Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I still haven't received a real answer to any of my posts and I doubt I will get one after whatever happened on the last few pages so:

Can someone clarify the whole "the left needs to stop calling people bigots" thing? I'm struggling to figure out the following things:

a) Is this a factual or strategic argument?

b) If it is factual, what exactly are the false claims being made about people who apparently are not bigots but do act like bigots?

c) If it is strategic, do you really think pretending that people aren't bigots will do anything do stop bigotry?

The version that makes sense to me is "you can't stop hate but you can sweep it under the carpet to get votes and make policy that leads to long term improvements" but I feel like that's not what most people are actually saying.
b) Not sure if my answer is good enough, but I would like to at least try. (And I don't know the answers to a and c because I'm stupid.)
There are surely people on voted for Trump due to financial consideration instead of the "build that wall" business. But it seems to me that pretty much all the media in USA and UK are labeling people who voted for Trump bigots, regardless of their reasons.
 

Shurtugal

The Enterpriser.
is a Tiering Contributor
Honestly Hilary was not the picture perfect canidate either. I still withhold that she has more experience (how was trump allowed to run again?) but I certainly cannot fault voters either way.

Sometimes the baggage from the last president carries on to their party. iirc no one liked bush so when it came time for elections one of the reasons Obama might have won was because people simply didn't want another republican.

Of course I am not trying to say Obama was a bad pres all things into consideration he wasn't bad but I can see voters simply not wanting another 4 years of a democratic president. on top of that hilary wasn't the perfect canidate either between her emails, constant change on her stances, and other questionable things (Ill elaborate if asked but clocking into work soon).

I didn't think it is right to make blanket statements for voters for such a messy election like this.
 
I still haven't received a real answer to any of my posts and I doubt I will get one after whatever happened on the last few pages so:

Can someone clarify the whole "the left needs to stop calling people bigots" thing? I'm struggling to figure out the following things:

a) Is this a factual or strategic argument?

b) If it is factual, what exactly are the false claims being made about people who apparently are not bigots but do act like bigots?

c) If it is strategic, do you really think pretending that people aren't bigots will do anything do stop bigotry?

The version that makes sense to me is "you can't stop hate but you can sweep it under the carpet to get votes and make policy that leads to long term improvements" but I feel like that's not what most people are actually saying.
Call a person an idiot for long enough time, and he simply will not like you. Call a person racist for long enough time, and he might just end up voting for the person that doesn't call him racist. Quite simple.

The point is, if you want to stop racism, reach out for the person and explain his wrongs instead of dropping a label on him and ignore his point of view completely.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Reaching out to explain wrongs is all well and good if it weren't for the fact that when people do reach they are gaslit and told 'no what you're describing isn't really racism this is make believe you're delusional'. Reaching out and doing it kindly only works on people if they're receptive to the idea that they could be complicit in racism in the first place.

Like hell "You're calling them racist stop doing that they're not all racists" as they vote for the "attack the brown people" candidate is like the definition of why "reaching out and trying to explain wrong doings" doesn't work lol.

EDIT: and to be clear Hillary was the racist candidate too but that's a whole other bag of worms, but the bottom line here is that Trumps rhetoric is explicitly traced to white nationalist beliefs and when white people voted for him. Like fuck it's in the damn name "Make America Great Again": When was it great for anybody that wasn't white?
 
Last edited:

shaian

Shosholoza
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
There are surely people on voted for Trump due to financial consideration instead of the "build that wall" business. But it seems to me that pretty much all the media in USA and UK are labeling people who voted for Trump bigots, regardless of their reasons.
if they actually think the proposed protectionist/anti-globalization policies are gonna bring back the low-skill/decent paying manufacturing jobs of the rust belt than i feel 100% confident in saying they are literally too dumb to be allowed to vote because those jobs are never coming back and they'd be better off drinking their problems away or adapting to the changing economic climate. i'd phrase it nicely but i was informed that they like it when people "tell it like it is".
 
Call a person an idiot for long enough time, and he simply will not like you. Call a person racist for long enough time, and he might just end up voting for the person that doesn't call him racist. Quite simple.

The point is, if you want to stop racism, reach out for the person and explain his wrongs instead of dropping a label on him and ignore his point of view completely.
But that's exactly the thing, how do you explain that someone's racist views/actions are wrong without pointing out that they're racist? Obviously the solution isn't just calling someone racist and leaving it at that, but "reaching out" without actually explaining the situation is little more than manipulation. So when appealing to facts is interpreted as "liberal arrogance" and the alternative is abandoning the issue, what do you do? Taking the high road is generally a good thing, but some point the responsibility has to fall on the actual aggressors to realize they're in the wrong. (Again, if you don't think they're wrong that's a discussion that can be had, but you need to actually have the discussion and not hide behind some kind of "liberal fascist" strawman.)
 

Bass

Brother in arms
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnus
Don't get me wrong; I'm not blaming the outcome of the election on the third-party votes (any more than a whole host of other factors, anyway). I'm just struggling to come to terms with the rationale behind conscience voting when the voting system is not at all conducive to expressing anything other than broad swaths of opinions.

Stein and the Green Party may represent you in some aspects, but how do you reconcile your support for them with the problematic views they espouse? Even disregarding the vaccine issue (she's still courting the anti-vaxxers by not disavowing them), she's issued several profoundly anti-science statements regarding GMOs and WiFi. Even if these are not the primary agendas of her platform, her success will serve to validate the fringe groups that support these notions. It's analogous to how much of the alt-right claim they voted Trump to see the system collapse while ignoring the fact that his presidency validates all the prejudice in society.

It's just my opinion that there's currently little to be gained by using voting as an ideological platform. My last part was, admittedly, more directed at the people who voted third-party to stick it to the DNC, and of course, that doesn't apply to every conscience voter.
This is an incredibly close-minded post. I know it's several days old but just reading it has made me so angry that I felt obligated to respond. Maybe you haven't considered that to us, the other candidates have far worse drawbacks than Jill Stein? I'll ignore that most of what you have just said are just smears and will acknowledge that there are other reasons not to vote for her (like lack of experience and policy knowledge), but I know that Hillary Clinton is someone who doesn't give a shit about the real needs of everyday Americans including myself. For example, why am I swimming in debt for the crime of trying to get an education? Why does she promise that single payer healthcare will "never, ever come to pass" when our current healthcare system is still wasteful and overpriced, even under Obamacare? Why can't she and the rest of the party establishment (including Obama, by the way) take a stance against the Dakota Access Pipeline, let alone fracking in general? She tried to convince us that she was a "progressive who gets things done" when she so clearly isn't one. In contrast, Jill Stein has made every single one of these issues a priority of her campaign. When weighing in the pros and cons, she best represented my political beliefs (barring Sanders who literally said he doesn't want my vote) and thus deserved my vote.

And finally, who the fuck are you to imply that we must force ourselves to vote for the "lesser of the two evils" every single time? If that continues to be the case, our country will remain stale for decades to come since voters are not willing to risk thinking for themselves. How else is it that the two candidates with the most votes were the least popular (in terms of approval ratings) in recent history? Hillary and Trump trailed Obama's popular vote count by 10 million votes relative to 2008, and got around the same number of votes as Mitt Romney in 2012, the guy who lost. I have been saying that the people who voted Clinton over Sanders in the primary (and the same people who insisted that she is entitled to our vote because Trump is the spawn of Satan) are living in a bubble, and this is the result of that bubble starting to burst. If there is one good thing about Trump winning, it would be that.
 
I still haven't received a real answer to any of my posts and I doubt I will get one after whatever happened on the last few pages so:

Can someone clarify the whole "the left needs to stop calling people bigots" thing? I'm struggling to figure out the following things:

a) Is this a factual or strategic argument?

b) If it is factual, what exactly are the false claims being made about people who apparently are not bigots but do act like bigots?

c) If it is strategic, do you really think pretending that people aren't bigots will do anything do stop bigotry?

The version that makes sense to me is "you can't stop hate but you can sweep it under the carpet to get votes and make policy that leads to long term improvements" but I feel like that's not what most people are actually saying.
My parents lean conservative, so I'm going to tell you how they see the whole "stop calling people (read: Trump supporters) bigots thing."

Yes, sometimes people are bigoted. When people call BLM a terrorist organization, that's bigoted. When people refer to all Mexicans as rapists and criminals, that's bigoted. But the reality is that not every Trump supporter has white robes in their closet. More often than not, they're simply apathetic towards Trump's racism and sexism. They face different issues than you do. Call this perspective a privileged one, but everything seems so privileged these days that this critique hardly sticks.

This brings me to my main point: the left's (usual) gut reaction to anything said by the right is to call them one of the following:
a) Racist
b) Sexist
c) Privileged
d) Stupid

People have told my parents that they must be misogynist for not being pro-choice. No, my parents don't hate women. They have legitimate moral qualms about abortion - they think that personhood begins at the fetus, so it would be amoral to kill it. For them, the rights of a fetus outweighs those of a mother.

People have told my parents that they must be racist for being against affirmative action. No, they don't hate minorities (being minorities themselves). Some of their close friends were turned down for certain jobs, despite being fully qualified, simply because their ethnicity was 'overrepresented' in the company. They don't want to run into this in case they lose their job.

The point is this: your gut instinct shouldn't be to call other people bigots. Not every issue is cut and dry. Some people disagree with you, not because they're bigots, but because they have a different perspective. Listen first and ask yourself whether they have legitimate grievances or whether they truly harbour hate.

From the strategic point of view, I've always thought that insulting people is an easy way to shut down any conversation. Make bigots question their own views; show them evidence proving them wrong. Counter their experiences that led them to bigoted conclusions with your experiences that led you to be tolerant. If you can't change their minds with grace and politeness, talking down to them won't help either. It takes a lot for people to change their minds - don't get frustrated if they remain stubborn.

Lastly, I've seen many people call conservatives stupid. Maybe the biggest supporters of Trump were indeed uneducated white men. But tell them that they're stupid for long enough and they'll strike back and say "Oh, yeah, I'll show you how just how stupid I am." Who's the privileged one here? The educated liberals in their ivory tower punching downwards, or the uneducated conservatives?
 

Solace

royal flush
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Call a person an idiot for long enough time, and he simply will not like you. Call a person racist for long enough time, and he might just end up voting for the person that doesn't call him racist. Quite simple.

The point is, if you want to stop racism, reach out for the person and explain his wrongs instead of dropping a label on him and ignore his point of view completely.
see, here's the thing. calling someone racist is not an insult. we generally all have instances of biases and make stereotypes of people based on race. those are racist acts. we're taught them from birth, and they are reinforced through ignorance of people outside of those stereotypes. our job as people should be to unlearn systemic racism, which permeates into every facet of life. racism isn't just making "whites only" water fountains. it determines what features you find attractive, your actions when walking down the street, the way you subconsciously judge others, who you choose to sit with on the train.

conservatives are racist. liberals are racist. racism isn't an insult, and there can't be any discussion about unlearning racism until people stop getting offended that their racist actions get called out as such.

i'll give an example: i have chosen to sit next to a random white man on a train rather than a random black man because for whatever reason i felt sitting next to the white man was safer. i didn't know either man, so there is no logical reason for that aside from racism. i was taught that a white person is safer than a black person, either explicitly, through media, or through the actions of others around me. i don't know where i picked that up, but i have learned that that behavior is pretty racist. instead of just being like "i'm not a racist!" and having a knee-jerk reaction, i reflected critically on my actions and realize that there's no logic behind that except the harmful stereotype that black people are more dangerous than white people.

the problem is no one can engage in discourse until the reaction to being called racist is having an open mind and saying "well, what did i do to make you think that?" with the intention of actually learning why your behavior is racist, as opposed to "i'm not racist because i have friends who are black!" because calling someone's behavior racist isn't an insult that needs to be defended.

that's why many liberals feel that reaching out to people is a lost cause. you overestimate people's willingness to engage in discussion about their own systemic racist behavior.
 

Eo Ut Mortus

Elodin Smells
is a Tournament Directoris a Super Moderatoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a defending Smogon Snake Draft Champion
Tour Head
This is an incredibly close-minded post. I know it's several days old but just reading it has made me so angry that I felt obligated to respond. Maybe you haven't considered that to us, the other candidates have far worse drawbacks than Jill Stein? I'll ignore that most of what you have just said are just smears and will acknowledge that there are other reasons not to vote for her (like lack of experience and policy knowledge), but I know that Hillary Clinton is someone who doesn't give a shit about the real needs of everyday Americans including myself. For example, why am I swimming in debt for the crime of trying to get an education? Why does she promise that single payer healthcare will "never, ever come to pass" when our current healthcare system is still wasteful and overpriced, even under Obamacare? Why can't she and the rest of the party establishment (including Obama, by the way) take a stance against the Dakota Access Pipeline, let alone fracking in general? She tried to convince us that she was a "progressive who gets things done" when she so clearly isn't one. In contrast, Jill Stein has made every single one of these issues a priority of her campaign. When weighing in the pros and cons, she best represented my political beliefs (barring Sanders who literally said he doesn't want my vote) and thus deserved my vote.

And finally, who the fuck are you to imply that we must force ourselves to vote for the "lesser of the two evils" every single time? If that continues to be the case, our country will remain stale for decades to come since voters are not willing to risk thinking for themselves. How else is it that the two candidates with the most votes were the least popular (in terms of approval ratings) in recent history? Hillary and Trump trailed Obama's popular vote count by 10 million votes relative to 2008, and got around the same number of votes as Mitt Romney in 2012, the guy who lost. I have been saying that the people who voted Clinton over Sanders in the primary (and the same people who insisted that she is entitled to our vote because Trump is the spawn of Satan) are living in a bubble, and this is the result of that bubble starting to burst. If there is one good thing about Trump winning, it would be that.
I'll concede that out of all the posts I've made in this thread and elsewhere regarding this election, those two were the only ones I'd rather not have made. They were reactionary, made in response to the third-party voters who were sneering at the election results. They oversimplified issues that deserved to be treated with more nuance. Still, I stand by my opinion: at present, there is little to be gained by an ideological third-party presidential vote.

The context of the election aftermath might give you cause to doubt, but I hope you'll trust me when I say I wasn't actually trying to leverage the entirety of the blame of the election outcome onto third-party voters. Such a stance I find untenable. It was a genuine question: When voting ideologically, how does one resolve conflicting stances represented by a single candidate? If you wish to use your vote to send a message, how do you ensure that it sends the message you want? How do you reconcile the fact that you have to ally with fringe groups to gain support for your candidate's platform? Perhaps it would've been fairer to pose the same question to Trump and Clinton voters, because they are certainly not exempt from these issues, either.

I'm all for breaking out of the stagnation of American politics; I just think voting third-party at the national level is the wrong way to do that. Under our current system, I don't think it'll achieve much towards that goal, and more gradual reform from mainline candidates is realistically the most we can expect at the present.
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
if they actually think the proposed protectionist/anti-globalization policies are gonna bring back the low-skill/decent paying manufacturing jobs of the rust belt than i feel 100% confident in saying they are literally too dumb to be allowed to vote because those jobs are never coming back and they'd be better off drinking their problems away or adapting to the changing economic climate. i'd phrase it nicely but i was informed that they like it when people "tell it like it is".
What about business owners or other super rich people who support Trump for the tax cuts?

The Trump Plan will lower the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, and eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax.
 

Bass

Brother in arms
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnus
I'll concede that out of all the posts I've made in this thread and elsewhere regarding this election, those two were the only ones I'd rather not have made. They were reactionary, made in response to the third-party voters who were sneering at the election results. They oversimplified issues that deserved to be treated with more nuance. Still, I stand by my opinion: at present, there is little to be gained by an ideological third-party presidential vote.
Once again you are coming off as dismissive and condescending. First of all, you are flat out wrong (google what happens when a candidate gets at least 5% of the vote) but beyond that, I will remind you of what the definition of a democratic government is:

Based on a form of government in which the people choose leaders by voting

This is what I tell to every person that tries to give me shit for not forcing myself to vote for a candidate I don't like: By claiming that I don't have a choice, you are therefore acknowledging that I am no longer part of a democratic process. Is that the precedent you and everyone else of this ilk are trying to set? That should seriously give you pause. If anything, it should be the other way around where we third party voters criticize the rest of America for voting against their beliefs (or not voting at all, which is the real reason Hillary lost by the way).
The context of the election aftermath might give you cause to doubt, but I hope you'll trust me when I say I wasn't actually trying to leverage the entirety of the blame of the election outcome onto third-party voters. Such a stance I find untenable. It was a genuine question: When voting ideologically, how does one resolve conflicting stances represented by a single candidate? If you wish to use your vote to send a message, how do you ensure that it sends the message you want? How do you reconcile the fact that you have to ally with fringe groups to gain support for your candidate's platform? Perhaps it would've been fairer to pose the same question to Trump and Clinton voters, because they are certainly not exempt from these issues, either.
How have you not realized that you are asking an incredibly loaded question? The fact that it should be applied to all candidates completely invalidates its premise. Also, it's incredibly hypocritical considering Clinton supporters were trying to tell Sanders supporters that they must vote Clinton for the purpose of stopping Trump, even though it goes against many of their core principals. Again, besides the fact that most of the accusations of Jill Stein being an anti-science candidate are smears (especially laughable considering Hillary and Trump are far more anti-science in regards to climate change, a much more important issue than vaccinations or GMOs), she also is the only candidate remaining that prioritizes the issues that are important in regards to how I live my life.

Also, you are very wrong in your generalization about third party voters being as merely trying to send a message. Maybe that is the case for some, but I voted for Jill Stein with every intention of helping her win, no matter how remote the possibility was. Again, I stress that if every person voted for the candidate they liked the most instead of willfully pretending that they don't have a choice, then this wouldn't be a problem.
I'm all for breaking out of the stagnation of American politics; I just think voting third-party at the national level is the wrong way to do that. Under our current system, I don't think it'll achieve much towards that goal, and more gradual reform from mainline candidates is realistically the most we can expect at the present.
I've got some news for you: Most real change doesn't come about in this manner. Do things like Civil Rights ring a bell to you? Real change comes when everyday people like you and me start giving enough of a shit to actually take action into their own hands, not simply just waiting for it to come. The same is true for those ballot initiatives to a lesser extent. This is why I emphasized the horrendous turnout of this election in my last post since it's a symptom, not a cause. The solution is not necessarily voting for third-party at the national level, but changing our mindset in regards to what it means to be a responsible participant of a democratic society.
 
My parents lean conservative, so I'm going to tell you how they see the whole "stop calling people (read: Trump supporters) bigots thing."

Yes, sometimes people are bigoted. When people call BLM a terrorist organization, that's bigoted. When people refer to all Mexicans as rapists and criminals, that's bigoted. But the reality is that not every Trump supporter has white robes in their closet. More often than not, they're simply apathetic towards Trump's racism and sexism. They face different issues than you do. Call this perspective a privileged one, but everything seems so privileged these days that this critique hardly sticks.

This brings me to my main point: the left's (usual) gut reaction to anything said by the right is to call them one of the following:
a) Racist
b) Sexist
c) Privileged
d) Stupid

People have told my parents that they must be misogynist for not being pro-choice. No, my parents don't hate women. They have legitimate moral qualms about abortion - they think that personhood begins at the fetus, so it would be amoral to kill it. For them, the rights of a fetus outweighs those of a mother.

People have told my parents that they must be racist for being against affirmative action. No, they don't hate minorities (being minorities themselves). Some of their close friends were turned down for certain jobs, despite being fully qualified, simply because their ethnicity was 'overrepresented' in the company. They don't want to run into this in case they lose their job.

The point is this: your gut instinct shouldn't be to call other people bigots. Not every issue is cut and dry. Some people disagree with you, not because they're bigots, but because they have a different perspective. Listen first and ask yourself whether they have legitimate grievances or whether they truly harbour hate.

From the strategic point of view, I've always thought that insulting people is an easy way to shut down any conversation. Make bigots question their own views; show them evidence proving them wrong. Counter their experiences that led them to bigoted conclusions with your experiences that led you to be tolerant. If you can't change their minds with grace and politeness, talking down to them won't help either. It takes a lot for people to change their minds - don't get frustrated if they remain stubborn.

Lastly, I've seen many people call conservatives stupid. Maybe the biggest supporters of Trump were indeed uneducated white men. But tell them that they're stupid for long enough and they'll strike back and say "Oh, yeah, I'll show you how just how stupid I am." Who's the privileged one here? The educated liberals in their ivory tower punching downwards, or the uneducated conservatives?
Ok since this is a better than average post on the subject I feel like responding to it.

Simply being apathetic to racism and sexism when you're not in a position where it harms you is so easy, so widespread, and so non committal that it's just as easy for others to look on at that behavior and not see anything wrong either. It's pretty obvious through stuff like the Trolley Problem that most people don't value the effect that not making a choice has, not intuitively thinking of conscious inaction as a choice. But to everyone those issues affect, that apathetic behavior feels harmful as well. You can say that you face different issues, but don't act surprised when the people you're complicit in marginalizing get angry, think that you don't care about their problems, or feel that they won't be respected and understood when they try to explain them. People may seem sensitive, but systemic racism affects them on a cultural level, it's something they experience all the time and it wears on them.

Respecting opinions is important, and in all conversations simply yelling at someone and insulting them won't get you far, but there's something to be said against framing a question as an equal debate simply because someone holds the opposite opinion. In many cases the conversation boils down to someone who cannot possibly have stake in social issues trying to convince someone who's experienced them that they don't exist, and to the outside observer both opinions are given equal weight by the staging of the situation. There's a balance, but that balance also includes being assertive so as to leave no room for interpretation. I get it, it is natural to feel insulted when you get called a racist, because a racist is a bad thing to be; many people hearing that think active discrimination representing something they already find offensive. But it's a lot better than "excuse me, did you know that I find your actions are perpetuating a racist culture and whether or not you realize it your attitude is harmful" for setting the tone for a conversation that will impress importance of the situation. Just look at Trump's whole campaign, where not only insulting and shouting, but also gross generalization of groups and constant, obvious to the point of comical lying helped him gain ground on a lot of his issues with people too entranced or too unwilling to call him on his bullshit. Speaking of generalizing, it's even harder to talk about the actions as a group perpetuating a certain culture in a conciliatory way because any individual can just ignore it and feel like it isn't them.

The fact of the matter is a lot of the issues are much more complicated. The reasons people decided TO vote for him are just as important as the reasons not to that they ignored, in that you can go back to country vs city and cultural motivations (and Hillary I guess) that people were talking about earlier. Whether or not Trump's supporters get what they were promised, the aftermath of the conflict caused by Hate Crimes and Anti Trump Protests/Riots is almost certainly going to be a shittier culture for minorities and women in general, where considering the way some of the violent crime is handled, a lot of nonviolent aggression is going to be overlooked. In theory Trump can't control whether white supremacists etc support him, but he pretty clearly was enough of a mouthpiece for those opinions in tone and policy to attract their attention and legitimize their voice when he was elected, and this fact should have been obvious to anyone voting for him. Want to come together as Americans? Take the victory you've earned graciously and respect that the lives of others may have been made worse by the decision you made for yourselves, and try to meet them halfway when they cry for help as they've been doing this past week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES

shaian

Shosholoza
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
What about business owners or other super rich people who support Trump for the tax cuts?

The Trump Plan will lower the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, and eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax.
well yeah, they typically go republican anyway? im assuming they went something like 60-65% for trump, but they weren't who swung this election tho. not to mention the reasons they would vote for him such as weaker workplace regulations, minimum wage laws, corporate tax rates & subsidies etc, have little to no impact on the rustbelt people getting their jobs back. though it does sound like a great way to increase the deficit so theres that
 

Bull Of Heaven

99 Pounders / 4'3" Feet
is a Pre-Contributor
Here's one thing that's bugging me right now: Trump supporters criticizing Democrats for trying to make them ashamed of being white, or getting offended whenever terms like "racism" and "white privilege" are brought up.

Thing is, racism absolutely still exists throughout society, is often subconscious, and has real and harmful effects on people's lives. The concept of white privilege has nothing to do with attaching any shame to being white, or attributing everything a white person has to that person's race, but exists to describe a systemic set of advantages that white people broadly have. Obvious example: being harassed less often by police. Yes, there are poor white people ("white privilege" doesn't mean there aren't), and yes they can have some of the same advantages (see previous example). There isn't much blame involved because societal privilege is mostly outside of any individual white person's control.

These issues are important to talk about because of the real harm they do to people, in ways that white people don't often see (like how it can be hard for men to see the harms of sexism). I don't see how you can meaningfully discuss them without engaging with what they actually are. Besides, many conservatives seem eager to "call a spade a spade" when it's something like "radical Islamic terrorism," so why not with this too?

How do I know that these liberal arguments are about the things I just said, and have nothing to do with shaming white people? Because I'm a student in a liberal college town, and that's what the people around me are actually saying. I'm a straight white man. Not one person has ever made any attempt to make me ashamed of any of that. People who do that kind of thing probably exist, but I've never met one, and I know some very liberal/PC/SJW-type people.

So the situation as I see it, being a liberal, is this:
1) It's important to openly discuss concepts like racism and white privilege.
2) People interested in discussing these concepts generally do a fairly clear and reasonable job of articulating what they actually mean and why they matter.
3) Some not-small portion of the other side seems entirely unwilling or unable to hear the plain meanings of these arguments.

The point of this post is to seriously ask the not-so-liberal posters in this thread: Okay, so what are we supposed to do about this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES

qpie

predatory
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
But that's exactly the thing, how do you explain that someone's racist views/actions are wrong without pointing out that they're racist? Obviously the solution isn't just calling someone racist and leaving it at that, but "reaching out" without actually explaining the situation is little more than manipulation. So when appealing to facts is interpreted as "liberal arrogance" and the alternative is abandoning the issue, what do you do? Taking the high road is generally a good thing, but some point the responsibility has to fall on the actual aggressors to realize they're in the wrong. (Again, if you don't think they're wrong that's a discussion that can be had, but you need to actually have the discussion and not hide behind some kind of "liberal fascist" strawman.)
Yo, I'm not from the US and have not been following its recent internal affairs too closely, so please take all of this with a grain of salt.

I believe a lot of the problems lie in perception vs. intent and a fucked up culture of debate in which people tend to assume the worst of 'the other side'.

When did you last hear a political opponent say something and immediately know what they really meant?

If you don't mean to be accusatory or insulting and are genuinely interested in an open discussion try your best to communicate this. You know what you meant to say (and what you didn't mean). They probably don't.

re: _____ is not an insult
I'd personally consider bigot at least an insult. In common usage it seems to generally refer to people who not only hold prejudiced beliefs, but are entirely devoted to them, refuse any argument about them and are just generally close-minded.

That aside, I've certainly seen it used as/ like an insult.

Maybe try sticking with "this thing you did is bigoted" or "this belief you hold is bigoted" rather than "you are a bigot". Comes across less like a general judgement of character on more like actually addressing specific issues.

Then again I'll fully admit that this is mostly just tone policing, so eh. :\ You kinda did ask though.


Also now that I finally have an excuse to, here's a video I've been meaning to post:


Articulate guy explains loudly how this could possibly happen. Takes the same line as the Michael Moore one you've probably all seen already. 3:30 an onwards in particular is worth watching.
 
Democrats should NOT move further leftward in 2020, I think peopel continously underesterimate how moderate/conservative leaning this country is. I don't think running a far left candidate would be a good idea.
 

Bass

Brother in arms
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnus
Democrats should NOT move further leftward in 2020, I think peopel continously underesterimate how moderate/conservative leaning this country is. I don't think running a far left candidate would be a good idea.
Just stop. Hillary lost because she was a terribly flawed candidate, and not enough people came out to vote for her. It's not as if Trump won because of a massive surge in turnout for GOP voters (except in Florida) considering that he got LESS votes than Mitt Romney, who lost to an incumbent president. But in key states that swung red this election like Wisconsin and Michigan, the turnout was far lower in the the cities than it was in 2012, by hundreds of thousands of votes.

I am not trying to be mean, but I am just so angry at the democratic electorate right now. The fact that a clown like Trump managed to win with so many factors being against him should be a WAKE UP CALL. You're delusional if you think Hillary lost because she was running too far to the left.
 
I never said she lost because she was running too far to the left, what I mean is that the American electorate is a lot less "liberal" then people seem to think it is. I just think Democrats should run a "strong" liberal in 2020 but nothing too extreme is all. Also, they'll need to make sure to campaign in the rust belt :^)
 

Bass

Brother in arms
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnus
I never said she lost because she was running too far to the left, what I mean is that the American electorate is a lot less "liberal" then people seem to think it is. I just think Democrats should run a "strong" liberal in 2020 but nothing too extreme is all. Also, they'll need to make sure to campaign in the rust belt :^)
I apologize for putting words in your mouth (as you can see, I am feeling very emotional about this subject). But in that case, what do you consider "too far to the left"? My belief is that the Democrats should nominate someone like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Russ Feingold, or Keith Ellison. If you consider that standard as being too far to the left, then it proves that you haven't learned a single thing about this election. I am pointing out because this line of thinking was the same line of reasoning Democrats used when nominating Clinton over Sanders. No amount of extra campaigning in these states will change anything if the candidates don't speak about the actually important issues then, rather than making some platitudes about how not racist they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Just stop. Hillary lost because she was a terribly flawed candidate, and not enough people came out to vote for her. It's not as if Trump won because of a massive surge in turnout for GOP voters (except in Florida) considering that he got LESS votes than Mitt Romney, who lost to an incumbent president. But in key states that swung red this election like Wisconsin and Michigan, the turnout was far lower in the the cities than it was in 2012, by hundreds of thousands of votes.

I am not trying to be mean, but I am just so angry at the democratic electorate right now. The fact that a clown like Trump managed to win with so many factors being against him should be a WAKE UP CALL. You're delusional if you think Hillary lost because she was running too far to the left.
when ANES asked the average american voter who they saw closer to them on a scale of 1 to 7 (put themselves somewhere, put candidates somewhere, how far away are they?) Trump was closer than Hillary. People saw her as too far left.

Obviously, they're wrong lol. She's not that far left at all. She's certainly less left than Obama. But people think she is.

Average american rated themselves 3.93 (ie just slightly liberal, 4 is truly indifferent). They rated Donald Trump a 4.92. They rated Hillary Clinton a 2.58.

Trump missed by a point, Clinton by a point and a half.

(data in here, sadly nowhere I could find the original data that was easy to read: http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/anes_pilot_2016/anes_pilot_2016_CodebookUserGuide.pdf)

So I'm not remotely convinced that someone left of Clinton is the answer. There's a lot of people there on the edge with how liberal people like Clinton and Obama already are. The US really is quite conservative.

Would the turnout compensate? I'm not sure. The last time the Democrats put up someone truly liberal (in the global politics sense), he got crushed.
 

Bass

Brother in arms
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnus
when ANES asked the average american voter who they saw closer to them on a scale of 1 to 7 (put themselves somewhere, put candidates somewhere, how far away are they?) Trump was closer than Hillary. People saw her as too far left.

Obviously, they're wrong lol. She's not that far left at all. She's certainly less left than Obama. But people think she is.

Average american rated themselves 3.93 (ie just slightly liberal, 4 is truly indifferent). They rated Donald Trump a 4.92. They rated Hillary Clinton a 2.58.

Trump missed by a point, Clinton by a point and a half.

(data in here, sadly nowhere I could find the original data that was easy to read: http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/anes_pilot_2016/anes_pilot_2016_CodebookUserGuide.pdf)

So I'm not remotely convinced that someone left of Clinton is the answer. There's a lot of people there on the edge with how liberal people like Clinton and Obama already are. The US really is quite conservative.

Would the turnout compensate? I'm not sure. The last time the Democrats put up someone truly liberal (in the global politics sense), he got crushed.
And yet, the election was nearly a dead-heat in terms of popular vote, even though according to that nearly one year-old study, Trump is significantly more like the average "Average American" than Clinton. Remember, polls and statistical models overwhelmingly predicted a Clinton victory but they ended up being significantly wrong.

Also, I have to repeat myself (it feels like I have to do this way too often in this thread), but if you were right, then why was turnout in traditionally blue counties so much lower this election? I would be willing to bet that those studies drastically undersampled younger voters (as many of them tend to do) which are also generally far more liberal than baby boomers are. For that reason too, your comparison of Sanders to McGovern is extremely flawed, the current electorate is much different today than it was back then. Do you really believe that somehow Clinton was turning off voters because she was perceived as too liberal? Instead of relying on numbers from a limited sample size in a flawed study, look at the numbers of the actual votes by state and county for this election and those of the recent past, then go out in the real world and talk to some people who didn't vote for either of the two main candidates. I am one of them, and I can tell you that the reason I didn't is because neither of them gave me a compelling reason to vote for them beyond this "lesser of the two evils" nonsense. We want a candidate that makes us excited to vote for them, and going further to the right will not solve the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES
It'll be difficult to woo white working class voters that Hillary lost with taboo words like "socialist" and "liberal" to say the least. As bughouse has said, America is still a pretty moderate to conservative leaning nation. I don't think going far left is the answer. The Democrats just need a strong candidate in 2020 no matter the policies, just as long as the person is likable and can drive up turnout, something that Hillary did not do. That's all, I don't think the Democrats need a huge shakeup in policies or anything and the current policies are fine, it's more of a "who is going to lead us" kind of thing that they have 4 years to figure out. I'm sure all will be fine. I think either party going far left or far right is scary as we've seen with Republicans, I think each side getting further from the middle could have negative consequences for the average voter actually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top