To start off, the fact that you’ve compared my post to Hillary’s demonization of Pepe proves you’ve completely missed the point of what I was saying. In addition, the lack of response to most of the points I made asserts that idea. I’m glad you’ve assessed my argument as a whole (and that you actually read it), but that doesn’t do much to further discussion. To say I’ve not based anything on facts is once again false, but I will agree that I didn’t link to anything or throw out numbers. In the case of my post, it wasn’t necessary. These are observations of social phenomenon, and I urge you to look around and understand why people feel the way they do, if you won’t take my word for it. Moving on…

For the record, I believe the word I used to describe Trump’s Machiavellian tendencies was “authoritarian”, which, as you may know, is not the same as fascist. Those are your words. To explain, Fascism is a form of authoritarianism which combines extreme nationalism with racism and/or classism in an attempt to secure complete rule (a prime example being, obviously, Nazi Germany). So hey, maybe you’re right, Trump is more fascist than soft authoritarian. The normalization of racism throughout the campaign and presence of groups like the Alt-right and KKK prove this to be true.

In that vein, to assume that I’m a Hillary supporter based on my “liberal-hypocrisy” is a claim that is not only false but allows your argument to suffer in its hands. If you’d like to discuss “flagrantly insensitive remarks towards African Americans”, or hell, any other group of people, let’s take a look at Mr. Trump’s campaign and dissect some of the things he’s said, and that you’ve supported with your vote. To blow off my post as me being “triggered” similarly demonstrates either your complete lack of understanding or disregard for the points I’ve brought forward. Nowhere in my post did I use blanket terms in the way that you have, except for when I discussed the TPP and privacy rules (which, might I add, is not a false blanket statement. Those hiding privacy measures in the TPP were almost entirely Republican, and the same can be said for many other mega-agreements pushed through in the past, especially with Republican dominated government as we currently have). My post is in no way anti-conservative or anti-republican. Conservatism is something that I completely understand believing in and can get behind in the right situations. My post is an explanation as to why many people feel as though those that voted from Trump are misguided and do not fully understand the situation they’ve voted for. Of course you’re welcome to disagree, but this is the view that many have of Trump supporters whether you like it or not.

I agree that you’ve made no attacks towards anyone with malice, perhaps that was the wrong word, but the contempt is definitely palpable. Maybe a better word for your posts would be dismissive. You would rather dismiss a claim as totally false through “pointing out blatant contradiction” (which, by the way, it was not. It was an important distinction to make, but that is neither here nor there) than discuss why you feel the post is contradictory. You would prefer to look at the election as Liberal vs Conservative or Democrat vs Republican, when in reality politics operates on a constantly sliding scale. Maybe it’s just easier for you to view the world in that way, but it certainly won’t get you very far discussion-wise (as you said, we have our work cut out for us). The sarcasm in your previous responses is so tangible it hurts, yet you make no attempt at explaining yourself past the absurdity. Your photo of you and your Trump supporting friends is literally analogous to “Look, I’m friends with people that aren’t white”, whereas the point you were actually trying to make gets bogged down. This is where the need for explanation over sarcasm comes into play. It really only hurts your case to post a photo like that in a sarcastic manner with no explanation, hence my unhappiness with your demeanor.

Now, of course, there are plenty of individuals who voted from Trump that aren’t white men; that was never a point that I was trying to make. My point was that the Trump administration puts forward policies that primarily benefit straight white men, while disregarding the needs and rights of literally every other group. I’m not saying his policies are inherently racist or sexist (although that is certainly a point we could discuss, and might have merit), but they definitely disregard large groups of people in their construction. To dismiss the fact that Trump’s policies primarily benefit straight white men is to dismiss the oppression faced by many groups of people forgotten under his administration.

From the tone of your response, it appears that you don’t believe in white privilege, or that you think it’s not nearly as important a factor. This would again be false. Our privilege as white males is one of the largest, most important pieces of our existence, and to dismiss it is once again a problem. You have not even considered the idea that your privilege is the only reason that you feel the way that you do. If you were raised in a different financial situation maybe you would see this differently. You could be broke for all I know, but I’ll foster a guess that you’re well off based on the demographics of your hometown, Rocky Point. Nearly 75% of residents have a Bachelor’s degrees or higher, and the average household income is $110,000. In addition, your town is 93% white. Do you not think this changes the way you view the world? That sounds like wealthy, white, and educated living to me. No wonder you’re a conservative. (Source - http://www.point2homes.com/US/Neighborhood/NY/Rocky-Point-Demographics.html).

If you didn’t have the benefit of higher education, or access to clean water, or white skin, or any of the other things (primarily) awarded to you by your privilege, you may look at this election very differently. Your privilege is not the reason you voted for Trump (because, once again, many different groups of people voted for him), but it is the reason that YOU are comfortable with the results while a large portion of the country must live in fear of what basic human right gets stripped from them next. You have never worried about this, I am almost certain. Trump’s administration quite literally does not affect you, and if it does, it’s for the better. THIS IS A PROBLEM. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but know that your rebuttal would be hypocritical. You won’t wake up tomorrow with any of those problems, and that is because of your privilege, and your financial situation. White privilege is a tangible thing that exists, whether you acknowledge it or not.

I’m intrigued to hear which parts of my post you think were “innocuous phrases/buzzwords”, because the irony is how many you’ve chosen to use in your response. “Triggered”, “Pepe”, “Hillary’s remarks” (as a rebuttal to…?), “Liberal Hypocrisy”, “America’s Sovereignty”, “Sanctuary Cities”, and “Jim-Crow Sympathizers”. These are all phrases, or as you put it, buzzwords, that the right (sorry for the blanket statements I’m about to use in these paragraphs, but I think they ring true) loves to use to describe certain things. “Triggered” is a demonization of my response. “Pepe” and “Hillary’s remarks” were thrown in there to evoke a certain emotional mindset the right loves to use against the left, as a form of “proof” that the left is unstable or hypocritical. These are things that the right holds against the left, yet they have no basis as there is no one here (at least certainly not myself) defending Hillary, or demonizing Pepe. Hillary is bought out by anyone with enough money. It’s disgraceful. That, however, is its own problem. Pepe’s a fuckin frog. It’s a meme, who cares. Even the majority of the left thought Hillary’s remarks on Pepe were ridiculous. 4chan continues to be a corner of the internet that moves too quickly for the mainstream media to totally understand, and when the media engages them they miss the mark 100% of the time. Judging by your demeanor, you understand this.

“American Sovereignty” is a discussion that demonizes illegals, connoting the idea that if America has illegal immigrants it is somehow “under attack” (not your words, but words commonly used in this discussion). If illegal immigrants were stealing jobs, it’s because corporations and businesses are fucking over their own American workers by hiring illegals, a process which the right demonizes. So which is it? Is it the left’s fault the immigrants are here, or is it the right’s fault they keep fuckin’ hiring them over American workers? As you may well know, there are many more CEO’s and business owners on the right than on the left, and they love to save money (read: tax cuts anyone?). If there’s one thing that Conservatives love more than sovereignty, it appears to be cheap labor. Sorry again for the blanket statement, but I’d love to hear you tell me I’m wrong. Mr. Trump himself has plenty of experience in hiring undocumented workers, because he thinks that if you do it outside the US nobody will know or care. Take Dubai for example.

Workers there have their passports (if they have them to begin with) taken by the companies that they work for, essentially making them undocumented slave workers because they can’t leave the country without the company’s approval. This may not be true for all companies, and this may not be true for all workers, but this is a case that has come up across multiple different sectors and with many different corporations (if you really want a source on this I can find it, but this is common knowledge). This is not an American issue, until you consider that many American corporations are constructing hotels and other buildings in Dubai, including Trump. The same is true for Qatar, although the government there recognizes the problem (somewhat) and has attempted to solve this with periods where illegals can leave without passports. So if we’d like to discuss hypocrisy, this would be a great place to start.

As far as “Sanctuary Cities”, again, this is a demonization of a city that accepts illegals and their children (who, might I add, are 100% legal citizens). This is a problem of local government, however, and not that of The Feds. The Federal Government is widely unsuccessful in their attempts anyway, so I don’t see the glory in any of Trump’s plans. Trying to ban anything; people, guns, drugs, or otherwise, almost always results in a huge unintended backlash (what’s that? A liberal that doesn’t necessarily want full gun control? Shocking stuff). I realize people are not a commodity, but there are plenty on the right who would love to treat them that way and issue a “ban”. I agree this is a very tough issue and there is no completely correct answer, but the primary viewpoint of the right seems very hypocritical in its construction. I realize it isn’t ideal to have undocumented migrants in cities, but if the cities themselves thrive upon the labor or the worker’s presence, we are left with a grey area that even the right can’t begin to decipher (this goes back to my hiring point earlier). This is a local issue, and should be handled as such.

Lastly, to call yourselves “Jim Crow Sympathizers” is again, your words not mine. I stated that we, as a society, do not live post racially. Many cities in the US are still EXTREMELY Jim Crow-esque, and if you don’t believe me I’d ask you to ponder why neighborhoods nationwide are so segregated, and why we STILL have racist groups such as the Alt-right and the KKK with massive platforms on which to stand. You can’t deny this. There are many aspects of American life that are still nowhere near equal for Whites and POC, which is a gigantic problem and something that most of the right would like to avoid discussing, especially with the Trump administration in office. This, alongside the normalization of casual racism throughout Trump’s campaign, only asserts the gigantic problems we as a society face in terms of race relations. To ignore this is once again a massive problem, and that’s exactly what Trump would LOVE to do.

So to conclude, I would appreciate if you look at your post introspectively and understand how hypocritical it is in nature, from both a policy stand point, and from a “buzzword” standpoint. I do agree some of my points were a bit crude or un-backed by linked facts, and I apologize for what I said earlier about your character. Please understand that it is deeply upsetting to see someone of your viewpoints be so dismissive, especially when this is a topic that desperately needs to be discussed. I urge you to avoid using tones that assert any form of contempt or superiority on the matter in the future. It will only make people think less of you. Thank you for your civility in discussion (even if it took a while), and for your time. Please consider everything I’ve written here today. If it’s quite alright with you, I’m going to take a break from Facebook politics for the night.