In 1980, white people accounted for about 80 percent of the U.S. population.
In 2024, white people account for about 58 percent of the U.S. population.
Trump appeals to white people gripped by demographic hysteria. Especially older white people who grew up when white people represented a much larger share of the population. They fear becoming a minority.
While the Census Bureau says there are still 195 million white people in America and that they are still the majority, the white population actually declined slightly in 2023, and experts believe that they will become a minority sometime between 2040 and 2050.
Every component of the Trump-Republican agenda flows from these demographic fears.
The Trump phenomenon and the surge of right-wing extremism in America was never about economic anxiety, as too many political reporters claimed during the 2016 presidential campaign.
It was, and still is, about race and racism.
Apologies. Please amend my comment to
Perhaps more technically accurate, but no different in effect.
I feel like you think this is a counterpoint, or in disagreement with what I said, but itās not. Itās literally what I said. If your personal economic issues or religious preferences are above the well-being of others in your personal priorities, that is a moral stance that is perfectly valid to criticize. Whether you are ignoring the harms, or simply de-prioritizing them in favor of your preferred benefits, itās the same outcome.
I would refer you to the first line of my first comment in this post, which said
The problem is that some conservatives clearly want to be able to associate with the GOP based on piecemeal parts of their platform without actively opposing those parts they disagree with, and then have the right not to be held accountable in part for the damage that those parts they may or may not agree with do. Thatās not how it works. I voted for Biden, and I have to live with the damage heās done in Gaza and the West Bank. It is 1000% fair to judge me for that complicity. And that wasnāt even part of his platform, but I still enabled that.
Trump is openly, unapologetically racist and sexist. If you choose to associate with him, you do have to own that.
Check my comment history if you think I have any shortage of criticism of the Democratic Party, please. I have no issues with criticism of it.
I am highly interested in what criticisms from the Right are legitimate, though. The DNC is still a Center-Right party of neoliberal corporatism, even if weāre slowly making progress on it.
Frankly, I think weāre past the point where we can have that conversation at the national level. All of the routes for that have been under attack for years. No one trusts the other sideās media networks. No one trusts the other sideās politicians. Forums like Beehaw or even Facebook (given the way itās structured) do not have anything even beginning to approach a national scale in their reach.
Iāve had good results with having these conversations with family members and a friend, but thatās not sufficient to fix what is now truly a social problem.
I appreciate this discourse and your thoughtful responses. These kind disagreements are what we need more of. I still disagree that supporting trump necessarily means condoning racism as depending on what issues you prioritize, it may be a case of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Hi! Iād like to budge in here, because while I think that the discourse youāre having is extremely useful, I think youāre missing @Greg@lemmy.ca 's point. Iāve spent a few hours considering your discussion so far, and I have a lot to say about it, so bear with me. If at any point I mischaracterize what has been said, please correct me.
I believe that Greg was arguing for what Iām going to call āmoderate-ism.ā If that name doesnāt suit you, feel free to change it. The idea heās trying to convey is complex enough to warrant a name.
As some background, I consider myself agnostic, but I have both religious and atheist friends with strong points-of-view. Your discussion was similar in style to the conversations Iāve had with them. I say this to point out that āmoderate-ismā is an idea about how to think about ideas, and is beyond any singular ideology.
Iād like to start by remaking your argument, move onto what the āmoderate-ismā idea is, and then how it applies to your situation. Finally Iāll point out where I think the misunderstandings in your conversation were, and how they are similar to other āmoderatistā debates that Iāve had.
These are the important points youāve made: (You made a few others, but I think they were ancillary. I do address some of them later).
āIf you ādisagree lessā with vocal racists who have personal ties with White Nationalist groupsā¦ I might have some bad news for you.ā
And:
āThe problem is, āracism is not as important to me as some other issueā is still a position with its own moral implications.ā
As well as:
ā[Iām] not saying simply that all Republican voters are racist, [Iām] saying that Trumpism and the surging Christian-Nationalist movement is.ā
So, to more accurately convey your point: (and this is where the ācorrect meā part comes in).
āTo vote for Trump requires an inherently flawed point of view; itās important for us to be moral people. Voting for Trump would support racism. This would be so morally reprehensible that there is nothing with enough significance to out-weigh it. Therefore, do not vote for Trump.ā
Note that neither I nor Greg are actually arguing for Trump. Weāre arguing for moderate-ism. Assuming that there could be a valid point-of-view is different from believing them.
Lets boil the situation down more: Imagine we have two candidates running for president, but we only know one thing: One is racist; The other is not. The question is: how many valid points-of-view are there that end in voting for the racist? Your statements imply that there are none, but youāre assuming too much. A single point of view is extremely complex, and takes time to digest. If weāre talking about the millions of people who will vote for Trump, and their millions of different points-of-view, you certainly canāt assume most of them are invalid.
To put this in more mathematical terms: Imagine that each point-of-view is a vector. There is a set of point-of-viewās that could be considered valid. We donāt know very much about this set, only that itās large. Therefore, to assume that this set of valid points-of-view doesnāt contain any which involve voting for Trump, would be to act on knowledge you donāt have.
The idea is more complicated than it seems at first glance. Itās more than just saying āother points-of-view could be valid.ā A better simplification would be: Donāt assume that there isnāt a valid point-of-view involving āXā type of belief. In more humanistic terms Iām saying, donāt completely rule out a system of beliefs because thereās a lot you might not understand.
The part of your conversation that reeled me in was when Greg made the following statement: āā¦ Imagine ā¦ you were an immigrant from a country that was heavily drone attacked by the US. You might make your voting decisions based on the party that bombed your homeland less.ā To which you made an argument as to why that specific statement would be incorrect. Gregg then called this rebuttal a straw-man.
There was a major misunderstanding here. Greg wasnāt actually making that argument. He was simply illustrating that there could be a point-of-view that you havenāt considered; One which is also valid. The difficulty of trying to make the argument in that way, and one that Iāve run into frequently, is that neither he nor I know specifically what that point of view is. If we did, we would believe it, or have disproved it. Rather, we assume that a valid point-of-view may exist; Itās possible we just havenāt come across it yet.
The reason the idea of āmoderate-ismā is important, is that it helps a person avoid making broad assumptions about what can and canāt be true. I think this is what Greg meant when he said āKeep an open mind,ā and ānot everything is black and white.ā Moderate-ism also avoids alienating the people in the group you arenāt a part of.
Ultimately most of us want the same things, we just have different ideaās about how to get there; Believing that is called āgood faith.ā Moderate-ism ties in by helping us work together instead of against each other.
Based on what youāve already said you may have the following rebuttal:
ā[Iām not arguing that their point of view isnāt valid, or that to vote for Trump is inherently wrong. Iām simply saying that] Trump is openly, unapologetically racist and sexist. If you choose to associate with him, you do have to own that.ā
Based on the prior discourse, this could be restated: āItās okay to vote for Trump, if you own that you are a morally reprehensible person.ā Most people donāt want to be morally reprehensible. This is effectively making the same argument as I did (for you) above.
(I thought I would have more counter-counter argumentsā¦)
Anyway, I appreciate that youāve made it this far, and your willingness to discuss your opinions. Iām extremely interested in your thoughts on my āessayā. xD Again, I understand Iām cutting in. Please point out any and all mischaracterizations of your discussion.
Hi there! I donāt mind anyone joining in, itās an open forum. :)
I will mostly keep my response devoid of specific political discussion, and focused on āmoderate-ismā.
I understand your point in this regard, and Gregās, but I believe that it as an ideology (if you prefer to think of it as one) is based on several incorrect assumptions on your part, first and foremost being that you are intrinsically assuming I (or anyone else you encounter) am not fully familiar with conservativesā (or whatever opposing groupās) views on these subjects.
You are essentially just advocating for giving the benefit of the doubt. That is completely fair. Itās also something Iāve already done, many many times.
I would assert that if you do not have a threshold for deciding that your extended good-faith-assumption is not actually correct in a given instance, you do not have a workable ideology, just dangerous apologism. If you (or in this case, Greg) do have a threshold, I think it would be productive or even necessary to state where it lies, so that it can be openly interrogated whether that threshold has been crossed.
First off, I am not assuming anything, I am extremely familiar with the points of view of many different groups of conservatives, and have discussed these issues at length with them. And while I understand the knee-jerk emotional reaction that āmillions of people canāt be wrongā, if you step back a moment youāll realize this is not at all true. Millions of people around the world are racist, sexist, imperialist, supremacist, etc. Itās often not their fault, itās just their environment, but that is a reason, not an excuse.
I stated several times that I do not believe all Republicans are racist, and I would add that many who are, are not so knowingly. But many are openly racist, and all of them are, whether they like it or not, following an ideology that is being led by a racist. That tends to attract other racists, greatly increasing their concentration, and also normalizes racism among the group, which makes it very easy to be and to be around open racism without realizing it, much less interrogating it. If you are assuming that the ratio of racists must be even across all groups, that is a very incorrect and flawed assumption. Groups make different biases welcome or unwelcome by their own ideologies and actions.
Iām a white guy with a very full beard that wears jeans, work boots, and t-shirts. Believe me when I say, I have seen many times, in many places, just how fast the bigotry comes out as soon as itās just people who look like me, and who assume they are safely in fellow (conservative) company.
But secondly, why is assuming a group is not bad, more valid than assuming it is? No assumptions should be acted on without verification, so purely from a standpoint of assessing a group, why is the positive starting point only valid? I would argue that you should assume both ways, and see which assumption holds up to the scrutiny of facts better.
āIf they actually arenāt bad, what am I missing? If I assume an unknown factor is present, does that match the facts?ā
āIf they are actually bad, what would that look like and mean? Does that match the facts?ā
Yes, but he was attempting to do it by using an example he assumed I would not have encountered, which was just another an incorrect assumption. Assuming your own ignorance is a useful exercise to a point when it comes to interrogating your own assumptions and viewpoints about another group, but only insofar as you do not have actual evidence to the contrary. Which is what the Intercept article was attempting to demonstrate that we have, about Trumpers.
Sure. But once again, what is your threshold for finally saying, āokay, yes, this is a bad groupā? You canāt just keep assuming that everyone is only good, otherwise youāre just serving to cover for bad people.
Which is good, unless they are part of a group that should in fact be alienated. My impression from your comment is that you do not actually have a set methodology or threshold for determining whether a group is that.
To loop back to something I said earlier, itās very useful to assume your own ignorance when interrogating your biases and beliefs.
Itās not very useful to assume the ignorance of others, except to quash or dismiss criticism, which is what I see Greg as doing (though perhaps not intentionally).
I never assumed you didnāt have exposure to conservatives and I didnāt assume you wouldnāt have encountered the example I provided. Iām not arguing from ignorance. If some part of my argument isnāt clear please feel free to ask questions instead of making assumptions. Iām happy to continue the conversation and Iām sorry if I came across as dismissive.
Thank you for the thorough reply!
Weāre still misunderstanding each other. Before we can have a truly productive argument we need to better understand the otherās point, (of course). I draw your attention to the fact that I summarized what I think your argument is. In general I am attempting to disprove the summery using āmoderate-ism.ā
I find these types summaries useful for a couple reasons. First, it allows me to verify I understand your point correctly. Secondly, when Iām making a rebuttal, it allows me to attack things which are implied in your argument but not explicitly said; It allows me to take the implicit and make it explicit. I will summarize your points similarly for the rest of our discourse. Please give them your best lawyerly eye and correct me as necessary. I would appreciate if you would make similar summaries of my arguments. While this does add some overhead to our discussion, itās easy to see why arguing against a point not fully grasped is futile; The importance of avoiding this warrants precaution. I find several rounds of revising these summaries to be common in my conversations.
This may clarify a repeated misunderstanding in the discussion.
Itās not that all Republicans are racist, itās that theyāre supporting it. Given what youāve said, you might also say, āTo be a racist, and to support a racist, are very close on the spectrum of morality.ā
In general I am attempting to disprove the summery using āmoderate-ismā (Or dangerous apologism as you might say ;)
I appreciate that you chose to focus on our ideological differences. Hereās where I think the disconnect is: To say that a point-of-view could be valid is different to saying a point-of-view is correct. It follows that a point-of-view can be both valid and incorrect.
By way of example: to actively seek to harm the innocent (those who do not seek to harm) is invalid and incorrect. To prioritize itās prevention below other things is valid, and the level of prioritization is either correct or incorrect based on how itās being prioritized.
To take an example from religion: To assert āGod is certainly realā or āGod is certainly not realā is both invalid and incorrect. However, to take the stance that āhe may be realā, or āmay not be realā is valid. Furthermore, we simply canāt know if those statements are correct or not. (This may be highly controversial, Iām willing to argue specifically about this point of view, but itās a different topic).
I assert that to be racist is both invalid and incorrect, but that to support a racist for office is valid, and depending on the situation may be correct or incorrect. To focus on what I believe the important part of our disagreement is, Iām willing to assume that voting for trump is the incorrect choice, on the other hand Iām arguing that itās valid. To better define āvalidā in this context: A point-of-view which takes into account the facts known by that person and draws what would be a correct conclusion given those facts. āCorrectā means to understand all the necessary facts and therefore draw the conclusion which is ultimately the truth.
Youāre asserting that nothing should out-weigh the fact that heās racist. Yet, there are certainly valid points-of-view that do out-weigh the fact heās racist.
I would like to demonstrate this concept more by addressing your other arguments.
The threshold would be different for determining both validity and correctness. However to your point:
I admit my threshold is underdeveloped. However, I have shown above that it does exist. I canāt state specifically where it lies, at least very accurately. Can you state your own threshold both generally and accurately? I would like to point out that we may actually be arguing over whether weāve crossed the threshold for āvalidity.ā
On your second point
My original statement was over-generic. I concede that point to you- itās not more valid. (Valid by the dictionary definition, not my own). However, in regards to the people who will vote for Trump: Given their large quantity and diversity, we canāt assume their point of view is invalid. They could be making the ācorrectā choice based on the facts they understand. (Though, ultimately they are incorrect).
This again leads to my rebuttal to your main argument stated above. (Rather, to what I believe your argument to be. Iām emphasizing the importance of the summery). You canāt assume that nothing out-weighs the morality of voting for a racist. We donāt know what other āfactsā they think theyāre working with. Even if they know heās racist, thatās not enough to condemn their point of view to invalidity.
Granted, I understand that youāve had many conversations with conservatives. But thatās not enough to claim that every possible point-of-view, which would result in voting for trump, is invalid.
On your third point
I assert that based on the size of this group we donāt have enough information to alienate all of them. Similarly we can assume that a notable portion of them are ignorant. Iām not attempting to dismiss your criticism of their correctness. Iām attempting to dismiss your criticism of the validity of their point-of-view.
In any case, thanks for the earnest discussion, as always. :)
Iāll use your method, and summarize what I believe your position to be:
END OF LIST (since the markdown lists donāt leave any space afterwards)
I think I can see why this is leaving you with no definite threshold for labeling a group as inherently bad, and if I may offer a solution: you need to apply the concept of an Affirmative Defense.
An affirmative defense is a legal concept that occurs when someone admits they have done something wrong, but argues that is was for the right reasons. It then shifts the burden of proof to them, to prove that their reasons made their actions right/ valid (e.g. āyes I shot them, but it was self defense, and hereās the proofā).
Barring that, it will always be impossible under your system to ācall a Nazi a Naziā, because there can always be some hypothetical justification in their minds that you canāt know. This plays into your point that you can not truthfully claim certainty for/against God. You cannot claim to know what is in someoneās mind.
When it comes to real-world harms, though, that cannot be a valid defense. Otherwise, a person can do anything and simply say, ābut you donāt know if I had a good reason for itā.
When it comes to real-world harms, it is beholden on the wrongdoers to prove that their reasons made their actions acceptable. Anything else will leave you unable to condemn and confront evil.
Putting Trump in power is a real-world harm. I have yet to hear a valid reason for doing it.
Thanks for using my method :) I like your metaphorical court of law.
Your most recent arguments were:
ć»Itās important that wrong-doers are able to be found guilty.
ć»The situation plays a role in the severity of the punishment, but that doesnāt change that fact a wrong-doer is guilty. (I think thatās a good description of affirmative defense)
To continue your train of thought: If a person votes for Trump, itās important that we are able to accuse them of that evil. Itās true that they could have a good reason for doing so, but to assume that would allow evil in general to go unpunished. We have to make a judgment based on the facts we have or we canāt make progress.
After re-reading the conversation from the beginning I want to reword what I believe your core arguments to be:
ć»Look, people make evil decisions. They are still humans, but we canāt let that prevent us from fighting back. Ultimately, supporting someone whoās legitimately racist is pretty fucked up, you canāt deny that.
ć»If you havenāt heard a good reason to do an evil thing, than donāt assume there is one. This isnāt to say the reason doesnāt exist, but we have to āsentence the defendantā based on the facts we currently know.
Iāve been convinced. I have to admit that I think I could have seen your point sooner if I wasnāt affected by bias. I think I was falling to the same trap as @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg because my family is very conservative. Itās difficult to accuse people you care for.
I think that @greg@lemmy.ca and I both had the same gut instinct to defend someone against a seemingly brash insult. Our conversation made me realize that being āniceā in that way is flawed.
(Dark_arc and Greg, I mentioned you because Iām curious to know if you agree with where this argument went, please comment if you feel so inclined).
That being said, you and I never addressed the intercept article specifically. We discussed people who are not racist but still vote for trump. The article discusses people who are racist themselves. Iām willing to leave the conversation here, because I donāt think the article is very useful in itself.
One point to clarify wrt affirmative defense is that if the argument is made successfully, they would not be guilty of a crime, as in that case the action that would normally be a crime is not.
If someone can present a reason that voting for Trump is actually better than not, Iām all ears, but it would be a high bar to clear.