|
Why do so many arguments about voting seem to rely on identity-formation so much? "Are you a serious person or a racist sexist? Your vote determines that" Personally I don't really see the act of voting as a way to self-define, which is why i find the constant talk of "moral purity" also a bit suspect.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Why do so many arguments about voting seem to rely on identity-formation so much? Surely, it helps the republicans capture the Christian fundie vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Why do so many arguments about voting seem to rely on identity-formation so much? Your vote doesn't make you a sexist/racist, but if you are one already, I can probably predict who you're gonna vote for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Motto posted:Not when one of the two individuals with any chance of being President has founded his campaign on them. Nope, it's still a weak argument to suggest that a voter's sex and race is what makes them wrong in their opposition to a candidate, unless they are explicitely using identity politics to support their opposition. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
My friend's rapist votes Hillary and is acting all outraged at Trump's misogyny on social media
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Why do so many arguments about voting seem to rely on identity-formation so much?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:My friend's rapist votes Hillary and is acting all outraged at Trump's misogyny on social media Oh no, I am undone. For surely did I claim that literally everyone who votes for Hillary is a good person and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:My friend's rapist votes Hillary and is acting all outraged at Trump's misogyny on social media Can the third party voters in the thread explain this train of thought to me?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Can the third party voters in the thread explain this train of thought to me? 2. A (male on female) rapist is a misogynist. 3. A misogynist is going to vote for Hillary. 4. There is no correlation between misogyny in voters and whether they vote for Trump or Hillary. I might be wrong though, as I'm not a third party voter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Can the third party voters in the thread explain this train of thought to me? Stereotypes are dumb and should be avoided. If I start spouting off about Hillary's "lack of experience", "shrill tone" or whatever, I would understand it. If he wants to insist I'm a white cisgendered male (even though I'm not- one of those things is wrong, won't tell you which) because I won't vote for a warhawk and use that to attack me it's fine, but it just makes you look like an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:And thus we come full circle: Since when is posting poo poo like "lol lit af fam :100:" not bannable in D&D?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
The sociological understanding of racism, sexism, etc, is that these are not individual flaws of moral character but systemic, cultural, structural features. In that sense *everyone* is sexist and racist to some extent because this is just something we internalized by virtue of living within a sexist and racist society. This racism and sexism might be conscious or not, however, and there are also different levels of denial around it. Even POC, for example, have internalized white supremacy, as the well-known "doll test" demonstrates (this is also why the idea that "reverse racism" is a thing is absurd) Individualizing the problem, treating it as being a kind of "sin" that only "bad people" are guilty of, is really a defense mechanism, a way for us to maintain denial about our own role in these systems of oppression by projecting them onto an "other" that we can conveniently distance ourselves from; and so never have to be confronted with our own complicity, or risk threatening our self-image as a "good person". I have heard highly-educated progressives make the argument, that I'm not sure I really agree with but I think might be worth reposting, that Trump happening was a good thing in the sense that he is actually being open and honest about the racism and sexism of American society, thus bringing it to light, and making it possible to combat it, as opposed to every other politician, who is actually a huge sexist/racist but has made efforts to hide that in public, dodge attempts to address it, and to rationalize around it in order to justify their actions. So in a sense it's the argument that Trump could be the step that America is taking to move beyond the denial stage and start acknowledging that it has a real problem. There are lot of legitimate reasons to vote for Clinton, but for some people, it does seem to be an act of desperate clinging to the "progressive" identity they have constructed for themselves, perhaps actually distracting from other, more effective ways they could be combating sexism and racism in their lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Stereotypes are dumb and should be avoided. If I start spouting off about Hillary's "lack of experience", "shrill tone" or whatever, I would understand it. If he wants to insist I'm a white cisgendered male (even though I'm not- one of those things is wrong, won't tell you which) because I won't vote for a warhawk and use that to attack me it's fine, but it just makes you look like an idiot. Please stop misgendering me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Please stop misgendering me. The irony... it's too much. Please go back to whatever tumblr page you crawled out of. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The irony... it's too much. Please go back to whatever tumblr page you crawled out of. I'm pretty sure they were mocking you for making that exact argument but with an extra helping of passive-aggressiveness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm pretty sure they were mocking you for making that exact argument but with an extra helping of passive-aggressiveness. No I'm pretty sure at this point stone cold is in fact being unironic and is a walking SJW stereotype that the alt-right uses to fuel their arguments. The posts in this thread certainly lean that way. example: quote:If you really think Hillary is a third way centrist then congrats! You're a chauvinist pig. Hillary is not Bill! Hillary fought for UHC in 199 loving 5! In the senate, Hillary voted differently than Bernie on 7% of their votes-just 31 bills! I mean, maybe it's some kind of mocking but I don't really get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:No I'm pretty sure at this point stone cold is in fact being unironic and is a walking SJW stereotype that the alt-right uses to fuel their arguments. The posts in this thread certainly lean that way. By using "SJW" unironically, you've become the stereotype here. Stone cold's a girl, she told you as much in an earlier post. You kept calling her "he." It's that simple. stone cold posted:1. I'm a girl.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:By using "SJW" unironically, you've become the stereotype here. I told her I wasn't a white cisgendered male in an earlier post too, didn't seem to stop her. The post where she wrote that was not a response to me, and to be quite honest, I just called her a male because her name is stone cold and it makes me think of the dumb wrestler. If that makes me a Donald Trump supporter so be it. Quick, put up the blue wall, DEFEND, DEFEND, DEFEND! NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I mean, maybe it's some kind of mocking but I don't really get it. You not understanding something simple and obvious? Dearie me, who could have ever seen that coming?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You not understanding something simple and obvious? Dearie me, who could have ever seen that coming? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:If that makes me a Donald Trump supporter so be it.  Okay there, buddy. Feed that persecution complex as much as you want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:
Her words, not mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Her words, not mine. Please point to where in the thread stone cold called you a Trump supporter. You don't just get to make up bullshit because you feel like the mean ol' SJWs are piling up on you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Please point to where in the thread stone cold called you a Trump supporter. You don't just get to make up bullshit because you feel like the mean ol' SJWs are piling up on you. She's not calling me a Trump supporter, she's talking to me like I am one. I would vote Hillary if I lived in a battleground state, I don't disagree she's the most progressive option. But that's a far cry from Hillary being a leftist or there being no legitimate complaints from progressives, as she's said many times. Yes, I can afford to compromise, my state isn't going red. I'm really sorry if you live in a state where you have to vote blue to stop the rise of white nationalism but that is not every person in America. Point being if you're going to make a habit of calling posters out for their social status you might as well check their post history and make sure you're not full of poo poo before you do. And if you aren't willing to call someone out when they unironically call Hillary Clinton a leftist and claim that anyone who disagrees is a chauvinist pig who hasn't researched the issues it makes you look really really bad too. Playing white knight for team blue is pretty boring. Maybe try moving away from lovely one line posts. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
For some perspective into the "not voting Hillary is support for racism/sexism/insert-prefix-here-phobia" thing I see some posters throwing around, consider that in the 1930's, black voters switched from the Republican vote to openly-racist, pro-segregation Dixiecrats, in exchange for New Deal benefits. I doubt that them switching had anything with them "voting to support racism."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:She's not calling me a Trump supporter, she's talking to me like I am one. I would vote Hillary if I lived in a battleground state, I don't disagree she's the most progressive option. But that's a far cry from Hillary being a leftist or there being no legitimate complaints from progressives, as she's said many times. Given that you admit that Hillary is the most progressive option, why are you then, as an ostensible progressive, voting third party? And do you not think it's a cowardly position to take that because your state is safe you can then toss your vote to a third party? Wouldn't it be more consistent for you to say you would vote third in a battleground state to teach some sort of lesson to the Dems and to really make a difference for your third party? Once again, why does and should everybody else have to pick up the slack for the sake of your ideological purity? Moreover, I have never said in this thread that Hillary is leftist and that there are no legitimate grievances against her, speaking of going through post history. Jfc, of course Hillary has flaws and you can complain about her all you like, but have some pragmatism, this is politics. There's a reason for Duverger's law. I'm also gonna toss out, I assumed you were a white cisgendered man because of your privileged political views, and you assumed I was a man because that is the default voice to you of everyone else. It proves your biases rather neatly. As a side note, I live in CA and I'm so happy to be running up the score against white supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:For some perspective into the "not voting Hillary is support for racism/sexism/insert-prefix-here-phobia" thing I see some posters throwing around, consider that in the 1930's, black voters switched from the Republican vote to openly-racist, pro-segregation Dixiecrats, in exchange for New Deal benefits. I doubt that them switching had anything with them "voting to support racism." Please tell me how that at all relates to this election. What benefit are people getting from voting for Trump? A wall?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
stone cold posted:And do you not think it's a cowardly position to take that because your state is safe you can then toss your vote to a third party? stone cold posted:Once again, why does and should everybody else have to pick up the slack for the sake of your ideological purity? edit: The notion that electing a President requires 200 units of effort, and by voting third party we are somehow forcing a person to engage in 2 units of effort when they should have only needed to commit 1 unit of effort is really bizarre to me. twodot fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Please tell me how that at all relates to this election. What benefit are people getting from voting for Trump? A wall? They got hosed over long term by the Democrats at the time, however they voted for what they saw as promised personal benefit at the sacrifice of the greater good. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's cowardly about this, and why is being cowardly bad? twodot posted:In what sense is there any slack to pick up? Are you saying you wish you could vote third party but can't because you think it's more important to run up the score in California than vote your conscience? My understanding is that you think voting for Clinton is good. If there's a large group of people who want to vote third party but can't for fear of spoiler effects we're just in the lizard scenario from Hitchhiker's Guide. The slack lies in those folks like you who are wavering and dithering and going 'well both sides really are equally as bad.' Certainly I think there are tons of people who are dissatisfied with the two party system, and in a reality where the third party options were sane and not vanity parties, I think people would feel conflicted as well. I think, despite the flaws of the third parties now, there exists a small subset of the populace who feels conflicted about voting third party. People are pragmatic though, hence Duverger's Law. That isn't a lizard people thing, that's the reality of living in the single member plurality system in which we do. I do think voting for Clinton is good, I really like her. She has through her policies made a measurable positive impact in my life and in the world, and I agree with most of her positions. I have no qualms about stating my distaste for Gov. Aleppo Von Private Prisons and Dr. Russia Lovin' Anti-Nuclear Power. e: added comma, added a forgotten clause stone cold fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
stone cold posted:It's a cowardly position as I said literally in the next sentence because if you really had the 'courage' as it were and firm sense of belief in the ideals in your third party of preference, it would be more consistent for you to say you would vote third in a battleground state. edit2: I forgot, again, even if I agree why is being cowardly bad? Like, ok, you got me, I'm a coward, now what? quote:The slack lies in those folks like you who are wavering and dithering and going 'well both sides really are equally as bad.' edit: Heads up, the group of people should be in Washington state. quote:Certainly I think there are tons of people who are dissatisfied with the two party system, and in a reality where the third party options were sane and not vanity parties, I think people would feel conflicted as well. I think, despite the flaws of the third parties now, there exists a small subset of the populace who feels conflicted about voting third party. People are pragmatic though, hence Duverger's Law. That isn't a lizard people thing, that's the reality of living in the single member plurality system in which we do. quote:I do think voting for Clinton is good, I really like her. She has through her policies made a measurable positive impact in my life and in the world, and I agree with most of her positions. I have no qualms about stating my distaste for Gov. Aleppo Von Private Prisons and Dr. Russia Lovin' Anti-Nuclear Power. twodot fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Individualizing the problem, treating it as being a kind of "sin" that only "bad people" are guilty of, is really a defense mechanism, a way for us to maintain denial about our own role in these systems of oppression by projecting them onto an "other" that we can conveniently distance ourselves from; and so never have to be confronted with our own complicity, or risk threatening our self-image as a "good person". I think there's some truth to this. It seems like a very common thing for American liberals (maybe more left-leaning parties in other countries as well, but I'm only speaking about America) to talk about how Trump voters are all racist/sexist trash in a way that clearly implies that they're different and better. And, of course, there's a lot of truth to this - Trump voters definitely are more racist and sexist than liberals. And I'm also not sure that it's really a bad thing to openly condemn them for their racism/sexism; in fact, it's probably a good thing. I guess what concerns me is that there seems to be a major blind spot among liberals where they only focus on how Those People are racist scum and completely ignore their own biases. I seem to see this particularly often among older liberals. I'm not really recommending any particular solution to this problem, since, as I mentioned, I don't think condemning conservatives is a bad thing in and of itself. But I do think that it's a bad thing for people to only focus on condemning the sins of others while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the country, Democrat or Republican, freely practices a bunch of casual racism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:I really don't understand how this follows. That's because you're butting into a conversation between two people and treating stone cold's arguments as though they were pointed at you instead of at NFS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:That's because you're butting into a conversation between two people and treating stone cold's arguments as though they were pointed at you instead of at NFS. There's no butting in going on, he's absolutely right. The reason I wouldn't vote third party is because I'm a coward I guess. I do think that in the face of what the GOP is putting up, compromise with the GOP is the best path moving forward. What I'm not convinced of is that voting Democrat in California does that in any meaningful way. My big problem is that I don't understand what her point is. She's personally attacked me multiple times completely out of the blue and has built up an entire image of who I am in her head long before she even read my posts. I don't really understand how saying Hillary isn't progressive enough for my meaningless vote translates into me being a woman hating chauvinist who hasn't even glanced at her policy proposals. I get that people are angry, but you need to learn how to direct it healthily because what she's doing is more harmful than good, even if many in this thread don't want to admit it. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Oct 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:There's no butting in going on, he's absolutely right. You are seriously overestimating your effect on anybody in this thread. Stop trying to make yourself into a martyr, it's absolutely pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You are seriously overestimating your effect on anybody in this thread. Stop trying to make yourself into a martyr, it's absolutely pathetic. When did I ever say I'm having any effect on anyone this thread? The only person I've effected is offending the resident idiot because I called her a "him" accidentally after she ran through the angsty liberal insult playbook. Other than that the conversation has actually been pretty interesting aside from you and a few others feeling the need to just drop in and poo poo on the thread from time to time. For example, https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3793404&userid=103148 https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3793404&userid=159895 I mean D&D was going downhill the last time I was here but is this poo poo just the norm nowadays?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:When did I ever say I'm having any effect on anyone this thread? The only person I've effected is offending the resident idiot because I called her a "him" accidentally after she ran through the angsty liberal insult playbook. Other than that the conversation has actually been pretty interesting aside from you and a few others feeling the need to just drop in and poo poo on the thread from time to time. It has been exhaustively explained to you what the flaws in your reasoning are, and you've done nothing but ignore all of it and most recently done nothing but whine about how you're being treated. You don't have any principals that you're actually willing to stick to, you don't have any valid or sound reasons for voting third party that you can give, and you don't even have a good understanding of politics in general. For gently caress's sake you think that Assad committing literal war crimes is preferable to America doing anything outside of our borders. So what's the point in wasting effort giving our A game to you? And it's hella ironic you're talking about "offending the resident idiot for because I called her a "him" accidentally" when you posted this: NewForumSoftware posted:If he wants to insist I'm a white cisgendered male (even though I'm not- one of those things is wrong, won't tell you which) So on top of being uninformed, a supporter of dictators, and unprincipled you're also lacking in any form of self-awareness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It has been exhaustively explained to you what the flaws in your reasoning are, and you've done nothing but ignore all of it and most recently done nothing but whine about how you're being treated. You don't have any principals that you're actually willing to stick to, you don't have any valid or sound reasons for voting third party that you can give, and you don't even have a good understanding of politics in general. For gently caress's sake you think that Assad committing literal war crimes is preferable to America doing anything outside of our borders. So what's the point in wasting effort giving our A game to you? The fact that you continue to insist that Assad committing war crimes and America moving towards a less interventionist foreign policy are mutually exclusive is mindblowing. To the point where you're willing to say I support dictators because I don't agree we should increase the amount of airstrikes in Syria. It's ludicrous. I've already explained in detail why I disagree but if you're just going to stick your head in the sand I can't really help you. Stop responding to my posts if you think they are that bad. quote:So on top of being uninformed, a supporter of dictators, and unprincipled you're also lacking in any form of self-awareness. Yeah I figured it wouldn't matter much if I told you which one of those I wasn't because it won't be enough, or I'll have to post some other proof, or there will be some other reason it disqualifies me from having my opinions mattering because of my social status. That's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yeah I figured it wouldn't matter much if I told you which one of those I wasn't because it won't be enough, or I'll have to post some other proof, or there will be some other reason it disqualifies me from having my opinions mattering because of my social status. That's bullshit. This is just sad now. Bud, nobody gives a poo poo who you are. Your ideas are just hilariously dumb. You're essentially a single-issue voter and your issue is syrian intervention. That's quaint, I guess, but don't pretend this makes you a moral person or an informed person. There are plenty of other issues which you admitted you do not care about. Issues that seriously affect the lives of others. Not only that, you ignore candidates when they don't measure up to your standards. That's why we're making fun of you. You set the bar high as gently caress, but your worldview is hilariously narrow. I'd make fun of you if you were black, white, asian, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:She's not calling me a Trump supporter, she's talking to me like I am one. I would vote Hillary if I lived in a battleground state, I don't disagree she's the most progressive option. But that's a far cry from Hillary being a leftist or there being no legitimate complaints from progressives, as she's said many times. I am going to pipe in on this point. Judging from your language, you apparently don't live in a battleground state, but correct me if I am wrong. My question is, do you think the parties are going to care if you vote for a 3rd party in a none battleground state? I meant the thread's initial premise was to vote 3rd party to get the main parties to change their platforms, but most wouldn't care unless it was a swing state, and even then that is a long shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 01:55
|
|
