this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
878 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2209 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 47 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is the correct answer to the question the Guardian poses. I've lived among them and can 100% confirm this is how they think.

Elites is all about having a college degree and being "book smart" vs their "street smart" or "wise in the ways of man" sort of bullshit charlatans throughout history have used to make up for a lack of critical thinking skills.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It really is the right answer. But I think we can sharpen it if we look at how the media around Democrats elevates and highlights elitism as a quality to be pursued, for example, in a candidate.

A great example of this was the treatment of Pete Buttigieg, and specific media outlets elevation of him to a nationally relevant political actor. Harvard, then Oxford Rhodes scholar then a decade long McKinseyite (that alone should have disbarred him from running for president), then intelligence officer US Navy. He was the definition of "qualified" to the CNN and NPR editorial boards.

But how well had only political bonafides were a failed run for treasurer in Indiana, and a mayoral victory where he garnered all of 10k votes. So the guy has never actually won any significant state or federal elections. Yet in 2020, suddenly this guys is gets treated like a serious contender in the Democratic primary. Why?

Democratically aligned corporate press is obsessed with credentials, and specifically, the kind that comes from "elite" schools and organizations. Partially because they themselves also come from these elite schools and organizations.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 6 points 1 month ago

We really have become addicted to certifications and tags and qualifiers for everyone because it's easier to "understand" them at a glance and that's decided as all you need.

On paper is good enough for far to many, it's just easier to categorize people and move on.

Being in your categories is the easiest way to automatically think of then as moral and good because they must be, you are. It's fucked up both parties. Look at Eric Adams and Marco Rubio.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Very true. The Dems could really stand for more blue collar qualifications. Especially if we treated “local union president” half as well as “McKinsey employee”