7 ms·

Said no one ever.

rayiner 4y ago
That’s the underlying premise of their politics. The immigrants Hilary Clinton wants to bring to the country aren’t any less “deplorable” (from her viewpoint) than rural white Americans. They are just don’t feel the same ownership over the society, and are willing to support people like Clinton in return for being allowed to come here.
- digitaltrees 4y ago
  What speech or policy has any democrat made that supports any of what you are saying?
- roundandround 4y ago
  Immigrants can't vote so this logic is bizarre. The people who make the most money off illegal immigrants in the US are rural land owners, meat packing plant owners, etc. They don't want illegal immigration to stop they just want to keep those laborers cheap which wouldn't happen with a reform that makes them comfortable seeking a new employer.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - roundandround 4y ago
      It sounds to me like you've got some kind of self loathing thing going on. Political arguments are mostly about whether illegal immigrants should get at best a gradual path to citizenship which doesn't mean they will be a tool to win the electoral college.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        Quite the opposite: as I have become more established in this country, I’m less inclined to reject my parents’ values. E.g. JD Vance and my dad are kind of on the same page about childless people. That was never politically motivating for my parents, because they could just tell me “you can’t do what your white friends do.” I can’t realistically tell my own kids that. I have to care about the direction of American culture in a way my parents didn’t. Almost 10% of the potential electorate is foreign born naturalized citizens like me and my parents. Most of these folks aren’t liberal. They are in a political alliance which is based on white liberals supporting immigration and certain welfare systems, and non-white immigrants looking the other way on cultural issues.
        sudosysgen 4y ago
        As a foreign born naturalized citizen I have the default position that you are extremely wrong on the cultural front. I've attempted to find evidence, and found this study, which indicates that first generation immigrants are actually very close to 4th+ in terms of welfare and taxation : https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/political-assimilation-immigrants-their-descendants# https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulle... At the same time, I found other studies showing that second generation immigrants support many left wing social policies, such as gay marriage and multiculturalism, but that recent first generation were slightly less inclined to support gay marriage. It would seem that on the balance, naturalized immigrants (many of which are considered second generation in that study) are on the left socially but not necessarily economically.
        rayiner 4y ago
        > At the same time, I found other studies showing that second generation immigrants support many left wing social policies, such as gay marriage and multiculturalism, but that recent first generation were slightly less inclined to support gay marriage. What country are you originally from? I’m a first generation immigrant from South Asia, and in my experience, support for socially liberal policies in these communities is often based on compartmentalization. For example, Hindu Americans may support multiculturalism, insofar as they are religious minorities in a Christian majority country. But 70% also support Modi, who definitely doesn’t have a multicultural vision of India: https://theprint.in/india/49-of-indian-americans-back-pm-modi-voted-republican-survey-finds/601182 https://theprint.in/india/49-of-indian-americans-back-pm-mod.... One rule for their own country, different rule for someone else’s country. Similarly, most Muslim Americans support gay marriage. But not in their own families: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progress/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progres.... That’s why liberals like immigrants. When they seek to change American culture, immigrants like my parents think “well let the Americans do what they want.”
    - dctoedt 4y ago
      > Hilary Clinton would consider most of the people in my community “deplorables.” From Time magazine's summary of Clinton's remarks — which are spot-on: <quote> “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” She said the other half of Trump’s supporters “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change.” “Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well,” she said. </quote> The Time piece includes the transcript of the full remarks. https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/ https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorabl...
      - rayiner 4y ago
        [flagged]
        dctoedt 4y ago
        Those who "believe the same things about nationality, gender roles, same sex marriage, etc., as even pretty liberal Bangladeshis" are free to practice their beliefs. But they should expect forceful pushback if they try to compel others to conform to those beliefs as well.* * With the usual caveat of assuming that nonconformance to those beliefs doesn't cause harm to other "people" — and on that, Blackmun got it more or less right in Roe.
        rayiner 4y ago
        Both evangelicals in Wisconsin and Bangladeshis tend to believe that society can regulate individual morality for the common good. They don’t embrace your libertarian view. You’re welcome to it, but you’re merely proving my point. Social liberals use immigration to advance minority positions they couldn’t achieve otherwise.
        dctoedt 4y ago
- brvsft 4y ago
  To be fair, I don't think those people think about any concept of "ownership" of society or culture, except perhaps that they 'own' society and you will do as you are told. They presumably look at everyone else as cattle to be herded, and as long as the prevailing culture does not involve anything about guillotining the elites, we can do whatever we want, especially if it's something from which these 'elites' can profit.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  The proles by definition don't own capital, social or otherwise. I find the focus on Clinton a bit short-sighted. She certainly bought into the Reaganite neoliberalism (her husband cemented it into American zeitgeist for a generation by embracing it), but I'd hardly call her the source of it. And I'd take more offense at being called a "dumb, cousin-fucking terrorist"[0] than a "deplorable", but either way these people will not be served by either side. [0]https://twitter.com/Eric_Alterman/status/1634971075334508544 https://twitter.com/Eric_Alterman/status/1634971075334508544
  - rayiner 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      I find it odd that you perceive this as a new thing. I'd call it an American trope that long predates me. For instance, "The Beverly Hillbillies" was a 1962 sitcom that played off of it. > The Clampetts bring a moral, unsophisticated, and minimalistic lifestyle to the swanky, sometimes self-obsessed and superficial community. Double entendres and cultural misconceptions are the core of the sitcom's humor. Plots often involve Drysdale's outlandish efforts to keep the Clampetts' money in his bank, and his wife's efforts to rid the neighborhood of "those hillbillies". The family's periodic attempts to return to the mountains are often prompted by Granny's perceiving a slight from one of the "city folk". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beverly_Hillbillies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beverly_Hillbillies
      - rayiner 4y ago
        That’s an illustration of my point. It’s a Hollywood criticism of Beverly Hills’ departure from the “moral, unsophisticated, and minimalistic lifestyle.” When Mrs. Drysdale calls the Clampett’s “deplorables” the audience is expected to see her as the villain.
        hotpotamus 4y ago

Said no one ever.

That’s the underlying premise of their politics. The immigrants Hilary Clinton wants to bring to the country aren’t any less “deplorable” (from her viewpoint) than rural white Americans. They are just don’t feel the same ownership over the society, and are willing to support people like Clinton in return for being allowed to come here.

digitaltrees 4y ago
What speech or policy has any democrat made that supports any of what you are saying?
roundandround 4y ago
Immigrants can't vote so this logic is bizarre. The people who make the most money off illegal immigrants in the US are rural land owners, meat packing plant owners, etc. They don't want illegal immigration to stop they just want to keep those laborers cheap which wouldn't happen with a reform that makes them comfortable seeking a new employer.
- rayiner 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - roundandround 4y ago
    It sounds to me like you've got some kind of self loathing thing going on. Political arguments are mostly about whether illegal immigrants should get at best a gradual path to citizenship which doesn't mean they will be a tool to win the electoral college.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      Quite the opposite: as I have become more established in this country, I’m less inclined to reject my parents’ values. E.g. JD Vance and my dad are kind of on the same page about childless people. That was never politically motivating for my parents, because they could just tell me “you can’t do what your white friends do.” I can’t realistically tell my own kids that. I have to care about the direction of American culture in a way my parents didn’t. Almost 10% of the potential electorate is foreign born naturalized citizens like me and my parents. Most of these folks aren’t liberal. They are in a political alliance which is based on white liberals supporting immigration and certain welfare systems, and non-white immigrants looking the other way on cultural issues.
      - sudosysgen 4y ago
        As a foreign born naturalized citizen I have the default position that you are extremely wrong on the cultural front. I've attempted to find evidence, and found this study, which indicates that first generation immigrants are actually very close to 4th+ in terms of welfare and taxation : https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/political-assimilation-immigrants-their-descendants# https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulle... At the same time, I found other studies showing that second generation immigrants support many left wing social policies, such as gay marriage and multiculturalism, but that recent first generation were slightly less inclined to support gay marriage. It would seem that on the balance, naturalized immigrants (many of which are considered second generation in that study) are on the left socially but not necessarily economically.
        rayiner 4y ago
        > At the same time, I found other studies showing that second generation immigrants support many left wing social policies, such as gay marriage and multiculturalism, but that recent first generation were slightly less inclined to support gay marriage. What country are you originally from? I’m a first generation immigrant from South Asia, and in my experience, support for socially liberal policies in these communities is often based on compartmentalization. For example, Hindu Americans may support multiculturalism, insofar as they are religious minorities in a Christian majority country. But 70% also support Modi, who definitely doesn’t have a multicultural vision of India: https://theprint.in/india/49-of-indian-americans-back-pm-modi-voted-republican-survey-finds/601182 https://theprint.in/india/49-of-indian-americans-back-pm-mod.... One rule for their own country, different rule for someone else’s country. Similarly, most Muslim Americans support gay marriage. But not in their own families: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progress/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progres.... That’s why liberals like immigrants. When they seek to change American culture, immigrants like my parents think “well let the Americans do what they want.”
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    > Hilary Clinton would consider most of the people in my community “deplorables.” From Time magazine's summary of Clinton's remarks — which are spot-on: <quote> “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” She said the other half of Trump’s supporters “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change.” “Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well,” she said. </quote> The Time piece includes the transcript of the full remarks. https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/ https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorabl...
    - rayiner 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - dctoedt 4y ago
        Those who "believe the same things about nationality, gender roles, same sex marriage, etc., as even pretty liberal Bangladeshis" are free to practice their beliefs. But they should expect forceful pushback if they try to compel others to conform to those beliefs as well.* * With the usual caveat of assuming that nonconformance to those beliefs doesn't cause harm to other "people" — and on that, Blackmun got it more or less right in Roe.
        rayiner 4y ago
        Both evangelicals in Wisconsin and Bangladeshis tend to believe that society can regulate individual morality for the common good. They don’t embrace your libertarian view. You’re welcome to it, but you’re merely proving my point. Social liberals use immigration to advance minority positions they couldn’t achieve otherwise.
        dctoedt 4y ago
brvsft 4y ago
To be fair, I don't think those people think about any concept of "ownership" of society or culture, except perhaps that they 'own' society and you will do as you are told. They presumably look at everyone else as cattle to be herded, and as long as the prevailing culture does not involve anything about guillotining the elites, we can do whatever we want, especially if it's something from which these 'elites' can profit.
hotpotamus 4y ago
The proles by definition don't own capital, social or otherwise. I find the focus on Clinton a bit short-sighted. She certainly bought into the Reaganite neoliberalism (her husband cemented it into American zeitgeist for a generation by embracing it), but I'd hardly call her the source of it. And I'd take more offense at being called a "dumb, cousin-fucking terrorist"[0] than a "deplorable", but either way these people will not be served by either side. [0]https://twitter.com/Eric_Alterman/status/1634971075334508544 https://twitter.com/Eric_Alterman/status/1634971075334508544
- rayiner 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    I find it odd that you perceive this as a new thing. I'd call it an American trope that long predates me. For instance, "The Beverly Hillbillies" was a 1962 sitcom that played off of it. > The Clampetts bring a moral, unsophisticated, and minimalistic lifestyle to the swanky, sometimes self-obsessed and superficial community. Double entendres and cultural misconceptions are the core of the sitcom's humor. Plots often involve Drysdale's outlandish efforts to keep the Clampetts' money in his bank, and his wife's efforts to rid the neighborhood of "those hillbillies". The family's periodic attempts to return to the mountains are often prompted by Granny's perceiving a slight from one of the "city folk". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beverly_Hillbillies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beverly_Hillbillies
    - rayiner 4y ago
      That’s an illustration of my point. It’s a Hollywood criticism of Beverly Hills’ departure from the “moral, unsophisticated, and minimalistic lifestyle.” When Mrs. Drysdale calls the Clampett’s “deplorables” the audience is expected to see her as the villain.
      - hotpotamus 4y ago