I actually agree with you on almost everything you said here. But it was definitively stated in that thread that white people are racist by default. That was the tipping point for a lot of people.
I agree with this. That inherently the world is difficult, but it seems like a lot of people are unwilling to try and make things better. African Americans are Americans and their communities are struggling. Why don't people want to do more to help them pick themselves up? Why is it just there problem to fix? Especially if you consider their history in this country I feel almost obligated to try and do something about it. Every time these conversations come up someone says that "they" need to fix the violence problem in their community. Why shouldn't we all be trying to fix those problems? We're all Americans and in some cases we live only a few miles apart from each other. Why shouldn't it be the entire cities, state or nations problem to fix? When the conversation of race comes up I hear people asking for help, and a bunch of people replying, "naaah, I don't believe that you have it that bad."
You realize those are all protected groups because until they were protected, the system was innately set against them, and without those protections it's been proven that "your" group (which is still the controlling one) will keep working that system and treating them unequally, right? Also, why shouldn't we have these conversations? Ideally we can all, particularly in light of recent events, broaden from it.
No, white privilege is white privilege, male privilege is male privilege, class privilege is class privilege, and so on and so forth. It's important to make that distinction because not everyone believes they may be disadvantaged for the same reason, and if we're interested in enabling these people to get a leg up it's important to recognize this. To put it in a current context, not recognizing these differences (if you ever hear the term "intersectionality", this is what it's referring to) is one of the big failings of the leadership of the left/democratic party. The Democratic Party leans heavily on the minority vote, thinking that we'll always get it because the GOP is by and large prejudiced against them, but often forgets that a lot of those same people are also very poor. And a lot of black, latino, and other people of color think that their poverty is holding them back more than them being discriminated because of their race. On the other hand, the BLM is pretty much solely about race, as both poor and affluent black people gave their support to the movement. The important thing is to not assign ranks to marginalization and instead listen to people. They'll tell you what's important to them.
"Privilege" implies it can be taken away though. I'm not denying the advantages for being white male.
It can be taken away, and that is why it is so important to White people. That's why it is such a flash point and will continue to be. That's why immigration is such a key issue lately. It's why many on the right dismiss BLM as terrorists and dismiss them rather than try to hear them. White people, on the whole, will do anything to keep themselves from becoming the true minority. It's why white peoples were ready to pick up guns and revolution if Trump lost (I sure as shit didn't see any dems or African Americans saying that shit). It's why white people keep claiming they are "attacked" for being white. Remember, we live in a nation where this (probably best not to click that at work) happened to a 14 year old black boy for the crime of talking to a white girl, only about 55 years ago, and that is the time that is considered the "good old days" by the GOP. Related note: when I covered the Emmitt Till story and showed that picture to my class, one of my particularly racist students actually laughed. Shouldn't have surprised me, the same kid bragged about finding his dads klan hood and wanting to join. All trends point to "White" probably being a minority in America within the next 50 years, and that scares the FUCK out of white people. They're afraid all the shit that's been happening to black people, or muslims, or Latinos could start happening to them if they become a true minority, and damned if they'll let that happen. Hence... Trump.
I actually can speak to this a bit: my sister in law and new baby niece are Latina (well, niece is half Latina). Since Trump won, she and her family are more dedicated than ever to preserving their heritage and making sure my niece grows up bilingual and aware of her Latino roots. They're not the only ones feeling that way, either.
NSA confirms election was interfered with: https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/798647324687929344?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
I think turnout would go way up amongst dems who didn't vote the first time. Lots of people who didn't vote assuming Hillary had it sewn up would vote this time.
What I should have said is I think class privilege is more important than skin color/gender privileges. I view affirmative action to be a good thing, and I'm not against entitlements for the most part, as long as they're accompanied with a plan. Opportunities are what pull people out of poverty, not economic aid. It's kind of hard to judge someone too much for being a drug dealer when the options are that or work some menial job for $8/hr indefinitely. I'm a much bigger fan of bringing back manufacturing and expanding trade schools. The entitlements stuff is fine, I just don't see it as a long term solution. I agree with you that republicans are assholes when it comes to a lot of race discussion, but there's some important points in there that need to be discussed along with the racial issues, instead of just deflected. People already knew a foreign government might be tampering or trying to help one candidate. Just like people knew the DNC likely tampered with the primaries. Where they learned that information didn't change how people voted. Russia has been trying to fuck with our politics for a long time too, this isn't something new. I can't believe people are serious about this election do-over thing. The left did this with Brexit as well. Because of the 'regret' vote.
You literally called the idea that Wikileaks was a catspaw a rationalization from people butthurt that Hillary lost not four days ago. Get the fuck out of here with this revisionist bullshit.
1 I said maybe it was a foreign government and that I didn't care what the source was. People were bitching about wikileaks, and still are after the election. Much more so than the stuff Hillary did. Yeah, I think there's a little butt hurt in there. I think the government should look into it, and given the risks of hacking, someone with a position like secretary of state should have never used a private e-mail. If it was phishing that caused Podesta to lose his e-mails that's even more incompetent. As far as wikileaks being a catspaw, you might have been right about that. We'll see as the information comes out...
I think it's high time you stop ranting about the American public's inability to think critically about information.
So, based on what we supposedly now know because the NSA says so, was any of the information false? Did we not have a right to know any of that information? I don't think this changes anything, she is still crooked Hillary because it is still all true. Betcha the DNC invests in some encryption and information handling training after all of this. Lolz!
This is the most disgusting thing to ever have been posted in this thread. Hold yourself to a higher standard.
I'm tired of arguing about Hillary and justifications for Trump. Everyone has their own stance on that, we've hashed it out. Article from 538 on why the shy Trump voter theory doesn't fit. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shy-voters-probably-arent-why-the-polls-missed-trump/ My own theory is this: The democrats have a large number of poor 'unlikely' voters. These rarely factor into the polls as many of them don't even have telephones, or internet access. This election, with democrat enthusiasm at a low point (in recent memory) many of these voters didn't show up. Trump was not running as a typical establishment candidate. His manufacturing and anti-corruption message (regardless of whether anyone on here personally agrees with it/believes him) resonated with 'unlikely' voters on the other side who don't bother in most elections. The polls missed these voters for the same reason democrats often outperform the polls in other elections. I don't think this is a huge number of people, but in an election this close it could have made the difference. Then there's the Bernie or bust people. Most of them came home, but not all of them, and the abstainers/Trump voters from that group contributed as well.
That's the long way of saying that while having a strong ground game is important, and Hillary certainly did, you still need to fire up the base and build that resolve to win. Most of Clinton's campaign was incrementalism and 'not Trump'. A lot of people didn't give a fuck about that message. The democrats need a charismatic candidate to win, and Hillary just wasn't.