[Random Interval] Reminder that the White Nationalists still seemingly haven’t noticed that widespread human genetic engineering is arriving in 1-3 decades.
Like, here they are, freaking out about IQ levels, when if they’re right on the origins of IQ, it will be sorted out within one or two generations. And that’s assuming that they’re right in the first place.
[Random Interval] Reminder that the White Nationalists still seemingly haven’t noticed that widespread human genetic engineering is arriving in 1-3 decades.
The Five Types of Trump Voters is good too, if only for its frankly depressing portrait of the ‘Anti-Elites’:
Anti-Elites (19 percent) This group of Trump supporters leans economically progressive, believes the economic and political systems are rigged, and takes relatively more moderate positions on immigration, race, and American identity than American Preservationists. They are also the most likely group to favor political compromise.
Anti-Elites have relatively cooler feelings toward Donald Trump than American Preservationists, and nearly half had favorable opinions of Clinton in 2012. This group shifted most dramatically, however, against Clinton by November 2016. They were the least likely group to mobilize in the Republican primary, but of those who did, they disproportionately turned out for John Kasich.
Anti-Elites are middle-class voters with moderate levels of education, and they skew slightly younger than other Trump groups. They are the least likely group to own guns, go to church, and be politically informed.
Anti-Elites believe that moneyed and political elites take advantage of the system against ordinary people and they support increasing taxes on the wealthy. Compared to the American Preservationists, they take more moderate positions on immigration, race, American identity, religious traditionalism including gay marriage, and the environment. Why are they not Democrats? Perhaps because they take less liberal positions on legal immigration and the temporary Muslim travel ban. Democrats who moderate their positions on immigration might win over some Anti-Elite voters.
[…]
Anti-Elites constitute a large share of voters who only voted for Trump in the general election, but did not vote in the primaries. They lean economically progressive and are relatively more moderate on immigration, but are staunchly anti-elite.
The Anti-Elites are the least loyal Republicans of the Trump voters with nearly two-thirds (63 percent) who say they vote both for Democrats and Republicans in elections, a quarter who say they voted for Barack Obama in 2012, and nearly as many who say they identify as independent (42 percent) as Republican (47 percent).
They, along with the Free Marketeers, are the weakest supporters of Trump with only 26 percent having very favorable views—51 points lower than the American Preservationists. Four years ago, nearly twice this share (47 percent) had a favorable view of Clinton, but this number plummeted to a dismal 9 percent by 2016 (see Figure 11). While 78 percent have an unfavorable view of Clinton today, only 47 percent felt similarly toward Obama in 2012. Had a Democrat other than Clinton been on the ticket in 2016, Anti-Elites may have split their votes for him or her over Trump. Next to Trump, Anti-Elites were most likely to have voted for John Kasich (22 percent) in the early primaries. Thus, it comes as less of a surprise that this group split on the question of whether their vote was for Trump or against Clinton.
Today, 40 percent say they have favorable views of democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. Might Sanders have peeled these voters away from Trump had he been the Democratic nominee? Possibly. Only 16 percent, however, say they would have voted for Sanders over Trump.
“Why are they not Democrats?“
Compared to the American Preservationists, they take more moderate positions on immigration, race, American identity, religious traditionalism including gay marriage, and the environment. Why are they not Democrats? Perhaps because they take less liberal positions on legal immigration and the temporary Muslim travel ban.
Gee, doesn’t that sound familiar.
Must admit, the endless fascist vs. communist schtick that Tumblr has going on gets a little tiresome. Why must everyone be so uncreative?
unfortunately posts complaining about endless fascism vs. communism debates are now more overplayed than those debates themselves.
struggling to go up another meta level here lads
We need a new object level debate to meta on, obviously. How about National Technocracy vs. Globalist Populism?
Reid’s view of political parties would be perfectly valid (and possibly even desirable) if it weren’t for the fact that our two parties actively work to prevent any alternative parties from being able to compete with them. A party doesn’t get to eliminate all of its competition and then place demands on those forced into working through it as the only remaining option. Not in a society with even nominal political freedom, that is.
Is metaphor for capitalism and wage-labor.
To be honest, not fitting into the two party system is part of why I haven’t entered politics.
Need to get someone to promise to eat something ridiculous if Donald Trump get impeached. A hunk of granite maybe? Maybe some of the Swedish rotted fish thing?
can i volunteer to eat abstract concepts
@collapsedsquid Unless you can get on national television and make a good spectacle of it there somehow, no.
Call Xi Jinping. I will eat the share of the national debt controlled by China by transmuting it into bearer bonds printed on tortillas.
I don’t think this actually true. Bill Gates, 1/8th of that number, is *already* doing massive-scale philanthropy, it hasn’t yet solved the problem of human poverty because human poverty is an even more massive scale problem, and it’s not obvious to me that any authority that could tell Gates to run his philanthropy differently/confiscate his money and do it instead of him would necessarily do a better job than him.
I’m in favor of governments taxing very wealthy people and using the money to pay for things that make the lives of poor people all over the world better, but I think this specific claim about the 8 richest people in the world makes solving poverty seem like a smaller problem than it actually is.
The thing about using mass immigration to try to solve global poverty is that it can’t keep up with birth rates. Redistribution from the wealthy mostly can’t, either.
Only what is produced can be consumed. The production capacities of these migrant-generating countries must be increased, and their birthrates must fall (increasing paternal investment per child, further increasing per-capita economic productivity in addition to not spreading limited base resources as thinly).
Probably the way forward isn’t quite giving or taking but something like partially self-funding institutions that “sell” infrastructure at a discount and promote development of local businesses and foster self-improving attitudes, promoting the formation of better institutions that will help the changes to stick.
One of the things Bill Gates is trying to do is cut birthrates in the developing world by promoting contraception, girls education, and vaccines (cut the death rate and the birth rate also drops).
Yes. That’s part of the reason I don’t approve of seizing his fortune for the glory of the third world - the US government in the hands of the Republicans does the opposite with bans on funding to nations that practice abortion.
In their religious fervor, the Republicans are Natalists - a policy that might make sense for nations like Japan, but which does not make sense in countries that already cannot feed their populations.
I don’t think this actually true. Bill Gates, 1/8th of that number, is *already* doing massive-scale philanthropy, it hasn’t yet solved the problem of human poverty because human poverty is an even more massive scale problem, and it’s not obvious to me that any authority that could tell Gates to run his philanthropy differently/confiscate his money and do it instead of him would necessarily do a better job than him.
I’m in favor of governments taxing very wealthy people and using the money to pay for things that make the lives of poor people all over the world better, but I think this specific claim about the 8 richest people in the world makes solving poverty seem like a smaller problem than it actually is.
The thing about using mass immigration to try to solve global poverty is that it can’t keep up with birth rates. Redistribution from the wealthy mostly can’t, either.
Only what is produced can be consumed. The production capacities of these migrant-generating countries must be increased, and their birthrates must fall (increasing paternal investment per child, further increasing per-capita economic productivity in addition to not spreading limited base resources as thinly).
Probably the way forward isn’t quite giving or taking but something like partially self-funding institutions that “sell” infrastructure at a discount and promote development of local businesses and foster self-improving attitudes, promoting the formation of better institutions that will help the changes to stick.
“not being white does not mean you are of color”, while a perfectly reasonable statement in the right context, suggests a categorisation scheme of:
- white (or “people who think they are white”, Ta-Nehisi Coates)
- people of color
- just folks
Whiteness/Colorness is defined by oppressiveness. Therefore, Yamato in Japan and Han in China are not People of Color.
Shitpost, or just another mileage marker on the road to Asians leaving the Democrats’ coalition in the US? Our expert DiversityTek™-certified discourse panel debates…
(edit: geez just how tired am i getting one of the countries wrong)
