3 ms·
> They could've been, but they weren't. > I wasn't calling it "explicitly racist", I was calling it "vaguely racist" because, while we all new what they were i
by Mononokay 9y ago
> They could've been, but they weren't.
> I wasn't calling it "explicitly racist", I was calling it "vaguely racist" because, while we all new what they were implying, They didn't come out and say it. Ergo "vaguely racist".
You're saying that "poor people" can't include Caucasians and Asians, then?
Midwesterners are quite notable for being both neoconservatives and poor, along with (generally) being majority-white. He could have easily been referring to them. What made you associate "Poor people" and "Racist"? Poor people are a demographic.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Midwesterners are quite notable for being both neoconservatives and poor No, they aren't, especially the former.
- Mononokay 9y agoThey very much are - Reagan's loved and Cheney even moreso in the Midwest. Both of which are notable neocons. [0] And economically, they're on average more poor than a lot of areas. See "County Level Poverty." [1] And if you're comparing wages between the two, Midwesterners make significantly less on average than those on the West Coast. Although I was moreout giving an example and sticking with it for the sake of the main argument to begin with. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/geography-of-poverty.aspx https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rur...
- weerd 9y agoThanks, those obvious points really needed references. And come on... SF is the last place a Midwestern neocon would consider!