9 ms·

We have read this piece 1000 times before. And for the 1000th time, it is necessary to say, "rural America understands that they are not your priority". The m

by said 10y ago

We have read this piece 1000 times before. And for the 1000th time, it is necessary to say, "rural America understands that they are not your priority". The modern left finds it more virtuous to hire a wealthy black man or a wealthy white woman than to hire a poor white man. Rural America knows. In fact, and more people are coming to terms with the modern left's perverse priorities. Indian people? Indian people don't even exist to these costal elites. Indians are dramatically underrepresented in popular culture, but the left only cares about replacing white people in popular culture with black people. People like Mr. Thornton would never dare demand that we replace black people with Indian people where black people are overrepresented. You can keep lecturing poor white people about how backward and toothless and spoiled they are, while never daring to say a negative word about black people. You can keep telling poor white people to stop being tribal, while fomenting tribalism in every other group (except Indians). You can keep claiming to care about representation, while ignoring everyone but the groups that earn them the most virtue points. My Thornton, everyone is wising up to your priorities and the priorities of those in your wealthy costal social circles. Yeah, I'm bitter.

blub 10y ago
And whose priority are those people exactly? It seems both parties are against social support, encouraging smaller, local companies or regulating corporate behemoths to protect citizens. USA is remarkably weak in supporting its less fortunate citizens. And just because someone is ignored, called racist and dumb it doesn't mean they aren't. From what I read as an outsider, many US citizens are in fact both. Any country has its share of such people and the US is huge, so of course there will be more. But now everyone should listen to them and stop calling them names and it's all gonna be alright somehow. The problem is education, and it will take decades to fix, if it can be fixed.
- leereeves 10y ago
  > And just because someone is ignored, called racist and dumb it doesn't mean they aren't. From what I read as an outsider, many US citizens are in fact both. Any country has its share of such people and the US is huge, so of course there will be more. There are numerous racists on both sides. Among them, those on the left who believe social justice means hiring a rich black person before a poor white person. There are numerous dumb people on both sides. Among them, those on the left whose arrogance led to being utterly, devastatingly wrong about the election. We can only wait and see whether Trump was serious about helping middle America. He wouldn't be the first politician who failed to keep campaign promises, nor would his supporters be the first group to be disappointed by their candidate. But to dismiss him before he's even taken office is pure ignorance.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    Trump squeaked a win after some very bad PR for Clinton. Clinton was hardly a great choice by the DNC, and it's quite likely the choice wasn't even made fairly. The best pollsters were very hesitant about Clinton's lead. There is no arrogance on the left, because the real left were out of the election as soon as Clinton was nominated. Clinton was a centre-right corporate insider candidate. Trump was a far-right corporate outsider candidate. Neither has any genuine interest in working Americans. The election was a farce because the only two candidates were crooks - Trump certainly, with his appalling record of failing to pay contractors and his likely mafia ties, and Clinton because of all the emails in WikiLeaks, at least some of which may be genuine. The only people who will benefit from Trump in the short term are the 1% who will receive some generous tax cuts. In the long term, it's quite likely - or at least a serious possibility - that no one at all will benefit. So - stop the crowing please. This isn't a sports game, and Trump's election isn't a touch down. The reality is the stadium is on fire, the crowd are about to start panicking, and there's an earthquake and a hurricane on the way.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      I'm not just talking about the final results. Nate Silver, for example, once said that Trump was certain to lose the primary and it wasn't even clear that Trump was trying to win. He seems to have allowed success to go to his head, but to his credit, he's humble enough to rethink when he's proven wrong. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundi... That kind of hubris was widespread. Numerous unrepresentative polls were published, the media promoted the message they wanted to be true, not the message that was true, and the DNC thought they could push a terrible candidate like Clinton on to the nation.
    - wtbob 10y ago
      > Clinton was a centre-right corporate insider candidate. Trump was a far-right corporate outsider candidate. I'll posit that Mrs. Clinton is centre-left, not centre-right, more authoritarian/right on economics and more authoritarian/left on social issues. But I really don't consider Mr. Trump to be far-right: he was a liberal Democrat for much of his adult life, more authoritarian/left on economics (opposing free trade), and more libertarian/left on social issues. I really wish that there had been a good libertarian/right Republican this national election, but there wasn't.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
>The modern left finds it more virtuous to hire a wealthy black man or a wealthy white woman than to hire a poor white man. Rural America knows. Your comment is just as vitriolic and uninformed as the article's author. You complain, rightly so, about Trump supporters being unfairly characterized as uneducated, toothless, incestuous rubes while also generalizing the the modern left. Criticize the author instead if assuming that he speaks for the entirety of people who didnt vote for Trump.
- leereeves 10y ago
  That comment described an attitude that reaches the very top of the modern left, as the many accusations of sexism against anyone who didn't vote for Clinton show. Identity politics means judging someone first and foremost by their race, gender, and sexuality. That's the attitude that leads many to "find it more virtuous to hire a wealthy black man or a wealthy white woman than to hire a poor white man".
  - eganist 10y ago
    You'd be correct if identity politics was what it was. Instead, most threads discussing the Clinton loss describe a class of people who are relegated to corners of the country with inadequate education and dying industries. It's that combination which leads voters in states such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to ignore the hatred, the vitriol, the proven lack of business success, and the lack of government leadership in hopes of changing the status quo as it relates to them. In summary: nearly 50% of voters chose to prioritize personal gain over human dignity. (I voted for Clinton, but I consider myself solidly independent of any particular party.) ••• I have no interest in continuing the thread, though, so feel free to get in the last word.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      Identity politics is central to the modern Democratic platform and Hillary's platform in particular. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and-opportunity/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and-oppo... https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/latinos-for-hillary/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/latinos-for-hillary/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/lgbt-equality/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/lgbt-equality/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/racial-justice/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/racial-justice/
trashtoss 10y ago
Have these unfortunate souls considered moving to closer to where productive economic activity is happening, and performing labor in exchange for money, which may be exchanged for goods and services?
- kahrkunne 10y ago
  And what about the labour these unfortunate souls are already performing? Should all farmers and workers become web developers?
  - luma 10y ago
    Agriculture jobs aren't coming back, and they weren't sent to China. Automation and productivity gains in agriculture have exploded, and as a result there isn't a lot of call for farmhands these days. Unless we move back to an agrarian existence, the rural poor are going to have to figure out something that doesn't involve a shovel.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      Agriculture jobs never went anywhere. There are still millions of jobs in agriculture and construction, but they are now poorly paid because they are performed by people who aren't protected by employment laws and have no negotiating power. The only change that needs to be made is forcing agriculture and construction companies to obey the law.
      - Fjolsvith 10y ago
        Perhaps the removal of an undocumented workforce that requires being paid under the table will force agricultural and construction companies to obey the laws.
        Fjolsvith 10y ago
        Downvoting, really? Are upvotes and downvotes a popularity contest?
pj_mukh 10y ago
It's not a "wealthy black man" they hired. It's a qualified black man, or woman, or anyone. Why is it that everyone is totally for the free market until it turns against them? How about we let the government pay to upgrade your education so you can get qualified like the others? (literally two of the major candidates' platforms) "NO! that's socialism" Stalemate.
- ianai 10y ago
  Maybe the government could hire them to build hills and demo hills? Just designate two hill sites per township and have people alternate between goals. It'd create jobs that require no higher education /s
padseeker 10y ago
Reading this comment is a perfect synopsis for this election. The article is about rural america and a bubble and lack of understanding between the 2 circles. Your comment focuses on the virtues of hiring someone black or a white women versus a poor white man. It's an axe to grind about the left rather than anything related to the article. Why is this guy hiring anyone? What does that have to do with anything? When is a wealthy black man or white woman up for the same job as poor white male? What does that comment have to do with anything? Give me one tangible example how your setup happens in the real world. It's all imagined and fantasy, like somehow liberals have set the world up that this poor white guy from rural America is getting screwed to hire a wealthy black guy or wealthy white woman. Let me guess, Obama is the wealthy black man, Hillary is the wealthy white woman, and Donald Trump is somehow the standin for rural poor white guys everywhere. And what is with the comments about Indians? Are we talking Indians from India or Native Americans. Who is demanding we replace black people with indian people. Where are they over represented? What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't make any sense, the same way Trump made no sense during the debates. You really read 1000 articles? Post them 5 of them, let's see them. You could have spent some time talking about Nafta or free trade or automation or god knows what and made some sense of this election. Michael Moore had a clip about how the free trade and nafta and rural america is hurting and predicted that Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania would go for Trump. It's incredible and relevant. But you didn't. You spent all your time railing against race issues and coastal social elites. And in your effort to rail against those wealthy coastal social elites you elected someone who was wealthy and lived in coastal city. I'm getting tired of the navel gazing over the post election analysis. I have a family member who voted for Trump because they can't wait till he sends Muslim out of the country and sends Mexicans back to Mexico and builds a wall. Trump said terrible things and people voted for him because he said those terrible things. In all the analysis I've read, not one person has said that. Here's the Michael Moore clip for the record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EekI4rBg9_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EekI4rBg9_U
- ianai 10y ago
  Can we just also add to what you said that...you know, Hilary Clinton actually won the most votes? She just didn't win them in the right areas that send the critical number of representatives to the electoral college to (not) debate and vote on who should be president.
dfsegoat 10y ago
Man. This is a fantastic piece of perspective - thank you.
kelukelugames 10y ago
So close. Almost agreed with everything you said. Yes, there is a pecking order for the beneficiaries of tech's diversity efforts. But pitting the poor against the blacks is a classic racist strategy. MLK jr even called this out back in the day. I would give you the benefit of the doubt but the comment history says I shouldn't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11950452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11950452
Jeema101 10y ago
What it really comes down to is that people aren't going to care one way or the other about your social justice causes when they're struggling to put food on the table due to the effects of outsourcing, automation, globalization, and yes, the effects of illegal immigration increasing the pool of low-skilled laborers. It's astounding that some people still don't get it.
mslot 10y ago
The "modern left" is not some kind of hive mind to which we all belong. It's a very diverse contingent of society, that cannot simply be compared to rural America. Clearly, if you are an uneducated white man from a small village, your prospects in life are not very good. However, blaming underprivileged minorities, whose prospects and social problems are typically even worse, is highly counter-productive and likely to bring the hone of both those minorities and the more privileged people who live with them. Something should be done about the impending poverty of rural America. In 2016, uneducated workers are no longer competitive. Factories, farms, even battle ships only require a few people. Without a concrete economic outlook, the path forward most likely lies in government support through social security, health care, education, i.e. the very policies for which the "coastal elite" tries to vote and pay. However, these policies do create an often-ignored identity crisis: Men want to feel proud of what they are. Without traditional jobs, or people around them that show them the path to modern jobs, all they have left to be proud of is the values and colour they share with the people around them.
calibraxis 10y ago
There's a lot of truth to this. There's something in the culture about excluding poor whites from being accepted as an oppressed class. (Literature should soon come out on this.) They're called names. This inconsistency is ruthlessly exploited by the right wing. The Clinton future was bleak for the working class (not just whites), let's admit it. She ran as the least worst, expecting that'd be enough. While Trump's climate change denial alone is enough to make him more dangerous, and he will probably ruin the white working class way more, there's a reason Clinton lost. [Edit: not that I agree with everything this person says. White and male supremacy are obviously huge elements. Poor black women are far less privileged than poor white men. But one should listen & understand.]
mcv 10y ago
Where does this myth that people at the coasts are all wealthy come from? There's plenty of poverty at the coasts and in the big cities. In fact, it seems there's quite a lot that big city blacks and rural whites actually have in common (a recent SNL sketch with Tom Hanks pointed that out in a touching way). And while you're right that Indians are less common in pop culture than black people, Indians are also a much smaller group, and they are still represented in pop culture. I think women have a far worse share; apparently they get about 17% of the movie roles, whether it's in big crowds or for main roles. This is really the first time I've ever heard of the left being somehow against representation of Indians. They are really not.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  >Where does this myth that people at the coasts are all wealthy come from? Such a myth wasn't presented above. The literal quote was: >priorities of those in your wealthy costal social circles. I don't think anyone in America or elsewhere believes that all people at the coasts are wealthy. We all know of the social problems and inequality in both coasts of America. I would think what people perceive is the problem here is that a disproportionately large part of the wealth and power is in hands of coastal elites, these "social circles". I don't claim that's actually true, I don't know it well enough - I'm not even American (I'm from northern Europe); but I'm sure this is how it is perceived by people in what is so arrogantly called "flyover country". Such a language immediately flags to me that there will be a backlash.

by said 10y ago

blub 10y ago

And whose priority are those people exactly? It seems both parties are against social support, encouraging smaller, local companies or regulating corporate behemoths to protect citizens. USA is remarkably weak in supporting its less fortunate citizens. And just because someone is ignored, called racist and dumb it doesn't mean they aren't. From what I read as an outsider, many US citizens are in fact both. Any country has its share of such people and the US is huge, so of course there will be more. But now everyone should listen to them and stop calling them names and it's all gonna be alright somehow. The problem is education, and it will take decades to fix, if it can be fixed.

leereeves 10y ago
> And just because someone is ignored, called racist and dumb it doesn't mean they aren't. From what I read as an outsider, many US citizens are in fact both. Any country has its share of such people and the US is huge, so of course there will be more. There are numerous racists on both sides. Among them, those on the left who believe social justice means hiring a rich black person before a poor white person. There are numerous dumb people on both sides. Among them, those on the left whose arrogance led to being utterly, devastatingly wrong about the election. We can only wait and see whether Trump was serious about helping middle America. He wouldn't be the first politician who failed to keep campaign promises, nor would his supporters be the first group to be disappointed by their candidate. But to dismiss him before he's even taken office is pure ignorance.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Trump squeaked a win after some very bad PR for Clinton. Clinton was hardly a great choice by the DNC, and it's quite likely the choice wasn't even made fairly. The best pollsters were very hesitant about Clinton's lead. There is no arrogance on the left, because the real left were out of the election as soon as Clinton was nominated. Clinton was a centre-right corporate insider candidate. Trump was a far-right corporate outsider candidate. Neither has any genuine interest in working Americans. The election was a farce because the only two candidates were crooks - Trump certainly, with his appalling record of failing to pay contractors and his likely mafia ties, and Clinton because of all the emails in WikiLeaks, at least some of which may be genuine. The only people who will benefit from Trump in the short term are the 1% who will receive some generous tax cuts. In the long term, it's quite likely - or at least a serious possibility - that no one at all will benefit. So - stop the crowing please. This isn't a sports game, and Trump's election isn't a touch down. The reality is the stadium is on fire, the crowd are about to start panicking, and there's an earthquake and a hurricane on the way.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    I'm not just talking about the final results. Nate Silver, for example, once said that Trump was certain to lose the primary and it wasn't even clear that Trump was trying to win. He seems to have allowed success to go to his head, but to his credit, he's humble enough to rethink when he's proven wrong. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundi... That kind of hubris was widespread. Numerous unrepresentative polls were published, the media promoted the message they wanted to be true, not the message that was true, and the DNC thought they could push a terrible candidate like Clinton on to the nation.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > Clinton was a centre-right corporate insider candidate. Trump was a far-right corporate outsider candidate. I'll posit that Mrs. Clinton is centre-left, not centre-right, more authoritarian/right on economics and more authoritarian/left on social issues. But I really don't consider Mr. Trump to be far-right: he was a liberal Democrat for much of his adult life, more authoritarian/left on economics (opposing free trade), and more libertarian/left on social issues. I really wish that there had been a good libertarian/right Republican this national election, but there wasn't.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

>The modern left finds it more virtuous to hire a wealthy black man or a wealthy white woman than to hire a poor white man. Rural America knows. Your comment is just as vitriolic and uninformed as the article's author. You complain, rightly so, about Trump supporters being unfairly characterized as uneducated, toothless, incestuous rubes while also generalizing the the modern left. Criticize the author instead if assuming that he speaks for the entirety of people who didnt vote for Trump.

leereeves 10y ago
That comment described an attitude that reaches the very top of the modern left, as the many accusations of sexism against anyone who didn't vote for Clinton show. Identity politics means judging someone first and foremost by their race, gender, and sexuality. That's the attitude that leads many to "find it more virtuous to hire a wealthy black man or a wealthy white woman than to hire a poor white man".
- eganist 10y ago
  You'd be correct if identity politics was what it was. Instead, most threads discussing the Clinton loss describe a class of people who are relegated to corners of the country with inadequate education and dying industries. It's that combination which leads voters in states such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to ignore the hatred, the vitriol, the proven lack of business success, and the lack of government leadership in hopes of changing the status quo as it relates to them. In summary: nearly 50% of voters chose to prioritize personal gain over human dignity. (I voted for Clinton, but I consider myself solidly independent of any particular party.) ••• I have no interest in continuing the thread, though, so feel free to get in the last word.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    Identity politics is central to the modern Democratic platform and Hillary's platform in particular. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and-opportunity/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and-oppo... https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/latinos-for-hillary/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/latinos-for-hillary/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/lgbt-equality/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/lgbt-equality/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/racial-justice/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/racial-justice/

trashtoss 10y ago

Have these unfortunate souls considered moving to closer to where productive economic activity is happening, and performing labor in exchange for money, which may be exchanged for goods and services?

kahrkunne 10y ago
And what about the labour these unfortunate souls are already performing? Should all farmers and workers become web developers?
- luma 10y ago
  Agriculture jobs aren't coming back, and they weren't sent to China. Automation and productivity gains in agriculture have exploded, and as a result there isn't a lot of call for farmhands these days. Unless we move back to an agrarian existence, the rural poor are going to have to figure out something that doesn't involve a shovel.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    Agriculture jobs never went anywhere. There are still millions of jobs in agriculture and construction, but they are now poorly paid because they are performed by people who aren't protected by employment laws and have no negotiating power. The only change that needs to be made is forcing agriculture and construction companies to obey the law.
    - Fjolsvith 10y ago
      Perhaps the removal of an undocumented workforce that requires being paid under the table will force agricultural and construction companies to obey the laws.
      - Fjolsvith 10y ago
        Downvoting, really? Are upvotes and downvotes a popularity contest?

pj_mukh 10y ago

It's not a "wealthy black man" they hired. It's a qualified black man, or woman, or anyone. Why is it that everyone is totally for the free market until it turns against them? How about we let the government pay to upgrade your education so you can get qualified like the others? (literally two of the major candidates' platforms) "NO! that's socialism" Stalemate.

ianai 10y ago
Maybe the government could hire them to build hills and demo hills? Just designate two hill sites per township and have people alternate between goals. It'd create jobs that require no higher education /s

padseeker 10y ago

Reading this comment is a perfect synopsis for this election. The article is about rural america and a bubble and lack of understanding between the 2 circles. Your comment focuses on the virtues of hiring someone black or a white women versus a poor white man. It's an axe to grind about the left rather than anything related to the article. Why is this guy hiring anyone? What does that have to do with anything? When is a wealthy black man or white woman up for the same job as poor white male? What does that comment have to do with anything? Give me one tangible example how your setup happens in the real world. It's all imagined and fantasy, like somehow liberals have set the world up that this poor white guy from rural America is getting screwed to hire a wealthy black guy or wealthy white woman. Let me guess, Obama is the wealthy black man, Hillary is the wealthy white woman, and Donald Trump is somehow the standin for rural poor white guys everywhere. And what is with the comments about Indians? Are we talking Indians from India or Native Americans. Who is demanding we replace black people with indian people. Where are they over represented? What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't make any sense, the same way Trump made no sense during the debates. You really read 1000 articles? Post them 5 of them, let's see them. You could have spent some time talking about Nafta or free trade or automation or god knows what and made some sense of this election. Michael Moore had a clip about how the free trade and nafta and rural america is hurting and predicted that Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania would go for Trump. It's incredible and relevant. But you didn't. You spent all your time railing against race issues and coastal social elites. And in your effort to rail against those wealthy coastal social elites you elected someone who was wealthy and lived in coastal city. I'm getting tired of the navel gazing over the post election analysis. I have a family member who voted for Trump because they can't wait till he sends Muslim out of the country and sends Mexicans back to Mexico and builds a wall. Trump said terrible things and people voted for him because he said those terrible things. In all the analysis I've read, not one person has said that. Here's the Michael Moore clip for the record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EekI4rBg9_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EekI4rBg9_U

ianai 10y ago
Can we just also add to what you said that...you know, Hilary Clinton actually won the most votes? She just didn't win them in the right areas that send the critical number of representatives to the electoral college to (not) debate and vote on who should be president.

dfsegoat 10y ago

Man. This is a fantastic piece of perspective - thank you.

kelukelugames 10y ago

So close. Almost agreed with everything you said. Yes, there is a pecking order for the beneficiaries of tech's diversity efforts. But pitting the poor against the blacks is a classic racist strategy. MLK jr even called this out back in the day. I would give you the benefit of the doubt but the comment history says I shouldn't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11950452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11950452

Jeema101 10y ago

What it really comes down to is that people aren't going to care one way or the other about your social justice causes when they're struggling to put food on the table due to the effects of outsourcing, automation, globalization, and yes, the effects of illegal immigration increasing the pool of low-skilled laborers. It's astounding that some people still don't get it.

mslot 10y ago

The "modern left" is not some kind of hive mind to which we all belong. It's a very diverse contingent of society, that cannot simply be compared to rural America. Clearly, if you are an uneducated white man from a small village, your prospects in life are not very good. However, blaming underprivileged minorities, whose prospects and social problems are typically even worse, is highly counter-productive and likely to bring the hone of both those minorities and the more privileged people who live with them. Something should be done about the impending poverty of rural America. In 2016, uneducated workers are no longer competitive. Factories, farms, even battle ships only require a few people. Without a concrete economic outlook, the path forward most likely lies in government support through social security, health care, education, i.e. the very policies for which the "coastal elite" tries to vote and pay. However, these policies do create an often-ignored identity crisis: Men want to feel proud of what they are. Without traditional jobs, or people around them that show them the path to modern jobs, all they have left to be proud of is the values and colour they share with the people around them.

calibraxis 10y ago

There's a lot of truth to this. There's something in the culture about excluding poor whites from being accepted as an oppressed class. (Literature should soon come out on this.) They're called names. This inconsistency is ruthlessly exploited by the right wing. The Clinton future was bleak for the working class (not just whites), let's admit it. She ran as the least worst, expecting that'd be enough. While Trump's climate change denial alone is enough to make him more dangerous, and he will probably ruin the white working class way more, there's a reason Clinton lost. [Edit: not that I agree with everything this person says. White and male supremacy are obviously huge elements. Poor black women are far less privileged than poor white men. But one should listen & understand.]

mcv 10y ago

Where does this myth that people at the coasts are all wealthy come from? There's plenty of poverty at the coasts and in the big cities. In fact, it seems there's quite a lot that big city blacks and rural whites actually have in common (a recent SNL sketch with Tom Hanks pointed that out in a touching way). And while you're right that Indians are less common in pop culture than black people, Indians are also a much smaller group, and they are still represented in pop culture. I think women have a far worse share; apparently they get about 17% of the movie roles, whether it's in big crowds or for main roles. This is really the first time I've ever heard of the left being somehow against representation of Indians. They are really not.

ptaipale 10y ago
>Where does this myth that people at the coasts are all wealthy come from? Such a myth wasn't presented above. The literal quote was: >priorities of those in your wealthy costal social circles. I don't think anyone in America or elsewhere believes that all people at the coasts are wealthy. We all know of the social problems and inequality in both coasts of America. I would think what people perceive is the problem here is that a disproportionately large part of the wealth and power is in hands of coastal elites, these "social circles". I don't claim that's actually true, I don't know it well enough - I'm not even American (I'm from northern Europe); but I'm sure this is how it is perceived by people in what is so arrogantly called "flyover country". Such a language immediately flags to me that there will be a backlash.