Research: White conservatives prefer authoritarianism to democracy if marginalized people benefit

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: FyreByrd

I said nothing about the study.

I said everything about the purpose it was put to. You know jack-all about the intolerant whites, their political leanings and voting patterns. The newspaper article in question takes old data and draws a heck of a faulty logic leap to decide that all those people in the data are automatically Trump voters and conservative. *That's* the fake news angle here.

God is Love -> Love is Blind -> Ray Charles is Blind -> Ray Charles is God!

That's the sort of logic chain this article constructs and you want to buy it because you so desperately need to believe that anyone who didn't support Hillary had to have some nefarious, evil motive for it.

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much" William Shakespeare

Or "A little to close to home for comfort"?

Hmmm, this is the sort of emotional blackmail I am talking about.

"Oh, you don't like this? Well, I won't say it, but you know, you must be a racist ..."

a reply to: ketsuko

"Do as we say or else we'll continue to deride you as the horrible, awful, no-good, very, very bad people you will prove yourselves to be by not doing what we say because only we are the arbiters of the new moral purity in this country."

I wonder - why is it when people criticize people that they think are bad that you think they're criticizing you?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I don't.

I am pointing out the tendency for people, like FyreByrd in this case, to come back with that.

It's the newest craze. If you don't see eye to eye with us on this issue, then you must be this or that -ist or -phobe. It's the new way of arguing or debating a topic. If person A doesn't agree with amnesty policy, then person A is racist is the gist of this article and the gist of more or less all arguments in favor of amnesty and open borders.

Everything a person says or does is viewed through a racial/gender/sexual/religio lens nowadays. No one is allowed to simply agree or disagree for any reason other than racism, sexism, homophobia, some flavor of religious bias, etc.

It's disgusting.

It's like how we used to talk about others as individuals.

Little Suzie is a bright girl who lives gymnastics, dolls, talks a lot, and her favorite color is bright green.

She's now little Suzie who has two mommies, is gender non-conforming, is mixed race and a Buddhist.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's the newest craze. If you don't see eye to eye with us on this issue, then you must be this or that -ist or -phobe. It's the new way of arguing or debating a topic. If person A doesn't agree with amnesty policy, then person A is racist is the gist of this article and the gist of more or less all arguments in favor of amnesty and open borders.

Explain to me then how if I (we) don't agree with your policies (ideas, beliefs, positions) you handle it any differently?

There is an obvious increase as far as intolerance goes in this country. It goes deep - and you could say it's on both sides, so, let's just say that for starters. However - if I'm not allowed to call out racism (or authoritarianism - since that's what the thread is actually about) when I see it without worrying about whether or not you're going to take it personally - what am I left with?

I can't worry about your feelings. And I won't. If you aren't inclined to call these things out yourself there's nothing I can do about that. I'm not here to proselytize

What I'm curious about (and again, you just reacted exactly the same way in your last reply to me) is why you assume you're under attack? It's almost as if you're saying (in a roundabout blackmail-y way) that I should just shut up about it

The truth is I (we - many people) do see racism and authoritarianism in much of what's happening today. Do I need to respond to these conditions in a way that doesn't offend you? Please explain what that would look like

If the facts in the op were even remotely true America wouldn't be the most diverse nation on the planet. Us evil whites are the majority and would have systematically exterminated anyone who wasn't white years ago. But that hasn't happened. Actually the opposite has happened and the majority is now marginalized and accosted for absolutely anything. Mother Teresa wouldn't pass the purity test moderation liberalism has created.

What I see is a skin color and gender under constant attack from an ideology that hinges on the fact your average white American has to be a xenophobic, homophobic, racist. When proven they clutch it and use it to morally objectify others. When the opposite is proven they will move the goalposts till they are justified. The recent attack on a minor wearing a MAGE hat and ANTIFA member convicted of statutory rape are good examples of this.

And yet both sides need bodies, wouldn't that mean it still a democracy even if it's a Republic. One extreme of the right is imperialism which can lead facism similar of a monarchy, while the other is socialism which is another form of dictatorship and colonial, albeit more theocratical like a religion. What was the saying...kill the artists!?

And yet, white people are said to be bred out due to differences in the gene pools, and with global warming shenanagins. Also the lack of education and environmental concerns, and birth control. Blacks with with blue eyes blowong themselves up and whites that can dunk anf make their own foreign slang might happen. All the races and their blood line will be screwed out of existence anyways.

Can't fight the love, like Adam and Eve everyone screwed each other out of paradise. I envision a world where everyone like watermelon and chicken.

a reply to: Harpua

Any research done by NBC might as well be endorsed by CNN too,who would believe a poll made by media liberals,waste of time and space

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I don't.

I am pointing out the tendency for people, like FyreByrd in this case, to come back with that.

It's the newest craze. If you don't see eye to eye with us on this issue, then you must be this or that -ist or -phobe. It's the new way of arguing or debating a topic. If person A doesn't agree with amnesty policy, then person A is racist is the gist of this article and the gist of more or less all arguments in favor of amnesty and open borders.

Everything a person says or does is viewed through a racial/gender/sexual/religio lens nowadays. No one is allowed to simply agree or disagree for any reason other than racism, sexism, homophobia, some flavor of religious bias, etc.

It's disgusting.

It's like how we used to talk about others as individuals.

Little Suzie is a bright girl who lives gymnastics, dolls, talks a lot, and her favorite color is bright green.

She's now little Suzie who has two mommies, is gender non-conforming, is mixed race and a Buddhist.

I was addressing an individual... and I never implied you were disgusting or made disgusting remarks .... I don't know what you are talking about. Just stupid I guess, naive, but not stuck on defensive.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The citizens being brought in need to be productive ones. Simply mass recruiting a bunch of people who are going to live on social safety net systems for all of their lives and raise children who are mostly doing likewise doesn't solve your demographic crunch, it adds to it.

Most conservatives I know are not opposed to immigration. We are opposed to the mass importation of the low skilled simply because ... reasons, and the mass amnesty of those who broke laws to enter this country.

Confronted with a problem, you appeal to emotion and tackle a new problem you just made up. The stagnating birth-rates couldn't care less about the level of skill you'd like to exploit with labour, my point simply sailed above your head where the wind is fine.

Your "conservative" capitalists may come up with a long list of wishes, but they seem to lack any sense for the reality of demographics and migration. Prejudices won't help to solve them, either. So you think all those illegal farm workers are not very prodcutive, eh? At least you won't have to talk about demographics anymore, congrats!

"It's the economy, stupid!"

a reply to: PublicOpinion

The Democrats used to use black slaves to work the farms. Now they prefer brown ones.

Conservatives want smaller government. Less Taxes. Less govt control. How in the hell do you equate that to wanting a dictator?

Liberals are the ones that want laws dictating everything under the sun.

originally posted by: Harpua
www.nbcnews.com...

I find this study troubling and in many ways true. Since this is such a hotbed of Trump supporters, I am asking for intellectually honest (meaning willing to admit your biases, fears etc) replies to the main themes of this article.

Based on surveys from the United States, the authors found that white people who did not want to have immigrants or people of different races living next door to them were more likely to be supportive of authoritarianism. For instance, people who said they did not want to live next door to immigrants or to people of another race were more supportive of the idea of military rule, or of a strongman-type leader who could ignore legislatures and election results.

Yikes.... as much as liberals are demonized on here, I don't know any liberal who would prefer military rule or a tyrannical leader with no term limit over a democratic republic. Does the same ring true for the conservatives on ATS?

Black people, Asians, Native Americans and women were prevented from voting for significant stretches of American history. America's tradition of democracy (for some) exists alongside a tradition of authoritarianism (for some). The Founders supported democracy as long as it was restricted to white male property holders. Today, our understanding of democracy is more expansive — at least in theory.

In practice, the GOP has increasingly been embracing a politics of white resentment tied to disenfranchisement. "Since Richard Nixon's ‘Southern Strategy,’ the GOP has pigeon-holed itself as, in large part, an aggrieved white people's party," Miller told me.

I know its been a hot topic here to repeat that it was the democrats who fought for slavery and who started the KKK (both true). But ever since LBJ fought on behalf of the civil rights movement, the white nationalists has been voting republican.

Trump's nativist language made the GOP's sympathies more explicit, leading to further erosion of support among non-white voters. George W. Bush won 35 percent of Hispanic voters in 2000; Trump won only 28 percent. His showing with Asian-American voters was only 27 percent — worse than any winning presidential candidate on record.

White people continue to decrease as a percentage of the U.S. population; at some point, it's going to be impossible to win a national, democratic American election with a platform that alienates people of color. The GOP, seeing their coming demographic apocalypse, has pushed voter ID laws and other barriers to voting to try to prevent black and other minority voters from getting to the polls. In Wisconsin, Republican Governor Scott Walker even attempted to delay elections for state seats that he believed Democrats would win.

Is there concern by Trump supporters on here that they will be marginalized if minorities, women, homosexuals etc have the same rights as them? Personally, I see some of these concerns as projection: if minorities became majorities, maybe we would treated the same way some of them have been treated... or are there other issues at hand?

A party built on demonizing and attacking marginalized people is a party that will have to disenfranchise those same people if it is to survive.

Blaming authoritarianism on partisanship suggests that both sides are equally to blame for the erosion of democratic norms. But greater commitment to abortion rights and free healthcare in the Democratic party isn't a threat to the foundations of democracy. The growing concentration of intolerant white voters in the GOP, on the other hand, has created a party which appears less and less committed to the democratic project. When faced with a choice between bigotry and democracy, too many Americans are embracing the first while abandoning the second.

"Social intolerance isn't just leading to GOP support as we know it and see it now," Miller says. "It's leading to preferences in favor of the kind of candidate the GOP ultimately nominated and supported for president." In embracing the politics of white identity, then, the GOP made a Trump possible — and is likely to make more Trump-like candidates successful in the future.

I have seen so many comments on here how liberals are a threat to America. I understand the anti globalist position and can agree in large with those who oppose it. That being said, there is an overt attempt to play on peoples fear of immigrants. The wall is a classic example of this, as are Trump comments about Mexico not sending their best, but sending rapists and drug dealers.

US foreign policy has reeked havoc around the world. If any nation threatens to nationalize their resources (especially oil or gas) or refuses to sign up with the world bank / IMF systems, we will fund the resistance, destabilize and topple your government. If those methods fall short of working, we start beating the war drums. While this has happened all over the world, in South and Central America we see how effective our tactics are. Now we see those chickens come home to roost in the asylum seeking refugees of those nations.

I don't believe we should allow anyone and everyone to move here, yet at the same time I believe we have deeper issues when it comes to fear or hatred of other cultures. If it came to it... would any of you suspend the constitution to support an authoritarian who promised to protect us from outsiders?

I don't believe we should give up our freedoms or our protections. I believe we should all be treated equally and it bums me out to think there are people who feel threatened by minorities who simply want the same rights and protections as the rest of us.

I am confused as to why they chose an older data set when newer ones are available for them to use.

That alone brings in questions of biased research to obtain a biased outcome.

Either way....I dont want authoritarian rule regardless.

I do want anyone coming into the US to be properly vetted and legally enter.

I am held accountable for my actions and if I break the law then i expect consequences.

As usual, conflating immigration with illegal immigration. I would wager most US legal citizens, of any race, are for LEGAL immigration 100%. I would also wager most US legal citizens are against potential immigrants ILLEGALLY entering the country.

Also conflating authoritarian leadership with citizens are expected to follow the laws of the country they live in (or desire to).

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sure. Because... Rapepublicans pay exceptionally great wages to the free civilians to keep that republic on your fields in shape. And all the cowgirls, of course. Sure. It's the lala-land of milk and honey, honey!

Partisan meets artisan, this should be fun. What's new with you, old razor?

a reply to: Harpua

My Biases are with Lumen on this, I too am a Native American. but the truth is nbc is a left leaning media organization and I wonder what the control on the test was and how and where they obtained their results.

what is also obvious is the misleading title claim. because many on the left believe that everyone on the right is a xenophobe they think this represents all of them, when the limit was only to conservatives of a pale complexion that did not want to live next to anyone else outside their nation and race.

in other words, they dragged these results out of a KKK rally lol.

ask any other ethnic group in their home country on any political side who they would rather have for neighbors and the extremists are gonna always want ONLY their OWN KIND.

its hilarious in its misleading title.