3 ms·

“Democratic Elites Don’t Understand the Class Culture Gap”

6 points by nullc 5y ago

PaulHoule 5y ago
The "standard model" for race for progressives flies in the face of how political science works. The founding fathers of the US were afraid that the majority would deprive the wealthy minority of its property but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson found there wasn't much danger than that in a democracy because it's easy for a small privileged minority to organized to maintain and enlarge its privileges because it is so profitable to do so that it can do so even if only some members of the group organize. A large group finds it almost impossible, however, to organize to protect its own interests because it is inevitably less profitable from the viewpoint of the individual consumer. In apartheid-era South Africa, for instance, we could say 10% of the population was white and 90% was black and income was initially distributed fairly, whites could double their standard of living by taking just 12% of the income from black people. In the US it is more like 90% white and 10% black, and if whites took everything from blacks they could only increase their standard of living by 10%. In apartheid South Africa racism enriches white greatly. In the US, not so much. White privilege means something very different in South Africa than the US. In South Africa racism is something white people did to benefit themselves. In the US the 'benefits' of racism for whites are primarily psychological. LBJ said “I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it, If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” That is "white privilege" is firstly a scam at white people's expense that pushes them into voting for the Republican party indiscriminately and thus make politics noncompetitive. Secondly "white privilege" is a scam that makes politics noncompetitive within the left.
- quantified 5y ago
  Everything except the last paragraph, concur. W.r.t. white privilege, there are probably definitions that are too far-fetched, but I’ve had my cop interactions and watched white and black cop interactions, and I’ve watched around other interactions, and there’s definitely a difference in how you’re treated.
  - PaulHoule 5y ago
    I agree that blacks get trouble from the cops but I'd use different language. I'd say that black people have a stigma. I wouldn't say that white people have a privilege, at least if I didn't want those white people to vote Republican for the rest of their lives. That is, if the right wing did a focus group to find the right word that would get white people to stop talking about race, they couldn't have picked a better one than "privilege". 95% of white people are not in the top 5% and frankly most of them feel like they have a lot less agency and a lot more responsibility than they like.
    - jleyank 5y ago
      Being able to vote right or far right wing politics is a sign of mental or moral deficiency. “F*ck you, I got mine” isn’t a philosophy in consonance with a major religion no matter how often they say it is. Regions full of these people are just places to be avoided. There’s a name for people who are willing to compromise their morals for money. There’s also names for people lacking morals. Don’t be these people.
      - nullc 5y ago
        > Being able to vote right or far right wing politics is a sign of mental or moral deficiency. “F*ck you, I got mine” isn’t a philosophy in consonance with a major religion no matter how often they say it is. Regions full of these people are just places to be avoided. There’s a name for people who are willing to compromise their morals for money. There’s also names for people lacking morals. Don’t be these people. Morally condemning people a person don't know for different choices that a person doesn't understand and clearly doesn't care to understand isn't going to achieve any productive end for the betterment of anyone-- it's just bigotry: Every sever bigot believes 'those' people are fundamentally bad. Badness surely exists in the world, but to write off a _region_ of people? Sorry, but that sounds a lot like writing off a shade of skin-tone.
    - nullc 5y ago
      What I'd suggest is that it's stereotyping: It happens because how how people look, the color of their skin but also a thousand other indicators of wealth, class, gender, standing, political power, etc. Police are bad about it because they're forced over and over again to make snap judgements-- and a moment of excessive trust can cost them their lives. They see the worst of people all the time. Without a constant effort to restore and refresh their humanity its easy to imagine it failing to cynicism, and sometimes the cynicism turning to hate. The irony though, of course, is that the sterotyping isn't limited to people of particular skin colors though it isn't hard to make the case that people suffer worse for that cause in many places. It's something that many people have suffered from, and in that there is an opportunity for unity-- the unity of stigmatized people, rather than the division of privilege. Each persons life is so different that if you take two people, regardless of their respective backgrounds or genetics, either one may have had a more or less privileged or more or less stigmatized life. To suggest that the specific and individual suffering of one person is lesser than those of another on the basis of their race is just sterotyping, just prejudice itself. There is no honor in a competition over who was wronged more and indulging it creates division among those who should otherwise cooperate to bring about a more fair and just world for everyone. We should be able to stand up for the rights of each and every person to be treated fairly, without anyone confusing that for dismissing systematic abuses. And we should be able to dismantle systematic abuses without creating the impression that we don't care about people who haven't suffered those particular abuses but suffer from their own, none the less. We can do that if we ground our understanding that so many of these abuses come from the underlying practice of stereotyping-- reducing people to the color of their skin, their bank balance, their credit score, the region that the live in, etc. rather than understanding them as individual human beings.

6 points by nullc 5y ago

The "standard model" for race for progressives flies in the face of how political science works. The founding fathers of the US were afraid that the majority would deprive the wealthy minority of its property but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson found there wasn't much danger than that in a democracy because it's easy for a small privileged minority to organized to maintain and enlarge its privileges because it is so profitable to do so that it can do so even if only some members of the group organize. A large group finds it almost impossible, however, to organize to protect its own interests because it is inevitably less profitable from the viewpoint of the individual consumer. In apartheid-era South Africa, for instance, we could say 10% of the population was white and 90% was black and income was initially distributed fairly, whites could double their standard of living by taking just 12% of the income from black people. In the US it is more like 90% white and 10% black, and if whites took everything from blacks they could only increase their standard of living by 10%. In apartheid South Africa racism enriches white greatly. In the US, not so much. White privilege means something very different in South Africa than the US. In South Africa racism is something white people did to benefit themselves. In the US the 'benefits' of racism for whites are primarily psychological. LBJ said “I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it, If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” That is "white privilege" is firstly a scam at white people's expense that pushes them into voting for the Republican party indiscriminately and thus make politics noncompetitive. Secondly "white privilege" is a scam that makes politics noncompetitive within the left.

quantified 5y ago
Everything except the last paragraph, concur. W.r.t. white privilege, there are probably definitions that are too far-fetched, but I’ve had my cop interactions and watched white and black cop interactions, and I’ve watched around other interactions, and there’s definitely a difference in how you’re treated.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  I agree that blacks get trouble from the cops but I'd use different language. I'd say that black people have a stigma. I wouldn't say that white people have a privilege, at least if I didn't want those white people to vote Republican for the rest of their lives. That is, if the right wing did a focus group to find the right word that would get white people to stop talking about race, they couldn't have picked a better one than "privilege". 95% of white people are not in the top 5% and frankly most of them feel like they have a lot less agency and a lot more responsibility than they like.
  - jleyank 5y ago
    Being able to vote right or far right wing politics is a sign of mental or moral deficiency. “F*ck you, I got mine” isn’t a philosophy in consonance with a major religion no matter how often they say it is. Regions full of these people are just places to be avoided. There’s a name for people who are willing to compromise their morals for money. There’s also names for people lacking morals. Don’t be these people.
    - nullc 5y ago
      > Being able to vote right or far right wing politics is a sign of mental or moral deficiency. “F*ck you, I got mine” isn’t a philosophy in consonance with a major religion no matter how often they say it is. Regions full of these people are just places to be avoided. There’s a name for people who are willing to compromise their morals for money. There’s also names for people lacking morals. Don’t be these people. Morally condemning people a person don't know for different choices that a person doesn't understand and clearly doesn't care to understand isn't going to achieve any productive end for the betterment of anyone-- it's just bigotry: Every sever bigot believes 'those' people are fundamentally bad. Badness surely exists in the world, but to write off a _region_ of people? Sorry, but that sounds a lot like writing off a shade of skin-tone.
  - nullc 5y ago
    What I'd suggest is that it's stereotyping: It happens because how how people look, the color of their skin but also a thousand other indicators of wealth, class, gender, standing, political power, etc. Police are bad about it because they're forced over and over again to make snap judgements-- and a moment of excessive trust can cost them their lives. They see the worst of people all the time. Without a constant effort to restore and refresh their humanity its easy to imagine it failing to cynicism, and sometimes the cynicism turning to hate. The irony though, of course, is that the sterotyping isn't limited to people of particular skin colors though it isn't hard to make the case that people suffer worse for that cause in many places. It's something that many people have suffered from, and in that there is an opportunity for unity-- the unity of stigmatized people, rather than the division of privilege. Each persons life is so different that if you take two people, regardless of their respective backgrounds or genetics, either one may have had a more or less privileged or more or less stigmatized life. To suggest that the specific and individual suffering of one person is lesser than those of another on the basis of their race is just sterotyping, just prejudice itself. There is no honor in a competition over who was wronged more and indulging it creates division among those who should otherwise cooperate to bring about a more fair and just world for everyone. We should be able to stand up for the rights of each and every person to be treated fairly, without anyone confusing that for dismissing systematic abuses. And we should be able to dismantle systematic abuses without creating the impression that we don't care about people who haven't suffered those particular abuses but suffer from their own, none the less. We can do that if we ground our understanding that so many of these abuses come from the underlying practice of stereotyping-- reducing people to the color of their skin, their bank balance, their credit score, the region that the live in, etc. rather than understanding them as individual human beings.