6 ms·

>A reasonable, common-sense definition of poverty should include not just an absolute measure of material deprivation and a relative gauge of a person’s situati

>A reasonable, common-sense definition of poverty should include not just an absolute measure of material deprivation and a relative gauge of a person’s situation compared to the rest of society. It should also strive to measure how secure people feel — in their homes, their health, and their jobs. I generally agree, but this has potential downsides. A good friend of mine from college comes from a very conservative family. Despite doing well for themselves (father is a MD), these people are generally pretty insecure about non-whites having the ability to vote, immigration (legal or illegal), and all the other things they hear on Fox News or talk radio. They also own a home > $1million USD. So do we consider them poor because they're insecure? I guess my point is there should be some objective measure - e.g. Person A or Family B is more likely to become homeless if they lost their jobs or if one family member became disabled.

chrisco255 8y ago
I come from a very conservative family. Nobody's insecure about non-whites having the ability to vote. They might be worried about the fact that some demographics vote like 95% Democrat, but that's just a concern about blind loyalty to party and identity politics. But agree with your sentiment. Insecurity in general is a very loose term. Some people are prone to believe the sky is falling and there's little that government can do to rectify that.
- xadhominemx 8y ago
  > Nobody's insecure about non-whites having the ability to vote Actually they are, and go so far as to pass laws specifically to suppress non-white votes https://twitter.com/haroldpollack/status/1051657219899617280 https://twitter.com/haroldpollack/status/1051657219899617280
  - njarboe 8y ago
    I imagine chrisco255 means nobody in his family.
  - someone7x 8y ago
    > They were making the argument and affirming that they were discriminating based on political affiliation, in an attempt to show they were not discriminating based on race. It was a conscious legal strategy to admit this. Wow. Can't be racial prejudice if its already political prejudice. Reminds me of the court scene in New Jack City where the Wesley Snipes confesses to being a foot soldier and therefore he can't be the kingpin.
    - pathseeker 8y ago
      >Wow. Can't be racial prejudice if its already political prejudice. It can, but it's not in many cases. I also know lots of conservatives who are not the strawman racists people on the left like to attack. They really only care that people don't vote in left-wing people. Keep in mind that suppressing the Democrat vote will dis-proportionally affect black people (as well as poor people, etc), but that doesn't mean the people trying to do it are prejudiced against black people. They are just prejudiced against Democrats.
      - someone7x 8y ago
        I think you misunderstand me. It’s not that it’s a veneer, it’s that the veneer is tolerated despite resulting in voter suppression. Voter suppression should be a universal bad in a democracy no? It’s not only bad when done for racist ends.
      - stretchwithme 8y ago
        Maybe they are just prejudiced against policies they don't agree with. Just like everybody else.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - gdix 8y ago
    To me it's not clear if the court is leaving out some context here. "The State" may have mentioned that the counties were disproportionately democratic and disproportionately black in their justification but to say that WAS their justification could easily be editorialization on the part of the judge who wrote this.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Wow! Talk about not providing context for that quote! The State's argument was voting hours were inconsistent across the state. The districts that offered additional voting opportunities, that other districts did not have, were predominantly African American and would vote Democratic. So their answer was to ban Sunday voting so that every district had the same window of opportunity to vote. One could argue that their solution wasn't the optimal one, but they were aiming to level the playing field.
    - gdix 8y ago
      Thank you for adding this context. Some people appear to be dead set on spreading misinformation on issues like this.
    - wahern 8y ago
      "In emails, state and county Republican officials lobbied members of at least 17 county election boards to keep early-voting sites open for shorter hours on weekends and in evenings – times that usually see disproportionately high turnout by Democratic voters. Reuters obtained the emails through a public records request." "The officials also urged county election boards to open fewer sites for residents to cast ballots during early voting that began on Oct. 20 and ends on Saturday." Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-northcarolina-insight-idUSKBN12Y0ZY?il=0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-northcarolin... The reason inconsistencies existed is because there was a coordinated campaign in 2016 that made the holdouts appear inconsistent. This is classic voter suppression. There will always be different voting patterns among different groups. Identifying the patterns of your preferred group and then normalizing just those patterns is how suppression is accomplished, period. What blows my mind is that Republicans have been discussing these strategies freely and openly for years, and yet for some reason people still feel compelled to believe post hoc rationalizations. The Republican Party is morally bankrupt. America is an intrinsically conservative nation and conservatism will live on. But apologizing for the Republican Party and its politics... I find it inexcusable.
      - refurb 8y ago
        The Republican Party is morally bankrupt. I would argue creating special voting opportunities (i.e. Sunday voting) that directly appeal to the people who vote for you is morally bankrupt.
justaman 8y ago
I just wanted to point out that racism like that is on its last leg. I used to live in a rural, very conservative, upper class area. While they do watch fox news, they are not racist. Its close minded to call fox news racist or cnn socialist.
- jhayward 8y ago
  "I'm not saying they're racist, I'm just saying that racists like them a lot" [1] (paraphrased from Gillum) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/11/29/tucker-carlson-neo-nazi-favorite/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/11/...
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    Peanut butter isn't racist, I'm just saying that racists like it a lot.
  - dlp211 8y ago
    The Simpson's cartoon did it first, and they didn't paraphrase[1]. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=simpsons+fox+news+helicopter&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU7Puzkv3eAhW-JTQIHY64DAIQsAR6BAgAEAE&biw=1920&bih=1089 https://www.google.com/search?q=simpsons+fox+news+helicopter...
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > "I'm not saying they're racist, I'm just saying that racists like them a lot" Civil Liberties organization defends due process. "I'm not saying they're rapists, I'm just saying rapists like them a lot." Fertilizer company sells ordinary fertilizer that happens to be a major component of large bombs. "I'm not saying they're terrorists, I'm just saying terrorists like them a lot." Tech company protects privacy of customers. "I'm not saying they're child pornographers, I'm just saying child pornographers like them a lot." This form of argument is obviously more incendiary than illuminating.
- coliveira 8y ago
  Conservatism tries to maintain the existing structures of society and, in a country like USA, these structures are racially determined - it is just part of the history of the country. Therefore, conservative policies will tend to maintain racial discrimination, even when this is not the stated goal of the policy maker.
soared 8y ago
I understood it as the author saying fiscally secure, not socially. (Housing is not reliant on their next paycheck, etc.)
afpx 8y ago
Why did you choose the word insecure rather than bitter or something similar? Insecure means feeling that things around may easy fall apart or collapse. It doesn’t sound like your friend’s parents are remotely close to that.
- tracer4201 8y ago
  I chose the word insecure because insecure is the best way to describe them. They're not really "angry" that LGBT folks, Hispanics, and Muslims are able to vote, for example. A better way to think of it is that the root cause is fear. Does that result in anger? Sometimes... but they're insecure insofar as they believe their way of life, their financial independence, and their freedom is on the verge of being taken away. They see prosperity and opportunity as a zero sum game where the Hispanics are here to either not work at all and force the whites to pay for them and the ones that are willing to work are only stealing the opportunity from the "real Americans". Before you respond - this isn't a topic of debate. I mean, I'm revealing conversations I've had with these people over dinner in their home. This is what they believe, from their own mouths. At the end of the day, these are people who I consider family, even though I almost violently disagree with their views and believe they have been brainwashed.
  - dorchadas 8y ago
    I just want to say you're not alone in having family like that; the vast majority of my dad's side is like this (my mom's side are all basically hippies). I love them to death, and they're good people, but they're so damn insecure about their way of life (or they're insecure that they can't force it on to others, in my grandmother's case), that they want to stop others from getting opportunities for fear they might change it.
BeetleB 8y ago
I think the benchmark they are suggesting is: Is their insecurity resulting in their making decisions that affect their ability to have the fundamentals (roof over head, food on plate, etc)? And if those fears come true, will it materially affect them to the point where they could lose that roof? For the former: If their fear/insecurity is causing them to pay more than they could/should afford in bunkers, security guards, etc, then I would say according to the article: "Yes". But that's true for almost no one in the demographic you're highlighting. For the latter: If immigration (legal/illegal) keeps continuing, or other demographics gain more voting power, will they likely lose that $1M house? I don't think so.
mnm1 8y ago
This type of insecurity is not what the article is referring to. Racists yes, but certainly not insecure (in food/shelter/safety terms that the article refers to) with a million dollar home and a head of household who is a doctor and would likely be able to get a well paying job anywhere in the country if not the world. If non white people vote will this family be out on the streets? If immigrants come over will they starve? Of course not. I don't even see how you can consider that insecurity. Hate and racism have nothing to do with being insecure.

chrisco255 8y ago

I come from a very conservative family. Nobody's insecure about non-whites having the ability to vote. They might be worried about the fact that some demographics vote like 95% Democrat, but that's just a concern about blind loyalty to party and identity politics. But agree with your sentiment. Insecurity in general is a very loose term. Some people are prone to believe the sky is falling and there's little that government can do to rectify that.

xadhominemx 8y ago
> Nobody's insecure about non-whites having the ability to vote Actually they are, and go so far as to pass laws specifically to suppress non-white votes https://twitter.com/haroldpollack/status/1051657219899617280 https://twitter.com/haroldpollack/status/1051657219899617280
- njarboe 8y ago
  I imagine chrisco255 means nobody in his family.
- someone7x 8y ago
  > They were making the argument and affirming that they were discriminating based on political affiliation, in an attempt to show they were not discriminating based on race. It was a conscious legal strategy to admit this. Wow. Can't be racial prejudice if its already political prejudice. Reminds me of the court scene in New Jack City where the Wesley Snipes confesses to being a foot soldier and therefore he can't be the kingpin.
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    >Wow. Can't be racial prejudice if its already political prejudice. It can, but it's not in many cases. I also know lots of conservatives who are not the strawman racists people on the left like to attack. They really only care that people don't vote in left-wing people. Keep in mind that suppressing the Democrat vote will dis-proportionally affect black people (as well as poor people, etc), but that doesn't mean the people trying to do it are prejudiced against black people. They are just prejudiced against Democrats.
    - someone7x 8y ago
      I think you misunderstand me. It’s not that it’s a veneer, it’s that the veneer is tolerated despite resulting in voter suppression. Voter suppression should be a universal bad in a democracy no? It’s not only bad when done for racist ends.
    - stretchwithme 8y ago
      Maybe they are just prejudiced against policies they don't agree with. Just like everybody else.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gdix 8y ago
  To me it's not clear if the court is leaving out some context here. "The State" may have mentioned that the counties were disproportionately democratic and disproportionately black in their justification but to say that WAS their justification could easily be editorialization on the part of the judge who wrote this.
- refurb 8y ago
  Wow! Talk about not providing context for that quote! The State's argument was voting hours were inconsistent across the state. The districts that offered additional voting opportunities, that other districts did not have, were predominantly African American and would vote Democratic. So their answer was to ban Sunday voting so that every district had the same window of opportunity to vote. One could argue that their solution wasn't the optimal one, but they were aiming to level the playing field.
  - gdix 8y ago
    Thank you for adding this context. Some people appear to be dead set on spreading misinformation on issues like this.
  - wahern 8y ago
    "In emails, state and county Republican officials lobbied members of at least 17 county election boards to keep early-voting sites open for shorter hours on weekends and in evenings – times that usually see disproportionately high turnout by Democratic voters. Reuters obtained the emails through a public records request." "The officials also urged county election boards to open fewer sites for residents to cast ballots during early voting that began on Oct. 20 and ends on Saturday." Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-northcarolina-insight-idUSKBN12Y0ZY?il=0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-northcarolin... The reason inconsistencies existed is because there was a coordinated campaign in 2016 that made the holdouts appear inconsistent. This is classic voter suppression. There will always be different voting patterns among different groups. Identifying the patterns of your preferred group and then normalizing just those patterns is how suppression is accomplished, period. What blows my mind is that Republicans have been discussing these strategies freely and openly for years, and yet for some reason people still feel compelled to believe post hoc rationalizations. The Republican Party is morally bankrupt. America is an intrinsically conservative nation and conservatism will live on. But apologizing for the Republican Party and its politics... I find it inexcusable.
    - refurb 8y ago
      The Republican Party is morally bankrupt. I would argue creating special voting opportunities (i.e. Sunday voting) that directly appeal to the people who vote for you is morally bankrupt.

justaman 8y ago

I just wanted to point out that racism like that is on its last leg. I used to live in a rural, very conservative, upper class area. While they do watch fox news, they are not racist. Its close minded to call fox news racist or cnn socialist.

jhayward 8y ago
"I'm not saying they're racist, I'm just saying that racists like them a lot" [1] (paraphrased from Gillum) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/11/29/tucker-carlson-neo-nazi-favorite/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/11/...
- pathseeker 8y ago
  Peanut butter isn't racist, I'm just saying that racists like it a lot.
- dlp211 8y ago
  The Simpson's cartoon did it first, and they didn't paraphrase[1]. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=simpsons+fox+news+helicopter&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU7Puzkv3eAhW-JTQIHY64DAIQsAR6BAgAEAE&biw=1920&bih=1089 https://www.google.com/search?q=simpsons+fox+news+helicopter...
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > "I'm not saying they're racist, I'm just saying that racists like them a lot" Civil Liberties organization defends due process. "I'm not saying they're rapists, I'm just saying rapists like them a lot." Fertilizer company sells ordinary fertilizer that happens to be a major component of large bombs. "I'm not saying they're terrorists, I'm just saying terrorists like them a lot." Tech company protects privacy of customers. "I'm not saying they're child pornographers, I'm just saying child pornographers like them a lot." This form of argument is obviously more incendiary than illuminating.
coliveira 8y ago
Conservatism tries to maintain the existing structures of society and, in a country like USA, these structures are racially determined - it is just part of the history of the country. Therefore, conservative policies will tend to maintain racial discrimination, even when this is not the stated goal of the policy maker.

soared 8y ago

I understood it as the author saying fiscally secure, not socially. (Housing is not reliant on their next paycheck, etc.)

afpx 8y ago

Why did you choose the word insecure rather than bitter or something similar? Insecure means feeling that things around may easy fall apart or collapse. It doesn’t sound like your friend’s parents are remotely close to that.

tracer4201 8y ago
I chose the word insecure because insecure is the best way to describe them. They're not really "angry" that LGBT folks, Hispanics, and Muslims are able to vote, for example. A better way to think of it is that the root cause is fear. Does that result in anger? Sometimes... but they're insecure insofar as they believe their way of life, their financial independence, and their freedom is on the verge of being taken away. They see prosperity and opportunity as a zero sum game where the Hispanics are here to either not work at all and force the whites to pay for them and the ones that are willing to work are only stealing the opportunity from the "real Americans". Before you respond - this isn't a topic of debate. I mean, I'm revealing conversations I've had with these people over dinner in their home. This is what they believe, from their own mouths. At the end of the day, these are people who I consider family, even though I almost violently disagree with their views and believe they have been brainwashed.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  I just want to say you're not alone in having family like that; the vast majority of my dad's side is like this (my mom's side are all basically hippies). I love them to death, and they're good people, but they're so damn insecure about their way of life (or they're insecure that they can't force it on to others, in my grandmother's case), that they want to stop others from getting opportunities for fear they might change it.

BeetleB 8y ago

I think the benchmark they are suggesting is: Is their insecurity resulting in their making decisions that affect their ability to have the fundamentals (roof over head, food on plate, etc)? And if those fears come true, will it materially affect them to the point where they could lose that roof? For the former: If their fear/insecurity is causing them to pay more than they could/should afford in bunkers, security guards, etc, then I would say according to the article: "Yes". But that's true for almost no one in the demographic you're highlighting. For the latter: If immigration (legal/illegal) keeps continuing, or other demographics gain more voting power, will they likely lose that $1M house? I don't think so.

mnm1 8y ago

This type of insecurity is not what the article is referring to. Racists yes, but certainly not insecure (in food/shelter/safety terms that the article refers to) with a million dollar home and a head of household who is a doctor and would likely be able to get a well paying job anywhere in the country if not the world. If non white people vote will this family be out on the streets? If immigrants come over will they starve? Of course not. I don't even see how you can consider that insecurity. Hate and racism have nothing to do with being insecure.