The U.S. Culture(s) thread

Well, if you're not going to read the article, why bother responding with empty commentary? It was a sincere question in regards to a comment ignorant enough to make it sound like you hadn't read it.

edited 13th Dec '16 5:11:39 PM by AceofSpades

1, it wasn't commentary, it was a question about the tone of the article that literally no one would ask after reading said article.

2, maybe because stories about life in the US for non-white citizens are almost never positive?

I'll point out that the headline there is somewhat misleading, as the article never talks about the actual assimilation process, just about how over the years immigrants from Mexico have been legally screwed over. (As such, it's not exactly informative in regards to "culture".)

And this is one big reason why people here are supposed to either give a brief summary of the article's content that is not just a mere rewording of the title, or simply quote a somewhat significant amount of the relevant content.

No, I'm not kidding. Check the Forum Rules thread in the FAQ subforum; it's a newly added rule/guideline.

edited 14th Dec '16 11:34:03 AM by MarqFJA

Re Trump supporters, a very big part of the problem is that many voters blame pro-diversity policies for the loss of their economic prospects. They arnt entirely wrong. Thd white working class are losing some of their privileges, and many of them are frightened by the new competition.

So they're butthurt because the game isn't rigged in their favor as much anymore?

On the "bright side", that's looking to change very soon.

Also, you'd think being about "hard work can make all your dreams come true", they'd just work harder to make sure they stay ahead of this new competition. Maybe deep down they're aware of their privilege and know the whole "bootstraps" thing is bullcrap?

edited 14th Dec '16 7:12:58 PM by PhysicalStamina

It's a rather interesting example of Double Think, isn't it?

I read a report that said many of them don't have any problem with the government programs in principle ("if they're there why not use them right?"). That is unless brown and black people are involved, in which case they make a fuss about them not deserving them.

It speaks for itself I think.

And yet it's somehow wrong to call them racist. Even though that's pretty much blatant racism.

President Obama did three things that the racists of America couldn't forgive: 1) he got elected in the first place, 2) he got re-elected, and 3) worst of all, he didn't completely fuck up.

edited 14th Dec '16 8:12:49 PM by M84

Demarquis: They are wrong. They're entirely wrong. Their economic prospects have been ruined not by non-discrimation, but by the systematic oppression of wage growth and other top-down class warfare.

... Most of which they voted for. It's really kind of depressing.

It's as LBJ said. "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."

Right, they're too stupid to get that they're being screwed by the people they're voting for, or they're cynically vicious enough to understand it but be glad because at least the darkies will get hurt even more.

The difference between left wing populism and right wing populism is whom they direct the public's wrath towards. Right wing populism points people at the ones who are even less powerful — easy targets. Left wing populism OTOH points people at the powerful — who tend to be more challenging targets.

I've seen this quote pop up a lot on this thread this year and I have a feeling it will continue to do so, each time painfully relevant, for quite a bunch of time.

Hmm, that's partially true, racism is a part of it, at least for some of them. But you can make a rational argument that, if you see the economy as a fixed sum of opportunities, then any advantages the Federal Government gives to one demographic group must have been taken away from another one. The racism comes in when you believe that that other group hasn't worked as hard, or been as obedient to the law, as you have.

The other part is authoritarianism, where large corporate employers are put on top of the hierarchy. Wealthy top executives are the alpha dogs of American society, and therefore deserve to be treated with respect. Authoritarians aren't necessarily oriented toward upward mobility, but toward economic stability. They don't mind being poor, just so long as they can count on never getting any worse. The growing wealth disparity between themselves and the 1% doesn't bother them, as long as they think they are being taken care of. When jobs disappear, they blame Washington, not the employers.

One thing I think we need to look out for is that when the next severe recession hits (sometime soon) we may see some pressure to revert to a kind of corporate feudalism, where private entities own and provide public services (Trump's infrastructure plan can be seen this way). When times are tough, authoritarians look to the people with the money to save them. The Koch brothers and their network know this, and are able to take advantage of it. Things could get a lot worse very fast before they get any better.

Well "if you see" can go other ways. "If you see" reality then you know governments don't work that way, economies don' work that way.

Most Americans have little if any understanding of how economics works beyond their own household affairs.

That plus the heavily politicized nature of the discipline makes it very easy to discredit Keynesian or even the relatively business/ conservative friendly Monetarist schools.

They also have a poor understanding of how their own government works generally.

Its not completely unrealistic, on any one given day the economy is a zero sum game. Its only over the long term that we work together to acheive growth. And theres been precious little growth in the last ten years

edited 15th Dec '16 6:03:34 PM by DeMarquis

For better or for worse (okay it's definitely gonna be worse) the USA is going to find out the hard way why letting someone like Trump gain power is a YUUUGE mistake.

I look forward to the impeachment hearings.

That's assuming we get them. I REALLY hope we do, but seeing as how Trump has so far managed to spit in the face of all that we presume to be reality and reason, who's to say he's not going to do so again and manage to avoid getting an impeachment hearing altogether?

As much as we all want it to happen, a Trump impeachment really is just wishful thinking.

So long as the RepubliKKKans continue to control Congress, it seems to me that successful impeachment is almost as much of a pipe dream as a rogue electorate was.

What would it take to even get to that point, anyway? How does the process of potential impeachment begin? Would it require absolute proof that he, say, was complicit in Russian attacks on our democracy?^note You'd think that the FBI and the CIA both confirming that fact would get a little more attention in both our media and our government, but apparently treason's not a big deal anymore.