But it's unfair to believe someone wants you dead just because of their origin.
There are millions (probably tens of millions) of rural Southerners. Many don't want you dead, but vote red because they don't feel accommodated. Many vote blue.
Moreover, when somebody grows up around people who hate a certain group, it's human nature that they'll also develop hatred. What do you do with those people?
I believe the best you can do if pacify them, and convert those whose hatred isn't ingrained. Acknowledging people and accepting the non-hatred parts of their culture is an easy way to reduce the motivation to kill you, and convert those on the fence, without giving leverage. Funding is another way, and while it can give leverage (because adversarial groups shift their own funding towards aggression), I believe if done carefully, the decrease in hatred will outweigh the increase in power, making aggressive efforts overall less effective.
None of this would exist without probably trillions in DARPA, NASA, DoD, and government-funded university research on computers and networks.
We live in a complex internetworked and interdependent civilization. Everyone is subsidized by everyone else, and balancing the books is incredibly hard.
Sure, but I don't yap about being a yeoman software developer and how independent I am from it despite being totally dependent on a long petrochemical supply chain.
George W Bush spoke with an acquired (some may say feigned) accent that led his detractors to call him dubya. They probably thought it was just a funny way of disparaging a political opponent, but what the southern ear heard them say was “people who speak with this accent are dumb hicks and should be looked down upon”. That’s the thinnest end of a very big wedge of cultural stereotypes that underpin what is perceived as “liberal condescension towards the south”.
I'll agree that most "neoliberals" already at least pretend to be accommodating to rural Southerners. The problem is there are too many people who are way too general in their criticism and mocking towards them, and the popular Democrats don't publicly call this out (another problem is that neoliberals are inauthentic, but that's a general problem I think for a more general discussion).
More generally, there's an issue when you point these out someone will reply saying "but also...". I understand blacks and foreigners are also discriminated against and deserve to be accommodated. You shouldn't need to argue that whites aren't being discriminated against and are very accommodated, because there will always be some cases where it's untrue, and it doesn't really hurt black anti-discrimination efforts regardless. I'd argue that constant downplaying of white discrimination hurts black anti-discrimination efforts more, because it drives undecided people who've seen it firsthand towards those who acknowledge it, who as of today tend to be bigoted themselves. That's why I feel the need to say something about it.
There are millions (probably tens of millions) of rural Southerners. Many don't want you dead, but vote red because they don't feel accommodated. Many vote blue.
Moreover, when somebody grows up around people who hate a certain group, it's human nature that they'll also develop hatred. What do you do with those people?
I believe the best you can do if pacify them, and convert those whose hatred isn't ingrained. Acknowledging people and accepting the non-hatred parts of their culture is an easy way to reduce the motivation to kill you, and convert those on the fence, without giving leverage. Funding is another way, and while it can give leverage (because adversarial groups shift their own funding towards aggression), I believe if done carefully, the decrease in hatred will outweigh the increase in power, making aggressive efforts overall less effective.