I didn’t call anyone names. And the only way it’s not comparing suffering is if they’re literally unaware of the issues other people face. Otherwise, it’s absolutely a comparison. It’s saying “I’m aware of [racism/sexism/prejudice of any kind], but whatever I face is not only worse, but excuses it.”

I didn’t say anything about me/my priorities. And if you think saying “I won’t pat someone on the back and say ‘it’s fine, don’t worry!’ if they vote to elect a candidate who wants terrible things to happen to me” is expecting everyone to have the same priorities, you’re the one who’s having difficulty caring about…

What I’m disagreeing with is that he’s not being spoken to *at all.* Because he is, if you look at the issues that democratic candidates actually address. They speak about poverty. They speak about jobs. They speak about changes in our economy. They don’t speak about them exclusively in ways that exactly match his…

That’s THEIR attitude, though. They interpret politicians not speaking to them exclusively, and at the expense of historically marginalized people, as people ignoring them altogether.

The thing is, though, that nobody is actually saying their *problems*, on their own, don’t matter. I’m from a little old rust belt town, and the flaw in people’s thinking there is, primarily, that they mistake people not speaking ONLY to them as people ignoring them completely.

Totally possible. I’ve been reading a lot of “I just discovered how wrong I was about these people, and now I’m here to tell you about it!” stuff that misses the mark for me as an ex-rust belt human these past few days, and some of your comments gave me that vibe.

It can be true that people are exaggerating how much of a role gender played without needing to swing back all the way in the other direction.

I never advocated anything of the sort. What I take issue with is the way you’re talking about struggling people as if they’re incapable of thinking about anything beyond themselves or thinking critically, because we have tons of evidence in this country that that’s not true.

There are plenty of poor progressives. Don’t infantilize people.

This, exactly. She wasn’t a perfect candidate, but when people say “nobody else ever speaks to their concerns,” what that really says is, “nobody has ever talked to them about poverty as if it only happens (or matters when it happens) to white people.”

Nobody is saying it’s wrong to vote for someone who addresses your concerns. What they are saying, though, is that voting for that person despite immense, consistent displays of bigotry is inexcusable, and doesn’t happen by accident.

So, in summary, “Me.”

Funnily enough, no, I don’t “realize” these things.

The vast majority of them aren’t protesting the election results, or claiming that they’re illegitimate. They’re saying they won’t accept the ideas Trump ran on as ethical or tolerable. I see nothing wrong with that, really, and don’t see them as remotely the same thing.

Funnily enough, this is way more “masturbatory” than the article. If you don’t see why this is different that the Bush years (something plenty of other people also lived through), you’re probably not qualified to opine on whether people’s grief/fear about it is legitimate.