I used to tell people American politics couldn't be that dismal and appealing since we didn't have anything equivalent to UKIP. I've had to stop saying that since this election cycle started, because now we do. What I think is interesting about Trump's base is that it's shifting what political axis we talk about. Thinking about the Political Compass and two scales for politicos—one authoritarian-libertarian, the other the classical left-right—we've moved in America from two parties who only differed on the second axis to actually having to have a major discussion about where we want to be on the first one. It should be absolutely terrifying for us as a society, and it seems to already be. We aren't just talking more taxes or not anymore. I think it's a shift a lot of the rest of the developed world has already seen to an extent ( see UKIP or Le Penne and the National Front) and which is the only discussion in the developing world. So, at least, for all it's insanity, this election will be interesting. It's gonna change American politics, but we could probably use a change.
I'm heartened by the fact that the United States is a nation of immigrants and there just aren't any truly ethnic prejudices we can employ anymore. I mean yeah - muslims are teh terrorz and stuff but Islam is a lot more heterogeneous than, say, Hutus. Even when we try to be racist pricks we fumble it compared to lots of the world. Japanese internment was a blotch on history but I honestly believe that we simply don't have the latent capacity for racism and ultra-nationalism the way Europe and Asia do. I suspect that if we did, Trump would be acting a lot more racist than he does.
I don't know if I buy that. On the one hand, a few guys I grew up with joined the Klan and an ex girlfriend joined a National Anarchist group. We have racists as nasty as anyone's, I have known them and I have wondered "where did that come from?" On the other, we don't have parties like Golden Dawn or the British/French National Fronts that threaten to win or actually win elections, so either they're more marginal or the two-party system does some good along with the bad. But I wonder if they'll stay marginal if we have Trump being an openly racist presidential candidate.Even when we try to be racist pricks we fumble it compared to lots of the world.
It's kind of a trudge to get to the end of this thing, but it's well worth it. Broad takeaways: 1) Fox News: You reap what you sow 2) The Tea Party is the party of cowards 3) The arc of history is long, but it bends toward freedom... and they hate freedom 4) Get used to insane demagogues on the right, but don't expect them to win There, that should be enough broad, attackable statements to provoke some discussion...
I'm not going to lie, this shit makes my blood run cold. Violence against minorities is not getting better in the US - over 20 trans women were murdered for being trans last year. That doesn't include suicides, that's just people killed by other people (sometimes brutally ) it doesn't include trans men either. trans women of colour are overrepresented in the stats. I'm curious what will happen if for some reason Trump can't get a majority of delegates, and is maneuvered out of the GOP candidacy (the establishment hates him enough to try it). Will he take it lying down? will he run as a 3rd party candidate? what will happen with the GOP?4) Get used to insane demagogues on the right, but don't expect them to win
I don't post that to question your statistics. I post that to point out that you're talking about a category that, in my experience, hadn't even been parsed out within mainstream discussion until recently. And that's the shitty thing about mainstreaming: it causes violence. I mean, we elected a black man president seven years ago and we didn't stop talking about his damn birth certificate until what? 2011? Frickin' ammunition didn't start hitting sane prices until like last year. The crazies went crazycrazy and we were damn lucky that yallqaeda wildlife refuge thing was a joke rather than a standoff. Had it happened in 2009 it would have been ugly. I remember when Matthew Shepard died. The way he died wasn't noteworthy, nor was where, how or why. What was noteworthy was that culturally, we were convinced (that level of) violence against homosexuals was no longer acceptable. It's a terrible price to pay, but at least we get something with our investment.
Not to be flippant, but is that all? I honestly expected that number to be higher. Roughly 1700 children under the age of six were killed due to parental neglect in 2014, and that number does not count outright homicides due to violence, most of which are firearm related. Homicide is the leading cause of death to children under six in the US. With the recent talk of a wave of homicide against trans people, I expected that number to be about equal with childhood deaths for some reason. From my own anecdotal exposure to GOP diehards, I can offer the following. If Trump wins, many Evangelicals are going to stay home. If the nominee is Cruz, expect record Evangelical turnout for the good Christian boy. There are people active right now in the GOP who won't vote "R" if there is no Trump on the ticket, and I don't think that Trump's ego will allow him to run as VP. So, it looks to me that it will be a wash and the general election tally will depend on how many Sander's supporters stay home when Hillary wins. The Trump effect, much like the Sanders effect will be more felt in the down races. Trump gets in, expect more R's in the state and local win columns with the increased turnout. Sanders gets the nod and Trump gets hosed? Expect at least a minor D wave at the state and Congress level. The one thing that I do fee confident in predicting is that election day is going to be bananas. Long lines, faulty equipment, untrained election workers, Polling place chaos, etc. Early voting needs to be made national, but that is another post in another thread.over 20 trans women were murdered for being trans last year.
I'm curious what will happen if for some reason Trump can't get a majority of delegates, and is maneuvered out of the GOP candidacy (the establishment hates him enough to try it). Will he take it lying down? will he run as a 3rd party candidate? what will happen with the GOP?
well, it's complicated. people are misgendered when they are reported dead, for example, and some people disappear and are never found. Trans women (especially trans women of colour) are disproportionally likely to go into sex work, which can be a dangerous line of work. That said, murders in the US aren't as bad as somewhere like Brazil, which had at least 48 trans women murdered in january alone.Not to be flippant, but is that all? I honestly expected that number to be higher.
How many children under the age of six were murdered because they were children under the age of 6? That's the number you actually want to compare. How many straight white men were murdered because they were straight white men? I'd be surprised if there was more than 20, even though they outnumber trans women by like 100 times.
At the risk of taking the conversation off topic, this get to the root why I am against any and all hate crime laws and legislation. It should not matter WHY a crime was committed. Let's stick with murder. If the guilty party screams "jew" or "protestant" or "kraut" or "queer" should it matter to the point of whether the crime was committed? The courts in my perfect fantasy world should be focused on one and only one question: DID THE ACCUSED COMMIT THE CRIME? The circumstances can be argued in sentencing to offer leniency or throw away the key. Adding the motive to the crime adds complexity to the prosecution that IMO distracts from the guilt or innocence of the accused. And I realize that with the emotions surrounding crime that this is a Pollyanna view of the courts. But I also will argue that the courts should not be emotional and almost detached so that they can deal with facts and reality.How many straight white men were murdered because they were straight white men? I'd be surprised if there was more than 20, even though they outnumber trans women by like 100 times.
Looking at hate crimes an a population level provides incredibly useful information. Only considering the legal system is narrow minded.
You can look and see if particular portions of the population are being targeted and then knowing this investigate why it is happening and how to keep the people who are being targeted safe.
I imagine it's a reportage issue. I would be surprised if there's a single state that has reporting guidelines or requirements for trans violence of any kind. That makes any sort of data gathering an anecdotal process, which is difficult to do on a nationwide level.
Sister thread with a video referencing this Vox article.
Thanks, was about to link it here :) It's a YouTube video so of course the article is waaaay simplified but I really like Dan's take on the election in general. I'm not super involved since I'm Canadian but he presents the info in an entertaining way.
Which is why I think terms like "homophobia" are literal definitions. I'm also reminded of the original justification for "an eye for an eye" - to limit the revenge for some crime to something just. And I do think that the perceived lack of even that (in favor of rehabilitation) is another driving factor here.
"Homophobia" is definitely not a literal definition. A person I know was called out on his anti-gay remarks and he shot back with "I'm not afraid of homosexuals, I find what they are doing to be morally repulsive". It's an evangelist christian thing, and it's truly is not fear of homosexuality but strong belief that they are performing acts more heinous than murder. And it's all about the authoritarian draws as this article points out. They want to impose their Christian morality on everyone, and if some Muslims are trying to do the same thing in the Middle East, then all Muslims here must doing something that competes with their views. Not all of the authoritarians are of this mindset, as the article points out, it crosses all barriers and all beliefs. For instance, there are people who are so against the NSA's tactics that they wish to abolish the NSA. That is an authoritarian concept, you are imposing your authority on the NSA. It's not exclusive to the right, it's also in the left. It's all about extremism of your views. If you believe your view so strongly, you will not accept any middle ground, compromise, or even the acceptance of anything against your beliefs. It's blind devotion to your cause, almost literally, as rage can visually blind you at times (being bipolar I've experienced it once or twice before, you can only partially see in those states... thankfully I'm not a raging angry person by nature, though, I just experience extreme mood swings that are temporary).