Strangely no mention of the climate crisis.
Thankfully (smug response) Not every topic needs to discuss every tangent problem.
Climate is obviously relevant to agricultural production.
Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance
401–410 of 432 posts
Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what's the alternative strategy that gets them over to ""woke""?
Well the first thing is removing identity politics, especially in replies or discussions. Also, not viewing it as "Come to my side". This isn't star wars, rebellion vs empire.
[deleted]
Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what's the alternative strategy that gets them over to ""woke""?
Well the first thing is removing identity politics, especially in replies or discussions. Also, not viewing it as "Come to my side". This isn't star wars, rebellion vs empire.
Removing identity politics? The American right can't shut up about the 'woke agenda', about how the gays/immigrants/foreigners/whomever are destroying the country.
How exactly do you propose to remove identity politics? Do you have any concrete steps for it? Are you going to pull Fox & Friends - the primary drivers of identity politics off the air?
Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They don't see the effect of their taxes being spent, They are quite aware of taxes because 13.5% of their income on average comes directly from federal subsidies paid by taxes on "city folk". https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da... > The voters will vote against their own interests over and over and over if they keep hearing something that resonates with what they feel. Most large farm owne…
> They are quite aware of taxes because 13.5% of their income on average comes directly from federal subsidies paid by taxes on "city folk". I have some investments that will go up and down $10K on a daily basis. That's just a number in a mainframe somewhere, I don't even notice unless I go look, and even then it doesn't "feel" real. If I have to hand over an extra $1 for my coffee in cash, I feel it viscerally . I g…
> To be fair to farmers, it's more complicated than that. A lot of farmers are wealthy because the poorer farmers have been squeezed out, often because of the actions of the very governments they voted for.
Of course, it's not so different in that way than other oligopolistic industries, like tech.
Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to make it impossible for them to exist. Rentiers are the lowest form of business, and incentives need to make it difficult for them to prosper too much. These issues are why policy was oriented around individual home ownership for decades.
Orienting policy around individual home ownership just ends up eventually with more people’s voting interests aligned with landowners, and is part of the reason why increasing property values and NIMBYism is so entrenched in American government structures
We could definitely stand to orient some policy around making sure that first time homeowners aren't typically buying their starter homes at age 40. Having voting interests aligned with landowners wouldn't be a bad thing if most people were landowners.
Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Dems dont actually do much to reach those rural Americans though.
What specific actions would you like elected dems to do that you aren't currently seeing?
Stop demonizing rural people as flyover moo cows and start speaking to them along class lines.
Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting Side Note: bleached/chlorinated chicken The things which makes this a no go in the EU is ironically not the chlorination per-se, but the fact that chlorination is needed. Like basically the EU thinks the way the US allows farmers to keep and raise chickens is so bad/unsanitary that chlorinating them isn't sufficient to make them safe for (repeated) consumption. Which makes sense given that some of the thi…
> but the fact that chlorination is needed. You're wrong. The whole point is this: in EU, you cannot chlorinate your chickens. This means that to sell chicken, you need to make sure that your chicken is good to eat without chlorination (by making sure your whole production chain is sanitized up to sufficient level). In the US you don't need to make sure your production chain is super high sanitation quality because y…
There is also an animal welfare aspect to it. Imagine we had super efficient production method that is 100% guaranteed safe for consumption, but it is absolute hell on earth for the animals, then I don’t think we should do it.
Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, another capitalism bad post, great. What is your solution then? Explain how that happens/migrates to, in the US?
Solution is to prosecute private monopolies out of existence, by enforcing the Robinson-Patman Act and the Sherman Act.
Ok who defines monopoly? I know there is a textbook definition, but it's still somewhat subjective. Also the US won't do this if it creates a international competitive disadvantage.
Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in a a rural farm land area, the only time I hear racist remarks of any kind is online, usually towards white cis men. Just an anecdote, but IMO progressive liberals are some of the most racist people I've encountered. I have family members who didn't like Obama at all, not one of them would ever comment on color, it was his policies.
As a brown American who has to carry passport the moment I step outside my house and hope that ICE goons give me the opportunity to show it if detained, I am all ears to hear about your experiences with racism toward white cis males.
First, I'm sorry you have to do that, it's not right. You blame your skin color for other problems, conflation.
Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can urban liberals please tell us how to vote? You can come and help our fingers push the buttons. Seriously, do you think this works? Do you think urban people living in poverty vote against their interests as well?
You should read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank [1] that discusses this topic at length. Yes, I do think it works: It is possible to persuade people to vote against their material or economic self-interest by inflaming passions around simple, emotionally charged "hot-button" topics that are easy for most voters to understand and react to instinctively. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-C…
I’ve read Frank and this framing assumes there is an objective definition of self interest usually economic and that other priorities like culture autonomy or distrust of institutions are just manipulation. What stands out is the asymmetry where rural voters are described as being worked while poor urban voters making similar tradeoffs are explained through structure or lived experience.
Frank himself later pulled back some of the book’s claims and shifted more blame toward party strategy and elite failure rather than voter pathology. Everyone is influenced by elites and narratives but only some voters are treated as lacking agency when they choose differently.