4 ms·

> "A friend of mine just sent me an article from a Danish newspaper where they cover the reasons as to why people would want to vote for someone like Trump...."

> "A friend of mine just sent me an article from a Danish newspaper where they cover the reasons as to why people would want to vote for someone like Trump...." And this illustrates the problem. Hochschild is a professor emeritus of sociology at Berkeley. Why in heaven's name would you think that good insights will be garnered by reading a Danish article about a book written by a Blue professor about another group of Red people... when you can go on x dot com and read for yourself why people voted as they did? I can say for certain - from reading and listening to what Trump voters have said themselves - that Trump voters are absolutely done with this kind of framing.

mrweasel 2y ago
If your own political conviction influence your works as a professor, then you're perhaps not that great a professor, but if you do good work, then maybe you have the tools to write about that work and target it to a group of like minded people, communicating in a why that they/I better understand. Personally I'm not interested in going on Twitter, or Facebook, because those are going to be the most extreme people, at both ends. I'm also no prepared to do the filtering required to identify trolls or propaganda. My interest is in the vast majority of people who don't really have a voice online. I can't go out and talk to them, I'm on the other side of the planet. I'd still like to know why they vote the way they do, because I'm directly affected by how rural America votes. I wish I weren't, so I guess that's one opinion I share with Trump.
- rendall 2y ago
  As someone who has listened to both (or many, since there are not just two) sides, I can say for certain there is a severe disconnect between what Team Red says and what Team Blue writes about what Team Red says. If you are really interested in what Team Red says, do not listen to Team Blue at all about it. Not CNN, not Harris, not Blue politicians, not Blue journalists. > If your own political conviction influence your works as a professor, then you're perhaps not that great a professor Indeed. This is a major ongoing crisis in academe. And journalism. As a self check, if you think that Trump's "very fine people on both sides" remark referred to white supremacists as "very fine people", then you need to upgrade your sources. Find the extended original video. It is hard to do! If you give up, let me know and I will send you a link. The search is instructive, however.
  - calf 2y ago
    Do you hold this standard for Team Red? Do you tell them to use their listening skills too?
    - rendall 2y ago
      I did not say "use listening skills". If you go back and read carefully, I suggested going directly to the source because we live in an age of unprecedented direct access, and it is no longer necessary to have same-side "explainers" about what the other side thinks and says. To hear what Team Blue thinks, I'd recommend Team Red simply read the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, Time Magazine, et. al. Or watch CNN, MSNBC, BBC America, network news... Even Wikipedia.
      - kristjansson 2y ago
        You write a lot about the importance of primary sources. I agree with you w.r.t. their importance. I just disagree with that a primary source is automatically the best conveyor of its own message. The primary source has to be read with every bit of the skepticism and critical analysis you apply to secondary sources, if not more.
        rendall 2y ago
        I would agree with you if we were discussing some academic topic. The topic under discussion is why would anyone vote for Donald Trump? A Berkley sociologist writing about how Trump voters are resentful because minorities jumped the line is about as tendentious and echo-chamber-y as one can get. It's almost begging the response "wait your turn, you hicks!" My reading directly from the voters is that they feel Democrats are out of touch, pandering only to a very limited set of elites with very specific, weird values who are dangerously authoritarian, dogmatic and powerful. They feel that Democrats have contempt for the poor, working and middle classes, but mask this contempt by dismissing any policy debate or disagreement as racist or transphobic. They feel that Democratic partisans have a firm grip on mainstream media, academic institutions, and much of government, and a demonstrated willingness to promote lies through those institutions, so Team Red views any pronouncements from those sources as deeply untrustworthy when not outright false. They see the rioting as madness, and believe that continuing down the path set by Democrats as bringing more of the same. Whenever they try to have Team Blue effectively address these concerns, their feedback is only "Wow! Racist much? Take your Russian asset ass out of here, dinosaur. Adults are talking." That's not really much of an exaggeration, by the way. Trump, again, according to them, is an underdog in that fight, but will at least try to restore order. That's my take on what they're collectively saying and why Trump won. Yours might be different. Like I said, go to the sources. But, when I compare the way Team Red and Team Blue we're talking about issues, it did not surprise me that Team Red won this round. Team Blue needs to become less hysterical and bullying to win next round. My personal hope is that Team Blue will listen, reflect and reform, but I've been hoping for that for several cycles now. They'll probably just wait until Team Red overreaches, as each side always does.

mrweasel 2y ago

If your own political conviction influence your works as a professor, then you're perhaps not that great a professor, but if you do good work, then maybe you have the tools to write about that work and target it to a group of like minded people, communicating in a why that they/I better understand. Personally I'm not interested in going on Twitter, or Facebook, because those are going to be the most extreme people, at both ends. I'm also no prepared to do the filtering required to identify trolls or propaganda. My interest is in the vast majority of people who don't really have a voice online. I can't go out and talk to them, I'm on the other side of the planet. I'd still like to know why they vote the way they do, because I'm directly affected by how rural America votes. I wish I weren't, so I guess that's one opinion I share with Trump.

rendall 2y ago
As someone who has listened to both (or many, since there are not just two) sides, I can say for certain there is a severe disconnect between what Team Red says and what Team Blue writes about what Team Red says. If you are really interested in what Team Red says, do not listen to Team Blue at all about it. Not CNN, not Harris, not Blue politicians, not Blue journalists. > If your own political conviction influence your works as a professor, then you're perhaps not that great a professor Indeed. This is a major ongoing crisis in academe. And journalism. As a self check, if you think that Trump's "very fine people on both sides" remark referred to white supremacists as "very fine people", then you need to upgrade your sources. Find the extended original video. It is hard to do! If you give up, let me know and I will send you a link. The search is instructive, however.
- calf 2y ago
  Do you hold this standard for Team Red? Do you tell them to use their listening skills too?
  - rendall 2y ago
    I did not say "use listening skills". If you go back and read carefully, I suggested going directly to the source because we live in an age of unprecedented direct access, and it is no longer necessary to have same-side "explainers" about what the other side thinks and says. To hear what Team Blue thinks, I'd recommend Team Red simply read the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, Time Magazine, et. al. Or watch CNN, MSNBC, BBC America, network news... Even Wikipedia.
    - kristjansson 2y ago
      You write a lot about the importance of primary sources. I agree with you w.r.t. their importance. I just disagree with that a primary source is automatically the best conveyor of its own message. The primary source has to be read with every bit of the skepticism and critical analysis you apply to secondary sources, if not more.
      - rendall 2y ago
        I would agree with you if we were discussing some academic topic. The topic under discussion is why would anyone vote for Donald Trump? A Berkley sociologist writing about how Trump voters are resentful because minorities jumped the line is about as tendentious and echo-chamber-y as one can get. It's almost begging the response "wait your turn, you hicks!" My reading directly from the voters is that they feel Democrats are out of touch, pandering only to a very limited set of elites with very specific, weird values who are dangerously authoritarian, dogmatic and powerful. They feel that Democrats have contempt for the poor, working and middle classes, but mask this contempt by dismissing any policy debate or disagreement as racist or transphobic. They feel that Democratic partisans have a firm grip on mainstream media, academic institutions, and much of government, and a demonstrated willingness to promote lies through those institutions, so Team Red views any pronouncements from those sources as deeply untrustworthy when not outright false. They see the rioting as madness, and believe that continuing down the path set by Democrats as bringing more of the same. Whenever they try to have Team Blue effectively address these concerns, their feedback is only "Wow! Racist much? Take your Russian asset ass out of here, dinosaur. Adults are talking." That's not really much of an exaggeration, by the way. Trump, again, according to them, is an underdog in that fight, but will at least try to restore order. That's my take on what they're collectively saying and why Trump won. Yours might be different. Like I said, go to the sources. But, when I compare the way Team Red and Team Blue we're talking about issues, it did not surprise me that Team Red won this round. Team Blue needs to become less hysterical and bullying to win next round. My personal hope is that Team Blue will listen, reflect and reform, but I've been hoping for that for several cycles now. They'll probably just wait until Team Red overreaches, as each side always does.