5 ms·

This article gets the very faintest picture correct, but dear lord is it obvious that the article writer has never talked in good faith with the people they're

This article gets the very faintest picture correct, but dear lord is it obvious that the article writer has never talked in good faith with the people they're writing about. The contempt is still far too blatant, and you're not gonna get anywhere until that's fixed.

DangitBobby 4y ago
I don't get that impression. What makes it obvious to you? Where is the contempt?
- junofan 4y ago
  > About two-thirds of white and Latino noncollege voters (and nearly 60 percent of Black and Asian-Pacific Islander ones) support work requirements for those on food stamps … yikes It’s the “yikes.” It’s the contempt for others who may hold different principles and have different opinions.
  - bergenty 4y ago
    If you comically exaggerate the situation, it’s like saying “and then he murdered the victim… yikes”. It’s actually completely reasonable if you take into account that to someone very empathetic, the indifference towards someone’s suffering is a very big deal.
    - renlo 4y ago
      The irony is that the article states that progressives don’t understand conservatives / rural “non-elites”, then the author goes on to misunderstand and mischaracterize conservatives / rural “non-elites”. You and the author see it as empathy, maybe others see it differently. I view myself as an empathetic person (truly what person doesn’t see themselves as empathetic) but I think such restrictions are fine. There’s many similar tells in the article (I say “tell” because I get the sense you and the author would consider me to be unempathetic to others’ suffering and you and the author would view yourself as “very empathetic”). The article is introduced as the author being the one to bridge the gap with his “first class intelligence” being able to maintain his left / progressive values while also being a conservative / non-elite whisperer, when really he misses the mark and fails to understand.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  OK, I'll give you a few: > What’s shocking, and in need of explanation, is that many non-elite voters did [support Trump] It is contemptuous to be "shocked" that someone disagrees with you. It presumes that you understand their needs better than they do. > Instead, what drove Trump voting were worries about the national economy and the sense that one’s community is left behind. More contempt. Those poor benighted souls that just feel BAD, bless them. They feel left behind US, the coastal educated elites. > Does This Mean That Economic Populism Is Not About Race? No. Right-wing populism is not just an expression of economic anxiety. It offers an explanation for whom to blame: Jews in 1930s Germany; people of color in the United States today Those poor rural folks! They're just casting about for someone to blame for their economic anxiety. Condescending. Underneath it all is a thesis: "it's clearly abnormal that people disagree with us, so we have to intellectualize even harder and do even more social science surveys!" Conversely, a "lack of contempt" would be saying "hey, maybe we've gotten something wrong here and we don't have all the answers."
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    Contempt and thinking someone is wrong (or very wrong, or delusional, or even stupid) are not the same things.
    - Cupertino95014 4y ago
      So they have total respect for the person, but at the same time think they're "delusional or even stupid"? OK, then.
  - spoonjim 4y ago
    Support for Trump, even from the people who did support him, was objectively shocking. He insulted prisoners of war during his campaign which was a bridge that I don’t think any Republican or Democratic candidate thought could be crossed. From his wacky personality to his unconventional basket of positions to his boorish behavior I don’t think it’s contemptuous to state that this is all extremely unusual and shocking.
    - 4y ago
- gloryjulio 4y ago
  I would say single out Democratic Elites is. He sounds like that the Republican Elites would help the poor class.......right. How about just the elites?
- latency-guy2 4y ago
  The sentiment is 'we need to act now to win the next election and to stave off those terrible people over there in red'. > Right-wing populism is not just an expression of economic anxiety. It offers an explanation for whom to blame: Jews in 1930s Germany; people of color in the United States today THEY ARE NAZIs, the author proclaims, in an explicit statement professing her love for the reds. > A 2017 study differentiated between “preservationists,” the 20 percent of Trump voters for whom being white and Christian was front and center, and “anti-elites,” the 19 percent of Trump voters who have progressive economic views and feelings toward people of color as warm as those of non-Trump voters. Reds hate. All they do is hate. Those damn reds. Except some of them can be swayed to our cause, they're only misguided in what they hate. Non-reds are loving, she paints with a brush no smaller than 30. Towards the end, any semblance of neutrality vanishes as the author proclaims their own bias, and lays down a plan for their side to 'win'. The final nail in the coffin is the very last statement, "we're progressives, it's time to adapt, because we aren't moderates, and we're better, totes" in less words. Maybe it's unfair for my last blurb to imply that there was neutrality, I don't think this author intended for any part of this to be neutral. I think it's a message to other progressives to change their messaging. Anyway, if there's any consolation, I don't hold any contempt. This article was entertaining to read. I wish her nothing but the best of luck in whatever campaigns she supports.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    Being "neutral" is not a requirement for not having contempt. I won't pretend that I'm neutral politically, but I'd have to harbor a lot of hate to hold everyone with politically incompatible world views in contempt. If GP meant to say "the author doesn't attempt to list and support any of the many legitimate reasons for holding these political beliefs" then maybe I could agree. I'll also point out that trying to state that a political party's actions and affiliations look like they lead down a path of hate (based maybe on historical arguments) isn't necessarily wrong, even if you don't like having someone say it about your party.

DangitBobby 4y ago

I don't get that impression. What makes it obvious to you? Where is the contempt?

junofan 4y ago
> About two-thirds of white and Latino noncollege voters (and nearly 60 percent of Black and Asian-Pacific Islander ones) support work requirements for those on food stamps … yikes It’s the “yikes.” It’s the contempt for others who may hold different principles and have different opinions.
- bergenty 4y ago
  If you comically exaggerate the situation, it’s like saying “and then he murdered the victim… yikes”. It’s actually completely reasonable if you take into account that to someone very empathetic, the indifference towards someone’s suffering is a very big deal.
  - renlo 4y ago
    The irony is that the article states that progressives don’t understand conservatives / rural “non-elites”, then the author goes on to misunderstand and mischaracterize conservatives / rural “non-elites”. You and the author see it as empathy, maybe others see it differently. I view myself as an empathetic person (truly what person doesn’t see themselves as empathetic) but I think such restrictions are fine. There’s many similar tells in the article (I say “tell” because I get the sense you and the author would consider me to be unempathetic to others’ suffering and you and the author would view yourself as “very empathetic”). The article is introduced as the author being the one to bridge the gap with his “first class intelligence” being able to maintain his left / progressive values while also being a conservative / non-elite whisperer, when really he misses the mark and fails to understand.
Cupertino95014 4y ago
OK, I'll give you a few: > What’s shocking, and in need of explanation, is that many non-elite voters did [support Trump] It is contemptuous to be "shocked" that someone disagrees with you. It presumes that you understand their needs better than they do. > Instead, what drove Trump voting were worries about the national economy and the sense that one’s community is left behind. More contempt. Those poor benighted souls that just feel BAD, bless them. They feel left behind US, the coastal educated elites. > Does This Mean That Economic Populism Is Not About Race? No. Right-wing populism is not just an expression of economic anxiety. It offers an explanation for whom to blame: Jews in 1930s Germany; people of color in the United States today Those poor rural folks! They're just casting about for someone to blame for their economic anxiety. Condescending. Underneath it all is a thesis: "it's clearly abnormal that people disagree with us, so we have to intellectualize even harder and do even more social science surveys!" Conversely, a "lack of contempt" would be saying "hey, maybe we've gotten something wrong here and we don't have all the answers."
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  Contempt and thinking someone is wrong (or very wrong, or delusional, or even stupid) are not the same things.
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    So they have total respect for the person, but at the same time think they're "delusional or even stupid"? OK, then.
- spoonjim 4y ago
  Support for Trump, even from the people who did support him, was objectively shocking. He insulted prisoners of war during his campaign which was a bridge that I don’t think any Republican or Democratic candidate thought could be crossed. From his wacky personality to his unconventional basket of positions to his boorish behavior I don’t think it’s contemptuous to state that this is all extremely unusual and shocking.
  - 4y ago
gloryjulio 4y ago
I would say single out Democratic Elites is. He sounds like that the Republican Elites would help the poor class.......right. How about just the elites?
latency-guy2 4y ago
The sentiment is 'we need to act now to win the next election and to stave off those terrible people over there in red'. > Right-wing populism is not just an expression of economic anxiety. It offers an explanation for whom to blame: Jews in 1930s Germany; people of color in the United States today THEY ARE NAZIs, the author proclaims, in an explicit statement professing her love for the reds. > A 2017 study differentiated between “preservationists,” the 20 percent of Trump voters for whom being white and Christian was front and center, and “anti-elites,” the 19 percent of Trump voters who have progressive economic views and feelings toward people of color as warm as those of non-Trump voters. Reds hate. All they do is hate. Those damn reds. Except some of them can be swayed to our cause, they're only misguided in what they hate. Non-reds are loving, she paints with a brush no smaller than 30. Towards the end, any semblance of neutrality vanishes as the author proclaims their own bias, and lays down a plan for their side to 'win'. The final nail in the coffin is the very last statement, "we're progressives, it's time to adapt, because we aren't moderates, and we're better, totes" in less words. Maybe it's unfair for my last blurb to imply that there was neutrality, I don't think this author intended for any part of this to be neutral. I think it's a message to other progressives to change their messaging. Anyway, if there's any consolation, I don't hold any contempt. This article was entertaining to read. I wish her nothing but the best of luck in whatever campaigns she supports.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  Being "neutral" is not a requirement for not having contempt. I won't pretend that I'm neutral politically, but I'd have to harbor a lot of hate to hold everyone with politically incompatible world views in contempt. If GP meant to say "the author doesn't attempt to list and support any of the many legitimate reasons for holding these political beliefs" then maybe I could agree. I'll also point out that trying to state that a political party's actions and affiliations look like they lead down a path of hate (based maybe on historical arguments) isn't necessarily wrong, even if you don't like having someone say it about your party.