1/So, thinking about the economic news/price increases, and how this will impact how people see Trump.
My honest answer is "it won't."
I was definitely one of those people who followed all the NYT think pieces about trying to get out of my bubble and build bridges in 2016. It's
been ten years. At this point, I think there's only three kinds of people who still really like Trump.
I’m not talking about low information, low participation voters who voted for him in Arkansas and didn’t really think about it because they didn’t think it mattered.
I mean the people who really love the president and think he's dong a great job
I haven’t met any exceptions at this point, but in my experience, the field is now narrowed down to three kinds of people I’m going to call Barbara, Stu, and Kate.
Barbara: You and Barbara go to the grocery store. Barbara wants to buy her favorite snack, but is distressed to see it costs $7 when it used to cost $5. Things are tight for Barbara, so she notices this. She points out to you that her snack is so much more expensive than it used
to be, and this is strange because she’s seen and heard so many times that groceries are getting cheaper now. That’s why she voted the way she did. It doesn’t make any sense.
You ask Barbara what she thinks might be happening. She doesn’t know. She'll look into it.
The next time you go to the store with Barbara her favorite snack is $9. You ask her what she thinks of the price. She says, it might be expensive, but at least it’s so much cheaper than it used to be.
Stu: You and Stu go to the grocery store. You and Stu have the same favorite snack. It used to be $5 dollars, but now it is $7. Neither you nor Stu can justify buying it, because things are tight.
Stu is briefly sad, but then he sees that you can’t afford it either. He also
knows you voted for a Dem candidate in the last election. He is incredibly excited you can’t afford the snack. He finds this very funny and insists you’ve been completely demolished, you look like such a loser, you can’t even afford the snack.
When you point out that he cannot afford the snack either, he makes fun of you for being defensive. He leaves without the snack. When Stu misses his snack he remembers the look on your face when you couldn’t afford the snack. That’s enough for him.
Over the years, more and more things Stu used to enjoy seem to fade away. They fade away for you, too. With time, Stu doesn’t seem to enjoy anything anymore but you being sad or disappointed. But he does enjoy that very much.
Kate: Kate has more money in her checking account than she could ever spend. The snack costs 40 dollars. She buys it and never thinks about it again.
I haven't met anyone who doesn't fall into those categories. So, all that is to say -- I wouldn't expect any policies to change.
Barbara won't know the economy is crashing, Stu will be happy to lose his job if you also lose yours, and Kate will be fine no matter what
happens. And that's Trump's base.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think one odd aspect of Christian apologia for passages about wives in the NT that rankle is that we actually really overplay the oppression of women in the first century outside of Christian contexts.
It's obviously not entirely wrong but there's still a fair amount of data
showing women doing things like initiating divorces, arranging their own marriages, and managing their own financial affairs.
In my last article I tried to not overly play the role of the "Rome apologist" but I do think a flattening narrative doesn't really serve anyone well.
I am fairly skeptical of the "hey, this passage in the NT is liberating to women, compared to everyone else out there!" because it's both true and not true. You can't really create a real picture of the practical situation of the women in the Roman Empire by drawing entirely on
So, two things to note. 1) When you look at the full context, there's a curtain in front of her. The guys don't know what she looks like. That's not a variable here either way. 2) The comments of "women have been lied to their whole life about what men want, we don't care about
their hobbies or interests" are, I really hope, representative of Twitter guys only, because that is grim.
If you aren't interested in your girlfriend's hobbies, job, or interests... then what do you care about?
"Does it vagina?" Yes, I'm sure she vaginas, but also if your plan
for marriage is "I'm not planning to spend non-sexual time with her," you're not actually thinking of marriage, you're thinking of sex work, and also the sex in your marriage is going to be pretty grim.
I also think it's worth noting that whatever you're calling "Christianity" in the US basically rolls over completely every 10-15 years.
When I was a kid *the* Christian hangup was the objectification of women on TV and ads that sexualized them.
Now it's that women aren't
sexualized enough.
See also the frantic effort to eradicate dating in the 2000s, now replaced with the fear that boys aren't getting enough sex.
So when we talk about "Christian nationalism," we're not actually talking about classical Christian values. We're talking about what a bunch of men who are completely devoted to a man who rapes children want at any given moment.
One historical myth I think has surprisingly long legs is the idea that for most of human history marriage was between a very young girl and a much older man.
We kinda get that idea laundered to us even through fantasy (Game of Thrones did this a lot) but the reality is just
way more complicated in the west.
Yes, in the Roman Empire, you do see some urban records of older men marrying younger girls, but that was usually in contexts where those men's primary sources of income were estates they owned that were run by slaves or lending.
But when you move into rural areas or look at people who aren't wealthy (which is, most of them), there's not really a financial upside to waiting to marry until you're in your 30s if you're a man.
It's not like a peasant farmer was going to be able to save up for a house
First, this story is horrible.
Second, I think what's even stranger about Trump is that in Trump's case, people usually have to repent on his behalf.
Trump can't actually bring himself to say "I did something awful but Jesus forgives me," so someone like Franklin Graham
has to go out and say "Trump did something awful but he's so incredibly sorry and has asked Jesus for healing and cleansing." Then Trump strenuously denies he ever did such a thing if he's ever asked about it.
This has happened like nine times.
And, it's more than enough for MAGA
Christians.
I guarantee you, even if rock-solid evidence came out that Trump was 100 percent a child trafficker and you simply cannot deny it, this will be the response. 1) Trump constantly denies it 2) MAGA believes him 3) One of Trump's religious fixers will, if there's
Off the top of my head, here's a list of ideas in Eddington that Eddington is 100 percent right about. 1) Some people who think they aren't racist, are racist and just haven't thought about it yet (A number of supposedly enlightened characters are incredibly quick to blame the
town's only black guy for a murder.) 2) People who are more interested in personal gain than their convictions are extremely easy to draw into and out of ideological movements (Brian goes from performative protestor to right wing politician). 3) More societal change is driven by
the lust for money than right wing or left wing ideas and it's surprisingly easy to get people to ignore it, and corporations will hide between whatever idea gets them there first (Solidgoldmagikarp wins the whole thing, with its leaders sometimes pretending to be BLM activists