Why the fash worldwide?

[Travis B.]

Given a choice between someone who writes off your entire demographic as a “basket of deplorables”

Err, no. That statement was about people with specific attitudes, not people in specific demographics.

I find it a small jump from the actual words of the quote to attitudes of alienation from the liberal side of the aisle:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

I reïterate—if you’re poorly educated, would you even want to entertain the notion of voting for this person and their party?

So you believe that the racists, the sexists, the homophones, the xenophobes, the Islamophobes ought to be molly-coddled rather than pointed out for being what they are? What Hillary was doing was indeed pointing them out for what they are. If these people are offended for being called out, why should be we sympathetic towards them in such?

I should note that Hillary did not say anything about social class in and of itself in her statement ─ the idea that she was is a certain reading into it, and implies that one believes that working class people are naturally bigoted, and also implies that one should therefore excuse working class people who are bigots.

And Hillary was entirely right in what she said. If one has a problem with that, what does that say about you?

[zompist]

Given a choice between someone who writes off your entire demographic as a “basket of deplorables” and someone who outright states “I love the poorly-educated”, if you were poorly-educated, whom would you want to listen to? (This is not helped by the trope of the asshat who is then propped up as a true hero—see: Iron Man, Doctor Strange, Luigi Mangione.) I prefer the Daryl Davis approach to things—if you don’t know, Mr. Davis is a Black man who has deradicalized quite a few KKK members by befriending them.

Glad you like Daryl Davis, he's a remarkable guy. Here's a quote from a 2026 interview with him:

"For the longest time, this country has turned a blind eye to racism. If I don’t see it, I don’t hear it, it doesn’t exist, right? Oh, and we’ve had a Black president. Racism is over.

No, it’s not over. Donald Trump has put it front and center. No matter which way you turn, you’re seeing it. You’re hearing it. So now is the best time to fix it and address it because you can’t hide from it."

[Man in Space]

I’m going to start at the end and loop back around.

And Hillary was entirely right in what she said. If one has a problem with that, what does that say about you?

With this you are going beyond the remit of the discussion. jcb, in the selection of the comment I staved, remarked upon issues that the left is having with engagement and winning votes. These people need either to be reached in order to win or to be disenfranchised. The latter option would, on its face, be a furtherance of the “fash” being discussed, which leaves the former option.

So you believe that the racists, the sexists, the homophones, the xenophobes, the Islamophobes ought to be molly-coddled rather than pointed out for being what they are?

Davis gets results without violence. His method deserves consideration. (Ironically, it is similar methodology that is driving the rise of right-wing ideology in young men—the right wing at least pretends to care about their issues whereas the left drives into their heads that they are shit simply because they are men.)

(I will also remark, in passim, that “Superman and the Clan of the Fiery Cross” also got results.)

What Hillary was doing was indeed pointing them out for what they are. If these people are offended for being called out, why should be we sympathetic towards them in such?

If you want to win votes, as is necessary in our current political system, pissing off a couple dozen megapersons—who already have conspiratorial thinking patterns that “the left” is out to get them—by stating that they are inherently irredeemable will not result in any success.

I should note that Hillary did not say anything about social class in and of itself in her statement ─ the idea that she was is a certain reading into it, and implies that one believes that working class people are naturally bigoted, and also implies that one should therefore excuse working class people who are bigots.

I live in a swing state (Ohio) and her remarks were taken as such by a significant subset of the voter base.

[Travis B.]

I’m going to start at the end and loop back around.

And Hillary was entirely right in what she said. If one has a problem with that, what does that say about you?

With this you are going beyond the remit of the discussion. jcb, in the selection of the comment I staved, remarked upon issues that the left is having with engagement and winning votes. These people need either to be reached in order to win or to be disenfranchised. The latter option would, on its face, be a furtherance of the “fash” being discussed, which leaves the former option.

There is another option ─ making it clear that such positions are not socially acceptable, and that any attempts to express them will be shouted down and the people in question will be ostracized.

So you believe that the racists, the sexists, the homophones, the xenophobes, the Islamophobes ought to be molly-coddled rather than pointed out for being what they are?

Davis gets results without violence. His method deserves consideration. (Ironically, it is similar methodology that is driving the rise of right-wing ideology in young men—the right wing at least pretends to care about their issues whereas the left drives into their heads that they are shit simply because they are men.)

(I will also remark, in passim, that “Superman and the Clan of the Fiery Cross” also got results.)

If you've read my posts here, you'd know that I am firmly against attacking people for being born into the wrong groups, e.g. as men. Denouncing bigotry wherever it lies does not mean attacking people for accidents of their birth (as unfortunately too many leftists do do), and claiming that it by itself does is highly disingenuous.

What Hillary was doing was indeed pointing them out for what they are. If these people are offended for being called out, why should be we sympathetic towards them in such?

If you want to win votes, as is necessary in our current political system, pissing off a couple dozen megapersons—who already have conspiratorial thinking patterns that “the left” is out to get them—by stating that they are inherently irredeemable will not result in any success.

What is needed is to make it clear to those megapersons that their beliefs are beyond the pale and not acceptable within society. Once they have shut up because they are shouted down as the bigots they are their beliefs will have a harder time propagating themselves.

I should note that Hillary did not say anything about social class in and of itself in her statement ─ the idea that she was is a certain reading into it, and implies that one believes that working class people are naturally bigoted, and also implies that one should therefore excuse working class people who are bigots.

I live in a swing state (Ohio) and her remarks were taken as such by a significant subset of the voter base.

If one thinks that criticism of bigotry without reference to social class is somehow classist, one is probably a bigot oneself, and that is not something one should be forgiven for, no matter how many people share one's belief. A million bigots are no more right in their beliefs than a single bigot.

[Man in Space]

There is another option ─ making it clear that such positions are not socially acceptable, and that any attempts to express them will be shouted down and the people in question will be ostracized.

Great. How are you going to do that effectively across the entire country?

Emphasis added:

If you've read my posts here, you'd know that I am firmly against attacking people for being born into the wrong groups, e.g. as men. Denouncing bigotry wherever it lies does not mean attacking people for accidents of their birth (as unfortunately too many leftists do do), and claiming that it by itself does is highly disingenuous.

There you have it. It’s a massive own goal that they do, and the natural reaction of the targets is to push back.

What is needed is to make it clear to those megapersons that their beliefs are beyond the pale and not acceptable within society. Once they have shut up because they are shouted down as the bigots they are their beliefs will have a harder time propagating themselves.

If it’s a widely held belief it is within the pale and must be reckoned with. Trying to shut them up will merely force them behind closed doors and provide them with a reason to point at for the resultant persecution complex.

If one thinks that criticism of bigotry without reference to social class is somehow classist, one is probably a bigot oneself, and that is not something one should be forgiven for, no matter how many people share one's belief. A million bigots are no more right in their beliefs than a single bigot.

And yet those bigots are enfranchised (and form nontrivial contingents and blocs). And some had previously voted for Obama, including your own Wisconsin.

[Raphael]

I find it a small jump from the actual words of the quote to attitudes of alienation from the liberal side of the aisle:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

I reïterate—if you’re poorly educated, would you even want to entertain the notion of voting for this person and their party?

There's absolutely nothing about education levels in that quote. Or about money. Anyone who's met any rich people, or high-income people, or people with fancy degrees, knows that all of the things Clinton mentioned there exist all over the class structure. So it doesn't make sense to call that quote classist. (Hillary Clinton as a person in general is a different matter.)

Personally, I'm on the record as saying that there's no other group of people I viscerally hate as much as boorish, loutish rich people. So don't tell me that hating people like that is somehow classist against low-income people. Bullshit.

Speaking of words starting with "bull", this photo is, of course, British, but I'm reasonably sure that there are people who don't look that different from that running Young Republican organizations in many parts of the USA:

salt-of-the-earth.jpg (132.07 KiB) Viewed 122 times

[rotting bones]

Have you tried debating bigoted mobs? I've tried it for years. I do support the conciliatory approach in cases where it could work. However, turning individuals around isn't enough to stop a mob.

There's a deeper issue, something Marxism sheds light on, which is one of the reasons why Black anti-racists use it*. Marxism shows why progress is not a matter of changing hearts and minds on specific social issues:

Non-whites vote for racists too. The Latino male vote went to Trump 2. Similarly, the poor also vote against their own interests. Even non-Marxists are finally cottoning on to how such phenomena tie in with economic anxiety: https://youtu.be/Wj_GdHSo7PU

You don't even have to go that far to find isolated individuals like Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell. There are prominent Blacks shilling for the billionaire class like Ye. Did you know that Alex Karp is Black according to the American definition? And African Americans are the demographic least likely to fall for these fascist tactics. I wish I could same the same for Indian Americans and Vivek Ramaswamy. (What African Americans do sometimes fall for instead are Black Nationalists. These days, they are made fun of more often than not.)

In my case: Just as global jihadists originally were and often still are allied with the US, Islamist parties helped the Hindutva come to power in West Bengal.

There is a system keeping the elites in power. This system cannot be understood in common sense symbolic or "us vs. them" terms. Crucially, the problem cannot be solved by opposing specific races (a right-wing delusion), industries (often a left-wing delusion), etc. We're dealing with a system of material relations that needs to be analyzed and changed. This approach to challenging entrenched power is called "Marxism" these days.

* Another being international solidarity.

[Raphael]

Non-whites vote for racists too. The Latino male vote went to Trump 2. Similarly, the poor also vote against their own interests. Even non-Marxists are finally cottoning on to

People voting against their own economic interests proves that Marxism is right?

[Raphael]

There is a system keeping the elites in power. This system cannot be understood in common sense symbolic or "us vs. them" terms.

Of course it can be understood in "Us vs Them" terms. People support political movements that serve the elites because these movements are good at appealing to their "Us vs Them" feelings.

[rotting bones]

Non-whites vote for racists too. The Latino male vote went to Trump 2. Similarly, the poor also vote against their own interests. Even non-Marxists are finally cottoning on to

People voting against their own economic interests proves that Marxism is right?

Yes, obviously. If you want a job under capitalism, you need businesses to be profitable. (Although in some cases, it's clearly false consciousness.)

What Marx actually predicted is not Leninism. He said that developed economies will eventually run out of ways to squeeze enough corporate profit to keep going. That's when the people should rise up, take over factories and all the other leftist fantasies.

There's a trope of radical leftists hating Marxist theorists who always keep saying "not yet".

Keynesianism tries to avoid the Marxist end state through redistribution. Keynes didn't count on Ketamine-dependent billionaires like Musk sabotaging the Keynesian plan to save them.

People like Musk don't understand that when the economy looks like it sucks for them, sitting at the top of a business, ordinary people could be doing well, and vice-versa. The pain they experience while running a business could be the very thing preserving their billionaire status.

[rotting bones]

There is a system keeping the elites in power. This system cannot be understood in common sense symbolic or "us vs. them" terms.

Of course it can be understood in "Us vs Them" terms. People support political movements that serve the elites because these movements are good at appealing to their "Us vs Them" feelings.

I mean to say the solution does not take an "us vs. them" form. If you look at the next sentence, I tried to explain that several proposals do promote "us vs. them" ideologies, but those are delusions.

[Raphael]

Non-whites vote for racists too. The Latino male vote went to Trump 2. Similarly, the poor also vote against their own interests. Even non-Marxists are finally cottoning on to

People voting against their own economic interests proves that Marxism is right?

Yes, obviously. If you want a job under capitalism, you need businesses to be profitable. (Although in some cases, it's clearly false consciousness.)

Sounds like a textbook example of people making their theories unfalsifiable. If the workers rise up and overthrow capitalism, that proves that Marxism is right! If the workers don't rise up and support the capitalists instead, that proves that Marxism is right, too!

I mean to say the solution does not take an "us vs. them" form. If you look at the next sentence, I tried to explain that several proposals do promote "us vs. them" ideologies, but those are delusions.

OK, fair enough. IMO observing "Us Vs. Them" ideologies is pretty important in this context, though.

[rotting bones]

Sounds like a textbook example of people making their theories unfalsifiable. If the workers rise up and overthrow capitalism, that proves that Marxism is right! If the workers don't rise up and support the capitalists instead, that proves that Marxism is right, too!

1. In this case, events are proceeding more or less how Marx predicted. Marx did not predict that capitalism will be overthrown until rates of corporate profit fall, which is why many radical leftists hated him. Immediate revolution was all Lenin, not Marx. Marx was not triumphalist. His mature theory was his way of nursing his wounds after the defeat of his darling, the Paris Commune. Marxism is really very moderate compared to its reputation. It's the Lutheranism of far-left politics. Social Democracy grew out of Marxism too, not just Leninism. The major deviation is that Marx had no idea a global capitalist economy is even a possibility. Also, Marxists had specific economic calculations back in the 19th century that deviated from the facts pretty quickly since the original economic model created by Marx didn't take several factors into account. People should use Classical Econophysics as a starting point, not Das Kapital.

2. Marxism is not one theory. It's a philosophical orientation towards materialist systems analysis. This approach is compatible with several specific theories that you can form by investigating the facts pertinent to that issue. However, Marxism does preclude theories that are incompatible with materialist systems analysis. For example, there was a popular theory during the COVID crisis that the chemical formula of a substance involved with the vaccine is numerologically aligned with evil or something. I have heard very smart people fall for this theory. Marxists call this idealism. There's a whole host of such non-Marxist theories: the DNA looks like two entwined snakes, etc.

[Ares Land]

Yes, obviously. If you want a job under capitalism, you need businesses to be profitable. (Although in some cases, it's clearly false consciousness.)

There is something I could call the paradox of socialism. Redistribution helps the economy. You get more jobs and a healthier economy with socialist measures in place than without, even with capitalist structures otherwise in place.
The problem is redistribution falling entirely out of fashion for two decades. I think Musk is more the culmination of the process than its origin.

If you want to win votes, as is necessary in our current political system, pissing off a couple dozen megapersons—who already have conspiratorial thinking patterns that “the left” is out to get them—by stating that they are inherently irredeemable will not result in any success.

I agree that it's better to reach people than to piss them off. But is there a chance that the people you mention would ever vote Democratic anyway?

You can listen earnestly to complaints about immigration. The problem with that is that it won't get you any votes; the far-right is always better at talking about immigration. And the hidden cost of listening is that you send the message that complaints about immigration are legitimate in the first place.

I do agree the Hillary quote was, at best, poor tactics. That's the sort of thing you say to vent in private, not in front of the press. It's the attitude that must be condemned, not the voters.