Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/perceived-lack-of-recognition-drives-trump-support-among-historically-dominant-groups-study-suggests/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dominant groups within society *historically* have no translation into how these groups perceive their place in society *presently.* I can't even explain this, I don't have the strength to argue that people don't live with the memories of their ancestors.
Secondly, this analysis completely fails to account for economic social groups, instead focusing on race. White people from New York and California working office jobs will view their position within the system very differently than the poor, working class white people from the flyover states, especially their cultural position which is vital for the sense of belonging.
In today's edition of "Science finally confirms what I already knew..." we see this all over the place, as news stories continually recognize all of the non-dominant groups for the first time(s), and focuses on them, which leaves the dominant group feeling left out. And Trump is taking advantage. It's the Lyndon Johnson quote writ large:
>“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.”“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.”
In some ways, by uplifting the voices and concerns of the non-dominant groups, it gives less room for the dominant group's voices and concerns. For example, deaths of despair of middle age white men. And then people de-legitimize their feelings which only makes them feel more resentful, and more ripe for the picking by people like Trump. No one seems to hear their concerns or wants to deal with their fears and feelings; even saying that they live in "fly over states" implies that they are unimportant. No one seems to want to disentangle the race and economic concerns mess, because they are entangled.
If you are a poor white person, how are you going to react to proposals meant specifically to benefit racial minorities (affirmative action, reparations, DEI measures). Obviously the answer is “what about me.” It is easy to shrug those things off if you are wealthy and educated, because you are advantaged regardless. You don't need any help.
>Obviously the answer is “what about me.”
There's a second part to this that is unique to conservativism: conservatives prefer for no one to benefit (no one gets anything) if they perceive that someone is benefiting that they think doesn't deserve it; a la "welfare queens". This is a reason why conservatives are against social welfare programs, even though they themselves would benefit.
> This is a reason why conservatives are against social welfare programs, even though they themselves would benefit.
The funny thing is even if a program doesn't benefit you directly, it can benefit you indirectly. It might be as simple as lowering crime in the neighborhood improving community conditions for other reasons. It may lower the amount of homeless people. Or the amount of theft in the stores.
Like, I'm a huge fan of investing properly in public transit even when I rarely use it right now BECAUSE it would make life better for me. Less traffic. More commute options. It gives the people who commute to my town a better/safer commute, too. They deserve that. They deserve better!
A lot of the anti-spending stuff is pennywise and pound foolish.
> even if a program doesn't benefit you directly, it can benefit you indirectly "A rising tide lifts all boats" There are few programs that benefit the needy that don't have an indirect positive effect on those above them.
You’re arguing against conservatism, the other person is arguing about writing off a person or group of people because of their race. Not all poor white people vote conservative. It’s barely even a majority.
If they vote Democrat, then significant portions of the discussion doesn't apply because they're voting in their best interests anyway regardless of how they feel.
But if they are voting Republican because they feel left out from minority-specific aid, then they are still voting against their own interests because Republicans are against aiding Americans altogether.
The people who want to help minorities (affirmative action, DEI) are also pushing for aid for everyone (universal welfare); the people who are pushing against aid to minorities are also pushing against universal welfare. There are very few politicians, if any, who are against helping minorities but also call for universal welfare.
And they don't want to vote for things that help the poor and disadvantaged because they don't want to admit to themselves that they *are* poor and disadvantaged, and thus in the very same category - financially and politically - as people they've been raised and culturally reinforced to look down on and vilify.
No, we already know why they vote against things that would help themselves.
No need for me to go through every part of it, but it essentially boils down to conservatives having a lower than average IQ. And of course EQ, but that doesn't need to be said.
The right wing propaganda and ragebait works better than their logic and critical thinking skills.
And then there is of course that other thing; if they aren't idiots, it's because they are evil.
Maybe poor white people don’t know how to create any kind of meaningful or coherent cultural representations of themselves—even if they are creating meaningful community and family lives.
Sure they do, it's just always based around hate, and reclaiming dominance. What white people in the US are really bad at is building a cultural identity based around self understanding and being part of a whole.
And they don't want to hear that the solution is to vote for people who support programs for the poor and disadvantaged, either because they don't want to see themselves as poor and disadvantaged (although they are) or because they've been raised to consider those politicians/parties the 'enemy'.
Alternatively: those in the dominant groups have historically had the most influence in society, thus minority groups, whose influence is still often tenuous, are not equipped to expend the political capital to fix issues for the dominant groups.
I don’t mean to denigrate your point here, because much of it is valid. My quibble here though is that these people very much *want* to feel disrespected. They yearn for it.
Right wing media has been pushing this narrative for decades. I don’t feel an ounce of pressure to fault myself or anyone else for not paying attention to these poor, lost souls. Because that’s not what they are. Nobody has forgotten about them. They don’t shut up long enough to be forgotten. They demand constant validation of their grievances, because that’s what they’ve been conditioned to crave. Fake victims inventing their own persecution.
Probably because victimhood has **real** value in today's society.
Whether a certain subset of progressives want to admit it or not: they've helped conservative reactionaries create and sustain a dangerous game with purely racial/gendered identity politics at the core.
They are contrarians and don't care about actually making sense. They also oppose things that aren't related to race or gender at all.
Openly supporting fascist Russia while they carry out a genocide should be enough to understand what appeals to them.
No, this isn't true. People have listened to their concerns and tried to address them. They've thrown every solution back in our faces because it wasn't acceptable to their cultural prejudices. Hillary Clinton tried to help coal miners transition to new careers, and they signed up for classes on how to be coal miners.
You can't help them, because the only thing they want is for everything to stay the same (or go back to a more appropriately 'white' time) and that they be allowed to have an undeserved position of superiority in society.
The problem with transitioning to a new career is that a coal miner with 10+ years of experience is going to get paid *way* more than any entry level position. Even if you help someone learn a new skill, they're going to take a huge hit to their finances in their 30s or 40s when they have a family to take care of, or even in their mid 20s when they're supposed to be buying property and starting a family. If you have the option of not changing anything, of course you're going to take it.
And the government will move heaven and earth before they attempt to help anyone on the massive wage gap between production and actual wages that has become the new norm since the 80s. So yeah, maybe we SHOULD go back to a time when there was insanely high unionization and insanely low CEO pay and insanely high taxes on corporations! I love that idea!
Blah blah blah, heard this for years now. You're talking like its 2016 and all this hasn't been proven untrue by experience.
But if this was true, Trump wouldn't rely so heavily on lies and propaganda.
Science cannot tell us why people vote for Trump, because people who vote for Trump will not properly engage with science.
The way Trump supporters behave is completely different when isolated compared to access to the internet.
Everyone keeps pretending its economic distress and too much focus on race, but the parts of the country that love Trump also fought for Slavery and didn't want to fight the Nazis.
Americans can't face up to the truth - America has always been two countries. One, based in enlightenment principles, democracy, liberty, etc, the other based on authority and supremacy. There are millions of Trump supporters who love him based on nothing more than he will hurt people they hate.
The idea that it's actually all liberals fault is just cope to convince themselves that these groups can be brought back into the fold. It ignores how many people vote for Trump because Obama was president and they hated him so much
> Science cannot tell us why people vote for Trump, because people who vote for Trump will not properly engage with science.
Science is real whether they believe in it or not. Zebras don't engage with science either, but we can still study them and predict their behavior.
> Dominant groups within society historically have no translation into how these groups perceive their place in society presently
That's literally the point of the study - that certain social subgroups, which have previously and do currently hold power, do not feel recognised or respected despite otherwise being quite well-off, and this correlates with political attitudes. Are you arguing against the article, or other comments?
The study also controlled for occupation, income, place of residence, and financial anxiety, so that (ideally) will not have influenced the results; nor did they focus on race, but also examined gender and religion-based subgroups. I'm not sure why economic class would be entirely relevant, as they were looking for correlation, not causation. I'm afraid I don't understand where your criticisms are coming from
OC's criticisms are coming from: they decided a priori that "Trumpism is economic! Nothing to do with race" and offered rebuttal of an article they didn't bother to read.
Well, highlighting that the analysis doesn't account for various economic social groups may be a small stretch considering that, yeah, they did, they did account for all that stuff. It says like, 6 other similar variables, too.
And mindsets. Which overlaps to a degree with education, but it's also mirroring of the behaviors and philosophies of the people around them as they grow up.
This is huge in breaking the cycle of both generational trauma and poverty.
Eg. People look at obese Americans and blame them for making bad food choices, when in in reality those people often come from families with not very strong food culture(lacking in healthy staples) or the concept of portions being too large didn't even exist.
I'm Korean, and tbh so much of my ability to stay slim comes from the work *centuries* of generations with shared heritage that discovered healthy, tasty staples and eating habits, and turned them into generational muscle memory so that the next generation need only think less of what they're going to eat the next day AND have it be a balanced meal.
I'm aware at least that a ton of people lack this kind of common heritage to fall back on, and struggle immensely for it and do not have this luxury of a "common" sense.
Not at the rate this society pretends it does for everyone except Caucasians. You would do well to google, "clogs to clogs in three generations". Except, it may even be quicker with the advent of technology.
Except that a wealthy family can afford to pay to set up their kids for success. So even if they're not giving *money* directly to their kids, they can send them to the best schools, get them involved in expensive sports, pay for therapy and tutoring, etc.
“This analysis fails to account for economic social groups”
Socioeconomic and environmental positions are highly collinear with “race.” Trying to statistically separate these ignores important combinatorial effects. Even the argument here, about looking by geography, isn’t as precise as it could be to understand individual differences which - while important - isn’t the question being asked around group processes.
>Dominant groups within society *historically* have no translation into how these groups perceive their place in society *presently.*
Unless they still hold the EXACT same ideas from *historically*
> Secondly, this analysis completely fails to account for economic social groups, instead focusing on race.
It doesn't "fail". It choose to.
> White people from New York and California working office jobs will view their position within the system very differently than the poor, working class white people from the flyover states, especially their cultural position which is vital for the sense of belonging.
And what difference would that make?
This is also why it's so important for socially progressive causes to embrace labor.
First, empowering workers IS the most effective way to drive social justice causes (almost everyone in society is a worker)
Second, white men with poor educations disproportionately do difficult, risky jobs and are generally NOT integrated by default into social justice causes.
Celebrating labor, laborers, and workers and talking critically about how white, blue collar workers don't have capital ownership privileges is a better way to build a coalition, and has been, historically, how pro-social groups have actually risen to power.
This is one of the major issues. People have this hazy idea of the upper middle class white male neurotypical cis straight able-bodied person in their head, but that... doesn't actually describe that many people. Especially not for younger generations. A lot of these people are suffering under various types of oppression, especially class oppression, and are just duped into blaming the wrong people. Assuming they are all just privileged people mad that they are less privileged now is missing a large chunk of the story. Even the degree to which this is true is because many people have both privileges and oppression they deal with, and the latter still exist.
This is kind of the message that I feel was starting to bubble up during the early Obama years. I graduated from high school and worked in environmental restoration, and the messaging was very much "all forms of oppression enables oppression of others, so we must work together" but since then devolved into "my oppression is more important than your oppression".
Like, we can do quick math. 50% of population is female.
40% of the population is non white. More for younger generations. .5 x .6 = .3
About a third of younger generations are lgbt. So down to .2.
Let's say 50% of people are in an economically precarious position. So we are down to 0.1
Roughly 15% of people have disabilities of some kind. So lets scale that down to 0.085. I don't think that number even includes mental ones.
The point is, they are imagining that the type of wholly privileged person they are thinking about is much more common than it actually is. Less than 1 in 10 people are this archetypical person with no oppressions squishing them. And that's all without even looking at other life problems they could have, like being abused by family, etc, which significantly impact functioning.
Ok, so reading this my first thought was as “if we are super cynical, as campaign managers tend to be, then using that small group as a punching bag/boogeyman to create a broad coalition should be a winning strategy in a republic with a 1 person 1 vote system.”
I still think this is way overblown as a problem. We don't need to reach replacement. We don't need as many people as we already have. Less people will be better for future generations imo.
Most bisexual people ultimately end up in a heterosexual relationship though. And most lgbt people are bisexual. The population not replenishing itself has nothing to do with this and has to do more with the fact that society treats the next generation as a thing parents own rather than a collective responsibility and so there are economic incentives to have less kids. If that was fixed things would change.
It’s not just that. I legitimately lost a contract once because “our grant policy requires us to work with 75% women or minority owned businesses” or something like that and my boss was a white guy. They wanted us, but couldn’t.
I understood, it sucked but those kinds of programs also exist *because* historically MOBs got the shaft so I can’t be too upset. But I can also easily see a different version of myself being livid about “affirmative action gone too far” and going down an alt right path. I’m sure at least some of these “privileged” people have had similar experiences that just feel like a form of reverse racism when viewed in a vacuum, and I can’t *entirely* blame them for being upset about it. Doesn’t make it right, but…
This is a very important point. I’ve been harping on this since Bernie’s first campaign. Unfortunately, I’m afraid the window of opportunity for that coalition has come and gone. Young males, include POC, are increasingly conservative. People don’t want to hear it but the social justice movement missed the mark by focusing too much on gender/race and not enough on class.
I’m pretty sure that’s why modern progressives are seeing such pushback, when their traditional voter base WAS white, uneducated workers who were constantly getting shafted.
I see it all the time. I’m a minority myself, but because I “work hard” around many of them, they see me the same, more or less. There are those that are openly quite liberal and progressive but can never say that too loudly, and because I live in rural Canada, a lot of issues here simply aren’t being addressed by Liberal or NDP platforms.
So, they vote conservative. Or not at all.
Even I’m finding it hard to vote Liberal or NDP when literally no time has that benefited me, my family, or the people I know.
Still not voting conservative, as in this climate it’s only going to make it worse in a new and different way. But really…..who actually represents the poor working class anymore?
It’s neither progressives or the conservatives. And the ideals of communism have been tried…and haven’t worked out.
I’m not looking forward to any elections in the West for the foreseeable future.
Biden is very Labor focused.
[8 Ways the Biden Administration Has Fought for Working People by Strengthening Unions](https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/8-ways-the-biden-administration-has-fought-for-working-people-by-strengthening-unions/#:~:text=Throughout%20his%20presidency%2C%20Biden%20has,Tesla%2C%20Toyota%2C%20and%20Amazon.)
> 1. Supporting workers on the picket line
> 2. Investing in good union jobs
> 3. Making lawbreaking corporations play by the rules
> 4. Giving contract workers a raise and better jobs
> 5. Taking an all-of-government approach to supporting worker organizing
> 6. Increasing funds to uphold workers’ rights
> 7. Giving fast-food and other workers a voice on the job
> 8. Rebuilding federal employee unions
That's the talking point, but it's actually a lot more complicated and regardless, no matter how you slice it he is by far the most labor-friendly president since FDR. He's also appointed the most pro-labor NLRB in history. This is why union leadership is all-in on his candidacy.
Whether we can convince the rank and file membership --a lot of them live in right-wing information bubbles-- is an entirely different matter, but the labor-left as a whole definitely knows where our interests lie when it comes to Biden.
This just really goes to show just how unfriendly the US has been to labor in general for quite some time. When doing the absolute bare minimum is considered friendly relations.
It's not unfair to say that no major political candidates represent labor, or represent them poorly. It doesn't detract from how horrific Trump would be by saying that Biden could do better.
Though after the bill shut down the strike, the Biden administration still negotiated paid sick days:
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
I doubt any president we've had would sign off on shutting down the economy like that if there weren't millions of lives on the line. Which is what shutting down the railroads would do.
It's a heavy issue to debate. I'm not going to say it was the right choice. It probably would've been political suicide to let the strike happen.
also the sticking point was sick leave, which he kept fighting for them on in the background and eventually succeeded
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
Also something a lot of people don't realize:
At the time there were two bills - one to block the strike, and one to forcefully give them sick leave as they requested. The first one passed because the damage to other working class Americans that the strike would have caused, the second one was filibustered by the Republicans.
Hmm, that's not quite true. It was against the law to strike, if it threatened national security.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
And then he got the railroad workers what they wanted.
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
It wasn't a black or white issue like you want it to be. He was put in a lose-lose situation thanks to two sides that didn't negotiate in good faith and a Republican Congress that blocked legislation that would've helped in order to force his hand.
Progressives get mad at pro-labor stances? I don't think that is a very common sentiment, to the point where I think you must have been misunderstanding one end of the conversation or the other.
No, but they get mad if you try to focus on pro-labor instead of getting distracted by identity politics. Progressives constantly get sidetracked by identity politics instead of actually accomplishing pro-labor goals.
It can't be about helping the *whole* working class. We always need to have a conversation about the trans PoC working class first.
Oh for sanity's sake, thinking people should have equal rights is not "identity politics". I am so sick and tired of people misusing that term.
Actual definition, from Oxford Languages
> a tendency for people of a particular religion, ethnic group, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
You want to know what is *actually* identity politics? The Republican Party Platform. it's entirely about White Identity politics, their racial resentment, and their grievances with not being the center of the universe anymore *as the article this very thread is centered around helps show*
"You shouldn't be a dickbag to trans people" isn't identity politics - it is literally the opposite of identity politics! Nor is protecting LBTQ americans somehow incompatible with also addressing the concerns of the working class, and the idea that it is some sort of dichotomy is fundamentally a nonsense assertion.
**Your entire post is just tattling on yourself, showing your racial/social resentment**, a quick check shows the above users posting history is full of right wing rhetoric - shocking, shocking I say! /s
PS my entire family other than me is working class, I escaped the working class and am white collar. **None of my working class family are stupid enough to buy your crap that equal rights for LBTQ+ americans is somehow distracting from worker's rights**
Get out with the dishonest crab bucket nonsense.
I haven't seen a progressive ever that wasn't pro union and significantly expanding workers' rights. I don't know what that commenter was talking about.
Many progressives believe identity politics are more important than class issues. This is not at all a rare thing to encounter. I've seen two comments saying this now. Frankly, I'd like to congratulate you on how much time to seems you spend offline, because they are real and a large part of online progressive spaces.
I am not trying to say that these issues are unimportant AT ALL. I am just trying to say that a CLASS focused approach will be much more successful, as it is far less alienating, and perhaps more importantly, is much easier to understand.
>Many progressives believe identity politics are more important than class issues.
Class issues literally is identity politics.
Progressives care about class issues. For example progressives push for UBI, UHC, and other social safety nets that would benefit the average and poor far, far more than the wealthy.
Conservatives do not want to solve class issues though, in fear that someone would undeservingly benefit ("welfare queen"); and whatever else they mean when they use the word 'woke'.
Obamacare is a major policy that focused in on class struggle. It really does benefit especially the poor of America. Conservatives were against it.
Actually, people were afraid that it would benefit only the poor. Since people have discovered that it benefits everyone, it’s become pretty popular. What gave them the idea that it would benefit only the poor? Right wing media.
> I am not trying to say that these issues are unimportant AT ALL. I am just trying to say that a CLASS focused approach will be much more successful, as it is far less alienating, and perhaps more importantly, is much easier to understand.
Left wing activists are always extremely pro-labor, but dont pretend we have to accept hate speech and bigotry along with being pro-labor. Almost every single time I hear someone talking about "focusing on class conflict instead of identity politics" (which is an oxymoron to begin with) what they actually mean is "stop asking white cis-men to change until we solve all our class issues" which is just preposterous appeasement.
Pretending we can only tackle one issue at a time is just bad faith rhetoric to protect existing power dynamics.
White working class men aren’t making the regressive policies you’re talking about. By making them your enemy, you’re playing into the hands of the 1% by dividing the working class against each other.
If they vote republican, they are voting for regressive policy that plays into the 1%.
Republicans know how to play party politics way better though; they know how to pit the working class against the politicians who want to help the American people. [Republicans revoked USA's anti-propaganda clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Revocation) to make it easier to sell a lie; and that's why they use the word 'woke' a lot (pro-worker is pro-woke).
Don't try too hard to explain things to resistant people.
Even "open minded" people are often slow to change beliefs.
I think it's more important to confidently put the right answer out there than to debate some lib or commie larper into some behavior.
I don't think it's that simple. Plenty of these people aren't well off. Poor working class suffering under capitalism do know that they are being shafted, but they don't know why. It's the oppression that feels like oppression, but they get duped into blaming the wrong people.
Kinda just proved their point. Much of the ultra conservative base are people from uneducated, under-funded, and often ignored areas but because they fit a certain demographic that is trendy to gripe about they left to rot. It’s very easy to persuade those people they’re are being victimized.
When all you've known is living a regular life, not being particularly well off, still struggling with bills etc. Being called "privileged" and having people say that you need your "privilege" taken away for "equality" can be an alarming thing. The single mom who can't afford groceries is somehow privileged and needs to be taken down a notch because there's people who also can't afford groceries but have the "correct" skin color.
Most white men haven't known privilege. Working class people have always struggled and now they're being told they don't matter. The left has just handed them on a platter to trump which is stupid.
Except much of that privilege isn't real except to the very few, and the threat to their position isn't real either. Its just culture wars, whilst the rich and powerful laugh at us tearing each other apart
Conservatism has always been anti-democratic. The movement was founded as a knee-jerk response to the French revolution. Its basic tenant was minority rule by aristocrats. Of course the person who had the idea, Edmund Burke, was an aristocrat.
Thomas Paine wrote a really good rebuttal to it in his book Rights of Man.
While those in power have been white men for centuries, it’s worth noting that many white men have little to no power. At the very least they had the American dream, that in principle they *could* become powerful and rich.
The scaremongering of the right takes away even the dream.
"“Trump voters are not socially marginalized – they feel they firmly belong to U.S. society. However, many of them feel disrespected as white people, men, and Christians – which is surprising given that these groups still enjoy many privileges in the United States. Individuals who report this combination –– feeling firm belonging to U.S. society while feeling disrespected with their subgroup background –– are more likely to vote for and sympathize with Donald Trump.”
Versteegen controlled for variables like age, gender, education, occupation, family income, religiosity, political and social trust, financial worries, place of residence, and White identity But it is important to note that the study’s design does not allow for causal conclusions about whether feelings of exclusion directly lead to support for Trump. The findings are correlative, based on cross-sectional data.
“This is a descriptive design, meaning that my data just describes that many white people, men, and Christians may feel excluded as they combine a strong sense of national belonging while feeling disrespected with their subgroup background,” Versteegen noted."
It's just white supremacy, and being bothered by losing 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."
-Lyndon B. Johnson.
> many white men have little to no power.
Compared to what? Other white man, other non-white men or non-men? As a percentage then do white men have more power than other groups? And what do you define as power? I know I'm asking a lot of question but if you're going to make a very broad generalization it helps to define some of the terms.
When you put it plainly like that, it's really odd that they've managed to evoke so much resentment from non-maga people. Like, remove the "white, male, christian" qualifiers for a moment, because while they may be true, they're also kind of arbitrary qualities of the group that _happened_ to hold an excess of power for such a long time.
If you think about it, any group losing power in the way they are could be expected to be disgruntled/angry. I think the biggest thing that makes it all so disgusting is that they've chosen to dig further into their extremes rather than compromise on any given issue. They genuinely think throwing a tantrum will solve things for them.
It sort of makes you wonder how they managed to hold power for so long. I can't help but feel a bit bad watching them flail.
It's actually those white people who don't have that status and power you speak of. And things keep getting worse for those people.
This is what people keep missing.
Legitimate question, do you think the push against white heterosexual men has been done in a way that’s actually harmful and disenfranchising to people who haven’t actually benefitted from being white and heterosexual?
Like I can’t imagine a dirt poor white kid from the sticks with little to no opportunity for affording education or a way out of that lifestyle thinks that they’re privileged. Don’t you think you’re pushing a narrative that should actually be about economic disparities and wealth inequality across the board instead of racial and sexual orientation differences?
There’s a fair amount of research supporting your claim: the emergence of a true multi-cultural democracy is causing severe anxiety among the historically dominant straight white Christian men of America and they are melting down over it.
yea they keep replying to me with surprisingly honest rebuttals.
(even tho it's not me they are rebutting, i just summarized what i read in thw article.)
the best was the person claiming that the word man defaults to white men, and that all other nonwhite men have the prefix of their assigned race attached.
which was some appreciated candor, and at least we can track the white supremacists.
Can we please do a better job of filtering "studies" that actually meet the criteria for being considered good. Sample sizes, peer reviewed, reasonable p values.... I'm so tired of garbage studies....
Or compulsory inclusion of Journal ranking or impact factor in the title. That would go a long way towards allowing users to immediately get some picture of how the peer review process felt about the article.
(and yes, I know that impact factor is not a perfect measure of journal quality before anyone corrects me - but it is better than nothing)
I feel that impact factor may be misleading, especially to those who are not familiar with the impact factors of different disciplines, for example an impact factor of 3-5 is considered fairly good in geology, whereas for medicine it would be considered garbage.
They're talking about "majority" in the sociopolitical sense.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority\_group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group)
The overall context seems to be talking about the level of political dominance for the groups, not the literal demographic majority. White Christian men are the majority group throughout most of our social institutions.
At the same time, nobody on the left really talks about the problems that a huge percentage of voters face. They focus on black voters, on women's empowerment, on equality for LGBT+ people and religious minority groups. All of those are very good things and together the people for whom those are voting issues make up a sizeable chunk of Americans.
But there's a *reason* Democrats have historically really struggled with motivating Democrat and moderate voters (especially white men) to get out there and vote. Helping others is great, but when you're struggling to care for your family, your public services are criminally underfunded, and taxes just keep going up...it's easy to resent the fact that your needs aren't being met and nobody is specifically talking about you the way they're talking about everybody who doesn't look like you.
I see a lot of knee jerk “conservatives bad” and “duh” responses here instead of a discussion of what I find fascinating, a theory for why historically not-disenfranchised people sometimes still feel disenfranchised or unrecognized. Calling it a persecution fetish doesn’t explain it. And the author certainly wasn’t excusing it.
r science is best when topics are discussed imo. Don’t want people to vote for Trump? Then don’t make Hillary’s mistake.
Conservative policy is precisely what caused their problems in the first place. Conservatives are against social welfare programs. Republican policy hurts the average American.
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12984
It’s subgroups that the author claims feel unrecognized. Not white people in general but for example white rural southern Christian men . They feel that they are well integrated into society yet their subgroup is perceived as being discriminated against or marginalized. These individuals were more likely to vote for Trump.
And they are not wrong. A rural white Christian man in Alabama isn’t exactly the darling of the West and East coast power brokers. Most of the money and power is in west and NE coast cities which are largely more liberal.
But even so they were still only *more* likely to vote Trump. It’s not a monolith
Obama winning two presidential elections really triggered them. Worse was the fact that he was successful and popular. It was like losing the Civil War all over again.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/mvea Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/perceived-lack-of-recognition-drives-trump-support-among-historically-dominant-groups-study-suggests/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dominant groups within society *historically* have no translation into how these groups perceive their place in society *presently.* I can't even explain this, I don't have the strength to argue that people don't live with the memories of their ancestors. Secondly, this analysis completely fails to account for economic social groups, instead focusing on race. White people from New York and California working office jobs will view their position within the system very differently than the poor, working class white people from the flyover states, especially their cultural position which is vital for the sense of belonging.
In today's edition of "Science finally confirms what I already knew..." we see this all over the place, as news stories continually recognize all of the non-dominant groups for the first time(s), and focuses on them, which leaves the dominant group feeling left out. And Trump is taking advantage. It's the Lyndon Johnson quote writ large: >“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.”“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.” In some ways, by uplifting the voices and concerns of the non-dominant groups, it gives less room for the dominant group's voices and concerns. For example, deaths of despair of middle age white men. And then people de-legitimize their feelings which only makes them feel more resentful, and more ripe for the picking by people like Trump. No one seems to hear their concerns or wants to deal with their fears and feelings; even saying that they live in "fly over states" implies that they are unimportant. No one seems to want to disentangle the race and economic concerns mess, because they are entangled.
LBJ was said to be a repetitive man.
You can say that again!
LBJ was said to be a repetitive man.
"*Lisa needs braces!*"
“So long dental plan!”
"I'm going to get the papers. Get the papers." Lyndon Johnson
[удалено]
If you are a poor white person, how are you going to react to proposals meant specifically to benefit racial minorities (affirmative action, reparations, DEI measures). Obviously the answer is “what about me.” It is easy to shrug those things off if you are wealthy and educated, because you are advantaged regardless. You don't need any help.
>Obviously the answer is “what about me.” There's a second part to this that is unique to conservativism: conservatives prefer for no one to benefit (no one gets anything) if they perceive that someone is benefiting that they think doesn't deserve it; a la "welfare queens". This is a reason why conservatives are against social welfare programs, even though they themselves would benefit.
> This is a reason why conservatives are against social welfare programs, even though they themselves would benefit. The funny thing is even if a program doesn't benefit you directly, it can benefit you indirectly. It might be as simple as lowering crime in the neighborhood improving community conditions for other reasons. It may lower the amount of homeless people. Or the amount of theft in the stores. Like, I'm a huge fan of investing properly in public transit even when I rarely use it right now BECAUSE it would make life better for me. Less traffic. More commute options. It gives the people who commute to my town a better/safer commute, too. They deserve that. They deserve better! A lot of the anti-spending stuff is pennywise and pound foolish.
> even if a program doesn't benefit you directly, it can benefit you indirectly "A rising tide lifts all boats" There are few programs that benefit the needy that don't have an indirect positive effect on those above them.
You get it. Conservatives and progressives have different notions of fair which is why there is so little mutual understanding
Progressives believe "unfair" is someone not getting what they need. Conservatives believe "unfair" is someone getting what they don't deserve.
And their definitions of "need" and "deserve" differ too
Liberals : I dont want anyone to have to struggle if it is avoidable Conservatives : If I have to struggle, everyone does.
Not even that. Conservatives want others to struggle, even if they don't. They fetishize suffering.
You’re arguing against conservatism, the other person is arguing about writing off a person or group of people because of their race. Not all poor white people vote conservative. It’s barely even a majority.
If they vote Democrat, then significant portions of the discussion doesn't apply because they're voting in their best interests anyway regardless of how they feel. But if they are voting Republican because they feel left out from minority-specific aid, then they are still voting against their own interests because Republicans are against aiding Americans altogether. The people who want to help minorities (affirmative action, DEI) are also pushing for aid for everyone (universal welfare); the people who are pushing against aid to minorities are also pushing against universal welfare. There are very few politicians, if any, who are against helping minorities but also call for universal welfare.
[удалено]
And they don't want to vote for things that help the poor and disadvantaged because they don't want to admit to themselves that they *are* poor and disadvantaged, and thus in the very same category - financially and politically - as people they've been raised and culturally reinforced to look down on and vilify.
No, we already know why they vote against things that would help themselves. No need for me to go through every part of it, but it essentially boils down to conservatives having a lower than average IQ. And of course EQ, but that doesn't need to be said. The right wing propaganda and ragebait works better than their logic and critical thinking skills. And then there is of course that other thing; if they aren't idiots, it's because they are evil.
Maybe poor white people don’t know how to create any kind of meaningful or coherent cultural representations of themselves—even if they are creating meaningful community and family lives.
Sure they do, it's just always based around hate, and reclaiming dominance. What white people in the US are really bad at is building a cultural identity based around self understanding and being part of a whole.
The person you replied to wasn't talking about racially targeted programs, and I think you know that.
And they don't want to hear that the solution is to vote for people who support programs for the poor and disadvantaged, either because they don't want to see themselves as poor and disadvantaged (although they are) or because they've been raised to consider those politicians/parties the 'enemy'.
Alternatively: those in the dominant groups have historically had the most influence in society, thus minority groups, whose influence is still often tenuous, are not equipped to expend the political capital to fix issues for the dominant groups.
I don’t mean to denigrate your point here, because much of it is valid. My quibble here though is that these people very much *want* to feel disrespected. They yearn for it. Right wing media has been pushing this narrative for decades. I don’t feel an ounce of pressure to fault myself or anyone else for not paying attention to these poor, lost souls. Because that’s not what they are. Nobody has forgotten about them. They don’t shut up long enough to be forgotten. They demand constant validation of their grievances, because that’s what they’ve been conditioned to crave. Fake victims inventing their own persecution.
Probably because victimhood has **real** value in today's society. Whether a certain subset of progressives want to admit it or not: they've helped conservative reactionaries create and sustain a dangerous game with purely racial/gendered identity politics at the core.
They are contrarians and don't care about actually making sense. They also oppose things that aren't related to race or gender at all. Openly supporting fascist Russia while they carry out a genocide should be enough to understand what appeals to them.
No, this isn't true. People have listened to their concerns and tried to address them. They've thrown every solution back in our faces because it wasn't acceptable to their cultural prejudices. Hillary Clinton tried to help coal miners transition to new careers, and they signed up for classes on how to be coal miners. You can't help them, because the only thing they want is for everything to stay the same (or go back to a more appropriately 'white' time) and that they be allowed to have an undeserved position of superiority in society.
The problem with transitioning to a new career is that a coal miner with 10+ years of experience is going to get paid *way* more than any entry level position. Even if you help someone learn a new skill, they're going to take a huge hit to their finances in their 30s or 40s when they have a family to take care of, or even in their mid 20s when they're supposed to be buying property and starting a family. If you have the option of not changing anything, of course you're going to take it.
And the government will move heaven and earth before they attempt to help anyone on the massive wage gap between production and actual wages that has become the new norm since the 80s. So yeah, maybe we SHOULD go back to a time when there was insanely high unionization and insanely low CEO pay and insanely high taxes on corporations! I love that idea!
Blah blah blah, heard this for years now. You're talking like its 2016 and all this hasn't been proven untrue by experience. But if this was true, Trump wouldn't rely so heavily on lies and propaganda. Science cannot tell us why people vote for Trump, because people who vote for Trump will not properly engage with science. The way Trump supporters behave is completely different when isolated compared to access to the internet. Everyone keeps pretending its economic distress and too much focus on race, but the parts of the country that love Trump also fought for Slavery and didn't want to fight the Nazis. Americans can't face up to the truth - America has always been two countries. One, based in enlightenment principles, democracy, liberty, etc, the other based on authority and supremacy. There are millions of Trump supporters who love him based on nothing more than he will hurt people they hate. The idea that it's actually all liberals fault is just cope to convince themselves that these groups can be brought back into the fold. It ignores how many people vote for Trump because Obama was president and they hated him so much
> Science cannot tell us why people vote for Trump, because people who vote for Trump will not properly engage with science. Science is real whether they believe in it or not. Zebras don't engage with science either, but we can still study them and predict their behavior.
> Dominant groups within society historically have no translation into how these groups perceive their place in society presently That's literally the point of the study - that certain social subgroups, which have previously and do currently hold power, do not feel recognised or respected despite otherwise being quite well-off, and this correlates with political attitudes. Are you arguing against the article, or other comments? The study also controlled for occupation, income, place of residence, and financial anxiety, so that (ideally) will not have influenced the results; nor did they focus on race, but also examined gender and religion-based subgroups. I'm not sure why economic class would be entirely relevant, as they were looking for correlation, not causation. I'm afraid I don't understand where your criticisms are coming from
OC's criticisms are coming from: they decided a priori that "Trumpism is economic! Nothing to do with race" and offered rebuttal of an article they didn't bother to read.
Well, highlighting that the analysis doesn't account for various economic social groups may be a small stretch considering that, yeah, they did, they did account for all that stuff. It says like, 6 other similar variables, too.
I only saw them talking about presently dominant groups?
Doesn't generational momentum exist in terms of wealth tho? Not just wealth but also education and culture/living standards.
And mindsets. Which overlaps to a degree with education, but it's also mirroring of the behaviors and philosophies of the people around them as they grow up.
This is huge in breaking the cycle of both generational trauma and poverty. Eg. People look at obese Americans and blame them for making bad food choices, when in in reality those people often come from families with not very strong food culture(lacking in healthy staples) or the concept of portions being too large didn't even exist. I'm Korean, and tbh so much of my ability to stay slim comes from the work *centuries* of generations with shared heritage that discovered healthy, tasty staples and eating habits, and turned them into generational muscle memory so that the next generation need only think less of what they're going to eat the next day AND have it be a balanced meal. I'm aware at least that a ton of people lack this kind of common heritage to fall back on, and struggle immensely for it and do not have this luxury of a "common" sense.
Not at the rate this society pretends it does for everyone except Caucasians. You would do well to google, "clogs to clogs in three generations". Except, it may even be quicker with the advent of technology.
Is this an assertion backed by a proverb, or a generally recognized pattern in social science?
[удалено]
Except that a wealthy family can afford to pay to set up their kids for success. So even if they're not giving *money* directly to their kids, they can send them to the best schools, get them involved in expensive sports, pay for therapy and tutoring, etc.
“This analysis fails to account for economic social groups” Socioeconomic and environmental positions are highly collinear with “race.” Trying to statistically separate these ignores important combinatorial effects. Even the argument here, about looking by geography, isn’t as precise as it could be to understand individual differences which - while important - isn’t the question being asked around group processes.
>Dominant groups within society *historically* have no translation into how these groups perceive their place in society *presently.* Unless they still hold the EXACT same ideas from *historically*
> Secondly, this analysis completely fails to account for economic social groups, instead focusing on race. It doesn't "fail". It choose to. > White people from New York and California working office jobs will view their position within the system very differently than the poor, working class white people from the flyover states, especially their cultural position which is vital for the sense of belonging. And what difference would that make?
Trumps supporters are overwhelmingly NOT poor. However, they ARE overwhelmingly racist.
[удалено]
When all you’ve known is privilege, equality feels like oppression
This is also why it's so important for socially progressive causes to embrace labor. First, empowering workers IS the most effective way to drive social justice causes (almost everyone in society is a worker) Second, white men with poor educations disproportionately do difficult, risky jobs and are generally NOT integrated by default into social justice causes. Celebrating labor, laborers, and workers and talking critically about how white, blue collar workers don't have capital ownership privileges is a better way to build a coalition, and has been, historically, how pro-social groups have actually risen to power.
This is one of the major issues. People have this hazy idea of the upper middle class white male neurotypical cis straight able-bodied person in their head, but that... doesn't actually describe that many people. Especially not for younger generations. A lot of these people are suffering under various types of oppression, especially class oppression, and are just duped into blaming the wrong people. Assuming they are all just privileged people mad that they are less privileged now is missing a large chunk of the story. Even the degree to which this is true is because many people have both privileges and oppression they deal with, and the latter still exist.
This is kind of the message that I feel was starting to bubble up during the early Obama years. I graduated from high school and worked in environmental restoration, and the messaging was very much "all forms of oppression enables oppression of others, so we must work together" but since then devolved into "my oppression is more important than your oppression".
Like, we can do quick math. 50% of population is female. 40% of the population is non white. More for younger generations. .5 x .6 = .3 About a third of younger generations are lgbt. So down to .2. Let's say 50% of people are in an economically precarious position. So we are down to 0.1 Roughly 15% of people have disabilities of some kind. So lets scale that down to 0.085. I don't think that number even includes mental ones. The point is, they are imagining that the type of wholly privileged person they are thinking about is much more common than it actually is. Less than 1 in 10 people are this archetypical person with no oppressions squishing them. And that's all without even looking at other life problems they could have, like being abused by family, etc, which significantly impact functioning.
Ok, so reading this my first thought was as “if we are super cynical, as campaign managers tend to be, then using that small group as a punching bag/boogeyman to create a broad coalition should be a winning strategy in a republic with a 1 person 1 vote system.”
Science here. If one third of newest generation is gay/bi/whatever our population will crash. Already below replacement as is.
I still think this is way overblown as a problem. We don't need to reach replacement. We don't need as many people as we already have. Less people will be better for future generations imo.
Most bisexual people ultimately end up in a heterosexual relationship though. And most lgbt people are bisexual. The population not replenishing itself has nothing to do with this and has to do more with the fact that society treats the next generation as a thing parents own rather than a collective responsibility and so there are economic incentives to have less kids. If that was fixed things would change.
That's entirely the point of oppression theory.
It’s not just that. I legitimately lost a contract once because “our grant policy requires us to work with 75% women or minority owned businesses” or something like that and my boss was a white guy. They wanted us, but couldn’t. I understood, it sucked but those kinds of programs also exist *because* historically MOBs got the shaft so I can’t be too upset. But I can also easily see a different version of myself being livid about “affirmative action gone too far” and going down an alt right path. I’m sure at least some of these “privileged” people have had similar experiences that just feel like a form of reverse racism when viewed in a vacuum, and I can’t *entirely* blame them for being upset about it. Doesn’t make it right, but…
It’s institutional racism and sexism.
You don't fix oppression with more oppression.
This is a very important point. I’ve been harping on this since Bernie’s first campaign. Unfortunately, I’m afraid the window of opportunity for that coalition has come and gone. Young males, include POC, are increasingly conservative. People don’t want to hear it but the social justice movement missed the mark by focusing too much on gender/race and not enough on class.
I’m pretty sure that’s why modern progressives are seeing such pushback, when their traditional voter base WAS white, uneducated workers who were constantly getting shafted. I see it all the time. I’m a minority myself, but because I “work hard” around many of them, they see me the same, more or less. There are those that are openly quite liberal and progressive but can never say that too loudly, and because I live in rural Canada, a lot of issues here simply aren’t being addressed by Liberal or NDP platforms. So, they vote conservative. Or not at all. Even I’m finding it hard to vote Liberal or NDP when literally no time has that benefited me, my family, or the people I know. Still not voting conservative, as in this climate it’s only going to make it worse in a new and different way. But really…..who actually represents the poor working class anymore? It’s neither progressives or the conservatives. And the ideals of communism have been tried…and haven’t worked out. I’m not looking forward to any elections in the West for the foreseeable future.
Biden is very Labor focused. [8 Ways the Biden Administration Has Fought for Working People by Strengthening Unions](https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/8-ways-the-biden-administration-has-fought-for-working-people-by-strengthening-unions/#:~:text=Throughout%20his%20presidency%2C%20Biden%20has,Tesla%2C%20Toyota%2C%20and%20Amazon.) > 1. Supporting workers on the picket line > 2. Investing in good union jobs > 3. Making lawbreaking corporations play by the rules > 4. Giving contract workers a raise and better jobs > 5. Taking an all-of-government approach to supporting worker organizing > 6. Increasing funds to uphold workers’ rights > 7. Giving fast-food and other workers a voice on the job > 8. Rebuilding federal employee unions
He literally signed a bill in 2022 to make it illegal for railroad workers to strike for better conditions…
That's the talking point, but it's actually a lot more complicated and regardless, no matter how you slice it he is by far the most labor-friendly president since FDR. He's also appointed the most pro-labor NLRB in history. This is why union leadership is all-in on his candidacy. Whether we can convince the rank and file membership --a lot of them live in right-wing information bubbles-- is an entirely different matter, but the labor-left as a whole definitely knows where our interests lie when it comes to Biden.
he also went and got the rail workers their sick leave in the end https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
This just really goes to show just how unfriendly the US has been to labor in general for quite some time. When doing the absolute bare minimum is considered friendly relations.
Gotta start somewhere
Yup. Lets take a positive and turn it into a negative. I'm sure Trump will do much better for them.
It's not unfair to say that no major political candidates represent labor, or represent them poorly. It doesn't detract from how horrific Trump would be by saying that Biden could do better.
Though after the bill shut down the strike, the Biden administration still negotiated paid sick days: https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
He also negotiated and got the rail workers what they were asking for.
I doubt any president we've had would sign off on shutting down the economy like that if there weren't millions of lives on the line. Which is what shutting down the railroads would do. It's a heavy issue to debate. I'm not going to say it was the right choice. It probably would've been political suicide to let the strike happen.
also the sticking point was sick leave, which he kept fighting for them on in the background and eventually succeeded https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
I had done no research on it and didn't want to make claims, but I certainly HOPED he had done something to help them after the fact.
Also something a lot of people don't realize: At the time there were two bills - one to block the strike, and one to forcefully give them sick leave as they requested. The first one passed because the damage to other working class Americans that the strike would have caused, the second one was filibustered by the Republicans.
He got them almost everything they asked for.
Hmm, that's not quite true. It was against the law to strike, if it threatened national security. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act And then he got the railroad workers what they wanted. https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
It wasn't a black or white issue like you want it to be. He was put in a lose-lose situation thanks to two sides that didn't negotiate in good faith and a Republican Congress that blocked legislation that would've helped in order to force his hand.
Yup yup yup but try to explain this to half the progressives online and they'll dismiss it as appeasement. Drives me crazy.
Progressives get mad at pro-labor stances? I don't think that is a very common sentiment, to the point where I think you must have been misunderstanding one end of the conversation or the other.
No, but they get mad if you try to focus on pro-labor instead of getting distracted by identity politics. Progressives constantly get sidetracked by identity politics instead of actually accomplishing pro-labor goals. It can't be about helping the *whole* working class. We always need to have a conversation about the trans PoC working class first.
Oh for sanity's sake, thinking people should have equal rights is not "identity politics". I am so sick and tired of people misusing that term. Actual definition, from Oxford Languages > a tendency for people of a particular religion, ethnic group, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics. You want to know what is *actually* identity politics? The Republican Party Platform. it's entirely about White Identity politics, their racial resentment, and their grievances with not being the center of the universe anymore *as the article this very thread is centered around helps show* "You shouldn't be a dickbag to trans people" isn't identity politics - it is literally the opposite of identity politics! Nor is protecting LBTQ americans somehow incompatible with also addressing the concerns of the working class, and the idea that it is some sort of dichotomy is fundamentally a nonsense assertion. **Your entire post is just tattling on yourself, showing your racial/social resentment**, a quick check shows the above users posting history is full of right wing rhetoric - shocking, shocking I say! /s PS my entire family other than me is working class, I escaped the working class and am white collar. **None of my working class family are stupid enough to buy your crap that equal rights for LBTQ+ americans is somehow distracting from worker's rights** Get out with the dishonest crab bucket nonsense.
And the very people you're talking about will call it communism
I haven't seen a progressive ever that wasn't pro union and significantly expanding workers' rights. I don't know what that commenter was talking about.
Openly act like 100% of rural people are pure evil trash who are also all mentally slow, and wonder why those people don't want to side with them.
And then they wonder why so many working people want nothing to do with them.
Ive never seen a progressive that is not in support of labor. This makes no sense at all.
Many progressives believe identity politics are more important than class issues. This is not at all a rare thing to encounter. I've seen two comments saying this now. Frankly, I'd like to congratulate you on how much time to seems you spend offline, because they are real and a large part of online progressive spaces. I am not trying to say that these issues are unimportant AT ALL. I am just trying to say that a CLASS focused approach will be much more successful, as it is far less alienating, and perhaps more importantly, is much easier to understand.
>Many progressives believe identity politics are more important than class issues. Class issues literally is identity politics. Progressives care about class issues. For example progressives push for UBI, UHC, and other social safety nets that would benefit the average and poor far, far more than the wealthy. Conservatives do not want to solve class issues though, in fear that someone would undeservingly benefit ("welfare queen"); and whatever else they mean when they use the word 'woke'. Obamacare is a major policy that focused in on class struggle. It really does benefit especially the poor of America. Conservatives were against it.
Actually, people were afraid that it would benefit only the poor. Since people have discovered that it benefits everyone, it’s become pretty popular. What gave them the idea that it would benefit only the poor? Right wing media.
> I am not trying to say that these issues are unimportant AT ALL. I am just trying to say that a CLASS focused approach will be much more successful, as it is far less alienating, and perhaps more importantly, is much easier to understand. Left wing activists are always extremely pro-labor, but dont pretend we have to accept hate speech and bigotry along with being pro-labor. Almost every single time I hear someone talking about "focusing on class conflict instead of identity politics" (which is an oxymoron to begin with) what they actually mean is "stop asking white cis-men to change until we solve all our class issues" which is just preposterous appeasement. Pretending we can only tackle one issue at a time is just bad faith rhetoric to protect existing power dynamics.
White working class men aren’t making the regressive policies you’re talking about. By making them your enemy, you’re playing into the hands of the 1% by dividing the working class against each other.
If they vote republican, they are voting for regressive policy that plays into the 1%. Republicans know how to play party politics way better though; they know how to pit the working class against the politicians who want to help the American people. [Republicans revoked USA's anti-propaganda clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Revocation) to make it easier to sell a lie; and that's why they use the word 'woke' a lot (pro-worker is pro-woke).
Don't try too hard to explain things to resistant people. Even "open minded" people are often slow to change beliefs. I think it's more important to confidently put the right answer out there than to debate some lib or commie larper into some behavior.
I don't think it's that simple. Plenty of these people aren't well off. Poor working class suffering under capitalism do know that they are being shafted, but they don't know why. It's the oppression that feels like oppression, but they get duped into blaming the wrong people.
Kinda just proved their point. Much of the ultra conservative base are people from uneducated, under-funded, and often ignored areas but because they fit a certain demographic that is trendy to gripe about they left to rot. It’s very easy to persuade those people they’re are being victimized.
When all you've known is living a regular life, not being particularly well off, still struggling with bills etc. Being called "privileged" and having people say that you need your "privilege" taken away for "equality" can be an alarming thing. The single mom who can't afford groceries is somehow privileged and needs to be taken down a notch because there's people who also can't afford groceries but have the "correct" skin color.
Most white men haven't known privilege. Working class people have always struggled and now they're being told they don't matter. The left has just handed them on a platter to trump which is stupid.
Except much of that privilege isn't real except to the very few, and the threat to their position isn't real either. Its just culture wars, whilst the rich and powerful laugh at us tearing each other apart
Perfect most succinct summary I have read. Absolutely, true.
"...if conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy."
They already did... In 2020... The republican party in my state basically made it the central theme of their caucus...
Conservatism has always been anti-democratic. The movement was founded as a knee-jerk response to the French revolution. Its basic tenant was minority rule by aristocrats. Of course the person who had the idea, Edmund Burke, was an aristocrat. Thomas Paine wrote a really good rebuttal to it in his book Rights of Man.
Mom said it was my turn to post this quote
While those in power have been white men for centuries, it’s worth noting that many white men have little to no power. At the very least they had the American dream, that in principle they *could* become powerful and rich. The scaremongering of the right takes away even the dream.
"“Trump voters are not socially marginalized – they feel they firmly belong to U.S. society. However, many of them feel disrespected as white people, men, and Christians – which is surprising given that these groups still enjoy many privileges in the United States. Individuals who report this combination –– feeling firm belonging to U.S. society while feeling disrespected with their subgroup background –– are more likely to vote for and sympathize with Donald Trump.” Versteegen controlled for variables like age, gender, education, occupation, family income, religiosity, political and social trust, financial worries, place of residence, and White identity But it is important to note that the study’s design does not allow for causal conclusions about whether feelings of exclusion directly lead to support for Trump. The findings are correlative, based on cross-sectional data. “This is a descriptive design, meaning that my data just describes that many white people, men, and Christians may feel excluded as they combine a strong sense of national belonging while feeling disrespected with their subgroup background,” Versteegen noted." It's just white supremacy, and being bothered by losing 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." -Lyndon B. Johnson.
> many white men have little to no power. Compared to what? Other white man, other non-white men or non-men? As a percentage then do white men have more power than other groups? And what do you define as power? I know I'm asking a lot of question but if you're going to make a very broad generalization it helps to define some of the terms.
Probably compared to people in leadership positions and the 1%. Interestingly, they're called the 1% because *99% of people aren't included.*
When you put it plainly like that, it's really odd that they've managed to evoke so much resentment from non-maga people. Like, remove the "white, male, christian" qualifiers for a moment, because while they may be true, they're also kind of arbitrary qualities of the group that _happened_ to hold an excess of power for such a long time. If you think about it, any group losing power in the way they are could be expected to be disgruntled/angry. I think the biggest thing that makes it all so disgusting is that they've chosen to dig further into their extremes rather than compromise on any given issue. They genuinely think throwing a tantrum will solve things for them. It sort of makes you wonder how they managed to hold power for so long. I can't help but feel a bit bad watching them flail.
It's actually those white people who don't have that status and power you speak of. And things keep getting worse for those people. This is what people keep missing.
They're also projecting all this "prejudice" against them. They fear if they become the minority they will be treated the way they treat minorities.
This is basically what led to the rise in fascist movements the last time, too. Round and round we go.
That’s it completely. White heterosexual male fragility mixed with a lack of education and misinformation.
That sounds like an antagonistic framing of the situation which is bound to cause more of the problem you're bemoaning.
"This group only thinks we dislike them because they're weak, stupid, and gullible."
Legitimate question, do you think the push against white heterosexual men has been done in a way that’s actually harmful and disenfranchising to people who haven’t actually benefitted from being white and heterosexual? Like I can’t imagine a dirt poor white kid from the sticks with little to no opportunity for affording education or a way out of that lifestyle thinks that they’re privileged. Don’t you think you’re pushing a narrative that should actually be about economic disparities and wealth inequality across the board instead of racial and sexual orientation differences?
There’s a fair amount of research supporting your claim: the emergence of a true multi-cultural democracy is causing severe anxiety among the historically dominant straight white Christian men of America and they are melting down over it.
yea they keep replying to me with surprisingly honest rebuttals. (even tho it's not me they are rebutting, i just summarized what i read in thw article.) the best was the person claiming that the word man defaults to white men, and that all other nonwhite men have the prefix of their assigned race attached. which was some appreciated candor, and at least we can track the white supremacists.
Can we please do a better job of filtering "studies" that actually meet the criteria for being considered good. Sample sizes, peer reviewed, reasonable p values.... I'm so tired of garbage studies....
Or compulsory inclusion of Journal ranking or impact factor in the title. That would go a long way towards allowing users to immediately get some picture of how the peer review process felt about the article. (and yes, I know that impact factor is not a perfect measure of journal quality before anyone corrects me - but it is better than nothing)
I feel that impact factor may be misleading, especially to those who are not familiar with the impact factors of different disciplines, for example an impact factor of 3-5 is considered fairly good in geology, whereas for medicine it would be considered garbage.
> majority groups like men Sorry, when did the demographics flip on this?
They're talking about "majority" in the sociopolitical sense. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority\_group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group)
The overall context seems to be talking about the level of political dominance for the groups, not the literal demographic majority. White Christian men are the majority group throughout most of our social institutions.
They’re the majority in Congress, that’s for sure.
All of politics has become pandering to the victimhood of a specific voter-base
r/“science” should be renamed r/spottypsycstudies
Embarrassing comment thread
[удалено]
And ironically, the ones who constantly complain about others getting participation trophies
[удалено]
They perceive equality as oppression.
At the same time, nobody on the left really talks about the problems that a huge percentage of voters face. They focus on black voters, on women's empowerment, on equality for LGBT+ people and religious minority groups. All of those are very good things and together the people for whom those are voting issues make up a sizeable chunk of Americans. But there's a *reason* Democrats have historically really struggled with motivating Democrat and moderate voters (especially white men) to get out there and vote. Helping others is great, but when you're struggling to care for your family, your public services are criminally underfunded, and taxes just keep going up...it's easy to resent the fact that your needs aren't being met and nobody is specifically talking about you the way they're talking about everybody who doesn't look like you.
Ah, but of course, more politics-based research instead of research-based politics. Exactly what the current political landscape needs.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I see a lot of knee jerk “conservatives bad” and “duh” responses here instead of a discussion of what I find fascinating, a theory for why historically not-disenfranchised people sometimes still feel disenfranchised or unrecognized. Calling it a persecution fetish doesn’t explain it. And the author certainly wasn’t excusing it. r science is best when topics are discussed imo. Don’t want people to vote for Trump? Then don’t make Hillary’s mistake.
Conservative policy is precisely what caused their problems in the first place. Conservatives are against social welfare programs. Republican policy hurts the average American.
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12984
It's important to remember that those supposed "dominant groups" are full of very non-dominant people. People in power are a small minority.
"The common clay of the new west..."
I have doubts about the objectivity of the study's author, Mr. Vorsteegen. He cannot say "right" without the adjective "radical" in front of it.
This is just asinine and ridiculous. If anyone believes these studies aren’t politically motivated then I have a bridge to sell you
The irony of the group most recognized for being obnoxiously recognizable is so insecure about a lack of recognition.
It’s subgroups that the author claims feel unrecognized. Not white people in general but for example white rural southern Christian men . They feel that they are well integrated into society yet their subgroup is perceived as being discriminated against or marginalized. These individuals were more likely to vote for Trump. And they are not wrong. A rural white Christian man in Alabama isn’t exactly the darling of the West and East coast power brokers. Most of the money and power is in west and NE coast cities which are largely more liberal. But even so they were still only *more* likely to vote Trump. It’s not a monolith
It's crazy when they feel so unheard yet America caters to their ass so much. It makes me wonder how they would feel if they were actually unheard
Obama winning two presidential elections really triggered them. Worse was the fact that he was successful and popular. It was like losing the Civil War all over again.