In 1980, white people accounted for about 80 percent of the U.S. population.
In 2024, white people account for about 58 percent of the U.S. population.
Trump appeals to white people gripped by demographic hysteria. Especially older white people who grew up when white people represented a much larger share of the population. They fear becoming a minority.
While the Census Bureau says there are still 195 million white people in America and that they are still the majority, the white population actually declined slightly in 2023, and experts believe that they will become a minority sometime between 2040 and 2050.
Every component of the Trump-Republican agenda flows from these demographic fears.
The Trump phenomenon and the surge of right-wing extremism in America was never about economic anxiety, as too many political reporters claimed during the 2016 presidential campaign.
We’re still misunderstanding each other. Before we can have a truly productive argument we need to better understand the other’s point, (of course). I draw your attention to the fact that I summarized what I think your argument is. In general I am attempting to disprove the summery using “moderate-ism.”
“To vote for Trump requires an inherently flawed point of view; it’s important for us to be moral people. Voting for Trump would support racism. This would be so morally reprehensible that there is nothing with enough significance to out-weigh it. Therefore, do not vote for Trump.”
I find these types summaries useful for a couple reasons. First, it allows me to verify I understand your point correctly. Secondly, when I’m making a rebuttal, it allows me to attack things which are implied in your argument but not explicitly said; It allows me to take the implicit and make it explicit. I will summarize your points similarly for the rest of our discourse. Please give them your best lawyerly eye and correct me as necessary. I would appreciate if you would make similar summaries of my arguments. While this does add some overhead to our discussion, it’s easy to see why arguing against a point not fully grasped is futile; The importance of avoiding this warrants precaution. I find several rounds of revising these summaries to be common in my conversations.
This may clarify a repeated misunderstanding in the discussion.
I stated several times that I do not believe all Republicans are racist.
It’s not that all Republicans are racist, it’s that they’re supporting it. Given what you’ve said, you might also say, “To be a racist, and to support a racist, are very close on the spectrum of morality.”
In general I am attempting to disprove the summery using “moderate-ism” (Or dangerous apologism as you might say ;)
I appreciate that you chose to focus on our ideological differences. Here’s where I think the disconnect is: To say that a point-of-view could be valid is different to saying a point-of-view is correct. It follows that a point-of-view can be both valid and incorrect.
By way of example: to actively seek to harm the innocent (those who do not seek to harm) is invalid and incorrect. To prioritize it’s prevention below other things is valid, and the level of prioritization is either correct or incorrect based on how it’s being prioritized.
To take an example from religion: To assert “God is certainly real” or “God is certainly not real” is both invalid and incorrect. However, to take the stance that “he may be real”, or “may not be real” is valid. Furthermore, we simply can’t know if those statements are correct or not. (This may be highly controversial, I’m willing to argue specifically about this point of view, but it’s a different topic).
I assert that to be racist is both invalid and incorrect, but that to support a racist for office is valid, and depending on the situation may be correct or incorrect. To focus on what I believe the important part of our disagreement is, I’m willing to assume that voting for trump is the incorrect choice, on the other hand I’m arguing that it’s valid.
To better define “valid” in this context: A point-of-view which takes into account the facts known by that person and draws what would be a correct conclusion given those facts. “Correct” means to understand all the necessary facts and therefore draw the conclusion which is ultimately the truth.
You’re asserting that nothing should out-weigh the fact that he’s racist. Yet, there are certainly valid points-of-view that do out-weigh the fact he’s racist.
I would like to demonstrate this concept more by addressing your other arguments.
I would assert that if you do not have a threshold for deciding that your extended good-faith-assumption is not actually correct in a given instance, you do not have a workable ideology, just dangerous apologism.
The threshold would be different for determining both validity and correctness. However to your point:
If you (or in this case, Greg) do have a threshold, I think it would be productive or even necessary to state where it lies, so that it can be openly interrogated whether that threshold has been crossed.
I admit my threshold is underdeveloped. However, I have shown above that it does exist. I can’t state specifically where it lies, at least very accurately. Can you state your own threshold both generally and accurately? I would like to point out that we may actually be arguing over whether we’ve crossed the threshold for “validity.”
On your second point
why is assuming a group is not bad, more valid than assuming it is?
My original statement was over-generic. I concede that point to you- it’s not more valid. (Valid by the dictionary definition, not my own).
However, in regards to the people who will vote for Trump: Given their large quantity and diversity, we can’t assume their point of view is invalid. They could be making the “correct” choice based on the facts they understand. (Though, ultimately they are incorrect).
This again leads to my rebuttal to your main argument stated above. (Rather, to what I believe your argument to be. I’m emphasizing the importance of the summery). You can’t assume that nothing out-weighs the morality of voting for a racist. We don’t know what other “facts” they think they’re working with. Even if they know he’s racist, that’s not enough to condemn their point of view to invalidity.
Granted, I understand that you’ve had many conversations with conservatives. But that’s not enough to claim that every possible point-of-view, which would result in voting for trump, is invalid.
On your third point
[People who vote for Trump] are part of … a group that should in fact be alienated.
It’s not very useful to assume the ignorance of others, except to quash or dismiss criticism.
I assert that based on the size of this group we don’t have enough information to alienate all of them. Similarly we can assume that a notable portion of them are ignorant. I’m not attempting to dismiss your criticism of their correctness. I’m attempting to dismiss your criticism of the validity of their point-of-view.
In any case, thanks for the earnest discussion, as always. :)
I’ll use your method, and summarize what I believe your position to be:
You can do the right thing
You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons
You can do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons
We should not treat people who do the wrong thing for the right reasons as just as bad as those who do it for the wrong reasons
Because we cannot know the reasons that each individual holds internally, we should not condemn the entire group of wrongdoers
END OF LIST (since the markdown lists don’t leave any space afterwards)
I think I can see why this is leaving you with no definite threshold for labeling a group as inherently bad, and if I may offer a solution: you need to apply the concept of an Affirmative Defense.
An affirmative defense is a legal concept that occurs when someone admits they have done something wrong, but argues that is was for the right reasons. It then shifts the burden of proof to them, to prove that their reasons made their actions right/ valid (e.g. “yes I shot them, but it was self defense, and here’s the proof”).
Barring that, it will always be impossible under your system to “call a Nazi a Nazi”, because there can always be some hypothetical justification in their minds that you can’t know. This plays into your point that you can not truthfully claim certainty for/against God. You cannot claim to know what is in someone’s mind.
When it comes to real-world harms, though, that cannot be a valid defense. Otherwise, a person can do anything and simply say, “but you don’t know if I had a good reason for it”.
When it comes to real-world harms, it is beholden on the wrongdoers to prove that their reasons made their actions acceptable. Anything else will leave you unable to condemn and confront evil.
Putting Trump in power is a real-world harm. I have yet to hear a valid reason for doing it.
Thanks for using my method :) I like your metaphorical court of law.
Your most recent arguments were:
・It’s important that wrong-doers are able to be found guilty.
・The situation plays a role in the severity of the punishment, but that doesn’t change that fact a wrong-doer is guilty. (I think that’s a good description of affirmative defense)
To continue your train of thought: If a person votes for Trump, it’s important that we are able to accuse them of that evil. It’s true that they could have a good reason for doing so, but to assume that would allow evil in general to go unpunished. We have to make a judgment based on the facts we have or we can’t make progress.
After re-reading the conversation from the beginning I want to reword what I believe your core arguments to be:
・Look, people make evil decisions. They are still humans, but we can’t let that prevent us from fighting back. Ultimately, supporting someone who’s legitimately racist is pretty fucked up, you can’t deny that.
・If you haven’t heard a good reason to do an evil thing, than don’t assume there is one. This isn’t to say the reason doesn’t exist, but we have to “sentence the defendant” based on the facts we currently know.
I’ve been convinced. I have to admit that I think I could have seen your point sooner if I wasn’t affected by bias. I think I was falling to the same trap as @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg because my family is very conservative. It’s difficult to accuse people you care for.
I think that @greg@lemmy.ca and I both had the same gut instinct to defend someone against a seemingly brash insult. Our conversation made me realize that being “nice” in that way is flawed.
(Dark_arc and Greg, I mentioned you because I’m curious to know if you agree with where this argument went, please comment if you feel so inclined).
That being said, you and I never addressed the intercept article specifically. We discussed people who are not racist but still vote for trump. The article discusses people who are racist themselves. I’m willing to leave the conversation here, because I don’t think the article is very useful in itself.
One point to clarify wrt affirmative defense is that if the argument is made successfully, they would not be guilty of a crime, as in that case the action that would normally be a crime is not.
If someone can present a reason that voting for Trump is actually better than not, I’m all ears, but it would be a high bar to clear.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Thank you for the thorough reply!
We’re still misunderstanding each other. Before we can have a truly productive argument we need to better understand the other’s point, (of course). I draw your attention to the fact that I summarized what I think your argument is. In general I am attempting to disprove the summery using “moderate-ism.”
I find these types summaries useful for a couple reasons. First, it allows me to verify I understand your point correctly. Secondly, when I’m making a rebuttal, it allows me to attack things which are implied in your argument but not explicitly said; It allows me to take the implicit and make it explicit. I will summarize your points similarly for the rest of our discourse. Please give them your best lawyerly eye and correct me as necessary. I would appreciate if you would make similar summaries of my arguments. While this does add some overhead to our discussion, it’s easy to see why arguing against a point not fully grasped is futile; The importance of avoiding this warrants precaution. I find several rounds of revising these summaries to be common in my conversations.
This may clarify a repeated misunderstanding in the discussion.
It’s not that all Republicans are racist, it’s that they’re supporting it. Given what you’ve said, you might also say, “To be a racist, and to support a racist, are very close on the spectrum of morality.”
In general I am attempting to disprove the summery using “moderate-ism” (Or dangerous apologism as you might say ;)
I appreciate that you chose to focus on our ideological differences. Here’s where I think the disconnect is: To say that a point-of-view could be valid is different to saying a point-of-view is correct. It follows that a point-of-view can be both valid and incorrect.
By way of example: to actively seek to harm the innocent (those who do not seek to harm) is invalid and incorrect. To prioritize it’s prevention below other things is valid, and the level of prioritization is either correct or incorrect based on how it’s being prioritized.
To take an example from religion: To assert “God is certainly real” or “God is certainly not real” is both invalid and incorrect. However, to take the stance that “he may be real”, or “may not be real” is valid. Furthermore, we simply can’t know if those statements are correct or not. (This may be highly controversial, I’m willing to argue specifically about this point of view, but it’s a different topic).
I assert that to be racist is both invalid and incorrect, but that to support a racist for office is valid, and depending on the situation may be correct or incorrect. To focus on what I believe the important part of our disagreement is, I’m willing to assume that voting for trump is the incorrect choice, on the other hand I’m arguing that it’s valid. To better define “valid” in this context: A point-of-view which takes into account the facts known by that person and draws what would be a correct conclusion given those facts. “Correct” means to understand all the necessary facts and therefore draw the conclusion which is ultimately the truth.
You’re asserting that nothing should out-weigh the fact that he’s racist. Yet, there are certainly valid points-of-view that do out-weigh the fact he’s racist.
I would like to demonstrate this concept more by addressing your other arguments.
The threshold would be different for determining both validity and correctness. However to your point:
I admit my threshold is underdeveloped. However, I have shown above that it does exist. I can’t state specifically where it lies, at least very accurately. Can you state your own threshold both generally and accurately? I would like to point out that we may actually be arguing over whether we’ve crossed the threshold for “validity.”
On your second point
My original statement was over-generic. I concede that point to you- it’s not more valid. (Valid by the dictionary definition, not my own). However, in regards to the people who will vote for Trump: Given their large quantity and diversity, we can’t assume their point of view is invalid. They could be making the “correct” choice based on the facts they understand. (Though, ultimately they are incorrect).
This again leads to my rebuttal to your main argument stated above. (Rather, to what I believe your argument to be. I’m emphasizing the importance of the summery). You can’t assume that nothing out-weighs the morality of voting for a racist. We don’t know what other “facts” they think they’re working with. Even if they know he’s racist, that’s not enough to condemn their point of view to invalidity.
Granted, I understand that you’ve had many conversations with conservatives. But that’s not enough to claim that every possible point-of-view, which would result in voting for trump, is invalid.
On your third point
I assert that based on the size of this group we don’t have enough information to alienate all of them. Similarly we can assume that a notable portion of them are ignorant. I’m not attempting to dismiss your criticism of their correctness. I’m attempting to dismiss your criticism of the validity of their point-of-view.
In any case, thanks for the earnest discussion, as always. :)
I’ll use your method, and summarize what I believe your position to be:
END OF LIST (since the markdown lists don’t leave any space afterwards)
I think I can see why this is leaving you with no definite threshold for labeling a group as inherently bad, and if I may offer a solution: you need to apply the concept of an Affirmative Defense.
An affirmative defense is a legal concept that occurs when someone admits they have done something wrong, but argues that is was for the right reasons. It then shifts the burden of proof to them, to prove that their reasons made their actions right/ valid (e.g. “yes I shot them, but it was self defense, and here’s the proof”).
Barring that, it will always be impossible under your system to “call a Nazi a Nazi”, because there can always be some hypothetical justification in their minds that you can’t know. This plays into your point that you can not truthfully claim certainty for/against God. You cannot claim to know what is in someone’s mind.
When it comes to real-world harms, though, that cannot be a valid defense. Otherwise, a person can do anything and simply say, “but you don’t know if I had a good reason for it”.
When it comes to real-world harms, it is beholden on the wrongdoers to prove that their reasons made their actions acceptable. Anything else will leave you unable to condemn and confront evil.
Putting Trump in power is a real-world harm. I have yet to hear a valid reason for doing it.
Thanks for using my method :) I like your metaphorical court of law.
Your most recent arguments were:
・It’s important that wrong-doers are able to be found guilty.
・The situation plays a role in the severity of the punishment, but that doesn’t change that fact a wrong-doer is guilty. (I think that’s a good description of affirmative defense)
To continue your train of thought: If a person votes for Trump, it’s important that we are able to accuse them of that evil. It’s true that they could have a good reason for doing so, but to assume that would allow evil in general to go unpunished. We have to make a judgment based on the facts we have or we can’t make progress.
After re-reading the conversation from the beginning I want to reword what I believe your core arguments to be:
・Look, people make evil decisions. They are still humans, but we can’t let that prevent us from fighting back. Ultimately, supporting someone who’s legitimately racist is pretty fucked up, you can’t deny that.
・If you haven’t heard a good reason to do an evil thing, than don’t assume there is one. This isn’t to say the reason doesn’t exist, but we have to “sentence the defendant” based on the facts we currently know.
I’ve been convinced. I have to admit that I think I could have seen your point sooner if I wasn’t affected by bias. I think I was falling to the same trap as @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg because my family is very conservative. It’s difficult to accuse people you care for.
I think that @greg@lemmy.ca and I both had the same gut instinct to defend someone against a seemingly brash insult. Our conversation made me realize that being “nice” in that way is flawed.
(Dark_arc and Greg, I mentioned you because I’m curious to know if you agree with where this argument went, please comment if you feel so inclined).
That being said, you and I never addressed the intercept article specifically. We discussed people who are not racist but still vote for trump. The article discusses people who are racist themselves. I’m willing to leave the conversation here, because I don’t think the article is very useful in itself.
One point to clarify wrt affirmative defense is that if the argument is made successfully, they would not be guilty of a crime, as in that case the action that would normally be a crime is not.
If someone can present a reason that voting for Trump is actually better than not, I’m all ears, but it would be a high bar to clear.