart enough, or dont have the requisite quals to go into white collar work. Or you have something on your SE history that makes you totally unsuitable for hire, according to the muckity-mucks in charge.

nickthemagicman 9y ago
EXACTLY. Someone made a mistake at some point like we all do.

crdoconnor 9y ago

>Historically, there were places for these people. Manufacturing, etc. White collar people are working on automating them out of existence.. Trade agreements and austerity != robots

WalterSear 9y ago

They don't deserve to starve for their lack of skills. But it is very difficult to be sympathetic to the plight of the very people whose anti-intellectualism and moral ambiguity have caused so much damage to the country and the world.

FooHentai 9y ago
You're lumping one group of people (people who's earing ability is diminishing over time) in with a different one (non-Clinton voters) and making the two a 1:1 correlation. That's incorrect. Also, flip it around and it works equally on the other side: 'it is very difficult to be sympathetic to the very people who's intellectualism and morality policing have caused so much damage to rural areas and the working classes'.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  > You're lumping one group of people (people who's earing ability is diminishing over time) in with a different one (non-Clinton voters) and making the two a 1:1 correlation. That's incorrect. No, because the damage I'm referring to has been done over decades, due to support for the Republican policies, foreign and domestic, and at the state and federal level. >Also, flip it around and it works equally on the other side: 'it is very difficult to be sympathetic to the very people who's intellectualism and morality policing have caused so much damage to rural areas and the working classes'. Except that makes no sense at all - it's dissembly. Intellectualism has not hurt the rural demographic, while their refutation of it certainly has. And, it's laughable to suggest that they have been hurt by morality policing. Moreover, the bulk of the actual, legislated morality policing has come from the right, and is being driven by the hate and intolerance of, you guessed it, those same voters.