looking down on 'em

[kaysixteen]

As we head on into the home stretch before the election Tuesday, I am not feeling so great, even though I am only a Democrat-leaning independent, not an actual doctrinaire Dem.   And I have mentioned here the deep ambivalence I feel, owing to the increasingly strident hard-left secular views of the Democrats wrt abortion and sexuality (as well as acknowledging real surprise that SCOTUS actually finally nuked Roe).  I support the Dems in spite of these views, and wish that they had chosen to focus far more on 1) the actual truth of the economy 2) what they have done for the average American over the last two years, and 3) what the Republicans will do in these areas should they take power.

That said, I confess I am also struggling with real feelings of both resignation that many if not most working class white folks do not see this about the GOP, and growing antipathy towards these people.  (and I, of course, am also working a decidedly working class low income job).  It depresses and largely shames me to say this, but it would likely be more shameful to lie about it.  Simply put, it is really very very difficult to respect people who 1) eschew learning and thinking, allowing them to 2) consistently get bamboozled by bad actors, all the while also 3) acting and behaving in ways that are really contrary to traditional American behavioral norms (Archie Bunker did not act like that).   I am trying very hard to love these folks, to realize that they have in fact not been blessed with the intellectual and educational wherewithal I have, which has allowed me to better ascertain reality, etc.   And I am well aware that one of the reasons why many of these folks say (at least to pollsters and reporters) that they are going to vote the way they are, is that they feel that people like the folks on these fora 'look down on us'.   They are not wrong.  It is perhaps like what recently happened wrt Hurricane Ian, where various red state denizens needed (and did not feel afraid to expect, and ask for) FEMA funds, etc, even as many of their politicians had voted against such distributions in circumstances such as Superstorm Sandy.   Or maybe when people like this expressed genuine shock that Trump and Co actually sought to kill Obamacare, even though they knew he campaigned on it.   Now, the GOP is not even bothering to hide objectives like cutting SS and Medicare, and is offering no actual plan to confront inflation.   But many of these folks will vote for them anyhow.... I just do not know what to say, and how to act around such folks now...

[Hegemony]

To be honest, I think the current climate of the States (at least) is one that encourages everyone to look down on those they do not agree with. On both sides. I know each side will say, "No, they have contempt for us — they started it — I am only reacting to their bad behavior!" But nope. Each side is contemptuous.

The way I try to resist is is to focus on the fact that actually most people want pretty much the same things, even if they have different views on how to get to that point. And to acknowledge that humans are pretty vulnerable, pretty fickle beings, subject to all kinds of whim, bias, and influence — me included. We're all out here doing the best we can. Often we're really wrong. We just gotta keep trying.

Sometimes, when it all becomes a little overwhelming, a nice break and a little snack helps.

[mahagonny]

It's not hypocritical to ask for FEMA funds if your taxes are paying for them, irrespective of whether you voted for them or not. The democrats are so ideological now that they appear to have lost all interest in simple mathematics and the hard reality of having to make choices. Not everything we would like government to supply us with can be paid for, and I suspect the non-woke voters know this, because anyone who runs a household (even one consisting of one person) finds this out vividly every day.
I have a friend who thinks it is our responsibility to fix the third world so we will no longer have a flood of non-documented immigrants. Really? How?

To be honest, I think the current climate of the States (at least) is one that encourages everyone to look down on those they do not agree with. On both sides. I know each side will say, "No, they have contempt for us — they started it — I am only reacting to their bad behavior!" But nope. Each side is contemptuous.

The democrats did start it. They have called just about every republican since Ronald Reagan "a racist." And when they ran out of 'white racist' republicans to smear, they made the black ones 'black faces of white supremacy.' They keep alive foolish, stale grievances like 'the glass ceiling' supposedly holding women back, even though we've already had candidates Geraldine Ferraro, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, a female VP and a slew of female representatives and senators. They sabotage the future for black people by telling them half of white America hates them. Now they think everyone needs to go back and check whether or not they have been going around identifying with the wrong gender.
Please.
They are beyond implausible and getting worse.

Sasha Stone: https://sashastone.substack.com/p/the-collapse-of-bidens-woketopia#details

[marshwiggle]

The way I try to resist is is to focus on the fact that actually most people want pretty much the same things, even if they have different views on how to get to that point. And to acknowledge that humans are pretty vulnerable, pretty fickle beings, subject to all kinds of whim, bias, and influence — me included. We're all out here doing the best we can. Often we're really wrong. We just gotta keep trying.

Yup. And keep in mind, it's the most noisy and extreme people on both sides who get the press. The quieter, non-radicals on both sides don't get listened to, because they don't generate the clicks.

[Hegemony]

Mahoganny proves my point perfectly. "But the other side did start it!" Both sides will argue this till they're blue in the face. Of course one could also observe that even if one side can be definitively proven to have "started it" (and I think the likelihood that such a thing can be proven, even if such a thing is that simple, is infinitesimal), the assumption is that "If they started it, any response on my part is wholly justified and virtuous and almost beyond my control! And like I said, virtuous!" Taking action to make the world better is admirable, but these expressions of self-righteous outrage I think exist mostly to make the outrager feel smug. Yep, on both sides.

Sometimes I successfully detach by observing, "There it's happening again. Yes, I knew they would react that way. It certainly shouldn't surprise me now."

[Wahoo Redux]

It's time to get rid of political parties.  They are no working.

In my part of the country (the Rust Belt) the political ads are pure ad hom propaganda from both sides.  Both political persuasions blame China for the state of the economy and accuse the other side of colluding.   There is no actual discussion of policy, simply allegations and cherry-picked soundbites taken out of context.  One political ad actually blames a candidate for moving to California for a time, growing a beard and wearing flannel.  It's hilarious.

That said, I've spent some time on places like One America News, Newsmax, FOX News, and a few other outlets.  Even CNN cannot compete for the amount of distortion on these places.  Some people are very vulnerable to this sort of psychological assault. 

And then you imagine the average blue-collar worker who spends probably ten hours outside of the home every working day including commute, lunch break, choirs, etc. and then has family responsibilities.   They are not going to spend a great deal of time reading The Atlantic or The New York Times or even to watch the evening news.  So right-wing media gives them news stubs that conform to their preexisting prejudices and sense of victimization.  Plus anger can be very validating if one is frustrated, and anger can be addictive.  I suspect that this dynamic partially explains the phenomenon of the cult of Donald Trump. 

Add to all this the longstanding trope of "the elites" in culture, particularly pop-culture, and the longstanding middle-class denigration of middle-class children who fail to mount professional careers. I honestly don't think most middle-class peeps look down on the plumber or mechanic, but they want their kids to wear business suits and hang diplomas on their office walls.  My brother-in-law wears a blue shirt with his name on the pocket and, while he seems to have given up, my father-in-law, a former engineer, regularly embarrassed him about his job.  This attitude filters down.

There is nothing new about Town vs. Gown.  Consider the St Scholastica Day riot.

[mahagonny]

Mahoganny proves my point perfectly. "But the other side did start it!" Both sides will argue this till they're blue in the face. Of course one could also observe that even if one side can be definitively proven to have "started it" (and I think the likelihood that such a thing can be proven, even if such a thing is that simple, is infinitesimal), the assumption is that "If they started it, any response on my part is wholly justified and virtuous and almost beyond my control! And like I said, virtuous!" Taking action to make the world better is admirable, but these expressions of self-righteous outrage I think exist mostly to make the outrager feel smug. Yep, on both sides.

Sometimes I successfully detach by observing, "There it's happening again. Yes, I knew they would react that way. It certainly shouldn't surprise me now."

It's time to get rid of political parties.  They are no working.
[snip]

There is nothing new about Town vs. Gown.  Consider the St Scholastica Day riot.

When the party that's about to get creamed says the system isn't working, the system is working.

[Wahoo Redux]

And we do need to acknowledge that it is not just the hard working blue-collar worker who is vulnerable to propagandistic manipulation. 

[financeguy]

It's worse than being looked down on. It's the "when are you getting married?" from your thrice divorced relative or "why haven't you bought a house?" from your friend currently in foreclosure. Pots calling out kettles in the following way:

-Woketards in the education system getting involved in social issues WHEN FAILING AT THEIR ACTUAL JOB. If our math and reading proficiency rates were 100% and students could actually point out any of the countries we've bombed in the last decade on a map, maybe THEN we can get to the lecture about gender or CRT.

-Similar "elites" in Hollywood lecturing us about every possible moral failing that could make a twitter zombie's head explode WHILE PRAISING Woody Allen, allowing Weinstein to go on for YEARS and giving a standing ovation to someone who publicly assaulted a colleague less than 30 minutes previously. (Not to mention in general peddling smut and violence as an industry.)

It's one thing to have a personal trainer who is a little insensitive when telling you to shape up, but it's another thing entirely when that trainer is 350 lbs.

[lightning]

Look down on whomever you want to. It's a free country. However, if you really think that improves your personal situation, then I can see why disdain (or even hate) for the "other side" is important to you.

Related to my first paragraph, it used to be, a Republican found a way to situate themselves so they could be above the fray, so they didn't have to be dependent on the outcomes of an election for their own personal well-being. January 6 and its aftermath was a signal that the core tenet was gone forever from the Republican party.

[dismalist]

How did we get here?

I'm trying to figure out how it came about that the Democrats, who were the working stiff's party, and the Republicans, of country club fame, switched constituencies! I'm  not even sure when this started, never mind why. I suppose the beginning can be traced to the time of the Reagan Democrats. I further suppose that the Democratic party has tried to make up for the votes lost then in a rainbow coalition of small groups. That cements the opposition of the working stiffs, I believe.

Note also that there are no differences in economic ideology anymore. The Trumpists are anything but free marketeers. The game is about using government for one's own purposes. So, instead of markets allocating stuff, government does it. Make your voice heard in any way, make sure the rules give you what you want, 'cause there are no obvious majorities, in turn 'cause there's more cash at stake in these political decisions than ever before. We are all competing for resources against each other. We do not have the same interests.

That's my guess.

[Wahoo Redux]

There's a plethora of stuff on how the polarities of the two parties switched online.

[mahagonny]

How did we get here?

I'm trying to figure out how it came about that the Democrats, who were the working stiff's party, and the Republicans, of country club fame, switched constituencies! I'm  not even sure when this started, never mind why. I suppose the beginning can be traced to the time of the Reagan Democrats. I further suppose that the Democratic party has tried to make up for the votes lost then in a rainbow coalition of small groups. That cements the opposition of the working stiffs, I believe.

Note also that there are no differences in economic ideology anymore. The Trumpists are anything but free marketeers. The game is about using government for one's own purposes. So, instead of markets allocating stuff, government does it. Make your voice heard in any way, make sure the rules give you what you want, 'cause there are no obvious majorities, in turn 'cause there's more cash at stake in these political decisions than ever before. We are all competing for resources against each other. We do not have the same interests.

That's my guess.

One situation, laden with irony, was the failed attempt by democrats to make Latinos 'people of color.' The thinking was, you could count on them to hate Trump because he said some of the Mexicans and other Latinos coming into the country illegally were probably criminals. A suspicion easily borne out by the epidemic of street drugs. So instead of saying 'hey, Trump is a bigot' they said 'right on! We came to America to escape drug gangs and now they've followed us.' And they know they are never getting reparations for slavery, so they are being used to add warm bodies to someone else's grievance campaign. They are also religious (Christian), family oriented, self-reliant and socially conservative. Not eager to see their kids trade in their God-given anatomy for artificial genitalia and a victimhood badge.
And why would the despise 'racist' white people when they went to a lot of trouble to live among them?
The irony: it was white-centered thinking that did made this gross miscalculation. Thinking all Latinos think one way, or should, because it would be obvious that those humble democrats care about them the most.

[Parasaurolophus]

For my part, it depends on just what you mean by "look down on".

I don't hold it against people when they're wrong but haven't had much of a chance to be right. If they ought to know better, then yes, I do think less of them. Just like I think less of an accountant who does a worse job of my taxes than I would have, and whose incompetent mistakes I end up having to fix. I also think less of movies which are poorly directed or edited, whose scripts suck, whose acting is wooden, etc. That doesn't change the fact that they're wrong, of course, and I may well try to show them what's right. But I don't need to be nasty about it, and I can always leave off.

But if they ought to know better and are wrong in a way that's morally reprehensible--a way that actually ends up harming others, for example--then that's something else. At that point, yes, I feel both contempt and outright animosity towards them. Similarly, I don't mind when a movie is bad in the ways described above--I may not enjoy it, but whatever. But if it's morally bad in addition? Then I will get exercised about it. And I think we all should. Otherwise, well, that's how bad things happen, and how good people end up silently going along with them.

I think it's fair to say that most Americans have had at least a rudimentary education in morals, history, and civics. And they've had a good chance to see what Republicans are like, and what Trump is like. So if, after all of that, someone is still all-in for Trump... well, they can fuck right off to hell, which is right where they belong. That obviously doesn't license behaving immorally in kind, but it sure as shit licenses censure.

[mahagonny]

I think it's fair to say that most Americans have had at least a rudimentary education in morals, history, and civics. And they've had a good chance to see what Republicans are like, and what Trump is like. So if, after all of that, someone is still all-in for Trump... well, they can fuck right off to hell, which is right where they belong. That obviously doesn't license behaving immorally in kind, but it sure as shit licenses censure.

This is just about how I thought several years ago. What caused me to rethink, gradually, were (1) a Black student who voted for Trump in 2016 ('we could use a cutthroat representing us the the world stage right now'), and (2) hearing day in and day out that Trump was going to campaign on white supremacy through something called 'racist dog whistling' contrasting with friends of mine who were voting for him and were nice people. Few said 'I'm all in for Trump' but all of them said 'he is the far better choice.' That's how most people vote, I believe.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago. Hillary Clinton's latest pronouncement is 'the republicans have already hatched a plan to steal the 2024 presidential election' or some such. This from one of the notables of the party that accuses the other of 'election denying.'