Classism in Liberal News Comedy

@HomerThompson Ford dog this man.

For real, though, the left is much better at memes, by virtue of the fact that the left is younger and smarter.



Also, academics, scientists, economists, musicians.

Also, the "leftist news organizations" shit needs to stop. No such monopoly exists to any reasonable extent.

It's incredible how right-skewing news in America is, and yet still the American right cries foul because outlets are blatantly propagandizing and editorializing like Fox News.

giphy.gif


deffc6423b7676242cafb37e3bddd4a5.jpg


ford-credit-ZC-banner.jpg

171879main_LimbFlareJan12_lg.jpg

enhanced-1731-1502293831-8.jpg
 
Hmm. Seems like quite a leap from, "wage stagnation isn't a plausible reason why someone would vote for a billionaire conman promising to cut taxes on the rich and deregulate Wall Street" to "the question wasn't made in good faith." Like, do you just think your point was that self-evidently correct? Don't see any issues with it? I don't really know what to tell you other than that I don't see any plausible connection there and I can't see why you would, aside from the common tendency of people to think that if only X had done what I wanted, Y (bad thing) wouldn't have happened.

Why exactly do you think Trump performed so well in Ohio and Pennsylvania? Do you not think that his appeals to post-industrial work forces and criticism of NAFTA resonated with communities in economic decline and whose capital has increasingly been siphoned to the coasts? Persons who were sold an American dream, gave their time and health for it, and then got the short end when their employers moved abroad and reneged on their pensions? You don't think Trump's rhetoric about punishing businesses and reviving manufacturing might have played some role at the margins of the electorate?

I'm not meaning to ask these questions condescendingly, but, yes, I did think they were somewhat self-evident.

I agree that people shouldn't be classist pricks (it's the wrong thing to do), but follow the train. You talked about the rise of Trump being avoidable by addressing populist concerns. I said that the primary populist concern that people wanted addressed was a rising minority population (and a related rising level of social equality).

Yes, data shows that immigration and racial animus was a primary consideration for voters, but those hostilities were also downstream from economic concerns, as these communities (referenced earlier) think their jobs are being taken by illegal immigrants or given to black workers through affirmative action programs while the job pool dries up and becomes more competitive.
 
I am not Canadian, so I have no concept of Canadian news.

But LOL @ "the left has Canada by the balls." Harper was basically GWB and Trudeau is GWB wrapped in a rainbow flag.

To the extent the left-right spectrum only concerns being nice to brown people and LBGTQ citizens, I believe you that it's an echo chamber.

To the extent that that identity politics obsession is about 1% of what should reasonably define leftism, I call bullshit. I'm sure if you guys had a strong social democratic candidate, she or he would get the same shitty treatment from the corporate media that Corbyn got in the UK and Sanders got in the US.

You can safely ignore that post.

You are wrong though on the last para.

Canada has had plenty of strong NDP candidates in the past. Ontario and other provinces have been run by NDP provincial parties. The party even was strongly allied with the liberals during their minority government in the 1970's which helped us get universal healthcare and other social goods.

The CBC provides a strong left of center/but still centrist counter to the national post / Conrad Black types, and our biggest paper, the Globe and Mail is also liberal/left of center (not govt funded).

The reality is that from east to west (which is more right wing than the east), Canadians are on many issues just not as conservative as Americans on many issues. The geographic divide exists but it is much smaller. But they are also just not as left wing as you might like.
 
Try seeing beyond your U.S. bias. The Canadian media, for example, is basically a left-wing echo chamber. The CBC, which is funded by tax-payers, is constantly pushing left-wing propaganda. The left has Canada by the balls.


Globe and Mail leading Canadian newspaperreadership, study says. Open this photo in gallery: ... The Globe's weekly newspaper readership, in print and online, is 6.58 million. The National Post at 4.2 million.Oct 22, 2015
 
Why exactly do you think Trump performed so well in Ohio and Pennsylvania? Do you not think that his appeals to post-industrial work forces and criticism of NAFTA resonated with communities in economic decline and whose capital has increasingly been siphoned to the coasts? Persons who were sold an American dream, gave their time and health for it, and then got the short end when their employers moved abroad and reneged on their pensions? You don't think Trump's rhetoric about punishing businesses and reviving manufacturing might have played some role at the margins of the electorate?

I'm not meaning to ask these questions condescendingly, but, yes, I did think they were somewhat self-evident.

Yes, data shows that immigration and racial animus was a primary consideration for voters, but those hostilities were also downstream from economic concerns, as these communities (referenced earlier) think their jobs are being taken by illegal immigrants or given to black workers through affirmative action programs while the job pool dries up and becomes more competitive.

I'll take these together as I think they're related. The "economic" concerns are downstream of the cultural ones. Surely you don't think that Trump's criticism of NAFTA resonated with retired coal workers as much as the general anger at seeing more Mexicans around. Putting aside the fact that NAFTA was actually a benefit to American workers, what percentage of Trump voters even know what it stands for, much less knows anything at all about it? I think *you* don't like NAFTA for some reason, and so you generalize from there.
 
Why exactly do you think Trump performed so well in Ohio and Pennsylvania? Do you not think that his appeals to post-industrial work forces and criticism of NAFTA resonated with communities in economic decline and whose capital has increasingly been siphoned to the coasts? Persons who were sold an American dream, gave their time and health for it, and then got the short end when their employers moved abroad and reneged on their pensions? You don't think Trump's rhetoric about punishing businesses and reviving manufacturing might have played some role at the margins of the electorate?

I'm not meaning to ask these questions condescendingly, but, yes, I did think they were somewhat self-evident.
PA and OH have been closely contested states for many years, and I think you raise an important point by mentioning them. Of course they are pissed, by we've known about this for 50 years. When the steel industry up and moved to China because of free trade (I'm not arguing for or against it, I'm just stating what I think happened), the primary employer in those states left with it. For 50 years, those that have been able to get a college education and a decent job offer elsewhere have left the states. Those that weren't able to get an education and a job offer elsewhere stayed local, meaning that what you have are three groups of people: 1) employed people who are earning what you'd expect them to earn for the local area (but this group isn't as large as what you'd see in other large metropolitan centers due to a lack of local opportunities), 2) under-employed people (the college-educated adult working for low wages for a local business or state/local government), and 3) uneducated people working the jobs that you'd expect them to work. When Group 1's numbers are suppressed, the other two are inflated. The area goes into a death spiral, as the people with the highest earning potential drain out of the area so that they don't fall into Group 2. Property values drop, taxes increase because there are less high-earning people to offset the costs, drugs move in, and that's all she wrote.

Is it right to treat these people condescendingly? It is right to dismiss them as a bunch of pickup-driving racists? It's not surprising that when a guy like Trump gets up and talks about rejuvenating manufacturing, they are going to get excited at the prospect of turning their towns around. What the left has done a piss-poor job of in recent years is understanding who they are talking to in these areas.
 
PA and OH have been closely contested states for many years, and I think you raise an important point by mentioning them. Of course they are pissed, by we've known about this for 50 years. When the steel industry up and moved to China because of free trade (I'm not arguing for or against it, I'm just stating what I think happened), the primary employer in those states left with it.

See, @Trotsky, China trade is a much more legitimate target than NAFTA, but it didn't get as much play because the argument was never about economics.

Is it right to treat these people condescendingly? It is right to dismiss them as a bunch of pickup-driving racists? It's not surprising that when a guy like Trump gets up and talks about rejuvenating manufacturing, they are going to get excited at the prospect of turning their towns around. What the left has done a piss-poor job of in recent years is understanding who they are talking to in these areas.

The thing is, though, the way forward is investing in local colleges, more high-skilled immigration, and infrastructure improvements. Trump is selling them bullshit, and they are in fact buying it because of the appeals to racial resentment. I think those of us who genuinely want to make those places better have a fine line to walk. We don't want to hurt their feelings, but we also don't want to either A) reach out to the worst in them or B) lie to them. What do you do when the truth hurts and the people you are talking to are extremely sensitive?
 
I'll take these together as I think they're related. The "economic" concerns are downstream of the cultural ones. Surely you don't think that Trump's criticism of NAFTA resonated with retired coal workers as much as the general anger at seeing more Mexicans around. Putting aside the fact that NAFTA was actually a benefit to American workers, what percentage of Trump voters even know what it stands for, much less knows anything at all about it? I think *you* don't like NAFTA for some reason, and so you generalize from there.

I think the two anxieties are related, to be sure. In my experience, cultural hostilities toward Hispanic and Latino people are not nearly as severe as those toward black and Asian persons.

Do I think post-industrial Midwesterner had complex opinions on FTA's prior to Trump? Probably not. But he gave them a reason for their plight, and I think it made sense to them and they bought in (in tandem with the displacement of job opportunities by uppity brown people).
 
Globe and Mail leading Canadian newspaperreadership, study says. Open this photo in gallery: ... The Globe's weekly newspaper readership, in print and online, is 6.58 million. The National Post at 4.2 million.Oct 22, 2015

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to point out that barely anyone in Canada reads newspapers.
 
See, @Trotsky, China trade is a much more legitimate target than NAFTA, but it didn't get as much play because the argument was never about economics.

The thing is, though, the way forward is investing in local colleges, more high-skilled immigration, and infrastructure improvements. Trump is selling them bullshit, and they are in fact buying it because of the appeals to racial resentment. I think those of us who genuinely want to make those places better have a fine line to walk. We don't want to hurt their feelings, but we also don't want to either A) reach out to the worst in them or B) lie to them. What do you do when the truth hurts and the people you are talking to are extremely sensitive?
I maintain that there is a deep economic piece to it. I honestly see the flow like this: The factory is in the town, and I'm not kidding when I say that these factories employed over 60% of the men in the town. The rest were employed by mom-and-pop shops like the local restaurants, a grocery store, a pharmacy, and support services like police officers. Then, one day, the factory says that they are shutting down and moving to China. The men have no work, so they drink more. There's less money flowing around, so people aren't eating out. It's not long before people just up and leave, and those that stay are mostly the retired persons and those working at things like the pharmacy. Some are good jobs, like the pharmacist, but most are things like the cashiers, grocery store personnel, etc. People become resentful, but it's not an implicit hatred of a minority population like it was during the early half of the 1900's where people hated blacks. This is a totally different thing altogether, and it's resentment and blame for the removal of opportunities in their lives. It expresses a little bit as racism, but it's much more about feeling forgotten (I know some of these towns quite well, as my dad grew up in one). I think your argument is putting the cart before the horse on this one.

I agree that Trump is selling them bullshit. I was willing to give him an opportunity to deliver at first, but it's clear that he doesn't plan on fulfilling those promises to this group of Americans. I agree that infrastructure will go a long ways. High-skilled immigration will help specific areas, but these steel mill towns in PA don't have jobs for anyone, much less high-skilled immigrants. They will help ensure that cities and metro areas be innovation drivers for years to come. Local colleges is a maybe for me. One of the big problems with education today is that you are essentially buying a brand when you pay for your diploma. When that brand is Harvard or Yale, it's a great brand that pays for itself. Even if you are a sharp person who knows a lot, if you have a nothing college's name on your diploma, it won't carry you as far. Colleges are very much places to develop networks and expose yourself to experiences, just as much as they are about what happens in the classroom.

Yes, the people that I am talking about are extremely sensitive. And many are resistant to change, so offering new industries can be met with push-back. I'm not sure what should be done, but I think this group needs some attention and care just as much as any other group.
 
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to point out that barely anyone in Canada reads newspapers.

- 15 of 35MM reading the top 3 papers = hardly ?

No the point isthat the liberal rag is read more than the conservative one. No govt funding required. Rather than cry about the CBC maybe you should accept that most Canadians just don’t think the way you do.
 
I agree that Trump is selling them bullshit. I was willing to give him an opportunity to deliver at first, but it's clear that he doesn't plan on fulfilling those promises to this group of Americans. I agree that infrastructure will go a long ways. High-skilled immigration will help specific areas, but these steel mill towns in PA don't have jobs for anyone, much less high-skilled immigrants. They will help ensure that cities and metro areas be innovation drivers for years to come. Local colleges is a maybe for me. One of the big problems with education today is that you are essentially buying a brand when you pay for your diploma. When that brand is Harvard or Yale, it's a great brand that pays for itself. Even if you are a sharp person who knows a lot, if you have a nothing college's name on your diploma, it won't carry you as far. Colleges are very much places to develop networks and expose yourself to experiences, just as much as they are about what happens in the classroom.

Good stuff snipped. I had an exchange with Zank recently (you were there early on) in which I cited an important piece on the issue: https://medium. com/migration-issues/appalachia-is-dying-pikeville-is-not-fa583dac67de (erase the space).
 
not liking fast food, Mountain Dew and retail stores isn't elitist.
 
Good stuff snipped. I had an exchange with Zank recently (you were there early on) in which I cited an important piece on the issue: https://medium. com/migration-issues/appalachia-is-dying-pikeville-is-not-fa583dac67de (erase the space).
Very interesting! Perhaps a great model for other small towns. I understand that not every small town can do this, but it's possible that not every small town can be saved anyways. For the delta (whatever the size of it), other solutions will need to be applied. But this may be a model to help some of them. Thanks for the share!
 
I'll take these together as I think they're related. The "economic" concerns are downstream of the cultural ones. Surely you don't think that Trump's criticism of NAFTA resonated with retired coal workers as much as the general anger at seeing more Mexicans around. Putting aside the fact that NAFTA was actually a benefit to American workers, what percentage of Trump voters even know what it stands for, much less knows anything at all about it? I think *you* don't like NAFTA for some reason, and so you generalize from there.
You really think Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin because of racism? That's idiotic.
 
Please explain further.

The 2016 presidential election was Trump vs. Clinton. If you wanted Clinton to lose it and/or were encouraging people not to vote for Clinton, you were supporting Trump.

You really think Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin because of racism? That's idiotic.

I think the evidence is pretty clear that racial resentment was a key (decisive) factor. For example:

https://www.thenation.com/article/economic-anxiety-didnt-make-people-vote-trump-racism-did/
 
Last edited:
What an incredibly interesting thread. I wish all the time I waste on this forum could be this guilt free.
 
You can safely ignore that post.

You are wrong though on the last para.

Canada has had plenty of strong NDP candidates in the past. Ontario and other provinces have been run by NDP provincial parties. The party even was strongly allied with the liberals during their minority government in the 1970's which helped us get universal healthcare and other social goods.

The CBC provides a strong left of center/but still centrist counter to the national post / Conrad Black types, and our biggest paper, the Globe and Mail is also liberal/left of center (not govt funded).

The reality is that from east to west (which is more right wing than the east), Canadians are on many issues just not as conservative as Americans on many issues. The geographic divide exists but it is much smaller. But they are also just not as left wing as you might like.

@Trotsky really does not have a grasp on Canadian politics, at least not from that post you are quoting.
 
Back
Top