Elections in various countries

[rotting bones]

Then again, to some extent, every poor person looking for work competes with every other poor person looking for work who lives nearby and has comparable skills and abilities, yet they often seem to see those from other cultural communities as rivals to an extent to which they don't see fellow members of their own cultural communities as rivals.

I think they're alarmed by job seekers pouring in from any outside location. It doesn't matter if this location is the neighboring district or town. If you want a large scale example, my understanding is that Poles aren't culturally distinct from West Europeans, and they're often seen as rivals.

If these job seekers speak a different language, that makes it easier to conjure images of an epic fantasy battle between two metaphysical forces. If left to themselves, poor people are quite content to jump on slight differences in accent to identify outsiders.

[Raphael]

my understanding is that Poles aren't culturally distinct from West Europeans,

Depends - to some extent there are the differences in outlook that come from coming from a poorer country, which can make Poles a bit less "polished" (no pun intended) than Western Europeans, even working class ones.

(And there are somewhat different drinking habits. I got drunk with a mixed group of Poles and Russians once. It was an ... interesting experience.)

[Ares Land]

I know a good amount of far-right voters. 'They took our jerbs!!' doesn't really come up. (It used to, back in the 90s)
It's mostly all about terrorism, crime and conspiracy theories.

[rotting bones]

(And there are somewhat different drinking habits. I got drunk with a mixed group of Poles and Russians once. It was an ... interesting experience.)

France seems to have higher alcohol consumption per capita than Poland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita

I don't know about any specifics you may be thinking of. I've had half a bottle of light beer in my whole life. Alcohol is not a Muslim drug.

I know a good amount of far-right voters. 'They took our jerbs!!' doesn't really come up. (It used to, back in the 90s)
It's mostly all about terrorism, crime and conspiracy theories.

This strand of far right ideology is an attempt to co-opt the spontaneous populism of poor workers on behalf of relatively wealthy elites. Even though this strategy sometimes works, I think it's a mistake to see the two as equivalent.

[WeepingElf]

The far right tends to be oxymoronic about immigrants and employment. They say "They take away our jobs!" and "They are too lazy to take jobs and suck the unemployment insurance dry!" Obviously, these cannot both be true, but that somehow doesn't occur to them. (And in fact, both are wrong, of course.)

[Ares Land]

I don't know about any specifics you may be thinking of. I've had half a bottle of light beer in my whole life. Alcohol is not a Muslim drug.

Poles have a reputation for being heavy drinkers. In my experience, it's not an undeserved reputation

This strand of far right ideology is an attempt to co-opt the spontaneous populism of poor workers on behalf of relatively wealthy elites. Even though this strategy sometimes works, I think it's a mistake to see the two as equivalent.

That's essentially correct. Except that so far the strategy is working pretty nicely.

[MacAnDàil]

Ensemble (Macron's coalition. Annoyingly they semi-regularly change the name): 25.81

What is even more confusing is that Ensemble already exists as a party within NUPES.

Projections suggest Macron would have a majority (though, just barely); NUPES would have 150-190 members in the Assemblée Nationale which is very good but not enough.
That's very disappointing for Ensemble. They fully expected a clear majority. As far as I can see they're going through the five stages of grief (they're between denial and anger right now.)

I think projections for number of seats and votes in the second round greatly underestimate NUPES. Them getting a majority isn't the most likely scenario, but it's possible.

You're not the only one. The estimations for the second round are hard to make. The one question which is simpler is: do you prefer a NUPES government or a presidential government? The one time I saw this asked 53% were for NUPES.

On the other hand: Ensemble has done a pretty bad campaign. The government is bogged down in endless SNAFUs and scandals.
They also don't have an electoral platform at all. Their only argument, so far, is that NUPES are 'extremists' and 'far-left', on par with the RN. That's somewhat insulting, and ridiculous.
The clear implication is that any opposition would be painted as 'extremist' and beyond the pale, which is, um, not terribly democratic.

Yes, it does seem to more attacking Mélenchon, most popular politician in France at the moment. But at least they managed to say no vote for RN.

(*) Oh, also, in a pretty childish move, the Ministry of the Interior is claiming Ensemble won because they decided, somehow, that left-wing candidates in the overseas territories don't count as NUPES.

On the one hand, the national NUPES deal excludes Corsica and overseas but 1° NUPES gets their best votes here overseas. 2° there was a NUPES deal here in Réunion as well 3° the national NUPES deal includes specifically Réunionese parties like Rézistans Egalité 974 and Pour La Réunion.

[MacAnDàil]

The far right tends to be oxymoronic about immigrants and employment. They say "They take away our jobs!" and "They are too lazy to take jobs and suck the unemployment insurance dry!" Obviously, these cannot both be true, but that somehow doesn't occur to them. (And in fact, both are wrong, of course.)

That's the famous Schrödinger's immigrant but I manage to fit into this to some extent because I get top-up benefits as well as my job. The RN wants to deal with both parts of me by removing my job (which I can't have 'stolen' from anyone because I'm the only one who applies and reapplies every year) and benefits. And my flat for good measure.

[MacAnDàil]

If you want a large scale example, my understanding is that Poles aren't culturally distinct from West Europeans, and they're often seen as rivals.

Of course there are cultural differences between Poles and Western Europeans. Would you really say there are no cultural differences between Bengalis and Kurds?

[MacAnDàil]

If left to themselves, poor people are quite content to jump on slight differences in accent to identify outsiders.

While 'poor' and 'rich' are relevant for other things, here I think it's a question of 'open-minded' and close-minded'.

[rotting bones]

Depends - to some extent there are the differences in outlook that come from coming from a poorer country, which can make Poles a bit less "polished" (no pun intended) than Western Europeans, even working class ones.

To clarify: *At some point, such differences between groups become less pronounced than differences within groups.

Of course there are cultural differences between Poles and Western Europeans. Would you really say there are no cultural differences between Bengalis and Kurds?

There are no meaningful* differences between Bengalis and Biharis, except that Biharis used to be poorer, and they traditionally hate each other. The differences between Bengalis and the Rohingya are even smaller, and the Rohingya who fled to Bangladesh were forced to live in abysmal refugee camps.

While 'poor' and 'rich' are relevant for other things, here I think it's a question of 'open-minded' and close-minded'.

I'm poor myself. I'm not trying to stereotype all poor people. I'm trying to identify what existing traits of poor workers the political right capitalizes on.

If I thought poor people were incapable of self-reflection, then there would be no point involving them in politics.

[MacAnDàil]

Of course there are cultural differences between Poles and Western Europeans. Would you really say there are no cultural differences between Bengalis and Kurds?

There are no meaningful* differences between Bengalis and Biharis, except that Biharis used to be poorer, and they traditionally hate each other. The differences between Bengalis and the Rohingya are even smaller, and the Rohingya who fled to Bangladesh were forced to live in abysmal refugee camps.

You didn't answer the question. I chose the Kurds because they are further away linguistically: they aren't Indo-Aryan, which parallels a little better the difference between the Germanic English and the Slavic Pole.

I think it's important to recognise differences, which do exist, but recognise them as facts or source of wealth, not as hypothetical problems.

While 'poor' and 'rich' are relevant for other things, here I think it's a question of 'open-minded' and close-minded'.

I'm poor myself. I'm not trying to stereotype all poor people. I'm trying to identify what existing traits of poor workers the political right capitalizes on.

If I thought poor people were incapable of self-reflection, then there would be no point involving them in politics.

Yeah, but it is not due with poverty. Rich people can do that just as much. It's due to close-mindedness.

[rotting bones]

You didn't answer the question. I chose the Kurds because they are further away linguistically: they aren't Indo-Aryan, which parallels a little better the difference between the Germanic English and the Slavic Pole.

I think it's important to recognise differences, which do exist, but recognise them as facts or source of wealth, not as hypothetical problems.

If you interpret it strictly, then your question is irrelevant. My point is that prejudice exists even between relatively close peoples like the English and the Poles, not just among culturally distant peoples like the English and the Arabs. (Edit: And, in fact, prejudice exists even among speakers of closely related dialects.)

Specifically, the cultural similarity between the English and the Poles is a relative judgment, not an absolute judgment.

Yeah, but it is not due with poverty. Rich people can do that just as much. It's due to close-mindedness.

Rich people have different incentives. They are not worried about losing their jobs. They are worried about losing their heads if too many poor workers lose their jobs. The solution to this dilemma is to become an epic fantasy writer, and get the poor to see other poor people as the orcs.

Again, this is not all rich people, obviously.

[Travis B.]

Prejudice need not "make sense", e.g. there is very little prejudice against Poles by other European Americans here in southeastern Wisconsin, but there is considerably more prejudice against Russians (who are commonly seen as simply "the Russians"), despite that both Poles and Russians are Slavs.

[rotting bones]

Prejudice need not "make sense", e.g. there is very little prejudice against Poles by other European Americans here in southeastern Wisconsin, but there is considerably more prejudice against Russians (who are commonly seen as simply "the Russians"), despite that both Poles and Russians are Slavs.

I am stepping beyond the subjects I claim to understand, but I believe the insanity that passes for shrewd common sense in America is that Poles are traditionally the upholders of Christianity against the godless Russians. Unrelatedly, anyone who's not black is "white", whatever that means.

[Raphael]

Unrelatedly, anyone who's not black is "white", whatever that means.

Nah, there's a lot of racism against Latin Americans, Asians, and indigenous Americans, too.

[Travis B.]

Prejudice need not "make sense", e.g. there is very little prejudice against Poles by other European Americans here in southeastern Wisconsin, but there is considerably more prejudice against Russians (who are commonly seen as simply "the Russians"), despite that both Poles and Russians are Slavs.

I am stepping beyond the subjects I claim to understand, but I believe the insanity that passes for shrewd common sense in America is that Poles are traditionally the upholders of Christianity against the godless Russians.

Poles are seen as simply one of the groups which came over to America and of which those who have been here for any period of time have largely assimilated into White America (even though there are places in the US with clearly unassimilated Poles such as Chicago), while "the Russians", as I mention below, are seen as traditional adversaries of the US, and Russia has been seen as not really joined the West after the fall of the Soviet Union but as remaining rather foreign to this day.

Unrelatedly, anyone who's not black is "white", whatever that means.

It's not that simple. People with any significant portion of Black ancestry are Black, people of European descent are White unless they're Jewish (where then they may be specifically classed or Jews or they may be classed as Whites who happen to be Jewish), all Hispanics/Latinos are seen as Hispanics/Latinos regardless of race, East and Southeast Asians are Asians, South Asians are Indians (non-Indian South Asians are largely overlooked), Arabs are Arabs (note that on census forms Arabs are typically classed as "Caucasian"; also note that Persians or even South Asians are apt to be confused with Arabs), Native Americans and Alaskans are either Indians or Native Americans depending on who you ask (older people are likely to say the former while younger people, especially educated young people, are likely to say the latter, not out of "political correctness" but rather that educated young people are far more likely to have contact with South Asians than with Native Americans), and Pacific Islanders are these days classed as Pacific Islanders but in the past were lumped in with Asians. With all this in mind, certain groups tend to be lumped together as homogeneous groups of people rather than being seen as composed of individuals, particularly "the Russians" and "the Chinese"; the key element here is not race but rather the view of such groups as adversaries.

[zompist]

Poles are seen as simply one of the groups which came over to America and of which those who have been here for any period of time have largely assimilated into White America (even though there are places in the US with clearly unassimilated Poles such as Chicago), while "the Russians", as I mention below, are seen as traditional adversaries of the US, and Russia has been seen as not really joined the West after the fall of the Soviet Union but as remaining rather foreign to this day.

This varies deeply by region and time. In the first half of the 20th century what are now meaningless ethnic distinctions were highly noticeable, and people did have serious prejudices against Poles, against Italians, etc. When I was a kid, in the 1960s, people still told jokes about Poles. And when my dad was a kid, Polish was one of the languages taught in high school.

There's not much feeling about Russians here (Illinois) because there's not many Russians. The Poles came to Illinois (and Wisconsin) while the Russians went to New York and New Jersey. And North Dakota for some reason.

all Hispanics/Latinos are seen as Hispanics/Latinos regardless of race

Whoo boy, that's a can of worms. Even White Americans wouldn't react the same way to, say, Ted Cruz and Celia Cruz.

[Ares Land]

Rich people have different incentives. They are not worried about losing their jobs. They are worried about losing their heads if too many poor workers lose their jobs. The solution to this dilemma is to become an epic fantasy writer, and get the poor to see other poor people as the orcs.

Again, this is not all rich people, obviously.

Here's what happens here, essentially. Racism seems pretty pervasive among all social classes. The lower your income, though, the more likely you are to vote for the RN. That being said, the most important correlation is that the lower your income, the less likely you are to vote at all.
Essentially, if you're poor, there's really nothing on offer for you. The RN was kinda smarter: its platform offers a little something for everyone, besides the racism. (Plus it has been made abundantly clear that all the parties that have been in power really have nothing to offer. The RN is probably worse, then again it's never been in power, so they get an advantage there.)

The RN doesn't rely entirely on the poor either. (I think their safest constituency is the rural middle class.)

The end result is that of course a lot of the public debate is devoted to How Foreigners Sap Your Precious Bodily Fluids. Which means talking about anything else is difficult.

This is entirely to the advantage of the 1% of course so the end result is pretty much what you describe.

[Raphael]

I'd still say that the trick of making poor people hate poor people from other cultural groups more than they hate rich people, transparent as it may be, simply wouldn't work if it wouldn't appeal to something deeply ingrained in the human psyche.

I'll simply repost something I already posted in this thread:

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=573

And, the theory that religions - and, for that matter, various forms of bigotry - are simply tricks by the powerful to get the powerless to accept power structures, even if it's true, doesn't really explain why the trick works. Why is there something in the minds of many humans that, when they're fed religious ideas, causes them to care more about these religious ideas than about questioning the power structures they live under? Why is there something in the minds of many humans that, when they're told to hate the one or other group of outsiders, causes them to care more about hating these outsiders than about questioning the power structures they live under? What are these mental features, how do they work, and how did they get there?

It's a bit like when someone is telling the story of someone hacking into a computer system: it's one thing to explain the hackers' motivations, or to explain how the end results of the hack benefited the hackers or the people who hired the hackers, but that doesn't necessarily tell you much about how and why the hack itself worked.