Okay, I have some actual work to do, so I'll bow out with this.
The simple point: Reading about other people's impressions and experiences is interesting enough, I guess, or we wouldn't all be here. But claims built entirely on personal impressions aren't particularly convincing to me. My point above was that you (Piob) seem somehow unable to register that other people don't find your experiences and your impressions as meaningful as you do. (I.e., if we don't agree with you, it must be because we refuse to think about what you understand.) You, Teger, munchausen, whoever else chimed in--sure, we all have some intuitions and sometimes they corroborate each other and sometimes they contradict each other. I'm just inclined to think that all that means is that I find no good reason to build sweeping claims on little more than partial, fragmentary impressions.Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The not-so-simple point: I'm not suggesting that every time we want to have a conversation with claims based on our intuitions, we need to go out and collect data (e.g., Teger needs to cite polls re: the attitudes of mid/early 20s upper middle class white people in order to have a conversation about that demographic). God knows I'm not a social scientist. What I do find convincing when an intuition or a particular point of view can interpret something (some specific real thing) in a meaningful way. If I remain unconvinced by some combination of claim + intuition + analysis, then maybe it's just because I don't think any new insights have been offered, let alone any form of new evidence that I find binding.
But whatever. I have my own take on what I find convincing and not convincing.
FWIW, I read this today and found it very interesting re: Trump support.