NSFW THE TRUMPOCALYPSE

[silva]

I feel every example Jamie wrote does reflect racism, sexism, homophobia. It also illustrates the difference in acknowledging prejudice. Everyone has grown up with triggers, but knowing that's YOUR issue and not an issue with the person who represents what scares you is the difference
A prejudiced person can learn. We seem to be seeing more who just want to put the blame for their problems on others, and it's becoming acceptable.

 

[Katrina]

This isn't false, but it doesn't mean overlooking gross behavior or letting societal evils slide just because the person committing them isn't literally Hitler.

Reading your response made me realize that I tend to go easy on people, maybe a bit easier than I should. I've heard homophobic/racist/sexist comments from people I care about. I call them out on it most of the time, but I also tend to minimize it inside my head and make excuses for them. It's because they're older, or they had prejudiced parents, or they don't know better, etc. Racists/sexists are demonized to the point that nobody wants to see it in themselves, and it can be hard to admit that people we care about have those traits/beliefs. It was a big shock to me to realize I have internalized sexism. I have put down certain types of women to make myself look better (more masculine) by comparison. It's not easy to completely remove those beliefs. It's really sad how society basically encourages women to hate each other!

I'm curious to hear your opinion on something. Black Lives Matter is one of those touchy subjects. I have no issue with the group, personally. It did come up in conversation with someone I am close to. He commented that it should be ALL Lives Matter. He is a visible minority. Many of his aunts/uncles/grandparents are dead because of genocide in his country of origin. Is his comment racist, coming from him? I really don't know. I just told him that many people would consider his opinion to be offensive. We were out in public, and I didn't want him to get in a row with someone. That was the end of the conversation.

 

[beancounter]

He commented that it should be ALL Lives Matter. He is a visible minority. Many of his aunts/uncles/grandparents are dead because of genocide in his country of origin. Is his comment racist, coming from him? I really don't know. I just told him that many people would consider his opinion to be offensive.

All lives do matter, and it is extremely twisted logic to believe that the statement is racist, whereas "black lives matter" is not racist.

Why?

"ALL" is all-inclusive and does not single out or favor one group, Whereas "black" lives matter is racist, because it's implicitly saying that ONLY black lives matter.

And despite rhetoric to the contrary, "All lives matter" is not a wink and a nod or secret slogan between white supremacist that really means that only white lives matter. Rather, it's sour grapes reasoning from BLM members and their supporters who don't want their slogan to be diluted.

 

[Moll Flanders]

OK, so half the country are white supremacist.
Your not going to be able to get enough of them to change their worldview. So what's the solution for the Democrats to get back in power?
Pointing fingers and ranting about how awful half the people in the country are is not the solution.
The solution is simple. In addition to dropping identity politics, they need to stop focusing primarily on the priorities of educated Urbanites, and talk to the universal needs of people in general.
Maybe that's not the right solution. But one thing is clear, if they continue down their current path, they will continue to lose.

BC - Why not start a discussion in a different thread as it seems some people on VV are so angry at the moment that they aren't being rational and just want to vent? I am interested in what people think about what will be a realistic outcome to the Trump win and I am not reading any logical arguments. I read this on another forum earlier so I am clearly not the only person who is getting bored with the utter hysteria being displayed at the moment:

I thought the point of threads like this was for Hillary supporters to congratulate each other on not being <racist, sexist, stupid, naive> and blatantly ignore any discussion for why Trump could have won except that his voters were <racist, sexist, stupid, naive>.

I don't think you understand how adult conversation works. Adult conversation means trying to understand different beliefs than your own and being able to articulating them. But the way threads like this (and there have been multiple on this subject) go are more like:

• A: Why did Trump win?
• B: Some reasons
• A: Nahh, it's because his supporters are <racist, sexist, stupid, naive> and you must be too

over and over, ad nauseam. Every one of these threads becomes a giant echo chamber where Clinton supporters congratulate themselves on not being <racist, sexist, stupid, naive> and have no interest in even attempting to understand the election.

 

[Amy SF]

All lives do matter, and it is extremely twisted logic to believe that the statement is racist, whereas "black lives matter" is not racist.

Why?

"ALL" is all-inclusive and does not single out or favor one group, Whereas "black" lives matter is racist, because it's implicitly saying that ONLY black lives matter.

And despite rhetoric to the contrary, "All lives matter" is not a wink and a nod or secret slogan between white supremacist that really means that only white lives matter. Rather, it's sour grapes reasoning from BLM members and their supporters who don't want their slogan to be diluted.

I'm not convinced that BLM is racist. I'm not convinced that it implies that ONLY black lives matter. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, and as far as I'm concerned, the "all lives matter" comeback is meant to discredit the BLM movement by dismissing it as racist. Black lives matter is meant to convey the simple idea that black lives actually matter. That black people are not expendable. That cops can't simply shoot first and ask questions later based on skin color, that they can't simply use the "I feared for my life" excuse when they see a black person and their immediate reaction is to shoot to kill especially if THEY DON'T have the same reaction when they see a white person exhibiting the same behavior, that if they kill black people, there should be the same questions asked, the same consequences as when they kill white people. That there's inherent racism when it comes to how black people are treated by the police because white people are overwhelmingly treated differently than black people by the cops.

That's what BLM is all about, and that's why "All Lives Matter" makes me angry. When cops kill black people at a higher rate than white people and they're protected by the justice system, their police department, the police union, and defended by white people, then what is racist? It's not Black Lives Matter, which is simply trying to say, don't kill our people simply because they're black.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I just realised I should have said that I completely understand why people would vent as I would be so ****** off with a Trump win. I would be furious if I lived in the US. I just wanted there to be another thread where people were just discussing some of the reasons for the result and what to do now.

 

[beancounter]

I'm not convinced that BLM is racist. I'm not convinced that it implies that ONLY black lives matter. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, and as far as I'm concerned, the "all lives matter" comeback is meant to discredit the BLM movement by dismissing it as racist.

I'm simply basing on language definitions. All means everyone, and is therefore not racist. And I'm tired of people claiming that anyone who says it is being racist, because that simply isn't true.

Everyone's life matters, and that what Liberals should be standing for.

BTW, saying all lives matter doesn't diminish issues faced by blacks, it INCLUDES those issues. (you know, that pesky "all-inclusive" thing...)

 

[Calliegirl]

I never know how serious to take things like this anymore. I don't want to become one of those 'the sky is falling' people, but I don't want to underestimate what can happen either. Trump is so out of control, anything is possible.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

If you look at the responses from different people to my examples, they don't exactly agree. That shows that where people draw the line about what constitues exactly racist/sexist/homophobic etc is not precisely the same, and I wonder if perhaps we should not call out every (perceived) microaggression. Or, if we do, it should be done very politely or with a joke or a deflection. Otherwise you are causing upset by criticising mostly good people because of some tiny imperfection and it could do more harm than good. We don't want people to feel they are walking in a minefield where a slight mis-speak gets you branded a nazi and so the conversation gets shut down and any ignorance remains. Also, you could make a mistake about what someone said, and cause yourself to look a fool by calling someone out when it wasn't warranted at all.

So if someone says that they feel uncomfortable in a "gay bar" I probably wouldn't say to them that this was wrong or homophobic. I might instead prefer to respond that I used to feel the same way but I eventually realized that there is no reason to feel uncomfortable in a gay bar.

One of the other problems here is group sexism/racism/homophobia where no individual is sexist/racist but the group is. For instance if I am sitting watching a football match on TV and a woman says an opinion about the football, and I say that I disagree, that's nonsense to call that sexist, for starters maybe she IS talking rubbish. But what if there is a group of people and every time a woman speaks she gets shouted down by one of the men and every time a man speaks an opinion, he gets agreed with by another one of the men. You get an instance of group sexism without any of the individuals being sexist.

And say I interview three men and three women and offer a man the job, that isn't sexist (at least not as far as you can tell). But what if everyone in the company does the same thing and no woman ever gets a job there and every one of the 15 people working there is male. It's hard to say any individual decision was sexist, but the company overall now is.

The same thing works for an individual. They can be racist/sexist overall, without committing a single racist/sexism action or saying a single racist/sexist statement. For instance a person who disagrees with a woman whenever they give an opinion on business, science or politics. You can't call them sexist for any one of the times they do this, but you can notice a pattern.

I post occassionally on a tennis forum and most of the posters are male, and 90%+ of the discussion is about men's tennis, and when women's tennis comes up, it's often about the players looks. It can't be sexist to say that a person is physically attractive, or say that you'd like them to be your date or whatever else, but it does seem sexist if it becomes a pattern to look at women only from a point of view of physical attractiveness, and not consider their other merits. I would say that entire forum is sexist, and yet there is not a single poster on there that I would consider sexist. So, how do you deal with that.

So perhaps the first microaggression or awkward comment can or even should be ignored, until it becomes a pattern.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Looking back at some of the opinions (possibly including Callie Girl, Forty Two and Mischief) from a couple of pages or so ago, I mostly agree with all of you, but I think you are slightly overstating the extent to which Trump voters might be racist/sexist etc, or the amount of Trump voters that might be racist/sexist.

Some people that voted for him did that in spite of views where he stated some borderline sexist/racist comments, not because of them. They voted for him because they want a job in the US, or because they don't like Washington, or because they don't like the Clintons, or they see a successful businessman. They perhaps didn't like his comments about women, and counted that against him, but in the end saw that as less important. I got this strong sense of that from a number of interviews I watched on TV and online with Trump voters.

Some of them agree with you about sexism and racism, but don't think his comments were bad enough to disqualify him as a viable candidate, just a negative point. They may agree with you but just not strongly enough. A lot of Trump voters don't seem to like him at all, but in their minds there are some negative points against Trump and others against Hillary Clinton and it isn't clear who's worst.

Some people probably didn't even hear half the things that he said. It would be nice to think that everyone reads politfact extensively before voting, but that's just not the reality. People see a few soundbites on TV and a few articles on facebook and perhaps mix it a bit of Fox News or Breitbart and vote accordingly. That is the (sad) reality.

 

[KLS52]

Most of the RL people I know who voted for Trump did so because they hate Hillary and think she is a crooked evil person.

 

[AeryFairy]

I'm simply basing on language definitions. All means everyone, and is therefore not racist. And I'm tired of people claiming that anyone who says it is being racist, because that simply isn't true.

Everyone's life matters, and that what Liberals should be standing for.

BTW, saying all lives matter doesn't diminish issues faced by blacks, it INCLUDES those issues. (you know, that pesky "all-inclusive" thing...)

Yes, by definition, 'all lives' does include 'black lives'.

But then there's context.

Like how linguistically, 'booty call' and 'butt dial' technically mean the same thing. But contextually, they really, really don't.

 

[beancounter]

Yes, by definition, 'all lives' does include 'black lives'.

But then there's context.

Like how linguistically, 'booty call' and 'butt dial' technically mean the same thing. But contextually, they really, really don't.

I'm not talking about two separate terms that mean the same thing. It's an over simplification of the issue, and essentially a straw man.

 

[FortyTwo]

I don't quite have the energy to respond to everything in this thread at the moment, but I will say this:

Black Lives Matter is simply trying to make a firm declaration that black lives matter. Not only black lives matter, but that black lives matter too. That is literally all they're saying.

Meanwhile, the "all lives matter" people are 99% of the time just butting in on discussions about BLM to try and dismiss their (very good) points about the oppression they face, by framing it as a "reverse racist" narrative where BLM is promoting black supremacy. Generally the "all lives matter" crowd doesn't say anything when actual shootings happen, to anyone of any race (whereas there are tons of examples of BLM protesting when white people end up the victims of police brutality, which happens). They just want to be contrarian and dismiss legitimate concerns, probably because the idea that this country's police force is an institution founded and maintained by white supremacy and there have been very few efforts from inside to flush this ideology out, with those who try being discouraged by their peers and the normalization of the police force as an inherently good thing, makes them feel uncomfortable.

Without singling anyone out, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest to see contrarians continue to be contrarians in this thread.

 

[Mischief]

Black Lives Matter is simply trying to make a firm declaration that black lives matter. Not only black lives matter, but that black lives matter too. That is literally all they're saying.

Yup.

The thinking that gets upset at "Black Lives Matter" is the same type of thinking that got upset at gay pride parades ("What about straight pride?! You don't see US making a big issue out of being heterosexual!") and at every other marginalized group who has ever asked to be valued as much as the "norm" of "traditional" society.

 

[Mischief]

Looking back at some of the opinions (possibly including Callie Girl, Forty Two and Mischief) from a couple of pages or so ago, I mostly agree with all of you, but I think you are slightly overstating the extent to which Trump voters might be racist/sexist etc, or the amount of Trump voters that might be racist/sexist.

I think there are very few individuals in our society that don't have racist, sexist or other bigoted reactions to some degree. (And I don't exempt myself.) It's baked into us, and it's something that we need to be aware of in ourselves if we are ever to do better.

(Other than the very obvious and vocal bigots) what the people who voted for Trump did is make a determination that the bigotry of the man and those he chooses to surround him doesn't matter as much as whatever interest they had in voting for him. That's a moral/ethical choice with which I very much take issue.

 

[Mischief]

This is a really interesting point. Internalized sexism and internalized racism are so insidious that most people have no idea that they have it. They may even identify as being feminist or pro-equality.

This is true.

However, in the case of women at least, it can be much, much more obvious. For example, in the county in which I once again live, there are law firms that have never hired a female lawyer because their clerical staff (female) have come to them en masse and said that if a female lawyer is ever hired, they will quit because they "don't want to work for a woman." True story, and just one example.

 

[Freesia]

Why is this thread NSFW?

 

[Calliegirl]

Why is this thread NSFW?

It was marked NSFW so we could rant and cuss and throw things and post images that might not be safe for work, without having to place them in spoilers or with warnings.

 

[Calliegirl]

Looking back at some of the opinions (possibly including Callie Girl, Forty Two and Mischief) from a couple of pages or so ago, I mostly agree with all of you, but I think you are slightly overstating the extent to which Trump voters might be racist/sexist etc, or the amount of Trump voters that might be racist/sexist.

Some people that voted for him did that in spite of views where he stated some borderline sexist/racist comments, not because of them. They voted for him because they want a job in the US, or because they don't like Washington, or because they don't like the Clintons, or they see a successful businessman. They perhaps didn't like his comments about women, and counted that against him, but in the end saw that as less important. I got this strong sense of that from a number of interviews I watched on TV and online with Trump voters.

Some of them agree with you about sexism and racism, but don't think his comments were bad enough to disqualify him as a viable candidate, just a negative point. They may agree with you but just not strongly enough. A lot of Trump voters don't seem to like him at all, but in their minds there are some negative points against Trump and others against Hillary Clinton and it isn't clear who's worst.

Some people probably didn't even hear half the things that he said. It would be nice to think that everyone reads politfact extensively before voting, but that's just not the reality. People see a few soundbites on TV and a few articles on facebook and perhaps mix it a bit of Fox News or Breitbart and vote accordingly. That is the (sad) reality.

The president is supposed to be the ultimate role model for the country and it's citizens. This is the person we want to represent our country to the rest of the world. You vote for the person you think has values closest to your own, and will run the country accordingly. Of course, they are never going to be everything you want, but they should have overwhelmingly more things you agree with, than disagree, or dislike. When you vote for them, you are saying I'm fine with others looking up to this person and modeling their values.

When someone who isn't racist, sexist, etc, votes for Trump in spite of him being all of those things, they are saying that they are acceptable as American values and as a reflection of America.

Let's say someone voted for him solely because he claimed he would create more jobs. Do you know how incredibly selfish that would be, to say they were fine with someone who brags about sexual assault, makes racists and sexists remarks, threatens those who oppose him, and lists goes on and on, because of one campaign promise? That is appalling to think they are fine with electing someone who has made it clear that he plans to destroy a huge number of lives, as long as they get what they want.