Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The smug style in American liberalism

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 435 posts

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#361

Post by usmeteora »

saiya-jin wrote: post #200
usmeteora wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree with you in some cases here. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary. However, as a young women working in technology and male dominated environments, it's really hard for me to believe the pathological sexism isnt a fundamentally limiting component in making everything better. I don't believe women should get free rides and everything should be equal overnight. I'm not a man hater. I know many educated male p…

there's not much to disagree on, you are completely right and I am sorry if you encountered any of this low idiotic approach before. I presume we come from very different places (me from eastern Europe, currently in Switzerland). I've never ever seen any negative bias or behavior discussed towards women neither in engineering school, nor in any of the numerous job in my 12 year career. In uni, out of 120 students gra…

There is a female Romanian Engineer who works in my department, a bit older and she said she never encountered sexism even being an issue until she came to America ten years into her Engineering career, and that in Europe being a female engineer was no big deal, welcomed like you said but not biased one way or the other, and she has pointed out that America has a weird issue with sexism shes never experienced working anywhere in Europe, so I find it interesting you echo the same observations.

With that being said, I'd love to work in Europe, maybe I should check that out aha.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#362

Post by DefaultUserHN »

triplesec wrote: post #106
yummyfajitas wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using 'racist' in the context of criticizing Republicans is just name-calling. Bush displayed no open racism, bullied no one, and was not xenophobic. Same for Romney. Yet the anti-Trump language is just a more hysterical version of the anti-Bush and anti-Romney language. At some point the term "racist" came to mean "insufficiently left wing". This happened because left wing types called every Republican "raaacciiiiis…

Bush was pretty inclusive racially. McCain too. IDK about Romney, but Mormons have written history and religion that makes him suspect on that, but he campaigned reasonably. Trump campaigned openly on a racist, xenophobic platform. They were key parts of his rhetoric and key to a good proportion of his winning. That is the difference here.

Which parts of his policies/campaign/platform are racist?

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#363

Post by [deleted] »

saiya-jin wrote: post #200
usmeteora wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree with you in some cases here. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary. However, as a young women working in technology and male dominated environments, it's really hard for me to believe the pathological sexism isnt a fundamentally limiting component in making everything better. I don't believe women should get free rides and everything should be equal overnight. I'm not a man hater. I know many educated male p…

there's not much to disagree on, you are completely right and I am sorry if you encountered any of this low idiotic approach before. I presume we come from very different places (me from eastern Europe, currently in Switzerland). I've never ever seen any negative bias or behavior discussed towards women neither in engineering school, nor in any of the numerous job in my 12 year career. In uni, out of 120 students gra…

[deleted]

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#364

Post by bobwaycott »

xupybd wrote: post #318
bobwaycott wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you overstate your defense. Some people did not vote Trump to satisfy hateful racism or sexism. On the other hand, some most certainly did. In my neck of the woods, that some is not an insignificant amount.

Do you really know the motives of your neighbors that well?

Yes. I live in a staunchly conservative area, and the people are very vocal here.

Here is a campaign sign outside a polling place about 20ish miles away. https://tribwgno.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/white-again.jpg

Beyond that, anyone who attempts to deny the sexism/misogyny of the Trump campaign and its pull with some of his supporters must have entirely missed all the various materials/items made & sold with hateful messaging about Clinton, using sex-based slurs and insults. The evidence is there and overwhelming. Around here, people are proud to wear those shirts and buttons and affix stickers to their cars with the messages. We will continue seeing them for some time in this area.

EDIT: You might be interested in perusing this stream of day 1 after the election:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

Here's a couple particularly notable ones:

- Man walks out to his car, on video, to find "fuck you nigger" written on his windows with "Trump" also written on the front & back glass.

- Assaults on Muslim women by white people making racist comments and mentioning Trump or wearing Trump campaign gear

- A group of whites threatening the life of a black woman at a gas station, with a firearm, while calling her nigger

You're left with one of two conclusions to draw:

- There are hateful racists and sexists/misogynists out there who supported & are emboldened by Trump's victory

- All of these people are making these events up

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#365

Post by DefaultUserHN »

foldr wrote: post #230
jahewson wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to agree with you but Muslims are not a race. Neither are Mexicans for that matter. And being Islamaphobic and xenophobic genuinely is different from being racist. Perhaps not very different, but different nonetheless. N.B. The chant you mention was in fact a hoax.

It's worth bearing in mind that the US is a much more racialized society than the UK. We don't think of 'Mexican' or 'Muslim' as racial categories. But they de facto are racial categories in the US. That may not be very logical, but then neither are most Trump supporters. How many of them do you think are able to carefully parse the distinctions between 'Latino', 'Mexican' and 'illegal brown person'? And of course, r…

>How many of them do you think are able to carefully parse the distinctions between 'Latino', 'Mexican' and 'illegal brown person'?

And yet, Trump supporters understands that Mexican and Muslims are not a race. Hence, why they think Trump is not racist.

>Trump can't say "I want a white America". But the people who do want this haven't had any difficulty picking up on his hints.

Now you're just making up things in your mind about Trump and Trump supporters, and then accusing them of it.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#366

Post by lintiness »

adt2bt wrote: post #333
lintiness wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are out of your mind. the only reason the deficit is south of a trillion is interest rates are HALF what they were in 08. 2008 fed debt: ~10T 2016 fed debt: ~19T 2008 int exp: ~450M 2016 int exp: ~450M he's spent like a lunatic, and his aca has just gotten started.

What could he have feasibly done otherwise?

uh, cut spending?

LOL. jesus.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#367

Post by norea-armozel »

judahmeek wrote: post #315
norea-armozel wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a serious question. Do you think civil protections for LGBT people, gay marriage, and the like needs debate and/or negotiation? Because what makes some of us on the left come off smug or haughty is the fact that conservatives refuse to accept that we deserve those protections. Worse still, some of them think that LGBT people should be put into some kind of hospital to be "cured" because "JESUS!" I'm not trying to…

If you were a former evangelical Christian, then you should understand that according to most modern evangelical strains of Christianity (Southwestern Baptist anyways), treating LGBT people like human beings basically means rejecting the Christian faith. Sodom & Gorromah (& all that Old Testament jazz) & Romans 1:24 - 27 & 1 Corinthians 6:9 - 20 (& etc) were all impressed upon me from a very young age. Oh, and religi…

There's plenty of errors in their theology on this but I'll say that the fact Jesus in his own teachings and that of his followers thereafter saw a distinction between matters of the spiritual and the temporal means they're in error. The laws of the land protecting individuals are not tests of faith except where such laws force to you to believe or espouse otherwise. Marriage in this regard is civil marriage and not spiritual marriage (marriage affirmed by God or that of church elders). The fact they conflate the civil (temporal) with the spiritual amuses me to no end because it shows the mental gymnastics they'll go through to assert the Kingdom is a literal domain on Earth despite the canon and non-canon sources for what Jesus said on this (i.e. the Kingdom isn't the temporal/material). So, I think there will come a reckoning in the church if/when followers start to read their own Bibles and not listen to their pastors (the spirit of discernment is not exclusive to church elders). I just wish to live to see that day as much amusement will be had when it all falls apart.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#368

Post by foldr »

DefaultUserHN wrote: post #365
foldr wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth bearing in mind that the US is a much more racialized society than the UK. We don't think of 'Mexican' or 'Muslim' as racial categories. But they de facto are racial categories in the US. That may not be very logical, but then neither are most Trump supporters. How many of them do you think are able to carefully parse the distinctions between 'Latino', 'Mexican' and 'illegal brown person'? And of course, r…

>How many of them do you think are able to carefully parse the distinctions between 'Latino', 'Mexican' and 'illegal brown person'? And yet, Trump supporters understands that Mexican and Muslims are not a race. Hence, why they think Trump is not racist. >Trump can't say "I want a white America". But the people who do want this haven't had any difficulty picking up on his hints. Now you're just making up things in you…

> Trump supporters understands that Mexican and Muslims are not a race. Hence, why they think Trump is not racist.

So they think he's xenophobic and religiously bigoted instead? How is that better?

>Now you're just making up things in your mind about Trump and Trump supporters, and then accusing them of it.

I'm not making up the fact that white supremacists supported Trump.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#369

Post by foldr »

Nursie wrote: post #357
foldr wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most EU immigration is to London and the South East, somewhere that already feels like it's creaking at the seems and overcrowded. > Limiting immigration would alleviate some of the pressure. First of all, housing is an economic issue. Second, London voted overwhelmingly for remain. I live in London. No-one here seriously thinks that London’s housing crisis can be solved by stopping immigration. Nor did the country…

That doesn't tell you that motivations are something other than race, then? None are so blind as those who will not see. I wasn't only talking about housing provision, I was talking about housing in terms of changing the face of the country and increasing urbanisation. I said London and the South East, not just London, and there were Brexit voters in London, approximately 3.5 million of them. But at least we're engag…

> I was talking about housing in terms of changing the face of the country and increasing urbanisation.

"Changing the face of the country" just means "there are too many brown people and foreigners here".

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#370

Post by Nursie »

foldr wrote: post #369
Nursie wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't tell you that motivations are something other than race, then? None are so blind as those who will not see. I wasn't only talking about housing provision, I was talking about housing in terms of changing the face of the country and increasing urbanisation. I said London and the South East, not just London, and there were Brexit voters in London, approximately 3.5 million of them. But at least we're engag…

> I was talking about housing in terms of changing the face of the country and increasing urbanisation. "Changing the face of the country" just means "there are too many brown people and foreigners here".

I meant it as "building on the greenbelt" and more people living in apartments rather than houses.

But if you're determined to see racism everywhere I guess that's up to you.

Post reply on HN