|
Rush Limbo posted:Over a decade on this is still relevant Why is it so hard to accept that most people believe themselves to be the good guys? So, if some calls you a Marxist and you're not a Marxist, what does that mean? pookel has a new favorite as of 01:01 on Nov 14, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Mark Ames raped a teenage girl and then bragged about it in a bookdivabot posted:Spreading this everywhere right now. I would do this, but Thanksgiving would get really awkward
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
pookel posted:This looks like just a repackaging of the same bullshit I was taught as a young Republican: the other side has no good intentions, and everything they do is a lie designed to cover up their true motives. Feminists know that all their rape statistics are lies, but they're cynically using them to discredit men. Environmentalists know global warming is a hoax, but they continue to repeat the lie because they're secretly communists and they want to destroy the economy. I could go on for a while in that vein. That the person you're talking to is a fascist, obviously.  The funny part is that by this definition, given the popularity of Godwinning across the political spectrum, many conservatives are Marxists. Though as neoconservativism is, to use the jargon Nick Land would use, cladistically Trotskyist, this may not be totally wrong...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Mark Ames raped a teenage girl and then bragged about it in a book
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
pookel posted:This looks like just a repackaging of the same bullshit I was taught as a young Republican: the other side has no good intentions, and everything they do is a lie designed to cover up their true motives. Feminists know that all their rape statistics are lies, but they're cynically using them to discredit men. Environmentalists know global warming is a hoax, but they continue to repeat the lie because they're secretly communists and they want to destroy the economy. I could go on for a while in that vein. yeah, not everyone on the right is an alt righter. progressives turning into objectivist-style "Either you agree with us completely or you are with the worst of those other guys" disturbs me. It's stifling to progress because now everyone who has even a slight disagreement with you is also a nazi, and so everyone on the progressive side's constantly fighting each other over poo poo that doesn't matter, which looks really loving dumb. And prevents people from getting involved even if they sympathize for fear of getting attacked. Plus if it's really true.. then what? If it's impossible to reach the other side, what are we supposed to do? Kill the 50% of people who voted trump or something? I'm also an ex-indoctrinated conservative. I hate the right, I will not accept anything they say, I'm for the protests, I think they'll protect people and show that we're not going to accept everything the administration does. But some of this poo poo I'm seeing on my facebook wall is all too familiar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Hemingway To Go! posted:yeah, not everyone on the right is an alt righter. Voter turnout was severely depressed this election and characterizing the vote as 50% of americans voting for Trump is extremely incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Hemingway To Go! posted:yeah, not everyone on the right is an alt righter. It depends on what you mean by arguing over "poo poo that doesn't matter" because there's a ton of stuff that outwardly looks like it doesn't matter but actually seriously matters if we want to change pervasive, ingrained social constructs. I'm not saying every dumb petty argument among the left is valid but a lot of the little stuff is actually really important from a big picture standpoint. Though I think once the right is actually fully in power and the left has a big bad target to unify against we'll be seeing a lot less of it anyway 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Make Less Wrong Great Again
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
WalterL posted:Like, reading through Yudkowsky's stuff, his LW writings and HPMOR, there is the persistent sense that he is 2 guys. I kind of agree with this so far... quote:So when he is accusing us of not paying sufficient attention to the consequences of a Trump victory, I'm more inclined to say that we paid attention, but we don't value those consequences the way he does. What the gently caress is wrong with you, WalterL?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
You're not wrong, WalterL, you're just an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
divabot posted:Spreading this everywhere right now. I like Scalzi's Cinemax theory of racism; these people didn't ask for a bigoted president, they asked for a president who'd bring back jobs and got bigotry as part of the package deal. This is a reasonable decision for them to make, given their situation, and a vital distinction to make if we're going to convince these people to vote Democrat ever again, but as far as Latinx/Muslim/Black/LGBT Americans are concerned, they are all racists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:I like Scalzi's Cinemax theory of racism; these people didn't ask for a bigoted president, they asked for a president who'd bring back jobs and got bigotry as part of the package deal. This is a reasonable decision for them to make, given their situation, and a vital distinction to make if we're going to convince these people to vote Democrat ever again, but as far as Latinx/Muslim/Black/LGBT Americans are concerned, they are all racists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
It's actually pretty cut and dry. People didn't vote for Trump unless they were bigots, or simply didn't possess empathy for those their vote would hurt. A lot of people are bigoted, and a whole lot of people don't have empathy for people different from them.
I Killed GBS has a new favorite as of 05:23 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Like, statistically, the overwhelming majority of the people who voted for trump also indicated they felt "economically confident" or did not feel any particular anxiety about losing their jobs. This "economic anxiety" bullshit is both deeply insulting to the poor whites who didn't vote for Trump, and seeks to provide an excuse for the terrible people who did vote for him. It's a disgusting narrative and it needs to die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
I Killed GBS posted:It's actually pretty cut and dry. People didn't vote for Trump unless they were bigots, or simply didn't possess empathy for those their vote would hurt. A lot of people are bigoted, and a whole lot of people don't have empathy for people different from them. They may not be bigots, but they decided bigotry wasn't a dealbreaker. (Great, disturbing thread here, btw, especially in light of...stuff.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
I Killed GBS posted:It's actually pretty cut and dry. People didn't vote for Trump unless they were bigots, or simply didn't possess empathy for those their vote would hurt. A lot of people are bigoted, and a whole lot of people don't have empathy for people different from them. And to demonstrate this you're not even going to show enough empathy for people who lost their respectable factory jobs where they felt valued and ended up on the unemployment line or a minimum wage job at Walmart to even consider that they might want to vote for a candidate who promised their jobs back for any other reason than him being a racist loudmouth?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:And to demonstrate this you're not even going to show enough empathy for people who lost their respectable factory jobs where they felt valued and ended up on the unemployment line or a minimum wage job at Walmart to even consider that they might want to vote for a candidate who promised their jobs back for any other reason than him being a racist loudmouth? I Killed GBS posted:Like, statistically, the overwhelming majority of the people who voted for trump also indicated they felt "economically confident" or did not feel any particular anxiety about losing their jobs. This "economic anxiety" bullshit is both deeply insulting to the poor whites who didn't vote for Trump, and seeks to provide an excuse for the terrible people who did vote for him. It's a disgusting narrative and it needs to die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:And to demonstrate this you're not even going to show enough empathy for people who lost their respectable factory jobs where they felt valued and ended up on the unemployment line or a minimum wage job at Walmart to even consider that they might want to vote for a candidate who promised their jobs back for any other reason than him being a racist loudmouth? Just in case you felt compelled to ignore it a second time... I Killed GBS posted:Like, statistically, the overwhelming majority of the people who voted for trump also indicated they felt "economically confident" or did not feel any particular anxiety about losing their jobs. This "economic anxiety" bullshit is both deeply insulting to the poor whites who didn't vote for Trump, and seeks to provide an excuse for the terrible people who did vote for him. It's a disgusting narrative and it needs to die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-was-stronger-where-the-economy-is-weaker/ Or you can continue to place complete faith in the results of some survey and argue that counties Obama carried with double digit margins transformed into horrible hotbeds of bigotry in four years. GEORGE W BUSHI has a new favorite as of 05:45 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
the number I read for a Trump voter median income is $72,000. and really poor, economically disengaged people generally speaking don't really involve themselves in the political process much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Manticorny posted:They may not be bigots, but they decided bigotry wasn't a dealbreaker. Or their worldviews and media choices allowed them to decide that the whole bigotry thing was a lie and therefore they did not consider it in making their choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
uber_stoat posted:the number I read for a Trump voter median income is $72,000. and really poor, economically disengaged people generally speaking don't really involve themselves in the political process much. Yes, a lot of rich assholes decided to ignore his bigotry so they could have slightly lower taxes and if you want to say gently caress those guys right ahead, but Hillary didn't lose the election because she didn't inspire their confidence. She lost because she lost places Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
You don't loving know what "median" means do you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
I Killed GBS posted:You don't loving know what "median" means do you? I don't know what point you're trying to make here
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:I don't know what point you're trying to make here median is more reliably representative of the middle of a curve than mean with mean you're thinking, hey, average of 72k, that means probably a bunch of hillbillies living on $800/month wal-mart checks, offset by some rich banking and finance billionaires median of 72k, on the other hand, likely means a ton of people with incomes roundabout 72k small business owners, middle-managers and white-collar professionals, the middle-class. the comfortable but not rich. the middle class, the supposed backbone of american democracy, is culpable in this dumb idiot election. They don't have the excuse of the local steel-mill shutting down and making them work overnight stocking at a K-mart. They don't have anything to be mad about other than the cultural anxiety that grips them whenever they think minorities are getting too uppity or a leader in a distant, poorly-armed land yells at us for doing Imperialism. PupsOfWar has a new favorite as of 06:20 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
I looked up the 72k median income figure. That's from the primaries in May. A lot of these people wouldn't have voted in the primaries. Trump did worse with the middle classes (and the rich) than Romney did. Clinton lost because the working class vote didn't show up for her the way it did for Obama. https://www.statista.com/statistics/245889/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2012-elections-by-income/ https://www.google.com.tw/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
No, she lost because of blatant voter suppression and a campaign that was more focused on victory lap strategies than running ads in deeply embattled states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
I Killed GBS posted:No, she lost because of blatant voter suppression and a campaign that was more focused on victory lap strategies than running ads in deeply embattled states. Well yes, and the second part of that fed into why the white working class didn't show up for her in those battleground states. A ten point drop in voters making less than $30k is insane considering she still won the popular vote. The charts in case you didn't bother to look:  
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
The fact that Trump's average voter was well-off is meaningless. Rich people always vote Republican on average. Hillary still lost a lot of poor white people who voted for Obama, enough to drastically change the results in the Rust Belt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
I Killed GBS posted:No, she lost because of blatant voter suppression and a campaign that was more focused on victory lap strategies than running ads in deeply embattled states. pookel posted:The fact that Trump's average voter was well-off is meaningless. Rich people always vote Republican on average. Hillary still lost a lot of poor white people who voted for Obama, enough to drastically change the results in the Rust Belt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
Convenient racism is still racism, and can't reasonably be called otherwise. I don't need to inspect their souls with a soul spectrometer to say that voting for Trump and not giving a poo poo about everyone he's explicitly said he's going to target - and oh look, he just added a white nationalist to his staff - is racist as gently caress. Not giving a poo poo, when you really should know better, counts. I think we can 100% predict functionally racist behaviour from said functional racists henceforth. Appeasement of racists, and striving not to hurt their feelings by calling their blatant racism "racist", has so far had an 0% track record of success. I would suggest it's a failed strategy and anyone who keeps repeatedly suggesting it is being dense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
You know what else has never worked shaming racists by shouting "racist" at them. Also at the 0% success rate is deciding ignoring racists and actively putting them into poverty will make them go away or become less racist. One must remake the entire society and remove the fundamental socioeconomic issues that lead to racism to get it to stop. Killing racist Iraqs then leaving them in squallor didn't make them stop hating Shiites or Kurds, it created ISIS and will continue creating ISISs until Iraq is a good enough place to live that "it's not your fault it's the heretics, the Americans, and the Kurds" stops being an appealing message. Same goes with Germans becoming Nazis and Southerners becoming Klansmen. Hell every element of Russian society has been upended over the last century but they still hate the Jews. So what I'm saying is full communism now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Both of these things are true. In fact the second statement in the first post is the same issue as the second statement in the second post. Yeah, really, as far as I can tell from my extremely casual eyeballing of the the math, neither the voter suppression nor the total neglect of areas that went Obama previously but just didn't turn out this time were enough to make up the difference by themselves. Together, though, I think they cover most of it. Terrible Opinions posted:You know what else has never worked shaming racists by shouting "racist" at them. Also at the 0% success rate is deciding ignoring racists and actively putting them into poverty will make them go away or become less racist. One must remake the entire society and remove the fundamental socioeconomic issues that lead to racism to get it to stop. Killing racist Iraqs then leaving them in squallor didn't make them stop hating Shiites or Kurds, it created ISIS and will continue creating ISISs until Iraq is a good enough place to live that "it's not your fault it's the heretics, the Americans, and the Kurds" stops being an appealing message. Same goes with Germans becoming Nazis and Southerners becoming Klansmen. Hell every element of Russian society has been upended over the last century but they still hate the Jews. Yes, but also you know what's never not worked? Eating the rich. There's no real-world proof it wouldn't work. This is also compatible with any number of other very good plans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
divabot posted:Convenient racism is still racism, and can't reasonably be called otherwise. I don't need to inspect their souls with a soul spectrometer to say that voting for Trump and not giving a poo poo about everyone he's explicitly said he's going to target - and oh look, he just added a white nationalist to his staff - is racist as gently caress. Not giving a poo poo, when you really should know better, counts. I don't give a poo poo how they *feel*, I give a poo poo about getting Democrats elected, and acting like those voters are now 100% predictable because racism is the kind of tunnel vision that just cost Hillary the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
neongrey posted:Yes, but also you know what's never not worked? Eating the rich. There's no real-world proof it wouldn't work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
divabot posted:Convenient racism is still racism, and can't reasonably be called otherwise. I don't need to inspect their souls with a soul spectrometer to say that voting for Trump and not giving a poo poo about everyone he's explicitly said he's going to target - and oh look, he just added a white nationalist to his staff - is racist as gently caress. Not giving a poo poo, when you really should know better, counts. I'm not suggesting that as a strategy. I'm suggesting social liberals actually improve the lives of people in the rust belt in ways that they notice and not continue to let the working class there feel ignored and marginalised to the point where they'all vote for the bigoted demagogue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
They didn't all vote for him
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
I bet you claimed Brexit wasn't because of racists either, huh?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Voter turnout was also pretty poor this election. Hillary didn't lose because of voters switching, she lost because voters didn't bother voting. And she still won the popular vote. It reminds me of Canada's 2011 election where the voter turnout was barely above 60% and the winners hot a majority despite only receiving 39% of that 60%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
I Killed GBS posted:I bet you claimed Brexit wasn't because of racists either, huh? You're looking at this at the wrong level. It's not about whether racism played a part, it's about why racist worldviews were so appealing and went so unchallenged. Again, immigration anxieties are generally the product of racists playing on economic anxieties, like 'why can't I get a job?' or 'why is the social safety net collapsing?'. That doesn't mean that racism will magically go away if the underlying economic problems are fixed, but it does mean that fixing those problems is a necessary step to reduce the public's vulnerability to racism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:08
|
|