5 ms·

> Hillary's "deplorables" comment was the embodiment of this problem. I'm always fascinated by the fact that some people believe this. I remember a decade ago

> Hillary's "deplorables" comment was the embodiment of this problem. I'm always fascinated by the fact that some people believe this. I remember a decade ago, in a heated time during an actual war, Sarah Palin would go on and on about "real Americans," a group which she made clear does not include me. Just one memorable example of the rhetoric she used toward those outside her tribe. She was a huge hit and hugely influential in her party. Clinton let fly once with a comment exhibiting the same level of contempt that prominent Republicans use all the time and she suddenly became exactly half the problem.

_bxg1 8y ago
I would say "deplorable" is far more contemptuous than "not a 'real' 'American'". It suggests that one isn't even a valid person, just something to be hated. And even if it were the same, the entire point is that saying "but look what they did" is a race to the bottom.
- justin66 8y ago
  But that's not what I said, is it? "They" constantly, intentionally do what Hillary did on her worst day. In light of that, nothing you're saying makes any sense.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    It's my experience that the average person - or an entire 50% of the population, if you prefer - isn't a monster. "They" aren't fundamentally worse people than "us". That's the mistake that underpins this whole problem. Maybe on a given dimension, or in a given span of years, you could construct a score sheet that puts them in the red (so to speak). But those on the other side are not holistically morally inferior. Not in parties as old, far-reaching, and evenly-populated as ours.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
unclebucknasty 8y ago
Here's what HRC actually said: >"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America. But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change." So, what you have is people self-identifying into the abhorrent, contemptible "basket" she explicitly describes (versus the one that is "honorable" and even sympathetic), then crying foul. It really is a remarkable thing. Now, she was overly broad with her statement "half" and --though she likely used that word to convey "two groups" vs literally 50% -- she admitted as much herself. But, the core of what she was saying is objectively true and observable: a substantial share of Trump's support was made up, in significant portions, of each of these groups. So, to the question of "contempt", is it acceptable to have contempt for contemptible views? Because what she described in that first basket was certainly contemptible. And that sums up the modern Right: troll, own the libs, and generally act in ways that are purposely and overtly provocative and comtemptible. Then, cry foul and victimization when you are called on it. From Trump, to his sons, to the basket of deplorables that just spoke at CPAC, these people are first and foremost, purposeful trolls who seek contempt as a motivating force. Then, people like Brooks from AEI come along with facile, disingenuous articles and lament the contempt coming from "both sides".

_bxg1 8y ago

I would say "deplorable" is far more contemptuous than "not a 'real' 'American'". It suggests that one isn't even a valid person, just something to be hated. And even if it were the same, the entire point is that saying "but look what they did" is a race to the bottom.

justin66 8y ago
But that's not what I said, is it? "They" constantly, intentionally do what Hillary did on her worst day. In light of that, nothing you're saying makes any sense.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  It's my experience that the average person - or an entire 50% of the population, if you prefer - isn't a monster. "They" aren't fundamentally worse people than "us". That's the mistake that underpins this whole problem. Maybe on a given dimension, or in a given span of years, you could construct a score sheet that puts them in the red (so to speak). But those on the other side are not holistically morally inferior. Not in parties as old, far-reaching, and evenly-populated as ours.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

unclebucknasty 8y ago

Here's what HRC actually said: >"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America. But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change." So, what you have is people self-identifying into the abhorrent, contemptible "basket" she explicitly describes (versus the one that is "honorable" and even sympathetic), then crying foul. It really is a remarkable thing. Now, she was overly broad with her statement "half" and --though she likely used that word to convey "two groups" vs literally 50% -- she admitted as much herself. But, the core of what she was saying is objectively true and observable: a substantial share of Trump's support was made up, in significant portions, of each of these groups. So, to the question of "contempt", is it acceptable to have contempt for contemptible views? Because what she described in that first basket was certainly contemptible. And that sums up the modern Right: troll, own the libs, and generally act in ways that are purposely and overtly provocative and comtemptible. Then, cry foul and victimization when you are called on it. From Trump, to his sons, to the basket of deplorables that just spoke at CPAC, these people are first and foremost, purposeful trolls who seek contempt as a motivating force. Then, people like Brooks from AEI come along with facile, disingenuous articles and lament the contempt coming from "both sides".