> Trump won over 40% of asians and nearly 50% of hispanics last year.

I can't find a single exit poll that says Trump won over 40% of the Asian American vote.

> I hate the idea that my kids would think that they have more in common with another ethnic Bangladeshi in Queens than she does with a random person in Appalachia.

Nobody is claiming otherwise. They're only saying that on the narrow topic of racism, Trump and many (though certainly not all) of his supporters will treat your daughter differently than they do a random light-skinned Appalachian.

▲

rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-]

Pew’s extensive analysis of the 2024 election results has Trump winning 40% of asian voters and 48% of hispanic voters: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patte...

Your point about hypothetical racist Trump supporters is wrong for two different reasons. First, I’ve been to Appalachia, and my wife is from rural Oregon, and nobody has ever treated me differently. My brother in law (part black, part Samoan, looks like the Rock) went to a Trump rally and Marjorie Taylor Green came to him to introduce herself. In practice, the people who draw attention to my skin color in embarrassing and demeaning ways are white liberals.

Second, building a “brown people” identity around the possibility that someone will occasionally treat you differently is bizarre. I don’t claim that my experience as a brown guy (who has spent a lot of time in the rural south and rural west coast) is universal. But if my family and I haven’t noticed it, that suggests a ceiling on how pervasive it could be. It’s positively grotesque to encourage kids to construct an identity that doesn’t reflect them as individuals, because someone, somewhere, might occasionally treat them differently based on skin color.

▲

overfeed 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

You sound like you're old enough to have lived through the aftermath of 9/11, I'm glad to hear you didn't experience any racism due to your skin color.

▲

rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-]

There was no “aftermath of 9/11.” I was in high school after 9/11 and went to college in the south (which was full of white guys from Georgia/Alabama/Tennessee) when we went to war in Iraq.

▲

overfeed 3 days ago | parent [-]

> There was no “aftermath of 9/11.”

For you there wasn't, and like you said earlier, there's no representative "brown person" experience. I have first-hand experience that's the definitely included an aftermath, one person stopped wearing hijab after being taunted, another started going by "Mo", and yet another - who's not even muslim - started dyeing her hair a color much lighter that its natural color to better pass as white.

▲

rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-]

You’re just proving my point. Three thousand americans were killed in an attack by Muslims and that’s all that happened. If that had happened in India there would have been ethnic cleansing.

	▲	Thiez 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Your country did gleefully kill millions of innocent brown people in response to 9/11, it's just that they mostly lived in the middle east. You've apparently dehumanized them to the point where their deaths just… slipped your mind.

▲

lern_too_spel 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Your "extensive" Pew analysis has error bars of +/- 10% for the Asian groups and certainly doesn't show "over 40%" but something that rounds to 40%. Other exit polls all show less than 40%.

It's great that you haven't experienced racial discrimination. This hasn't been the experience of people applying for housing at Trump properties.

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117470/documents/...

> In practice, the people who draw attention to my skin color in embarrassing and demeaning ways are white liberals.

Explain to me how putting up Confederate monuments is so we don't "erase history" but removing historical notes about Native Americans, not mentioning a holiday celebrating freedom for all Americans except to disparage it, and removing information about Trump's impeachment is not. I'd like to understand any other explanation than that Trump and his supporters don't see Native Americans or black Americans as "real" Americans, which is what people mean when they use the word "dehumanizing." Is there any other way to explain it than by using skin color? That is why "white liberals" (why are you bringing their skin color into it) bring it up — the only reasonable explanation involves skin color. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that anybody build an identity around it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-restoring-confederate-nam...

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/5444429-racist-monu...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/juneteenth-trump-too-many-non-w...

https://www.kqed.org/news/12049405/muir-woods-national-monum...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/11/smit...

▲

rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Your "extensive" Pew analysis has error bars of +/- 10% for the Asian groups and certainly doesn't show "over 40%" but something that rounds to 40%. Other exit polls all show less than 40%

That means it could be 50%. “Exit” polls in general aren’t reliable, especially with the mail in voting. Pew isn’t an exit poll, it uses massive surveys. That’s consistent with other data points. Blue Rose Research found that Trump probably narrowly won naturalized citizens: https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2.... Most of those folks are hispanic or asian.

Another data point: lots of majority asian precincts in new york and new jersey flipped to Trump. Trump outright won Flushing, Queens. Jamaica, which has a heavy Bangladeshi population, shifted from D+83 to D+31 (which would mean roughly 35% Trump).

	▲	lern_too_spel 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> That means it could be 50%. And it could be 30, but you said for sure it is over 40. > "Exit” polls in general aren’t reliable, especially with the mail in voting. That's why all of them also do phone interviews, and that's how they're consistent with each other. > Most of those folks are hispanic or asian. We're talking about Asians. They are not even close to comprising most naturalized citizens. > Jamaica, which has a heavy Bangladeshi population, shifted from D+83 to D+31 (which would mean roughly 35% Trump). 35 is less than 40.