[hiram112]

Good point.

I know folks on the right screamed about the 'welfare queens' living on the tax payers' dime in the inner cities for generation after generation. In reality, this was a coded attack against blacks, and the majority of the claims were hyperbole.

But now the left has begun making the same mean-spirited attacks on uneducated whites from Appalachia, the Midwest, and the south.

Both types of stereotypes are annoying to hear repeated again and again.

[philipkglass]

I agree that people should remain compassionate. I understand why some people experience schadenfreude when it's rural Republican voters failing to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" after hearing that advice given to urban Democratic voters, but tit-for-tat shaming is not humane. These people largely don't vote how I vote but they are still my fellow citizens. They have dependent children and elders. Some degree of suffering is probably unavoidable, because relocation is painful and many of these towns don't have long term futures. I don't want their residents to experience unnecessary suffering as some sort of lesson. We should try to help the people transition to better opportunities in other regions.

If the residents refuse that sort of help and instead demand that the government somehow make the old mines profitable again, then one may indulge in some exasperated eyeball-rolling and mockery, but I'm trying not to do that preemptively.

[meric]

Sorry, this is just Democratic voters tearing themselves apart. Appalachia used to be a democratic stronghold. These are people don't want to live on welfare generation after generation, and that's what they tried to vote for.

https://thinkprogress.org/appalachia-used-to-be-a-democratic...

[rayiner]

Shaming is an important part of society. It's how we incentivize positive behaviors and discourage negative ones.

[cmurf]

Like slut shaming, gay bashing, nerd bullying? Or maybe you'd like to better qualify or narrow your assertion? Because multiple generations did this, for exactly the reasons you state: it was good for society.

[rayiner]

It's like saying "law is an important part of society." You don't need to qualify that statement by expressly disavowing laws that protected slavery, made homosexuality illegal, etc.

"Shame" is defined as "a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior." Teaching people to feel shame for conduct like lying, cheating, and stealing is an important tool societies use to enforce social norms in situations (such as with young people), where resort to legal action would be excessive and harmful.

It works at a macro level too. Consider this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-25947984 ("Child Labor: India's Hidden Shame"). The word succinctly captures the international community's disapproval of certain practices that are common in certain places, with the implication that continuation of those practices will meet with continued disapproval from international peers. Again, that's an important social tool at the international level.

[themacguffinman]

Except for the crucial difference that progressives generally don't think sluts, gays, or nerds are engaging in negative behaviour.

[cmurf]

The point is that society can be confused on what is positive and negative behavior, and end up scapegoating. And it is effective only in a reptilian brain context.

It'd be similarly ignorant to praise murdering your enemies. Sure no doubt about it, it's really effective. Doesn't mean it's legal or ethical.

These things are brute force hammers. If you really think shaming has value, read the Scarlet Letter.

[themacguffinman]

Of course shaming can be abused or misguided, just like almost everything in this world we live in. The idea that we shouldn't use something just because it can possibly be abused is ridiculous. Like everything, it has a degree of risk that we weigh and judge as moral agents.

And we all live in a "reptilian brain context". I'm not sure what other context there is. It makes no sense to reason about society as if we weren't all half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee.

[Sohcahtoa82]

I have no sympathy for people that vote against their own interests.

If you're living off of government assistance and vote Republican while Republicans are constantly talking about stripping away said assistance programs, you absolutely deserve whatever happens to you. I have zero sympathy for you. You made your bed, now you get to sleep in it.

The only people I will have sympathy for are the children who have parents that are too dumb to see through the bullshit spewed by Fox, InfoWars, Breitbart, etc, and people that vote Democrat because they know better, but end up getting screwed by the Republicans that don't.

[addicted]

Except it's still the left that is expanding support and assistance for the "uneducated whites from Appalachia..." and the right that is taking it away.

This isn't a case of both sides do it at all.

[opportune]

I'm not making a mean spirited attack. In fact, I think in the long run moving would even be beneficial for these people

[Gargoyle]

I think in the long run it won't matter. For the most part, the jobs they could get in the cities are starting to vanish as well. In 10-20 years, the cities will have it even worse at the lower economic end. People might as well stay where they want to live.

This economic transition will eventually effect everyone. Everyone. These people are just at the front end of it.

[terravion]

Why do you think this? Can you provide some evidence? There was a lot of hand wringing during the recession about the end of work--"we're all losing our jobs to the robots," etc.--but it seems like there are as many jobs as ever and more good jobs. This is especially true from a global perspective. While many blue collar workers in the US are suffering from competition from foreign substitution, there are literally billions more people joining the middle class globally. It doesn't sound like the end of human work when you zoom out.

Also, if you compare the rate of job displacement right now with technology compared to say the early 20th century where a majority of the jobs that existed 50 years prior were "destroyed", then it doesn't seem like we're at much of an inflection point.

More likely, because we have development policies that make it hard/expensive to move, we're not putting people in the new jobs like we used to--this has down the line effects of slowing growth because the workers who are also consumers aren't spending what they could have.

[eropple]

> It doesn't sound like the end of human work when you zoom out.

Say that in another thirty years, though. You're referring to billions of people in countries that haven't yet entered a post-industrial economic situation. Are those billions any safer than the millions in the U.S. who've fallen out of it?