r.soleofsalford
Well-Known Member
Stereotypes are often generalisations based on truth though.
Let’s look at the slave states:
Now the rural states:
Now let’s look at the 2016 election map:
So it’s fair to say that the historically more racist, god fearing (ha), less well educated states voted for Trump. So far no argument?
Now let’s look at whether rural communities are more likely to be racist. The fact is we don’t know, but we do know they distrust immigrants (decent article to read as a whole)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/national/rural-america/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name:homepage/story&utm_term=.28bab1ecdc75
And they believe the fake news Facebook told them about immigrants:
““They’re not paying taxes like Americans are. They’re getting stuff handed to them,” said Larry E. Redding, a retired canning factory employee in Arendtsville, Pa. “Free rent, and they’re driving better vehicles than I’m driving and everything else.””
And a follow up on race, also interesting:
http://wapo.st/2rFZ5qx
But you’re simply going to retort saying it’s unfair to ever label a group people as one thing and whilst that may have some merit at some times, it makes discussions on Trump’s success rather moot, which is your goal I suppose.
Having said that, yeah, if I had to put my mortgage on an average Trump voter being less intelligent and more likely to be racist than someone not voting or voting Democrat in 2016, I would. Would you do the reverse or would you believe there’s be not enough statistical significance either way?
I love good statistical evidence to prove a point.