Trump Will Likely Win

[Loren Pechtel]

MAGA
When was America great.
Most say the Boomer years, 50 and 60's.
Was that not when corporate taxes were high?

People keep focusing on that, while ignoring the fact that the old rules had loopholes you could drive a 18-wheeler through.

When Reagan made a huge cut to the tax rate it didn't result in a big change to tax revenue because the same change removed a whole bunch of those loopholes. Very few people were actually paying the old rates. (Note that the numbers from the time aren't meaningful--most of the issues were things that kept money from showing up as income in the first place.)

The boom times were because we were the only major industrial power that wasn't smashed in WWII, it had little to do with tax rates or the like.

 

[Gospel]

[Rant]

I'm not sure if this matters, but I do agree that white privilege exists. That said, I don't believe every white person benefits from it equally. It's like when my best friend Justin told me, 'Bruh, you’ve got soul! Why don’t you get out there and dance with the ladies? I always end up embarrassing myself.' Sure, I might have soul, but that doesn’t mean I’ve got game. In the end, after killing it on the floor, I walked out just as girlfriendless as he did. Privilege, like rhythm, doesn't guarantee success, but it does give you an advantage you didn't necessarily earn. You can capitalize on it, build upon it, but it was there from the start without any effort on your part.

Considering how the U.S. government (both state and federal) treated Black people under the law in the so-called 'good old days' that Trump idealizes, you can count yourself privileged for not having to experience America through the lens of its history, where people who looked like you were once lawfully mistreated in ways no one should endure. Meanwhile, we still deal with the lingering effects of that legacy, particularly within law enforcement, and as a community, were we're often expected to be held accountable for the actions of others who simply share our skin color—while the white community have the privilege to dismiss their own as 'white trash' and walk away.

There unquestionably was a major issue of white privilege. The question is whether it's still an important factor.

Obviously, I don’t feel obligated to help someone just because they’re Black anymore. I used to think that way—society gave me that impression. The statistics say I’m supposed to end up doing this or that, so I felt I had to take action to keep those numbers from being used against me. But in the end, that didn’t change much. Our community is still dealing with generational trauma that white people have the privilege to ignore, while they shift the blame onto us, as if centuries of pain suddenly vanished on June 19, 1865.

But "generational trauma" is not discrimination and it is not white privilege. And trauma can't be fixed by throwing money at it.

I enjoy seeing white people celebrate their history, and I can recognize the traces of historical trauma woven into their culture. From my perspective, it comes across as a mix of pride, sorrow, and guilt. Not very different from mine, but let’s be clear—Black people aren’t responsible for your mutha-fucking guilt or the ability anyone may have to wield it against you. Take that shit up with the Confederacy.

I see no point in white history or black history or whatever. The people involved often were important in the time but looking back at history what we should learn from is societies. Most "important" individuals in history were far more a matter of something was ripe to happen and they were the lucky (or unlucky) one that it happened to. And, yes, there is far more "white" history around than "black" history--because far more records were kept. More technology to keep records, an environment much less destructive of records.

None of your replies address what I’ve actually said—you’re having a conversation with someone who isn’t here.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

For example, what's with this "white people problems" bullshit phrase/meme among young people and leftist news outlets? Do I really need to go into detail about why that's so dismissive and insulting? This ridiculous point of view is pervasive among liberals. All that was needed to mobilize a large segment of nonvoters was for someone to come along and tap into that, which is precisely what Trump did simply by being an asshole. I don't think he's bright enough to have purposely done that, but the people around him and outlets like Fox quickly recognized it and went after it.

Colonel, I have to say, I’m really enjoying our conversation. It’s refreshing to exchange ideas, and I appreciate the depth you're bringing to this discussion. That said, I’d like to ask for one small favor as we continue: can we focus more on our own perspectives rather than the opinions of others, even though they’re important and directly related? My hope is that we both separate ourselves from the views of those who may share similar arguments and treat those outside perspectives as additional context, not as reflections of our personal stance. This way, we can dive deeper into what we believe.

With that said, I fully agree that dismissing someone's hardships is a problem. This is felt by both hardworking white Americans and hardworking minorities. The situation between these two groups reminds me of those predictable Hollywood love stories, where a big misunderstanding drives people apart. They spend so much time thinking the other person is the problem, only to later realize they’ve been on the same side all along. I think it may take another decade (edit correction100 years) or two before we fully get there in America, but the point stands.

Privilege doesn’t mean someone hasn’t struggled. It means that in some areas, others face additional barriers. For example, a white person might face economic struggles, but their race may not add extra challenges in areas like criminal justice or education, which many Black or Latino people regularly encounter. This doesn’t mean every white person doesn’t face racism or that every minority person succeeds with arbitrary challenges.

Minorities have been fighting for fair treatment under the law, not punishment for others. Equality doesn’t mean punishing white Americans—it means ensuring that everyone, regardless of race, has an equal opportunity to thrive. By equal opportunity, I don’t mean changing the rules to benefit one group over another (like affirmative action, which I personally think has run its course). I believe we’ve reached a point where anti-discrimination laws could stand without affirmative action, but that’s another debate entirely—sorry to digress. To me, equal opportunity means that no one faces arbitrary barriers.

Anyhow, your concerns about the rise of authoritarianism are valid. But what’s important is recognizing—and I believe you already do, based on our conversation—that fighting for equality and against systemic injustice is pro-democracy, not against it. Any movement that undermines democratic values, like marginalizing others, risks hurting everyone in the long run—including both hardworking white Americans and hardworking minorities.

I don't really have anything worth arguing about in your post. However, I'm probably not doing the best job of expressing that I think that part of my opinion is that perception rather than fact has played a role in this, e.g. saying that white people are privileged simply be being white. I get the the argument of what's meant by it from the left, but from the right and the actual centrist POV, it just sounds ridiculous.

Also, I'm bored with current politics in a certain way. Any decent person who is minimally capable of thinking for themselves realizes just how truly awful Trump is. All the shit that comes out of his mouth every single day and his supporters being something more akin to religious fanatics that idolize him doesn't affect me one bit because yeah, we've known that for a decade now. Thus, it's far more interesting to address the problems on my own side of the political spectrum.

It may be moot though. With what appears to be a forthcoming loss of democracy renders it all rather meaningless because it's too late in the game for Democrats to make any needed changes.

 

[pood]

Right now Harris continues to lead the national popular vote, but it does not look particularly good for her in the EC. It’s quite possible that for the third time in 24 years, a Republican (now MAGGAT) will lose the popular vote but be awarded the presidency on the basis of an inane, non-democratic institution cobbled together 248 years ago by slave-holding white supremacists. Wonderful. And the ironic part is that the EC was intended, at least in part, to keep demagogues, rabble-rousers and psychopaths from being president.

 

[Axulus]

Right now Harris continues to lead the national popular vote, but it does not look particularly good for her in the EC. It’s quite possible that for the third time in 24 years, a Republican (now MAGGAT) will lose the popular vote but be awarded the presidency on the basis of an inane, non-democratic institution cobbled together 248 years ago by slave-holding white supremacists. Wonderful. And the ironic part is that the EC was intended, at least in part, to keep demagogues, rabble-rousers and psychopaths from being president.

The latest NY Times poll has them even nationally at 48% each.

Harris and Trump Deadlocked to the End, Final Times/Siena National Poll Finds

The electorate has rarely seemed so evenly divided. The latest New York Times/Siena College poll found Harris and Trump tied 48 to 48.

www.nytimes.com

 

[pood]

Right now Harris continues to lead the national popular vote, but it does not look particularly good for her in the EC. It’s quite possible that for the third time in 24 years, a Republican (now MAGGAT) will lose the popular vote but be awarded the presidency on the basis of an inane, non-democratic institution cobbled together 248 years ago by slave-holding white supremacists. Wonderful. And the ironic part is that the EC was intended, at least in part, to keep demagogues, rabble-rousers and psychopaths from being president.

The latest NY Times poll has them even nationally at 48% each.

Harris and Trump Deadlocked to the End, Final Times/Siena National Poll Finds

The electorate has rarely seemed so evenly divided. The latest New York Times/Siena College poll found Harris and Trump tied 48 to 48.

www.nytimes.com

Most national polls continue to have Harris slightly ahead.

 

[Gospel]

Right now Harris continues to lead the national popular vote, but it does not look particularly good for her in the EC. It’s quite possible that for the third time in 24 years, a Republican (now MAGGAT) will lose the popular vote but be awarded the presidency on the basis of an inane, non-democratic institution cobbled together 248 years ago by slave-holding white supremacists. Wonderful. And the ironic part is that the EC was intended, at least in part, to keep demagogues, rabble-rousers and psychopaths from being president.

While a Harris victory would be a positive step forward, the deeper divisions remain. Those who align with Trump’s values won’t simply vanish on inauguration day—they’ll still hold seats in the House, the Senate, and on the Supreme Court, and will continue to influence state and federal elections. Not assuming you don’t know this—just playing Captain Obvious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Regarding criminal justice, it’s true that Black communities see disproportionately higher crime rates, but that statistic alone doesn’t tell the full story. We can’t ignore the role systemic factors—like poverty, over-policing, and lack of opportunity—play in increasing the disparities. It’s not that Black people inherently commit more crime, but their circumstances often increase the likelihood of interaction with the justice system. Tackling the root causes of this issue—inequality in education, economic opportunities, and biased policing—is key to finding solutions. And let’s not forget how slavery disrupted the Black family structure in ways we’re still recovering from today. Generations had their identities, families, and even language stripped away. Our community is still finding its footing after that unique experience, much like America’s democracy has gone through growing pains and still seeks stability today. One clue lies in the fact that many of us still discipline our children primarily through violence.

Disagree. This isn't a racial issue, this is an socioeconomic issue. And just because there were huge problems in the past doesn't mean they are driving forces now.

How much of that inequality in education is inequality in how much the parents care about education? Because schools are a reflection of the students they get.

Economic opportunity--as it stands being black is an economic advantage assuming equal qualifications.

Biased policing--again, no longer in evidence. How much of it is race vs socioeconomic status? Once again, there recently was a report that supposedly showed biased policing--but it compared traffic stops to camera tickets. That's supposed to prove anything?!

I agree that we shouldn't assume conditions today are the same as they were decades ago. However, systemic barriers don’t disappear overnight. While we’ve made progress, the lingering effects of past discrimination—in housing, employment, and education—are still felt today. Disparities persist not only because of history but also because current systems continue to subtly perpetuate inequality. And no, I absolutely do not believe things are as bad as there were in the "good ole days" /s.

Lingering effects, yes. That doesn't make the current situation discrimination and doesn't mean anti-discrimination efforts will accomplish anything.

40 years ago my father was in an accident caused by red light runner. The woman's child was unrestrained and broke their arm as a result. Should the ER doctor prescribe a seat belt for his injury??

I personally recognize that we, the Black community, have come a long way in our contributions and relationships with other communities. We’re not there yet. And while I don’t speak for everyone, hypothetically, I ask that other communities continue to show patience. The trauma from centuries of slavery in America is still passed down through our families. It shows in the way we discipline our children, the way some of us still talk down to one another, the doubts we harbor about our own worth. Peer pressure, too, plays a role—when you’re told you're ‘playing into the oppressor’s hands’ by cooperating with authority, it creates internal conflict. These behaviors and mentalities are still very much alive in parts of our community today.

I'm not in the community to see it but that's been my understanding. The very path to get out of the situation is rejected as acting white. We can't fix that, you have to.

We should not generalize of course, but the activists fighting for things like perpetual racial preferences or for reparations by race definitely want more than just "fight treatment under the law". I support that part, but reject the special treatment.

I agree with you that we shouldn’t generalize, but I’d argue that most people advocating for reparations or racial preferences aren’t looking to punish white Americans. They’re seeking redress for historical wrongs and trying to level a playing field that remains skewed, in their view. I tend to agree with this because it seems America has done more for other historical wrongs than it has for its treatment of Black Americans. There’s certainly debate about the best way to achieve fairness, and while I agree racial preferences are no longer the ideal solution, it’s important to recognize that real activists are attempting to address imbalance, not seek retribution.

The problem is that it's impossible to fix past imbalances unless you have a time machine. All you can do is fix things going forward and that is not accomplished by putting your thumb on the scale until things are "equal".

And I think a lot of it is driven by agitators who maintain their position by being unreasonable. (I am not singling out the black community here--plenty of such people elsewhere. Think of people like Rush Limbaugh.)

Equity, on the other hand does. Equity says, wait, there are too few blacks in med school. We should give black applicants a preference in admissions so we have more black doctors. The correct approach would be to identify why black students are lagging behind and help them perform better, which starts before formal schooling begins frankly. But giving a preference based on race is easier and quicker, even if it does nothing about the underlying problem. In fact, it may make it worse. Why apply yourself in undergrad if you know your race will help you get in with relatively mediocre grades and scores?

You raise a great point in distinguishing between equality and equity. Equity recognizes that some groups, due to historical and systemic barriers, may need more support to truly have a fair shot. You’re right that the focus should be on improving education and building better pathways to success. However, racial preferences were never meant to create a shortcut but rather to address the unfair disadvantages that Black students from less privileged backgrounds often face. Moving forward, I think we should tackle the root problems—like early childhood education and access to resources—while ensuring no citizen is negatively impacted in the process (like what some applying affirmative action have done some cases).

The problem is you can't address the unfair disadvantages by decreeing them equal. As such, AA was a very bad idea. It should have happened anyway, though, because it had another means of action: It broke the culture of it being bad for an organization to have blacks in anything but lesser roles. That made a huge difference, but that was done long ago. Continuing to do a completed job doesn't help anything.

But note that "early childhood education" isn't really the problem, but a symptom of the problem. The kids are falling behind at home before they ever reach the educational system. People are always looking for fixes that can be handed to them. Don't have kids until you've completed your education and are in a stable married or married-like relationship.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Right now Harris continues to lead the national popular vote, but it does not look particularly good for her in the EC. It’s quite possible that for the third time in 24 years, a Republican (now MAGGAT) will lose the popular vote but be awarded the presidency on the basis of an inane, non-democratic institution cobbled together 248 years ago by slave-holding white supremacists. Wonderful. And the ironic part is that the EC was intended, at least in part, to keep demagogues, rabble-rousers and psychopaths from being president.

While a Harris victory would be a positive step forward, the deeper divisions remain. Those who align with Trump’s values won’t simply vanish on inauguration day—they’ll still hold seats in the House, the Senate, and on the Supreme Court, and will continue to influence state and federal elections. Not assuming you don’t know this—just playing Captain Obvious.

Yeah, we are bleeding out for the next decade plus, best case scenario. Just trying to pull back on the blood loss.

If the GOP get to replace Sotomayor and/or Thomas, SCOTUS is fucked for a generation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am not a cis white male but I sure am related to a whole lot of them and AFAIK none of them feel attacked as oppressors. I think that's a bit of propaganda ginned up to sew division. I will concede that there is a small portion of cis white males who feel oppressed because they are no longer in the front of the line for all good things as they have been for many many many generations. For some of them that feels like oppression.

Don't feel attacked as oppressors??? I see plenty of such attacks--and people resent it because they feel accused of a crime they didn't commit.

But still: I have family members I love a great deal who are 'stuck' in not great jobs. But I also know that a big part of their 'stuckness' is because they are very risk averse and also introverted --so extra risk averse and just struggle with not getting what they reach for. OTOH, I think I turned in 40+ applications to the place where I retired from before I was hired. What is the difference between them and me? Not a college degree. Almost certainly that I am extremely stubborn and very very very determined to get my foot in the door--which I eventually did by temping for the place I wanted to work at. I wanted that particular employer because I knew it would pay more than any other place within driving distance--and that driving distance was an hour on good roads (i.e. not winter). I know people who refused to apply there because they didn't want to make that drive nor did they want to move closer. Cis white males, every single one. Does that actually mean anything? Probably not. But maybe it does.

You realize a lot of what you are describing can also be explained by a lack of confidence that they can land on their feet. And that their evaluation might be correct. The willingness to take a chance doesn't exist in isolation, but it's related to how bad things would be if they take the chance and fail.

As for your job--that's not so much determination as a willingness to incur greater costs (time, gas) to get the better job.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You raise a great point in distinguishing between equality and equity. Equity recognizes that some groups, due to historical and systemic barriers, may need more support to truly have a fair shot. You’re right that the focus should be on improving education and building better pathways to success.

That’s what we hear from the “soft racists” who offer sympathies but refuse to help. When it comes to breaking ground on any “better pathways” they always argue that existing pathways are more than sufficient, that “new pathways” that are more accessible to suppressed groups are racist, and hold up the success of the upper class as proof that those groups just need to get with the program.

You're missing those of us who think the proposed solutions are painting over the rust and won't actually fix anything. The need to do something drives an awful lot of wasteful behavior. Pay attention to whether that something will actually help and if you do it monitor how you're doing. Don't just assume that because the intent is to help that it's useful and that those who oppose it want the problem to persist.

 

[Toni]

I am not a cis white male but I sure am related to a whole lot of them and AFAIK none of them feel attacked as oppressors. I think that's a bit of propaganda ginned up to sew division. I will concede that there is a small portion of cis white males who feel oppressed because they are no longer in the front of the line for all good things as they have been for many many many generations. For some of them that feels like oppression.

Don't feel attacked as oppressors??? I see plenty of such attacks--and people resent it because they feel accused of a crime they didn't commit.

But still: I have family members I love a great deal who are 'stuck' in not great jobs. But I also know that a big part of their 'stuckness' is because they are very risk averse and also introverted --so extra risk averse and just struggle with not getting what they reach for. OTOH, I think I turned in 40+ applications to the place where I retired from before I was hired. What is the difference between them and me? Not a college degree. Almost certainly that I am extremely stubborn and very very very determined to get my foot in the door--which I eventually did by temping for the place I wanted to work at. I wanted that particular employer because I knew it would pay more than any other place within driving distance--and that driving distance was an hour on good roads (i.e. not winter). I know people who refused to apply there because they didn't want to make that drive nor did they want to move closer. Cis white males, every single one. Does that actually mean anything? Probably not. But maybe it does.

You realize a lot of what you are describing can also be explained by a lack of confidence that they can land on their feet. And that their evaluation might be correct. The willingness to take a chance doesn't exist in isolation, but it's related to how bad things would be if they take the chance and fail.

As for your job--that's not so much determination as a willingness to incur greater costs (time, gas) to get the better job.

I'm pretty certain that's what I wrote re: friends and family 'stuck' in jobs they don't love.

I'm pretty certain I know what it took for me to update my degree and obtain a job at my dream employer far better than you could possibly know or understand. Perhaps we define determination differently. I persisted in the face of repeated rejection of application. I'm sorry if determination is not a term you like to see applied to mere women. Or to me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am not a cis white male but I sure am related to a whole lot of them and AFAIK none of them feel attacked as oppressors. I think that's a bit of propaganda ginned up to sew division. I will concede that there is a small portion of cis white males who feel oppressed because they are no longer in the front of the line for all good things as they have been for many many many generations. For some of them that feels like oppression.

Don't feel attacked as oppressors??? I see plenty of such attacks--and people resent it because they feel accused of a crime they didn't commit.

Receipts please. I am quite white, quite male. In school (elementary, high school, college) I never felt attacked. At work, never felt attacked.

Where is this occurring?

But still: I have family members I love a great deal who are 'stuck' in not great jobs. But I also know that a big part of their 'stuckness' is because they are very risk averse and also introverted --so extra risk averse and just struggle with not getting what they reach for. OTOH, I think I turned in 40+ applications to the place where I retired from before I was hired. What is the difference between them and me? Not a college degree. Almost certainly that I am extremely stubborn and very very very determined to get my foot in the door--which I eventually did by temping for the place I wanted to work at. I wanted that particular employer because I knew it would pay more than any other place within driving distance--and that driving distance was an hour on good roads (i.e. not winter). I know people who refused to apply there because they didn't want to make that drive nor did they want to move closer. Cis white males, every single one. Does that actually mean anything? Probably not. But maybe it does.

You realize a lot of what you are describing can also be explained by a lack of confidence that they can land on their feet. And that their evaluation might be correct. The willingness to take a chance doesn't exist in isolation, but it's related to how bad things would be if they take the chance and fail.

The willingness of risk is very real. Think of it like gambling. It is a lot easier to risk losing money in gambling when you plenty of it at the start.

 

[Gospel]

Disagree. This isn't a racial issue, this is an socioeconomic issue. And just because there were huge problems in the past doesn't mean they are driving forces now.

How much of that inequality in education is inequality in how much the parents care about education? Because schools are a reflection of the students they get.

Economic opportunity--as it stands being black is an economic advantage assuming equal qualifications.

Biased policing--again, no longer in evidence. How much of it is race vs socioeconomic status? Once again, there recently was a report that supposedly showed biased policing--but it compared traffic stops to camera tickets. That's supposed to prove anything?!

If disparities in education were purely socioeconomic, schools in poorer communities—regardless of racial demographics—would struggle equally due to lack of resources, funding, and parental involvement. Black neighborhoods often have fewer resources even when adjusted for income, which suggests that factors beyond pure socioeconomic status, like racial segregation and funding disparities, play a role.

Majority-Black school districts have far less money to invest in buildings — and students are feeling the impact

A CBS News investigation found stark disparities in funds invested in new buildings or facility improvements between school districts depending on their racial makeup.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But "generational trauma" is not discrimination and it is not white privilege. And trauma can't be fixed by throwing money at it.

You can't fix roads and bridges by just throwing money at transportation!

But people aren't actually identifying a specific problem to fix. It's always a do-something answer. The real problems aren't so simple.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

White supremacy has been overturned,

Uh, a lot of Trumpsuckers think not. They believe that Dolt45 is going to lead them out of the valley of the shadow death of white supremacy, into the Elysian Fields of golden haired, blue eyed prosperity.

You're actually supporting my position here.

They see the lack of white supremacy as the valley of death and want to head back to those perceived Elysian fields. If white supremacy hadn't been overturned they wouldn't need him to lead them back there!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

None of your replies address what I’ve actually said—you’re having a conversation with someone who isn’t here.

No. You're still acting like it's a problem that can be fixed from outside.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am not a cis white male but I sure am related to a whole lot of them and AFAIK none of them feel attacked as oppressors. I think that's a bit of propaganda ginned up to sew division. I will concede that there is a small portion of cis white males who feel oppressed because they are no longer in the front of the line for all good things as they have been for many many many generations. For some of them that feels like oppression.

Don't feel attacked as oppressors??? I see plenty of such attacks--and people resent it because they feel accused of a crime they didn't commit.

But still: I have family members I love a great deal who are 'stuck' in not great jobs. But I also know that a big part of their 'stuckness' is because they are very risk averse and also introverted --so extra risk averse and just struggle with not getting what they reach for. OTOH, I think I turned in 40+ applications to the place where I retired from before I was hired. What is the difference between them and me? Not a college degree. Almost certainly that I am extremely stubborn and very very very determined to get my foot in the door--which I eventually did by temping for the place I wanted to work at. I wanted that particular employer because I knew it would pay more than any other place within driving distance--and that driving distance was an hour on good roads (i.e. not winter). I know people who refused to apply there because they didn't want to make that drive nor did they want to move closer. Cis white males, every single one. Does that actually mean anything? Probably not. But maybe it does.

You realize a lot of what you are describing can also be explained by a lack of confidence that they can land on their feet. And that their evaluation might be correct. The willingness to take a chance doesn't exist in isolation, but it's related to how bad things would be if they take the chance and fail.

As for your job--that's not so much determination as a willingness to incur greater costs (time, gas) to get the better job.

I'm pretty certain that's what I wrote re: friends and family 'stuck' in jobs they don't love.

I'm pretty certain I know what it took for me to update my degree and obtain a job at my dream employer far better than you could possibly know or understand. Perhaps we define determination differently. I persisted in the face of repeated rejection of application. I'm sorry if determination is not a term you like to see applied to mere women. Or to me.

The thing you singled out was a willingness to drive further to improve your position. That's a matter of working productively rather than about determination.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But "generational trauma" is not discrimination and it is not white privilege. And trauma can't be fixed by throwing money at it.

You can't fix roads and bridges by just throwing money at transportation!

But people aren't actually identifying a specific problem to fix. It's always a do-something answer. The real problems aren't so simple.

So, who is suggesting throwing money at it to manage the intentional neglect, theft, even murder?

I'm pretty certain no one thinks rectifying America's completely fuck over on African Americans would be "simple".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am not a cis white male but I sure am related to a whole lot of them and AFAIK none of them feel attacked as oppressors. I think that's a bit of propaganda ginned up to sew division. I will concede that there is a small portion of cis white males who feel oppressed because they are no longer in the front of the line for all good things as they have been for many many many generations. For some of them that feels like oppression.

Don't feel attacked as oppressors??? I see plenty of such attacks--and people resent it because they feel accused of a crime they didn't commit.

Receipts please. I am quite white, quite male. In school (elementary, high school, college) I never felt attacked. At work, never felt attacked.

Where is this occurring?

Just look around--I'm talking about the world at large, not personal situations.

But still: I have family members I love a great deal who are 'stuck' in not great jobs. But I also know that a big part of their 'stuckness' is because they are very risk averse and also introverted --so extra risk averse and just struggle with not getting what they reach for. OTOH, I think I turned in 40+ applications to the place where I retired from before I was hired. What is the difference between them and me? Not a college degree. Almost certainly that I am extremely stubborn and very very very determined to get my foot in the door--which I eventually did by temping for the place I wanted to work at. I wanted that particular employer because I knew it would pay more than any other place within driving distance--and that driving distance was an hour on good roads (i.e. not winter). I know people who refused to apply there because they didn't want to make that drive nor did they want to move closer. Cis white males, every single one. Does that actually mean anything? Probably not. But maybe it does.

You realize a lot of what you are describing can also be explained by a lack of confidence that they can land on their feet. And that their evaluation might be correct. The willingness to take a chance doesn't exist in isolation, but it's related to how bad things would be if they take the chance and fail.

The willingness of risk is very real. Think of it like gambling. It is a lot easier to risk losing money in gambling when you plenty of it at the start.

But this isn't a matter of only risking a little money. For most people it's risking a lot. The issue comes down to what you will do if you don't get what you're after. Plenty of other options, fine, you try for the best one. Few options, you're more likely to stick with the option you have because a failure to get what you wanted is more likely to leave you with no options at hand.