ooliWhy are Black rappers aligning themselves with the right? | Tayo Bero
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Scrolling through Twitter a couple of weeks ago, I came across a clip of rightwing commentator Tucker Carlson interviewing a face I never thought I’d see on his platform: Ice Cube.
He’s joining a long list of rappers – Kanye West, Da Baby, Kodak Black, Lil Pump – who have all put themselves in dangerous proximity to conservative politicians even as rightwing populism threatens to destroy their communities.
Still, hip-hop legends like Jay-Z continue to peddle this demented lie because that is the very function of capitalism: keep the poorest in society busy providing cheap labor while they chase an impossible dream.
Say what you want about Democrats and what they have or haven’t done for Black people in America, but Kanye West campaigning for Trump wasn’t some stroke of genius – it was one of the most self-hating and objectively stupid moves that a person in his position could have made back in 2016.
I don’t blame Black people – burned by decades of generational disenfranchisement and then walloped over the head with the illusion of meritocracy – for trying to keep their place at the top no matter who they have to play nice with.
But romancing fearmongering xenophobes isn’t keeping us at the top, it’s digging a pitiful hole to the bottom, a new low from which Black people as a community will not recover if we don’t put a stop to it now.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Wealth makes people more likely to be conservative, as does age.
The poor young man who recorded Fuck tha Police is a very different person to the multi-millionaire media star being interviewed on Fox.
Early trends for Millenials and young Gen X has them not getting more conservative as they are aging, or at least substantially less so than older generations.
Because they don’t have the same generational wealth.
Fuck we don’t even have wealth…
Before the rents increased too much, I lucked into an old 1930’s era house in a rural town 1 hour away from work with all these lovely features:
- Rotting fiberglass insulation
- ungrounded outlets
- no dishwasher
- a clothesline instead of a dryer
- non-catastrophic plumbing issues
- unfinished drywall on the second floor
- windows with busted opening mechanisms
- gutters with holes rusted through them
- a shitty-ass furnace that cost me $600/mo to heat my house to 60F last year
All for the low-low price of “i can just barely afford the monthly mortgage payment”
But now that I’m a homeowner, I’m considered wealthy these days. Yeah, don’t see myself swinging R anytime soon.
I know this might not be relevant, but American obsession with dryers seems so weird to me lmao. I live in Germany and I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a dryer, even at my rich friends parents house, and them mafakers had a sauna in the basement. Just kinda interesting how they are completely culturally irrelevant in one country, and considered almost a basic necessity in another.
PeppycitoIn my part of Canada without a dryer you’d have damp, moldy clothes 9 months a year. I could hang them up inside to dry but I’d be running a dehumidifier beside them. We lived without a dryer for several years but it made laundry an extra pain in the ass and drying was always the bottleneck. No problem in the summer months with the clothesline.
Yeah, I kinda suspected they were very useful/necessary in some parts and just spread to the rest because people move around a lot
They are also, in the scheme of things, a very cheap and easy to install appliance (typically directly next to or on top the washer).
non-catastrophic
Hey! Niiice!
gowanAnd they are on the whole less racist than generations before them.
So then wealth, not age, makes you conservative.
I believe it’s because there’s no reasonable conservative option. There’s nobody even pitching “fiscal responsibility” or “small government” anymore. You’ve gotta drink the Kool aid and support The Donald or you’re a liberal cuck. There’s no room for being just right-leaning; you’ve gotta go all in.
That’s a good theory, as a lot of the people we see joining up for the right are usually either doing it out of spite/ironically (and eventually having the “be careful what you pretend to be” moment where it stops being ironic) or they’ve been grown and raised around these worldviews.
Gen Xer here, I’ve never seen a republican led federal government that ever actually acted fiscally conservative. Being fiscally conservative and small government has always meant cut social programs and cut taxes but never cut spending to one of the biggest cost centers in the government, the military. There’s nothing fiscally conservative about cutting taxes and ballooning the deficit. There’s nothing fiscally conservative about starting two wars and essentially putting them on credit cards. The American people only put up with them for so long because the only ones who had to sacrifice for them were those that died or came back maimed. If we had to pay for them with higher taxes instead of passing the bill to the next few generations, those wars would never have even happened.
Wealth yes, but the age thing might be a myth. It turns out that people solidify their political leanings during major movements. The older generation just happen to be affected by Reaganism and Nixons southern strategy.
The most conservative leaning generation are not boomers or silver generation, but apparently Gen X.
RheiosThere also seems to be a bit of weirdness even surrounding what “conservative” means. It used to mean an intent toward preservation of certain existing institutions/trends and preexisting stability, with a distrust for new institutions that may upset existing social calm. Which often is at odds with beneficial change but isn’t inherently against it, favoring instead that it be slow and precise. When I think of myself as conservative that’s the concept I have.
The problem is that “conservative” now can also include a group of people for which preserving an existing state (as in condition/mode of being ) is no longer acceptable, the demand either a reverse or entirely new directions.
As an example that’s a little less hot button - vouchers for private schools. That’s an active novelty and a change from an existing institution, rife with potential long-term impacts on both culture and stability that could be negative, and yet some positions push for it (often without addressing those problems). That’s not a conservative position. That’s a progressive one (maybe not in the direction someone on the left would want obviously).
Conservative got irrevocably linked with Right due to some preexisting social constructs and the urge to preserve them, but realistically it should hold just as well that a conservative would seek to preserve left-wing establishments as much as right-wing ones, or at least advise any changes to them be slow and incremental to avoid pop-up problems. Admittedly things like technology complicate that due to the speed with which it changes and demands response.
If you cannot understand how conservatism would LOVE to conserve the racism and rapant capitalism of the US… You might not actually understand what “conservatives” actually want to conserve…
It’s the social order of things where they’re on top. They’ve literally always been supremacists. Just not necessarily openly bigoted ones.
While I bet there’s exceptions what has been the general trend for conservative is that they are pleased with the status quo. They are on top and therefore don’t want things to change. When you’re not satisfied you tend to not be as patient. It also help to lack empathy for people not as lucky. Considering that you, commendably, can see the need for change you obviously belong to a different group.
What is new is that the once who call themselves conservative now instead strive to change things due to a lack of control. They want to go back to the point where they feel they had control, power, and privilege over others.
And when a group of people who lacks empathy want to take back power it can get dangerous very fast. Suck as January 6:th…
Source on the claim that Gen X is the most conservative?
kescusayYeah, that sounds wrong to me, too. Gen X are the ones who grew up with the effects of Reaganomics and witnessed first-hand the wealth disparity it created.
This is from 2018, but I seriously doubt attitudes towards Trump and Republicans have shifted to the right that much in the last five years: pewresearch.org/…/the-generation-gap-in-american-…
pewresearch.org/…/how-pew-research-center-will-re…
Pew and a few others are really trying to get away from generational studies as it turns out only the Boomers really have anything unique that ties together the experiences of someone born across the generation. Im wondering how this new perspective would impact previous studies.
That’s really fascinating, and I deeply respect them for recognizing the problem.
Yeah this is really interesting and could really change how we engage with social science in the future.
That polling you linked to looks pretty convincing actually. I might have to change my mind.
I’ve seen the claim said a few times, here is the nytimes and there are many other sources discussing it (e.g. this Slate article and this Politico article, etc.). It also makes sense to me: Look at the January 6th insurrectionists. They aren’t young, but they aren’t boomers either. It was dominated by Gen X. Gen X got all the benefits of a social safety net, like cheap university, they got in on affordable housing, but also grew up at a time when even the “left” was represented by hyper capitalist Clinton. They didn’t have a Civil Rights movement, or Bernie Sanders movement.
So I’m willing to change my mind, but I also find it plausible.
I think it’s important to remember that the January 6th insurrection wasn’t representative across any demographics except extremely conservative Republicans and conspiracy theorists. Since generational analysis is already inherently problematic and inexact, I’d hesitate to make blanket statements about the entire age group based on a sample like that.
It may be reasonable to say that in general, people in the age groups often lumped together in “Gen X” are statistically more likely to be conservative than younger people, but that’s about as far as I’d be willing to go.
And the relatively low numbers of boomers at the insurrection may be explained more by their age than anything else. The absolute youngest boomers are turning 60 in the next year. The oldest are almost 80. Going and beating up Capitol police, scaling fences, and breaking into Congress may just be physically too demanding for most of them.
I’ve read this many times, and heard it discussed on Five Thirty Eight. On a quick search, here’s one Politico article discussing it.
Because “Fuck you, got mine”
I think it has to do with the fact that the left is actively hostile towards men, to the point where men go conservative.
It’s one of those “it hurt itself in its confusion” type situations, and that’s coming from a leftist.
That’s… that’s not true.
Source: a male.
plumbercraicI mean, it’s not untrue either. Here 58% of the students who completed their masters degree last year are women, yet the vast majority of the gender quota based bonus points still go to women. And then there is a group that claims this is still not enough progress - it seems they are more interested in revenge than equality. So I can certainly see how some men get the impression that “the left is not for them”.
Flying SquidI’m sorry… what? It’s the left’s fault that women are getting more masters degrees than men?
Apart from anything else, isn’t that suggesting that men getting more masters degrees than women is some sort of natural state? I’d like evidence for that one.
I’m sorry… what? It’s the left’s fault that women are getting more masters degrees than men?
I didn’t say that. I said 58% of masters graduates here last year were women, yet the gender bonus points that favour women remain. I didn’t even say that I disagreed with that policy. But if we are going have such policies I don’t think we get to stand around and act confused when some men don’t feel welcomed by the left.
What? What are “gender bonus points?” What masters degree program is even based on points?
They make it easier to get into university for certain genders where there is a historical imbalance of students in the subject. Men here get them for a couple of courses too: vets and nursing for example. But the vast majority of the bonuses are for women. The point wasn’t to debate this system, it was just to say that we shouldn’t be surprised that men feel alienated by such policies.
So you’re saying addressing historical imbalances is a bad thing? Keep the white guys on top where they belong?
Wow that’s not what I wrote - I can see now you’re just going to deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent anything I write.
But you are making my point for me, so thanks I guess. If you don’t see a problem with one gender of masters graduates being at 42%, then you sure aren’t interested in equality. That such a position is not universally appealing should mystify nobody.
What evidence do you have that this disparity is due to trying to level the admissions playing field and not, say, the dropout rate? Lots of people never finish their graduate degree. Maybe women are better at finishing it than men? Do you have actual evidence to back up your claims?
Of course. None of this data is in dispute, I just use it as an example of how it makes perfect sense that these policies are gonna alienate some men. It’s not a difficult concept - I don’t see the controversy.
Imagine for a moment that the gender data was reversed. There is zero chance you’d be speculating on alternative explanations.
I don’t speak Norwegian. Do you have this data in English? And does this only apply to Norway?
Also, it’s interesting that you got upset about my making assumptions about the things you said and then decided you knew what I would say if the data were reversed. Seems like a double-standard. A bit on the ironic side really.
That’s the evidence you demanded. For a point i wasn’t trying to debate. But of course you never wanted the evidence and were just acting in bad faith the whole time.
Your behaviour is incredibly hostile and alienating. Which is the whole point I’ve been trying to make. Don’t be shocked when some guys have had enough of this stuff and decide to join the anti-science anti-progress team.
I demanded nothing, I requested. And, again, I don’t know Norwegian, so I can’t read the evidence. Your getting upset about that seems… hostile. And alienating, since it suggests it’s my fault that I don’t know Norwegian. Which, again, seems like double-standards. Seems like you need to work on those to me.
DankryDo you have any evidence to back up your claims?
Seems to me that if they had any evidence they probably would’ve posted it three comments ago. So I’m gonna go ahead and assume they don’t.
Supposedly they did. In Norwegian. And then berated me for not accepting their evidence after I told them I don’t understand Norwegian. Of course, for all I know, it could be toaster sale statistics.
🐱TheCatWhy do people get hung up on academia when it’s statically likely you will make more money than women doing the same work?
‘The thing that gives grades that don’t ultimately matter may be treating women better, we must fix it now!’ But you’re utterly silent about the pay gap, the all male presidential line up, the mostly male scotus, the mostly male ceo and government makeup.
To me it feels like such a bullshit argument? Why does it resonate? Is it just that these guys are super young and basically don’t get that previous generation of women were sexually harassed out of all the profitable professions, so now academia is trying to backfill?
Dude what? This is a thread about why some people are joining the right. I provided a single non controversial data point for an issue i wasn’t even trying to argue.
If you cant see why a policy that has seen graduate rates rise for one gender to 58%, yet still pushes for more inequality, is going to turn off some members of the 42% then you need a kind of assistance I am not qualified to offer.
High rate of male suicide, high adoption of men in far right ideology. Why do you think that is? Because every other male than you is a weak specimen and you’re such a renaissance man?
Also your statement was anecdotal and dismissive, so we’ll scratch the renaissance part.
So you’re saying a high male adoption into far right ideology correlating with high male suicide shows…
Democrats are to blame?
You may want to get your logic chip checked out. No wonder you have these beliefs.
and that’s coming from a leftist.
That has some strong “fellow kids” vibes.
“As a black man…”
Thanks. Real constructive.
I mean, you just pushed a ridiculous - and completely, stupidly untrue - myth about the left hating men, and then pretended to be a leftist to lend supposed credibility to that absurdity. What did you expect in response? A bunch of left-leaning men - like me - going, “Y’know, it’s true, I totally hate men” or something?
You should think harder next time.
About what? About the sky high rate of male suicide, or the high rate of males going into far right ideology?
There's definitely a subset of people on the left who are outright hostile to men in general... but they're a barely vocal minority. Anyone who leans right because of them was already halfway there, and was just using them as an excuse to dive headfirst instead of dipping a toe in.
MomoTimeToDieI mean I see no reason not to paint the left with a broad brush based on their worst considering they’re chomping at the bit to do the same.
Even if that were true, what does that accomplish other than continuing a cycle of increasingly volatile reactionary aggression? Why not be the bigger person, unless you don't actually want to better society and just want to be "right".
Why not be the bigger person, unless you don’t actually want to better society and just want to be “right”.
Because being the bigger person accomplishes exactly fucking nothing.