If that’s not what this is, what is it? What is your point‽

What was the lie?

You said that statistics misrepresented the economy. Now you are saying it is bad messaging to tell people for whom it has not been good that it has been good.

So, we should lie to everyone because a smaller subset doesn't understand that their experience isn't representative?

Literally in the quoted post, as well as in at least one other.

But the economy is (or was) good. It's absolutely worse to tell the objectively more people for whom the economy has been good that it is bad for the sake of a smaller absolute number of people for whom the economy has not been good.

It appears as though the argument is that because SOME people did not see real wage increase, it's not fair to call the economy good.
bsky.app/profile/jarl...

I'm confused. Do you think that it's somehow wrong to say the economy is good just because some people have less?

But MORE people have more! Every person in the United States doesn't have to be more well off than four years ago to say the economy is, generally AND especially for lowest earners, good!

They, in fact, have more!

Thankfully we also have data that shows for most of the Biden admin, the lowest earners had real wages grow the fastest of all!

And you’re discounting the millions who have had a very successful past few years. I know friends who have come out of poverty, who have been promoted, who have moved from contractor to W2 positions, who have been poached by rival companies.

I think the key is he’s not saying YOUR experience is wrong. However, your experience isn’t representative of the average experience in America. Lots of people are in dire straights but data shows that, for now, more people are doing relatively well.

I understand that these are deeply incoherent priorities and choices of vote but in really want to face it myself rather than through another trite “voter in a diner” article

Oh no I definitely agree with that. My point is more broadly that these were discriminatory systems that learned from each other. The concept of racism and discrimination against outgroups didn’t come from America, but some scholarship shows the way we codified it into law WAS an inspiration.

Gotcha okay yeah, that’s much more reasonable. Gotta love some good nested QTs!

But a lot of these people throughout history have spent significant time trying to figure out how to successfully structure their ideas in practice. Look at Carl Schmitt’s influence on Bush 2’s admin and now on the adoption of unitary executive theory across the American right.

I suppose my take is that it’s informative to understand how fascist ideas influenced each other across the world, much like how early democratic systems inspired others.

It’s easy to think of miller at al. as frothing homunculi spending all their waking hours in racist tirades.

Is there not significant scholarship that says Nazis studied Jim Crow laws when designing their own legislation? Ie not that they were inspired BY American racism, but that the legal frameworks for discrimination and racism were inspired specifically by our anti-miscegenation laws?