• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Should one fearful of losing privilege be elected in a democracy

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,603
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I was reading the Krugman column "The Angry White Man Caucus" when I was struck by an apparent problem with those of privilege being many of the ones running for office or running the country.

The problem is this. Can those with societal privilege legislate and govern in a multi-status system of government when they obviously are there to preserve their advantages over those who are the targets of their privilege?

What distinguished Trump voters was, instead, racial resentment. Furthermore, this resentment was and is driven not by actual economic losses at the hands of minority groups, but by fear of losing status in a changing country, one in which the privilege of being a white man isn’t what it used to be.

This became obvious when one who has privilege is rallied around because he is angry about having his privilege challenged by those from a less less privileged status as recent polls indicate. One can't say I don't remember that incident as easily as one can say I remember that incident for the counter reasoning those of privilege used when they denigrated an accuser. It is as likely that a what one considers minor event will not be remembered as it will for who considers the same event major and traumatic will remember the event.

The point is why denigrate and edeny when one doesn't actually remember unless one is fearful that one may have unknowing done something that caused another great harm while one considered it just play or fun, a trifle. Isn't that immoral and unbalanced?

I found the approach of denial and responsibility transfer as an act of cowardice and explicitly immoral by the privileged ones who acted thus. Even Senator Collins comes up short here.

Jump in the water's political but isn't it moral as well?
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,565
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
Can those with societal privilege legislate and govern in a multi-status system of government when they obviously are there to preserve their advantages over those who are the targets of their privilege?

A lot of American voters want them to legislate and govern that way.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,603
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I am one of those white men of privilege in America who don't want things that way. I consider locking in bad values of the past bad ethics, as immoral, given that even as one viewing things from the empirical side, that that such behavior is doomed to fail society in the future. More importantly is denies want we know about diversity. It denies participation by those there but on the outside. The world is coming to know that diversity, sharing backgrounds, benefits humanity, injects vigor into the gene pool, provides more defense against disease, permits more invention, and most importantly, counters ancient fearful constitutions to maintain ever smaller group control because of our need to discriminate at the clan level.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Can those with societal privilege legislate and govern in a multi-status system of government when they obviously are there to preserve their advantages over those who are the targets of their privilege?

Of course they can govern.

They have the reigns. They have the power.

But they govern to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of others.

That is the Republican party.

The lockstep party.

One looting binge after another.

That is all the attack of Iraq was. A looting binge while suckers sent their children to die.
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,565
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
I am one of those white men of privilege in America who don't want things that way. I consider locking in bad values of the past bad ethics, as immoral, given that even as one viewing things from the empirical side, that that such behavior is doomed to fail society in the future. More importantly is denies want we know about diversity. It denies participation by those there but on the outside. The world is coming to know that diversity, sharing backgrounds, benefits humanity, injects vigor into the gene pool, provides more defense against disease, permits more invention, and most importantly, counters ancient fearful constitutions to maintain ever smaller group control because of our need to discriminate at the clan level.

In many parts of the the US, people with your cosmopolitan attitude are outnumbered at the polling booth. People want these white male legislators to protect the privileges granted to men and whites; if they didn't then they wouldn't be voting for them.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,493
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
Hmmm. Take person who is fearful of losing privilege and deny him rights because of the color of his skin. There must be a name for this.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
He is not looking for his rights.

He is looking to dominate in all matters and have the final say.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
The problem is this. Can those with societal privilege legislate and govern in a multi-status system of government when they obviously are there to preserve their advantages over those who are the targets of their privilege?
If they're elected specifically to protect our privilege, then, yeah.

It would make a lot less sense for us to elect a minority to protect our privilege.

And if a minority person runs on a 'protect whitey's privilege' platform, then does the opposite in office, it'd be our fault for paying attention to campaign promises.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,603
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
So, by your stated logic a minority person running in a white majority district has to run on 'protect whitey' to win. That's the exact problem with protecting majority rights. In this case it's white male rights with white female proxies due to conditions of marriage.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Discriminate twice and 'things are gonna be alright' - adapted from Superstar.

I believe whitey, under Johnson, in a moment of madness after Kennedy assassination passed through the Senate the the equal rights amendment which was voted by states into the the fugging constitution in 1972. I thi nk that is so.

So on the face of it your argument sucks wind.

Apparently many think that one is elected to protect the United States of 'Merica rather than some body of same colored faces.

But heck, if you want to say power is ethical it is your privilege to wear your MAGA hat.

But lets go back to the OP. The statement was one fearful of losing privilege is was not intent on maintaining privilege. I believe there are whites out there who believe, as I do, that inclusion is much preferable to exclusion and domination. I don't think they fear losing excessive power. That would be foolish.
 

OLDMAN

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
906
Location
NB
Basic Beliefs
NONE
Does anyone really expect people to do any different than to protect and then pass on their advantages to their family and friends? And for most that would be people of the same race. Seems less racial and more personal to me.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,603
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
With the right blinkers one can be see anything the trainer desires I guess. Why do we form groups? Then why do we form nations? Then why do we form international organizations? Seems there's a pattern developing here. As we've move on to these larger grouping mankind has benefitted and grown wonderfully. Am I going to go back to tribe now that we have ways to keep people alive, from being killed out of hand, fed, gathering in peace,

Certainly! - I had a dildo in my mouth on that one.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,215
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
"I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

~ Martin Luther King, Jr

After reading this thread, I can hear uncle Martin weeping. Not only is there a call to judge people by the color of their skin but now by their gender too.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,603
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
If you are not threatened by the possibility of losing political and social advantage then why is a label with any tribal index a problem?

Legacy has two faces. One is the face of progress, the list of improvements in culture for inclusion. The other is pride in one's past the glory of battles won against others.
 

Thumpalumpacus

Alive in the Superunknown
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
340
Location
Outside Austin, TX
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic atheist
I believe whitey, under Johnson, in a moment of madness after Kennedy assassination passed through the Senate the the equal rights amendment which was voted by states into the the fugging constitution in 1972. I thi nk that is so.

This is factually incorrect. The Civil Rights Act is a law, not Constitutional amendment, passed in 1965, not 1972. The Equal Rights Amendment is an entirely different, unsuccessful movement.
 

Thumpalumpacus

Alive in the Superunknown
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
340
Location
Outside Austin, TX
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic atheist
No sweat. I just want to say that I'm not sure that the key to Trump's support is racism. No doubt Trump's dog-whistles a big part of his appeal to WN/SF-type assholes (it seems like he pulled them straight out of a white-nationalist tract), but I think that more than that, economic stagnation (in terms of wage-growth vs inflation, or the availability of quality jobs -- or many jobs at all in some places).

Mind you, I'm not saying there's any good justification for voting for that twatwaffle; I'm just trying to explain why the Trumpeteers I know voted the way they did.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,215
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
No sweat. I just want to say that I'm not sure that the key to Trump's support is racism. No doubt Trump's dog-whistles a big part of his appeal to WN/SF-type assholes (it seems like he pulled them straight out of a white-nationalist tract), but I think that more than that, economic stagnation (in terms of wage-growth vs inflation, or the availability of quality jobs -- or many jobs at all in some places).

Mind you, I'm not saying there's any good justification for voting for that twatwaffle; I'm just trying to explain why the Trumpeteers I know voted the way they did.

I think that Trump's success was primarily due to his speaking to the old Democrat constituency of the blue collar middle class. The Democrats were once their champions but abandoned them, allowed their jobs in manufacturing to leave the country, told them to get used to it because their jobs would never return, then disparaged them as "deplorable".

Democrats once represented the interests of the broad working middle class of America and had their unquestioned support. Over the last couple decades, the Democratic party has switched to representing special interest groups and international causes at the expense of their old constituency of working middle class Americans. Trump saw the hole and filled it.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,603
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
When workers stood tall and 'right to work' was small unions were in bloom. Then somebody invented Right to Work. It's not that democrats abandoned them. Corporations abandoned them along with states that found they could bribe companies to come where workers were small and 'fight to work' was tall. That's not dems abandoning them.

Southerners abandoned dems as soon as they stood up for minorities after Kennedy was murdered. Publicists shouted that it was unions causing companies to leave the rust belt while it was actually companies going wherever the labor costs were least. They moved to places that enacted right to work laws which were actually places where scab labor was OK as long as it wasn't colored. Most tellingly they fled to India, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Korea, China.

Democrats are now working to keep the playing field as level as possible by working for International agreements which regulate labor, wages, and tariffs. They also are encouraging a humanistic form of universalism where people are treated more equally even though there is no national Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution. Essentially the Dems have given up mostly on white privileged america.

Some think there aren't enough people in prison or that blacks and browns should be discouraged from voting. Not Democrats. Tough row to hoe. But, I think there are still enough of us to git'erdone. Example: Is it worth the price of white privilege to have 1 in 25 black males in jail, or 1 in 15 in jail or parole?*

*numbers are hard to get at, but. one can get to my numbers by making appropriate calculations of data in  Incarceration in the United StatesFor instance one can double the 2.3000 per 100,000 and get about 4.6 % males, or just about a million in prison from about 21 million black males.
 
Last edited:

Thumpalumpacus

Alive in the Superunknown
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
340
Location
Outside Austin, TX
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic atheist
No sweat. I just want to say that I'm not sure that the key to Trump's support is racism. No doubt Trump's dog-whistles a big part of his appeal to WN/SF-type assholes (it seems like he pulled them straight out of a white-nationalist tract), but I think that more than that, economic stagnation (in terms of wage-growth vs inflation, or the availability of quality jobs -- or many jobs at all in some places).

Mind you, I'm not saying there's any good justification for voting for that twatwaffle; I'm just trying to explain why the Trumpeteers I know voted the way they did.

I think that Trump's success was primarily due to his speaking to the old Democrat constituency of the blue collar middle class. The Democrats were once their champions but abandoned them, allowed their jobs in manufacturing to leave the country, told them to get used to it because their jobs would never return, then disparaged them as "deplorable".

Democrats once represented the interests of the broad working middle class of America and had their unquestioned support. Over the last couple decades, the Democratic party has switched to representing special interest groups and international causes at the expense of their old constituency of working middle class Americans. Trump saw the hole and filled it.

Agreed -- especially about the "deplorable" comment. The moment I heard Hillary say that in the debate, I knew she had blundered ... uh ... hugely. And in the broader context, yes, the Democrats have moved upmarket, so to speak. But that neccessitates narrowing one's base, doesn't it?
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,603
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Gotta go with words over facts I guess if one has a fixed perspective.

What lead to the result is white man's fear of losing privilege which Trump locked onto with part racist-part tribalist rhetoric. Hillary lost because of the toxic western world environment surrounding immigrants and violence, primarily in Europe. If it's different fear it. Those at risk are the most likely to succumb to such. Those were, in Michigan, Wisconsin, and upstate Pennsylvania white unionists and family farmers. Unionists were traditionally democratic farmers were traditionally republican so increase in republican voting did the job just because we allowed a racist, liar, and habitual cheat to run for office because the white insecure were afraid.

Loses aren't very often based on a few regrettable words. Romney lost because his strategy was so flawed that even his polls gave wrong answers. Clinton lost because she was insensitive to the fear running rampant in the lower middle class rust belt white districts. Actually she won by about as many votes as Bush did against John Kerry.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,215
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Gotta go with words over facts I guess if one has a fixed perspective.

What lead to the result is white man's fear of losing privilege which Trump locked onto with part racist-part tribalist rhetoric. Hillary lost because of the toxic western world environment surrounding immigrants and violence, primarily in Europe. If it's different fear it. Those at risk are the most likely to succumb to such. Those were, in Michigan, Wisconsin, and upstate Pennsylvania white unionists and family farmers. Unionists were traditionally democratic farmers were traditionally republican so increase in republican voting did the job just because we allowed a racist, liar, and habitual cheat to run for office because the white insecure were afraid.

Loses aren't very often based on a few regrettable words. Romney lost because his strategy was so flawed that even his polls gave wrong answers. Clinton lost because she was insensitive to the fear running rampant in the lower middle class rust belt white districts. Actually she won by about as many votes as Bush did against John Kerry.

Even though many "issues" are hyped during political campaigns, elections are primarily about personal pocketbook concerns... or as James Carville stressed to Bill Clinton, "It's the economy, stupid." Bill took his advice and won big.

Trump, apparently, learned Carville's lesson so promised tax cuts, a return of manufacturing to the US, and job growth. The Democrats were promising higher taxes and had told the blue collar workers that had lost their jobs to suck it up and accept that their jobs would never return as the new reality. Hillary was even promising to shut down industries like coal mining and then was surprised that she lost Pennsylvania, a major coal producing state.

I think that the Democratic party may be in trouble if the leadership continues to ignore Carville's sage advice, which they seem to be determined to do. Pilossi promises that, if she returns to speaker of the house, the tax cuts (crumbs, she calls it) that the Republican congress, under Trump, passed will be eliminated and taxes will be raised.

Bernie Sanders understands this but he was shut down by the Democrat machine.
 
Last edited:

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,603
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Elections are usually based on emotional factors which are more likely to be out of fear, anger, hatred, than out of comfort, wages, personalities, etc.

In a time of recession the economy IS important. In a time of tribal stress fear IS important. This is time of conflict between being civilized and being a bully. IMHO democrats are probably going to win big.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,523
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Charles Blow had an interesting column this morning about "white male victimization anxiety".

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/opinion/trump-white-male-victimization.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

During the swearing-in of Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Monday, Donald Trump took it upon himself to apologize to Kavanaugh and his family “on behalf of our nation” for the “terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure.”
He repeated the tired lines that he and Republicans hope will stick, and steer the comatose base to electoral fervor: That accusations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh were part of a “campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception” and that “what happened to the Kavanaugh family violates every notion of fairness, decency and due process.”
But to me, this was not just a president and party worried about an approaching “blue wave” and trying to take political advantage of a moment of victory. It was also an outright and increasing amplification of a reactionary white male victimization syndrome that has consumed modern American conservatism.
Vox has called it “the unleashing of white male backlash.”
The women accusing the white man of assault weren’t the victims; instead, the white man was the victim. In some people’s eyes, he was the victim of political correctness, #MeToo’s overreach, a check-your-white-male-privilege culture drunk on its own self-righteousness.


Hillary Clinton lost because a lot of people hated her and imo, at least some of that was due to her gender. There is someone in my own neighborhood that has a sign in front of their beautiful, well maintained home, that reads: NEVER HILLARY. It's still up two years after the election. I've never seen such vitriolic hatred directed at a white male candidate. When I was still working, I had patients that told me they would never vote for a female for president. Granted they were all over 80, and most of them were likely already Republicans, so they voted for a totally unqualified white male instead of a highly qualified woman. I don't know whether to call that sexist based immoral behavior or just plain ignorance.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,603
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Social norms moved hugely under Obama. Mostly it was because they were long overdue. some, though, like catching up with the french on bathroom attendance and accepting feeling like as sufficinent to cross dress amplified religious reich alarm over sex role's place in society. With the migrations from Africa and Central and west Asia into Europe and in a minor way into the US all these thing conflated into a social comfort jerk, well beyond a smooth transition.

White male panic was to be expected. The problem is that the result also moved truth and information into the crosshairs of the bullies and bigots enabling racists and sexists, and scofflaws and imperialists to climb on board the new bread wagon. We got Trump the racist, cowardly, pompous, crook, dictator wannabe.

Things are looking better. However if we don't get our buts to either mail or go to precinct to vote all may be lost and a new dark age may be rising up on us.

Tamp the damn thing down. Your kids and grandkids will call you hero.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,215
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Elections are usually based on emotional factors which are more likely to be out of fear, anger, hatred, than out of comfort, wages, personalities, etc.

In a time of recession the economy IS important. In a time of tribal stress fear IS important. This is time of conflict between being civilized and being a bully. IMHO democrats are probably going to win big.
You are talking about the "red meat crowd" on both sides. The hard right and hard left make up about 30% each of the voting population. Both Dem and Repub candidates throw out emotional "issues" as red meat to stoke their loyal base and insure they make it to the polls. It is the 40% of voters, independents, that can be swayed to either side (or become so disgusted with both sides that they don't vote) that determine the outcome of elections. These are the voters that are concerned with "what is good for themselves and the country" that vote on proposed policy matters rather than the "red meat" so hyped by our politicians and news media.

ETA:
For instance: A candidate running on "insuring that appropriate signage is on bathrooms for the LGBQ" or one running on "disciplining those who take a knee during the national anthem" are red meat issues to stoke their bases. But the difference between a candidate running on promoting industrial growth vs. a candidate running on shutting down industries is an important national and political matter.
 
Last edited:

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,338
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Elections are usually based on emotional factors which are more likely to be out of fear, anger, hatred, than out of comfort, wages, personalities, etc.

In a time of recession the economy IS important. In a time of tribal stress fear IS important. This is time of conflict between being civilized and being a bully. IMHO democrats are probably going to win big.
You are talking about the "red meat crowd" on both sides. The hard right and hard left make up about 30% each of the voting population. Both Dem and Repub candidates throw out emotional "issues" as red meat to stoke their loyal base and insure they make it to the polls. It is the 40% of voters, independents, that can be swayed to either side (or become so disgusted with both sides that they don't vote) that determine the outcome of elections. These are the voters that are concerned with "what is good for themselves and the country" that vote on proposed policy matters rather than the "red meat" so hyped by our politicians and news media.

ETA:
For instance: A candidate running on "insuring that appropriate signage is on bathrooms for the LGBQ" or one running on "disciplining those who take a knee during the national anthem" are red meat issues to stoke their bases. But the difference between a candidate running on promoting industrial growth vs. a candidate running on shutting down industries is an important national and political matter.

When did any candidate ever run on shutting down industries? Every candidate from both sides always says that their policies will lead to industrial and economic growth, lower taxes, motherhood and apple pie. What they disagree on is how to achieve these things. And the electorate at large is typically unqualified to assess whether any particular plan will have the claimed effects, or the exact opposite.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,215
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Elections are usually based on emotional factors which are more likely to be out of fear, anger, hatred, than out of comfort, wages, personalities, etc.

In a time of recession the economy IS important. In a time of tribal stress fear IS important. This is time of conflict between being civilized and being a bully. IMHO democrats are probably going to win big.
You are talking about the "red meat crowd" on both sides. The hard right and hard left make up about 30% each of the voting population. Both Dem and Repub candidates throw out emotional "issues" as red meat to stoke their loyal base and insure they make it to the polls. It is the 40% of voters, independents, that can be swayed to either side (or become so disgusted with both sides that they don't vote) that determine the outcome of elections. These are the voters that are concerned with "what is good for themselves and the country" that vote on proposed policy matters rather than the "red meat" so hyped by our politicians and news media.

ETA:
For instance: A candidate running on "insuring that appropriate signage is on bathrooms for the LGBQ" or one running on "disciplining those who take a knee during the national anthem" are red meat issues to stoke their bases. But the difference between a candidate running on promoting industrial growth vs. a candidate running on shutting down industries is an important national and political matter.

When did any candidate ever run on shutting down industries? Every candidate from both sides always says that their policies will lead to industrial and economic growth, lower taxes, motherhood and apple pie. What they disagree on is how to achieve these things. And the electorate at large is typically unqualified to assess whether any particular plan will have the claimed effects, or the exact opposite.
In the U.S. 2016 presidential campaign, the Democrat candidate made a big deal of promising to shut down the U.S. coal industry. This would have very quickly (if in the first term) eliminated several hundred thousand quite good paying jobs.

What they did not offer was campaign promise to build nuclear reactors which would be industrial growth and would be a very different matter - however many, if not most, Democrats are against those too - but would have phased out the need for coal without the heavy handed government mandate.

U.S. politics is odd. We actually have a party that usually always runs on raising taxes. Of course they also promise that it will be "the other guy" that has to pay them. For instance, our house minority leader, has already promised to raise taxes if her party wins the house next month and she is selected as the speaker of the house. She was the Speaker the last time her party held the house.
 
Last edited:

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,603
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
When did any candidate ever run on shutting down industries? Every candidate from both sides always says that their policies will lead to industrial and economic growth, lower taxes, motherhood and apple pie. What they disagree on is how to achieve these things. And the electorate at large is typically unqualified to assess whether any particular plan will have the claimed effects, or the exact opposite.

In the U.S. 2016 presidential campaign, the Democrat candidate made a big deal of promising to shut down the U.S. coal industry. This would have very quickly (if in the first term) eliminated several hundred thousand quite good paying jobs.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States#Total_coal-related_jobs

What they did not offer was campaign promise to build nuclear reactors which would be industrial growth and would be a very different matter - however many, if not most, Democrats are against those too - but would have phased out the need for coal without the heavy handed government mandate.

How is this the Yin to Coal production Yan?

U.S. politics is odd. We actually have a party that usually always runs on raising taxes. Of course they also promise that it will be "the other guy" that has to pay them. For instance, our house minority leader, has already promised to raise taxes if her party wins the house next month and she is selected as the speaker of the house. She was the Speaker the last time her party held the house.

While it is true increasing Social services requires revenue, Democrats argue business needs to pay their share in providing what they refuse to provide to keep their workers in the workforce. The other guy is the profit sucking fraction of society which has as it's primary aim to spend as little on workforce as they can so shareholders can have a great a profit benefit as possible. Other guy is the other party's client.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,215
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
That is the number of actual miners. The coal industry includes many jobs other than just those doing the mining, actually in the mine blasting or hauling the coal out.

The linked below is just the blue collar jobs in the coal industry, those in the mine and those outside the mine. There is also a lot of office and management jobs involved that are not included in the numbers listed below.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

Total coal-related jobs
There are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S.: mining (83,000), transportation (31,000), and power plant employment (60,000). (See below for details on each sector.) The U.S. civilian labor force totaled 141,730,000 workers in 2005; thus, permanent blue-collar coal industry employees represent 0.12% of the U.S. workforce.[1]

What they did not offer was campaign promise to build nuclear reactors which would be industrial growth and would be a very different matter - however many, if not most, Democrats are against those too - but would have phased out the need for coal without the heavy handed government mandate.

How is this the Yin to Coal production Yan?
The major use of coal is in power production. If people want power then there must be some method to produce it. Eliminating coal without a replacement is a non-starter.
U.S. politics is odd. We actually have a party that usually always runs on raising taxes. Of course they also promise that it will be "the other guy" that has to pay them. For instance, our house minority leader, has already promised to raise taxes if her party wins the house next month and she is selected as the speaker of the house. She was the Speaker the last time her party held the house.

While it is true increasing Social services requires revenue, Democrats argue business needs to pay their share in providing what they refuse to provide to keep their workers in the workforce. The other guy is the profit sucking fraction of society which has as it's primary aim to spend as little on workforce as they can so shareholders can have a great a profit benefit as possible. Other guy is the other party's client.

You are back to the red meat shit... "Industry is EVIL" - which, in part, was the appeal of "shutting down the evil coal industry" for Democrats.

Besides, that was a response to Bilby"s statement that all politicians always advocate reducing taxes during campaigns. Our Democrat party much more often than not advocate tax increases (but on the "other guy" that they have demonized, the evil and deplorable among us).
 
Last edited:

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,603
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
That is the number of actual miners. The coal industry includes many jobs other than just those doing the mining, actually in the mine blasting or hauling the coal out.

The linked below is just the blue collar jobs in the coal industry, those in the mine and those outside the mine. There is also a lot of office and management jobs involved.

Uh, no, that is the number of people involved with coal production and on/off labor for transportation delivery. I exclude power plant personnel since they can convert to natural gas, solar, wind, water, or nuclear.

The major use of coal is in power production. If people want power then there must be some method to produce it. Eliminating coal without a replacement is a non-starter.

see above answer.

While it is true increasing Social services requires revenue, Democrats argue business needs to pay their share in providing what they refuse to provide to keep their workers in the workforce. The other guy is the profit sucking fraction of society which has as it's primary aim to spend as little on workforce as they can so shareholders can have a great a profit benefit as possible. Other guy is the other party's client.

You are back to the red meat shit... "Industry is EVIL" - which, in part, was the appeal of "shutting down the evil coal industry" for Democrats.

Besides, that was a response to Bilby"s statement that all politicians always advocate reducing taxes during campaigns. Our Democrat party much more often than not advocate tax increases (but on the "other guy" that they have demonized, the evil and deplorable among us).

Interesting translation there. Industry is evil is industry discounting worker's needs for investor's pocket books Please point out the evil. Why is it evil to argue against established positions of the opponent party, republicans? Actually democrats argue for reducing taxes on working people which are their clients and increasing taxes on those, the other party's client, who profit from short changing their employees in favor of big pocket investors. It's always been a popular view with the reich that the business community are job creators while employees are scabs and scavengers deserving nothing.

I can play the code word game as well as can you. That won't advance our conversation. It is obvious that the most advantaged are the rich and very white in U. S. of A. So why should they be permitted to use their advantage to keep down those who comprise their work force.

That then gets us to the fear component of tribalism which is where we need to focus.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,215
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Uh, no, that is the number of people involved with coal production and on/off labor for transportation delivery.
I would suggest that you actually read the link you offered and the link that I offered. They both give the same number for actual miners but the link I offered also included blue collar workers in the coal industry other than the miners. Neither indicated the number of coal industry employees who are in office or management positions.
 
Last edited:

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
I was reading the Krugman column "The Angry White Man Caucus" when I was struck by an apparent problem with those of privilege being many of the ones running for office or running the country.

The problem is this. Can those with societal privilege legislate and govern in a multi-status system of government when they obviously are there to preserve their advantages over those who are the targets of their privilege?

What distinguished Trump voters was, instead, racial resentment. Furthermore, this resentment was and is driven not by actual economic losses at the hands of minority groups, but by fear of losing status in a changing country, one in which the privilege of being a white man isn’t what it used to be.

This became obvious when one who has privilege is rallied around because he is angry about having his privilege challenged by those from a less less privileged status as recent polls indicate. One can't say I don't remember that incident as easily as one can say I remember that incident for the counter reasoning those of privilege used when they denigrated an accuser. It is as likely that a what one considers minor event will not be remembered as it will for who considers the same event major and traumatic will remember the event.

The point is why denigrate and edeny when one doesn't actually remember unless one is fearful that one may have unknowing done something that caused another great harm while one considered it just play or fun, a trifle. Isn't that immoral and unbalanced?

I found the approach of denial and responsibility transfer as an act of cowardice and explicitly immoral by the privileged ones who acted thus. Even Senator Collins comes up short here.

Jump in the water's political but isn't it moral as well?

Privilege doesn't exist because I'm half white and I'm not the richest man in the world, therefore the entire concept of white privilege is some fake bullshit libtards made up to complain about racism, and complaining about racism is the same thing as persecuting white people, therefore you're all a bunch of Nazis!!!!!!! Stop oppressing white people!!!!!!! [/sarcasm]
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,338
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Uh, no, that is the number of people involved with coal production and on/off labor for transportation delivery.
I would suggest that you actually read the link you offered and the link that I offered. They both give the same number for actual miners but the link I offered also included blue collar workers in the coal industry other than the miners. Neither indicated the number of coal industry employees who are in office or management positions.

The number of employees per TWh for making electricity from coal is far higher than for making the same electricity with nuclear power; And that's including the very large proportion of nuclear industry jobs that are needless compliance roles - A US nuclear power plant has more people writing reports for the NRC than it has doing the actual work of running the plant.

Nuclear plant construction typically requires more workers than coal plant construction, but as nuclear plants have a rather longer working life, the difference is trivial; Averaged across a large country like the US, the construction costs per nameplate GW are higher for nuclear, but the construction cost per delivered TWh over the life of the plant is about the same. (lower for nuclear if the regulatory and safety targets were set at similar levels, but of course they are not - nuclear plants are held to a standard of excellence that the coal industry would find crippling).

If you replace coal with nuclear, you need far fewer total workers in power generation. And of course, they are not the same workers.

But coal miners, despite being numerous voters in swing states, and therefore able to effectively lobby to keep their industry running, are not morally entitled to keep their jobs at the cost of lower efficiency for the nation as a whole, and wouldn't be even if their industry wasn't also destroying our environment. The industry persists because its employees are powerful politically, but ultimately they are just delaying the inevitable.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,215
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Uh, no, that is the number of people involved with coal production and on/off labor for transportation delivery.
I would suggest that you actually read the link you offered and the link that I offered. They both give the same number for actual miners but the link I offered also included blue collar workers in the coal industry other than the miners. Neither indicated the number of coal industry employees who are in office or management positions.

The number of employees per TWh for making electricity from coal is far higher than for making the same electricity with nuclear power; And that's including the very large proportion of nuclear industry jobs that are needless compliance roles - A US nuclear power plant has more people writing reports for the NRC than it has doing the actual work of running the plant.

Nuclear plant construction typically requires more workers than coal plant construction, but as nuclear plants have a rather longer working life, the difference is trivial; Averaged across a large country like the US, the construction costs per nameplate GW are higher for nuclear, but the construction cost per delivered TWh over the life of the plant is about the same. (lower for nuclear if the regulatory and safety targets were set at similar levels, but of course they are not - nuclear plants are held to a standard of excellence that the coal industry would find crippling).

If you replace coal with nuclear, you need far fewer total workers in power generation. And of course, they are not the same workers.

But coal miners, despite being numerous voters in swing states, and therefore able to effectively lobby to keep their industry running, are not morally entitled to keep their jobs at the cost of lower efficiency for the nation as a whole, and wouldn't be even if their industry wasn't also destroying our environment. The industry persists because its employees are powerful politically, but ultimately they are just delaying the inevitable.

:confused:

You seem to have veered into an entirely different subject.

I mentioned that the Democrat candidate ran on shutting down the coal industry (without offering any other replacement, by the way - well she did mention solar panels but that ain't gonna do it) because you had said that politicians always promote industrial growth, never against industry.

I also agree that nuclear power would be much, much more preferable than coal power. But that is another industry that the party that promised to shut down the coal industry is also avidly against.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,338
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The number of employees per TWh for making electricity from coal is far higher than for making the same electricity with nuclear power; And that's including the very large proportion of nuclear industry jobs that are needless compliance roles - A US nuclear power plant has more people writing reports for the NRC than it has doing the actual work of running the plant.

Nuclear plant construction typically requires more workers than coal plant construction, but as nuclear plants have a rather longer working life, the difference is trivial; Averaged across a large country like the US, the construction costs per nameplate GW are higher for nuclear, but the construction cost per delivered TWh over the life of the plant is about the same. (lower for nuclear if the regulatory and safety targets were set at similar levels, but of course they are not - nuclear plants are held to a standard of excellence that the coal industry would find crippling).

If you replace coal with nuclear, you need far fewer total workers in power generation. And of course, they are not the same workers.

But coal miners, despite being numerous voters in swing states, and therefore able to effectively lobby to keep their industry running, are not morally entitled to keep their jobs at the cost of lower efficiency for the nation as a whole, and wouldn't be even if their industry wasn't also destroying our environment. The industry persists because its employees are powerful politically, but ultimately they are just delaying the inevitable.

:confused:

You seem to have veered into an entirely different subject.

I mentioned that the Democrat candidate ran on shutting down the coal industry (without offering any other replacement, by the way - well she did mention solar panels but that ain't gonna do it) because you had said that politicians always promote industrial growth, never against industry.

I also agree that nuclear power would be much, much more preferable than coal power. But that is another industry that the party that promised to shut down the coal industry is also avidly against.

Well that seems to me to be a major problem with democracy. The only parties here who don't vehemently oppose nuclear power, and who don't vocally support coal mining for the jobs it provides, are lunatic fringe nutcases parties with insane economic and social policies.

There have recently been some vague hints that the Liberal Party (our mainstream conservative party) might consider repealing the ban on nuclear power in Australia; But I am not sure I could vote for them on the basis of that one policy position (if it ever becomes more than a hint), because their general policy platform is vile.

Single issue parties and candidates are unfit for power; And mainstream parties with broad platforms all oppose something I feel is of great importance and should be strongly promoted. So how do I vote? Where's the democracy? Is my only option to run myself as an independent? And if so, what realistic chance do I have of winning?

Fuck it, maybe I will run for the senate at the next federal election as an independent. Occasionally senators get elected here with minuscule shares of the primary vote. It's a bit of a lottery.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,603
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
There is a more expensive, yet adequate solution for resolving both fear of radiation and drowning the earth in CO2

Controlling existing solar derived energy. By that I mean wind, solar, water, exploitation with proper safeguards for protecting existing ecology will provide more than needed energy for the foreseeable future.

Instead of thinking about how to get people to build 'safe' from risky sources continue with safe forms and design for naturally existing energy usage exploitations that don't run risks of either coal or nuclear power exploitation. Face it. Silt recovery and alternate transport for existing species for water exploitation will be far safer than either coal or nuclear.

Solar fields and homes with integrated energy transport and natural storage through such as subterranean storage and other battery methods will be far superior as well. There are ways to exploint wind and waves that are improving all the time. Home based conductor grids are on the verge of becoming viable as well.

I say leave planet destroying and star generating activities to stars and planet formation and running.

Of course all this has little to do with potentially constraining majority privilege is social systems.

No. The bromide that abundant energy solves all problems won't do against human nature.
 
Top Bottom